Worst British Monarchs

[madeleine victoria]

Henry VIII and her second queen (Anne Boleyn). Although the latter is not considered a monarch. He was very popular for his exploits...

[Lady Claire]

My vote would be for any of the Plantagenet monarchs.

[Warren]

As TRF is a discussion Forum we would like to encourage the exchange of fact and opinion in the historical threads. Many members have extensive knowledge of various periods and dynasties and are willing to share their expertise. This is what makes the Forums interesting and rewarding.

To this end, it would be beneficial if reasons are given for selections of "Worst British Monarchs" rather than merely names or one-sentence statements.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Lady Claire

My vote would be for any of the Plantagenet monarchs.

I disagree about Edward III. I think he's a good candidate for title of best monarch. He took a country that was practically in ruins after a reign of awful misrule and made it stable and wealthy.

[Grace Angel]

I think George IV- he did nothing for England. It's not just his personal character, he really accomplished nothing. I'm not really that familiar with early Plantagnet monarchs, but after all, it was the Middle Ages, and we have to measure people against the time in which they lived, William Rufus though deserves to be on this list. I'd agree Henry VIII should be on the list, although he did do some good for England.

As for Richard III, well, you have to remember when he murdered his nephews, that was an era were blood thirsty behaviour was more common than today, and the Sucession had been unstable not long before- Richard III's actions were part of his day and age, so I'm not sure he belongs on the list. Mary I personally was not evil, just a sad woman, but she did make bad choices for England so she would have to be on the list.

[Iluvbertie]

I would like to point out that the argument that Richard III killed his nephews is not proven and wasn't even raised until years after this allegedly happened.

Henry VII never accused him of doing so (although very late in his reign the argument was raised).

In fact had that argument been raised/suggested earlier in Henry's reign the situations with the claimants in the 1490s wouldn't have happened at all.

Personally, having done some research into this event and the people involved I am convinced that Richard didn't kill his nephews at all. Others may have killed them thinking they would gain favour with him, or with Henry, but I don't believe that Richard was involved.

[Kotroman]

In fact, it is more likely that Henry VII ordered their murder. Richard III proclaimed his nephews illegitimate and they were minors, so they wouldn't be a problem to him. However, during the reign of Henry VII (himself of undisputable illegitimate descent), Edward IV and Richard, Duke of York reached adulthood if they weren't killed during Richard III's reign. As adults whose legitimacy was less disputed than legitimacy of Henry VII's line, the boys would've been a bigger problem to Henry VII than they were to Richard III. Furthermore, Henry VII executed all opponents and pretendents to his throne soon after his accession, so he wouldn't hesitate to execute the boys who were already imprisoned for a long time when he ascended the throne.

[Grace Angel]

I'm not sure about Richard III myself- it was just other earlier posters to this thread seemed to hold him accountable for his nephews' murder by even putting him on the Worst Monarchs list, so I was answering them. I'm not sure he was guilty nor that he should be on the Worst Monarchs list, and I was saying if he did do that, we have to place it in the context of his times, which was right after the Middle Ages and War of the Roses, a time of sucession disputes.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

I'm not sure about Richard III myself- it was just other earlier posters to this thread seemed to hold him accountable for his nephews' murder by even putting him on the Worst Monarchs list, so I was answering them. I'm not sure he was guilty nor that he should be on the Worst Monarchs list, and I was saying if he did do that, we have to place it in the context of his times, which was right after the Middle Ages and War of the Roses, a time of sucession disputes.

When you used the phrase 'when he killed his nephews' without qualifying by suggesting that you didn't believe that what is one to think.

That phrase says to me that you do believe that he killed his nephews.

Had your first post suggested otherwise I would have said nothing.

[Jeniann]

I wouldn't put Richard III on the list. He was only King for two years and he didn't screw up England nearly as much as some of the other people we've mentioned.

As for Richard and the Princes in the Tower, I don't think there was an evidence they were still alive when Henry VII took the throne and it would've been difficult for him to order them killed before that. It's entirely possible people who supported him and his mother may have killed them, but I doubt he was directly involved.

Personally, I think the most likely explanation is that they were killed by some one on Richard's side, though not necessarily by his orders. Perhaps some courtier with connections in the Tower who had heard rumors of a rebellion in their names and thought he could gain favor with Richard by killing them. It's possible Richard ordered it, but equally possible he didn't even know about it until after it happened.

[Grace Angel]

Yes, Richard III has become a victim of his reputation as much as anything else. I think that's why people tend to say he murdered his nephews at times, because he gets such a bad rap. Shakespeare's play Richard III portrays him in a bad light for example, but there was worse as far as British monarchs were concerned.

[iowabelle]

I think it was Thomas More and later Shakespeare who were largely responsible for blackening R3's reputation... what else could WS do when it was the queen's own grandfather who deposed him. No one ever described him as a hunchback before (and in Tudor England hunchbacks were known to have defective characters).

My guess is that killing the boys would have been more beneficial to Henry VII.

[Grace Angel]

I think it would have been beneficial to both, but I'm not sure Richard did it. It was a tragedy anyway, although had not the Tudor Dynasty come into power, Elizabeth I never would have ruled and that would have been a great loss. It's unfortunate Richard III owes his traditional historical reputation as such a monster to a play. What about James II who fled England- how would he rank in the worst monarch stakes? He certainly wasn't one of the best monarchs England had, as he was way of out of step with the way England was at the time of his reign.

[Elspeth]

I think he's right up there with the worst monarchs. He could have put the country right back into civil war with his arrogance and his religious certainties. I don't know whether a second deposition and possible execution of a monarch would have led to a second Restoration, but my hunch is that it wouldn't.

[Al_bina]

I happen to think that all British monarchs were adequate. Some were better, others were worse. The main thing is that British rulers have preserved their institution.

[Roslyn]

I have only recently begun to learn something about the rulers before Victoria, and though I don't know much about them yet I think quite a number were less than adequate, for example Richard I, Mary I, Charles I, James II and George I.

Richard had no interest in being king and just wanted to be off on his military adventures. Mary just wanted to burn protestants. Charles had no time for Parliament believed he had a God-given right to do whatever he wanted and did just that, apparently having little regard for the likely consequences, and eventually caused the Civil War and the resulting hiatus in the monarchy. James' incompetence led to the "Glorious Revolution" and significant changes to the monarchy. George couldn't even speak English. Of course the incompetence of some of them had an indirect benefit of leading to more power to Parliament and the people, so depending on your point of view they may in fact have been excellent monarchs.

[Sir_knight]

I consider George IV to be the worst Monarch of the United Kingdom. I am surprised no one has mentioned him yet. Mrs Maria Fitzherbert has a lot to answer for.

I actually like Hugh Lauries portrayal of him in Blackadder III

[Grace Angel]

I did mention George IV, and yes he was up there ( in my opinion). As for George I I don't think he was a bad monarch just because he was a foreigner and couldn't speak English. He wasn't raised in England and wasn't prepared for his role as monarch in England by anyone when growing up. He didn't know that he would become king until later in his life, so he was raised to be a German ruler, not English, and he became king when older so it was hard for him to change by that time. He could have tried harder, but he didn't know he was going to be monarch in England until later in his life so there was only so much he could do to become English, or speak English.

[Lady Laura]

I think Edward ii and Richard ii are the worst...I'm not familiar with anyone beyond the Stuarts...they fail to interest me.

[Bones]

I don't know enough about all of them, especially the early ones, to judge them all fairly and as others have said I've heard Richard III was a victim of bad press more than anything. I would have to put Henry VIII up there (sorry Henry fans) just because of all the horrid things he did that were so unnecessary. The people adored Queen Catherine and he sacrificed that to trade in the first wife for a newer model, then accused that poor woman of the most horrid things and murdered her. He took the monasteries (looting on a grand scale) and changed by force the entire religion of the country just to give himself more power and serve his own ends. And I don't think it was necessary. I look at all the religious strife and hatred and wars that followed, bigotry that has lasted to this day, and I can't help but think it was all because King Henry had to have his way on *everything*. His lavishness also left the kingdom in rather poor shape whereas, if I remember right, his rather tight father left it to him doing pretty good.

Queen Mary is one everyone loves to hate I know, but I think that's bad press too. She executed far fewer people than Henry or Elizabeth did and she at least had the excuse of zealous faith. I read a Protestant historian who once wrote how Mary did nothing to anyone she would not have endured herself for her religion whereas Elizabeth I was, at the same time, indifferent and intolerant. Everything I've read about the people who were closest to Mary all said what a kind, compassionate and loving woman she was. She also had a pretty terrible life.

I also cannot be too hard on Charles I because I don't think he ever actually did anything illegal, I think he was a good man (like the only Stuart who was a faithful spouse) and when he lost he took it like a man.