About John Lackland’s coinage

4 posts
Hello folks,
I have two questions regarding the coins issued during King John’s reign. I understand that they have HENRICVS written on them, but then:
1. How exactly does one distinguish a coin from John’s times and one from Henry II’s? (Or Richard’s, for that matter?) The portraits and the moneyers are all I can think of...
2. And why was it written Henry and not John (again, or Richard, during his reign), anyway?
Twopence a week, and jam every other day!
The coins of John and Richard I are extremely similar to their father's last coinage and are both in his name. There are various small details such as the number of pearls in a crown, whiskers in a beard or shape of the face that are used to distinguish between the coins of Henry II, John, Richard I and the early coins of Henry III. It can be really frustrating since the coins issued from 1180 to 1247 are incredibly similar. I find it really difficult to distinguish between them.

There is no definitive answer for your second question. A theory that I have come across is that the short cross coinage of Henry II was so readily accepted, both in England and abroad, that there was a fear that if the name of the monarch on the coin was to change then it could lead to a rejection or distrust of the new coinage. So it was decided to just immobilise the name of old Henry II rather than risk rejection.

If your interested in coins that bear John and Richard's names then you need to look beyond England. Halfpennies struck by John, first as Lord of Ireland and then as King, are struck in his name. Coins struck in Richard I's French territories identify him as 'RICARDVS'.
Thank you! That’s quite a fascinating theory and it does make a lot of sense. As for the distinguishing of their coinage, that must mean that one may not be able to correctly identify some coins, such as those in poor condition or those cut into halfpennies and farthings?
Twopence a week, and jam every other day!
Quote: "Cuthwellis"​Thank you! That’s quite a fascinating theory and it does make a lot of sense. As for the distinguishing of their coinage, that must mean that one may not be able to correctly identify some coins, such as those in poor condition or those cut into halfpennies and farthings?
Definitely. ​I'm sure if you find someone who really knows their stuff then they might be able to match it to a die that can be solidly attributed to a particular king, assuming another one exists. I don't know too much about these coins so I don't even know if we have a comprehensive record of the different dies.

Its also a problem for others coins. I have a bunch of early Scottish cut halfpennys and farthings that I cant attribute to William I, Alexander II or Alexander III. There just isn't enough left on the coin to narrow them down any further.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 12:30.