• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Worst English King

Who was the Worst King of England?

  • Total voters
    23
Andalublue said:
Sorry, you're mixing up your Charleses. Charles I was the one who mistook his political role for something divinely ordained. He lost the civil war, and his head. Charles II was his son and restored the monarchy (albeit a very different kind of monarchy) after the Commonwealth dissolved in 1660.
Click to expand...

Ah. My mistake. Lol
 
I'm surprised at all the mentions of Henry VIII. Just returned from London a few months ago, and it seemed every historic building standing had some mark of his reign - either he built it or expanded it. Impressive to put a mark on a city lasting that long. I suspect its because most Americans knowledge of English history is confined to Henry VIII, King George III and Princess Di.

King John was the worst. Horrible man, awful ruler. His legacy is the Magna Carta, which he was forced to sign because of his incompetence, and then promptly ignored it and set off a war. I believe he lost Normady for England and France would have likely conquered England without his timely death.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just think.

If he hadn't, America might have turned out a civilized country :lol:
Click to expand...

The war was already lost for England, after Von Steuben's reforms the Continental Army was kicking Brit and Hessian arse and the French joined in with the colonists. The crown would have been hard pressed to keep it up.
 
Richard III died in the battle Bosworth wheeling a battle axe and was a very brave man.

Richard stated on the battle field "Treason" because of Lord Stanley's betrayal to join him in battle.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I voted for Richard. He was the one who killed his nephews and usurped the throne, right?
Click to expand...

No he put down his brothers' revolt against their father Edward II. Richard would go on to crusade in the Holy Land in unsuccessful attempts to restore Jerusalem.

I would say that Edward II was the worst. He was a weak malcontent who was overthrown in 1327. It was his father Edward I that put William Wallace to death.
 
jet57 said:
No he put down his brothers' revolt against their father Edward II. Richard would go on to crusade in the Holy Land in unsuccessful attempts to restore Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
I think you're getting horribly confused. Jesse was referring to Richard III, who was accused, wrongly IMHO, of murdering his nephew, Edward V. I don't know what revolt against Edward II you're referring to. Perhaps you're thinking of Henry II, whose sons' rebellions, the future Richard I included, he had to put down. Richard did not help his father against his brothers, but he did go on crusade and committed a whole shed-load of atrocities against Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Jews.

I would say that Edward II was the worst. He was a weak malcontent who was overthrown in 1327. It was his father Edward I that put William Wallace to death.
Click to expand...
He was a poor king, but there have been worse, I reckon.
 
Andalublue said:
I think you're getting horribly confused. Jesse was referring to Richard III, who was accused, wrongly IMHO, of murdering his nephew, Edward V. I don't know what revolt against Edward II you're referring to. Perhaps you're thinking of Henry II, whose sons' rebellions, the future Richard I included, he had to put down. Richard did not help his father against his brothers, but he did go on crusade and committed a whole shed-load of atrocities against Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Jews.

He was a poor king, but there have been worse, I reckon.
Click to expand...

He said Richard. Richard I was on the list. He didn't kill any nephews.

My mistake then.
 
Andalublue said:
I was reading one of those 'Worst US President' poll articles the other day and it got me thinking. I don't think I've seen this question raised. I'm a bit of a history nut, so I thought I'd ask who people here believe to have been the worst English king (or monarch, but I don't think any of the 6 reigning queens would be in the running) in history.

Shakespeare and the Tudor apologists would probably have Richard III in pole position but he doesn't come close IMHO.

Here's a poll, I'll vote and explain my choice once I've read what a few others think.
Click to expand...

I voted Richard for his virtually obliterating the treasury of England, for completely neglecting the realm, and for arguably laying the groundwork for many reverses suffered by John in France. He had little interest in England and remained a man of Anjou & Normandy. Save for the 'glorious legacy' England would have been better off without him.
 
Edward II was pretty awful, while his father got a bad rap in Braveheart, his father was a brilliant military leader. Edward II was pretty worthless and managed to lose badly to Robert the Bruce forcing England to ransom lots of their captured nobles back. His death-depending on who you believe-was rather gruesome-a hot poker up his ass orchestrated by his wife's lover-a Roger Mortimer IIRC. His son Edward the III was as good as he was bad
 
TurtleDude said:
His death-depending on who you believe-was rather gruesome-a hot poker up his ass orchestrated by his wife's lover-a Roger Mortimer IIRC.
Click to expand...
He was most likely starved to death or smothered. The red-hot poker story emerged much later and is almost certainly a myth. His homosexuality wasn't much of a secret, so I think it was later story-tellers gilding the lily somewhat.

His son Edward the III was as good as he was bad
Click to expand...
Yes, he was. Militarily-speaking the Edwards were the real stars of English history - Edwards I, III, and IV, that is. II and VIII were wash-outs, VII didn't get much opportunity and V and VI both died before they were old enough to take to the field.
 
Henry VIII left England broke by going on wars that he thought he could win. Missed his opportunity to finish off Scotland.
 
Edward the confessor.

Had a poserous kingdom with standing army, standing navy and decent administration and just spent his time doing away with all that and sticking his tongue up the arse of the great sky daddy.

Result, England got conquered by the Vikings after all. Norman Vikings under William the Bastard.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Edward the confessor.

Had a poserous kingdom with standing army,
Click to expand...


Poserous? Any chance of a translation?


standing navy and decent administration and just spent his time doing away with all that and sticking his tongue up the arse of the great sky daddy.

Result, England got conquered by the Vikings after all. Norman Vikings under William the Bastard.
Click to expand...

He was a poor king from a military perspective but his reign was largely peaceful. He could be criticised for failing to produce an heir and for being too weak to select a successor and stick with that decision, but there were plenty of people deserving of their share of the blame for 1066 - Harold Godwinson, Tostig, Earl Godwin, Emma of Normandy, Harthcanute and sundry bishops and archbishops.
 
Andalublue said:
He was most likely starved to death or smothered. The red-hot poker story emerged much later and is almost certainly a myth. His homosexuality wasn't much of a secret, so I think it was later story-tellers gilding the lily somewhat.

Yes, he was. Militarily-speaking the Edwards were the real stars of English history - Edwards I, III, and IV, that is. II and VIII were wash-outs, VII didn't get much opportunity and V and VI both died before they were old enough to take to the field.
Click to expand...

The Black Prince I believe was E3s son. You're probably right about the red poker. It appeared in several history books I read as a kid (My late mother taught English history at the Local University)
 
Andalublue said:
He was. He was a great warrior, but pre-deceased his father. His son became Richard II - not a great success.
Click to expand...

yeah, I recall that and there was a wistfulness of But had the Black Prince lived to become king.
 
I remember reading how Henry VIII was so fat, his stockings literally cut off circulation to his legs below the knees, and he became bed ridden. Probably deserved it for being a real bastard.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm frankly kind of surprised that you listed Charles I, but not Charles II (i.e. the one who lost the English Civil War, and was subsequently beheaded, making way for Oliver Cromwell's Puritan dictatorship).

What did Charles I do that was so terrible?

In any case, my vote goes for Henry VIII. He was a murderous, paranoid, and erratic tyrant (possibly owing to severe brain trauma that came about due to his love of jousting, according to some modern theories), who helped to throw Europe into centuries of religious warfare, ultimately resulting in the deaths of millions, just so he could go through wives like most men go through clothes.
Click to expand...

What Charles I did was, by his insistence on his 'divine right' cause a civil war. THE Civil War, which took the lives of around 200,000 out of a population of 5,000,000.

We will in due course be able to add Charles III to the list. However though a nincompoop he is unlikely to kill as many as his earlier namesake.
 
Where is Mary Tudor btw? The one who made London stink with the burning flesh of Protestants. The one who did her best to sell out England to Catholic Spain. The one who inherited her father's psychopath genes. Should be a place for her on the list.

And maybe even Edward VIII, the Nazi loving Great Uncle of Charles the Foolish.
 
Oliver Cromwell ;o)

I know he was no King. I think he was worst ruler of England because he did everything he did from nationalistic and religious fanatism. Those leaders are much worse than the selfish ones in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I would have to say Richard the Lionheart, seeing as he was mostly disinterested in ruling or conducting himself like a king. Charles I is a close second, though, considering his disregard of parliament which eventually led to the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's reign as kin- excuse me- "Lord Protector."
 
RJApple said:
I would have to say Richard the Lionheart, seeing as he was mostly disinterested in ruling or conducting himself like a king. Charles I is a close second, though, considering his disregard of parliament which eventually led to the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's reign as kin- excuse me- "Lord Protector."
Click to expand...

Kings who stay away and let us get on with it are generally ideal.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Kings who stay away and let us get on with it are generally ideal.
Click to expand...
Just as a disclaimer, I am an Amercian who just happens to have a fascination with history, particularly British history. As I understand it, though, the job of the monarch at this time in history was to actually lead the nation, not to spend his entire reign frolicking about in the Lavant engaged in an expensive and ultimately failed war, just to die due to a reckless and stupid mistake.
 
RJApple said:
Just as a disclaimer, I am an Amercian who just happens to have a fascination with history, particularly British history. As I understand it, though, the job of the monarch at this time in history was to actually lead the nation, not to spend his entire reign frolicking about in the Lavant engaged in an expensive and ultimately failed war, just to die due to a reckless and stupid mistake.
Click to expand...

But the ideal King did not get his nation invaded and devastated.

That's a low bar like, but many failed it. Richard the Pedarast passed it.
 
Tim the plumber said:

But the ideal King did not get his nation invaded and devastated.

That's a low bar like, but many failed it. Richard the Pedarast passed it.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand the pederast comment. It wasn't his sexual proclivities that made him a poor monarch. We've had some excellent non-heterosexual monarchs; James I and Anne come to mind. Let's keep the homophobia out it, why don't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom