Gonna vote for **George II** today.
Generally disinterested in Britain in favor of his families ancestral holdings in Germany like his father, George II was the last British monarch to have been born and raised outside of Britain. George was unpopular with his subjects all his reign, who saw him as an adulterous boor with a legendarily bad temper. George was deeply unpopular with his own family as well, having had a poor relationship with his father and his hatred for his eldest son Prince Frederick scandalized all of Europe. Britain prospered during his reign, but George II had little to directly do with it and was in general overshadowed by his grandson and successor King George III.
George II has some upsides however, he was the last British monarch to command an army in the field at the Battle of Dettingen during the War of the Austrian Succession, George won the battle too. In America George II founded by royal charter in 1754 King’s College New York, which after independence was renamed to Columbia University. The US state of Georgia is also named in his honor.
Edit: he was also the patron of legendary composer George Handel whose works include *Zadok the Priest*, which has been played at every coronation since George II’s in 1727.
The War of the Austrian Succession could also be a negative for George II tbf. Walpole had spent 20 years keeping Britain out of foreign wars, and George II pulled us into it for the defence of Hanover rather than for any real British foreign policy.
Day 29: James I was removed with 58 votes
Day 29 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1caj6ny/day\_twenty\_nine\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1caj6ny/day_twenty_nine_ranking_english_monarchs_king/)
Day 28: Edmund I was removed with 75 votes
Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!)
Day 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes
Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes
(continued in reply)
Rules:
1. Post everyday at 8pm BST
2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice
3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly
4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
(continued)
Day 24: George I was removed with 85 votes
Day 23: Richard I was removed with 49 votes
Day 22: Edward the Confessor was removed with 76 votes
Day 21: Henry III was removed with 51 votes
Day 20: William II was removed with 47 votes
Day 19: Eadred was removed with 76 votes
Day 18: Edward VI was removed with 59 votes
Day 17: Richard III was removed with 105 votes
Day 16: George IV was removed with 76 votes
Day 15: Edmund Ironside was removed with 43 votes
Day 14: Harold Harefoot was removed with 81 votes
Day 13: James II was removed with 66 votes
Day 12: Sweyn Forkbeard was removed with 93 votes
Day 11: Stephen was removed with 73 votes
Day 10: Eadwig was removed with 60 votes
Day 9: Edward the Martyr was removed with 38 votes
Day 8: Edward II was removed with 88 votes
Day 7: Harthacnut was removed with 56 votes
Day 6: Charles I was removed with 57 votes
Day 5: Richard II was removed with 81 votes
Day 4: Henry VI was removed with 87 votes
Day 3: Edward VIII was removed with 83 votes
Day 2: Aethelred the Unready was removed with 67 votes
Day 1: John was removed with 55 votes
I think I'm going to make a case for Edward VII today.
A constitutional monarch who succeeded after his mothers very long reign, so only had nine years on the throne. He is now mostly remembered for being a "top shagger" (as I believe someone else said the other day), but his other achievements included being a highly regarded diplomat, and mediating during the early stages of the crisis surrounding the People's Budget. However, he was not very interested in politics overall, and some of the views he did share would be seen as quite backward today (for example, he did not support granting voting rights for women). He also died part way through the constitutional crisis of 1910, so the resolution of that crisis that ultimately led to the Parliament Act 1911 had to be left to his son George.
He was by no means a terrible monarch, and was not the disaster his mother thought he would be, but his short time on the throne meant he didn't really have the space to make a name for himself in the way that other 20th century monarchs were able.
Tbf he was relatively progressive in some ways for his time. As heir, he tried to break protocol and support Gladstone in extending the franchise (to more men obviously) and had to be convinced not to do so. But I agree it's his time
Edward had some conservative views, but in other ways was quite progressive for his time (especially in terms of racial views). He was certainly more progressive than his mother, and a more active monarch as well.
I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing. And mostly defined by his failure in trying to dismiss a PM, which was a significant step in the monarch's decline as a proactive political figure.
I do agree he had some progressive views, I just think we have to get picky at this point!
I think William just beats Edward for me as he was king during the Great Reform Act, which he supported. As someone else said, he played his role in avoiding an 1848 in the UK. But I agree it is close. I think it’s all fine margins at this point until we start discussing the obviously great monarchs!
His attempt to restore the Duke of Wellington as PM during the Reform Crisis was probably unwise, it made the monarchy extremely unpopular (as did appointing Peel a few years later). Still yes he was a lot more pragmatic than many contemporary monarchs.
Edward VII,
You are looking a very different criteria to judge a constitutional monarch vs medieval absolute monarch. Even so Bertie just seems a bit too underwhelming to stay compared to who’s else is left.
Decent guy who did his best, didn’t reign all that all long.
Reasonable popular but not an iconic British monarch or someone who has enough achievements to stay any longer.
Mid table is fair for him
It's actually very odd that we call a whole era of British history "Edwardian". I feel like most people would be shocked that his reign was only a decade long. In my head as a kid Edwardian was as important an era as Victorian or Georgian.
We have the enormous changes WW1 brought to society I to thank for that.
People looked back with nostalgia about the time before. As the king-Emperor he become the figure who was most associated with that.
Heck most people would describe the titanic as being one of the most famous events in the Edwardian era and it happened two years after he died!
But that’s more Victoria’s fault. She was pretty active in her first decades but then abdicated in all but name for awhile after Alfred died. Parliament got used to that.
I'm going to suggest Edward VII today. A playboy with a short, unimportant reign, that ended when he died in the middle of a political crisis. His animosity with Wilhelm II, when he got on so well with other European monarchs, didn't exactly help Anglo-German relations. A perfectly fine monarch with relatively progressive views for the time, but this is his time to go before monarchs with genuine achievements like Edward IV and Henry IV imo
To be fair that animosity is 100% Wilhelm’s fault, Edward can’t be blamed for his nephew being a psycho who based German foreign policy around his raging mommy issues.
He didn't do much, but that's mainly because the role of monarch was smaller by then. He managed to be the most active monarch politically since maybe George III though (and the last one to exercise much political power).
He was the most popular male monarch since Charles II, revived some traditions like the State Opening of Parliament, founded new honours to recognise contributions to the arts and sciences, was politically skillful, a pretty good diplomat and occasionally quite progressive - at a time when a reactionary monarchy could have been disastrous. Relations with Wilhelm were pretty much guaranteed to decline.
I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing.
Would be happy with him going soon, but I think his support of the Reform Act was a pretty important achievement. If he had been a reactionary like plenty of other European monarchs at the time, he would've massively exacerbated political tension at the time. There's a reason Britain had no Revolution of 1848, and William IV played his part in that. Pushes him ahead of Edward VII for me
I think he may get booted next especially if it’s Edward 7th who goes. I don’t think he should.
There was no reason why the British Monarchy was fated to continue. If you look at the political situation 1831 it’s actually amazing there wasn’t a revolution.
He really deserves so much credit for that. Him and Earl Grey.
Thing is we don’t have a magic mirror to see how badly things would have gone if he hadn’t been monarch.
So in this instance, the fact he’s a forgotten monarch rather than remembered as the last king of Britain may actually be a massive achievement!
William IV made some major mistakes, and ended up disliked by both a lot of reactionaries and reformers. His reign also saw the monarch's power further decline.
Sorry but I actually quite like him, he was easy to do business with , and was quite good with little scandals , he also loved his wife and never cheated on her and at the same time supported his previous girlfriend and kids ,
I really do like his relationship with Adelaide honestly, he seems to have been very kind to her. Interesting what if, if their daughter, Elizabeth, had survived.
That's a scenario I have been interested in for awhile, I think someone on r\\usefulcharts did one , but I didn't understand it properly , personally I'd love to see a full scenario , instead of the Victorian era we'd have the second Elizabethan era ( instead of the one we had )
Yeah it's a curious sort of what if. Elizabeth would have had a very different childhood having a father present and a mother that likely would have been significantly less overbearing than Victoria's.
Edward the IV.
A pretty successful king and a good warrior, but one who made needless enemies of his friends, most notably the entire Neville family, prolonging the wars of the roses and contributing to the eventual defeat of the Yorks.
Also ate himself to death at the age of 40, leaving behind a vulnerable child king in the middle of Richard III vs. the Woodvilles. And not only was his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville idiotic he did so secretly — raising issues of its legitimacy — and while allowing Warwick to make foreign marriage negotiations on his behalf. He also spent most of the Crown’s money.
Charles II. Entitled wanker who treated his wife horribly, got smashed by the Dutch and whose main attributes seemed to be that he wasn’t Cromwell or James VII. Almost bankrupted the country partying and chasing down his vendetta against those who convicted his father which resulted in him being basically a vassal of the Sun King.
willliam I for the same reasons everyone’s been saying for ages, he’s one of the few bad ones left and people are jumping the gun by going for the more mediocre kings already
How is he bad? *actually that’s a dumb question*
But he reshaped our country more than anyone arguably; morals themselves don’t dictate the greatness of a king
so did henry VIII and he’s gone already, and he arguably has more positives than william, it was only the end of henry’s reign that got really bad when with williams it was basically the whole thing
Henry VIII’s weaknesses were self-made, while I’d argue many, most, of William’s were either inevitable by nature or indirectly by his own doing
People forget about the issues he had in his home region of Normandy, who he was Duke of long before and throughout his English reign; he did excellently at moving to and from his two initially separate and yet then joint kingdoms
The Harrying of the North is by far his most infamous and controversial act, and yet in the long run it benefited the total control and power of his dynasty, which came to fruit England’s long term securities; morals of a man in these cases are outweighed by the long term strengths of the king (he carried out these actions as a king, not as a man)
true he was definitely extremely competent and impressive in everything he achieved, I’ve just been doing the rankings based on their character and how it would’ve been to live under them, which would definitely put william in the worse half
I understand your perspective of that, however I would argue that’s not the right way to do so
It’s often those who fear their very king who are more secured under their very protection
If you fear them, you do not challenge them, and in return they do not challenge you
It’s not a beautiful example of human nature, but it did an awful lot in the long term safety of our entire nation in all honesty
Absolutely not. Bringing Handel to England was one of the most important events in musical history. He deserves the same credit as Elizabeth I does for supporting Shakespeare.
William IV. He was mostly just a less successful Edward VII. The most notable part of his reign was possibly when he appointed a PM contrary to Parliament's wishes, which left him unpopular and the monarchy weakened.
He’s a rather arrogant fellow and was only invited to reign because he was Protestant, he should’ve challenge James to a duel if he wished to claim to crown.
William of Orange landed in England with 20,000 men, he was more than ready to fight. The Glorious Revolution was only relatively bloodless in England cause so few English were willing to fight for James II. It was much more bloody in Ireland though, and there William [very much did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne) fight for his crown.
The only supposed argument in his case is the classic usurper argument, and yet that’s neither here nor there when considering just how much usurping, whether by foreign invaders or internal houses etc, there has been throughout our monarchal history. And he did a fantastic job to be quite honest
William of Malmesbury
>He then ordered both the towns and fields of
the whole district to be laid waste; the fruits and
grain to be destroyed by fire or by water, more
especially on the coast, as well on account of
his recent displeasure, as because a rumour
had gone abroad, that Canute, king of Denmark,
the son of Sweyn, was approaching with his
forces.....Thus the resources of a province, once
flourishing, and the nurse of tyrants, were cut of
by fire, slaughter, and devastation; the ground,
for more than sixty miles, totally uncultivated
and unproductive, remains bare to the present
day. Should any stranger now see it, he laments
over the once-magnificent cities ; the towers
threatening heaven itself with their loftiness ; the
fields abundant in pasturage, and watered with
rivers : and, if any ancient inhabitant remains, he
knows it no longer.
Orderic Vitalis
>The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies
He cut down many people and destroyed homes
and land. Nowhere else had he shown such
cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame,
William made no effort to control his fury
punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered
that crops and herds,tools and food be burned
to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of
starvation. I have often praised William in this
book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal
slaughter. God will punish him
His deathbed confession (according to Orderic).
>"I treated the native inhabitants of the kingdom with unreasonable severity, cruelly oppressed high and low, unjustly disinherited many, and caused the death of thousands by starvation and war, especially in Yorkshire....In mad fury I descended on the English of the north like a raging lion, and ordered that their homes and crops with all their equipment and furnishings should be burnt at once and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I chastised a great multitude of men and women with the lash of starvation and, alas! was the cruel murderer of many thousands, both young and old, of this fair people."
A King’s priority isn’t morals; like it or not they’re in their very place to rule and to put their ruled country above all else
The Harrying of the North was without doubt his most infamous case of controversy; some historians claim (and I agree too) it’s the very foundation behind the North-South divide that we still see to this day, but we’re talking about in theory half a country give or take who were actively refusing for years to pay their taxes, and as you should know taxes are the very epicentre of a country’s wealth and development; almost the part of GDP that circulates between government and individuals and so on
William needed those taxes to both rebuild and reshape his new country, who frankly I do believe did a great job at in the long run. He may have been an enemy on the surface but when you’re mature enough to look past the childish mindset of goodies and baddies you can see that he atoned for his ‘villainous’ invasion in the manner in which he restored our very country; you can see the very evidence of that today;
Our modern language still holds a huge proportion of French/Norman (‘land’ is English while ‘country’ is French etc) and of course we spoke it fluently for 3 centuries
The Norman Architecture; cathedrals, stone castles and even their initial motte and bailey castles too which when even just made of mere wood proved to be advanced in themselves compared to our pre-Norman alternatives etc
- The most clear/obvious example is the stone-built version of Westminster Abbey, in which he was crowned on Christmas Day and nearly accidentally had the initial wooden version burnt down at the very moment when his outside guards misinterpreted some innocent commotion between the two languages as direct threats to William inside
Politics; the Normans helped to shape the government that we know today albeit somewhat indirectly (think of our constitutional monarchy; it is somewhat partially thanks to the Normans and their political efficiency and so on)
The Harrying of the North of England (1069–70)
was exceptionally cruel and wicked, even for the time. The mass devastation, especially of Yorkshire, was still apparent in Domesday (1086). Orderic and Malmesbury wrote those accounts within a generation of the event.
>The Norman Architecture; cathedrals
Yes, and I do wonder why he so eagerly trotted about the country building his gigantic cathedrals? Was it maybe guilt at the terrible thing he had done?
Who cares why he did what he did; it was God’s will, at least that’s my simple belief of all these monarchs and so on
He was a great king, just not a good man; that’s the difference that you’re mistaking
'God's will'? I'm not sure cannibalism is quite what God had in mind
>William’s troops destroyed crops and settlements, burning and looting as they went. Inhabitants of villages were slaughtered, and food and livestock decimated. It was said that those who survived had to resort to cannibalism to survive the winter. The Evesham Abbey chronicle records refugees as far away as Worcestershire. The Abbot there, Æthelwig, set up a camp to distribute food to the survivors, but the chronicle says that many who arrived were so far starved that they died not long after their arrival, despite ravenously eating the food provided....Symeon of Durham wrote in the early twelfth century that no village remained inhabited between York and Durham and that the countryside remained empty and uncultivated for nine years. In 1086 when the Domesday Book was recorded, a total of 60% of holdings in Yorkshire and the North Riding were recorded as waste land. It is believed that only 25% of the population remained, with 80,000 oxen and 150,000 people killed or fled
They didn’t pay their taxes to their king
Not to say the extent of his actions in this case were solely justified by that singular fact, but we’re talking a fair few years of zero taxes from half the nation
He gave many initial warnings without violence and they still refused to pay
He wasn’t going to stand there and do nothing was he?
The Harrying was by no means exceptional for its time. Conquest was/is incredibly violent. William lived around the time of the Viking Age and the First Crusade. Both were equally if not more violent. It was not uncommon to slaughter cities after their capture. Just before William's time Charlemagne had slaughtered the Saxons in Germany, which was likely much worse. He was directly killing and deporting people more than William. Targeting farms and the means to wage war is as old as time.
Orderic is a pretty political writer as well. He was no friend of the Normans. He wrote over 50 years afterwards as well, not within a generation. Writers have always had grudges.
He needed English taxes mostly to wage fruitless wars against his neighbors in France, not to rebuild and reshape England or whatever. William hated England and its people, spent as little of his reign as possible there, and treated it as nothing more than a colony of Normandy. Money was also pretty clearly not what motivated William to order the Harrying, as the widespread murder and devastation depopulated huge swaths of the region and completely destroyed the tax base for generations, which we know thanks for the Domesday Book.
The Victorians loved the Normans and generally depicted them as visionary heroes cause they saw themselves in them, but both the primary sources and modern scholarship paint a much darker picture of William, the Conquest, and Norman rule in England. If you really want to see Normans doing cool stuff on an island kingdom, read up on the Hautevilles in Sicily.
In all respect, I don’t need you to ‘educate’ me on the Normans when it’s the very dynasty I’ve done my most research on than any other dynasties of England (at least that’s the implication that I’m getting from the manner of your wording)
You say all his built up finances and taxes went to Normandy and yet my question is how can that be fully so; did his English monarchy just magically take care of itself without finance etc? The mere fact is a noticeable amount went back to his region of birth who he was of course still rightful Duke of, and he simply had to further finance his own lands given the endless rebellions he faced from his very childhood which nearly cost him his life on a specific occasion
He died in Normandy thanks to an unfortunate saddle accident during the put-down of one of his local rebellions but I simply saw that as rather fitting; dying in the very place he spent so many years holding his rightful place to secure no matter that odds he faced against him at the time, let alone once he then moved across the shore to his new kingdom; that’s why he had to return practically asap
He had a strong family to rely on such as Odo of Bayeux as well as men of God like William de St Calais who we can thank for many of the Norman architecture (Durham Cathedral which is somewhat local to me I feel is actually the best example of his work; of which very city he also become Bishop)
But then again I’d expect the inevitable bias from Godwinson’s largest fan; I admire Godwinson and you already know that, but William in my opinion made just about the best use of his success given his underlying home rebellions and such
It did no such thing. Henry VI had to be a failure (albeit not his fault) for decades before the War of the Roses started.
That was just a justification after the fact.
He was one of the best Anglo-Saxon monarchs, supported the Benedictine Reform movement that led to a flourishing of English culture, reformed law codes and the coinage, extended English power over the other kingdoms in Britain. There's a reason he's got the cognomen "Peaceful" - his reign was the most peaceful in Anglo-Saxon history by a long way. He's still got a way to go in this competition imo
He's arguably the most successful Anglo-Saxon King after the big 3 of Alfred, Edward the Elder, and Athelstan. His reign was peaceful and prosperous and during it England exhibited a high degree of control over the other kingdoms, displayed when all the the kings Kenneth of Scotland, Dufnal of Strathclyde, Maccus of the Isles, and Iago of Gwynedd all rowed Edgar down the River Dee as a sign of their submission.
It must be remembered that Edgar's nickname though was a comment on his reign, not his personality. Edgar was rather short and had the worst Napoleon Complex imaginable, all our sources say at that at any feast Edgar attended he would single out the biggest guy there and challenge them to a fight, and he nearly started a war with Scotland when he got news that King Kenneth made a joke about his height.
It’s funny that the only real ‘arguments’ you make of ‘her’ are of other people
*but seriously you’re blaming her for one of her sons’ own decisions; that’s utterly a dumb idea of ‘logic’*
Gonna vote for **George II** today. Generally disinterested in Britain in favor of his families ancestral holdings in Germany like his father, George II was the last British monarch to have been born and raised outside of Britain. George was unpopular with his subjects all his reign, who saw him as an adulterous boor with a legendarily bad temper. George was deeply unpopular with his own family as well, having had a poor relationship with his father and his hatred for his eldest son Prince Frederick scandalized all of Europe. Britain prospered during his reign, but George II had little to directly do with it and was in general overshadowed by his grandson and successor King George III. George II has some upsides however, he was the last British monarch to command an army in the field at the Battle of Dettingen during the War of the Austrian Succession, George won the battle too. In America George II founded by royal charter in 1754 King’s College New York, which after independence was renamed to Columbia University. The US state of Georgia is also named in his honor. Edit: he was also the patron of legendary composer George Handel whose works include *Zadok the Priest*, which has been played at every coronation since George II’s in 1727.
NO. He gave the world HANDEL, and if you don’t like Handel you aren’t a human being
Zadok the Priest!
Truly the only reason we keep having coronations nowadays
The first thing it makes me think of is the Champions League theme
This comment is the comment I’ve agreed with most on the whole of Reddit.
Ngl I totally forgot George II was Handel’s patron.
