5 worst British Monarchs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- The worst monarchs in British history. The united kingdom has witnessed some pretty terrible and ruthless monarchs and rulers over the years. To be fair a kingdom with a history as long and turbulent as Britain's is bound to have had its fair share of incompetent kings and queens. Whilst some of these people have been pure evil, others have just been useless due to mental illness or general incompetence. From the tyrant Tudor King Henry Viii who took six wives, to the truly evil King John who lost most of his territories in France, we're counting down 5 of UK’s worst and most useless kings and queens / monarchs.
You can check out my history and heritage blog at www.eheritage....
Main sound track (The Crown) from Alexander Nakarada:
Music by Alexander Nakarada @ SerpentSound Studios
/ serpentsoundstudios
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Introduction track (The snow Queen) from Incompetech.com:
The Snow Queen Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons... 
Кино
Says Mary Queen of Scots
Shows a painting of Lady Jane Grey
SMH
I know right lol
Indeed😂
Lola Also used at 9:28 when discussing Henry VIII eliminating claimants to the throne. Lady Jane Grey was executed after Henry VIII and his son and heir Edward VI were both dead.
Jmi
i was just about to say that
And shows paintings of Henry V when talking about Henry VI
LMBO
Best ever king and worst ever king father and son lol
@@davidtawse6765 Henry V is my favorite King of England
@@rukminikrishna1938 yeah same, lead England to our greatest ever military victory.
talks about Henry Vs leadership
shows a painting of the battle of aljubarrota between portugal and castille in 1385
The documentary should have included Bloody Mary, Charles I, James II, George IV, and Edward VIII.
Richard the Lionheart should be on this list. He nearly bankrupted England with foreign wars and then did bankrupt England when he decided to travel alone across hostile foreign country just because he wanted an adventure. The result was he was captured and England's treasury had to pay a ransom that was about 5 years income to the crown. I have no idea why Richard the Lionheart is remembered as such a good king. Yes he was a brave warrior but useless as a ruler. Should also say that George IV and Edward VIII should also be candidates for this list.
Edward VIII's tenure was so incredibly short he doesn't even qualify. As for Richard the Lionheart - it's a fair bet the myth around him created a legend everybody took for a fact. Sort of like people remembering Titanic as the biggest most luxurious ship ever when in reality she was overtaken in size by the SS Imperator just 7 months after her sinking and several ocean liners of the 20's and 30's motor ships made her appear both archaic and a 19th century technology relic. Had she not sunk she would have been forgotten and not hailed as the "most beautiful ship ever" = utter nonsense.
I'd say Richard the Lionheart's "noble crusade" made him overly revered too.
@@christinefury7839
I'd put this comment in the running for completely useless.
Don't care
Get outta here! Richard the LIONHEART deserves alot better than that! He was far from useless. Yes he was more a crusader but what he did for the Country and kingdom
Richard 111 was not nearly as deformed as we have been lead to believe. He was a soldier and could wield the heavy swords used at that time. He had a scoliosis of the spine which was why they thought that the skeleton found in the Leicester car park might be Richard 111. It took three years for them to positively identify him.
He was of slender build, but was a trained and experienced soldier.Henry was lucky at Bosworth
While Richard was from what we can see a skilled soldier and horseman the curvature of his spine was severe - and it took DNA testing to identify his remains.
Shakespeare was a shill for the Tudor family and painted Richard 3 as a wicked troll.
In what universe was Henry VIII a completely useless monarch? He most definitely was a tyrant king later in life, but he sure as hell wasn't useless.
Different Henry
Irony is his daughters ruled well. His son was a sickly and worthless
@@kevinbrown4073 nowadays sicklies are worthless? interesting. he might have been not a big king, but than again, he died as child. I wonder what had become of him, if he would have grown up. but yeah. sickies are worthless anyway and probably should have been killed by all the healthy bigs surrounding him
yes, and where is Queen Mary I? she was very bad queen, and yes Henry VIII for sure wasnt useless, thanks to him england has english church
Guys that are dicks to woman usually have daughters I've noticed
Just to let you know when you introduce Mary Queen of Scots in the beginning, you've actually shown a picture of Lady Jane Grey being beheaded and not Mary
From this day forth all the toilets of the land shall be known as JOHNS!
King John was without a doubt the worst English king ever. He was downright evil.
The painting you show in 0:35 is of Lady Jane Grey, not Mary Queen of Scots
Madison Hope-Tatnell I thought it was Kathryn Howard 🤭😂
@@ElliesWolftrave2456 You are right, it was Kathryn Howard.
The painting in 1:08 is of the battle of Aljubarrota, between Portugal and Castille in 1385.
Richard III wasn't that bad, actually.
Richard III was a victim of Tudor propaganda
@@dianadeedy1025 He certainly had his dark side. No doubt in my mind that he killed the Princes in the Tower. However, did he also, by doing that, save England from another huge civil war, this time between two brothers?
Yea but he killed his nephews and one of them was king Edward V
Bit handy with the poker though!
@@robertevans8010 Malmsey, you mean?
James' rule of both England and Scotland did not create Great Britain, for while the two countries shared a monarch, they maintained separate Parliaments. The sovereign state of Great Britain would not be made until 104 years later, during the reign of Queen Anne- making her the last monarch of England and Scotland and the first of the sovereign nation of Great Britain.
British monarchs start in 1707 mate. These are English and Scottish monarchs.
not myname what a good fucking shout lad.
not myname well done!
Well, they were all British monarchs, they just weren't monarchs of (all of) Britain. By the same token, you can rightly call (say) Louis XIV a European king, because he was a king who was European, even though he obviously wasn't king of *all* of the continent.
The point is the United kingdom of Britain didn't exist till act of parliament in the 1740s so no they wasn't all kings and queens of the UK
@@Mimi-by3gz no they not the same the English are a mixture of immigrants from western Europe ie the angles from Denmark and Saxons from Germany. The British are mainly Celts and picts I suggest you research better on British and English history
I cannot think of a worseKing than Charles I. Due to many miscalculations and stubbornness, he not only lost HIS throne and was beheaded, he lost the throne of England in that it was no longer. How could a king be worse than that???
Mark Orop so was his son James II
Charles III would like to put his name in contention and he hasn't even ascended to the throne yet.
BigFire be grateful it’s not Andrew
Richard the First spent less than a year of his reign in this country and almost bankrupted it with the crusades. What did he do that meant he was not included in this list?
how could you have Mary as a worst monarch. But not Bloody Mary Queen of England? Idk...
angelique mercado Thanks for taking the time to comment. Any top list is going to be subjective. My top 5 is not just based on acts of evil but also ineffectiveness and all round incompetence. I think the list is pretty balanced although it's always going to be hard squeezing in just 5. Perhaps there will be a follow up video.......
