When you read British nationalist literature: it is not uncommon to see the figure of Richard the Lionheart (who ruled between 1189-1199 AD) invoked as an anti-Islamic idol. It is true that Richard fought exceptionally well against Saladin and the Muslims in the second crusade (1) as well as being a chivalric idol in his own time (2) who enjoyed a second renaissance in Victorian England as part of a patriotic hero narrative. (3)
However it is also worth remembering that he also bled England white financially (4) in order to be able to finance the mass levy that he raised in order to crusade on behalf of the Catholic Church. (5) The principle beneficiaries of this were the jews who were the major buyers of/intermediaries for the sale of land. (6) This is why there was popular rioting across the kingdom of England once Richard had departed for the second crusade in 1190 with the best-known episode of this period of unrest being the mass suicide of the jews in York inside Clifford's Tower (part of York Castle). (7)
This I have documented in detail in a separate article and shown why the people of York acted as they did. (8) It is enough to state for our purposes however that Richard I (the Lionheart) has a notable track record with the jews that will certainly put a few of the noses of individuals who dream of a new crusade against Islam but apologize for Israel severely out of joint.
This track record begins at the very start of Richard I's reign with an anti-jewish riot occurring on the day after his coronation in London.
The contemporary chronicler Roger of Howden describes it thus:
'While the king was seated at table, the chief men of the Jews came to offer presents to him, but as they had been forbidden the day before to come to the king's court on the day of the coronation, the common people, with scornful eye and insatiable heart, rushed upon the Jews and stripped them, and then scourging them, cast them forth out of the king's hall. Among these was Benedict, a Jew of York, who, after having been so maltreated and wounded by the Christians that his life was despaired of, was baptised by William, prior of the Church of Saint Mary at York, in the Church of the Innocents, and was named William, and thus escaped the peril of death and the hands of the persecutors.
The citizens of London, on hearing of this, attacked the Jews in the city and burned their houses; but by the kindness of their Christian friends, some few made their escape. On the day after the coronation, the King sent his servants, and caused those offenders to be arrested who had set fire to the city; not for the sake of the Jews, but on account of the houses and property of the Christians they had burnt and plundered, and he ordered some of them to be hanged.' (9)
Now while these events are themselves easy to follow: there is a point that requires further explanation.
This point is why the crowd of English commoners attacked the jews when they were making a presentation of gifts to the newly-crowned Richard I. It would be all too easy to suggest, as many jewish historians continue imply, (10) that this was due a riot that got out of control or simple religious prejudice on behalf of the English commons.
However that makes it difficult to explain the reaction of the people of London to the news - even if probably exaggerated - of the anti-jewish riot. After all why would they attack the jews if they didn't have a particular motive to do so: this was after all clearly not normal behaviour on their part so there would have to be some kind of concrete motive.
Religious ill-feeling no doubt played a role since the jews had ritually murdered a boy - Saint William of Norwich - some fifty years before these events in 1144 (10) and since the advent of the cult of his sainthood: the jews had been wary of further flair-ups of bad feeling on the part of the English commons against them (as had occurred in 1168).
However a much more concrete reason has to be sought as while simple religious bigotry might serve the purposes of those who want to portray anti-jewish feeling as ipso facto irrational with no motive other than opportunism behind it: human behaviour tends to be a little more rational and material than they would like to pretend.
The reason for this anti-jewish feeling and the subsequent popular rising was the economic activities of the jews in England (i.e., their behaviour).
The origin of this was rooted in the fact that nearly all of the moneylenders in the kingdom of England were jews. (11) Those among the richer peasants, the town burghers, craftsmen, merchants, gentry and aristocracy who needed to borrow money or transact land sales/purchases needed to go through jews to do so (and pay them large amounts of money in fees and/or interest). (12) This lead to what one historian has described as the absolute 'predominance' of the jews in all financial matters (private and public) in England at the time. (13)
When you combine this with the fact that the jews were not normal subjects of the crown like your average member of the English commons, but rather protected directly the king, his sheriffs and able to directly call upon the assistance of all the military forces of the crown (including being able to seek shelter in any castle owned by the crown). (14) This situation was so profitable for jews that there were some 5,000 of them in England (a huge number relative to the overall size of the population) by the time of Richard's coronation: they being generally an urban people not a rural folk were heavily concentrated in major administrative and trading centres such as the cities of London, Lincoln and York. (15)
As Roger of Howden implies: the jews were in fact the principal financial agents of the crown as well as the controllers of most private financial transactions and this would mean that they were the very people who you as a citizen were forced to use for any financial transaction were the people who were also responsible for sorting out your tax affairs with the crown as well as being notorious speculators in land and financial deals. This - as Dyer points out - is the real origin of the resentment against the jews: (16) their own behaviour.