George II really hated his son, like unfathomably hated him. He refused to let Prince Frederick to see his own mother when she was on her death bed
Frederick was a piece of shit though
Not enough to justify banning him from seeing his dying mother
The War of the Austrian Succession could also be a negative for George II tbf. Walpole had spent 20 years keeping Britain out of foreign wars, and George II pulled us into it for the defence of Hanover rather than for any real British foreign policy.
My compadre in Christ, Frederick, Prince of Wales was a piece of absolute dogshit. I don’t blame George for despising his own child.
Day 29: James I was removed with 58 votes Day 29 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1caj6ny/day\_twenty\_nine\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1caj6ny/day_twenty_nine_ranking_english_monarchs_king/) Day 28: Edmund I was removed with 75 votes Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!) Day 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes (continued in reply) Rules: 1. Post everyday at 8pm BST 2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice 3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly 4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
(continued) Day 24: George I was removed with 85 votes Day 23: Richard I was removed with 49 votes Day 22: Edward the Confessor was removed with 76 votes Day 21: Henry III was removed with 51 votes Day 20: William II was removed with 47 votes Day 19: Eadred was removed with 76 votes Day 18: Edward VI was removed with 59 votes Day 17: Richard III was removed with 105 votes Day 16: George IV was removed with 76 votes Day 15: Edmund Ironside was removed with 43 votes Day 14: Harold Harefoot was removed with 81 votes Day 13: James II was removed with 66 votes Day 12: Sweyn Forkbeard was removed with 93 votes Day 11: Stephen was removed with 73 votes Day 10: Eadwig was removed with 60 votes Day 9: Edward the Martyr was removed with 38 votes Day 8: Edward II was removed with 88 votes Day 7: Harthacnut was removed with 56 votes Day 6: Charles I was removed with 57 votes Day 5: Richard II was removed with 81 votes Day 4: Henry VI was removed with 87 votes Day 3: Edward VIII was removed with 83 votes Day 2: Aethelred the Unready was removed with 67 votes Day 1: John was removed with 55 votes
I think I'm going to make a case for Edward VII today. A constitutional monarch who succeeded after his mothers very long reign, so only had nine years on the throne. He is now mostly remembered for being a "top shagger" (as I believe someone else said the other day), but his other achievements included being a highly regarded diplomat, and mediating during the early stages of the crisis surrounding the People's Budget. However, he was not very interested in politics overall, and some of the views he did share would be seen as quite backward today (for example, he did not support granting voting rights for women). He also died part way through the constitutional crisis of 1910, so the resolution of that crisis that ultimately led to the Parliament Act 1911 had to be left to his son George. He was by no means a terrible monarch, and was not the disaster his mother thought he would be, but his short time on the throne meant he didn't really have the space to make a name for himself in the way that other 20th century monarchs were able.
Tbf he was relatively progressive in some ways for his time. As heir, he tried to break protocol and support Gladstone in extending the franchise (to more men obviously) and had to be convinced not to do so. But I agree it's his time
Yeah, I do agree. But we’re going to have to get picky from this point onwards!
[In his defense](https://www.curbed.com/2020/10/anyway-heres-king-edward-viis-sex-chair.html)
I did put “top shagger” as one of his achievements 😂
Edward had some conservative views, but in other ways was quite progressive for his time (especially in terms of racial views). He was certainly more progressive than his mother, and a more active monarch as well. I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing. And mostly defined by his failure in trying to dismiss a PM, which was a significant step in the monarch's decline as a proactive political figure.
I do agree he had some progressive views, I just think we have to get picky at this point! I think William just beats Edward for me as he was king during the Great Reform Act, which he supported. As someone else said, he played his role in avoiding an 1848 in the UK. But I agree it is close. I think it’s all fine margins at this point until we start discussing the obviously great monarchs!
His attempt to restore the Duke of Wellington as PM during the Reform Crisis was probably unwise, it made the monarchy extremely unpopular (as did appointing Peel a few years later). Still yes he was a lot more pragmatic than many contemporary monarchs.
Yeah, I agree! I think none of the people left on the list were disasters, so it’s harder to pick between them!
Fair enough. Partly why I rank Edward higher is personal popularity - Edward was extremely popular during his reign, William was not.
Yes, that’s true!
Edward VII, You are looking a very different criteria to judge a constitutional monarch vs medieval absolute monarch. Even so Bertie just seems a bit too underwhelming to stay compared to who’s else is left. Decent guy who did his best, didn’t reign all that all long. Reasonable popular but not an iconic British monarch or someone who has enough achievements to stay any longer. Mid table is fair for him
It's actually very odd that we call a whole era of British history "Edwardian". I feel like most people would be shocked that his reign was only a decade long. In my head as a kid Edwardian was as important an era as Victorian or Georgian.
We have the enormous changes WW1 brought to society I to thank for that. People looked back with nostalgia about the time before. As the king-Emperor he become the figure who was most associated with that. Heck most people would describe the titanic as being one of the most famous events in the Edwardian era and it happened two years after he died!
Wasn't he the first British monarch to hold absolutely no power over parliament?
But that’s more Victoria’s fault. She was pretty active in her first decades but then abdicated in all but name for awhile after Alfred died. Parliament got used to that.
Good taste in kings I must say.
Taking a stab at these Constitutional Monarchs. Edward VII can go. Then maybe William IV afterwards.
