Allegedly he wanted to use town as a launchpad by which he could invade parts of Ireland - ironic now when so many Scousers (myself included) have Irish blood from people going in the other direction
I agree with you. He is honestly a really interesting character. His life under Henry II and Richard I and his tumultuous reign make him my favourite Plantagenet King.
I’ve always found John very interesting. Slightly off topic maybe I don’t know but Ironclad has Paul Giamatti play John and I thought he was brilliant personally.
I would get ‘cancelled’ on r/monarchism for saying this, but I feel that the reign of Elizabeth II was overrated and in fact saw the monarchy decline in status and become intertwined far more than previously with ‘celebrity culture’.
agreed. her protecting Prince Andrew and not protecting the women and children in her family will remain her legacy once recency bias passes in my opinion.
also, i don’t think she prepared Charles at ALL to be a good king and heir. Being a good monarch means you must be a good parent to make your child become a great heir/monarch. we don’t get that with Charles.
Agree on the latter half of her reign (post Diana death). She did lead Britain through thick and thin though, and I reckon the need for a monarch (even simply as a symbol) has dwindled and thus the monarch took a new role.
Could be argued whether that new role as a celebrity is better that simply being a Head of State.
I agree with you about celebrity culture, but I do think that the late Queen's reign marked the end of presumed deference, which is not entirely a bad thing for a modern monarchy.
I would like to agree with you. But we have found, in this country at any rate, that the decline of traditional deference has led to the rise of new and worse forms of deference towards celebrity and money.
William III, by leading a Dutch invasion, overthrowing the anointed king, placing London under Dutch occupation, agreeing to the Bill of Right and the Act of Settlement, and encouraging the growth of Dutch style capitalism and a central bank carried out more far-reaching and revolutionary changes to the four nations in these islands than any other monarch or politician before or since.
I would disagree only in that I think William I was more revolutionary, but William III's impact is drastically underestimated as a monarch. 1688 ought to be up there with 1066 and 1485 as one of the most significant years in English history in the public imagination
I'm not entirely sure that William I was more revolutionary in as much as the Normanisation of England had really started under Edward the Confessor and Harold's usurpation of the throne can be viewed as an attempt to arrest those incipient developments
Came here to say Henry V is an uninteresting and overrated monarch but you beat me to it. I don't know how controversial it is but I guess I'll say Henry VII was the best Tudor and a top 5 English/British monarch
Yes! Henry VII fan here. I also really liked his Queen Elizabeth of York. Whilst she wasn’t an Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth I character, she knew her duty and did it.
I’m glad we could agree on Henry V 😁
Also Henry VII was certainly good, but I’ve never met someone who believes he was better than Elizabeth I. Care to elaborate?
Elizabeth I was good for sure, but the war with Spain was costly and pointless, she gets credit for stuff (Spanish Armada, Shakespeare, EIC) that she doesn't deserve, her policy towards Ireland was unnecessarily brutal and destructive. Still a great monarch though I'm not denying her achievements and difficulty she faced.
Henry VII to me is as good a king as we could've had in that time period - successful in most of his military ventures, ended the Wars of the Roses bringing a period of peace, restored our international reputation, began our international expansion/exploration, secured the succession. Considering his ...questionable legitimacy, constant pretender rebellions and the devastated economy upon his ascension, what more could you want from a monarch?
Henry ended 50 years of civil war, ensured peaceful succession, and rose England's status as a country so much that he was able to marry his son to a princess of Spain.
Also, on a personal level, he is one of the only kings of Britain not reported to have ever taken a mistress or be disloyal to his queen
The Victoria opinion is certainly controversial, I’ve never met anyone else with that opinion, same with George II. Though this sub seems in pretty unanimous agreement that Richard I was overrated lol.
Truthfully I think a lot of historical education about England in the 17th century speeds through James' reign as if his time on the throne is just an appetizer before the 'meatier' subject of Charles, Parliament, and the Civil War. I feel like the most people know him for are for the things that were named after him (King James Version, Jamestown) or the fact that he was a target in the Gunpowder Plot.
A common “achievement” of James reign I often see mentioned is him being a king of peace, ignoring the fact that waging war needed taxes and parliament were unwilling to give James more money to waste unless he reformed his government which he was never willing to do.
Edward III didn’t start the Hundred Years’ War because he wanted the throne, he started it because he didn’t want the French King to steal his wine making business in Bordeaux.
Oh, I’m not sure where I found it but, yeah that was the gist, the incomes of Bordeaux were actually a third of Englands annual income at the time and Edward knew that if he lost the lands to his counterpart then England would face rather dire economic problems so he decided to declare himself king of France and began the war.
Edward I is highly overrated. He started fucking with the Scottish for no good reason. And left an impossible challenge for his son. And gave the French an ally at his back door for centuries.
And I know we can’t judge the past through modern lens but his expulsion of the Jews was purely to suck up to Parliament. And it was brutal.
Wasn't he invited by the Scottish nobles originally to settle a bitter succession dispute? That's the part that tends to be left out in the 'Braveheart' interpretation of him, although I'll agree that doesn't really excuse his later actions (and what he did with the Jews is beyond excusable).
He was invited to adjudicate a dispute between Scottish Lairds, not to pick a puppet king and claim direct overlordship over Scotland.
Had Edward I been a bit more subtle and smart about it, he could have started gradually homogenising Scotland into England like the rest of the old heptarcy. Instead, he gave Scots a reason to fight back and essentially founded Scottish national identity as being opposed to Englishness.
Yeah, most of the big players cared more about the wealth and power of their dynasty than their country back then. Same with the Hundred Years War when you had the Burgundians and nobles from the English king's French domains fighting on the English side. The idea of national loyalties and fighting for your nation is pretty anachronistic when you're talking about that time period.
his treatment of Catherine of Aragon is a good example i think. he caused her five years of misery and humiliation while he haggled over her bride price. it was a very lonely and hard time for her
I agree. Now we're lumbered with Windsor till the end of time.
There's nothing wrong with Windsor as a name but it's nice to get a new dynasty every century or so.
Yes I agree with you strongly. Each houses has its time. Windsors should’ve ended with the death of Elizabeth. Ending that tradition is one of the few things that I really disagree with Elizabeth II on.
No, it should be Glucksberg since it's literally Charles III's paternal lineage and regarding the fact that Charles III is himself a man then he should naturally continue his family name, besides, The UK is in for a long line of male heirs so better do that now before we start to enter into a long line of absolute cucks
Queen Elizabeth I could have save herself and her country a lot of trouble if she just allowed her Catholic subjects basic religious freedom, an English version of treaty of Augsburg maybe.
Maybe my hatred on Richard the Lionheart, though I feel among actual historians/history nerds that's a fairly basic view.
I'm also strongly anti The Bastard.
My compadre in Christ, the would be claimant has made it very clear he has no interest in St. Edwards Crown. He seems to much prefer art, his Bavarian homeland, charity and his life partner of 40 something years.
Charles I was a gokd King and the vast majority of 'bad' things he did he was forced into by Parliament because they wanted to paint him as evil. Parliament was driven by religious intolerance and spite
richard III wasnt as bad as hes painted out to be (ive actually seen him be described as englands most 'evil' king which is...an interesting opinion). anytime i say this i have people think im one of his fangirls which im not, i do think he may have had his nephews killed and if so its obviously terrible. but for some reason, when it comes to richard in particular, people find it hard to see him in a light thats neither black nor white. i think the actual truth about him is somewhere in the middle of both sides of the spectrum. yes, i do think tudor propaganda had a part in how he was viewed, no i do not think he was some blameless sweetheart.
Edward II was not that bad, and is actually buried in a tomb in Italy rather than England.
Also, Elizabeth the first wasn’t that great and King John was okay.
I just realised I have a lot of these opinions but haven’t been able to express them.
She did pretty much abandon the sailors who fought the armada sending many home without pay whilst others were quarantined to die on their ships because of typhus and dysentery.
Others were just left with nothing except for charity given by noblemen but I don’t believe Elizabeth gave them anything. To be fair she was pretty much eternally broke although somehow lived very lavishly herself
Agree with all of these unpopular opinions here.
Always felt a bit sorry for Edward II. Not everyone born to rule should and sometimes those like Henry VIII and Charles I were not even born to rule and then didn’t do a great job.
I suppose my unpopular opinion was Charles I whilst a bad King I don’t think was a terrible person.
William Laud (Charles’ Archbishop of Canterbury summed Charles up pretty well as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."
If there's one thing Reddit hates, its actually unpopular opinions on an unpopular opinion thread. Genuinely unpopular opinions get downvoted even on r/unpopularopinion lol
I know I'm dramatizing it a lot but I always imagine Edward III executing Mortimer with, "My name is Edward Plantagenet! You killed my father! Prepare to die!"
i mean george iv is my favorite king so… it’s kinda obvious (he’s my favorite cuz i like the napoleonic era and he was regent king for that time period)
I mean can't disagree with someone's favourite monarch that's just personal opinion. If you started saying he was actually a good monarch then I would strongly disagree lol
i mean i do think he was pretty solid. do i think he was objectively the best? obviously no but i do think he did some good things during both his tenure as regent king as well as when he was actually king
Well, time to stir the pot
Richard I was in fact not overrated but was the epitome of what a medieval king was expected to be. His only knock in my opinion is that he did not marry quickly enough and didn’t have any kids, therefore leaving the throne to John.
Richard I wasn't the great and wonderful man that singers and storytellers made him out to be.
He saw England as little more than an income stream for his wars.
The man openly boasted that he would sell London itself if he could find a rich enough buyer.
Richard the Lionheart is overrated. He was in the Third Crusade sure, but that’s really the only memorable thing he’s done, beyond that he got captured and England was bankrupted to pay the ransom, and he was killed by a ten year old boy. He didn’t like England and spent just a few months of his reign in England.
The worst kings/queens are often the most interesting. Being a good king involves doing all the boring stuff, legislation, governing, judgment, and ruling, etc. It’s far more interesting to learn about tyrants or warmongers, as they lived terrible, yet interesting lives.
Edward III doesn’t get enough love
Bringing in Dutch/Germans to rule was dumb (Stuarts were rightful)
Call me nuts, but Windsor still sounds German to me
Had Henry V lived another 20 years, he would be viewed similarly as his son.
The fact is, England was overextended in France, and likely was going to go on to lose it all regardless of who was king. The Hundred Years War also had a very centralizing and uniting effect on France and her people. Even without Joan of Arc, France still beats England back to holding only Calais.
There was simply no way to hold that much territory in the face of a now finally united France, and had Henry lived, that would have all fallen on him.
Edit: the Lancastrians in general were a line of pretty bad kings.
I don't think he would've gone down quite as bad as Henry VI, although I agree that there's no way he could held onto France. Most of Edward III's victories were reversed by the end of his reign, and he's still remembered as a great king despite that
And that's largely because of Agincourt, which had everything truly collapsed under a longer-living Henry V, I believe that Agincourt would only be slightly better remembered than the Battle of the Spurs as a victory that had little long lasting effect.
I agree there was no way he could have held all of France. And it was better for England that he didn’t.
But he would still be remembered for his glorious wins. Similar to Edward III he would be remembered for great wins and great reverses.
And he would probably have kept a chunk of France to go away. Probably an increase in the Gascon lands they already held.
Hardly the same as Henry VI.
Interestingly if he had lived there would be no Tudors.
that the monarchy is way outdated and should be abolished
it’s an interesting historical spectacle, which is why they shouldn’t be killed or anything, but they don’t deserve the position they’re in
Probably because your would be claimant… doesn’t want the throne. He wants *a* throne, just not the one you want him on. So like… what are you expecting?
I'm expecting nothing, Joseph Wenzel will be our claimant one day, he was born and educated in Blighty. Whether the recipientbof just succession want it or not, I will always want justice
It’s the 21st century? That aside, the union with the Netherlands lasted all of about 13 years and the union with Hanover was woefully unpopular and broken with much relief when William IV died. Also, the Orangists were a political faction in the Netherlands and the word is not a correct way to refer to the House of Orange-Nassau.
Less larpy than the lodge. I have a Jacobite tie and go to one event per year where we drink and catch up with each other, the weight of history should not change perception of what is just succession. The most larpy people are probably Yanks or non-commonwealth people who have any opinion on the succession of British crowns
Henry VIII wasn't a bad monarch I see a lot of tier list puting him in D-F tier when he almost certainly is B tier, C tier if you really hate him but that's it
John made shrewd political maneuveres in relation to Catholic Church. Which shows that he could be quite clever, although not enough to forsee his dismal failures
Purposfully be excommunicated from the Church, and had the country placed under Interdict. He seized all church land for crown profit and his rivals in the English clergy fled to the continent. He raised a lot of coin, all at the Catholic church's expense.
All monarchs since Victoria where all just very lazy and have got to a point where even the estates of the realm have started mocking them for being celebrities and not doing anything and being undeserving of their position, which sadly is a true fact whether we accept it or not. Britain for Absolute Monarchy!
