Worst British Monarchs

[Royal Fan]

Edward VIII Selfish , Arrogant, just nasty

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Christianity, as well as expectations of monarchs, has changed a great deal over time. Indeed, up until the time of Henry VIII, England's form of Christianity was Catholicism. Kings sought the blessing of the Pope, often, before going to war (which is always brutal and heinous). William the Conqueror, for example, had the Pope's blessing to war against the king elected by council.

Mary I obviously thought she was acting in accordance with Christian principles, at that time (everyone surely knows that Christians organized crusades, inquisitions, etc.)

The modern construction of Christianity as a religion of peace (at least at the level of the average Sunday sermon) is fairly new. "Onward Christian Soldiers!" was a much-loved hymn in my childhood, and for my parents and grandparents.

What makes a bad monarch? I think a failure to understand what the possibilities of the Crown are, in one's own time, and instead asserting one's own personal desires as the Crown's desires, go against all views of monarchy. If God was/is thought to favor monarchy, then clearly the Monarch should be considering God's law and is obligated to fulfill what God wants (not the other way around).

But, many people pray to God for their own personal successes (we see it in sporting events all the time). I imagine that many a crowned head saw signs that God was on their side (and Lord God is sometimes quite vengeful and meanspirited; especially in the Old Testament).

 

[Mumper]

I did not mean to imply that James II fled willingly -- he was forced out and I think it was good that he was made to leave the country. IMO he was not a good monarch.

He was a decent and well-meaning man, much better than the self-serving bigots who forced him out.
How is being an open-minded man who fought for religious toleration bad? He has been been unfairly maligned for years by really bad, ignorant, so-called "historians".
HE didn't invite a foreign force to INVADE his country now, did he?

Please name the 'GOOD' historians and what makes them 'GOOD'.
As an historian myself, who has studied the period in depth as part of my masters degree and read a number of pro and anti-James historians I stand by my opinion that he was not a good monarch.

GOOD historians are those who do through research.
I notice that all the pro-William of Orange historians are very touchy about the real truth of James II's intentions coming out. Some of their works are beyond laughable and VERY poorly researched.
James wasn't a self-serving bigot like William. The man was actually beyond his time.
There's this historian who got his doctorate from Harvard, he defends James from all the second-hand nonsense that's been written about this maligned king for years.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

He was a decent and well-meaning man, much better than the self-serving bigots who forced him out.

How is being an open-minded man who fought for religious toleration bad? He has been been unfairly maligned for years by really bad, ignorant, so-called "historians".

HE didn't invite a foreign force to INVADE his country now, did he?

I think we can agree to disagree, can't we? Your opinions are yours just as much as my opinions are mine. James, like all men and women, had good qualities and bad qualities. In my opinion, he was an inept politician who failed to read and understand the mood of his people. And while you maintain that he espoused religious freedoms, it also appeared to many of his contemporaries, as well as later historians, that James's demand that the Bishops read from the pulpits his declaration of indulgence gives a new definition to a "bully pulpit." Indeed, from what I have read, those who resisted were thrown into prison. I don't think that was very tolerant. It was also his enlargement of a standing army and the positioning of many Catholics in leadership positions which caused the public and government to fear that he may have an ulterior motive. After all, wasn't he the Supreme Governor of the Church and doesn't a monarch vow to uphold and maintain and defend it when being crowned?

 

[Iluvbertie]

GOOD historians are those who do through research.

I notice that all the pro-William of Orange historians are very touchy about the real truth of James II's intentions coming out. Some of their works are beyond laughable and VERY poorly researched.

James wasn't a self-serving bigot like William. The man was actually beyond his time.

There's this historian who got his doctorate from Harvard, he defends James from all the second-hand nonsense that's been written about this maligned king for years.

I am still awaiting the names of these historians. Saying 'good' historians and 'bad' historians without naming the ones you are putting in these categories is useless information.

I have an extensive history library of the Stuart period - having done my masters in that period so I would like to know which historians you are putting in which category.

NB I am an historian myself as well as a teacher of history so I do know how to judge them and doing thorough research actually isn't enough. You also have to assess the biases of and influences on the historian - i.e. put them in their own context - and even then two people will still assess them differently - given their own bias and perspective.

 

[JimmyA]

I would put the worst monarchs and King John, Henry VIII* , Mary I, Charles II, James II, George IV*, William IV*
I put Henry VIII with a star because he was a monster but a strong leader. I put George and William because they weren't bad guys, but were poor kings and as the result of that the power of the Sovereign was diminished considerably more leaving close to the same modern limits on the monarchy. I've seen people put Charles I on here, which is a bit of a touchy subject. I have to say I would rather have Charles I as King than Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector. There were also good and bad things about all the monarchs, sometimes the bad outweighed the good or vice versa. I've seen Mary, Queen of Scots mentioned -- personally I LOVE Mary, Queen of Scots and do not support the authenticity of the Casket Letters and therefore do not believe she had Lord Darnley murdered -- now Lord Bothwell is another story. She was a very strong woman who did sometimes make questionable decisions but I think she had a raw deal and I respect her dignity. Like Victoria (who I also LOVE) she would NOT be pushed around even if she could have POSSIBLY been able to regain her throne if she signed the Treaty of Edinburgh (speaking of course of the pressure on Elizabeth I by the King of France)

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I admit I don't know a lot about Edward I, but though he was cruel he did seem to do some good for England. I don't consider him one of the worst. I also don't know if I would consider his son one of the worst either; he just seemed to be a victim of circumstances
My list:
Henry VIII
Richard III
Mary I
Charles I (low on the list)
I would put William IV on the list, but though he doesn't seem to have done anything, I don't consider him the worst. At least the country didn't blow up.

 

[LadyGrinningSoul]

Mary I - I do have some sympathy for her, at least as a young woman and in regards to her obvious mental issues. But a bad childhood and tyrant of a father can never excuse her burning Catholics like it was going out of fashion. I do sometimes wonder if she would have been quite so awful had she not endured the things she had. Of course in her eyes, she was probably doing the "heretics" a favour by burning their sins away. Though as with Thomas Cranmer, its obvious her intent was very much revenge and propaganda.

John - Although the result of his disastrous reign was Magna Carta, the ends most certainly did not justify the means. Of course he ended up breaking the rules of Magna Carta (which provoked civil war) and taxed people enormously, lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine and parts of Poitou. which if I am thinking correctly the attempts to take these places back were the reason for the taxes.

Stephen - usurped Henry I and cheated Matilda out of her rightful throne, He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, bought off the Scottish by giving them Cumbria (as a Cumbrian this appalls me mightily!) paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then provoked four civil wars. These decisions left the country in ruins, economically and otherwise. It had never been a weaker power before or since then.

At one point I would have named Richard III as one of the worst, however it seems obvious to me that much of his poor reputation was due to Tudor propaganda. I don't believe he murdered the princes. I certainly think there was some sort of 'hush hush' secret funeral or something of the boys, in order to prevent the exact rumours that have dogged his reputation for centuries. Also, there is no proof that he was responsible for the death of Henry VI, or that he was even in the castle(?) at the time of Henry's demise.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I put George and William because they weren't bad guys, but were poor kings and as the result of that the power of the Sovereign was diminished considerably more leaving close to the same modern limits on the monarchy.

I find it strange that someone would regard allowing democracy to grow as a bad thing.

 

[JimmyA]

I find it strange that someone would regard allowing democracy to grow as a bad thing.

I don't disagree with allowing democracy to grow, obviously. The Great Reform Bill of 1832 provided a lot of needed change. However, the fact is if George IV and Willian IV had been stronger Kings, like George III (Minus the Regency, obviously) there wouldn't have been as strong of a following for diminishing more of the Crown's power. Politican's are often guilty of only looking out for the immediate needs of their party, politicans allowed to run wild can really divide a country. Sovereigns with no constitutional restraints have the opportunity to become tyrants at times. I just like to see a balance between the two, and I like to see them work together not against one and other.

'I support the Monarchy, not a playground for politicians'

 

[Zonk]

Mary I - I do have some sympathy for her, at least as a young woman and in regards to her obvious mental issues. But a bad childhood and tyrant of a father can never excuse her burning Catholics like it was going out of fashion. I do sometimes wonder if she would have been quite so awful had she not endured the things she had. Of course in her eyes, she was probably doing the "heretics" a favour by burning their sins away. Though as with Thomas Cranmer, its obvious her intent was very much revenge and propaganda.

John - Although the result of his disastrous reign was Magna Carta, the ends most certainly did not justify the means. Of course he ended up breaking the rules of Magna Carta (which provoked civil war) and taxed people enormously, lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine and parts of Poitou. which if I am thinking correctly the attempts to take these places back were the reason for the taxes.

Stephen - usurped Henry I and cheated Matilda out of her rightful throne, He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, bought off the Scottish by giving them Cumbria (as a Cumbrian this appalls me mightily!) paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then provoked four civil wars. These decisions left the country in ruins, economically and otherwise. It had never been a weaker power before or since then.

At one point I would have named Richard III as one of the worst, however it seems obvious to me that much of his poor reputation was due to Tudor propaganda. I don't believe he murdered the princes. I certainly think there was some sort of 'hush hush' secret funeral or something of the boys, in order to prevent the exact rumours that have dogged his reputation for centuries. Also, there is no proof that he was responsible for the death of Henry VI, or that he was even in the castle(?) at the time of Henry's demise.

Minor correction...Mary didn't prosecute Catholics...she wanted the return of Catholicism in England. She burned Protestants and quite as kept, so did Edward VI. He was so devoted to Protestantism that he was willing (or allowed himself) to overturn his father's will and try to keep Mary from getting the throne.

