Worst British Monarchs


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
My vote for worst british monarch would be Richard I. Maybe this would be fun in a poll by one of the moderators? Just a thought.....
 
It would be a tough poll since how do you compare Henry the 8th with 72,000 executions during his 36 year reign (who may have weighed 400 lbs at his death), with George IV who was also known for being fat, and having disgusting personal habits and an uncontrollable libido.
- I imagine some monarchs could easily end up on the best and worst list. If you consider William the Conqueror and Henry the 8th to be mass murderers and at the same time they were instrumental in creating the county.
 
It makes one think, too, about how societal beliefs and feelings would also affect the man or woman on the throne. For example, as pointed out above, would Prince Charles have fared better in 1936 than Edward VIII? And would Edward VIII's love of Wallis Simpson have still cost him the throne in 2009? So not only must the personalities of the individuals be taken into account but also the feelings of the country.
 
IMO the situation would have been the same in 1936 if it was Charles or Edward. The facts are still the same: The POW was in love with and wanted to marry a divorced woman whose husband was still alive. Just as in 2009, Edward marrying Wallis wouldn't be such a big deal.

Charles, benefited from Edward's experience in a variety of ways: a royal heir wanting to marry a divorced woman had already been done so it wasn't so shocking, times had changed --- certain things were no longer a deal breaker and society has become a little more relaxed (too relaxed according to some) and the role of the government as it relates to royal marriages. Let's face it...in times such as these they (the government) have more important things to worry about (economy, war, social ills, expense reports:ermm:) than a member of the BRF marrying a divorced woman.
 
You therefore accept that the government didn't want to get rid of Edward and seized on a convenient excuse whereas I believe that they would have done everything possible to force him out as he was simply unsatisfactory and a real threat to national security at times with leaving documents around for anyone to read (including the German ambassador at one stage). The government had even stopped sending him some information due to fear of what he might do with it e.g. let Wallis see it - afterall there is the story of a paper being marked 'Confidential - For Your Eyes Only' that was passed to Edward to read and then the relevant minister had Wallis talking to him about it over dinner.

I don't see Charles as doing that which is why I do think that the government wouldn't have needed to get rid of Charles and thus a solution to him marrying Camilla would have been found. In addition of course, Charles already has two heirs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie, you stated very valid points but I was specifically responding to Vassiloss Markos and he referenced " how societal beliefs and feelings" not the feelings of the government in regards to Edward's vs. Charles' work ethic.
 
I don't think you can separate the governmental beliefs in this instance because the majority of the people were in favour of Edward in 1936 and against Charles in 2005 and yet the people didn't get their wish either time because the government had its say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am enjoying this discussion. It appears that public sentiment alone may succumb to governmental desire. But with relaxation of social mores, do you think there is any possiblity if Charles wants Camilla to be his Queen, he just might be successful? I realize this is getting off post but with many considering Edward VIII to be one of the worst monarchs because of his selfish desire to be with Wallis, what about Charles wanting to see his wife crowned? Would the public's affection for Diana allow this? Or the government?
 
... but with many considering Edward VIII to be one of the worst monarchs because of his selfish desire to be with Wallis...
More than just Wallis, it was his apparent selfishness in general and lack of sense of 'duty' that concerned those who knew him.
 
Good point, Warren, the public often sees through a public posture and gets to the heart of the matter
 
I am enjoying this discussion. It appears that public sentiment alone may succumb to governmental desire. But with relaxation of social mores, do you think there is any possiblity if Charles wants Camilla to be his Queen, he just might be successful? I realize this is getting off post but with many considering Edward VIII to be one of the worst monarchs because of his selfish desire to be with Wallis, what about Charles wanting to see his wife crowned? Would the public's affection for Diana allow this? Or the government?


As Diana has been gone now for over 12 years and the Queen is in good health it is possible that Charles could have to wait another 10 or more years.

By then Camilla will have been his wife for longer than Diana. Diana and Charles separated after just over 11 years of marriage and divorced after 15 years. Charles and Camilla have now been married for a third of the time he was married to Diana.

