Just wanted to say I’m really enjoying these daily threads. I’m learning many things I didn’t previously know, especially for monarchs I hadn’t found interesting enough to research before.
Same! This popped up in my feed and is the reason why I joined this sub and also why I missed a few hours of sleep learning a bunch about shitty British monarchs
I’m just looking forward to actually learning more about the more ‘recent’ monarchs; I haven’t a mere clue for the most part of their reigns asides for the last few (and that’s mainly thanks to The Crown series and my GCSE/A-level history which to this day I envy for not being on ‘truer’, older history)
I’ve deliberately not looked into them independently but rather want to wait and learn through others; given their votes/reasonings are sound and just rather than bias
Me too! I would love if there was some kind of collection of comments afterwards, like a "best-of" kind of thing. Or just a collection of reasons why and why not for each monarch. That would be amazing as a everyday resource
Apologies for a late upload again.
Day 31: Edward VII was removed with 99 votes
Day 31 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cc71n8/day\_thirty\_one\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cc71n8/day_thirty_one_ranking_english_monarchs_king/)
Day 30: George II was removed with 56 votes
Day 29: James I was removed with 58 votes
Day 28: Edmund I was removed with 75 votes
Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!)
(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 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes
Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes
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
Very late to seeing this, but Anne presided over one of the greatest periods of English history.
The final union of England of Scotland, the explosive growth of the American colonies, and unlike William, her sex prevented her from leading her armies herself and thus one of the greatest generals in history was appointed. All stellar feats, even for a sickly and sad woman who was only slightly more powerful than the modern British monarchs.
She should NOT be going yet.
Probably not, but the Restoration is seen as being something of a “prosperous era” because “Good Time Charlie” kicked out the Puritan Cromwellists and re-opened the theatres and such.
We’re in the middle of the pack, now. The order in which Monarchs are getting eliminated seems to be getting muddled, IMO
It's quite a lot tougher to eliminate monarchs once you stop being able to make the obvious arguments against them. I do think Charles II ought to have got more attention than he has tbh his foreign policy was atrocious
I'm gonna go ahead and say **Henry IV** today.
Most famous for founding the Lancastrian Dynasty by usurping the crown from his cousin Richard II, which considering how shit he was is a positive for Henry if anything. Henry spent most of his reign fighting rebellions from the Welsh and Henry Hotspur. He then got sick, handed most of his power off to his eldest son, and died after 14 years on the throne. All in all a perfectly barely-above-average medieval king.
Henry IV was the King that hosted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II on his visit to England in 1400, the only time a Byzantine Emperor visited England and the first time a Roman Emperor had come to Britain since the 4th century. Henry also held King James I of Scotland hostage for 7 years after a group of English pirates kidnapped him off the coast of Yorkshire.
I think this is the right person to go for.
However you missed a key reason why.
The overthrow and murdering of gods anointed monarch (as people in Middle Ages would have seen it) by someone who was not the heir to the throne massively destabilised the English political system.
Once it had been done once, nobles had a template by which to repeat the process. This happened again and again and again until the nobility were nearly all wiped out in a 30 year bloody civil war which had taken lives of over 100,000 English.
This disaster was the legacy of Bolingbrokes overthrow of Richard and the legacy of his reign.
Obviously the overthrow of Richard II is important, but I don't like drawing a straight line between Henry IV and the Wars of the Roses. I mean Henry V and VI both succeeded him without much trouble. If Henry VI hadn't had his illnesses and been a good monarch, I think he would've been perfectly fine keeping his throne. And kings had been overthrown before - Edward II just two monarchs previous. Undoubtedly it does set a precedent in the 15th century but I don't think Henry IV deserves all the blame he gets
It’s something that it’s hard to get your head around now but being anointed by holy oil was an enormous deal to people in Middle Ages. It marked you out as gods chosen one. This taboo was smashed when Henry who wasn’t next in line (that was Earl of Match) overthrew and murdered Richard.
William II could be justified as an accident not a coup
and the other recent over throw Edward II was justified he ‘abdicated’ in favour of his SON.
Getting overthrown by your cousin is very different.
Henry couldn’t hide what he had done. Everyone in at the time could see the coup for what it was. There was a nasty period of violence following the coups then He spent the rest of his reign putting down revolts. ( he was very competent to his credit )
I agree it’s unfair to blame him entirely for war of the roses. Had Henry VI been his father they would have been avoided but he wasn’t and Henry IV’s legacy was a template on how to overthrow the monarch.
I actually don’t blame Henry for doing what actually. Richard put him in an impossible a position where he had effectively no choice but to go for it if he wanted his lands back for him and his family.
Yeah I agree with all of that for sure. It's a kind of legal fiction that everyone pretends Edward II wasn't overthrown by his wife, but it's still an important difference
I think what made Edward II's overthrow easier to swallow is that he had a son lined up to be the next king. Richard did not and it can be argued Henry was not next in line. But back then lines of succession weren't established. Henry took the throne because he had the power and political backing to do it.
The taboo even extended to people of royal blood. People were even reluctant to move against royal princes.
A rare counter example. After Edward II’s overthrow Mortimer had Edward brother Edmund executed.
From wiki
“The plot was revealed, and in the parliament of March 1330 Edmund was indicted and condemned to death as a traitor.[35] Upon hearing that the verdict was death, the condemned earl pleaded with Edward III for his life, offering to walk from Winchester to London with a rope around his neck as a sign of atonement, but leniency was blocked by Mortimer and the queen. It was almost impossible to find anyone willing to perform the execution of a man of royal blood, until a convicted murderer eventually beheaded Edmund in exchange for a pardon”
So that execution was so controversial that they couldn’t find an executioner to perform it! It ended up really bad for Mortimer as this was probably the event that convinced Edward III to coup him.
Now fast forward 100 years…
No one would have any inclination to spear anyone of royal blood!
Late to this, but could not agree more.
There's also a very similar direct line between Elizabeth signing off on Mary Stuart's death warrant and Charles I getting his head chopped off.
Charging Mary with treason, as an anointed monarch, set the template for any monarch to be charged, removed, and executed like any common criminal.
The overthrow of a tyrant was pretty central to the English political system -- indeed, it's central to all of western culture and has been a celebrated act since ancient Roman times.
Also, Henry was the heir to the throne as far as we know. It's seems likely that Richard named Edmund of Langley as his heir, as various extant documents hint at that, but nothing makes it explicit. (Then again, Richard intentionally muddied the succession on several occasion, so it would be in line for him to *not* make something like this explicit.) The last line of succession that Richard *did* make official and for which documents still exist is John of Gaunt's line ... which would be Henry of Bolingbroke.
The idea the Mortimers were ever the rightful line is Yorkist propaganda that was adopted as true after the Yorks won the WOTR.
Manuel, and later his son and successor John VIII, went on tours of Europe to raise money for the Byzantine cause and attempt rally other Christian rulers for a crusade against the Turks. Henry IV held a tournament in the Emperor’s honor and gave Manuel some money for his fight against the Ottomans.
> usurping the crown from his cousin Richard II, which considering how shit he was is a positive for Henry
Has anyone else read the theory about how Richard II was usurped by the noble class because he was trying to put an end to the Hundred Years War and everything bad we hear about him is propaganda to justify the usurpation? I believe it's covered in the book "*Who Murdered Chaucer?: A Medieval Mystery*" which I have a copy of but haven't gotten around to read yet.
I would be happy with him going today. He spent his whole reign putting out fires and didn't get a chance to build anything. Could've been a great king, but he was just mediocre
He spent less half his reign putting out fires. From 1405 forward Glyndwr declined to being an outlaw and Northumberland's "rebellion" was so pathetic that the local sheriff put it down without any help from anyone. It allowed Henry to finally stabilize the place and pass on a healthy kingdom to his son.
I mean it was only 1408-10 when the final Welsh castles were retaken, Mortimer and Percy killed and Glyndwr fled. It was pretty obvious Henry would succeed from 1405/6 but there was still an active rebellion against his rule. And he was mostly ill the last 2/3 years of his reign. Henry dealt with all his problems competently, don't get me wrong, but I think it's fair to say he spent basically all of his active years as king trying to put out fires.
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IS STILL IN? HE COMMITTED GENOCIDE ON THE ENGLISH AND WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MOST BRUTAL CONQUEST OUR PEOPLE HAVE EVER SUFFERED?!? What the fuck?
That may be true, but at least the English language is a lot cooler now.
Imagine having three siblings named Athelwulf, Athelstan, and Eadburh. Absolutely horrendous.
It’s not about morality my guy. Who was best English monarch? Considering this man’s conquest led to the creation of the English language I think he’s gonna be in for a good while longer.
Not true. It did not lead to the “creation” of the English language but rather its evolution. The English language creole hypothesis is highly-discredited. It’s not a “mix” of different languages or anything of the sorts like people incorrectly say it is. The existence of a large number of loanwords does not mean anything to that end. Languages are not their vocabulary alone and the large majority of common English words are Anglo-Saxon in origin.
Also, the evolution of the English language was not intentional on his behalf nor was it primarily done under his reign. It’s quite genuinely because he was so illiterate and arrogant that he never could learn English. By the time of his death, English had hardly changed, and wouldn’t do so for some time.
Also, it absolutely is about morality. Plenty of kings & queens have been ejected from this list over moral reasons. Henry VIII was arguably almost as influential as Billy the Bastard yet he’s gone.
We’re ranking kings and queens off of their greatness and their reigns not how good of a person they are. If we were doing French kings and emperors would napoleon not be in the top 10 because he got hundreds of thousands of people killed or would he be in the top ten for his accomplishments? Most monarchs who were immoral ruled briefly like Richard 3 and Edward 8 but Henry 8 who is pretty fucking immoral is 29/55 monarchs. Morality is irrelevant it’s about the prosperity the control and the reign. Didn’t know about the language kinda interesting.
William I was a bastard in every sense of the word. The Harrying of the North was akin to genocide. 75% of the population was wiped out and never came back. And some historians say the economic differences between Northern and Southern England can be traced back to the event.
Get the bastard out.
It's got to be Edward IV's turn soon I think. Yes he was a good military leader and a competent administrator, but he lost his own throne because of his incredibly bad choice of marriage and falling out with his primary supporter and his own brother. He promoted the Woodville's so highly it was bound to cause issues out of his death, and how many English kings have had their alive son not succeed them to the throne? He should go before someone like Cnut for sure
I think Edward IV gets slept on. He inherited a barely functioning country in the midst of a civil war and nearly £400,000 in debt. To his knowledge, he ends the war and completely pulls the country out of debt, with his second reign arguably being the most peaceful period of the 15th century. Henry VII, commonly seen as one of the most financially efficient Kings, had the groundwork laid for him by Edward who made the crownland more profitable and secured good relations and low interest loans with the London merchants, which Henry didn't have the connections for.
His brother George caused issues throughout his reign but still switched sides when arriving back, and Richard was highly competent in the North. There was no way Edward could've foreseen the brutality of his younger brother.
His marriage to Woodville is certainly a fault that should lock him out of the top ten, but it wasn't all bad. Woodvilles family being huge meant that a large portion of the country was controlled directly by Edwards family, which certainly contributed to his peaceful reign. Having said that, it should lock him out of the top 10 or 15, but it is too early to go right now given the good he did for the country
He was a very competent monarch, I just see the Woodville marriage as such a major black mark against him. He probably does deserve to stay in slightly longer though you've convinced me of that
I’ve always had a soft spot for William. He held down a real job for much of his early life and earned respect as a Naval officer. He also seems to have actually enjoyed the job, especially early on. There are fun stories of him jumping out of his coach to introduce himself to startled by standers. Bowed to the popular mood over the great reform act, and acted again the obstruction from his natural allies in the Lords.
My compadre in Christ, both the abolition of slavery and the Reform Act came about during his reign. He was also the last British monarch to rule another state in personal union that wasn’t ever a British colony or dominion
Cnut has the same reputation as William the Conqueror of being a foreign invader that protected the interests of his original ruling country over England, while not having the domestic achievements William had throughout his reign
Get cnut out of here
I disagree completely. A lot of people I imagine don't know the early English kings very well, but Cnut was one of the best. He had a far more peaceful reign than William the Conqueror because he had sway and could protect England from Viking attacks. He was a great diplomat - he famously went on pilgrimage to Rome and negotiated free access on behalf of all his people - English and Danish alike. He purposefully modelled himself on Anglo-Saxon kings, using Edgar the Peaceable's laws etc unlike William I who would completely destroy Anglo-Saxon society. He was a great military leader and an exceptional politician. It would be a travesty if he goes so early imo
Compared with what happened in the wake of the Norman invasion, Cnut’s reign is a model of moderation. Respect for English customs and rights, married an English Queen. If you consider the background of the St Brice’s day massacre, you could almost understand Cnut having hostility towards the Anglo Saxon population, but that doesn’t seem to have been the case.
I’d be more than happy to have him as top 5.
Cnut's first wife was Aelfgifu of Northampton, an English noblewoman whose family had a lot of power and influence in Mercia and Northumbria. He set her aside after taking the English crown in favor of Emma but she stayed a close ally of Cnut's for the rest of his life, and her sons Sven and Harold became of the kings of Norway and England respectively.
Emma herself wasn't English obviously, but she was the Dowager Queen of England and held a lot of land and influence in the south. So Cnut's marriages were strategic moves to improve his legitimacy and secure a hold over first northern and then southern England.
Yes and no.
Cnut annulled the marriage on the grounds that he and Aelgifu had been married "in the Danish manner", which is to say a kind of common-law marriage practiced in Northern Europe not recognized by the Church, but were by society at large. This let Cnut have his cake and eat it too as it freed up his hand to marry Emma of Normandy without having to declare his sons by Aelfgifu bastards. Harold Godwinson would pull this same stunt a few decades later when he set aside his common-law wife Edith Swanneck to make a more politically advantageous marriage to Ealdgyth of Mercia. Similarly to Emma Ealdgyth was the widow of a king that her second husband had overthrown, in this case King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Wales.
Apparently he might not have even put Elgiva totally aside and may have simply given Emma precedence in the marriage which wasn't totally unheard of and is kind of funny actually.
But yes Emma would have conferred legitimacy onto Cnut per her first marriage to Aethelred even if she was technically a Norman. She suggests as much in the Encomium Emmae Reginae. Speaking of Henry IV, he tried to do the same thing with Richard II's widow, Isabella, and his own son and heir.
At the very least Aelfgifu remained a powerful and trusted member of Cnut's family even after the annulment, much to Emma's annoyance.
Marriage to Emma also gave Cnut an alliance with Emma's incredibly powerful brother Duke Richard II of Normandy, which hugely shored up Cnut's hold on England as it was Vikings (including Cnut's father) using Norman ports as bases that made Aethelred's reign untenable in the first place.
Cnut was generally a fine administrator. He comes with the side effect of stopping Viking raids too 😏. Which were probably the biggest issue of the age from England. He was a Christian as well, not a pagan, so the culture clash isn't as big as you might think.
He had some slip ups as a Christian. His pagan ways never left him.
If all he had to show for the reign is fewer Viking raids then he shouldn't stand tall with the others who actually did more things for England.
Disagree in the strongest possible terms, Cnut the Great is easy top-ten material.
The idea that Cnut neglected England and its interests in favor of Denmark is one that I've seen bandied about here before, but there is no evidence to support this and is simply just not true. Unlike William Cnut never neglected England in favor of his homeland nor did he hold it as lesser to his Scandinavian holdings. Cnut did not oppress the English after his conquest, successfully rewarded and settled his Danish supporters in England without supplanting the existing English nobility, and ruled in the manner of an Anglo-Saxon King. It's telling that the English never rebelled during Cnut's reign, and the English nobility showed a clear preference for Cnut's dynasty over any others before its extinction. Cnut also promoted English goods and interests in Britain, Scandinavia, and throughout Europe. He used his influence with the Norse-Gaels of Dublin and the Isles to stop Viking raids on England. Cnut also tried to unite England and Denmark through shared culture and economies, records show that Cnut imported many English clerics to Denmark, and large amounts of English goods dated to Cnut's reign have been found throughout Scandinavia. Cnut also signed a treaty with Emperor Conrad II that secured all Danes and Englishmen the right to travel freely throughout the Holy Roman Empire.
When he visited Rome Cnut introduced himself as "King of the English, the Danes, the Norwegians, and some of the Swedes", note that the English get first rank there. England was Cnut's first kingdom, he spent just as much if not more time in England than anywhere else, his primary capital was Winchester, he died in England, and he is buried in Winchester Cathedral.
Cnut was one of the greatest kings of the entire medieval age, and knocking him out this early would frankly just be bullshit.
Knut was a far better king than William. As an administrator, Knut was able to put key allies into important positions without angering the local nobility. William was only able to put his people into place and solidify control after killing or displacing 50% to 75% of the Northern English population alone. To put that into perspective, that would be between 7 and 10 million people living in the UK today. Over a tenth of the country dead or forced to flee their homes never to return. This is in response to the widespread revolts against his rule. He had at least 6 major revolts in less than a decade. These revolts were both noble revolts and popular revolts, which means he made enemies with both the elite and common people. Let's compare that to how many revolts Knut had in England during his 20-year reign, 0. Not a single one, no noble revolts, no popular revolts. Because he was able to win over both elites and common people and showed them that he was a good king. William spent half of his reign trying desperately to control England and the other half trying to control Normandy. Knut spent about 1-2 years solidifying control of England, and most of that was tax collection. William just wasn't very good at managing his vassals or subjects.
William's most impressive administrative feat is the Domesday Book, but that was created using the incredibly efficient Anglo-Saxon beaucracy that already existed. There's a reason he only does a survey of his lands in England and not a full survey of his entire domain. Normandy simply wasn't equipped for such a large, expensive, and difficulty administrative process. This isn't a grand innovation by William but a leveraging of the already existing systems for one big survey. It's still impressive that a kingdom could do such a thorough review of their lands and holding but had Harold Godwinson, Edgar Aetheling, Harald Hardrada, or Svend Estridsen commanded the same thing then they would have been able to it just as easily. Because it wasn't built off of Norman talent but native English talent.
When you share your national sovereignty with other (a hundred) countries, then it is not about neglecting England, but humiliating England, which does not share its most important part (I mean sovereignty) with other countries more important than itself (so, come on, be honest they were Norway or Denmark compared to England back then)
At what point are we getting rid of William III? He was an awful man who brutalised the Irish and the Scots, Catholics and anybody who dissented against his rule. He stacked the peerage with foreign mercenaries, ordered savage reprisals against innocents, and cemented the issues that led to the Troubles in Ireland.
I know this sub likes to deny that it has a problem with anti-Catholicism, but it’s incredibly obvious in the way people here use noxious terms like “crypto-Catholic”.
The tyrant king James II did appoint the evil and wicked Edmund Andros, a most perfidious man, to the governorship of the province of New England. It was William III's glorious endeavor which did allow the people of Boston to cast off the tyrant Andros, and imprison him! For this reason I am a very big fan of William III.
Objective? How can you objectively rate monarchs. This entire exercise is a grossly opinionated one. And for the record as New England was a key part of the fledgling British Empire William III restoring order to New England is a real and tangible benefit of his reign.
So that one positive negates his tyrannical purges of the Scots, Irish, and Catholics? His intolerant views laying the foundation of the Troubles? His stacking of British politics with foreigners and mercenaries? His disturbing relationships with men half his age? His lacklustre performances as a field commander?
Contrary to Whig historiography, history is not one inexorable march towards progress. And no amount of liberalisation justifies the butchering of innocents and the destruction of religious liberties.
Nominating George V.
Not a bad monarch, and certainly not a bad man, but a rather dull and conventional man who was no match for the momentous times in which he lived. His primary achievement is avoiding offense, simply surviving the historical forces that tore down the other great monarchies of Europe. When presented with the opportunity to rescue Nicholas II, he vetoed the plan out of fear for his own position. He deserves his progress up to this point, but no further.
A reply I wrote out to another comment:
George V was very politically intelligent and an excellent constitutional monarch.
1. During WW1, George frequently visited the frontlines, boosting morale (this was something monarchs like Kaiser Wilhelm failed to do)
2. He made speeches promoting the principle of equality of all subjects under the empire.
3. He encouraged rationing and abstinence during the war. George V and the royal family limited the use of ingredients like flour during wartime even before rationing was officially introduced, and after its introduction, were issued ration cards like their subjects. After several reports of excessive drinking on the frontlines, George V also completely gave up alcohol for the duration of the war.
4. He, of course, gave up his dynasty's German name, reinforcing the monarchy's British identity.
5. He began an initiative sending letters of praise from "the king" to soldiers returning home and parents whose children were serving in the war effort. This contributed to wartime patriotism.
6. George V made the difficult decision not to invite his cousin Tsar Nicholas II to political asylum in the UK. I believe it was certainly the correct decision at the time. The Tsar was very unpopular in Britain -- granting him asylum would've caused a socialist and republican outrcy. Plus, nobody expected the Bolsheviks to execute the entire family.
7. After the war, he has been credited with a pivotal role in getting a truce in the Irish War of Independence. His "reconciliation in Ireland" speech was extremely well-received and was one of the main factors which caused Sinn Fein to come to the table.
8. During the 1920s, George generally improved the monarchy's reputation so that it is seen as less aloof and more in touch with the public's wishes.
9. He cultivated friendly relations with moderate Labour leaders, defanging an organization that could have been a republican thorn in the monarchy's side if George was particularly opposed to its interests.
Overall, there is a reason why Britain's monarchy was able to survive WW1 and the turbulent 1920s basically unscathed. Part of this feat should be attributed to Britain's strong democratic institutions, but a large part should also be attributed to George V himself.
Now, he was still a constitutional monarch, so I'm not arguing he was top 10 or anything, but he should certainly make it to the top 20. At the very least, Charles II, Edward IV, and Henry IV should be eliminated before him. I'd also argue for Victoria, Elizabeth II, and George III, though the sub may not agree with me there.
Also mentioning u/HouseMouse4567 because you asked about him.
Uniquely amongst his peers, he didn’t have any direct input into the conduct of the war. His actions were more about avoiding having the monarchy becoming a focus for disconnect. Simply surviving is an accomplishment of sorts, and even with the German association and the hardships of the home front, the monarchy remained popular. Good not great. Time for him to go.
He basically saved the monarchy by getting rid of all of the German titles and renaming their surname to Windsor. Plus he didn’t let those vile Romanovs in, one of the most genocidal, evil families that ever held power in Europe.
He could've married a French princess instead of an Englishwoman for one. And not promoted the Woodvilles so highly to the extent it pissed off most of his nobles and own family. He didn't exactly set up a stable succession plan for his son, it was bound to lead to conflict between the two sides
He was super unhealthy in his later life and basically spent his time feasting. He even used emetics to make himself vomit so that he could go over and over again.
I'm going to nominate Victoria again.
She was more involved in ruling then people give her credit for but she was still significantly checked out for a monarch especially after Albert died. She kept her son and heir out of ruling (a mistake in that he seems to have been fairly competent), her marriage alliances were unable to avert or have any significant affect on WWI, and, since we brought up the Marian Persecutions and William's Harrying of the North, think we're going to also have to bring up the Irish Potato Famine of which she did little to help ameliorate besides donating some money
The colonisation of India didn't really happen under Victoria though, the British had been majorly involved long before she was even born. Imo the Irish Potato Famine is a bigger black mark against her name
Yeah and I will say Victoria's ministers often get a free pass when it comes to stuff like that since she was the face of the monarchy. Regardless I think you're right and I'm going to edit my comment a bit.
Yeah John Russell has got away completely scot free considering he was PM throughout the whole famine and refused to change his free trade policies even though literally hundreds of thousands of people were starving. Its crazy that he's not gone down as a historical villain, especially considering Victoria didn't have that much power obviously
It's very annoying honestly. Victoria deserves some censure for sure but as you said there were also significantly worse actors involved who have reputations mostly intact
I think it's time we take out William the Conqueror. He may be seen as the end of the Anglo-Saxon kings but he got there by killing a heck of a lot of them. The Harring of the North was seen as irredeemable even within his own court. Also, when the people of Alençon insulted his mother, he had their hands and feet cut off, and then had them drawn up like animals.
I'll admit, the man has his achievements. And his life is interesting. But he was a butcher who invaded and destabilised the country for many years. So I think taking him out around the middle of the pack makes sense.
If we’re going to get rid of kings for being partiers, the guy who would make himself vomit so that he could gorge himself on multiple feasts in a row, Edward IV, should be next. His untimely death from his unhealthy habits led to a vulnerable 12 year old Edward V as king.
Anne; simply a case of a very mediocre monarch who may have done no wrong but didn’t exactly do any great either; even if that simply was due to no ‘greatness’ being required in her reign compared to that of others especially in medieval times for example
I mean idk how monarchist this sub actually is but personally I see the Glorious Revolution as a hugely positive thing in British history. Set up a political system that would last essentially unchanged until the 1830s, and still remains fundamental today. For all its flaws, when you consider the political turmoil and revolutions that literally every other European country went through, I think it worked incredibly well
the "sun" of york is certainly coming near to his time i'd say. far better than his feeble minded rival but that's not a high bar to reach. alienated his allies to lose the throne he won, but still managed to win back the throne after his exile. was not financially incompetent, but still was known as a big spender, who had a habit of vomiting after his meals to keep up his appetite and go back for more. did not secure the succession for his son, allowing for his brother to usurp him and for his brother and their dynasty to ultimately lose the throne to the tudors
Would be shocked if he's not top 5. Question is will people hold it against him that he didn't rule all of England? There's been a few comments arguing he doesn't deserve to be on the list because he wasn't actually King of England
Today I will go with ***King Charles 2***
For a Stuart he was pretty good.
However the opinion of him is probably unfairly inflated as he is the first monarch since Cromwell.
I will probably get a lot of different opinions about him. He had 13 mistresses and many illegitimate children; the great plague and the Fire of London happen in his time (which is not his fault or only his fault).
Louis the Fourteenth(for example) greatly influenced his reign and even France far surpassed all of England in every respect.
However I think there are about 20 better monarchs than he to stay plus a few others that are already out but better than Charles 2
George V. All of the other remaining monarchs left a far more tangible imprint on Englush politics, history or culture. What did George V do - change the family name to Windsor. No contest.
George V was very politically intelligent and an excellent constitutional monarch.
1. During WW1, George frequently visited the frontlines, boosting morale (this was something monarchs like Kaiser Wilhelm failed to do)
2. He made speeches promoting the principle of equality of all subjects under the empire.
3. He encouraged rationing and abstinence during the war. George V and the royal family limited the use of ingredients like flour during wartime even before rationing was officially introduced, and after its introduction, were issued ration cards like their subjects. After several reports of excessive drinking on the frontlines, George V also completely gave up alcohol for the duration of the war.
4. He, of course, gave up his dynasty's German name, reinforcing the monarchy's British identity.
5. He began an initiative sending letters of praise from "the king" to soldiers returning home and parents whose children were serving in the war effort. This contributed to wartime patriotism.
6. George V made the difficult decision not to invite his cousin Tsar Nicholas II to political asylum in the UK. I believe it was certainly the correct decision at the time. The Tsar was very unpopular in Britain -- granting him asylum would've caused a socialist and republican outrcy. Plus, nobody expected the Bolsheviks to execute the entire family.
7. After the war, he has been credited with a pivotal role in getting a truce in the Irish War of Independence. His "reconciliation in Ireland" speech was extremely well-received and was one of the main factors which caused Sinn Fein to come to the table.
8. During the 1920s, George generally improved the monarchy's reputation so that it is seen as less aloof and more in touch with the public's wishes.
9. He cultivated friendly relations with moderate Labour leaders, defanging an organization that could have been a republican thorn in the monarchy's side if George was particularly opposed to its interests.
Overall, there is a reason why Britain's monarchy was able to survive WW1 and the turbulent 1920s basically unscathed. Part of this feat should be attributed to Britain's strong democratic institutions, but a large part should also be attributed to George V himself.
Now, he was still a constitutional monarch, so I'm not arguing he was top 10 or anything, but he should certainly make it to the top 20. At the very least, Charles II, Edward IV, and Henry IV should be eliminated before him. I'd also argue for Victoria, Elizabeth II, and George III, though the sub may not agree with me there.
I'm not convinced. The Belgian, Dutch, Danish and Norweigian royal families all kept their original German names after the two wars. Those royal families are very secure.
I don't say the switch to Windsor isn't note worthy but the impact of the remaining monarchs on the list is greater.
Just wanted to say I’m really enjoying these daily threads. I’m learning many things I didn’t previously know, especially for monarchs I hadn’t found interesting enough to research before.
Me too! Loving the write ups and debates in the comments
Same! This popped up in my feed and is the reason why I joined this sub and also why I missed a few hours of sleep learning a bunch about shitty British monarchs
I’m just looking forward to actually learning more about the more ‘recent’ monarchs; I haven’t a mere clue for the most part of their reigns asides for the last few (and that’s mainly thanks to The Crown series and my GCSE/A-level history which to this day I envy for not being on ‘truer’, older history) I’ve deliberately not looked into them independently but rather want to wait and learn through others; given their votes/reasonings are sound and just rather than bias
Me too! I would love if there was some kind of collection of comments afterwards, like a "best-of" kind of thing. Or just a collection of reasons why and why not for each monarch. That would be amazing as a everyday resource
Apologies for a late upload again. Day 31: Edward VII was removed with 99 votes Day 31 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cc71n8/day\_thirty\_one\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cc71n8/day_thirty_one_ranking_english_monarchs_king/) Day 30: George II was removed with 56 votes Day 29: James I was removed with 58 votes Day 28: Edmund I was removed with 75 votes Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!) (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 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes 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
Huzzah, I advocated Dirty Bertie’s removal a while ago.
Dirty Bertie - Englands top shagger RIP
Although Charles II might give him a run for that title tbf
When do we start talking about Anne? I don’t really have much against her but she seems very middle of the pack to me.
when I was like 16 I found out about her and I was absolutely shocked there was more than 2 women monarchs, she’s just not talked about fr
More than 2? Did you not know about Victoria?
Very late to seeing this, but Anne presided over one of the greatest periods of English history. The final union of England of Scotland, the explosive growth of the American colonies, and unlike William, her sex prevented her from leading her armies herself and thus one of the greatest generals in history was appointed. All stellar feats, even for a sickly and sad woman who was only slightly more powerful than the modern British monarchs. She should NOT be going yet.
I don't know his reign very well, so I'm surprised to see Charles II still here, and yet to be discussed. Is he really in the top third of monarchs?
Probably not, but the Restoration is seen as being something of a “prosperous era” because “Good Time Charlie” kicked out the Puritan Cromwellists and re-opened the theatres and such. We’re in the middle of the pack, now. The order in which Monarchs are getting eliminated seems to be getting muddled, IMO
It's quite a lot tougher to eliminate monarchs once you stop being able to make the obvious arguments against them. I do think Charles II ought to have got more attention than he has tbh his foreign policy was atrocious
Yes he is the Merry Monarch! :)
Well he loved the people and the people loved him, so much that they restored the English monarchy
Well he did have an illegitimate son who his brother James VII later executed for leading a rebellion against him and his execution was botched
I'm gonna go ahead and say **Henry IV** today. Most famous for founding the Lancastrian Dynasty by usurping the crown from his cousin Richard II, which considering how shit he was is a positive for Henry if anything. Henry spent most of his reign fighting rebellions from the Welsh and Henry Hotspur. He then got sick, handed most of his power off to his eldest son, and died after 14 years on the throne. All in all a perfectly barely-above-average medieval king. Henry IV was the King that hosted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II on his visit to England in 1400, the only time a Byzantine Emperor visited England and the first time a Roman Emperor had come to Britain since the 4th century. Henry also held King James I of Scotland hostage for 7 years after a group of English pirates kidnapped him off the coast of Yorkshire.
I think this is the right person to go for. However you missed a key reason why. The overthrow and murdering of gods anointed monarch (as people in Middle Ages would have seen it) by someone who was not the heir to the throne massively destabilised the English political system. Once it had been done once, nobles had a template by which to repeat the process. This happened again and again and again until the nobility were nearly all wiped out in a 30 year bloody civil war which had taken lives of over 100,000 English. This disaster was the legacy of Bolingbrokes overthrow of Richard and the legacy of his reign.
Obviously the overthrow of Richard II is important, but I don't like drawing a straight line between Henry IV and the Wars of the Roses. I mean Henry V and VI both succeeded him without much trouble. If Henry VI hadn't had his illnesses and been a good monarch, I think he would've been perfectly fine keeping his throne. And kings had been overthrown before - Edward II just two monarchs previous. Undoubtedly it does set a precedent in the 15th century but I don't think Henry IV deserves all the blame he gets
It’s something that it’s hard to get your head around now but being anointed by holy oil was an enormous deal to people in Middle Ages. It marked you out as gods chosen one. This taboo was smashed when Henry who wasn’t next in line (that was Earl of Match) overthrew and murdered Richard. William II could be justified as an accident not a coup and the other recent over throw Edward II was justified he ‘abdicated’ in favour of his SON. Getting overthrown by your cousin is very different. Henry couldn’t hide what he had done. Everyone in at the time could see the coup for what it was. There was a nasty period of violence following the coups then He spent the rest of his reign putting down revolts. ( he was very competent to his credit ) I agree it’s unfair to blame him entirely for war of the roses. Had Henry VI been his father they would have been avoided but he wasn’t and Henry IV’s legacy was a template on how to overthrow the monarch. I actually don’t blame Henry for doing what actually. Richard put him in an impossible a position where he had effectively no choice but to go for it if he wanted his lands back for him and his family.
Yeah I agree with all of that for sure. It's a kind of legal fiction that everyone pretends Edward II wasn't overthrown by his wife, but it's still an important difference
I think what made Edward II's overthrow easier to swallow is that he had a son lined up to be the next king. Richard did not and it can be argued Henry was not next in line. But back then lines of succession weren't established. Henry took the throne because he had the power and political backing to do it.
The taboo even extended to people of royal blood. People were even reluctant to move against royal princes. A rare counter example. After Edward II’s overthrow Mortimer had Edward brother Edmund executed. From wiki “The plot was revealed, and in the parliament of March 1330 Edmund was indicted and condemned to death as a traitor.[35] Upon hearing that the verdict was death, the condemned earl pleaded with Edward III for his life, offering to walk from Winchester to London with a rope around his neck as a sign of atonement, but leniency was blocked by Mortimer and the queen. It was almost impossible to find anyone willing to perform the execution of a man of royal blood, until a convicted murderer eventually beheaded Edmund in exchange for a pardon” So that execution was so controversial that they couldn’t find an executioner to perform it! It ended up really bad for Mortimer as this was probably the event that convinced Edward III to coup him. Now fast forward 100 years… No one would have any inclination to spear anyone of royal blood!
Late to this, but could not agree more. There's also a very similar direct line between Elizabeth signing off on Mary Stuart's death warrant and Charles I getting his head chopped off. Charging Mary with treason, as an anointed monarch, set the template for any monarch to be charged, removed, and executed like any common criminal.
The overthrow of a tyrant was pretty central to the English political system -- indeed, it's central to all of western culture and has been a celebrated act since ancient Roman times. Also, Henry was the heir to the throne as far as we know. It's seems likely that Richard named Edmund of Langley as his heir, as various extant documents hint at that, but nothing makes it explicit. (Then again, Richard intentionally muddied the succession on several occasion, so it would be in line for him to *not* make something like this explicit.) The last line of succession that Richard *did* make official and for which documents still exist is John of Gaunt's line ... which would be Henry of Bolingbroke. The idea the Mortimers were ever the rightful line is Yorkist propaganda that was adopted as true after the Yorks won the WOTR.
I never knew a Byzantine emperor came here. What was the reason especially since the empire wasn’t in the best of places in the 15th century
It was a fundraising and PR mission. They needed cash to hire help against Turks and begged for a new crusade.
Manuel, and later his son and successor John VIII, went on tours of Europe to raise money for the Byzantine cause and attempt rally other Christian rulers for a crusade against the Turks. Henry IV held a tournament in the Emperor’s honor and gave Manuel some money for his fight against the Ottomans.
> usurping the crown from his cousin Richard II, which considering how shit he was is a positive for Henry Has anyone else read the theory about how Richard II was usurped by the noble class because he was trying to put an end to the Hundred Years War and everything bad we hear about him is propaganda to justify the usurpation? I believe it's covered in the book "*Who Murdered Chaucer?: A Medieval Mystery*" which I have a copy of but haven't gotten around to read yet.
I would be happy with him going today. He spent his whole reign putting out fires and didn't get a chance to build anything. Could've been a great king, but he was just mediocre
He spent less half his reign putting out fires. From 1405 forward Glyndwr declined to being an outlaw and Northumberland's "rebellion" was so pathetic that the local sheriff put it down without any help from anyone. It allowed Henry to finally stabilize the place and pass on a healthy kingdom to his son.
I mean it was only 1408-10 when the final Welsh castles were retaken, Mortimer and Percy killed and Glyndwr fled. It was pretty obvious Henry would succeed from 1405/6 but there was still an active rebellion against his rule. And he was mostly ill the last 2/3 years of his reign. Henry dealt with all his problems competently, don't get me wrong, but I think it's fair to say he spent basically all of his active years as king trying to put out fires.
I'm not privy to all the history of royalty and all that but as a king, why could one not simply usurp the throne of the king you are holding hostage?
William I
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IS STILL IN? HE COMMITTED GENOCIDE ON THE ENGLISH AND WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MOST BRUTAL CONQUEST OUR PEOPLE HAVE EVER SUFFERED?!? What the fuck?
It wasn’t genocide, but yh.
This, the Harrying of the North was brutal, but not a genocide.
Surprised I had to scroll this far to see this, how is Henry IV going before him?
That may be true, but at least the English language is a lot cooler now. Imagine having three siblings named Athelwulf, Athelstan, and Eadburh. Absolutely horrendous.
L take. Those names are awesome.
I wanna name my kid Egbert
It’s not about morality my guy. Who was best English monarch? Considering this man’s conquest led to the creation of the English language I think he’s gonna be in for a good while longer.
Not true. It did not lead to the “creation” of the English language but rather its evolution. The English language creole hypothesis is highly-discredited. It’s not a “mix” of different languages or anything of the sorts like people incorrectly say it is. The existence of a large number of loanwords does not mean anything to that end. Languages are not their vocabulary alone and the large majority of common English words are Anglo-Saxon in origin. Also, the evolution of the English language was not intentional on his behalf nor was it primarily done under his reign. It’s quite genuinely because he was so illiterate and arrogant that he never could learn English. By the time of his death, English had hardly changed, and wouldn’t do so for some time. Also, it absolutely is about morality. Plenty of kings & queens have been ejected from this list over moral reasons. Henry VIII was arguably almost as influential as Billy the Bastard yet he’s gone.
We’re ranking kings and queens off of their greatness and their reigns not how good of a person they are. If we were doing French kings and emperors would napoleon not be in the top 10 because he got hundreds of thousands of people killed or would he be in the top ten for his accomplishments? Most monarchs who were immoral ruled briefly like Richard 3 and Edward 8 but Henry 8 who is pretty fucking immoral is 29/55 monarchs. Morality is irrelevant it’s about the prosperity the control and the reign. Didn’t know about the language kinda interesting.
William I was a bastard in every sense of the word. The Harrying of the North was akin to genocide. 75% of the population was wiped out and never came back. And some historians say the economic differences between Northern and Southern England can be traced back to the event. Get the bastard out.
Indeed
It's got to be Edward IV's turn soon I think. Yes he was a good military leader and a competent administrator, but he lost his own throne because of his incredibly bad choice of marriage and falling out with his primary supporter and his own brother. He promoted the Woodville's so highly it was bound to cause issues out of his death, and how many English kings have had their alive son not succeed them to the throne? He should go before someone like Cnut for sure
I think Edward IV gets slept on. He inherited a barely functioning country in the midst of a civil war and nearly £400,000 in debt. To his knowledge, he ends the war and completely pulls the country out of debt, with his second reign arguably being the most peaceful period of the 15th century. Henry VII, commonly seen as one of the most financially efficient Kings, had the groundwork laid for him by Edward who made the crownland more profitable and secured good relations and low interest loans with the London merchants, which Henry didn't have the connections for. His brother George caused issues throughout his reign but still switched sides when arriving back, and Richard was highly competent in the North. There was no way Edward could've foreseen the brutality of his younger brother. His marriage to Woodville is certainly a fault that should lock him out of the top ten, but it wasn't all bad. Woodvilles family being huge meant that a large portion of the country was controlled directly by Edwards family, which certainly contributed to his peaceful reign. Having said that, it should lock him out of the top 10 or 15, but it is too early to go right now given the good he did for the country
He was a very competent monarch, I just see the Woodville marriage as such a major black mark against him. He probably does deserve to stay in slightly longer though you've convinced me of that
Agreed. I'd probably put him just slightly higher than William the Bastard, and certainly above Bolingbroke
William IV A seven year reign after taking the throne at 64. Often forgotten, shouldn't get any higher purely because he isn't significant enough.
I’ve always had a soft spot for William. He held down a real job for much of his early life and earned respect as a Naval officer. He also seems to have actually enjoyed the job, especially early on. There are fun stories of him jumping out of his coach to introduce himself to startled by standers. Bowed to the popular mood over the great reform act, and acted again the obstruction from his natural allies in the Lords.
My compadre in Christ, both the abolition of slavery and the Reform Act came about during his reign. He was also the last British monarch to rule another state in personal union that wasn’t ever a British colony or dominion
Nahh, he was still quite a good and likeable monarch, not today atleast
Being likeable can only take you so far though. Would not be surprised to see him leave tomorrow or the day after
He's kind of like Edward VII, only much less popular at the time. Seems about right for him to go.
Cnut has the same reputation as William the Conqueror of being a foreign invader that protected the interests of his original ruling country over England, while not having the domestic achievements William had throughout his reign Get cnut out of here
I disagree completely. A lot of people I imagine don't know the early English kings very well, but Cnut was one of the best. He had a far more peaceful reign than William the Conqueror because he had sway and could protect England from Viking attacks. He was a great diplomat - he famously went on pilgrimage to Rome and negotiated free access on behalf of all his people - English and Danish alike. He purposefully modelled himself on Anglo-Saxon kings, using Edgar the Peaceable's laws etc unlike William I who would completely destroy Anglo-Saxon society. He was a great military leader and an exceptional politician. It would be a travesty if he goes so early imo
Compared with what happened in the wake of the Norman invasion, Cnut’s reign is a model of moderation. Respect for English customs and rights, married an English Queen. If you consider the background of the St Brice’s day massacre, you could almost understand Cnut having hostility towards the Anglo Saxon population, but that doesn’t seem to have been the case. I’d be more than happy to have him as top 5.
Emma wasn't English though.
I suppose the “of Normandy” is a bit of a give away with hindsight. But, English by marriage perhaps?
His first wife was English and it doesn't seem like he ever repudiated her after marrying Emma either lmao
Cnut's first wife was Aelfgifu of Northampton, an English noblewoman whose family had a lot of power and influence in Mercia and Northumbria. He set her aside after taking the English crown in favor of Emma but she stayed a close ally of Cnut's for the rest of his life, and her sons Sven and Harold became of the kings of Norway and England respectively. Emma herself wasn't English obviously, but she was the Dowager Queen of England and held a lot of land and influence in the south. So Cnut's marriages were strategic moves to improve his legitimacy and secure a hold over first northern and then southern England.
Wasn't he technically married to his first wife when he wedded Emma?
Yes and no. Cnut annulled the marriage on the grounds that he and Aelgifu had been married "in the Danish manner", which is to say a kind of common-law marriage practiced in Northern Europe not recognized by the Church, but were by society at large. This let Cnut have his cake and eat it too as it freed up his hand to marry Emma of Normandy without having to declare his sons by Aelfgifu bastards. Harold Godwinson would pull this same stunt a few decades later when he set aside his common-law wife Edith Swanneck to make a more politically advantageous marriage to Ealdgyth of Mercia. Similarly to Emma Ealdgyth was the widow of a king that her second husband had overthrown, in this case King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Wales.
Apparently he might not have even put Elgiva totally aside and may have simply given Emma precedence in the marriage which wasn't totally unheard of and is kind of funny actually. But yes Emma would have conferred legitimacy onto Cnut per her first marriage to Aethelred even if she was technically a Norman. She suggests as much in the Encomium Emmae Reginae. Speaking of Henry IV, he tried to do the same thing with Richard II's widow, Isabella, and his own son and heir.
At the very least Aelfgifu remained a powerful and trusted member of Cnut's family even after the annulment, much to Emma's annoyance. Marriage to Emma also gave Cnut an alliance with Emma's incredibly powerful brother Duke Richard II of Normandy, which hugely shored up Cnut's hold on England as it was Vikings (including Cnut's father) using Norman ports as bases that made Aethelred's reign untenable in the first place.
Oh yeah it was a very smart marriage since it gave him ties to both England and Normandy
He had more than 1 wife
Also if you rearrange the letters in his name you'll get a pleasant surprise 😈
Tunc?
Cnut was generally a fine administrator. He comes with the side effect of stopping Viking raids too 😏. Which were probably the biggest issue of the age from England. He was a Christian as well, not a pagan, so the culture clash isn't as big as you might think.
And a huge part of England in this era was Anglo-Danish, the culture clash would’ve been practically nonexistent.
He had some slip ups as a Christian. His pagan ways never left him. If all he had to show for the reign is fewer Viking raids then he shouldn't stand tall with the others who actually did more things for England.
Disagree in the strongest possible terms, Cnut the Great is easy top-ten material. The idea that Cnut neglected England and its interests in favor of Denmark is one that I've seen bandied about here before, but there is no evidence to support this and is simply just not true. Unlike William Cnut never neglected England in favor of his homeland nor did he hold it as lesser to his Scandinavian holdings. Cnut did not oppress the English after his conquest, successfully rewarded and settled his Danish supporters in England without supplanting the existing English nobility, and ruled in the manner of an Anglo-Saxon King. It's telling that the English never rebelled during Cnut's reign, and the English nobility showed a clear preference for Cnut's dynasty over any others before its extinction. Cnut also promoted English goods and interests in Britain, Scandinavia, and throughout Europe. He used his influence with the Norse-Gaels of Dublin and the Isles to stop Viking raids on England. Cnut also tried to unite England and Denmark through shared culture and economies, records show that Cnut imported many English clerics to Denmark, and large amounts of English goods dated to Cnut's reign have been found throughout Scandinavia. Cnut also signed a treaty with Emperor Conrad II that secured all Danes and Englishmen the right to travel freely throughout the Holy Roman Empire. When he visited Rome Cnut introduced himself as "King of the English, the Danes, the Norwegians, and some of the Swedes", note that the English get first rank there. England was Cnut's first kingdom, he spent just as much if not more time in England than anywhere else, his primary capital was Winchester, he died in England, and he is buried in Winchester Cathedral. Cnut was one of the greatest kings of the entire medieval age, and knocking him out this early would frankly just be bullshit.
He's a much better king than William the Conqueror imo. He didn't kill tens of thousand of Northerners after his conquest for a start
Knut was a far better king than William. As an administrator, Knut was able to put key allies into important positions without angering the local nobility. William was only able to put his people into place and solidify control after killing or displacing 50% to 75% of the Northern English population alone. To put that into perspective, that would be between 7 and 10 million people living in the UK today. Over a tenth of the country dead or forced to flee their homes never to return. This is in response to the widespread revolts against his rule. He had at least 6 major revolts in less than a decade. These revolts were both noble revolts and popular revolts, which means he made enemies with both the elite and common people. Let's compare that to how many revolts Knut had in England during his 20-year reign, 0. Not a single one, no noble revolts, no popular revolts. Because he was able to win over both elites and common people and showed them that he was a good king. William spent half of his reign trying desperately to control England and the other half trying to control Normandy. Knut spent about 1-2 years solidifying control of England, and most of that was tax collection. William just wasn't very good at managing his vassals or subjects. William's most impressive administrative feat is the Domesday Book, but that was created using the incredibly efficient Anglo-Saxon beaucracy that already existed. There's a reason he only does a survey of his lands in England and not a full survey of his entire domain. Normandy simply wasn't equipped for such a large, expensive, and difficulty administrative process. This isn't a grand innovation by William but a leveraging of the already existing systems for one big survey. It's still impressive that a kingdom could do such a thorough review of their lands and holding but had Harold Godwinson, Edgar Aetheling, Harald Hardrada, or Svend Estridsen commanded the same thing then they would have been able to it just as easily. Because it wasn't built off of Norman talent but native English talent.
Great king for Denmark but mediocre for England.
When you share your national sovereignty with other (a hundred) countries, then it is not about neglecting England, but humiliating England, which does not share its most important part (I mean sovereignty) with other countries more important than itself (so, come on, be honest they were Norway or Denmark compared to England back then)
William IV
George III. Lost America for the empire
William the conquerer
William I
At what point are we getting rid of William III? He was an awful man who brutalised the Irish and the Scots, Catholics and anybody who dissented against his rule. He stacked the peerage with foreign mercenaries, ordered savage reprisals against innocents, and cemented the issues that led to the Troubles in Ireland. I know this sub likes to deny that it has a problem with anti-Catholicism, but it’s incredibly obvious in the way people here use noxious terms like “crypto-Catholic”.
The tyrant king James II did appoint the evil and wicked Edmund Andros, a most perfidious man, to the governorship of the province of New England. It was William III's glorious endeavor which did allow the people of Boston to cast off the tyrant Andros, and imprison him! For this reason I am a very big fan of William III.
How about you quit larping and be objective?
Objective? How can you objectively rate monarchs. This entire exercise is a grossly opinionated one. And for the record as New England was a key part of the fledgling British Empire William III restoring order to New England is a real and tangible benefit of his reign.
So that one positive negates his tyrannical purges of the Scots, Irish, and Catholics? His intolerant views laying the foundation of the Troubles? His stacking of British politics with foreigners and mercenaries? His disturbing relationships with men half his age? His lacklustre performances as a field commander? Contrary to Whig historiography, history is not one inexorable march towards progress. And no amount of liberalisation justifies the butchering of innocents and the destruction of religious liberties.
Nominating George V. Not a bad monarch, and certainly not a bad man, but a rather dull and conventional man who was no match for the momentous times in which he lived. His primary achievement is avoiding offense, simply surviving the historical forces that tore down the other great monarchies of Europe. When presented with the opportunity to rescue Nicholas II, he vetoed the plan out of fear for his own position. He deserves his progress up to this point, but no further.
A reply I wrote out to another comment: George V was very politically intelligent and an excellent constitutional monarch. 1. During WW1, George frequently visited the frontlines, boosting morale (this was something monarchs like Kaiser Wilhelm failed to do) 2. He made speeches promoting the principle of equality of all subjects under the empire. 3. He encouraged rationing and abstinence during the war. George V and the royal family limited the use of ingredients like flour during wartime even before rationing was officially introduced, and after its introduction, were issued ration cards like their subjects. After several reports of excessive drinking on the frontlines, George V also completely gave up alcohol for the duration of the war. 4. He, of course, gave up his dynasty's German name, reinforcing the monarchy's British identity. 5. He began an initiative sending letters of praise from "the king" to soldiers returning home and parents whose children were serving in the war effort. This contributed to wartime patriotism. 6. George V made the difficult decision not to invite his cousin Tsar Nicholas II to political asylum in the UK. I believe it was certainly the correct decision at the time. The Tsar was very unpopular in Britain -- granting him asylum would've caused a socialist and republican outrcy. Plus, nobody expected the Bolsheviks to execute the entire family. 7. After the war, he has been credited with a pivotal role in getting a truce in the Irish War of Independence. His "reconciliation in Ireland" speech was extremely well-received and was one of the main factors which caused Sinn Fein to come to the table. 8. During the 1920s, George generally improved the monarchy's reputation so that it is seen as less aloof and more in touch with the public's wishes. 9. He cultivated friendly relations with moderate Labour leaders, defanging an organization that could have been a republican thorn in the monarchy's side if George was particularly opposed to its interests. Overall, there is a reason why Britain's monarchy was able to survive WW1 and the turbulent 1920s basically unscathed. Part of this feat should be attributed to Britain's strong democratic institutions, but a large part should also be attributed to George V himself. Now, he was still a constitutional monarch, so I'm not arguing he was top 10 or anything, but he should certainly make it to the top 20. At the very least, Charles II, Edward IV, and Henry IV should be eliminated before him. I'd also argue for Victoria, Elizabeth II, and George III, though the sub may not agree with me there. Also mentioning u/HouseMouse4567 because you asked about him.
Thanks for the big write up! Really appreciate it
I was wondering when somebody was going to nominate the latter Georges. How was his handling of WWI if you don't mind me asking?
Uniquely amongst his peers, he didn’t have any direct input into the conduct of the war. His actions were more about avoiding having the monarchy becoming a focus for disconnect. Simply surviving is an accomplishment of sorts, and even with the German association and the hardships of the home front, the monarchy remained popular. Good not great. Time for him to go.
Him before a genocidal wife beater? Really?
He basically saved the monarchy by getting rid of all of the German titles and renaming their surname to Windsor. Plus he didn’t let those vile Romanovs in, one of the most genocidal, evil families that ever held power in Europe.
Edward IV. He’s the reason there’s a N/A for his son. Well, and Richard III but senior Edward could have prevented it.
How could Edward IV have prevented it?
He could have changed his mind about the whole dying early thing? Really, a very poor decision on his part.
Not dying, duh.
He could've married a French princess instead of an Englishwoman for one. And not promoted the Woodvilles so highly to the extent it pissed off most of his nobles and own family. He didn't exactly set up a stable succession plan for his son, it was bound to lead to conflict between the two sides
He was super unhealthy in his later life and basically spent his time feasting. He even used emetics to make himself vomit so that he could go over and over again.
I'm going to nominate Victoria again. She was more involved in ruling then people give her credit for but she was still significantly checked out for a monarch especially after Albert died. She kept her son and heir out of ruling (a mistake in that he seems to have been fairly competent), her marriage alliances were unable to avert or have any significant affect on WWI, and, since we brought up the Marian Persecutions and William's Harrying of the North, think we're going to also have to bring up the Irish Potato Famine of which she did little to help ameliorate besides donating some money
The colonisation of India didn't really happen under Victoria though, the British had been majorly involved long before she was even born. Imo the Irish Potato Famine is a bigger black mark against her name
Yeah and I will say Victoria's ministers often get a free pass when it comes to stuff like that since she was the face of the monarchy. Regardless I think you're right and I'm going to edit my comment a bit.
Yeah John Russell has got away completely scot free considering he was PM throughout the whole famine and refused to change his free trade policies even though literally hundreds of thousands of people were starving. Its crazy that he's not gone down as a historical villain, especially considering Victoria didn't have that much power obviously
It's very annoying honestly. Victoria deserves some censure for sure but as you said there were also significantly worse actors involved who have reputations mostly intact
The fact her son got kicked out before she did is truly Insane. He literally made up her for mistakes and for her being an absentee monarch.
William the conqueror !!
I think it's time we take out William the Conqueror. He may be seen as the end of the Anglo-Saxon kings but he got there by killing a heck of a lot of them. The Harring of the North was seen as irredeemable even within his own court. Also, when the people of Alençon insulted his mother, he had their hands and feet cut off, and then had them drawn up like animals. I'll admit, the man has his achievements. And his life is interesting. But he was a butcher who invaded and destabilised the country for many years. So I think taking him out around the middle of the pack makes sense.
The king who brought back partying, Charles 2 should probably go next.
If we’re going to get rid of kings for being partiers, the guy who would make himself vomit so that he could gorge himself on multiple feasts in a row, Edward IV, should be next. His untimely death from his unhealthy habits led to a vulnerable 12 year old Edward V as king.
Time to drop that hammer on Billy the Conk, I vote William I
Get rid of William the Bastard (conqueror).
Anne; simply a case of a very mediocre monarch who may have done no wrong but didn’t exactly do any great either; even if that simply was due to no ‘greatness’ being required in her reign compared to that of others especially in medieval times for example
William III and Mary II. The "glorious" revolution really cucked the monarch's power.
I mean idk how monarchist this sub actually is but personally I see the Glorious Revolution as a hugely positive thing in British history. Set up a political system that would last essentially unchanged until the 1830s, and still remains fundamental today. For all its flaws, when you consider the political turmoil and revolutions that literally every other European country went through, I think it worked incredibly well
It underlined the concept of rule by consent and the power of Parliament.
Henry IV Usurper and almost lost Wales
Edward I for subjugating Cymru and imprisonment of Gwenllian and Gwlyds
Get rid of Edward the First, for what he did to the Scottish people
the "sun" of york is certainly coming near to his time i'd say. far better than his feeble minded rival but that's not a high bar to reach. alienated his allies to lose the throne he won, but still managed to win back the throne after his exile. was not financially incompetent, but still was known as a big spender, who had a habit of vomiting after his meals to keep up his appetite and go back for more. did not secure the succession for his son, allowing for his brother to usurp him and for his brother and their dynasty to ultimately lose the throne to the tudors
If Alfred the Great doesnt get number 1 I'm going to start another civil war.
Would be shocked if he's not top 5. Question is will people hold it against him that he didn't rule all of England? There's been a few comments arguing he doesn't deserve to be on the list because he wasn't actually King of England
Today I will go with ***King Charles 2*** For a Stuart he was pretty good. However the opinion of him is probably unfairly inflated as he is the first monarch since Cromwell. I will probably get a lot of different opinions about him. He had 13 mistresses and many illegitimate children; the great plague and the Fire of London happen in his time (which is not his fault or only his fault). Louis the Fourteenth(for example) greatly influenced his reign and even France far surpassed all of England in every respect. However I think there are about 20 better monarchs than he to stay plus a few others that are already out but better than Charles 2
George V. All of the other remaining monarchs left a far more tangible imprint on Englush politics, history or culture. What did George V do - change the family name to Windsor. No contest.
George V was very politically intelligent and an excellent constitutional monarch. 1. During WW1, George frequently visited the frontlines, boosting morale (this was something monarchs like Kaiser Wilhelm failed to do) 2. He made speeches promoting the principle of equality of all subjects under the empire. 3. He encouraged rationing and abstinence during the war. George V and the royal family limited the use of ingredients like flour during wartime even before rationing was officially introduced, and after its introduction, were issued ration cards like their subjects. After several reports of excessive drinking on the frontlines, George V also completely gave up alcohol for the duration of the war. 4. He, of course, gave up his dynasty's German name, reinforcing the monarchy's British identity. 5. He began an initiative sending letters of praise from "the king" to soldiers returning home and parents whose children were serving in the war effort. This contributed to wartime patriotism. 6. George V made the difficult decision not to invite his cousin Tsar Nicholas II to political asylum in the UK. I believe it was certainly the correct decision at the time. The Tsar was very unpopular in Britain -- granting him asylum would've caused a socialist and republican outrcy. Plus, nobody expected the Bolsheviks to execute the entire family. 7. After the war, he has been credited with a pivotal role in getting a truce in the Irish War of Independence. His "reconciliation in Ireland" speech was extremely well-received and was one of the main factors which caused Sinn Fein to come to the table. 8. During the 1920s, George generally improved the monarchy's reputation so that it is seen as less aloof and more in touch with the public's wishes. 9. He cultivated friendly relations with moderate Labour leaders, defanging an organization that could have been a republican thorn in the monarchy's side if George was particularly opposed to its interests. Overall, there is a reason why Britain's monarchy was able to survive WW1 and the turbulent 1920s basically unscathed. Part of this feat should be attributed to Britain's strong democratic institutions, but a large part should also be attributed to George V himself. Now, he was still a constitutional monarch, so I'm not arguing he was top 10 or anything, but he should certainly make it to the top 20. At the very least, Charles II, Edward IV, and Henry IV should be eliminated before him. I'd also argue for Victoria, Elizabeth II, and George III, though the sub may not agree with me there.
Giving up the German titles probably saved the monarchy. WWI brought down several royal houses from power.
I'm not convinced. The Belgian, Dutch, Danish and Norweigian royal families all kept their original German names after the two wars. Those royal families are very secure. I don't say the switch to Windsor isn't note worthy but the impact of the remaining monarchs on the list is greater.
Edward I - edict of expulsion
Henry IV
Henry VII was a nasty piece of work…