Richard the Lionheart: Was He a Knight Templar?
No. Richard the Lionheart was never a Knight Templar, and he could not have been. The Templars were a religious order: every brother swore poverty, chastity and obedience, surrendered his property, and submitted to the Grand Master for life. A reigning King of England could do none of those things without ceasing to be king.
But the question gets asked constantly, and for good reason. Richard’s life ran alongside the Order at almost every turn — he sold the Templars an entire island, took their advice on whether to attack Jerusalem, and slipped out of the Holy Land dressed as one of them. He was the Templars’ most important ally. He was never their brother.
Why a king could not join the Order
The obstacle was structural, not personal. Templar vows were monastic and permanent. A brother:
- Owned nothing. Everything he used belonged to the Order. Richard owned England, Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou.
- Obeyed absolutely. A brother went where the Grand Master sent him. A king who accepted that would have subordinated the English crown to an order answering only to the Pope.
- Could not leave. Departure without permission was an expulsion offence.
- Was celibate. Richard married Berengaria of Navarre in Cyprus in 1191, during the crusade itself.
There was a recognised way for great men to attach themselves to the Order without taking vows — as confratres, lay associates who funded the Templars and shared in their prayers and privileges. Some nobles even arranged to be received as full brothers on their deathbeds. Richard is not recorded as doing either. He dealt with the Order as a sovereign dealing with a useful institution.
What he actually was: a crusader king
Richard took the cross in 1187, immediately after Saladin destroyed the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s field army at Hattin and retook the Holy City. He arrived in the East in 1191 and led the Third Crusade until October 1192.
That is a different thing from being a Templar, and the distinction is the whole answer. A crusader was a layman who had taken a temporary vow to campaign and would go home when it was fulfilled. A Templar was a monk who had given up going home. Thousands of crusaders passed through the Holy Land; a few hundred Templars lived and died there.
What Richard achieved in eighteen months was considerable: he took Acre, won the field at Arsuf in September 1191, retook Jaffa, and negotiated a treaty giving Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem. What he never did was retake the city — and the Templars are part of the reason why.
LION KING – KNIGHTS TEMPLAR TEE
The lionheart and the cross — the Third Crusade in one mark.
🇺🇸 Fast US shipping · 🇪🇺 Ships across the EU · 🔒 Secure checkout
The time he sold the Templars an island
This is the most concrete dealing between them, and it is often left out of popular accounts.
On his way east in 1191 Richard conquered Cyprus, after its ruler Isaac Komnenos mistreated survivors of a shipwreck from his fleet. Richard had no use for a kingdom he did not intend to govern, so he sold Cyprus to the Knights Templar for 100,000 besants, of which roughly 40,000 was paid up front.
It went badly. The Order garrisoned the island thinly — the sources suggest a very small force of brothers — and governed it hard enough to provoke a revolt at Nicosia in the spring of 1192. The Templars fought their way out, concluded the island was not worth the trouble, and asked Richard to take it back. He then resold it to Guy of Lusignan, the displaced King of Jerusalem, keeping the Templar down-payment.
It is a revealing episode. The Templars were wealthy enough to buy a kingdom outright and disciplined enough to admit within a year that they had overreached. It also shows the relationship’s real character: Richard and the Order did business.
They advised him not to take Jerusalem
Twice in 1191–92 Richard advanced toward Jerusalem, and twice he turned back. The decision was bitterly unpopular with the rank and file, who had come to recapture the city, and Richard has been criticised for it ever since.
The counsel to withdraw came substantially from the Templars and Hospitallers — the men who actually lived in the region and would still be there when the crusaders sailed home. Their argument was logistical rather than defeatist: an army could perhaps take Jerusalem, but it could not hold a city that far inland with Saladin’s forces intact and the coastal supply line stretched thin. Once the crusaders went home, the garrison would be besieged and lost.
Richard accepted it. The military orders’ standing judgment on what could and could not be held was the kind of expertise no visiting king possessed, and Saladin’s own campaigns had taught it the hard way.
The Templars also fought in his line. At Arsuf they held a position in the column on the march south, and Templar and Hospitaller contingents were the professional core around which a mixed crusading army could be organised.
The escape in Templar disguise
The episode that most fuels the confusion comes at the very end. Leaving the Holy Land in October 1192, Richard had a problem: nearly every route home crossed the lands of enemies he had made, above all Duke Leopold V of Austria, whom he had publicly humiliated at Acre.
After shipwreck in the northern Adriatic he travelled overland in disguise, and several accounts have him moving in the guise of a Templar — the habit of a military order being one of the few things that could cross Christendom without explanation. It did not work. He was recognised and seized near Vienna in December 1192, handed to Emperor Henry VI, and held for a ransom that cost England a crushing sum.
So the one time Richard genuinely wore Templar clothing, he was a king in a borrowed habit, running for home — which is nearly the opposite of being a brother of the Order.
Where the myth comes from
Several threads feed the idea, and each is worth separating:
- Crusader equals Templar in popular shorthand. Most crusaders were neither monks nor members of any order.
- The crosses look alike. A red cross on white reads as “Templar” to modern eyes. In fact, when the kings of England and France took the cross together, the contingents were assigned different colours to tell them apart — and the English were given white. Richard’s own arms were lions, not a cross. See why the Order bore no coat of arms at all.
- Film and games routinely dress Richard’s men in Templar surcoats because the red cross is instantly legible to an audience.
- He really was entangled with them — the Cyprus sale, the advice, the disguise — so the association is not invented, only mislabelled.
Wearing the Lionheart’s cross
Richard is the crusader king most people can name, and the Templars are the crusader order most people can name, so the two have fused in the popular imagination. Knowing where the seam runs is the useful part: he commanded them, paid them, took their counsel and once borrowed their habit, but he never swore their vows.
If you carry the lion and the cross together, carry it as what it was — an alliance between a king and an order, not a membership card.
The short answer
Richard the Lionheart was not a Knight Templar and could not have been one: Templar vows required poverty, celibacy, obedience and permanence, none of which a reigning king could accept. He was a crusader, which is a different thing. He sold the Templars Cyprus in 1191, accepted their advice to abandon two marches on Jerusalem, fought alongside them at Arsuf, and fled Europe disguised as one of them in 1192 — an ally throughout, never a brother.