Worst British Monarchs

[Kurenai]

Found this a few weeks ago and thought it very interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7510000/7510028.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!

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

 

[Princess B]

i would put Edward II and Mary I.

I didnt expect George IV

 

[morhange]

Victoria got a mention for being miserable

Poor Queen V!

 

[Anne-fan]

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...

 

[loyal_queen]

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.

 

[Royal Fan]

Edward I of England Hammer of The Scots!

 

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

King Henry VIII without hesitation ... although he 'supposedly' recanted on his deathbed

 

[iowabelle]

The Plantagenets would have to rank high... the Lionheart and John. Henry VI. My beloved Henry VIII. Charles I, pardon his incompetence. Edward VIII.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[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.

 

[JulieS]

Henry VIII is the worst for me (paradoxically, Catherine of Aragon is one of my favourite monarchs).

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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? )

 

[White Princess]

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.

 

[Kurenai]

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.

 

[Camilo2002]

Henry VIII

Not even Kings of his time were allowed to execute their wives because they could not provide sons!!!

 

[CarolinaLandgrave]

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!

 

[Iluvbertie]

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).

 

[wbenson]

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 actually think he could have been a pretty good wartime King (although I wouldn't go back in time and change it, certainly). He had pretty high popular appeal, and I think he would have put that out in full force for the war effort. Yes, he visited Hitler, but I think that was probably a combination of sticking it to his brother and the government (it's not like he didn't have cause to be just a little mad at the latter) and the fact that the Nazis weren't exactly reviled amongst many upper circles in Britain and friendliness with them was at least partially in vogue. It was also only 20 years after his cousins were murdered in Ekaterinburg, and fascism and communism didn't exactly get along very well. But again, I wouldn't trade George VI and Elizabeth for that possibility.

 

[MARG]

Oh I think Edward VIII without a doubt. He had it all. The knowledge, the power, the education, the charisma, the love of his subjects. It is just unfortunate that while he had the ability he was just so bone idle, self-centered and lacking in the self-discipline required to actually "work" preferring rather to squander his time, his legacy and his money "skirt-chasing".

I mean really, my duty versus my not-so-monogamus-twice-married mistress = no brainer! Unfortunately (or fortunately) no backbone either!

 

[Menarue]

Definitely Edward VIII, the official papers returning to Downing Street with the ring marks of glasses on them is the absolute limit. While partying he had the papers on a table where any guest could read them and use them to rest their drinks on. This is only one little incident among many others.

 

[Jeniann]

I certainly wouldn't put Edward VIII on the list. We don't know what kind of war time king he would've been and he was only king for 10 months, during which he had a lot of issues in his personal life and didn't really do anything at all (good or bad). For me it would be someone like Edward II or Henry VIII who weren't only selfish, but cruel as well and caused hardship for their people and left the kingdom in a screwed up state. I think Mary I had good intentions, but may have had some mental problems (especially in regards to her paranoia and her false pregnancies) and ended up doing a lot of harm.

 

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

I certainly wouldn't put Edward VIII on the list. We don't know what kind of war time king he would've been and he was only king for 10 months, during which he had a lot of issues in his personal life and didn't really do anything at all (good or bad). For me it would be someone like Edward II or Henry VIII who weren't only selfish, but cruel as well and caused hardship for their people and left the kingdom in a screwed up state.

I agree ... one can not help but feel sorry for poor David, (King Edward VIII).

Have you seen any of his baby pictures? he was so precious!

 

[Menarue]

I bet that Henry VIII was a cute baby too.

 

[Warren]

And Caligula.

 

[PssMarie-Elisabeth]

Caligula??? ... how dare you two try to compare Edward VIII to those tyrants !

 

[Camilo2002]

Edward VIII and urolagnia

Oh I think Edward VIII without a doubt. He had it all. The knowledge, the power, the education, the charisma, the love of his subjects. It is just unfortunate that while he had the ability he was just so bone idle, self-centered and lacking in the self-discipline required to actually "work" preferring rather to squander his time, his legacy and his money "skirt-chasing".

I mean really, my duty versus my not-so-monogamus-twice-married mistress = no brainer! Unfortunately (or fortunately) no backbone either!

I would not consider Edward VIII as the worst at all.

I once had a conversation with a priest; he told me "he knew" that both Edward VIII and Adolph Hitler suffered from a condition named "urolagnia". I commented about this with my father, who told me he had heard the same.

Urolagnia is a condition in which sexual activity produces pleasure when participants engage in urination. Urolagnia may affect an individual in different degrees and can go from mild to wild. An individual who suffers from a high degree of Urolagnia cannot have sexual intercourse without being urinated in given parts of his body. Normally a strong sufferer needs to be urinated on his head/face (sorry for these details).

Apparently Edward VIII was a strong sufferer; this explains why he needed mature and experienced woman to have sex with. Edward may have come to the conclusion that no woman "suitable to be the Queen of England" would engage in such activities; therefore and given his attachment to Wallis Simpson he decided for a "normal" sexual life rather than keeping the throne and have a scandalous sexual life with experienced mistresses and a suitable wife "just for the picture".

I have sympathy for Edward VIII; he might have had strong reasons for giving up the throne of England in order to live free of obligations and an satisfactory sexual life. It could be that he acted it the best interest of the British monarchy.

 

[Lady Ann]

So funny how time changes things, Edward couldn't keep his throne becasue the women he loved was divorced and now the furture king is married to a divorced DoC and can keep his throne....

It could be that he acted it the best interest of the British monarchy.

Well in my opinion he acted in his own best interest, thank God it turned out to be a good act for the monarchy as well