You get a flavour of this by understanding that in 1186 - three years before the riot at Richard's coronation - the king of England was actually poorer than the richest of the jews: Aaron of Lincoln. (17)
Consider the power and the amount of land the king had in his gift at the time: that is quite the statement as to the wealth, power and influence of the jewish community in England.
When we understand all this contextual information then it is fairly obvious what probably happened at Richard's coronation celebrations: the jews came with their presents to the king in exchange for their protection as was customary. The English commons saw that the jews had taken the product of the sweat of their brows (i.e., the money they had paid them) without them being able to fight back because the jews were under direct royal protection (and to attack them meant execution and, in all probability, severe reprisals against your family and friends).
Thus with the ascent of a new king to the throne: the English commons felt they had a once in a lifetime chance to effect change. As they could no longer stomach being lorded over by jews thus they turned them out of the coronation festivities with violence (although clearly not much more than a normal mob beating as few jews seem to have been actually hurt) in order to prevent their bribing the king with their (as we have seen) huge riches in order to continue their usurious activities.
Therefore the English commons tried to stop the perpetuation of jewish power over them the only way they could (and knew how) in medieval times: mob violence.
The fact that this mob violence spread into a bit of general looting in London is not surprising when we observe, as Chazan notes, that the jews as the financial agents of the crown had reduced the English commons to a pitiful financial state (thus people had become incredibly desperate in economic terms). (18) This is also suggested in the clemency that Richard showed to the rioters in general (i.e., only hanging a couple of token individuals as examples) (19) in that he cannot risk antagonizing a people already bled white when his power is as yet unconsolidated (as the mass revolt that major reprisals could well have triggered was likely beyond his ability to put down): he had to indulge the people.
Indeed we see this later when Richard left England in 1190 after bleeding it of even more for money for his famous contribution to the second crusade: (20) wave upon wave of popular anti-jewish violence swept the England for several years. (21) This Richard's officials responded to with corresponding waves of violent military oppression and also enacted various requirements such as the pledges to and loan contracts from jews being made in duplicate: one held by the jew, one by the crown (i.e., making sure the crown would always benefit from jewish usury via the tax it leveled on such transactions). This meant in effect that Richard was participating in a kind of feckless class war against his own subjects in order to finance his military campaigns in the Middle East.
Thus we can see that while Richard is famous for his military achievements: his coronation, behaviour and the numerous popular anti-jewish riots and risings that marked his reign point to the darker side of his behaviour. He handed over his English subjects, body and soul, to be mercilessly exploited by jews for their profit and that of the crown.
Sounds more sociopathic than lionhearted now: doesn't he?
References
(1) On this see the well-balanced account of Anne-Marie Edde, 2011, 'Saladin', 1st Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge
(2) Franco Cardini, 1987, 'The Warrior and the Knight', p. 92 in Jacques le Goff (Ed.), 1997, 'The Medieval World', 1st Edition, Parkgate: London
(3) On this see Stephen Knight, 2003, 'Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography', 1st Edition, Cornell University Press: Ithaca
(4) Keith Fielding, 1970, [1950], 'A History of England', 1st Edition, Book Club Associates: London, pp. 134-135
(5) Jonathan Phillips, 2007, 'The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 107
(6) Rodney Hilton, 1973, 'The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages', 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 183; Cecil Roth, 1941, 'A History of the Jews in England', 1st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 18
(7) Robert Chazan, 2006, 'The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 1000-1500', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 160-161
(8) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-the-1190-massacre
(9) Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Ricardi (Trans. Henry Riley)
(9) Roth, Op. Cit., pp. 19-20; Chazan, Op. Cit., pp. 160-161
(10) My position on this is that there is no compelling evidence it was a 'monastic fake' and without any positive evidence on this score and further because there is no actual reason why jews could not have done so (in spite of various inventive claims as to why this had to be so [for example invoking the 'thou shalt not murder' commandment in the Decalogue]) I argue that this ritual murder is a genuine case.
(11) Christopher Dyer, 2002, 'Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850-1520', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 148
(12) Ibid, p. 178
(13) Leon Poliakov, 2003, [1975], 'The History of Anti-Semitism', Vol. I, 1st Edition, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, p. 77
(14) Chazan, Op. Cit., p. 160
(15) Dyer, Op. Cit., p. 195
(16) Ibid, p. 196
(17) Roth, Op. Cit., p. 15
(18) Chazan, Op. Cit., p. 159
(19) Ibid, pp. 160-161
(20) Fielding, Op. Cit., pp. 134-135
(21) Chazan, Op. Cit., p. 161; for a detailed account see Roth, Op. Cit., pp. 20-31