"Worst English king" Topic

Being Scots, I have no love for Edward 1, Hammer of the Scots (though he inspired quite a few good anti-Ed songs) but having recently read a rather scathing bio of Henry V (cold,autocratic, scheming & possessing no sense of gratitude to anyone). I'm inclined to nominate him.

Your choices?

Henry VIII

John

Henry VI, weak, indecisive, eventually done away with…..

any of them

Charles I, Edward VIII.

Charles I

Charles III could potentially be a dud.

James II. The Glorious Revolution was a bloody good idea.

Harold If he wasn't so impetuous the Normans might still be in France

You missed the boat on that one, apathostic.

'Charles III' will be at least 304 years too late to be a King of England. He'll have to settle for being King of Great Britain.

And he probably won't be 'Charles III' either. He's long expressed the intention of using the name George VII, if & when.

Other than that… spot on!

Harold If he wasn't so impetuous the Normans might still be in France

Have a listen to this, particularly ~7' 55" in.

link

Charles I

Henry VIII by a country mile , surely ?

Henry V , victor of Agincourt and conqueror of France – worst king of England ?

Charles I was rather weak but he was essentially a victim of circumstances that spiralled out of control , plus he redeemed himself with his magnificent performance at the trial.

Edward II, everything he touched turned to .

Thanks Connard very fummy

Depends what you mean by 'worst' of course. If you mean 'unpleasant man I wouldn't want to go to dinner with' you might nominate Edward I, but he was clearly a very effective monarch by medieval standards (which includes, of course, putting down revolts and beating up the neighbours).

John, of course, is usually top of the list. The Stuart kings were hopeless, except as part of a cunning Scots plan to place self-defeating idiots in charge of the Auld Enemy. But my own choice is Edward the Confessor, a sanctimonious fool who not only failed to procreate an heir by his own choice, but then decided that somehow he was permitted to pick his own successor --- and chose William of Normandy.

All of them up to now, and the Queens, and all of those yet to come. Monarchy is inherently bad.

The Stuarts racked up and string of failure that is hard to beat. Henry VI could not hold off division and war. From the perspective of the US, I would seem to think hte monarchy is valuable since it frees the Prime Minister from a lot of the ceremonial stuff.

Got the book Connard, very funny!

Yeah, so have I. It is isn't it? :)

Edward VIII, the Quisling-in-waiting.

But, what do I know, poking my nose into British/English business. I'm just a Yank.

> 'Charles III' will be at least 304 years too late to be a King of England. He'll have to settle for being King of Great Britain.

Nope, sorry – there's no such title as "King of Great Britain". The correct titles are "King of England", "King of Scots" and so on (not sure about Wales, Northern Ireland or the remaining monarchies in the Commonwealth). It just so happens that the head of the House of Windsor holds *all* these titles. For example, the current queen is Elizabeth II of England but only Elizabeth I of Scots.

John. He gave away the franchise with that Magna Carta business.

Nope, sorry – there's no such title as "King of Great Britain". The correct titles are "King of England", "King of Scots" and so on (not sure about Wales, Northern Ireland or the remaining monarchies in the Commonwealth). It just so happens that the head of the House of Windsor holds *all* these titles. For example, the current queen is Elizabeth II of England but only Elizabeth I of Scots.

Actually Her Maj's title is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.

No mention of a different regnal number for you Sweatys, sorry.

Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell

He was the very antithesis of a king, do try to keep up at the back

ORLY?

'Cause her Majesty was crowned:

"Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith."

Tell her she's out of order, go on.

Seperate titles are indeed held for each 'Dominion of the Crown'… but England and Scotland are NOT seperate Dominions of the Crown. The DotC which includes England & Scotland is that of the United Kingdom.

The whole 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' title is an urban myth with its origins in a 1953 Scottish nationalist publicity stunt in which some students at Glasgow university attempted to sue the Crown.

The title 'Queen of Scots' does designate any point of difference or seperation of the English & Scottish crowns. It's merely the traditional form of address used in Scotland.

Calm down Norm, I already covered it. Her title has changed since her coronation though, because she/we no longer have overseas dominions. :)

Well done, that man. Have a corgi.

Oooh, ta.

It has to be James II. No one else started their reign with as much good will and lost it all as quickly. Even John was able to hold onto power longer, dealt with a foreign invasion better and knew better when to be firm and when to give.

After James II, I'd have to nominate Charles I. Sure the weight of history was against him in a lot of ways and he probably wasn't going to retain the monarchy in the form he inherited it in but he could have done a lot better than he did. Still nowhere near as bad as his son though.

No votes for Richard I? A monarch who spent the vast majority of his time away from his country (only 6 months in England during his 10 years, I believe) and succeeded in bleeding it dry for his ransom. He was also an anti-semite (more than was usual at the time), and the massacres in York and London took place in his reign.

He may have been a great Crusader, and have had some success in Normandy, but as a king of England I don't rate him much. Of course, he has a fair bit of competition as stated above.

Richard I was pretty bad and he is mostly the reason why John was such a bad king, I still think that James II has him beat hands down.

I don't reckon it's any of my business to go poking around another country's rulers.

"Monarchy is inherently bad."

Is it?

James II pipping Edward VIII to the post.

"'Monarchy is inherently bad.'

Is it?"

Not as bad as democracy typically.

Depends on the nature of the monarch, Pictors. A democracy (theoretically, at least) has controls, while a monarchy doesn't necessarily unless it is a constitutional monarchy, which, though common today, are pretty rare historically.

A democracy has less controls than a monarchy. What control is there in democracy. If it gets out of hand you have no easy (internal) way to stop it. This thread shows several kings that got out of hand and were brought to heel.

Who was the King that lost the American colonies? Georgie something?

Aethlered?

Don't like any of them.

George III was on the throne during the AWI/Revolution – but he's, I dunno, about fifty years or so out of contention for this particular thread.

English Kings (or, at least, Kings of England) run from Egbert of Wessex (802CE) to William III (1689).

Almost 900 years of self-serving, incompetence, back-stabbing and inbreeding to choose from.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Richard II. He was as crazy as a box of frogs.

I was just going to nominate Richard II. Add weak willed and indecisive.

Kings are never at fault. It's always their wicked advisors.

Richard II is Supergrass's best song. Absolutely positively guaranteed to get me on the dance floor within the first eight bars…

Richard II is Supergrass's best song. Absolutely positively guaranteed to get me on the dance floor within the first eight bars…

Is that not Richard III ? Its not named after the king either…

I'll give another vote for most of the Stuart Kings. Never seemed to miss making a bad choice, although Charles II was a great deal of fun I've read.

Edward I, Henry VIII and several others named above might have been SOB's, but the doesn't make them the "worst". I view worst as having made choices that hurt the kingdom, rather than being bad human beings.

Agreed about any of the Stuarts. They just weren't very good at it.

Bloody Mary would get a nod if we were talking monarchs rather than Kings.