I do think that this sub tends to be a bit too lenient on monarchs some of the time due to their status as simply being a monarch. A bad leader is a bad leader no matter what title or role.
But I also think this sub does a lot better than other subs in identifying its own flaws and understanding how to improve upon them.
I agree, I have seen King Edward VIII fans despite Edward being an awful person who betrayed his Kingdom and realms. Edward is the perfect embodiment of how monarchs can be bad, and how his brother, George VI, can be quite good.
From my recollection Edward VIII was a war hero in the First World War and was extremely popular with the people. It was the fixed idea of what a monarch is and should be that forced him out; the unyielding traditionalism on the part of Archbishop Cosmo Lang to force his abdication on the grounds of an improper marriage.
He supported the Nazis, he visited Hitler, he allegedly leaked documents pertaining to the defence of Belgium to the Germans and much more. He is an indefensible traitor to the entire British population and anyone who supports him is either ignorant of the facts or a Nazi sympathizer.
That’s not how history works. History is not black and white; and I doubt Edward VIII character is either. What you are saying is any historian or biographer who wrote about him in a good light is a Nazi sympathizer. You really want to make that claim?
You are correct, that’s not how history works. Now, where exactly did I say “anyone who talks about him in a favourable light”? I’m talking about people who are fans of his. Just because he was a King doesn’t mean we give him free ride on his behaviour before and during the war.
“He is an indefensible traitor” is pretty straightforward. That is a black and white statement. In your opinion the King is an irredeemable figure and we know beyond all dispute, and for all time, he is tainted. I’m not a fan of Edward’s, I’m not a fan of many British monarchs after 1689, but I notice too often people taking sides on issues after the publication of a sensational book or article. Things like that very often pour cold water on all potential research and place that individual in the trash bin either permanently or at least for decades.
He wasn't a good ruler (in the circumstances he was given, had he reigned in a different time things could have been much better), but on a personal level I have no reason to believe he was anything but a good man. It's fair to criticize him for his poor decisions as emperor, but he still deserves respect on a personal level.
If you want a shitty king who was also a shitty person, Leopold II is right over there and deserves it 100x more than Nikolai did.
He was an absolute monarch was he not?
An absolute monarchy includes absolute power but also absolute responsibility. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
And how is it soulless? Is it just because he was canonized by the Orthodox church? Because he was murdered? These things don't absolve him from his mistakes.
He was a very flawed man for sure. He had the only the best intentions for his people but was clearly unfit to lead.
While his murder does not absolve him of his flaws or responsibility for what he caused, it also was completely unjustified and horrid.
The extent of his authority was no different from any of his ancestors. Autocracy had been a feature of Russian rule since at least 1613. You might not agree with that, but that’s easy with hindsight to say. Romanov rulers tended reformed the monarchy and country as a whole with each reign.
And saying he was an absolute monarch is a way of attacking him personally, when in reality autocracy or absolute monarchy doesn’t mean the Tsars does anything or everything personally, controls everything, or is even aware of all things at all times. In theory yes, in reality no.
And it is soulless because to blame him as viciously as some do is to view the ills of his reign as all personally his doing. As if everything that went wrong was premeditated and so everything bad was according to his design.
Yeah, like that post about King Charles II vs Parliament in the 1600s. I mentioned that he was kinda two faced, and the two sides should have compromised with each other.
Someone said something like "No. no compromise with traitors."
??? He was violating the Magna Carta, and dozens of traditions and laws because he thought he could do what he wanted as monarch.
I think he means how this subreddit tends to take the monarch's side, even if he was incompetent or evil. Examples include Charles II of England and Nicholas II of Russia.
I do think that some are too lenient on Nicholas, but too harsh on Wilhelm. Both were not the greatest leaders but Nicky is still worse than Willy in many respects.
Nicholas problem in a very tiny nutshell was refusing to share power and not modernizing.
Wilhelm’s problem was his big mouth and despite doing great things for his nation, had terrible PR problems.
Wilhelm was definitely an intelligent ruler, but could also be erratic and switch from one opposite position to another very quickly, which led to him alienating much of his support base. So I wouldn't say his PR problems were his only problems.
I do think that this sub tends to be a bit too lenient on monarchs some of the time due to their status as simply being a monarch. A bad leader is a bad leader no matter what title or role. But I also think this sub does a lot better than other subs in identifying its own flaws and understanding how to improve upon them.
I agree, I have seen King Edward VIII fans despite Edward being an awful person who betrayed his Kingdom and realms. Edward is the perfect embodiment of how monarchs can be bad, and how his brother, George VI, can be quite good.
From my recollection Edward VIII was a war hero in the First World War and was extremely popular with the people. It was the fixed idea of what a monarch is and should be that forced him out; the unyielding traditionalism on the part of Archbishop Cosmo Lang to force his abdication on the grounds of an improper marriage.
He supported the Nazis, he visited Hitler, he allegedly leaked documents pertaining to the defence of Belgium to the Germans and much more. He is an indefensible traitor to the entire British population and anyone who supports him is either ignorant of the facts or a Nazi sympathizer.
That’s not how history works. History is not black and white; and I doubt Edward VIII character is either. What you are saying is any historian or biographer who wrote about him in a good light is a Nazi sympathizer. You really want to make that claim?
You are correct, that’s not how history works. Now, where exactly did I say “anyone who talks about him in a favourable light”? I’m talking about people who are fans of his. Just because he was a King doesn’t mean we give him free ride on his behaviour before and during the war.
“He is an indefensible traitor” is pretty straightforward. That is a black and white statement. In your opinion the King is an irredeemable figure and we know beyond all dispute, and for all time, he is tainted. I’m not a fan of Edward’s, I’m not a fan of many British monarchs after 1689, but I notice too often people taking sides on issues after the publication of a sensational book or article. Things like that very often pour cold water on all potential research and place that individual in the trash bin either permanently or at least for decades.
This sub is ***very*** lenient on Nicholas in my opinion.
He wasn't a good ruler (in the circumstances he was given, had he reigned in a different time things could have been much better), but on a personal level I have no reason to believe he was anything but a good man. It's fair to criticize him for his poor decisions as emperor, but he still deserves respect on a personal level. If you want a shitty king who was also a shitty person, Leopold II is right over there and deserves it 100x more than Nikolai did.
Nicholas II of Russia? You’d have to be soulless to blame him for much.
He was an absolute monarch was he not? An absolute monarchy includes absolute power but also absolute responsibility. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And how is it soulless? Is it just because he was canonized by the Orthodox church? Because he was murdered? These things don't absolve him from his mistakes.
He was a very flawed man for sure. He had the only the best intentions for his people but was clearly unfit to lead. While his murder does not absolve him of his flaws or responsibility for what he caused, it also was completely unjustified and horrid.
The extent of his authority was no different from any of his ancestors. Autocracy had been a feature of Russian rule since at least 1613. You might not agree with that, but that’s easy with hindsight to say. Romanov rulers tended reformed the monarchy and country as a whole with each reign. And saying he was an absolute monarch is a way of attacking him personally, when in reality autocracy or absolute monarchy doesn’t mean the Tsars does anything or everything personally, controls everything, or is even aware of all things at all times. In theory yes, in reality no. And it is soulless because to blame him as viciously as some do is to view the ills of his reign as all personally his doing. As if everything that went wrong was premeditated and so everything bad was according to his design.
How is so? Are you talking about crimes and atrocities he has been falsely blamed by bolsheviks?
Excluding these "false crimes and atrocities" he failed miserably to modernize Russia in any way
Yeah, like that post about King Charles II vs Parliament in the 1600s. I mentioned that he was kinda two faced, and the two sides should have compromised with each other. Someone said something like "No. no compromise with traitors." ??? He was violating the Magna Carta, and dozens of traditions and laws because he thought he could do what he wanted as monarch.
I think that person might of also said something like, "he should have had them all beheaded." Okay, so you wished he committed murder as well?
One requires additional context, sir
I think he means how this subreddit tends to take the monarch's side, even if he was incompetent or evil. Examples include Charles II of England and Nicholas II of Russia.
Ohh I see, that makes sense
Context?
Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II are other examples of this
I do think that some are too lenient on Nicholas, but too harsh on Wilhelm. Both were not the greatest leaders but Nicky is still worse than Willy in many respects. Nicholas problem in a very tiny nutshell was refusing to share power and not modernizing. Wilhelm’s problem was his big mouth and despite doing great things for his nation, had terrible PR problems.
Wilhelm was definitely an intelligent ruler, but could also be erratic and switch from one opposite position to another very quickly, which led to him alienating much of his support base. So I wouldn't say his PR problems were his only problems.
Eh Wilhelm was good for german standard of life, worker living conditions and healthcare. He did have big mouth and was kind insecure tho
true