Our adventure continues. Welcome to the middle ranks of kings and queens! We have entered the realm of the mediocre and forgettable. And this is the section that’s actually the hardest to rank. Why? Well it’s often obvious what makes a great monarch, and it’s also obvious what makes a terrible monarch. But these people either did either absolutely nothing great (so they can’t be the best) or terrible (so they can’t be the worst), or alternatively had just a mixed legacy which included a little of both. However, you will certainly still see baby steps of progress in not sucking as we move up the ranks.
28. George IV
Wanna know how interesting and important George IV is? When I finally put together all my research to rank and write about the Monarchs, I realized that I was one short. I went through the list about four times before I realized who I was missing – this mediocre bag of nobody. He actually started having control over the country while his father, George III, was still alive but had gone batshit crazy. This was the “Regency era” of the UK, which is what I would essentially call “the Reign of the Foppish Dandies.” The king led an extravagant lifestyle where he was really more responsible for being an ambassador for the era’s lace-based gentlemanly fashion, rather than doing anything significant. He provided no leadership in times of crisis, infamously attempted to divorce his wife, was criticized for wasteful spending, and was condemned by his ministers as selfish, unreliable and irresponsible. For all this, he earned him the contempt of the majority of British people so much that, upon his death, The Times stated of him, “There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him?” Ouch. They could say that about kings in the 1800s?
27. George II
He had a pretty long reign of over 33 years, but overall didn’t have much of a lasting legacy with it. First of all, he was the last British monarch born and raised outside of Britain (he was German, like his father), and being a foreigner doesn’t always win you points with the English people you’re ruling. And it seems like he just spent most of his time hunting stags and playing cards rather than doing anything productive. England could have essentially just not had a king through the entire reigns of George I and George II, and history would be no different. He’s often depicted as a weak buffoon, totally controlled by his wife and ministers, and is also famous for being a total cheap ass who was unwillingness to spend money. In the legacy section of his Wikipedia page, there is a sentence that starts, “George may not have played a strong role in history, but he…” and I didn't even finish reading the sentence, because it told me everything that I needed to know.
26. Anne
Did you even know there was a Queen Anne? Do you know anything she did? Anne’s reign can be defined by a general sense of mediocrity. Nobody says her 12+ years on the throne were some of the worst years, but nobody says that they were great either. Sure, during her reign there was the Act of Union - which transformed England and Scotland into “Great Britain” (sorry if you feel left out Wales, I guess they just classified you as part of England in the whole deal. You’re always the forgotten stepchild). But beyond that? Not much. There were some pretty devastating takedowns of her reign by contemporaries and those who lived soon after - saying that she was a meek, weak, capitulating fatty who spent most of her reign pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen making sammiches for Prince George of Denmark. But a lot of those negative views reflect sexism in an age of male dominance, and others believe that she was able to wield at least some influence. Still, although she reigned in a time of economic power and stability, she also represents a reign where the final nails were being put in the coffin of the crown having the power that it used to.
25. William IV
Billy 4.0 ruled for a few days less than 7 years, the shortest reign Post-Union with the exception of the abdicating douche Edward VIII. And this was during the boring-ass 1830s. Like Queen Anne, you likely know almost nothing about him. I’m sure if most British people were shown his official portrait and asked to identify him, they would have no clue. The “Reform Crisis” was a part of his reign, which included the continued decline of the House of Lords, and the rise of House of Commons. There were also a number of reforms related to work in factories, child labor, and support to the poor. And even though those reforms sound great, they were sort of middle-ground compromises rather than any grand progressive social plan. He was criticized for not going far enough by some, and for going too far by others. If it were just for these facts alone, William IV would have been demoted down a few notches for just being so bleh like his even more forgettable brother George IV. But William IV also happened to be lucky enough to be king in 1833, when the Slavery Abolition Act was passed - ending slavery throughout the British Empire (mostly, even that he did as a compromise, and there were a few exceptions for another 10 years). That’s at least some legacy, right?
24. Richard II
Richard II never really had a chance to live up to the epic awesomeness of his namesake, Richard the Lionheart. But then again, who really does have a chance to be as cool as that? Richard of Bordeaux, as he was also known, came to the throne at the young age of 10 after the death of his grandfather Edward III (his father had already died) and you might only be aware of depictions of him from the eponymous Shakespeare play about him. No? Yeah, nobody else has read Richard II either, so don’t feel bad about it. That being said, Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard II as a cruel and terrible king is more a mix of Tudor politics and artistic liberties than historical fact. His reign was not prosperous or peaceful. Let’s just turn to Wikipedia again (I’m lazy) if you want a quick 101 on how things kind of went for him. The section titles for his entries include: “Peasants Revolt,” “First Crisis,” “A fragile peace,” “Second crisis,” and “Overthrow and death.” Yeah, so not very good. There is no section called "Great time had by all when there were lots of sexy parties." There are also accusations that towards the end of his reign, Richard II was plagued by mental illness. But nobody can quite say if that’s true or not. Whatever the case may be, the end of his reign did not go well, as alluded to with the whole “Overthrow and death” section mentioned above. Henry Bolingbroke (Richard II’s first cousin and childhood playmate) spent much time in Richard II’s reign as a close friend and advisor before then becoming a rival and enemy. Bolingbroke led an army against Richard, captured him, and allowed him to abdicate the crown in return for sparing his life. Although Bolingbroke wasn’t technically next in line for the throne, he argued that his claim through his male line was stronger, and thus became King Henry IV. And while Henry IV initially honored his promise not to kill Richard II, after a failed uprising to restore the former king – Henry eventually decided to just let Richard starve to death in prison. Thus endeth the House Plantagenet and beginneth the War of the Roses. OH! And hey look who’s up next…
23. Henry IV
Richard II’s successor, Henry IV, has two Shakespeare plays just about him, and also features as a character in the one about Richard II, so he must be totally great, right? Eh, well. He was just okay. After deposing his first cousin to assume the throne, he spent most of his time as king facing a number of plots and rebellions against him. Almost immediately after taking the crown he was faced with the Epiphany Rising to kill him and restore Richard II. That was followed by a rebellion by Owain Glyndŵr in Wales, and the Percy Rebellion (actually a set of another three plots between 1402 and 1408 to overthrow him). The play Henry IV Part I is largely about a lot of the activities happening during the Percy Rebellion, while Part II is just a filler comedy with very little historic material that just directly mirrors the first play. Like it was thrown together quickly because someone demanded a sequel. It’s the Hangover 2 of Shakespeare plays. And Henry IV isn’t even really as important a character in his own plays as is his son Hal (AKA Henry V, you'll see him later in the list of awesome monarchs) and the buffoonish fatass Falstaff. Much of Henry IV’s reign was also marred by frequent illness, including a recurring bout of some skin disease (perhaps leprosy or psoriasis). He finally succumbed to his illnesses, which brought Henry V to the throne, ready to put things back on the right course and kick major French ass.
22. William III & Mary II
Many people are divided on William and Mary - placing them solidly in the “meh” camp of middle-ground monarchs who were neither amazing, nor terrible. In some ways they were good. They skillfully worked a political situation in order to overthrow the ruling king (James II) and force him to abdicate. They were also sort of OG’s for knowing how to manipulate the press and public opinion - as they arrived in England with a printing press and a solid plan to win wars with propaganda as much as traditional warfare. And then when James II tried to make a comeback with the support of the Irish and French, William and Mary’s forces proved to be victors at the Battle of Boyne. It was also a rare example of a co-regents, with two married monarchs ruling at the same time. Too bad they were first cousins. Gross. But really, the “Glorious Revolution” wasn’t actually that glorious. Mary didn’t last too long herself and died less than six years into the reign. William was never super beloved by the people, as he was a Dutchman and not even English. At least he wasn’t German.
21. William II
William Rufus had the somewhat unenviable task of being the second Norman king of England. With William the Conqueror dead - it was time to see if this whole "Norman domination of England" thing was going to be for real or just fall apart after the man responsible for it was gone. Well, things didn’t fall completely apart for him and the Normans, so I guess William II had some success there. In fact, the biggest uprising Rufus faced wasn’t from the conquered Anglo-Saxons, but from a fellow Norman named Robert de Mowbray. The Normans were just ornery people. William II defeated his challenger though, proving to be an effective military commander. He also successfully put down a Scottish invasion, had some minimal gains in the Welsh marchlands, and secured the northern Maine from France. The First Crusade also happened during William II’s time, and while he didn’t directly participate, his brother Robert did and he showed adequate skill in collecting taxes to fund it. Don't underestimate just how hard and important collecting taxes was in this time. But overall, his reign wasn’t that great. Most of his rule can be defined by a struggle between church and state, with William II frequently banging heads with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Still, it never got quite to the level of the Henry II and Thomas Beckett feud. In the end, William II decided to go hunting in the woods and was “mysteriously” shot with an arrow through the lung and died. Did his brother, Henry I, do it to take the throne? Nobody really knows. It’s the kind of thing that just happened back then. You just gotta shrug it off and keep going. Well not William, because he was dead.