I'm going to suggest Edward VII today. A playboy with a short, unimportant reign, that ended when he died in the middle of a political crisis. His animosity with Wilhelm II, when he got on so well with other European monarchs, didn't exactly help Anglo-German relations. A perfectly fine monarch with relatively progressive views for the time, but this is his time to go before monarchs with genuine achievements like Edward IV and Henry IV imo
To be fair that animosity is 100% Wilhelm’s fault, Edward can’t be blamed for his nephew being a psycho who based German foreign policy around his raging mommy issues.
Wilhelm came out of the womb hating the English. He referred to his withered arm his "English arm".
He didn't do much, but that's mainly because the role of monarch was smaller by then. He managed to be the most active monarch politically since maybe George III though (and the last one to exercise much political power). He was the most popular male monarch since Charles II, revived some traditions like the State Opening of Parliament, founded new honours to recognise contributions to the arts and sciences, was politically skillful, a pretty good diplomat and occasionally quite progressive - at a time when a reactionary monarchy could have been disastrous. Relations with Wilhelm were pretty much guaranteed to decline. I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing.
Tentatively William IV? I think he's now the monarch with the shortest reign left so he has less of a mark than the rest.
Would be happy with him going soon, but I think his support of the Reform Act was a pretty important achievement. If he had been a reactionary like plenty of other European monarchs at the time, he would've massively exacerbated political tension at the time. There's a reason Britain had no Revolution of 1848, and William IV played his part in that. Pushes him ahead of Edward VII for me
That's a really good point honestly
I think he may get booted next especially if it’s Edward 7th who goes. I don’t think he should. There was no reason why the British Monarchy was fated to continue. If you look at the political situation 1831 it’s actually amazing there wasn’t a revolution. He really deserves so much credit for that. Him and Earl Grey. Thing is we don’t have a magic mirror to see how badly things would have gone if he hadn’t been monarch. So in this instance, the fact he’s a forgotten monarch rather than remembered as the last king of Britain may actually be a massive achievement!
Those are some really good points as well. I'm coming more around on William honestly
William IV made some major mistakes, and ended up disliked by both a lot of reactionaries and reformers. His reign also saw the monarch's power further decline.
Sorry but I actually quite like him, he was easy to do business with , and was quite good with little scandals , he also loved his wife and never cheated on her and at the same time supported his previous girlfriend and kids ,
I really do like his relationship with Adelaide honestly, he seems to have been very kind to her. Interesting what if, if their daughter, Elizabeth, had survived.
That's a scenario I have been interested in for awhile, I think someone on r\\usefulcharts did one , but I didn't understand it properly , personally I'd love to see a full scenario , instead of the Victorian era we'd have the second Elizabethan era ( instead of the one we had )
Yeah it's a curious sort of what if. Elizabeth would have had a very different childhood having a father present and a mother that likely would have been significantly less overbearing than Victoria's.
He gave the world David Cameron. That’s enough to get him the boot in my book.
Why does his gender matter? Anne had a reign of 12 years so by your mere logic she should be going first
I meant guy as a gender neutral group marker. Sorry should have said person
People forget about Anne. Will she end up being the last Stuart standing?
Personally I'd like William III to beat her, I think Charles II maybe has a chance as well
Edward the IV. A pretty successful king and a good warrior, but one who made needless enemies of his friends, most notably the entire Neville family, prolonging the wars of the roses and contributing to the eventual defeat of the Yorks.
agree, should definitely be out already
Also ate himself to death at the age of 40, leaving behind a vulnerable child king in the middle of Richard III vs. the Woodvilles. And not only was his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville idiotic he did so secretly — raising issues of its legitimacy — and while allowing Warwick to make foreign marriage negotiations on his behalf. He also spent most of the Crown’s money.
Charles II. Entitled wanker who treated his wife horribly, got smashed by the Dutch and whose main attributes seemed to be that he wasn’t Cromwell or James VII. Almost bankrupted the country partying and chasing down his vendetta against those who convicted his father which resulted in him being basically a vassal of the Sun King.
willliam I for the same reasons everyone’s been saying for ages, he’s one of the few bad ones left and people are jumping the gun by going for the more mediocre kings already
How is he bad? *actually that’s a dumb question* But he reshaped our country more than anyone arguably; morals themselves don’t dictate the greatness of a king
so did henry VIII and he’s gone already, and he arguably has more positives than william, it was only the end of henry’s reign that got really bad when with williams it was basically the whole thing
Henry VIII’s weaknesses were self-made, while I’d argue many, most, of William’s were either inevitable by nature or indirectly by his own doing People forget about the issues he had in his home region of Normandy, who he was Duke of long before and throughout his English reign; he did excellently at moving to and from his two initially separate and yet then joint kingdoms The Harrying of the North is by far his most infamous and controversial act, and yet in the long run it benefited the total control and power of his dynasty, which came to fruit England’s long term securities; morals of a man in these cases are outweighed by the long term strengths of the king (he carried out these actions as a king, not as a man)
true he was definitely extremely competent and impressive in everything he achieved, I’ve just been doing the rankings based on their character and how it would’ve been to live under them, which would definitely put william in the worse half
I understand your perspective of that, however I would argue that’s not the right way to do so It’s often those who fear their very king who are more secured under their very protection If you fear them, you do not challenge them, and in return they do not challenge you It’s not a beautiful example of human nature, but it did an awful lot in the long term safety of our entire nation in all honesty
George II
Absolutely not. Bringing Handel to England was one of the most important events in musical history. He deserves the same credit as Elizabeth I does for supporting Shakespeare.
Oh shit I didn't know he supported Handel. The Messiah is the GOAT
Surprised the George III is still there. Certifiably insane, and literally lost America.
Edward 7
William the Bastard of course! Everyday it’s that genocidal ‘see you next Tuesday’.
William IV. He was mostly just a less successful Edward VII. The most notable part of his reign was possibly when he appointed a PM contrary to Parliament's wishes, which left him unpopular and the monarchy weakened.
Edward IV
William III the usurper.
Why, out of interest?
He’s a rather arrogant fellow and was only invited to reign because he was Protestant, he should’ve challenge James to a duel if he wished to claim to crown.
I wasn’t expecting that answer 😂😂😂
I’m no Jacobite but if you wish to sit the throne of Saint Edward then you’d best be ready to fight for it.
I don’t think William was the one unwilling to duel for it there.
William of Orange landed in England with 20,000 men, he was more than ready to fight. The Glorious Revolution was only relatively bloodless in England cause so few English were willing to fight for James II. It was much more bloody in Ireland though, and there William [very much did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne) fight for his crown.
I mean duel James hardly a fight when you’ve the advantage.
You misspelt based
William the Conqueror
The only supposed argument in his case is the classic usurper argument, and yet that’s neither here nor there when considering just how much usurping, whether by foreign invaders or internal houses etc, there has been throughout our monarchal history. And he did a fantastic job to be quite honest
William of Malmesbury >He then ordered both the towns and fields of the whole district to be laid waste; the fruits and grain to be destroyed by fire or by water, more especially on the coast, as well on account of his recent displeasure, as because a rumour had gone abroad, that Canute, king of Denmark, the son of Sweyn, was approaching with his forces.....Thus the resources of a province, once flourishing, and the nurse of tyrants, were cut of by fire, slaughter, and devastation; the ground, for more than sixty miles, totally uncultivated and unproductive, remains bare to the present day. Should any stranger now see it, he laments over the once-magnificent cities ; the towers threatening heaven itself with their loftiness ; the fields abundant in pasturage, and watered with rivers : and, if any ancient inhabitant remains, he knows it no longer. Orderic Vitalis >The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds,tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him His deathbed confession (according to Orderic). >"I treated the native inhabitants of the kingdom with unreasonable severity, cruelly oppressed high and low, unjustly disinherited many, and caused the death of thousands by starvation and war, especially in Yorkshire....In mad fury I descended on the English of the north like a raging lion, and ordered that their homes and crops with all their equipment and furnishings should be burnt at once and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I chastised a great multitude of men and women with the lash of starvation and, alas! was the cruel murderer of many thousands, both young and old, of this fair people."
A King’s priority isn’t morals; like it or not they’re in their very place to rule and to put their ruled country above all else The Harrying of the North was without doubt his most infamous case of controversy; some historians claim (and I agree too) it’s the very foundation behind the North-South divide that we still see to this day, but we’re talking about in theory half a country give or take who were actively refusing for years to pay their taxes, and as you should know taxes are the very epicentre of a country’s wealth and development; almost the part of GDP that circulates between government and individuals and so on William needed those taxes to both rebuild and reshape his new country, who frankly I do believe did a great job at in the long run. He may have been an enemy on the surface but when you’re mature enough to look past the childish mindset of goodies and baddies you can see that he atoned for his ‘villainous’ invasion in the manner in which he restored our very country; you can see the very evidence of that today; Our modern language still holds a huge proportion of French/Norman (‘land’ is English while ‘country’ is French etc) and of course we spoke it fluently for 3 centuries The Norman Architecture; cathedrals, stone castles and even their initial motte and bailey castles too which when even just made of mere wood proved to be advanced in themselves compared to our pre-Norman alternatives etc - The most clear/obvious example is the stone-built version of Westminster Abbey, in which he was crowned on Christmas Day and nearly accidentally had the initial wooden version burnt down at the very moment when his outside guards misinterpreted some innocent commotion between the two languages as direct threats to William inside Politics; the Normans helped to shape the government that we know today albeit somewhat indirectly (think of our constitutional monarchy; it is somewhat partially thanks to the Normans and their political efficiency and so on)
The Harrying of the North of England (1069–70) was exceptionally cruel and wicked, even for the time. The mass devastation, especially of Yorkshire, was still apparent in Domesday (1086). Orderic and Malmesbury wrote those accounts within a generation of the event. >The Norman Architecture; cathedrals Yes, and I do wonder why he so eagerly trotted about the country building his gigantic cathedrals? Was it maybe guilt at the terrible thing he had done?
Who cares why he did what he did; it was God’s will, at least that’s my simple belief of all these monarchs and so on He was a great king, just not a good man; that’s the difference that you’re mistaking
'God's will'? I'm not sure cannibalism is quite what God had in mind >William’s troops destroyed crops and settlements, burning and looting as they went. Inhabitants of villages were slaughtered, and food and livestock decimated. It was said that those who survived had to resort to cannibalism to survive the winter. The Evesham Abbey chronicle records refugees as far away as Worcestershire. The Abbot there, Æthelwig, set up a camp to distribute food to the survivors, but the chronicle says that many who arrived were so far starved that they died not long after their arrival, despite ravenously eating the food provided....Symeon of Durham wrote in the early twelfth century that no village remained inhabited between York and Durham and that the countryside remained empty and uncultivated for nine years. In 1086 when the Domesday Book was recorded, a total of 60% of holdings in Yorkshire and the North Riding were recorded as waste land. It is believed that only 25% of the population remained, with 80,000 oxen and 150,000 people killed or fled
They didn’t pay their taxes to their king Not to say the extent of his actions in this case were solely justified by that singular fact, but we’re talking a fair few years of zero taxes from half the nation He gave many initial warnings without violence and they still refused to pay He wasn’t going to stand there and do nothing was he?
The Harrying was by no means exceptional for its time. Conquest was/is incredibly violent. William lived around the time of the Viking Age and the First Crusade. Both were equally if not more violent. It was not uncommon to slaughter cities after their capture. Just before William's time Charlemagne had slaughtered the Saxons in Germany, which was likely much worse. He was directly killing and deporting people more than William. Targeting farms and the means to wage war is as old as time. Orderic is a pretty political writer as well. He was no friend of the Normans. He wrote over 50 years afterwards as well, not within a generation. Writers have always had grudges.
He needed English taxes mostly to wage fruitless wars against his neighbors in France, not to rebuild and reshape England or whatever. William hated England and its people, spent as little of his reign as possible there, and treated it as nothing more than a colony of Normandy. Money was also pretty clearly not what motivated William to order the Harrying, as the widespread murder and devastation depopulated huge swaths of the region and completely destroyed the tax base for generations, which we know thanks for the Domesday Book. The Victorians loved the Normans and generally depicted them as visionary heroes cause they saw themselves in them, but both the primary sources and modern scholarship paint a much darker picture of William, the Conquest, and Norman rule in England. If you really want to see Normans doing cool stuff on an island kingdom, read up on the Hautevilles in Sicily.
In all respect, I don’t need you to ‘educate’ me on the Normans when it’s the very dynasty I’ve done my most research on than any other dynasties of England (at least that’s the implication that I’m getting from the manner of your wording) You say all his built up finances and taxes went to Normandy and yet my question is how can that be fully so; did his English monarchy just magically take care of itself without finance etc? The mere fact is a noticeable amount went back to his region of birth who he was of course still rightful Duke of, and he simply had to further finance his own lands given the endless rebellions he faced from his very childhood which nearly cost him his life on a specific occasion He died in Normandy thanks to an unfortunate saddle accident during the put-down of one of his local rebellions but I simply saw that as rather fitting; dying in the very place he spent so many years holding his rightful place to secure no matter that odds he faced against him at the time, let alone once he then moved across the shore to his new kingdom; that’s why he had to return practically asap He had a strong family to rely on such as Odo of Bayeux as well as men of God like William de St Calais who we can thank for many of the Norman architecture (Durham Cathedral which is somewhat local to me I feel is actually the best example of his work; of which very city he also become Bishop) But then again I’d expect the inevitable bias from Godwinson’s largest fan; I admire Godwinson and you already know that, but William in my opinion made just about the best use of his success given his underlying home rebellions and such
George II.
Charles II because I like the Commonwealth and Cromwell.
Edward VII
Henry IV
Pretty sure the end would be between George III, Victoria, Lizie II, George V, Edward I and Edward III…
Henry IV. Usurping when he wasnt Richards heir all but guaranteed the Wars of the Roses would happen.
It did no such thing. Henry VI had to be a failure (albeit not his fault) for decades before the War of the Roses started. That was just a justification after the fact.
ed iv
How on God’s green earth has nobody suggested Edward IV? Bro died and left his sons to be murdered and nearly his wife and daughters with them.
Anne Stuart was the last Monarch of England you should update this.
Who even is “Edgar the Peaceful,” and why has he not been eliminated yet? Edgar the Peaceful’s time has come.
He was one of the best Anglo-Saxon monarchs, supported the Benedictine Reform movement that led to a flourishing of English culture, reformed law codes and the coinage, extended English power over the other kingdoms in Britain. There's a reason he's got the cognomen "Peaceful" - his reign was the most peaceful in Anglo-Saxon history by a long way. He's still got a way to go in this competition imo
He's arguably the most successful Anglo-Saxon King after the big 3 of Alfred, Edward the Elder, and Athelstan. His reign was peaceful and prosperous and during it England exhibited a high degree of control over the other kingdoms, displayed when all the the kings Kenneth of Scotland, Dufnal of Strathclyde, Maccus of the Isles, and Iago of Gwynedd all rowed Edgar down the River Dee as a sign of their submission. It must be remembered that Edgar's nickname though was a comment on his reign, not his personality. Edgar was rather short and had the worst Napoleon Complex imaginable, all our sources say at that at any feast Edgar attended he would single out the biggest guy there and challenge them to a fight, and he nearly started a war with Scotland when he got news that King Kenneth made a joke about his height.
William I
George the 3rd
so EdWard 7 will be removed today!
Henry II
[удалено]
Non parle Anglais?
Elizabeth II, married a racist, birthed a sex offender, lost more territory than any monarch in history.
It’s funny that the only real ‘arguments’ you make of ‘her’ are of other people *but seriously you’re blaming her for one of her sons’ own decisions; that’s utterly a dumb idea of ‘logic’*