I do think that she will be crowned as his queen, as she should of course, but the time will only help them.
 
From Warren
More than just Wallis, it was his apparent selfishness in general and lack of sense of 'duty' that concerned those who knew him.

From what I gather Wallis was simply the final straw. Most people (including their father George V) did not want to see Edward king. More importantly Edward did not want to be king either. History paints it as a crisis, but in fact it was a long development that went on his whole adult life. Even the line in the resignation speech, for the women I love was supposedly written by Churchill.

My contention is that the monarchy works best with a strong feminine side to it. You could argue that the first lady is very important to the US president. I would agree, but it is still secondary. The US presidency is still very concerned with power, and most of the imagery is masculine.
 
...My contention is that the monarchy works best with a strong feminine side to it.
This is probably borne out in the British Monarchy since 1837 where at least three queens have made their mark - Victoria, Queen Elizabeth as Queen and Queen Mother and Elizabeth II. Queen Alexandra may have been beautiful and admired, but I'm less sure of her impact. Queen Mary, probably the most interesting character after Victoria, was the Matriarch of the family who kept her eyes firmly on both the "majesty" of the Sovereign and on the sense of duty owed to his or her subjects. Her strength behind the scenes in her absolute dedication to the monarch and to the monarchy must have led to a bitter blow when her eldest son demonstrated that he shared none of it.
 
The comments on feminity reminded me of a passage from King Edward VIII by Philip Ziegler. While watching the televised coronation of Elizabeth II, the Duke of Windsor "remarked that a Queen enjoyed a marked advantage over a King on such an occasion, when a comination of 'humility and resplendent jewellery play so important a role. A woman can go through the motions far more naturally and gracefully than can any man.'" p. 540

oops meant to spell it "femininity"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William 'Rufus" and Edward II on grounds of gross unsuitability for the job. George I as the prime example of a 'dry twig/twit' (*delete whichever is applicable). Edward VIII on grounds of wasted potential alone. I am also not the biggest 'fan' of Queen Mary I either, on grounds of religious intolerance and losiing Calais. The less said about John the better in my opinion
 
Why did previous posters mention Henry VI? Just curious. haha.

On my list would have to be:
Stephen, Richard I, John, Edward II (although i'm not sure he quite deserved his truly horrible death), Richard III, Mary I, Charles I.

I'm not sure Henry VIII is completely horrible. He did overspend, and yes he did practically cause a religious war in England, but he did a lot of other things too. Without him building of the navy, Elizabeth I never would have defeated the Spanish Armada. He was a great patron of the arts, and eventually this carried over to Elizabeth's reign. He did a lot of terrible things (poor Catherine, Anne, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard), but he did do some good for the country.

Also, could someone explain Edward VIII's Nazi tendencies? I don't really know much about that. :sad:
 
In the 1930s quite a number of people thought that Hitler's way was a good way of dealing with the economic problems confronting his country and the Jews. Many of these people were upper class British aristocrats. Edward VIII was one of them. After the abdication he, and Wallis, visited Hitler and was given a wonderful reception in Germany.

However...
Most British aristocrats and other pro-Nazis changed, or were changing their opinion, in the late 1930s but Edward appears to still have supported the Nazi ideology for some time after the start of the war.

Remember though that anti-Semitism was widespread throughout the world in the 1930s and was not just exclusiving something the Nazis invented.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: Unfortunately you have the right of it. Edward did seem to cling to the Nazi "thing" although I think he, like many others of wealth and influence who visited Berlin prior to the war, was seduced by "order", smart uniforms, trains that ran on time, etc.

Edward was so naive about politics in his own realm that he threw a bone to the miners knowing he would not be there and that nothing would happen. In short, he lied. Did he understand "Fascism"? Somehow I really don't think so.

The fashion was great, the parties were scintillating and far more people were closet anti-semites than we are willing to admit.
 
My experiences in Eastern Europe in particular in 2002 would tell me that there are many closet anti-semites there to this day e.g. one tour guide I had in Warsaw kept referring to Poles and Jews and when I said something like 'but aren't the Jews Poles?' the reply was 'no - they are Jews and Poles are different - Jews are Jews and Poles are Poles and they aren't the same thing at all'. I was rather horrified to hear that comment in the present tense as we were driving around the area of the Warsaw ghetto. This was not an isolated incident or comment by the way - but just one of many I heard on that trip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I listen to a satellite radio show on a regular basis and the host's sidekick made a trip to Poland and visited Auschwitz. This person was amazed to hear a docent disparage the "Jews" in government for not providing enough money to maintain the camp and in the same breath showed the gas chambers to the group!
 
Worse Monarch Charles I He I Belive brought about his own Ruin
 
So if I understand correctly, Edward was more fascinated with the show put on by the Nazi party, rather than their ideology. This is true of many people of the time period. We must remember that we have the benefit of hindsight. It's so sad. All these people supporting a cause they really knew nothing about.

Racism has no purpose. It is something that just does not make sense to me. Why can't we all just get along. We're all basically the same. It's unfortunate. We consider ourselves so well educated today. We think we've learned so much from history, we are progressive, and all that jazz. Really, we're the same as people from hundreds of years ago. They just dressed better.:p
 
Most people who supported Hitler in the 1930s condemned in the 1940s openly for his views and ideology - Edward didn't.
I do think he still supported fascism although not all aspects of it, even after the war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the most worst english kings of all times were John I and Henry VIII.

Their reign was characterized by arbitrariness, violence and fear.
 
I was never really a big fan of Edward VIII, but then I read somewhere that when his brother John died, he was relieved, as John was "more like an animal than anything else". I think it was from 'The Three Emperors' by Miranda Carter, but I can't remember. Anyway, he's probably my least favourite royal, followed closely by George IV, despite Blackadder.
 
@Dagmar

Edward VIII had another brother? I thought he had only one, the father of the queen, the King George.
And why he had said that his brother was more like an animal?
I never read or hear, that the queen had an Uncle namend John.
Was it an half-brother of Edward and George?
 
:previous:

Edward VIII had four brothers - King George VI, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Prince George, Duke of Kent and Prince John - and one sister, Princess Mary, the Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood.

Prince John had epilepsy, was hidden from the public and died at the aged 13.
 
George V and Queen Mary had six children in all.

Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson and had no legitimate children.

George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and had two children - the present Queen and her sister Margaret

Henry, Duke of Gloucester who was the father of Prince Richard the present Duke of Gloucester

George, Duke of Kent who was the father of Prince Edward the present Duke of Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra

Mary, The Princess Royal - married the Earl of Harewood and the Harewood relatives of the Queen are her descendents

John - the youngest of the family. He suffered from epilepsy and spent most of his life at Wood Farm at Sandringham where his parents and other siblings saw him whenever they were at Sandringham. He died in 1919 and is buried at Sandringham next to his Uncle of the same name - the youngest son of Edward VII and Alexandra who died at 24 hours (Alexander John or John Alexander - I have seen both and Alexandra referred to the two Johnnies being together when Prince John died in 1919). Unfortunately the treatment for epileptics in that time wasn't all that advanced or controlled and so when they were having a fit they were uncontrolled to a large extent. Edward VIII was expressing the opinion of many people of his time. It was not unusual for people like this and other mental issues were institutionalised for most of their lives. John had a private nurse and was well cared for and loved by that nurse during his time at Wood Farm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Dagmar

Edward VIII was everytime one of my three favourite english kings, because he gave up the throne for his big love.
But this things he said abouth his ill brother, shows him in a bad light.

@Iluvbertie

Thanx for this information...but i am a little bit irritated.
Do they really have two children with the name George?
Or was it usually at this time, to give two children the same name.
 
George VI, the present Queen's father was called Albert Frederick Arthur George, he chose George as his name, most likely to honour his father, when he became King.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom