Using these 4 sources in their historical context, assess the view that the ending of the
Interdict was beneficial to John
The interdict was a church strike which the Pope placed upon England due to John’s refusal to accept
Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury and this interdict lasted from 1208-1214. During the
interdict, all churches were closed and funerals, weddings and services were prohibited from happening.
After the 1213 settlement, this interdict was lifted and it could be argued that this was beneficial for John
as source C and to some extent source A suggest. However, sources A, B and D seem to present the
viewpoint that the lifting of the interdict in England did not benefit John.
Source C suggests that the lifting of the interdict was beneficial for John as it prevented King Philip from
invading England. The interdict placed on England raised questions about John’s legitimacy as King because
the king was believed to have been chosen by God but since the church no longer supported John, this was
brought into question. This then gave Philip theoretical permission to invade England and claim all of
John’s land since the church did support Philip but did not support John. Philip began to make preparations
to invade under his son Louise. If Philip had invaded England, this would have been disastrous for John as
he would have likely been overthrown as King since he did not have Pope Innocent’s support and Philip
did. However, after the 1213 settlement and the lifting of the interdict, Innocent told Philip to cease
preparations. This is clearly stated in source C when it mentions how the Pope told Philip “to desist from
his purpose and return home in peace, for he could not attack England”. This was beneficial for John as it
meant that he no longer had the threat of Philip invading his lands. Source C was written by monastic
writer Rodger of Wendover after John’s death. This source does have its limitations as Rodger was not an
eyewitness and may have likely made up the conversations between Innocent and Philip to benefit his
viewpoint as he was not there so this will decrease the source’s reliability. However, since this source was
written after John’s death, Rodger is likely to have perspective and see the long term effects of the
interdict being lifted so come to a conclusion as to whether or not it benefitted John. This differs from all
the other sources which lack this perspective as they were written closer to the time.
Source A seems to suggest that the lifting of the interdict was beneficial for John to some extent but mainly
seems to portray the viewpoint that the interdict being lifted did not benefit John. This source focuses on
how the issue of investiture, which was the main issue that led to the interdict, was solved thanks to the
1213 settlement. This outcome of the settlement in regard to investiture was that the Pope appointed
clergy but had to have the King’s permission. This both benefitted and disadvantaged John. John benefitted
from this because the church had to “leave the elect to be asked of us and our heirs” meaning that no
clergy could be elected without John’s permission so theoretically John could still reject the church’s
choices and have a say in investiture. However, in practice, this was not the case and John did not have the
power to reject a clergyman. This is mentioned in source when it states that “we will not deny or defer”.
Therefore, it could be argued that John did not benefit from the lifting of the interdict because the
traditional model of caesaropapism where the king had the right of investiture was replaced with
theocracy where the church had the right over investiture. This reduced the king’s powers for the first time
since 1066. Source A is very reliable as it is from the “Ecclesiastical Charter”. This means that it is from an
official document published about this situation so this will increase the reliability. However, the usefulness
is limited because it was published in 1215, only 2 years after the settlement and 1 year after the interdict
was lifted. Therefore, this source lacks perspective in seeing the long-term consequences of the interdict
being lifted and whether or not this benefits John.
Sources B and D both disagree that the interdict being lifted was beneficial for John for similar reasons;
John was now a papal vassal and had to give money and homage to the church. One of the terms of the
1213 settlement was that, in return for the interdict being lifted on England, John was now a papal vassal
and England was a papal fief. This meant that Innocent was John’s feudal overlord and that he controlled
Interdict was beneficial to John
The interdict was a church strike which the Pope placed upon England due to John’s refusal to accept
Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury and this interdict lasted from 1208-1214. During the
interdict, all churches were closed and funerals, weddings and services were prohibited from happening.
After the 1213 settlement, this interdict was lifted and it could be argued that this was beneficial for John
as source C and to some extent source A suggest. However, sources A, B and D seem to present the
viewpoint that the lifting of the interdict in England did not benefit John.
Source C suggests that the lifting of the interdict was beneficial for John as it prevented King Philip from
invading England. The interdict placed on England raised questions about John’s legitimacy as King because
the king was believed to have been chosen by God but since the church no longer supported John, this was
brought into question. This then gave Philip theoretical permission to invade England and claim all of
John’s land since the church did support Philip but did not support John. Philip began to make preparations
to invade under his son Louise. If Philip had invaded England, this would have been disastrous for John as
he would have likely been overthrown as King since he did not have Pope Innocent’s support and Philip
did. However, after the 1213 settlement and the lifting of the interdict, Innocent told Philip to cease
preparations. This is clearly stated in source C when it mentions how the Pope told Philip “to desist from
his purpose and return home in peace, for he could not attack England”. This was beneficial for John as it
meant that he no longer had the threat of Philip invading his lands. Source C was written by monastic
writer Rodger of Wendover after John’s death. This source does have its limitations as Rodger was not an
eyewitness and may have likely made up the conversations between Innocent and Philip to benefit his
viewpoint as he was not there so this will decrease the source’s reliability. However, since this source was
written after John’s death, Rodger is likely to have perspective and see the long term effects of the
interdict being lifted so come to a conclusion as to whether or not it benefitted John. This differs from all
the other sources which lack this perspective as they were written closer to the time.
Source A seems to suggest that the lifting of the interdict was beneficial for John to some extent but mainly
seems to portray the viewpoint that the interdict being lifted did not benefit John. This source focuses on
how the issue of investiture, which was the main issue that led to the interdict, was solved thanks to the
1213 settlement. This outcome of the settlement in regard to investiture was that the Pope appointed
clergy but had to have the King’s permission. This both benefitted and disadvantaged John. John benefitted
from this because the church had to “leave the elect to be asked of us and our heirs” meaning that no
clergy could be elected without John’s permission so theoretically John could still reject the church’s
choices and have a say in investiture. However, in practice, this was not the case and John did not have the
power to reject a clergyman. This is mentioned in source when it states that “we will not deny or defer”.
Therefore, it could be argued that John did not benefit from the lifting of the interdict because the
traditional model of caesaropapism where the king had the right of investiture was replaced with
theocracy where the church had the right over investiture. This reduced the king’s powers for the first time
since 1066. Source A is very reliable as it is from the “Ecclesiastical Charter”. This means that it is from an
official document published about this situation so this will increase the reliability. However, the usefulness
is limited because it was published in 1215, only 2 years after the settlement and 1 year after the interdict
was lifted. Therefore, this source lacks perspective in seeing the long-term consequences of the interdict
being lifted and whether or not this benefits John.
Sources B and D both disagree that the interdict being lifted was beneficial for John for similar reasons;
John was now a papal vassal and had to give money and homage to the church. One of the terms of the
1213 settlement was that, in return for the interdict being lifted on England, John was now a papal vassal
and England was a papal fief. This meant that Innocent was John’s feudal overlord and that he controlled
