Most Hated British Monarchs - Page 7 - Historum

**botully** · August 20th, 2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunel

In truth, George III was one of the greatest British monarchs.

Wow. That doesn't say much for the rest of them, does it.

Mikestone8 · August 20th, 2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toomtabard

I disagree about George 111-the poor man was potty for most of his adult life. He suffered from a condition called Porpyhria which causes intermittent bouts of insanity, Craziness such as 1781 when King George III alighted from his coach in Windsor Great Park and started a conversation with an oak tree thinking that said tree was the King of Prussia!-so a little compassion would not go amiss regarding poor , mad, George III.

I think you mean 1789. He was insane for a few months in that year.
Thereafter, he was sane enough until 1811, when the Regency had to be set up.

He may well have been hated in America, but not particularly in England. As "Farmer George" he was quite popular for most of his reigbn.

Sokar Rostau · August 21st, 2012, 01:40 AM

Assuming I haven't mis-counted (and that's a real possibility), Edward II is the clear front-runner with 4 votes, with William I and Mary I both getting 3.

Looking through this thread, it's clear that there's a lot of different opinions, as there should be, because it is a pretty complex issue, for some monarchs more than others. I honestly thought it would be clearer that this, though. Only one person nominated Henry VIII, for example, but his church-related antics assuredly caused hatred in the realm, certainly enough to ignite a rebellion.

Since I can't edit the OP, perhaps this should be used as a nomination thread. Give it a few more days and then start a new thread with a poll of those nominated here. Then vote in the poll and explain yourself in that other thread... there hasn't been a lot of explanation going on here.

**Iolo** · August 21st, 2012, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maia

By the time the hundred years war had started, the Norman aristocracy was well on the way to being absorbed by the English. Yes, English was very heavily influenced by Norman French (at least in terms of vocabulary, not in grammar), but it wasn't wiped out, like most of the Celtic languages in England were by the Anglo-Saxons. English national identity survived the Norman conquest, Romano-British national identity, if there was such a thing, did not survive the Anglo-Saxon conquest. At least not in England.

It would have disappeared in two hundred years, without much doubt. The effects of war were opposite in the two societies, for obvious reasons. In Britain 'the enemy' spoke British, the language of the civilians, so it was dangerous for them to speak it. In France they spoke the language of the masters who were, by then, using Anglo-Saxon speakers do to the low-grade fighting, so it was difficult to shout, 'Down with the foreign swine' in foreign.

Maia · August 21st, 2012, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iolo

It would have disappeared in two hundred years, without much doubt. The effects of war were opposite in the two societies, for obvious reasons. In Britain 'the enemy' spoke British, the language of the civilians, so it was dangerous for them to speak it. In France they spoke the language of the masters who were, by then, using Anglo-Saxon speakers do to the low-grade fighting, so it was difficult to shout, 'Down with the foreign swine' in foreign.

By the time of the hundred years war, Middle English was well established, and the Norman rulers had long since learnt to speak it, in order to converse with their subjects. There is no reason to think it would have disappeared.

**Iolo** · August 21st, 2012, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maia

By the time of the hundred years war, Middle English was well established, and the Norman rulers had long since learnt to speak it, in order to converse with their subjects. There is no reason to think it would have disappeared.

That's why the language is half French, obviously. English is a very mixed language, and the official French that would have replaced it would doubtless have had some Germanic elements in it. Normans were practical people: they learned to speak Cymraeg and Irish too, when they needed something.

Maia · August 21st, 2012, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iolo

That's why the language is half French, obviously. English is a very mixed language, and the official French that would have replaced it would doubtless have had some Germanic elements in it. Normans were practical people: they learned to speak Cymraeg and Irish too, when they needed something.

In vocabulary, but not in grammar.

There was no move at all to make French the official language of England. Quite the reverse. Wasn't it about 1366 that language in law courts officially changed from French to English?

Yes, the Normans were practical people. That's why it never even crossed their minds to wipe out English and replace it with French.

**Iolo** · August 21st, 2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maia

In vocabulary, but not in grammar.

There was no move at all to make French the official language of England. Quite the reverse. Wasn't it about 1366 that language in law courts officially changed from French to English?

Yes, the Normans were practical people. That's why it never even crossed their minds to wipe out English and replace it with French.

It didn't have to be made the official language - it already was, as you say. The compromise language has, though, always favoured the foreign aristocracy, who are much better at it.

**General Michael Collins** · August 21st, 2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betgo

Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Anne I were unpopular in Ireland, but not in England. Edward I was unpopular in Scotland and Wales. Edward I and Elizabeth I are usually regarded among the greatest English monarchs.

Quite so, but popularity is a question of how they're seen. And that's how they are seen by me, and a lot of my countrymen & women. They may indeed, be very popular in England, but I don't really know. English Kings were still on my primary school curriculum when I was a child, so I'll weigh in with my two cents if nobody takes grave offence to it. I'm not being entirely serious, you understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

Would it be easier to ask which ones were liked?

Probably. I don't really know all that many that stuck out for me as being Great men & Kings, but one would be Henry V, from what I know of him. Elizabeth II is certainly an admirable monarch too, when it comes to it. A lot of them were very good at what they did, and that's what made them unpopular here, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy Atkins

English is the oldest literary vernacular in Europe isn't it?

Certainly not. Irish is the oldest literary vernacular in Europe, at about 900 years older than English.
I don't think Welsh was far behind either, though I could be corrected on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toomtabard

I suspect that apart from King Brian Boru the only King that Michael Collins likes is King Vidor, the Hollywood film maker.?

Very good, Toomtabard.

You should be aware though, that I am a believer in monarchy. The English Kings that I remember are generally the ones that stuck out for me in my study of Irish history. And that means that they were up to no good, and therefore unpopular!

That reminds me, add Victoria to that list o' mine...

**Iolo** · August 21st, 2012, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Michael Collins

Certainly not. Irish is the oldest literary vernacular in Europe, at about 900 years older than English.
I don't think Welsh was far behind either, though I could be corrected on that.

.

Correct. The problem with dating our literature is that it was written down so much later than it was composed, but these are undoubtedly the two oldest vernacular literatures in Europe.