604
HP Printer(ule)
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
Wasn't John forced at swordpoint to sign the Magna Carta... several times, rather, after betraying the previous version, each time expending more lives of his loyalists?
Richard was awful, yes, but John is conspicuously first and last of his name, which, for my point, screams Don't be that guy.
Oh he wasn't good (less terrible) for signing the Magna Carta, which wasn't even that important at the time, but more because his competition is worse. And yeah, no one named after him, but that's only relative to other monarchs - as in, he was bad to the royals. Failing at being a king can make you a good king, depending on how you're judging it. Nobles thought he was a prick, but they were, so it's like 6 of one. For example, he reformed the legal system which took power away from barons (which obviously favoured him), which was very popular with lower classes, as they could since seek justice against their barons (who were previously the ones overseeing those cases).
My opening line was mainly a joke, I don't like any monarchs, but the idea he was particularly bad is... contentious