Worst European Monarch Since 1913


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

CSENYC

Nobility
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
321
City
New York
Country
United States
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.
 
King Tribhuvan of Nepals father!

Can't remember his name
 
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)
 
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 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:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Besides Kaiser Wilhelm (he really took the cake) I would say King Edward and King Carol
 
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'.

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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!
 
King Faruq of Egypt he spent his money in woman and gambling. He was famous an in 1953 abloshed the monarchy because of him
 
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.
 
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.
 
- 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)
Can you please explain why these royals were so bad?
 
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!
There's a documentary by a Iranian-Swedish film-maker, Nahid Persson, who was allowed to interview Farah Diba. And the conclusion was that while the last shah did some things, which he shouldn't have done, out of his fear of communism, the current islamistic regime of Iran is in no way better. I guess that this is the most unbiased account, that you can ever get about the last shah.
 
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.
The sad thing is that Nicholas was convinced that he acted for the best for Russia. :sad:
 
I find that Emperor Wilhelm is too easy chosen, the propaganda by the Brits and the Americans has been effective.

In reality the Oberste Heeresleitung (the Supreme Army Command) commited a sort of intern coup d'état and became the real force in Germany, pushing aside both the Emperor and the Government. Emperor Wilhelm II was -by law- the Oberste Befehlshaber des Heeres (the Army's Supreme Commander), but no more than that.

When World War I broke out, soon the generals Helmuth von Moltke and Erich von Falkenhayn took the reins of state, enforcing the wole Government and all sectors in society contribute in the war efforts. In the second half of World War I the generals Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg (the later Reichspräsident) were the men in charge.

Emperor Wilhelm II and Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg were completely outmanoeuvred. The Emperor had no any influence on the changes in Government and more and more became a frustrated puppet completely sidelined. The factual military junta in Germany is known as "Stille Diktatur" (the Silent Dictature). That the Americans and the British depict Kaiser Wilhelm as the culprit for WWI is a cartoonesque exaggeration.
 
It wasn't only US-UK propaganda, that stopped in the late 20-ties/30-ties. In the 50-ties it was mainly German scholars themselves who started to blame the Prussian spirit for WWI too, as the 'guilt' issue for WWII was clearly felt. For some decades it was in vogue to blame 'the system'/ all participants, but the moment scholars are back at where they started in 1914: mainly placing the blame with the Serbian nationalists and politicians, who risked a major European war to suit their own nationalistic purposes.

Having that said, Wilhelm II was incompetent, his odd manouevering before WWI clearly shows that. The many changes of prime ministers, his curious interviews with the British press, the Morocco incidents. The incompetence and chaos is perplexing, as you usually would assume that in Germany things would be organised to perfection. In hindsight it makes you wonder if he may have been suffering from Borderline or a personality disorder.

You are correct that during the war itself, he had very little to say as Germany became de facto a military dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
As an American, I can tell you that as time has passed and further study ha come about, Wilhelm was not the despot pictured. Yes, he had shortcomings, but he was a good leader. He was, also very distressed by the situation that led to the first world war. He was more decent than we were told. Nicholas has no spine and no real idea on how to reign. His wife further complicated things. Russia was a mess. The category is wide. You could say Edward VIII. King Ferdinand of Romainia, his son King Michael...... King Ferdinand of Bulgaria.. Victor Emmanuel of Italy. Take your pick.
 
As an American, I can tell you that as time has passed and further study ha come about, Wilhelm was not the despot pictured. Yes, he had shortcomings, but he was a good leader. He was, also very distressed by the situation that led to the first world war. He was more decent than we were told. Nicholas has no spine and no real idea on how to reign. His wife further complicated things. Russia was a mess. The category is wide. You could say Edward VIII. King Ferdinand of Romainia, his son King Michael...... King Ferdinand of Bulgaria.. Victor Emmanuel of Italy. Take your pick.

Michael was Ferdinand's grandson, not his son (and doesn't seem to have been a bad monarch). Ferdinand's son, and Michael's father, was Carol II, who was not a good monarch.

While I'll agree that Wilhelm II wasn't the evil that he's often depicted as, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he was a good leader. Nicholas was not a good ruler, but he also wasn't the evil despot he's often understood to be - Russia was a mess before he came to power, he just didn't have the skill or strength to fix it. Few men would have.

The truly bad monarchs are, in my opinions, the ones who take a realm that is in good shape and make a mess, or the ones who make a mockery of their realms. By that standard, Wilhelm was not a good monarch - Germany was doing well before he came to power, and was not doing well afterwards. Nicholas isn't a good monarch - he didn't fix the pre-existing mess, nor did he cause his realm to shine - but he himself didn't make things worse. Carol II made a mockery of his realm, as did Edward VIII.
 
But how did Edward VIII "make a mockery of his realm"?
 
But how did Edward VIII "make a mockery of his realm"?

He did not. He was an excellent and most popular Prince of Wales. He was too short King to have played a substantial role. He abdicated and left his realms so "made a mockery of his realm" is based on nothing.

:flowers:
 
The worst King in modern time was probably King Constantine of the Hellenes. His extremely poor handling of the coup d'état by the military junta in 1967 (first he reluctantly accepted the establishment of the military junta then he headed a hopelessly failed contra-coup d'état and was forced into exile). The establishment of the military junta was possibly a result of the political unstability and unrest in Greece caused by the King's openly opposition of the democratically elected Government of Georgios Papandreou.

When even the military, usually a cornerstone of a monarchy, oppose against the King, then there is seriously something wrong with the way the King assessed and handled the political situation of Greece. It is no wonder, that even in the most hefty turmoils of last years, the total failure of Greek politics, the bankruptcy of Greece which caused an immense downfall of welfare, that even then there was no single call for a restoration of the monarchy, no any longing "back to great times". This is quite telling. My nomination for "worst monarch" in modern times (and in Europe) goes to Constantine II.
 
The worst King in modern time was probably King Constantine of the Hellenes. His extremely poor handling of the coup d'état by the military junta in 1967 (first he reluctantly accepted the establishment of the military junta then he headed a hopelessly failed contra-coup d'état and was forced into exile). The establishment of the military junta was possibly a result of the political unstability and unrest in Greece caused by the King's openly opposition of the democratically elected Government of Georgios Papandreou.

When even the military, usually a cornerstone of a monarchy, oppose against the King, then there is seriously something wrong with the way the King assessed and handled the political situation of Greece. It is no wonder, that even in the most hefty turmoils of last years, the total failure of Greek politics, the bankruptcy of Greece which caused an immense downfall of welfare, that even then there was no single call for a restoration of the monarchy, no any longing "back to great times". This is quite telling. My nomination for "worst monarch" in modern times (and in Europe) goes to Constantine II.

There's a lot that I don't know about the circumstances surrounding the 1967 coup in Greece but this seems to me to be rather a harsh judgement of Constantine II.
From what I understand, the context of the military coup is extremely complex. The legacy of division from the Civil War which had occured twenty years earlier, the strategic importance of Greece at the height of the Cold War to the Americans/the West, the privileged position of the Greek military in relation to government and society and the long-standing and bitter dynastic/tribal rivalries of the leading Greek political families, amongst other considerations, meant that the country was fragile, vulnerable and divided.
King Constantine's situation, particularly as the institution of the monarchy itself was hardly secure, is thus not to be envied.
Added to this, his father's early death and his young age on ascending the throne meant that his "training" was incomplete; he had been in the job for barely three years and was still only a 26-year-old when the crisis erupted, thus being short of experience and "authority"; and he had a 20-year-old wife and two infant children to protect.

With hindsight, we can criticise the King's actions before, during and after the coup and find his judgement wanting in comparison to King Juan Carlos, a 43-year-old who was well-established on the throne at the time of the attempted coup in 1981. However, I remain to be convinced that his motivations for the decisions he took were anything other than honourable.

I think that the principal reason that there haven't been any serious calls for a restoration of the monarchy since is that Constantine has been a very convenient scapegoat for ALL sides. As long as the blame/ridicule is directed at him, it is possible to overlook the facts that the Greek military betrayed the democratic state to protect its own interests, that the political dynasties of both right and left have put power and self-interest ahead of good governance and, dare I say it, that the Greek people have allowed all this to happen.

Moreover, is what Constantine did (or didn't do) in Greece 1967 worse than the records of Vittorio Emanuele III in Italy when faced with Mussolini, of Alfonso XIII, Nicholas II, Wilhelm II or of Carol II?
 
Not the worst of monarchs since 1913 but one who made several unwise decisions during his reign was king Leopold III of the Belgians. Some decisions was forced upon him due to the WW II, others was his own fault.
 
After todays debacle over the lack of BRF in Brussels, I was expecting someone to nominate QEII
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom