| Worst English King |
| Stephen |
|
10% |
[ 5 ] |
| John |
|
28% |
[ 14 ] |
| Henry III |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Edward II |
|
22% |
[ 11 ] |
| Richard II |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Henry VI |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Charles I |
|
14% |
[ 7 ] |
| James II |
|
12% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 50 |
|
| Author |
Message |
J.D. Crawford
|
 Posted: Wed 21 Mar, 2012 8:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | J.D. Crawford wrote: | | Taking the Scottish point of view, I'll say Edward I. Bad neighbour. |
Interesting - He's not on the poll as I read it.
I voted for Edward II because he was completely ineffectual as sovereign and lost almost all the North that his father had worked so diligently to control. John may have lost most of the English crowns' continental possessions but Ed II did worse by losing control of most of Northern England and whatever Scottish lands were under the English heel during his childhood.
If he lived today we could compare him to the rich, lazy playboy sons of powerful industrial leaders. Or perhaps much of the Saudi Royal family?  |
I won't argue with a guy who gave me my first fencing lesson and who could kick my butt any day of the week!
|
|
   |
 |
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Wed 21 Mar, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Matthew Amt responded to my choice of Edward the Confessor as the worst king of England saying, " Again, hardly his fault. As I understand it (though it's been a long time since I read up on this!), it was up to the Witan to choose the king, and they chose Godwinson. Invasion by usurpers is beside the point. "
Well , I think one or both of us will have to do some reading. My recollection is that Edward the Confessor created the problem by allegedly promising the throne to William the Bastard while there were other candidates for the throne who had much better claims. I took this directly from Wikipedia and I know it isn't a always a trustworthy source but in this case I think they have their history right, "In Richard Baxter's view, Edward's "handling of the succession issue was dangerously indecisive, and contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes to which the English have ever succumbed." My recollection of my reading supports Mr. Baxter's view, Edward handled the question of the succession very clumsily and his questionable decisions opened the door for Harold Hardrada's and William the Bastard's invasions of England. It also appears the Edward surrounded himself with many Normans ( clergymen especially) and this must have alienated the Anglo Saxon nobles whose support he needed..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Wilson
Location: England Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Mar, 2012 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Politics aside like someone said above Cromwell and Henry VIII for me due the destruction and loss of castles and architecture here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Mar, 2012 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | Matthew Amt responded to my choice of Edward the Confessor as the worst king of England saying, " Again, hardly his fault. As I understand it (though it's been a long time since I read up on this!), it was up to the Witan to choose the king, and they chose Godwinson. Invasion by usurpers is beside the point. "
Well , I think one or both of us will have to do some reading. My recollection is that Edward the Confessor created the problem by allegedly promising the throne to William the Bastard while there were other candidates for the throne who had much better claims. I took this directly from Wikipedia and I know it isn't a always a trustworthy source but in this case I think they have their history right, "In Richard Baxter's view, Edward's "handling of the succession issue was dangerously indecisive, and contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes to which the English have ever succumbed." My recollection of my reading supports Mr. Baxter's view, Edward handled the question of the succession very clumsily and his questionable decisions opened the door for Harold Hardrada's and William the Bastard's invasions of England. It also appears the Edward surrounded himself with many Normans ( clergymen especially) and this must have alienated the Anglo Saxon nobles whose support he needed.. |
Yes, you could very well be right--and you're definitely right that I need to read more! Used to know some of this stuff... I can't tell you for certain what the succession process formally and legally included. For all I know, the Witan simply rubber-stamped the named successor, or maybe they habitually caved in to whatever pressure there was after a king's death. Edward clearly did favor the Normans heavily, and it's possible that William saw this as being the successor, regardless of what the Witan declared. Maybe all 3 of the claimants were just opportunists, ha! Baxter's description of the Conquest as "one of the greatest catastrophes" kinda suggests just a tiny bit of anti-Norman bias, though, doncha think?
Thanks!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sjors B
Location: Zevenaar, The Netherlands Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Mon 02 Apr, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rod Walker wrote: | | As a worst King of England, I'm going for Richard I. He really seemed to have seen England as just a way to raise money. At least John wanted to be involved as a King of England. |
I agree with you absolutely. During his 10 year reign, Richard only spend several months in England, while his crusades and ransoms almost bankrupted the kindom
Besides this he was also a very cruel man, considering he sacked Cyprus and ordered the execution of several hundreds of muslim prisonners after the conquest of Acre in july 1191.
Strange thing is that the entire myth of him being a great king descent from the time of his reign. His great campaign to defend christendom and the holy land from 'saracen invaders' made him enormously populair.
member of the langenort school for European martial arts in Nijmegen (NL)
http://www.historicalshows.com/
|
|
 |
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2012 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People like a winner, and a winner in war is best of all. If you win wars that is a huge amount of political clout.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
Dan Bexell
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'd have to go with Edward II. If I remember rightly, he was killed by his wife(the queen), and her lover. To make it look like bad health, they stuck a marrowbone up his anus and then slid a red hot poker through it which cauterized his innards. I'm guessing at least THEY thought he was the worst king ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
not to mention our more common opinion of richard and john has been heavily skewed by the works and stories about robin hood.
john of course being portrayed as the bad guy who for the sake of it, taxes people of nottingham to the hilt, and jailing all who cannot pay. (im not talking about whatever primary story of robin hood there is, i mean the subsequent stories, including plays books and movies)
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
