|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 1, 2021 18:38:20 GMT
anyone?.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 2, 2021 1:26:23 GMT
King John may be a cliched choice but he was pretty bad. Vortigern's existence is contested and he may be just a creation from the Arthurian legends but his reputation is not pleasant either.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Mar 2, 2021 1:34:57 GMT
one dynasty? The Stuarts.
Individual monarchs? heaps of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 2, 2021 1:45:04 GMT
Probably King John (1199–1216)
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 2, 2021 7:09:00 GMT
Mary I. She barbecued a lot of Protestants.
As far as incompetent, probably Stephen or Henry VI. Both brought civil war on England. So did Charles I, but he did pay.
Edward VIII might have been if he had stayed. He thought Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread. Not sure if he could have caused any mischief if he had been on the throne in 1939 but he might have tried. He was a horse’s ass to boot
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 2, 2021 15:22:24 GMT
King John may be a cliched choice but he was pretty bad. Vortigern's existence is contested and he may be just a creation from the Arthurian legends but his reputation is not pleasant either. good call.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 2, 2021 20:57:35 GMT
Depends on how you look at it. King Stephen was hilariously inept, from a Scottish POV. He wasn't so much fun for the English themselves. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 2, 2021 21:03:48 GMT
Our border ran from the Ribble to the Tees for a while, due to his incompetence. Happy days! indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 2, 2021 21:25:10 GMT
England never had a real monster like Ivan the Terrible or a complete incompetent like Kaiser William II.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 3, 2021 3:18:01 GMT
England never had a real monster like Ivan the Terrible or a complete incompetent like Kaiser William II. The Irish may have some choice words about Oliver Cromwell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Mar 3, 2021 9:56:26 GMT
Edward II
James the Shite (James II)
George IV
Edward VIII
Charles I
Mary
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 9, 2021 16:07:55 GMT
Æthelred the Unready is a strong candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 10, 2021 13:24:30 GMT
George III, of course Richard the Lionhearted (big fake) and his creepy brother King John (asshole.) Queen Brandy Anne William IV another asshole Harold Big Loser Godwinson Bloody Mary Nice call. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Mar 12, 2021 8:50:14 GMT
Henry VIII. He destroyed so many beautiful abbeys and churches. Plus he was a ladykiller in he literal sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Mar 17, 2021 10:10:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Apr 12, 2021 14:11:32 GMT
Damn. Reading the comments here I’m embarrassed to admit I’m a multi-times-great-grandson of King John & Æthelred the Unready.  But yes, granddaddy King John was reputedly very inept. |
|
|
|
Post by alittlebirdie on Apr 14, 2021 23:21:10 GMT
Damn. Reading the comments here I’m embarrassed to admit I’m a multi-times-great-grandson of King John & Æthelred the Unready. But yes, granddaddy King John was reputedly very inept. Inheritance? Can the members come over for lunch/es? 
|
|
|
|
Post by alittlebirdie on Apr 14, 2021 23:24:53 GMT
I've been watching a few documentaries on England's rulers of late, they all seem terrible. How they got girls dreaming about belonging to a royal family is beyond me. 
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on May 4, 2021 8:28:37 GMT
The problem of course is history is written by the victors. For instance, Elizabeth I was just as bloodthirsty as her older sister, but because the former killed Catholics and the latter killed Protestants, Protestant England remembers one as Good Queen Bess and the other as Bloody Mary. Stephen is remembered as an incompetent usurper because he was succeeded by his rival's son but his claim was arguably stronger. James II is remembered as an inflexible tyrant, but he ended religious persecutions against not only Catholics, but Jews, Presbyterians and Quakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 5, 2021 21:06:26 GMT
The problem of course is history is written by the victors. For instance, Elizabeth I was just as bloodthirsty as her older sister, but because the former killed Catholics and the latter killed Protestants, Protestant England remembers one as Good Queen Bess and the other as Bloody Mary. Stephen is remembered as an incompetent usurper because he was succeeded by his rival's son but his claim was arguably stronger. James II is remembered as an inflexible tyrant, but he ended religious persecutions against not only Catholics, but Jews, Presbyterians and Quakers. That is true, Stephen may technically not have been an usurper as Matilda was not crown as queen when he took the throne. But he did steal her throne as she was the heir that her father Henry I had chosen to succeed him. But of course in 1135 it was unlikely that a woman would have been accepted as Queen of England. But i think is she had done things differently in 1141 when she captured Stephen in Lincoln she may have succeeded taking the throne. But that is a what if question. And its not just the fact that Matilda`s son took over after Stephen that he is remembered as being incompetent its also that his entire reign was a civil war.
|
|