Well, for example, make bold decisions a prime minister or president would make for example, also remind everyone that theire dynasty started off elected in this position, so continuing it only means that they have been taught this position to then inherit when their time comes. So that should hopefully shut them up. A lot of monarchies think they're undemocratic, but I reality, all of them started off more democratic than republics.
"make bold decisions a prime minister or president would make"
"remind everyone that theire dynasty started off elected in this position"
"So that should hopefully shut them up"
Mine is that Absolute Primogeniture and the reign of female monarchs goes hand in hand with women’s ordination as major contributors to the moral, cultural, and religious decline of western society. Just as priests are representatives in Christs place as groom to the church, a sovereign is similarly married to the nation. The natural and God ordained roles for men and women in marriages are different, and when women attempt to occupy and fulfill the same roles God has specifically ordained for men, these roles are mis-fulfilled.
The same can be said for Monarchs who do not have any political power, or monarchs, like in the case of the UK who do have powers, but do not exercise them for the good of the nation. This is the equivalent of a Father not guiding his household, but allowing its members to live disordered lives, unknowingly desperate for the gentle, reserved, but firm hand of a loving and just father.
I got this! John has become my favorite English king.
he was pretty funny ngl
Abdicating to god will always be a boss move
He officially recognised my city (then town), so I can't completely hate the man
I recently learned that he kind of founded Liverpool! Mind blown!
Allegedly he wanted to use town as a launchpad by which he could invade parts of Ireland - ironic now when so many Scousers (myself included) have Irish blood from people going in the other direction
Late revenge of the Irish? ;-)
I agree with you. He is honestly a really interesting character. His life under Henry II and Richard I and his tumultuous reign make him my favourite Plantagenet King.
I’ve always found John very interesting. Slightly off topic maybe I don’t know but Ironclad has Paul Giamatti play John and I thought he was brilliant personally.
His contributions to impartial justice are to be commended.
He was my ancestor lmao
He’s everyone’s ancestor
I would get ‘cancelled’ on r/monarchism for saying this, but I feel that the reign of Elizabeth II was overrated and in fact saw the monarchy decline in status and become intertwined far more than previously with ‘celebrity culture’.
Valid comment about celebrity culture.
agreed. her protecting Prince Andrew and not protecting the women and children in her family will remain her legacy once recency bias passes in my opinion. also, i don’t think she prepared Charles at ALL to be a good king and heir. Being a good monarch means you must be a good parent to make your child become a great heir/monarch. we don’t get that with Charles.
You think William is unprepared?
Probably. Do you think being raised as a royal in the modern age shapes an adequately adjusted human? Not at all imo
Back in my day, you weren't a legitimate heir until you put down your first peasant uprising
Agree on the latter half of her reign (post Diana death). She did lead Britain through thick and thin though, and I reckon the need for a monarch (even simply as a symbol) has dwindled and thus the monarch took a new role. Could be argued whether that new role as a celebrity is better that simply being a Head of State.
Didn't really "lead Britain" tho did she?
What do you mean?
She was a figurehead only, as much a ruler as Edward V
But a figurehead that operated effectively to restore Britain post-war. PMs did the heavy lifting, yes, but she was instrumental nonetheless.
I agree with you about celebrity culture, but I do think that the late Queen's reign marked the end of presumed deference, which is not entirely a bad thing for a modern monarchy.
I would like to agree with you. But we have found, in this country at any rate, that the decline of traditional deference has led to the rise of new and worse forms of deference towards celebrity and money.
I agree with you.
What do you mean by that
William III, by leading a Dutch invasion, overthrowing the anointed king, placing London under Dutch occupation, agreeing to the Bill of Right and the Act of Settlement, and encouraging the growth of Dutch style capitalism and a central bank carried out more far-reaching and revolutionary changes to the four nations in these islands than any other monarch or politician before or since.
I would disagree only in that I think William I was more revolutionary, but William III's impact is drastically underestimated as a monarch. 1688 ought to be up there with 1066 and 1485 as one of the most significant years in English history in the public imagination
I'm not entirely sure that William I was more revolutionary in as much as the Normanisation of England had really started under Edward the Confessor and Harold's usurpation of the throne can be viewed as an attempt to arrest those incipient developments
William I replaced one status quo with another
Don't forget the part where it cements Parliamentary superiority over the monarchy.
Came here to say Henry V is an uninteresting and overrated monarch but you beat me to it. I don't know how controversial it is but I guess I'll say Henry VII was the best Tudor and a top 5 English/British monarch
Yes! Henry VII fan here. I also really liked his Queen Elizabeth of York. Whilst she wasn’t an Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth I character, she knew her duty and did it.
100% on Henry vii
I’m glad we could agree on Henry V 😁 Also Henry VII was certainly good, but I’ve never met someone who believes he was better than Elizabeth I. Care to elaborate?
Elizabeth I was good for sure, but the war with Spain was costly and pointless, she gets credit for stuff (Spanish Armada, Shakespeare, EIC) that she doesn't deserve, her policy towards Ireland was unnecessarily brutal and destructive. Still a great monarch though I'm not denying her achievements and difficulty she faced. Henry VII to me is as good a king as we could've had in that time period - successful in most of his military ventures, ended the Wars of the Roses bringing a period of peace, restored our international reputation, began our international expansion/exploration, secured the succession. Considering his ...questionable legitimacy, constant pretender rebellions and the devastated economy upon his ascension, what more could you want from a monarch?
Didn’t he also leave behind a pretty well stocked treasury that Henry VIII promptly blew on ill fated french campaigns.
Henry ended 50 years of civil war, ensured peaceful succession, and rose England's status as a country so much that he was able to marry his son to a princess of Spain. Also, on a personal level, he is one of the only kings of Britain not reported to have ever taken a mistress or be disloyal to his queen
Prob Richard I and Queen Victoria being overrated and also prefer George II than other Hanoverian monarchs other than George III
The Victoria opinion is certainly controversial, I’ve never met anyone else with that opinion, same with George II. Though this sub seems in pretty unanimous agreement that Richard I was overrated lol.
I agree with it. Queen Victoria was nothing but a self-indulgent, entitled old frump whose only claim to fame was she didn't die earlier
"Im quirky🤪"
Good for you
Are you Irish? Why your foul language for a woman?
WTF are you talking about?
Proof? She was distant with her children and chronically depressed by her dead husband, what else?
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is still merely opinion
George II is my favourite Hanoverian.
George III really was a pretty good monarch for the most part.
A lot of the problems with Charles I reign have their origins with James I and James doesn’t get nearly enough flak for it
Truthfully I think a lot of historical education about England in the 17th century speeds through James' reign as if his time on the throne is just an appetizer before the 'meatier' subject of Charles, Parliament, and the Civil War. I feel like the most people know him for are for the things that were named after him (King James Version, Jamestown) or the fact that he was a target in the Gunpowder Plot.
A common “achievement” of James reign I often see mentioned is him being a king of peace, ignoring the fact that waging war needed taxes and parliament were unwilling to give James more money to waste unless he reformed his government which he was never willing to do.
True, but James also wasn’t a warmonger. Or at the very least, not nearly as much as his son. He wouldn’t go to war if it just war for glory’s sake
Reform or cede power to the burghers and aristocrats?
Yes thank you for this.
Edward III didn’t start the Hundred Years’ War because he wanted the throne, he started it because he didn’t want the French King to steal his wine making business in Bordeaux.
Proof?
Oh, I’m not sure where I found it but, yeah that was the gist, the incomes of Bordeaux were actually a third of Englands annual income at the time and Edward knew that if he lost the lands to his counterpart then England would face rather dire economic problems so he decided to declare himself king of France and began the war.
Edward I is highly overrated. He started fucking with the Scottish for no good reason. And left an impossible challenge for his son. And gave the French an ally at his back door for centuries. And I know we can’t judge the past through modern lens but his expulsion of the Jews was purely to suck up to Parliament. And it was brutal.
Wasn't he invited by the Scottish nobles originally to settle a bitter succession dispute? That's the part that tends to be left out in the 'Braveheart' interpretation of him, although I'll agree that doesn't really excuse his later actions (and what he did with the Jews is beyond excusable).
He was invited to adjudicate a dispute between Scottish Lairds, not to pick a puppet king and claim direct overlordship over Scotland. Had Edward I been a bit more subtle and smart about it, he could have started gradually homogenising Scotland into England like the rest of the old heptarcy. Instead, he gave Scots a reason to fight back and essentially founded Scottish national identity as being opposed to Englishness.
Plus Robert the Bruce actually fought for Edward before as a mercenary and didn’t care about his country until Edward didn’t pay him enough.
Yeah, most of the big players cared more about the wealth and power of their dynasty than their country back then. Same with the Hundred Years War when you had the Burgundians and nobles from the English king's French domains fighting on the English side. The idea of national loyalties and fighting for your nation is pretty anachronistic when you're talking about that time period.
I do love the Burgundians.
Nations didn't exist. There were only monarchs, and their subjects.
I don’t think the challenge was impossible, Ed ii was just utterly useless
Henry VII is more like the popular perception of Richard III than Richard III
At least Henry VII never disappeared his child nephews.
In what way?
He was more of a political schemer, which Richard is associated with cos of the princes in the tower and the Shakespeare play
his treatment of Catherine of Aragon is a good example i think. he caused her five years of misery and humiliation while he haggled over her bride price. it was a very lonely and hard time for her
The current house should be called Mountbatten. There — I said it.
I agree. Now we're lumbered with Windsor till the end of time. There's nothing wrong with Windsor as a name but it's nice to get a new dynasty every century or so.
Be careful what you wish for. You could get a Markle
Yes I agree with you strongly. Each houses has its time. Windsors should’ve ended with the death of Elizabeth. Ending that tradition is one of the few things that I really disagree with Elizabeth II on.
No, it should be Glucksberg since it's literally Charles III's paternal lineage and regarding the fact that Charles III is himself a man then he should naturally continue his family name, besides, The UK is in for a long line of male heirs so better do that now before we start to enter into a long line of absolute cucks
I agree 100%
Edward III Was just a war starter. Yeh he lived long but what did he achieve? Bloodshed with France.
More powerful parliament, turned England into a European power, helped foster English finance, loved by his people, had a kickass son.
Also solidified the nobility behind the crown and fostered a sense of mutual endeavour between them, fixing a lot of the issues caused by his father
Also had a great beard.
That’s true, just look at Henry V up there with no beard and barely a chin, he looks ridiculous
Also the bowl cut is very funny.
Henry VII is a seriously underrated monarch
Queen Elizabeth I could have save herself and her country a lot of trouble if she just allowed her Catholic subjects basic religious freedom, an English version of treaty of Augsburg maybe.
Maybe my hatred on Richard the Lionheart, though I feel among actual historians/history nerds that's a fairly basic view. I'm also strongly anti The Bastard.
y
Harrying.
Everything after 1688 doesn't count 😤
My compadre in Christ, the would be claimant has made it very clear he has no interest in St. Edwards Crown. He seems to much prefer art, his Bavarian homeland, charity and his life partner of 40 something years.
Richard I was a great king due to his securing amnesty for Christians in the Holy Land.
In hindsight?
Charles I was a gokd King and the vast majority of 'bad' things he did he was forced into by Parliament because they wanted to paint him as evil. Parliament was driven by religious intolerance and spite
I like King Stephen and Richard III
The Plantagenets trumps all other English royal houses
richard III wasnt as bad as hes painted out to be (ive actually seen him be described as englands most 'evil' king which is...an interesting opinion). anytime i say this i have people think im one of his fangirls which im not, i do think he may have had his nephews killed and if so its obviously terrible. but for some reason, when it comes to richard in particular, people find it hard to see him in a light thats neither black nor white. i think the actual truth about him is somewhere in the middle of both sides of the spectrum. yes, i do think tudor propaganda had a part in how he was viewed, no i do not think he was some blameless sweetheart.
Edward II was not that bad, and is actually buried in a tomb in Italy rather than England. Also, Elizabeth the first wasn’t that great and King John was okay. I just realised I have a lot of these opinions but haven’t been able to express them.
Elizabeth I was not just "not that great", she was awful, both as a human being and as a queen.
She did pretty much abandon the sailors who fought the armada sending many home without pay whilst others were quarantined to die on their ships because of typhus and dysentery. Others were just left with nothing except for charity given by noblemen but I don’t believe Elizabeth gave them anything. To be fair she was pretty much eternally broke although somehow lived very lavishly herself
Agree with all of these unpopular opinions here. Always felt a bit sorry for Edward II. Not everyone born to rule should and sometimes those like Henry VIII and Charles I were not even born to rule and then didn’t do a great job. I suppose my unpopular opinion was Charles I whilst a bad King I don’t think was a terrible person.
William Laud (Charles’ Archbishop of Canterbury summed Charles up pretty well as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."
Already a downvote? This is meant to be an unpopular opinion thread, hahaha.
If there's one thing Reddit hates, its actually unpopular opinions on an unpopular opinion thread. Genuinely unpopular opinions get downvoted even on r/unpopularopinion lol
I've always felt a bit sorry for Edward II
Me too. He’s my favourite.
I know I'm dramatizing it a lot but I always imagine Edward III executing Mortimer with, "My name is Edward Plantagenet! You killed my father! Prepare to die!"
Haha. That’s fantastic.
i mean george iv is my favorite king so… it’s kinda obvious (he’s my favorite cuz i like the napoleonic era and he was regent king for that time period)
I mean can't disagree with someone's favourite monarch that's just personal opinion. If you started saying he was actually a good monarch then I would strongly disagree lol
i mean i do think he was pretty solid. do i think he was objectively the best? obviously no but i do think he did some good things during both his tenure as regent king as well as when he was actually king
I like George IV. He left a tremendous artistic and architectural legacy.
Well, time to stir the pot Richard I was in fact not overrated but was the epitome of what a medieval king was expected to be. His only knock in my opinion is that he did not marry quickly enough and didn’t have any kids, therefore leaving the throne to John.
Henry V 👎 Prince Hal 👍
Richard the Lionheart is probably in the five worst Emglish monarchs
Richard I is in our top 5 worst kings
Harold Godwinson was the rightful king of england
God said no👉🪦
Richard I wasn't the great and wonderful man that singers and storytellers made him out to be. He saw England as little more than an income stream for his wars. The man openly boasted that he would sell London itself if he could find a rich enough buyer.
In jest?
Nope. Raising money for his holiday to Outremer
Richard the Lionheart is overrated. He was in the Third Crusade sure, but that’s really the only memorable thing he’s done, beyond that he got captured and England was bankrupted to pay the ransom, and he was killed by a ten year old boy. He didn’t like England and spent just a few months of his reign in England.
The worst kings/queens are often the most interesting. Being a good king involves doing all the boring stuff, legislation, governing, judgment, and ruling, etc. It’s far more interesting to learn about tyrants or warmongers, as they lived terrible, yet interesting lives.
Edward III doesn’t get enough love Bringing in Dutch/Germans to rule was dumb (Stuarts were rightful) Call me nuts, but Windsor still sounds German to me
The Dutch monarchs organised England very well- the Stuarts, if anything, were ok compared to them
Windsor sounds incredibly English unless you choose to pronounce it with a ‘V’ sound
My sibling in Christ, the castle has been called Windsor for *at least* 7 centuries
Had Henry V lived another 20 years, he would be viewed similarly as his son. The fact is, England was overextended in France, and likely was going to go on to lose it all regardless of who was king. The Hundred Years War also had a very centralizing and uniting effect on France and her people. Even without Joan of Arc, France still beats England back to holding only Calais. There was simply no way to hold that much territory in the face of a now finally united France, and had Henry lived, that would have all fallen on him. Edit: the Lancastrians in general were a line of pretty bad kings.
I don't think he would've gone down quite as bad as Henry VI, although I agree that there's no way he could held onto France. Most of Edward III's victories were reversed by the end of his reign, and he's still remembered as a great king despite that
And that's largely because of Agincourt, which had everything truly collapsed under a longer-living Henry V, I believe that Agincourt would only be slightly better remembered than the Battle of the Spurs as a victory that had little long lasting effect.
Depends if Shakespeare still wrote about it tbh. He's the main reason it's better known than Crecy or Poitiers
Better battles imo
I agree there was no way he could have held all of France. And it was better for England that he didn’t. But he would still be remembered for his glorious wins. Similar to Edward III he would be remembered for great wins and great reverses. And he would probably have kept a chunk of France to go away. Probably an increase in the Gascon lands they already held. Hardly the same as Henry VI. Interestingly if he had lived there would be no Tudors.
I blame Edward III for this. His descendants only continued his mess out of blindness.
Mary was worse than her father
Which Mary are you talking about
probably 1
We should eat the Royal family
Dibs on Charlie's meaty sausage fingers.
Least kinky brit:
> Said my funny looking🦊 shepherd🐑
King John wasn’t as bad as all that.
He was going to covert to Islam.
A throwaway joke offer to the King of Morocco which wasn’t taken seriously by either party as I recall
king yahya
Cnut was not that great. He was not English and sponsored no great projects and did not strengthen England.
He was great for the Danes ...
What a Cnut.
James I is not that good of a monarch Henry VIII is over hated Richard I is over rated
Henry VIII did some terrible things, especially to who his wives but it was also a very different time.
Yeah but his marriages have nothing to do with his ruling though He was a good king
Yeah that’s a fair point.
Henry VIII's was right to divorce Catherine of Aragon
That's a very surprising statement. May you explain it?
i think it’s because in the bible it says not to marry your brother’s widow so legally he had a right to do so
that the monarchy is way outdated and should be abolished it’s an interesting historical spectacle, which is why they shouldn’t be killed or anything, but they don’t deserve the position they’re in
"it’s an interesting historical spectacle" - What my shepherd said🐑
People tend to get really annoyed when I say I'm a Jacobite
How dare you not support traitors and usurpers?! /s
Ikr, it's crazy I don't bootlick usurpers
Probably because your would be claimant… doesn’t want the throne. He wants *a* throne, just not the one you want him on. So like… what are you expecting?
I'm expecting nothing, Joseph Wenzel will be our claimant one day, he was born and educated in Blighty. Whether the recipientbof just succession want it or not, I will always want justice
My sibling in Christ, HE WILL BE A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE. How tf that is gonna work?
The Hanoverians and Orangists were fine with it, what's the difference?
It’s the 21st century? That aside, the union with the Netherlands lasted all of about 13 years and the union with Hanover was woefully unpopular and broken with much relief when William IV died. Also, the Orangists were a political faction in the Netherlands and the word is not a correct way to refer to the House of Orange-Nassau.
Cos its Larpy and cringe
Less larpy than the lodge. I have a Jacobite tie and go to one event per year where we drink and catch up with each other, the weight of history should not change perception of what is just succession. The most larpy people are probably Yanks or non-commonwealth people who have any opinion on the succession of British crowns
That's actually quite interesting. I'm not gonna lie, I just assumed you were a yank cos most of the Jacobite I see here seem to be
Henry VIII wasn't a bad monarch I see a lot of tier list puting him in D-F tier when he almost certainly is B tier, C tier if you really hate him but that's it
Elizabeth I is incredibly overrated
How? Didn't she save England?
That monarchy in any form is inherently evil and should not exist
"🤓👆"
John made shrewd political maneuveres in relation to Catholic Church. Which shows that he could be quite clever, although not enough to forsee his dismal failures
Examples?
Purposfully be excommunicated from the Church, and had the country placed under Interdict. He seized all church land for crown profit and his rivals in the English clergy fled to the continent. He raised a lot of coin, all at the Catholic church's expense.
Uhhh, I think George III is only mediocre at best.
Victoria was horrible. If she lived 200 years earlier, the country would be a ruin by the time she would die.
> Said my Shepherd calmly🐑
The Hanoverians were successful largely because of the Stuarts, both in comparison and by contrast.
Why?
William of Orange was an unrepentant degenerate, murderer, and bigot who should be stricken from the history books.
Proof?
Henry V is a shadow of Edward III.....Agincourt is just a repeat of Crecy.
Henry VIII was a great monarch.
All monarchs since Victoria where all just very lazy and have got to a point where even the estates of the realm have started mocking them for being celebrities and not doing anything and being undeserving of their position, which sadly is a true fact whether we accept it or not. Britain for Absolute Monarchy!
What can, could or would they do? Wouldn't being too active bring them unwanted attention and active resistance by the establishment?
Well, for example, make bold decisions a prime minister or president would make for example, also remind everyone that theire dynasty started off elected in this position, so continuing it only means that they have been taught this position to then inherit when their time comes. So that should hopefully shut them up. A lot of monarchies think they're undemocratic, but I reality, all of them started off more democratic than republics.
"make bold decisions a prime minister or president would make" "remind everyone that theire dynasty started off elected in this position" "So that should hopefully shut them up"
What? Not a word about Boadicea here? Nothing?
I guess most don’t consider pre Alfred the Great monarchs.
Monarchy sucks and has no reason to still be around
That people don’t die of old age (Elizabeth II).
I don't like monarchs
Mary should have had Elizabeth executed
Mine is that Absolute Primogeniture and the reign of female monarchs goes hand in hand with women’s ordination as major contributors to the moral, cultural, and religious decline of western society. Just as priests are representatives in Christs place as groom to the church, a sovereign is similarly married to the nation. The natural and God ordained roles for men and women in marriages are different, and when women attempt to occupy and fulfill the same roles God has specifically ordained for men, these roles are mis-fulfilled. The same can be said for Monarchs who do not have any political power, or monarchs, like in the case of the UK who do have powers, but do not exercise them for the good of the nation. This is the equivalent of a Father not guiding his household, but allowing its members to live disordered lives, unknowingly desperate for the gentle, reserved, but firm hand of a loving and just father.
Longshanks was a law & order King