 

[George of Wales]

The nazi-sympathising fool David (he does not deserve to be called with the royal name or title). We shall be thankful to Mrs. Simpson from saving Britain from a truly vile man.

Mary I, as well as many others who persecuted people for their beliefs, burnt them alive etc. in those dark ages. Than came the Enlightenment and the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights. 1689 - the year freedom was born.

 

[IloveCP]

With out a doubt Mary i.As for Edward viii,well he did it for love,at least he did'nt do it because he just did'nt want to be king.

 

[LadyGrinningSoul]

Minor correction...Mary didn't prosecute Catholics...she wanted the return of Catholicism in England. She burned Protestants and quite as kept, so did Edward VI. He was so devoted to Protestantism that he was willing (or allowed himself) to overturn his father's will and try to keep Mary from getting the throne.

Aw dear, I actually knew that but it was a mistake on my part. Silly me! Thanks for the correction.

Now I would add Edward VIII, but as he wasn't on the throne long enough to do any real damage in my view, I omitted him. Whilst on the throne at least. I believe as many do that he was absolutely in league with the Nazi's. But this is only from watching the infamous 'Traitor King' documentary. If this does not count as not entirely off topic, is there any compelling evidence to suggest that he didn't do the things he was accused of, or at least in defence? Giving very important information to Hitler, asking the Germans to somehow retrieve Wallis' belongings in Paris after it had become occupied etc?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Diminishing the power of the crown in England very well could have saved the monarchy as a whole. Other monarchs who refused to give up their strong hold on the crown ended up dead either in the 1790s or with WWI.

 

[Jeniann]

No, he wasn't giving information to the Nazis. There's no proof and I don't understand why he would have done that anyway. What did he know that the Nazis somehow found out anyway? Is there anything that he knew that wasn't common knowledge among British forces that the Nazis ended up knowing about? And is there any way such a leak could have been traced to him?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.

What you are advocating is that people actually be historians and evaluate all sources, including documentaries and I couldn't agree more.

As a history teacher it is what I am always saying to the kids I teach, and some of the staff at my school who are not history trained but have to teach the subject anyway - and believe one documentary and then watch another one and it says something different - then they say they are confused. Trying to explain that history isn't hard and fast facts but rather every historians own interpretations based on their own personal bias (we all have one based on our culture, religious beliefs, education, wealth, status, gender, sexual orientation and experieces etc) and thus they are valid interpretations.

You have to look at the presenter of a documentary - just as you would with a written based historian and find out what evidence they used, what access to official and non-official documents etc that they had, and they you will draw your own conclusions and guess what - someone who has done the same research could reach a completely different conclusion because they have a different view of life.

As for Edward VIII - he was incompetant as a King and the government found a great excuse to get rid of him (what they would have done if Wallis hadn't come along is anyone's guess but they would have done something). Was he handing over secrets to the Nazis - I don't believe so. Was he lax with the security of information he had been given by the government - definitely. Could a leading German representative in Britian have those learnt something about British policy in 1936 (remember this was the year of the Olympics and the year that Hitler pulled in his more extreme views as a result anyway although he did re-occupy the Rhineland - he sent German troops into German territory) - possibly?

In 1936 Hitler was seen as a 'good' leader by the vast majority of the rest of the world. Churchill, who was speaking out against this man, was seen as the odd man out - a bit like Prince Charles and the environment in the 80s. It is a mistake to judge Edward's actions in 1936 and 37 by the standards of today when he was just the biggest name to support the Nazis publicly. The Queen Mum and George VI were supporters of Hitler's ideas to a certain extent also at that time - even though they never met him - but they weren't the totally anti-Hitler that they became by late 38.

 

[LadyGrinningSoul]

Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.

I was simply asking what people thought of these claims, ie. provoking discussion on a discussion board. Asking for others view points is a form of ''doing the research for myself'' is it not? I hadn't researched much of him prior to the documentary as my interest is more that of the Tudor era. I admitted my opinions were at that time coloured by the documentary, though despite what you claim there is plenty of evidence to back some of these claims up.

I certainly think he suffered from loose lips, particularly in the manipulative (perhaps, at times alcohol fueled) company of those with a certain fascist bent. Of course its terribly unfair to judge the actions of any man from an era other than our own.

I do believe the man to have been immensely naive in his position in getting drawn into the seductive power of the third Reich. Of course this comes from the benefit of hindsight, before the horrors of the regime were well known.
Of course many well educated and otherwise were. Lets face it, the views of Hitler were very much widespread.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

A lot of people in here named Richard I but history and historians seem to like him a lot.
As for Stephen, he had support for his cause and not all England wanted Matilda. He usurped the throne but so did William the Conqueror, Edward IV, Henry VII, William and Mary etc.
As for Henry VI can you really label him one of the worst? Is this before or after his illness? He can't really help being mentally insane.

 

[Feologild]

I think Edward II

 

[An Ard Ri]

King John,not only did he loose most of the Angevin lands in France he also lost the Crown Jewels in a swamp!