 |
|

07-25-2008, 03:21 PM
|
 |
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 20
|
|
Worst British Monarchs
Found this a few weeks ago and thought it very interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/7510028.stm
I quote, "Today spoke to historians taking part in a debate organised by English Heritage, which seeks to answer the question of which British monarch should be considered the biggest failure."
There were some on the list I wasn't surprised to find, such as "Mary I of England" and "Queen Mary of Scots." But there were several other monarchs that were missing -- George III perhaps? He did lose America after all.
I suppose it's all based on how we define "failure." I wanted to see what other candidates the forum members had in mind!
|

07-25-2008, 03:34 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
|
|
I wouldn't put George on the list. After 1689 the monarch had no real power anyway--all power was vested in the monarch, but wielded only on the advice of Parliament. For greatest failure you have to look before 1689. I'd say that Charles I would probably be the pretty obvious major failure, there.
|

07-31-2008, 03:51 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NA, Spain
Posts: 425
|
|
i would put Edward II and Mary I.
I didnt expect George IV
|

07-31-2008, 04:27 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Springfield, United States
Posts: 572
|
|
Quote:
Victoria got a mention for being miserable
|
 Poor Queen V!
__________________
His sense of responsibility is not less than yours or mine. How could we tell right from wrong as simple people in any kind of situation? How could we know that our courage, loyalty and lives were not misused for evil purposes?
|

07-31-2008, 05:25 PM
|
 |
Gentry
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 52
|
|
I'm not suprised to find Henry VIII on the list or Mary I, but I didn't expect that Victoria was mentioned for being a bad monarch...
|

01-24-2009, 11:41 AM
|
 |
Newbie
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3
|
|
Ivan the terrible.....Ivan was Tsar of Russia very early on. he did monstrous terrible things, some included murdering his wife killing who ever he felt like it eugh...read up on it he was truly sick...hence why they call him Ivan the terrible.
|

01-24-2009, 02:20 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,323
|
|
Edward I of England Hammer of The Scots!
|

01-24-2009, 04:10 PM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Fort Pierce, United States
Posts: 123
|
|
King Henry VIII without hesitation ... although he 'supposedly' recanted on his deathbed
__________________
" This coupe is too small! Go back and get the family carriage"
|

01-24-2009, 04:56 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,403
|
|
The Plantagenets would have to rank high... the Lionheart and John. Henry VI. My beloved Henry VIII. Charles I, pardon his incompetence. Edward VIII.
|

01-24-2009, 05:43 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,033
|
|
Stephen, Richard I, Richard II, Henry VI, Mary I, James II, Edward VIII would be me worst list for a number of reasons - namely weakness, sell outs, not putting their country first being the main ones.
Henry VIII I see as one of the best monarchs in an absolute system simply for promoting English rights over foreign ones - he really supported the idea of England being controlled by Englishmen rather than have a foreigner interfere.
|

01-26-2009, 07:23 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,403
|
|
William Rufus ... probably not a vote of popularity to have someone shoot an arrow through your eye. Richard II, too -- I thought of him last night as I was going to sleep.
I wrote a report on Richard II in graduate school. Although he was a great patron of the arts (and allegedly the inventor of the men's necktie), great patronage does not necessarily a great king make.
|

01-26-2009, 07:41 PM
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,872
|
|
Edward II. Not that it's much of a surprise, given that his father was such a brute. But really, he was an utter disgrace.
And Richard II, who seems to fully deserve the description "monster."
And I think Richard I belongs on that list too. He may have been a Lionheart in his crusades, but he was a worthless King of England.
Henry VI would have made a very good prior or abbot, but he wasn't exactly King material. I think both Edward VI and Mary I could have usefully been bypassed too, for that matter.
And moving forward a bit, I don't think James II, Mary II, Anne, and George I were much to write home about. 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.
|

01-26-2009, 07:46 PM
|
 |
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: -, Canada
Posts: 769
|
|
Henry VIII is the worst for me (paradoxically, Catherine of Aragon is one of my favourite monarchs).
__________________
"The best mirror is an old friend."
- George Herbert
|

01-26-2009, 08:17 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,403
|
|
I think that Mary (I) had potential, since she had formidable examples in her maternal line (Catherine, one of my all-time favorite queens, and Isabella of Castile). But it all went wrong, with the highly dysfunctional family and the religious issue. Had she been more inclined to mercy and compassion, and not had the misfortune of tying herself to Philip of Spain, she might have been more successful.
But I know, you can't win a popularity contest by torturing people.
|

01-26-2009, 08:20 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,403
|
|
I agree with Elspeth about the Lionheart. Once again, lacking in compassion. And beggaring the State with financing his unsuccessful crusades. (He might have made a mint had he opened trade with the Muslims and through them opened a route to India and China. Why couldn't I have been there to advise him?  )
|

01-26-2009, 08:28 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Natal, Brazil
Posts: 456
|
|
Empress Catherine II of Russia. She might not be "cruel", but she betrayed her husband and the coup d'etat she made, for me, was horrible, even being good for Russian people and the Empire at all.
|

01-26-2009, 09:20 PM
|
 |
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 20
|
|
With modern monarchy being no more than a figurehead, it'll be harder to pick out "monstrous ones" in the future since kings and queens no longer have the political power they once had.
|

01-27-2009, 11:54 PM
|
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 134
|
|
Henry VIII
Not even Kings of his time were allowed to execute their wives because they could not provide sons!!!
|

01-28-2009, 08:28 PM
|
 |
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Edward II. Not that it's much of a surprise, given that his father was such a brute. But really, he was an utter disgrace.
And Richard II, who seems to fully deserve the description "monster."
And I think Richard I belongs on that list too. He may have been a Lionheart in his crusades, but he was a worthless King of England.
Henry VI would have made a very good prior or abbot, but he wasn't exactly King material. I think both Edward VI and Mary I could have usefully been bypassed too, for that matter.
And moving forward a bit, I don't think James II, Mary II, Anne, and George I were much to write home about. 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 am going to have to greatly agree Elspeth....
Edward II was unstable... Richard II was inhuman.... and George I was duller than a dump-truck load of dirt!
|

01-29-2009, 02:04 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camilo2002
Henry VIII
Not even Kings of his time were allowed to execute their wives because they could not provide sons!!!
|
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).
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|