5 worst British Monarchs
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 03. 2017
- 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.co.uk/
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.org/licenses/b... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
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
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
The documentary should have included Bloody Mary, Charles I, James II, George IV, and Edward VIII.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
Insane how you can post this and not even edit it. After hearing the feedback. Well done. You truly care
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.
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 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?
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?!
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 ?
Where did you find the royal family tree with the cute doll drawings on it? Please advise, thanks!
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.
What about king John and all his Magna Carta crapola?
John was the worst!
The thing I find most fascinating is how the British monarchy survived(in form if not necessarily substance) but France's did not
11:50 wait for the "he was a bastard".. Shock level 900 😂
Richard III did what he had to do to secure the throne for his family and stop Elizabeth Woodviles family from taking complete power
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.
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.
Shows a picture of lady Jane Grey when talking about Mary Queen of Scots.
William of Orange was pure evil
What about George III?
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.
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.
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!
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?
Henry VII should be on this list, he invaded England.
The list could be better. Richard III for instance didn't reign long enough to determine if he would have been an able leader. John was never meant to be King. His irresponsible brother Richard was too busy playing knight in the Holy Land to administer his domains. Richard the Lionheart was a lousy English King.
Two alternatives: Charles I was so bad they cut his head off and disestablished the monarchy for a decade after he lost two civil wars. James II was so bad that they invited the Dutch leader to be King and Parliament permanently neutered the monarchy after 1688.
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!
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.
Henry VIII the whipping boy for every pretend historian on line
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
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"
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.
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
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).
i would nominate henry 3 to replace henry 8. a king should be judged by his policies and work not personal life. henry 8 modernized the english fleet and made the empire of his daughter elizabeth possible. it appears women r better at running england. victoria ruled a bigger empire than kublai.
No, no, no!!!! All wrong!!!! Richard III isn't a bad King - true, he never murdered the boys (I believe Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII did) but he didn't take the throne for himself. I believe he decided to reign in his nephew's place because Edward V was at a young age (too young to rule, in his opinion).
actingmylife It's an opinion. You cannot say that it is all wrong if it's an opinionated topic.
actingmylife Margrete Henry vii mother did kill the. boys
I'd certainly agree that Richard III's character needs to be reassessed, but I think there's an important indicator that he killed his nephews. When rumours began to circulate that they were dead, Richard could have displayed them in public had they been alive. But he didn't. He didn't acknowledge that they were dead and accuse someone else of murdering them, which he could have done.
actingmylife How could Henry 7 kill them? He was in exile. His mother makes more sense but she was trying to get her son back in England.
winners always write history. i visited tower of london many yrs ago and there was a coin box to toss ur opinion whether henry tudor 7 or richard 3 killed edward 5. the tudor box was conspicuously richer haha. 😀
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
There is zero historical evidence that the princes were imprisoned in the Tower or that anything bad ever happened to them. If they came to a violent end, the chances that Henry Tudor did it are much greater than the case against Richard. Henry, as the victor, got to write the history.
Richard the third isn't as bad as people make out...Shakespeare only said he was bad to please Elizabeth the second
Jack the lad Probably to please Elizabeth the first. Elizabeth the second is the current monarch.
I always laugh at English people who attempt to claim Richard the Lion Heart as their king. England was like the Marvin Gardens of his Monopoly Board properties.
Mark McCann Richard Ist was King of England. There
Mark McCann if you want to make a critism of the British don't use culturally closed vocabulary. Monopoly board and what?
Would you like to argue your case just a little bit coherently?
How on Earth can you claim that Richard I was not a King of England?
Harmless House He's saying that Richard didn't care much about England, basically. He had the crown, but was more interested in his French territory and in going Crusading than actually dealing with the administration of England.
lol he claimed the throne of England, not the other way around
Also why do I find loads of Irish people in English/British history videos? You're obsessed lmao
What about king George the fifth.
Sorry my bad. I meant king George the third.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt I didn't want to say anything...King George V wasn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. George III on the other hand has a terrible Monarch! Thanks for you comment.
Great British History personally I don't like the Royal family period, but for some reason they are still in existence perhaps you could do a video on what will happen when Prince Charles becomes king after his mother Queen Elizabeth dies surely he is looked upon as an incompetent leader due to his past. I wouldn't be surprised if British citizens demand for him to abdicate the throne to his oldest son William.
Hasn't he stepped out of the succession in favor of William?
English kings and queens don't abdicate unless there is a crisis lurking.
Queen Elisabeth II was raised by a mother who very much despiced Edward VIII for forsaking his royal duty by abdicating, in her opinion he should have sent mrs Simpson packing and not burden her husband with the hollow crown.
So when Elisabeth would abdicate the ghost of her mother would come to haunt her.
don't think the reign of her son, the future king George the VII, will be a long one.
Interesting fact : I am a direct descendant of King James Stuart.
That execution painting is Lady Jane Grey not Mary Queen of Scots.
Bat shit crazy happens when family marries family. I'm from the USA...look at the southern states.
Richard III might’ve murdered Edward V
As an American I didn’t much care for George III
Re: Henry VIII. Most fail to acknowledge his jousting injuries, especially, the second one which may have injured his brain as one cause of his tyrannical and paranoid behavior. He also had open sores on his legs which caused him great pain and reoccurring malaria attacks.
Dukeq27 That's a really good point. I think Henry Viii could be 'best' and 'worst' monarch depending on whether you consider his reign pre or post his jousting accident. Many believe it was this accident that caused the change in his mentality. Perhaps he suddenly became aware of his own mortality and this spurred his obsession with getting a male heir! 😃
How could you choose?
Richard the Lionheart is overrated and should be on this list. He almost bankrupted the country with war expeditions, spent six months only in his country during his tenure as king.
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 😊
At the beginning of the video when he says mental illness
Me: OH MY GOD IF HE SAYS KING GEORGE III IMMA SCREAM!! HE WAS A GOOD LEADER BEFORE HE WENT MAD!! AND HE DRESSED UP AS A FARMER!! that last part is not really relevant though
I'm surprised you didn't include either Henry III or especially Edward II. They were way worse than Mary, who wasn't even a queen of England.
The documentary should have included Bloody Mary Tudor and Edward VIII.
William the Conqueror, Stephen, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II and James II could arguably be on this list ahead of Richard III and Henry VIII. Richard III was a brilliant governor of the north and Henry VIII is judge all too often by contemporary standards and not those of the 15th and 16th centuries. Henry VIII's reign, it is true, is marked by savage punishments against any form of dissent, religious persecution, kinslaying, judicial murder and the execution of two wives. Yet Henry's subjects didn't shrink from him in loathing. They were for the most part loyal. Henry, with no army and no police force guided the country through changes that might have wrecked it. He brought parliament back into regular use and he maintained the navy. Two things which stood us in good stead against armada in 1688 and the French in the 18th century and in our development of the parliamentary government through the 1688 revolution. His kinslaying/judicial murders and changing of wives can be explained by his need to produce an heir to forestall a second war of the roses, a civil war whose effects could still be felt in the beginning of Henry's reign.
No mention of Charles I for inflicting civil war on the land, or his son James II who ended up being run out of the country after just 3 years?
At least John spent time in England, unlike Richard I who spent a few months here during his entire reign and who reportedly forbid women and Jews to attend his coronation!
Richard the lion heart should be on the list too
No Edward II, William IV, Edward VII, or Edward VIII but you go with Henry VIII?
HE WAS 9 MONTHS OLD PEOPLE
WHAT
ON
EARTH
Is wrong with them
10:20 technically not true. Yes it was the act that lost him the favour of the king, but it was ultimately his desecration of the graves of his rival the Duke of Norfolk’s ancestors, as well as his negligence to deal with heretics in Calais that lost him his head. The latter of which was the crime for which lost him his head on grounds of Heresy.
Thanks for sharing!
I'm sorry. But this video is wrong. Henry VII was highly effective monarch. He religious reforms radically changed the country and set it up for economic success, he also had advisers who were highly skilled diplomats and kept the numerous wars fought during his time from actually happening in his country. Lastly, he succeeded in passing off his Kingdom to three heirs, mostly peacefully, which many monarchs of that era did not do.
If you're going to talk about inffective monarchs, look at Stephen or Edward II.
Kinda disappointed Mary, Queen of Scots was featured. A bit more research needed though
Where's King Charles i. The king who dissolved parliament and brought Civil war to Britain. At least Henry viii arguably was less oppressive, the civil war tore Britain in half in some of the darkest days in our history.
The volume is too low
Bloody Mary has to be first! Plus you’ve got a picture of Lady Jane Grey (The 9 day Queen) when you’re talking about Mary Queen of Scots Lol.
richard the third died at bosworth field
Henry VIII is a Part 1 and Part 2 monarch, the dividing line being the severe traumatic brain injury he suffered at a jousting match. Afterward, he became increasingly erratic, like so many American football players now shown to have CTE.
As has been pointed out, Henry was never meant to be king. In fact, he studied to be a priest. His father's plan was to have either him or his brother, Arthur, appoint Henry to the See of Canterbury once it was vacant, firming up the Tudor position by consolidating both Church and State in one family. They even considered the possibility of the Papacy. Henry had a quick mind, and was tutored by Erasmus, the smartest priest in Europe. He was also devoutly, fanatically Catholic and remained dogmatically so even after his break with Rome.
He was also royally screwed by the Pope. As children Catherine and Henry's older brother Arthur had been betrothed at masses concelebrated in London and Madrid. Betrothals were de-facto marriages, especially between princes on which alliances hinged (this one against, who else, France). At 15 Catherine arrived in England and a few weeks later Arthur died. It's questionable whether the marriage was ever consummated -- she claimed she was a virgin. Henry is now Prince of Wales and in order to salvage the alliance Henry VII and Ferdinand and Isabelle (segue Columbus) petition the incredibly corrupt pope, Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) for an indulgence to lift the ban against lying with thy brother's wife (Leviticus). He does so for something like 50,000 gold ducets and Henry marries Catherine. Over the eighteen year course of their relatively happy marriage she has ten children, only one of whom, Mary, a daughter, survives infancy. Henry, who was very devout, truly believes his lack of male heirs is God's punishment for entering into an incestuous union. The Frankish Salic Laws in force in England and France insisted on male succession (overturned by Parliament only a few years ago). Believing Alexander VI had overstepped his authority, Henry petitions the current pope for a divorce. The Pope sends a cardinal to London, who basically takes Henry's side, not so much on Dogma but because Catholic Henry had taken the lead in confronting the Lutheran Heresy. However the Pope is at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Katherine's nephew, Emperor Karl V (Carlos I of Spain), invades Italy and holds the pope hostage. Karl wasn't going to allow his aunt to be declared a whore, plus he didn't like Henry all that much anyway. No divorce.
I wonder how the Viking king ranks in all this. Was he a bad king?
No Edward 2?
Where's Ed II?
Correction: Henry V died on August 31,1422 his birthday was in September. September 16,1386 to be real
King John was favourite of his mother elinor of aquataine not his father.
william II and Edward II were both worse than Mary
How could you miss Edward II or William II?
Sorry about the name-calling but it seems that it is the world that is incompetent - not certain people who prefer peace, education and the arts over war and power.
The worst has to be William I, who committed genocide by killing at least 20% of the people in England. Hundreds of square miles in northern England were uninhabited after his slaughter of men, women and children. Many thousands of common folk died of starvation after being driven off their land.
Ann Boleyn was not considered a beauty, but she did have that indefinable ' IT '.
Queen Elizabeth 2 on brexit when all the government's was falling apart and the people voted out .she should have stepped in ? we are told the monarchy has no power so we no longer need a monarchy
Having read about the Georgian kings I dont agree with George the III being a bad king. I believe he was suffering from manic depressive disorder that colored all the decisions he made. And that many of those around him used his condition to do what they wanted. Its very sad that there was no awareness of this nor any understanding of what this man went through.As an American and teacher of American history I am aware of how it was King George III that supposedly lost the colonies during the Revolutionary War but as a reader of history I dont believe he was mad. Just a victim of a condition no one understood at the time.
Bro I have so much respect for Richard 3rd and Henry the 8th don't do them like that...
Henry VIII may have been kind of an arsehole, but he was by no means a bad king... Not at all.
Stephen? Richard II? George IV? James II? One of them should have made the list imo
4:13 ur telling me that isn’t the same actor of doctor strange?!?
One and the same! Benedict Cumberbatch.
dude, this is cool