The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Worst European monarch since 1913 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/worst-european-monarch-since-1913-a-35703.html)

CSENYC 08-25-2013 08:08 PM

Worst European monarch since 1913
 
What are people's thoughts as to who the absolute worst European king or queen in the last 100 years is?

I'd guess Kaiser Wilhelm II would be among the most reviled, but compared to other 20th century villains, was he that bad?

Other contenders? I'd suggest that a combination of malice and incompetence and having real power (i.e., not a figurehead) would make one the worst.

Princess B 09-09-2013 12:01 PM

King Tribhuvan of Nepals father!

Can't remember his name

Lumutqueen 09-09-2013 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess B (Post 1597608)
King Tribhuvan of Nepals father!

Can't remember his name

That would be Prithvi of Nepal, and why may I ask?

monarchist-us 09-09-2013 07:11 PM

It's become harder, as constitutional monarchs, for them to really screw it up on a grand scale.

The only contenders from the Post WWI era IMO, would be:

- King Edward VIII
- King Leopold III
- Grand Duchess Marie-Adelaide
- All of the Kings of Greece (each seemed pretty incompetent in their own way and none of them really did anything to foster public confidence in the monarchy)

NGalitzine 09-09-2013 07:17 PM

I would vote for King Carol of Roumania who seemed to be ruled more by his penis that his brain and seemed to lack any real sense of duty to his family or his nation.

scooter 09-09-2013 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1597730)
I would vote for King Carol of Roumania who seemed to be ruled more by his penis that his brain and seemed to lack any real sense of duty to his family or his nation.

Well good grief NG, that could apply to quite a few royals in quite a few centuries!:lol:

NGalitzine 09-09-2013 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1597740)
Well good grief NG, that could apply to quite a few royals in quite a few centuries!:lol:

Perhaps but we are talking about the 20th century and Carol II had a rather complicated personal and political life. Married without permission Zizi Lambrino. Marriage declared invalid and was annulled but a child resulted from this brief union. Married Princess Helen of Greece who gave birth to King Michael, Divorced her and gave up his right to the throne so Michael succeeded his grandfather under a regency. Carol II then reclaimed his throne replacing his son who became Crown Prince. As king he alienated his mother, his sister and his brother amongst others. Carol II abdicated and went into exile and married his mistress Mme Lupescu. Carol and his new wife then managed to run through whatever fortune he had at the casinos in Portugal before their deaths. Can't see much to recommend him on either a personal or a political basis.

CSENYC 09-09-2013 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1597730)
I would vote for King Carol of Roumania who seemed to be ruled more by his penis that his brain and seemed to lack any real sense of duty to his family or his nation.

I would agree. I was reading "Athene Palace", which dealt in part with his reign, and the book states that Romanians at the time despised him.

He also seemed to pick truly revolting anti-Semitic prime minsters, blew foreign policy (leading to no support from anyone when Romania's neighbors carved up the country in 1940) and was a dictator for a few years.

I wonder how King Michael turned out so well; he's a saint.

Andolini 09-09-2013 11:01 PM

Besides Kaiser Wilhelm (he really took the cake) I would say King Edward and King Carol

Marengo 09-10-2013 04:33 AM

Though king Carol II is the obvious 'winner' here, we may add king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy to the list too, who enabled Benito Mussolini to come to power. If we add Wilhelm II on the list we should also add Nicholas II who was extremely incapable as a ruler.

As for consorts: Queen Elisabeth of the Hellenes takes the crown there. The sister of Carol II and she is supposed to have said: 'I have committed every vice but one, and I don't intend to die before I murdered a man'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC (Post 1597769)
I would agree. I was reading "Athene Palace", which dealt in part with his reign, and the book states that Romanians at the time despised him.

He also seemed to pick truly revolting anti-Semitic prime minsters, blew foreign policy (leading to no support from anyone when Romania's neighbors carved up the country in 1940) and was a dictator for a few years.

Romanians may have despised him, but antisemitism was widely spread in Romania. According to Mark Mazower they were even worse than the SS. Some even organised day trips to areas abroad where they would engage in shooting Jews...for fun. The methods of Antonescu's regime even shocked the SS. Curiously enough king Carol II's second wife was of Jewish descent herself.

Bine221 09-10-2013 05:35 AM

The Shah of Persia?

Ex King Constantine of Greece?

In the end both of them lost their throne - not because of a war, but because their own people has expulsed them out of their country.

BYe Bine

Andolini 09-10-2013 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bine221 (Post 1597837)
The Shah of Persia?

Ex King Constantine of Greece?

In the end both of them lost their throne - not because of a war, but because their own people has expulsed them out of their country.

BYe Bine

I am American and I was young when the Shah was deposed. I have done a lot of reading trying to understand both sides, but it's almost impossible to find an unbiased account. Some say the Shah was great, others say he was a tyrant. Others say his downfall was his own fault, some say not. Can anyone here recommend a good, semi-unbiased account of the Shah, Farah Diba and the Ayotolleh (sp?)? I realize no account is going to be unbiased but perhaps some of you could help me. I know this is a trifle off topic, but I have been researching this for quite some time. Thanks in advance!

An Ard Ri 05-13-2014 02:46 PM

Perhaps a little before 1913 but here's The Most ‘Evil’ Rulers of the Middle Ages,I couldn't see another thread on tyrants/evil rulers.

http://www.medievalists.net/2014/05/...s-middle-ages/

sancakli70 05-13-2014 03:15 PM

King Faruq of Egypt he spent his money in woman and gambling. He was famous an in 1953 abloshed the monarchy because of him

COUNTESS 05-13-2014 08:01 PM

The operative word is European.

Meraude 06-03-2014 02:02 PM

Even if his reign ended shortly after 1913 I would say tsar Nikolai II of Russia. The result of his shortcomings as a regent lead to great sufferings for his former subjects for a long time.

Nico 06-03-2014 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bine221 (Post 1597837)
The Shah of Persia?

Ex King Constantine of Greece?

In the end both of them lost their throne - not because of a war, but because their own people has expulsed them out of their country.

BYe Bine

Beware of this kind of simplistic view of History.
Thank you.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises