Worst British Monarchs

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

And while I have some sympathy for Edward VIII, we're probably better off for the abdication. I'm not sure how good a wartime King he'd have been.

I actually think he could have been a pretty good wartime King (although I wouldn't go back in time and change it, certainly). He had pretty high popular appeal, and I think he would have put that out in full force for the war effort. Yes, he visited Hitler, but I think that was probably a combination of sticking it to his brother and the government (it's not like he didn't have cause to be just a little mad at the latter) and the fact that the Nazis weren't exactly reviled amongst many upper circles in Britain and friendliness with them was at least partially in vogue. It was also only 20 years after his cousins were murdered in Ekaterinburg, and fascism and communism didn't exactly get along very well. But again, I wouldn't trade George VI and Elizabeth for that possibility.

[MARG]

Oh I think Edward VIII without a doubt. He had it all. The knowledge, the power, the education, the charisma, the love of his subjects. It is just unfortunate that while he had the ability he was just so bone idle, self-centered and lacking in the self-discipline required to actually "work" preferring rather to squander his time, his legacy and his money "skirt-chasing".

I mean really, my duty versus my not-so-monogamus-twice-married mistress = no brainer! Unfortunately (or fortunately) no backbone either!

[Menarue]

Definitely Edward VIII, the official papers returning to Downing Street with the ring marks of glasses on them is the absolute limit. While partying he had the papers on a table where any guest could read them and use them to rest their drinks on. This is only one little incident among many others.

[Jeniann]

I certainly wouldn't put Edward VIII on the list. We don't know what kind of war time king he would've been and he was only king for 10 months, during which he had a lot of issues in his personal life and didn't really do anything at all (good or bad). For me it would be someone like Edward II or Henry VIII who weren't only selfish, but cruel as well and caused hardship for their people and left the kingdom in a screwed up state. I think Mary I had good intentions, but may have had some mental problems (especially in regards to her paranoia and her false pregnancies) and ended up doing a lot of harm.

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

Originally Posted by Jeniann

I certainly wouldn't put Edward VIII on the list. We don't know what kind of war time king he would've been and he was only king for 10 months, during which he had a lot of issues in his personal life and didn't really do anything at all (good or bad). For me it would be someone like Edward II or Henry VIII who weren't only selfish, but cruel as well and caused hardship for their people and left the kingdom in a screwed up state.

I agree ... one can not help but feel sorry for poor David, (King Edward VIII).

Have you seen any of his baby pictures? he was so precious!

[Menarue]

I bet that Henry VIII was a cute baby too.

[Warren]

And Caligula.

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

Caligula??? ... how dare you two try to compare Edward VIII to those tyrants !

[Camilo2002]

Originally Posted by MARG

Oh I think Edward VIII without a doubt. He had it all. The knowledge, the power, the education, the charisma, the love of his subjects. It is just unfortunate that while he had the ability he was just so bone idle, self-centered and lacking in the self-discipline required to actually "work" preferring rather to squander his time, his legacy and his money "skirt-chasing".

I mean really, my duty versus my not-so-monogamus-twice-married mistress = no brainer! Unfortunately (or fortunately) no backbone either!

I would not consider Edward VIII as the worst at all.

I once had a conversation with a priest; he told me "he knew" that both Edward VIII and Adolph Hitler suffered from a condition named "urolagnia". I commented about this with my father, who told me he had heard the same.

Urolagnia is a condition in which sexual activity produces pleasure when participants engage in urination. Urolagnia may affect an individual in different degrees and can go from mild to wild. An individual who suffers from a high degree of Urolagnia cannot have sexual intercourse without being urinated in given parts of his body. Normally a strong sufferer needs to be urinated on his head/face (sorry for these details).

Apparently Edward VIII was a strong sufferer; this explains why he needed mature and experienced woman to have sex with. Edward may have come to the conclusion that no woman "suitable to be the Queen of England" would engage in such activities; therefore and given his attachment to Wallis Simpson he decided for a "normal" sexual life rather than keeping the throne and have a scandalous sexual life with experienced mistresses and a suitable wife "just for the picture".

I have sympathy for Edward VIII; he might have had strong reasons for giving up the throne of England in order to live free of obligations and an satisfactory sexual life. It could be that he acted it the best interest of the British monarchy.

[Lady Ann]

So funny how time changes things, Edward couldn't keep his throne becasue the women he loved was divorced and now the furture king is married to a divorced DoC and can keep his throne....

Originally Posted by Camilo2002

It could be that he acted it the best interest of the British monarchy.

Well in my opinion he acted in his own best interest, thank God it turned out to be a good act for the monarchy as well

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Actually they could.

The evidence: Henry did execute Anne (although he used the excuse of her infidelity rather than that she couldn't provide sons).

Most kings just threw them in towers (like Eleanor of Aquitaine and I think George III's sister) or put them away in convents. And I'm sure a few kings arranged accidents.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by JulieS

Henry VIII is the worst for me (paradoxically, Catherine of Aragon is one of my favourite monarchs).

I would not consider Henry VIII a bad monarch at all (bad husband yes, but bad monarch no), and Catherine of Aragon was not a monarch

I pity Mary I and I couldn't consider her evil. She was not a successful ruler (but she was not incompetent either!), but you have to take into acount her turbulent youth and marital disappointments. Mary II was not a bad monarch, but she was too submissive to William III.

My least favourite British monarch was Richard III. Just remember what he did to his own nephews...

[JulieS]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

I would not consider Henry VIII a bad monarch at all (bad husband yes, but bad monarch no), and Catherine of Aragon was not a monarch

For you, she was not queen ?

[JulieS]

Originally Posted by JulieS

For you, she was not queen ?

You're right Kotroman. She was not a monarch, but she was a queen. Sorry for my bad english.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by JulieS

...but she was a queen.

[joke] I'm sure Henry VIII wouldn't agree with this statement [/joke]

[JulieS]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

[joke] I'm sure Henry VIII wouldn't agree with this statement [/joke]

Yes, for sure, but fortunately, I'm not King Henry VIII

[iowabelle]

For my two cents, Henry VIII was a majestic character, and although he was villainous at times and greedy, he propelled England forward from the Middle Ages and continued the work of Richard III and his father by molding England into a true nation state.

Edward VIII was just weak, weak, weak. The best thing he did for his country was the abdication.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Edward VIII was just weak, weak, weak. The best thing he did for his country was the abdication.

I'll second that motion.

[Royal Fan]

King George IV Just seems Terrible

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

He was rather 'dissipated' but one has to just love how Hugh Laurie played his character in the BlackAdder series