patgund: (Gears)
[personal profile] patgund
The BBC has an article on which royal in British history may have been the worst to sit the throne.

Royally bad rulers

The top three they say are:

Edward II
Mary Queen of Scots
George IV

I'm actually kinda surprised by this. I would have added:

Mary I (Bloody Mary). Certainly the Marian Persecutions would have made her quite infamous)
Ethelred (Note, Danegeld, bad idea)
Matilda (Okay, technically didn't sit the throne, couldn't get herself crowned)
John Lackland certainly has one of the most historically bad reputations out there.
Richard II
George III (I'm surprised the loss of the American colonies didn't insure a spot on this list. However, his well known bouts of insanity caused by porphyria may excuse it.)
Edward VIII (From what I gather, there's still some bad feelings towards him and "that Wallis woman")

Date: 2008-07-15 06:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com
My "alternate universe memorabilia collection" includes a cream pitcher commemorating the coronation of Edward VIII. Which never happened. This is what happens when greedy marketers jump the gun, I guess.

Date: 2008-07-16 02:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matrygg.livejournal.com
Do you happen to have any pictures? I'm curious now.

Date: 2008-07-16 02:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com
If I weren't in the middle of moving... everything is packed, I'll do a post in my own LJ about this curious collection later. Friending you now so you can read it.

Date: 2008-07-16 02:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matrygg.livejournal.com
Very cool. My journal is pretty much an open book, although you might get the periodic rant about students now.

Date: 2008-07-15 07:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matrygg.livejournal.com
I think Richard II gets a bit of a bad reputation, mostly based on the play. He was a fairly decent ruler that was a lot more egalitarian than Henry. Other than that I tend to agree about Mary I

Date: 2008-07-16 02:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistresshuette.livejournal.com
I think that you are confusing Richard II with Richard III.
Richard II made a lot of promises that he reneged on, was constantly fighting with his "advisors" and with Parliament and was deposed and that lead to civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

Date: 2008-07-16 02:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matrygg.livejournal.com
No, I understand that, but part of the reason he fought with his advisors is that he was trying to assert his position as a ruler against John of Gaunt, who was the most powerful member of the council that ruled in his name during his minority. As a result, he tended to put a lot more power in the hands of what would probably be the upper middle-class today, which I think led to the issues with the nobility that you mention. Of course, the seizure of lands didn't help much, but Henry VIII seized much more land than Richard ever did.

I'd consider his promises to Wat Tyler a matter of realpolitik rather than a major political flub.

I do agree that Richard III is a hatchetjob of the Plantagenets and a glorification of Henry, but I think that Richard II suffers from the need to create a character that is weak enough to justify Bolingbroke's rebellion but sympathetic enough to call back to during I and 2 Henry IV.

As far as worst monarchs go, I think Charles I is worse than Richard II.

Date: 2008-07-15 07:19 pm (UTC)
ext_267866: (Default)
From: [identity profile] buddykat.livejournal.com
The reasons given for George IV being on the list are absolutely ridiculous. There are a lot of rulers who did far worse then be serial womenisers who married to clear their debts (a time-honoured tradition amoung the nobility!).

Date: 2008-07-15 10:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kd5mdk.livejournal.com
George III comes off fairly good in History of the English Speaking Peoples. Perhaps WSC has too much influence?

Date: 2008-07-16 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistresshuette.livejournal.com
Actually Mary Queen of Scots wasn't British. She was, d'uh, Scottish. Great Britain wasn't formed until after she was dead and Scotland was added to England by her son, James I. She may not have been a good queen, but she never sat on a British or English throne.

And Edward VIII was never crowned, because of "that Wallis Woman".

Date: 2008-07-16 02:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] matrygg.livejournal.com
I think they get away with this by using the term British. Which is a bit of a cop-out, but I could see giving it to them.

Date: 2008-07-16 05:19 pm (UTC)
ext_1225: Jon Stewart in a pink dress (steady_freddie!arnold)
From: [identity profile] litalex.livejournal.com
I was listening to one of the BBC podcasts and I think they did mention Bloody Mary and George III.

One of the people hated George IV so much that he doesn't want him to win anything, even the title of Britain's worst monarch...

Profile

patgund: Knotwork (Default)
patgund

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 78
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 20th, 2026 12:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios