The worst King of England and the best kings of England ? - Page 4 - Historum

**Chookie** · April 29th, 2010, 12:37 PM

I'm a bit ticked off with thread about the worst/best Kings of England. Why?
Because the the title of the thing ensures that it has a cut-off date of 1603. Has that stopped anyone? No.

Yet again I say it, the English royal line deleted itself in 1603. Anything after that is "British" and should be treated as such.

Mind you, Oliver Cromwell had a good idea....

**NewModelSoldier** · April 29th, 2010, 12:44 PM

I've always had a soft spot for Charles II, I find his roguish nature a bit of a balm after the vicious Puritanism of the Cromwell administration...obviously my username suggests that I'm a fan of the Parliamentarians, I also dislike Cromwell quite a bit.

Sorry Chookie!

I will then say....Edward III for best, and John for worst.

**Naomasa298** · April 29th, 2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chookie

I'm a bit ticked off with thread about the worst/best Kings of England. Why?
Because the the title of the thing ensures that it has a cut-off date of 1603. Has that stopped anyone? No.

Yet again I say it, the English royal line deleted itself in 1603. Anything after that is "British" and should be treated as such.

Mind you, Oliver Cromwell had a good idea....

To be more precise, it should be 1707. Prior to that, the crowns of England and Scotland were separate. They were held at the same time by a single person through lineage, but could, in theory, have devolved to two different people (as per Great Britain/Hanover or Sweden/Norway). You'll probably know more about this than I do, but the Act of Security of 1704 could have enabled this to happen.

David Vagamundo · April 30th, 2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

Would you not say the same holds true for Victoria? Even more so, in fact, since she had very few real powers to exercise.

Naomasa--I don't think we disagree. I mean that you have to judge the monarch by what was accomplished during the reign, and that means looking at the advisors as well as the person of the monarch.

Elizabeth I failed in the most important duty of a monarch in a dynastic system: to extend the dynasty. Yes, I know there were reasons why she never married, but still. . .

David Vagamundo · April 30th, 2010, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chookie

I'm a bit ticked off with thread about the worst/best Kings of England. Why?
Because the the title of the thing ensures that it has a cut-off date of 1603. Has that stopped anyone? No.

Chookie--thought about that after I'd put up my lists.

princessX · April 30th, 2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nellrowlands

Also, I gotta slightly disagree with those who stuck Elizabeth on the best list. Elizabeth was not the greatest ruler, her advisors were! Here desicions were made by the men behind her alot of the time, such as Cecil and Dudley, especially at the start of her reign, although she did stand up impressively against the Spanish Armada.

I agree - she did well as a woman in a male-dominated society, but as you say, she relied heavily on her advisers and we're as familiar with them as we are with her. I don't think she was all that remarkable.

daftone · April 30th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princessX

I agree - she did well as a woman in a male-dominated society, but as you say, she relied heavily on her advisers and we're as familiar with them as we are with her. I don't think she was all that remarkable.

Isn't that the sign of a good leader though? Someone who listens to advisers who know more than you do rather than just go your own way because you can with no thought to the consequences.

I've seen George the III on both the best and the worst list. Didn't he lose the colonies? That would seem like a bad mark for his record.

princessX · April 30th, 2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daftone

Isn't that the sign of a good leader though? Someone who listens to advisers who know more than you do rather than just go your own way because you can with no thought to the consequences.

Sure it is - she just seems to get more credit than most because of her gender, in my opinion. I'm just not a fan

**Chookie** · April 30th, 2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

To be more precise, it should be 1707. Prior to that, the crowns of England and Scotland were separate. They were held at the same time by a single person through lineage, but could, in theory, have devolved to two different people (as per Great Britain/Hanover or Sweden/Norway).

No, it shouldn't, the English crown was deserted by the death without issue of Elizabeth Tudor. The fact that it was offered to James VI was more to do with internal English politics than anything else. But Elizabeth's death meant that England could not function as a political entity (yes, I know it's nonsense, but a "Realm" needed a "Monarch").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

You'll probably know more about this than I do, but the Act of Security of 1704 could have enabled this to happen.

You're quite right here. In fact that was likely to have been the eventual outcome had the Scottish "ruling class" (read: greedy bastards) not sold out for English gold. To be fair to them, which I don't really want to be, they didn't have much choice..........

**Sargon of Akkad** · April 30th, 2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chookie

I'm a bit ticked off with thread about the worst/best Kings of England. Why?
Because the the title of the thing ensures that it has a cut-off date of 1603. Has that stopped anyone? No.

Yet again I say it, the English royal line deleted itself in 1603. Anything after that is "British" and should be treated as such.

Mind you, Oliver Cromwell had a good idea....

Well, not really. The British monarchs are still the kings and queens of England. They are just the monarchs of other countries too.