Great British History understandable.
Oh please. Bloody Mary wasn't all that bad. The reason she got a terrible reputation was threefold: 1) she was the first queen to truly rule in her power, 2) she married a hated Spaniard, and 3) she tried to bring Catholic religion back to England -- which failed and guess who got to write the history books afterward?
She wasn't terrible. She honestly didn't kill a whole lot of people. She killed, what was it? like 50 people a year on average? while Henry the 8th killed more than 2k+ a year on average. She improved the navy. A lot of her legislation was quite enlightened for her time and that made Elizabeth 1's reign much smoother. She basically paved the way for Elizabeth 1.
Not that I agree with this list. Edward 2, Richard 2, and James 6/1 should've been on this. Richard 3 wasn't too terrible.
Kendrahf agree. she also makes great cocktails. bloody mary tastes great haha
So if SHE is BLOODY Mary why isn't Henry who killed a whole lot more people NOT Bloody Henry? Answer: Because the PROTESTANTS wrote the history.
There was nothing that Mary, Queen of Scots could do about her situation.
Except listen to the advice of her royal family members who warned her explicitly about how ignorant she was acting and how her mistakes would lead to her eventual execution. After her return to Scotland she was out of control and flaunted her entitled attitude. Yes both her and Elizabeth were fed lies about each other by their male ministers who had political agendas aimed at unsurping any woman who ruled alone from their thrones. But Elizabeth didn't take every single oppurtunity presented to her to attack Mary's prestige the way that Mary had been acustomed to attacking Elizabeth (even when she was living in France)! Mary was born into the role of regent, and as a result she started to become entitled and bratty. Elizabeth was born a bastard and expexted to be killed by her biological sister, she kept her cunning ability to plan ahead while also remaining humble even as regent. That's why Elizabeth won.
Spectrum98 Except NOT marry Darnley the spoiled brat, NOT marry Bothwell while the country was calling for his blood, and NOT flee to a Protestant country to demand help from a monarch whose throne she had tried to lay claim to.
@@jmarie9997 And possibly not involving herself in plots to depose and kill Elizabeth. Few things wear out your welcome as that sort of plot, and it is usually thought inadvisable to do it when in the absolute power of the plotee.
I must question this list. You've already mentioned that Richard III's reputation is largely unfair, tainted by William Shakespeare, (who was writing plays during the times of the heirs of Richard's victorious opponent, Henry VII, and thus would hardly write anything favourable to Richard). One must consider whether the actions of Mary, Queen of Scots were more damaging to herself than her country. No mention is made of the persecutions of Mary I, the upheavals caused by Edward II and his favoritism of Piers Gaveston and the Despensers, or the tyranny during the latter years of Richard II's reign. Mention is made of John, but not of Richard I, who was more interested in fighting foreign wars than ruling his kingdom. Then we must consider Charles I, who led his country into a civil war (and was prepared to use foreign mercenaries against his own people to regain power).
My personal list:
From least worst to worst
10. Richard the Lionheart
9. Edward VIII
8. Ethelred the Unready
7. Henry VI
6. James II
5. Henry III
4. Mary I
3. Charles I
2. Edward II
1. John
This only includes English monarchs as I am not very familiar with Scottish history.
Terrible video with many inaccuracies. Also the author seemed to not care what pictures he showed as a lot of them do not even correlate to the same person..... such as the opening picture of the painting is of the execution of Land Jane Grey by Paul Delaroche in 1833, and not of Mary Queen of Scots as the author suggested.
Nobody ever mentions King Stephen among the worst English monarchs. Stephen was known for the period of time known as "the Anarchy" - which was a time of lawlessness ande civil war. He was certainly worse than Mary Queen of Scots - who was actually never a queen of England.
From having studied a bit of continental European royalty king Henry VI of England probably inherited his "mad genes" from his French royal ancestors -his mother was French -Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French king and one of her grandparents was as mad as a cut snake -he actually thought he was made of glass and would shatter if bumped into -I think it was Charles IV.
Kalo Arepo I'm guessing that atleast half a millennium of inbreeding was likely a contributing factor too.
It was actually Katherine's Dad who thought he was made of glass but his Mom Joanna of Bourbon was bonkers too...
@@jamellfoster6029 Yes it looks as if the mad gene came from the Bourbons -then merely dukes but who eventually became kings of France with Henri IV of Bourbon and later became kings of Spain as well and also of Bourbon Two Sicilies and the northern Italian city of Parma.They still remain as kings of Spain!
Okay let’s forget Charles I who sparked the civil war and the only English king to be executed
@@troublesome9654 Nah they invited his son Charles ii back after Cromwell died cause they were sick of the puritan crap. And when Charles ii died naturaly his brother became king.
MARY OF "GUISE" IS PRONOUNCED "GHEEZ", A FRENCH NAME.
sachseco Gis would do
sachseco it's not
Marie de Guise, actually
It would also be the French version of the name, "Marie" not Mary..
or geez :D:D
Thanks for your comment. Of course a lot of research when into this video and my original list of useless monarchs was extensive. Clearly there is scope for a further video, or more! I'm sure you will u understand for a small channel such as this I have to make interesting videos that viewers enjoy. Unfortunately that means that I sometime have to talk about more interesting or well known topics and characters. I can promise you that a lot of research goes into making these videos and they are as historically accurate as possible. Obviously I sometime make mistakes as I am not a professional historian. I do take feedback on board. Thanks for watching.
Mary Queen of Scots has no right to be on this list! She was a woman who was doing the best she could often in impossible situations. She was just a woman who sometimes made mistakes bc she followed her heart--which we all do sometimes. She is hailed to this day as being a great woman, was kind and good, but her barons constantly were turning on her, and her reign was constantly being tinkered and poisoned from the outside in, by Elizabeth. She just wasn't evil/manipulative or always politically savvy. And she had reason to want her husband killed. He was terrible--he just was very good at hiding it until they married. She was just protecting herself and was thinking as a mother. and when she went to England, she was hoping that Elizabeth would help her, but Elizabeth imprisoned her--everyone knows this. So Elizabeth actually kept secretly impeding her rule, and then when Mary came to her for help, she imprisoned her for 19 YEARS and separated her from her son! Of course Mary would want to kill her. I tire of people misconstruing this. I am happy that Elizabeth helped England gain stability, but that doesn't mean that I have to overlook that she was pure evil to Mary. Even Jane Austen was known for hating queen Elizabeth for that--and she even wrote about it in her juvenilia.
And Henry VI is not terrible--he just wasn't ruthless and ambitious like his father. And he inherited something at too young of an age. Shakespeare glorifies Henry V, Henry VI's dad, but historians have no problem with admitting that Henry V was despicable when it came to wartime. Look up his victories--he was ruthless and coldhearted. in one battle, where the French released the women and children, in hopes that Henry would let them pass, he didn't, and had them starve right in front of him and his army. He may have won france, but all those French lives that were lost because of him was not only pointless, but it was useless in the end, bc he dies from war and then all the French territories got lost. I just don't think these two really should get on this list--there are worse monarchs. watch timeline in world history documentaries, and I can assure you that there are worse ones than these two.
Philadelphia Whovian I
you are correct henry v was a ruthless and strong king of england,ireland and france, he was the victor of agincourt and claimed the title of king of france, he was not paticularly liked in wales, as defeating the welsh prince** owen glendower and hotspur**..
poor henry vi the lancastrian king, had a tough act too follow and the cousins* war of the roses was a hysterical time in irish-welsh and english history- no great suprise that game of thrones is inspired by the time..and 100's of novels later by P gregory,C skidmore and 100 or more others....
Philadelphia Whovian
I like your post and agree. Mary Queen of Scots does Not belong on this list. I also would have put Henry 8 at number 1. Mary Tudor would be second. It’s not just about the number of people they killed but also about their reasons for killing them.
Philadelphia Whovian q
Philadelphia Whovian She was, however, more French than Scots.
No room for Charles I, Bloody May, James II or Edward VIII? Far worse than the rogues assembled here.
Mary is in no way worse tho then her father
Why couldn't them people be more creative with names. So many Mary it is mind blowing.
So why no mention of Mary's and aunt Mary sister too Margaret and Henry. She was technical she was the queen to France.
She was forced to marry an really old man who died days laters.
France got made she wouldn't where black they shipped her home.
Ps Richard was a blood thirsty as they come, or Cambridge wouldn't saved in their parking lot.
He is the troll under the bridge.
Kirsten Campbell When it comes to repeating names, the Marys aren't that bad. The Henrys and Edwards are much worse, and they're only halfway to France's Louises!
I'm very surprised that Richard II did not make the list. His incompetence, his bankrupting the kingdom, his abject failure to produce an heir -- there is no record that his queen, Anne of Bohemia, ever got pregnant -- and his tendency to let his favorites essentially rule in his name all set the stage for his cousin, Henry Duke of Lancaster, to seize the throne and set the stage for the Wars of the Roses a century later. Every other list of "bad kings" I've ever seen has Richard II as one of, if not the, worst of the bunch.
A century later?
@@mikev4621 - When I wrote this, I was thinking of the culmination of the series of civil wars that left the kingdom in the hands of Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII, the last king to claim England by right of conquest (he also claimed it by descent from King Arthur and by right of marriage to his cousin Elizabeth of York, the last surviving Yorkist claimant.) Richard was deposed in 1399, and Henry VII claimed the throne in 1485, almost a century later. You are right, my first comment was poorly written.
@@TechBearSeattle Apologies for being picky but the first battle of St Albans was 1455, and the unrest that led to it existed for years before that, so I commented.Your other info is impeccable apart from King Arthur- I thought he was mythical
@@mikev4621 - If it makes any difference, much of what I know about Richard II comes from an American education :)
My understanding is that, with Richard deposed, the throne should have passed to the Dukes of Clarence, the next senior family line. But Lionel of Clarence died with only a daughter, Philippa, who was married to Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, so the next senior male claimant was Henry of Lancaster who became Henry IV. The male line of March also died out, with Anne Mortimer being the last claimant. She had married Richard, Earl of Cambridge. Richard and his older brother Edward, Duke of York, were executed in 1415 for treason by Henry V, because of a plot to assert that Anne -- and therefore Richard -- was the rightful heir to England. Resentment simmered for a few more decades until Henry VI's disastrous reign, which led Richard of York to press his claim to England. A lot of powerful people hated Henry by now, which allowed Richard to raise an army: the First Battle of St. Alban's was the result. So while 1455 was the first of the civil wars between Lancaster and York claimaints, the egg that was hatched then was laid when Richard II was deposed in 1399.
As for the Arthurian claim, historian Alison Weir notes that Henry VII made four claims to England over the course of his reign. First was marriage to Elizabeth of York, the only surviving Yorkist claimaint; their marriage unified the Yorkist and Lancastrian lines making their oldest son, Arthur, the rightful heir to England regardless of where you stood during the wars. The second was descent from King Arthur. It was popularly believed at the time that Arthur had been Welsh -- some of the earliest written records of his legends are in Welsh epic poems -- and Henry Tudor, who was himself Welsh, leaned into those legends to assert that he was actually English and not a Welsh foreigner. That is is why he named his first son Arthur, to emphasize this claim, and why the infamously stingy king gave generous patronage to Glastonbury Abbey, which since 1184 had a shrine they claimed was the burial place of Arthur and Guenivere. The third was a convoluted and quasi-legitimate descent from King Edward III, Richard II's father, by way of secret marriages. The fourth was flat out right of conquest: he won the war, so clearly God had blessed his reign.
@@TechBearSeattle American teachers fitted you out very well.But...
-Henry couldnt have claimed royal title through his son Arthur, because Arthur wasn't born when he fought Bosworth.
-King Arthur , in his legendary form, is almost certainly mythical ; though possibly based on a approx 6th century chieftan or somesuch.
How would Henry's patronage of Glastonbury and "leaning into Arthurian legends assert" that he was English???btw he was actually half English- only his father was Welsh.
He only married Elizabeth of York after he won Bosworth , so she was no reason to assert his claim to the throne.But the marriage was a good one, and certainly cemented his claim.
-His only real claim was through his mother ,and it was a slender one considering he wasn't a legitimate heir. He was lucky that candidates were getting scarce by 1485 and enough people favoured him to encourage his challenge to Richard 3.He was lucky that Richard didn't kill him on the battlefield.
Richard 2 was Edward 3's grandson, not son.
If Henry 6 had not been so unfitted to the times, the wars might never have happened
It is possible that Richard III was neither hunchbacked, nor had a withered arm. While he was alive he was described by contemporaries as energetic, well-built, a great swordsman and horseman. During the battle of Bosworth Field he personally led his knights in a charge where he cut down Henry Tudor's standard-bearer and slew one of Henry's strongest knights. The stories of his physical deformities were most likely pinned on him after his death, to further vilify him.
1987MartinT Your absolutely right. In fact there is little to no mention at all of Richard having obvious physical disabilities. Obviously we know now that he did have a crooked spine (scoliosis) but this was clearly massively exaggerated in later years. Richard was actually a great Warrior and military leader and clearly wasn't hampered by his spine. There was a very interesting documentary on TV in the UK a few hers ago where they found a male similar in stature to Richard and dressed him up in armour and put him on a horse. It was quite clear that even with scoliosis he had good dexterity and the fact he had a crooked spine was barely noticeable. The conclusion was that someone with such a disability would just struggle to maintain good performance for a long period of time without tiring. Very interesting.
hayley s Hi Hayley thanks for your comment. Yes that's why I mention that we 'now know' he had scoliosis. The point was that it wouldn't have necessarily been obvious, which was proven in the documentary. He clearly wasn't as disfigured as what later chroniclers would have us believe. Thanks for watching.
he wasnt hunchbacked he his skeleton was found with a twisted spine aka scoliosis, he likely wasnt hunchbacked by=ut he likely would have carried himself oddly which may have led to the rumours.
1987MartinT ñ
yes i always found it contradictory that he was both hunchback but great in personal combat. sounded like a contradiction. likewise ivar the boneless was said to be a man who could hardly move properly. yet he conquered england but other versions hv it that he was not physically deformed but a victim of bad translation.
How can Mary Queen of Scots be on this list if she was not an actual British monarch?
Son of a Sith she was a monarch in the British isles and on great Britain.
I guess bc there were several failed revolutions aimed at putting Mary on Elizabeth's throne while Mary was imprisoned in England. But yeah she was never queen of England.
I guess she was such a failure of ruiling the other 2 kingdoms in which she was a legitimate queen that they thought they'd add her mistakes to a third realm haha.
@@Sam-gf6ue She was Queen of Scotland, not England. Elizabeth 1 was the Queen of England.
Sam 1 I thought she was the queen of Scotland, which certainly makes her a British monarch. Don’t have to be English to be British monarch, otherwise we have a few French and German born monarchs that wouldn’t count as well.
He said monarchs of the UK. Not just England.
What about Ethelred the Unready? I don't remember much about him, but after earning that name he can't have been great.
Wasn't he the one on the throne when the Vikings took over the entire land? If so, he's no. 1 on my list.
Couch Potato his sobriquet has little to do with his real sobriquet.
And his,real sobriquet makes it plain that he did not belong with the worst. He was more of a nonentity.
Unrǽde is better rendered as Clueless than as unready.
You dont put John Mayor or Gordon Broon on the list of the worst PMs, do you?
His mother had his teen-aged half-brother, the rightful king, murdered. The people never respected him because of that. All the progress made by the strong kings from Alfred to Edgar, who took the Danelaw back from the Vikings, was undone during Ethelred's long reign. His son Edward the Confessor was another weak one - he married a young beautiful woman, but was too religious to have intercourse with her.
The unready in old english means the unwise. He was perceived as weak and useless, and to rectify that he started a genocide (the Saint Brice's day massacre) against the Danes living in England, and who happened to be the most powerful military force in England at the time , and as revenge the Danes conquered all of England, without even fighting a single battle because all Æthelreds lords just switched sides to get a less useless king.
Joshua: Danegeld predates Æthelred, and wasn't what you think it was. It was paid to the Danish king, but the raids had never been military adventures by any Danish king, so it was original to get the Danish king to stop other Danes from attacking England, and in Æthelreds time several generations after the Danes where Christians and stopped plundering England, it was to pay for the Danish king to keep a constant military presence in England to stop other Norse people from raiding (at this point in time only Icelanders and north norwegians were still raiding). Of course when pissing off the danes, they already had an army in England, because they literally had been paid to have an army there.
Richard "Lionheart" was definitely worse than his brother John. Richard spent HUGE amounts of money on his wars, particularly the "crusade" he went on - and John had to somehow provide the cash that Richard wanted and expected; what else could he do but raise taxes?!
Arthur's claim to the throne after Richards death could be argued as equally strong as Johns in all fairness. While Arthur was Johns older brothers, Geoffrey, son, John was Richards brother. After Richard had died they were the two most powerful claimants and both had substantial following. Arthur for example had the backing of Philip II of France and Brittany (the lands he was duke of and inherited from his father upon his death), whereas John had the support of Hubert Walter the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as Normandy, their families ancestral home through William the Conqueror, both of these reasons for each claimant gives quite a bit of power to their claims. So who had the stronger claim to the throne is honestly just a matter of opinion. I personally believe John had the greater claim due to him being a closer relation to the Lionheart, but I can understand why others would see otherwise.
There is no doubt as to who had the stronger claim. Arthur of Brittany had the stronger claim. Being the son of the older trumps the younger brother. I don't think Philip really supported anyone. He simply wanted chaos. He didn't want the English King to add Brittany to their French possessions. If Arthur had the English King would have Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Aquitaine and Brittany. I do think the problems of having a boy king made many support John.
It should be about order and maintaining dynastic power over personal ambition. People thought John of Gaunt would kill his nephew Richard II to usurp the throne. He remained loyal but his son Henry of Bolingbrook did usurp Richard and it led to the War of the Roses which cost the English monarchs all of their French possessions.
Richard didn't first hand kill the two princes but he did agree to the two boys be smothered to death and then hidden in the wall
John wasn't that bad, he was bad but he tried to be the best king he could be in a tought situation. Plus, I highly doubt he thought he was to be king.
Even though I'm not a British Citizen, Mary, Queen of Scots was a tragic figure that was used as a pawn by the scheming people behind her back which brought to her downfall.
Jane Seymour didn't die in childbirth... she died about 11 days later from a infection from poor hygiene durning birth ( child bed fever)
Aimee Lehmann
You know what he means! Stop being so picky!
So essentially childbirth then.
Another King who belongs in the foolish category is James II, who attempted to be both head of the Protestant Church of England and upholder of the Scottish Presbyterian Covenant as an openly practicing Roman Catholic. He didn't last long. His shrewder older Brother, Merrie Monarch Charles II, kept his Catholicism so under-wraps it wasn't uncovered until the early 20th century.
Plus Mary queen of scots is not Bloody Mary
Caterinalovespeace -ya Thanks for your comment. Mary started out in life with good intentions and as a promising queen. Unfortunately things didn't go according to plan. The title of the video is 'worst monarchs' not most 'evil' monarchs. Ultimately Mary was useless as a queen because of the decisions she made. Also if you listen to the video I quite clear say Mary is 'not to be confused with bloody Mary'. Thanks for watching.
Mary I was not "Bloody Mary". If you insist on calling Mary Tudor Bloody Mary, you can hardly object if Catholics call the Redhead, Bloody Elizabeth.
rose caine Mary I is indeed Bloody Mary.
rose caine
Idiot😂😂
I think Rose Caine's point was more that both Elizabeth I and Henry VIII killed more people for being Catholic then Mary I did for being protestant. Also Mary I's reign was marred by protestants trying to kill/ overthrow her. Yes we call Mary bloody Mary but I think the point is more that it is not necessarily more warranted than calling other contemporaries bloody.
The thing I find most fascinating is how the British monarchy survived(in form if not necessarily substance) but France's did not
My list in no particular order would be Richard I, Ethelred the Unready, Richard II, Charles I, Edward VIII, George IV, Mary I, King John, King Stephen, Edward II.
MrMetalover666 Personally, I wouldn't put Edward VIII in there, only because he didn't stick around long enough or do much beyond causing a slightly embarrassing succession shuffle. Given what he did after abdication, though, he'd almost certainly have been a catastrophic monarch had he not abdicated.
What Edward VIII did following his abdication should be counted against him, so he belongs on the list. He was dammed lucky he wasn't jailed for treason.
Richardians slating Henry VII as usual when in reality he was a fantastic King who avoided war and brought back the country's finances to fantastical levels.
Richard III is blamed for imprisoned his two nephews in the Tower of London, then having them killed so he could be King. However 1) the Tower of London was not a prison until after the Tudors gained power, the nephews were living in a Royal household where they were safe from attack/abduction, and 2) there are a number of reasons to believe that the boys were alive when Richard III died, and so they were likely killed on orders of Henry VII (Henry Tudor) who became King and would have wanted to remove anyone with any kind of claim to the throne. A very informative and entertaining book that looks at this subject is "The Daughter of Time", by Josephine Tey, I highly recommend it if the subject interests you. (The book gets it's title from the quote "truth is the daughter of time".)
+Judy Callender I understand that the remains of two young boys were discovered in the Tower of London in 1674 and reburied, either in Westminster Abbey or in Windsor in Edward IV's vault. If it were allowed for DNA samples to be taken it could be proved if they were the Princes or not. Of course, that still would not explain who killed them and besides, the Queen would probably forbid it.
The remains are in Westminster Abbey, but workmen were fixing St. George's chapel and rediscovered and accidentally broke Edward IV and his wife's vault and found an adjoining one that contained two unidentified small children. These vaults said George Duke of Bedford age 2 and Mary of York aged 14, who had died before their parents, but it gets better! About 30 years later they found two lead coffins labeled George Plantagenet and Mary Plantagenet elsewhere in the chapel and were then moved into the vault adjoining Edward and Elizabeth's without bothering to find out who the two already in the vault were (both coffins for Mary and George are in there)! As all the other children's bodies are accounted for who are the extra two bodies?! No, DNA wont tell us who killed them, but we would be able to know who they are and who these extra two bodies are! Plus surely you could use carbon dating to determine when they died? If it is around the time of Richard III that would at least exclude Henry VII, though not Margaret Beuafort, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham or Richard III himself, but it would at least shrink the list. If it was after Richard III, it's rather obvious who did it.
EDIT: Just brushed up on the carbon dating thing and apparently they don't think they would be able to get an accurate enough dating since it usually gives a time range and Richard III was not king for long enough to distinguish his reign from Henry VII. I still totally think they should do the DNA testing though, I understand the reasons for not doing it, but I still think it should be done. It is one of the greatest mysteries and we have the resources to solve part of it! I also want to know who those two extra bodies are!
+stma05 Thank you for clearing that up. A pity about the carbon dating though and I agree DNA testing could be done to see who the other two bodies are, or aren't, if only to clear up if the two princes are there!
I am still uncertain if permission would be granted.
It reminds me of the story a while ago that Elizabeth I was a man! It was in an English daily paper and it was suggested Elizabeth's tomb be opened and the remains sexed!
+Terry Shulky Yes I remember hearing that story about Elizabeth I! However, that theory greatly conflicts with the theories that she wasn't a virgin, which I am honestly more inclined to. There were so many rumours about it at the time, although of course that doesn't mean they were true. I am just more inclined to believe that she wasn't because I feel she would have been the only woman of power to be able to do so during such a period, or now even. She brought about the golden age for the English monarchy and as long as it was not flaunted why not? Of course there is only speculation of an affair with her and Dudley, but as so many Kings had mistresses and illegitimate children, I hope she did! I also like how it sort of goes along with how publicly prude Victoria was, yet behind close doors she was very opposite. I like to think Elizabeth would be as well.
Anyway they were saying one of the reasons for not allowing the DNA tests on the two princes is because it would open the door for disinterment of others. One being Richard II, whose remains is apparently questionable, as well as Elizabeth for anyone wishing to determine whether she was a man or not. Or even Victoria to see if she was illegitimate as it is from her (and none of her ancestors) that the royals of Europe and Russia had hemophilia, I think most notably Tsarevich Alexei (Anastasia's brother). This revelation would prove the most damning as the monarchy is a direct descendant, although I do not know how that would change to the British people, but as a Canadian, I do not think we would overly care as we seem to be slightly obsessed with the current monarchy!
intresting, i have read that book, and the truth is the daughter of time**....however like phillipa gregory books-novels and present tv dramas, place quite a different intepretation too most historians assements, of course phillipa gregory has the female perspective in the 21stcentury that intresting**...
but there is little evidence too directly point either richard III or Henry VII as the actual murderers-just endless speculation, and often others with motives ignored or not even mentioned....if philipa gregory and david starkey -the UK top historians..were to talk together- on this topic, i doubt either one would agree on anything..just have a punch up :)))
I would have done abit more research on John before putting him in this video... yes he raised taxes - to pay off debts incurred from Richards warring. Militarily he never lost a battle he personally led, though this wasn't often. You say hated, yet he spent a lot of time acting as judge to many incidents across England and was actually deemed to have ruled quite fairly on these. History has not represented him kindly
I was always told he was a tyrant. Is that true?
I already must question your credibility, and I'm not a full minute in. "Henry VI... unlike his NAMESTAKE Henry the VIII..." So Henry VI was named after Henry VIII? Yeah, no. That's not right at all.
Yes quite a few people have already picked up on the er....ahem...deliberate mistake! As for the 'credibility' bit, you should check out the 'about' page. Thanks for watching.
Ok, about questioning the credibility, it was going a bit far there. Sorry. Anyway, Mistakes happen, we are all human. Time to move on.
In any case, good on you. You have a good goal there
he must hv had a time machine or something. at the end of d day, why name ur son after some dude who lost the throne of lancaster?
Namesake just means that they share a name. It doesn't mean one was named after the other.
bradwolf07 5
Its ironic that Anne if Cleves is considered Henry viii the most attractive wife by modern standards.
Richard the 3rd is the victim of tuder propaganda!! the last warrior king!
He was the last English King killed in battle he wasnt' the last to fight More than 200 years after the Battle of Flodden, George II, at the age of 60, was the last British sovereign to take such a role, at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 in Germany, against the French.
He also never murdered the prince's. I think you will find that was Henry Tudor. Look it up. Very convincing.
Joe Matthews I agree with you. Just writing a book about Richard III and the Wars of the roses. The princes in the Tower is a bit of bad propaganda. The eldest boy was dying anyway, probably of a Jaw infection /cancer. The youngest probably went to Bosworth with Richard and ended up either with Richard's sister or a monastery in Suffolk. Still researching, but as you obviously know, there is absolutely no evidence to connect Richard with their death. The evidence shows that he was a good king, just blacked by Shakespeare, Thomas More and other writers working for the Tudors.
@@mscott3918 Very true. As you pointed out, Edward was been visited by his physician an aweful lot over the weeks leading up to his disappearance. He was complaining of symptoms that we recognise today as symptoms of bone cancer. Although contrary to populer beliefs , the tower of London was a royal residence. Richard did not imprison his nephews, he gave them royal residence.
@@mscott3918 any book written by a person at that time is biased in favour of the current government. Love how all these stories are based on fact!!!!
Only thing that the marry queen of Scot do was provide a heir to Elizabeth
What about king John and all his Magna Carta crapola?
John was the worst!
Shows a picture of lady Jane Grey when talking about Mary Queen of Scots.
So Henry the VII's namesake is Henry the VII !!!!!????? Apparently Henry the VI didn't need to be king of England, because he was a king of time traveling.
11:50 wait for the "he was a bastard".. Shock level 900 😂
. I would argue Richard I over Richard III. Spent less than a year in England altogether during his reign, never saw the country as more than an ATM for his wars, considered himself a Frenchman, never bothered to sleep with his wife (and so gifted us with King John), bankrupted his neglected realm to get himself ransomed after stupidly getting captured on the way home from a disaster of a crusade, and died unnecessarily to boot. That's a helluva list of idiocy, and anything good that happened in his reign was due to his mum. But we all have our opinions of what makes a bad monarch. The only problem with this video is it's too short! 😝. (And I say that even though I'm a royalist!)
VeracityLH Thank you very much for your message. I totally agree Richard I was a pretty dire monarch! Unfortunately I could only pick 5 but I am hoping to do a follow up video when I get chance. You are right we all have our own opinions and Im always interested in what other people have to say! Glad you enjoyed!
I am really enjoying your videos, and hope to see more. Maybe we could go through the whole list and critique them all. ;) Would you include Jane Grey do you'll u think?
VeracityLH That's good to hear! Who knows what sort of a monarch she would have turned out to be if she had the chance! Thanks again.
They found a king of England UNDER A CAR PARK ! ? Wow . . .
I understand those poor boys were also found and somehow identified not long ago.
Anyone know for sure ?
If I could add a few honorable mentions:
*William Rufus* You know you're a bad king when you are mysteriously shot dead by arrow and your body gets left behind for villagers to bring to court. Even his monument is underwhelming.
*Stephen* First he goes back on his word to support his cousin (and rightful heir) the Empress Matilda's claim to the throne, but then he nearly bankrupted the country fighting her. She was no prize in this conflict herself, behaving so haughtily that the noblemen couldn't stand the sight of her. Thanks to these two, it would be centuries before a female monarch could successfully take the throne. You could even argue that the mess these two made directly influenced Henry VIII in his endless quest for a male heir!
*Edward II*. You could argue that Edward II looks worse by virtue of being "the bad Edward" in between the reigns Edward I and Edward III, but he made many disastrous decisions in his personal life and had to be ousted by his wife and her lover...ouch. A bigger ouch of course is the legend surrounding the method of his death!
Thank you for making these videos, so I can indulge both my inner history nerd and my Anglophile's heart. Keep up the good work!
Angel Singer he was known to be homosexual for a start and yes ultimately defeated by king Robert the Bruce of Scotland at the battle of bannockburn in 1314 listen to the Scottish national anthem flower of Scotland some time and it describes the defeat of the English by the Scots king Robert even has his statue in pride of place in Edinburgh !
Insane how you can post this and not even edit it. After hearing the feedback. Well done. You truly care
He got it all wrong Mary queen of scots wasn't bad and he is just saying it from his point of view not history's
Davetwist Print she almost certainly knew of the plot to murder Darnley, if not authorized it, and she was all too happy to have Elizabeth assassinated. She was a terrible ruler and completely ill suited to rule. Elizabeth faced equally perilous situations in her life, but survived every one. Yes, Mary was a terribly incompetent ruler and also not a very ethical one, either. I think you’ve seen too many romantized versions of her life. She was no innocent Catholic martyr.
Great video. However, given that I have studied English history quite extensively at the University of Arizona there is one glaring mistake among a few minor ones. Cromwell was not executed as a result of the arranged marriage between Henry and Anne. Granted, Henry was disappointed in his advisor because Cromwell did push for this marriage quite vigorously. However, Cromwell's downfall was a direct result of the nobles within Henry's court plotting against him because he was a commoner (son of a blacksmith I believe) and they felt that the governing of England should be left to those of noble birth.
Richard III did what he had to do to secure the throne for his family and stop Elizabeth Woodviles family from taking complete power
My five worst English monarchs would be:
5. Richard II
4. Edward II
3. John
2. Henry VI
1. Charles I
Good shout!
@@Xploreheritage Whoops I meant Edward II in 4th not Charles II
Charles I and many of the Scottish kings were far worse than HVIII.
The separation from Rome is the origins of the Protestant nation that facilitated so much: wealth, power, and empire.
(Although never crowned Edward VIII must be one of the worse kings for giving up the throne).
warpigeonofdoom Charles restored the Stuart throne its called the restoration era gosh you people don't know your history and no do I need to mention Robert the Bruce and others Scotland has actually had far better monarchs over time than England and blame henry the eighth for the reformation for it being a Protestant nation or john Knox who created presybeterianism and as for Edward he gave it up for love ❤️
u mix up charles the first and second. the later one is the restoration king, one of the better british monarchs. his father charles I was very incompetent which led to the english civil war that he lost. thats the whole reason why the monarchy had to be restored in the first place. So Charles I should really be on the list. And for the scottish rulers... I highly doubt that warpigeonofdoom had Robert the Bruce in mind.
King John got the nam “Lack land” because he was ruling when we (In from the UK) lost all/most of our land in France. Not because his father didn’t give him titles!
Hahaha ... crazy video , hey did you search well about English Monarchy? Queen Mary of Scotland or Mary Stuart never Queen of England . She was once a Queen of Scotland and France.
Read the title it said "British monarchs". Therefore Mary would be eligible.
Yeah you probably should have read the title
I'd argue it is unfair to include Mary Queen of Scots in this list as she was never a British monarch. The British monarchy refers to a time between 1707-1801, so technically anyone before that time was not a British monarch, but an English one and anyone after was the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922 and now it is the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. HOWEVER, I understand that we use the term British monarch as a title for all English monarchs so it does create some confusion, but my belief is that if you include Mary Queen of Scots in this list you must then take into account all the Scottish Monarchs as well as the English monarchs from Alfred the Great on. Unfortunately, it is very clear that the creators of this video did not do that and solely focused on monarchs from the Norman conquest on and for some reason randomly threw in a Scottish Queen.
@@stma05 He said British, how hard is it to understand, people from the island of Great Britain, not Monarchs of all Britain but Monarchs from kingdoms within Britain is pretty self evident, which includes Scotland, the Title says Britain's, it includes English Kings and A Scottish Queen as they are from Britain, not because they ruled Britain, none of the English kings mentioned ruled Britain, they ruled England, they are not British Monarchs of Britain just as much as Mary Queen of Scots isn`t a Monarch of Britain, they are monarchs of kingdoms within the British isles, Scottish British, or English British, but monarchs from what Island? Britain.
Why was William the Conqueror left out?
Mary was 'useless'? She had a 'fairy tail' childhood? So you think it's a fairy tail that her father died when she was just 6 days old? That she was crowned with just 9 months? That she was sent to France, away from her home and her mother? That, after just one year of marrige and just 16 years old, her husband und friend died? That, after François death, she was sent back to Scottland, a country she didn't know, where she was alone, because her mother just died, too? Yes she made some mistakes, but that doesn't make her a useless Queen. Next time you do a video like this, please do some research.
Lmao didnt so much governing though did she?
IMAO
Henry VIII the whipping boy for every pretend historian on line
King Henry Vlll wasn't completely useless, in fact he'd be one of histories most important Monarchs, it took great defiance to stand up to The Pope and completely break away from Rome. Only Henry could have achieved it. Ann Boleyn was instrumental in setting up Protestant schools in Henry's Court. It is great thanks to Henry that England, The Great Mother could stand on her own. His and Ann Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth l, stood firm and successful as The Protestant Queen and then it took James Vl of Scotland, (with Thanks to his Protestant teachers since his childhood) to sponsor and establish The King James Bible of 1611 which stands to this very day as The True Word of God. Catholic Mary l was totally useless when all she wanted to do was kill Protestants out of sheer hatred, she gave England nothing whatsoever, it be thanks to God she was barren and thanks to God His Angels protected Elizabeth from Mary's cruel hand.
Henry VI should have been 1. He was so useless he plunged the country into war. After losing the last of France he fell into a catatonic stupor that left the country in a power vacuum with no leader for many months. He turned all his allies against him and turned England into a laughingstock.
King Henry The 6th life story looks a lot like King Ludwig the 2nd of Bavaria.
Mary Queen of Scots was not one of the 5 worst. The worst would be
1) Henry VIII
2) John
3) Henry VI , because he was so weak
4) Mary Tudor
5) Edward II, who was pathetic
Others in the top ten worst would be William II, Ethelred the Unready, Stephen, George III and James II.
Very bad report.
He must only be including post-Norman monarchs. I'd say Ethelred the Unready should be the worst. He was the only monarch of a unified England to have his own country ruled by foreign invaders
Not the list I would have made, in fact almost entirely different. However history is quite subjective. However if making a list more based on competence than cruelty I'm surprised Charles I isn't there. Inherited 3 healthy and wealthy kingdoms and not only lost all three kingdoms but the whole monarchy to boot.
My list would be
1. Charles I
2. Mary I
3. Henry VIII
4. James II (Britain)
5.Robert III
Hey! 3 Stuarts and two Tudors.
Hmm your list is similar to mine, see to me at least henry VIII wasnt that bad as a king. he was a terrible person but he did keep a decent handle on ruling the country at a pretty turbulent time.
My list
1 Charles I (Dude ened the monarchy clearly the worst king)
2 King John (nearly lost the monarchy even after getting the magna carta forced on him)
3 Mary Tudor (ended up being a bit too murdery even compared to her father and wouldve likely been overthrown if she hadnt died)
4 George IV (basically single handedly bankrupt the treasury, pretty bad king)
5 James II (his reign was basically a mess)
Henry's one saving grace was he didn't have much interest in ruling the country and instead left that job to better men. Also he was basically a child with no-one to tell him no, who spent his life in overindulgence selfishness and sulks. Fortunately those better men for most part knew how to manipulate a child.
I would rather a king who let someone else rule than an incopetent meddler
That even applies to American politics today
I think this is unfair to James II
Henry VII should be on this list, he invaded England.
Never a good idea to confine it to just five.I was waiting for Ethelred II and George III to turn up .
Fun fact bout Henry V during a battle in Scotland when he was 17 he took an arrow which went about an inch into his face. Took them nearly 20 hours too dig it out. One tough cookie. Comparing too today's 17 years olds...
During a war in Wales rather than Scotland.
You learned your facts from History Channel or American Hollywood movies?......... e.g. Henry VIII was one of the greatest European & English monarchs,a truly learned statesmen.... and so on.....
He's a part 1, part 2 king. He went nuts after he had a severe concussion as the result of a jousting match. He unconscious for something like 2 hours, which indicates significant brain injury. I suspect a lot those lessons with Erasmus were wiped-out.
However at the time of the accident he already had the wheels in motion for ridding himself of Anne Boleyn so it's not like he was a great guy beforehand. Katherine had recently died so the offspring of future wives would be acknowledged as legitimate, even by the Church. But it would be correct to say that the stability of both the Tudor dynasty and the Kingdom were always of the utmost importance to him, to the point that he allowed himself to be excommunicated (and possibly damned) to secure them. He did not want the kingdom to descend into a second War of the Roses after his death.
Serial killers seldom make learned statesmen.
haha what shit,he was a tyrant
Henry VIII was both a great and learned monarch as well as a tyrant, he had good and bad periods. Read David Starkey´s book for reference.
King Henry VIII had his good and bad moments!
William of Orange was pure evil
It's dynasty like din nasty , not die nisty. Mary of Guise's surname is pronounced Geez not Guys. Rizzio is pronounced Ritsio. I think you should have had some "honourable mentions". William II (William Rufus) who was brutal, disliked and soon murdered, Richard I who used England as a cash cow to provide money for the crusades, and who spent not more than 6 months of his reign in England; Edward II who was not much interested in being King and had poor judgement. He indulged favourites who antagonised his barons and caused them to rise against him, lost the throne and was murdered: Richard II who also had bad judgement, presided over heavy tax burdens causing the peasants' revolt, lost the throne and was murdered: Charles I who had bad judgement, poor leadership skills, lost the throne and was executed: Charles II who was sponsored by a pension from the French King to keep him acting in the interests of France and was too dissolute and uninterested in ruling to maintain the British navy, allowing the Dutch to invade Britain, all the way up the Thames to London: George IV who was basically fat dissolute and useless. Plenty of contenders among the British monarchs :-)
Helen Trope Inspector Frost
Richard III might’ve murdered Edward V
"Great British History" ? Please learn some. Richard III died at the battle of Bosworth Field. and is now buried in Leicester Cathedral. The "Richard of York" who died at Wakefield was the 3rd Duke of York and Richard III's father.
I know I'm very late on this, but he says that Richard III died at Bosworth in the video.
Interesting fact : I am a direct descendant of King James Stuart.
Sorry. Friend. But RIII should NOT be in the top 10, of worst Monarchs. Forget top 5. Actually. If anything, he makes it in to the top 10 of the BEST monarchs For reasons too long to describe here. But the most vital is this one. At a time where the country stood, again, on the cliff edge. He decided to saddle himself to take on the extraordinary challenge of Monarch. Which, in later 15th century England, was a very tough job, indeed. And not evil. Mentally ill or especially Tyrannical. He steadied the country for 2 and a quarter years. Untill illegally murdered by the Royal barstard, Henry Tudor.
Richie Y-W. It's not illegal -- it's called right of conquest.. It's been done before. A great guy. Betrayed his brother. Who else could have murdered his nephews?
Jane Seymour did not die in child birth, but 11 days later, most likely of a massive uterine infection. She probably had internal injuries from the long difficult labor. Margaret Beaufort, Henry Vlll's grandmother gave birth at age 13 and was so damaged she never had any more children, despite 3 marriages. She took a vow of chastity during her third marriage with her husbands permission. She showed indications in her book of hours that she did not enjoy sex, asking if it was a sin not to be "bonny and buxom" in bed. No wonder. She was married at 12 and the marriage consummated immediately. Possibly not just for carnal reasons but because her husband was going into battle soon after the marriage, when he knew he may be killed with no heir. Well he was killed in that battle, possibly unaware that his bride was pregnant - with the future Henry Vll.
What about George III?
Why wasn't Richard lionheart on this list? He did repeatedly rebelled against his father, weakening the nation, uses his land in France and England as nothing more than a way to fund crusades in order to gain personnel glory, then got captured by the Austrians on the way home and was ransomed for the sum of two years taxes.
I thought you were going to have Charles I in this list. He lost his head after losing the English Civil War to Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentary forces.
Charles l failed because he wanted an absolute Monarch as it was in France, he also was leaning towards Catholicism because of the love he had for his Catholic French wife. He was a Scorpio King, King Edward Vll was also Scorpio and his reign was very short and we will see the same again when Scorpio Prince Charles reigns, if at all.
@@bonniemagpie5166---From what I've heard had Charles I just gone along with the agenda of the Parliamentary forces he would've been able to not just keep his head but his throne too. But he just couldn't. He broke instead of bending.
Bloody Mary not here? Thanks for saving me the time.
None of these people were British monarchs. Only those who reigned after 1707 can be called a British monarch.
The five worst kings or queens of England were 5. James the Second (lost his throne, but did keep his head), 4. Henry the Sixth (utterly incapable), 3. Mary the First (a.k.a Bloody Mary, tried to re-Catholicize England along with marrying the King of Spain ), 2. Edward the Second (incapable and lost the throne and killed), 1. Charles the First (lost the throne and his head).
Curious as to how you chose some of the monarchs on this inaccurate video ( for example King John's nephew Arthur was a child not an adult...) Lucky they are dead -probably you'd be sued for libel...
Given that there is no real evidence Richard III harmed his nephews - merely a lot of Tudor propaganda ,- and a lot that he was highly respected. Perhaps Richard II would have been a better choice.
Perhaps Alec. Although I think it is quiet widely recognised that if Richard didn’t directly have his nephews murdered, he certainly had something to do with it. And the circumstances that led up to their deaths somewhat shows his intentions.
@@Xploreheritage An issue of interpretation of the evidence. My assessment rather points to Henry VIi as the villain, but it's a free country and you are entitled to your view.
@@alecblunden8615 And likewise Alec. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
Henry VIII was paranoid because he'd seen the mess of the war of the roses, that's why he destroyed all other claimants to make sure englsand was not again so wracked. for bad kings what about Stephen? Aethelred? how baout research outside of a netflix subscription
King John the real life King Joffery.
Edward VIII was a pretty bad one lol
indeed
He was an utterly horrible human being, a totally self absorbed Nazi sympathizer. His behaviour is why his niece vowed to serve for her whole life "be it long or short"
As an American I didn’t much care for George III
I'm SO glad you included Mary Queen of Scots. She is so often portrayed as this innocent, beautiful victim of the Machiavellian Elizabeth (as in the utter travesty of a series, "Reign", from which you included a couple of shots ) What tripe! But I also think you should have included Richard "the Lionhearted", who should more rightly be called Richard the Pea-brained. How is it that he is respected as a king when he ran off to pursue a useless and destructive war right after his coronation, and the came back and stood like an idiot in plain sight of his enemy's archers to show his courage, whereupon he was simply shot my a nobody? Courage is one thing, stupidity is what Richard exhibited.
What you say is sheer tripe.
Nd he fucked french king to his ass hole :)
As much as I love the series Reign, Mary queen of Scots, was not that innocent. I am British/Finnish.
the series reign** was not entirely historically accurate and a 2018 film of *mary queen of france & scotland,
accurately potrays and her cousin Elizabeth I tudor
most people forgett the entire period, not from a english,scottish but a european historic perspective, the tudors a anglo-welsh family,(the wars of the cousins-york & lancaster)
the stuarts-nobility*originally stewards of the royal bruce dynasty and later monarchs of scotland*, the family and unkown relatives- neither queen was actually that safe on their respective thrones**, they were each others rival & relatives of different alien nations and religions-shaped by history & geography*..
the scottish-french alliance, the english-portugese alliance, the kingdom of france and empire of spain**bugundy & the holy roman empire,the russian tsardom and kingdom of denmark... all of these came into contact with endinburgh & london...
jardon Jones I agree with you, but I am just saying that there are a few things incorrect!
No Charles I, the only king to lose the monarchy in its entirety?
He was a good monarch, oliver cromwll was bad
How about George the Third who lost the American colonies but I suppose he can't be blamed for going mad.
He also didn't have full power at that time. I think he went mad after Britain lost America. But I'd say the British parliament was more responsible for the loss than the king. And I'm saying that as someone who's not a monarchist but a republican.
Unlike the other Hanover kings, George was a good one. George I 6/10, II 4/10, III 8/10, IV 0/10. It was not his fault that he lost his sanity.
George III was a great king until the mental illness kicked in
George III was, by most accounts, a mediocre king. Losing the American colonies and his periodic bouts of madness didn't help him, but he was in power for the Napoleonic Wars (nominally, anyway), and the country was fairly stable and prosperous during his reign.
He was the reason I wanted to watch this would he be on the list?
Now after reading these comments watching other things
I just do not know
Henry VIII is useless????
come on, dude.
i can't say no more