20. Edward VII
He ruled for a little over 9 years, but like now with Prince Charles waiting for his mom to die, Edward VII had to wait forever to get to the throne since his own mother, Victoria, just wouldn’t kick the bucket. And while his reign was technically enough time on the throne so that there is a distinctly recognized “Edwardian Age,” it’s still in almost every way seen as a subservient continuation of, and little brother to, the “Victorian Age.” The Edwardian Age is the New Coke of ages. It wasn’t actually that bad, but people just didn’t care for it when their memories were so tied to the way things used to be. He’s lauded as a constitutional British sovereign, expert diplomat, and as a peacemaker who helped prevent war in Europe (at least for the time being, WWI was just around the corner). Other than that though - the definition of an uneventful reign.
19. Henry III
Henry of Winchester reigned for over 56 years, which makes him the longest reigning king in the medieval era. The son of the lousy King John, Henry assumed the throne at age nine and had a long reign that didn’t include enough excitement to leave him much of a lasting legacy. When he assumed the throne, England was in the middle of a revolt by landowners known as the First Baron’s War. Although the crown was victorious in the war, they never quite "won the peace” and struggled to maintain royal control in distant parts of the realm. He disregarded what a lot of his predecessors did and never really assembled a powerful cabinet of chancellors and justicars – wishing to keep personal power as king rather than rely on advisors. That beings said, he generally followed charters closely and ruled in a constitutional, rather than autocratic, manner. He took up the pious pre-Norman king Edward the Confessor as his role model and tried to be a devout, religious king. That might sound nice and all, but he also enacted policies against Jews that included fining them all a third of their wealth, forced conversions, and made them where badges to identify themselves as Jews. And we all know that that type of thing can never go terribly wrong in history. Later in his reign, there was yet another revolt – the (creatively named) Second Baron’s War, which led to more instability and crisis. As he got older, he relied more on his son, Edward, to help run the government and named him the “Stewart of England.” Which was a good thing, because this is Edward I we're talking about.
18. Richard III
"Wait, what?!", you might be saying. "Richard III was terrible! How are you ranking him this high?" Well yeah, Richard III gets a lot of hate. People often assume that he must have just been one of the worst. But much of that hate is probably from being the villain in a Shakespeare play because Shakespeare thought people with physical disabilities were evil. Okay yes, he did probably murder his nephews, including Edward V. But I mean what kings in this era didn’t murder rival family members? It’s kind of what they did back then. How well was that twelve year old going to rule anyway when the country is in the middle of a civil war between Lancasters and Yorks? And I mean there’s technically no proof that he murdered Edward V anyway. Richard III’s reign wasn’t long, ruling just over two years, so it’s not like he had a great amount of time to build a lasting empire of awesome. But it’s not like he didn’t do anything at all. His Council of the North and his Court of Requests had lasting effects on the country for centuries and helped to centralize regional governance under the crown and provide the poor with a court for grievances, respectively. And although he died losing to Henry VII, he at least died on the battlefield – being the last King of England to die in battle. Which is a pretty sharp way to go out, especially for a dude with spine issues. If I have a cold I don’t even go to work, so I couldn’t even imagine riding out on a horse to fight in a war with lifelong crippling back pain. So I’m not saying that Richard III should be given the “World’s #1 Uncle” trophy or anything, just that maybe he deserved a little better than being buried in a parking lot. In an era when kings had to be warriors - Richard III was actually a warrior and not just someone who threw on armor and played warrior at the joust.
17. Henry I
Henry Beauclerc (I guess French for "beautiful clerk?") ruled for over 35 years, which is pretty impressive for the 12th century when people could pretty much die from anything. He’s considered by many to be a harsh, but effective, ruler who was adept at manipulating his barons for his own gains. Henry I began the process of adopting existing Anglo-Saxon justice systems and practices to win the people over and cement his rule. He would also strengthen those systems with additional institutions, such as the royal exchequer and itinerant royal justices. I know administrative reform isn’t as sexy as epic wins on battlefields, but it does go towards proving competence and leadership skills. Henry has a bit of a mixed legacy though, like his older brother (that maybe he killed), William II. Just like William, he came into conflict with the church on issues such as ecclesiastical reform. The biggest problem in his reign though came from a succession crisis. His only legitimate male heir (although he had a plethora of bastard sons) drowned at sea, which would eventually lead to chaos between Matilda (his daughter) and Stephen (a grandson of William the Conqueror), both claiming the throne after his death.
16. Edward IV
For an Edward, Eddie Quatro is actually doing fairly well for himself by elevating to near the top of the mid-level monarchs. He was the first king from the House of York, and was actually king twice - being the aforementioned monarch who secured the throne away from the absolutely awful and insane Henry VI of the House of Lancaster. Edward IV was everything that Henry VI was not. Edward was daring and capable military commander who never defeated in a single battle. Henry was not. Edward’s motto was modus et ordo (method and order). Henry’s government was plagued by a complete breakdown of law and order. And, of course most importantly, Edward never experienced recurring total mental breakdowns where he was completely unresponsive to everything that was going on around him, sometimes for more than a year at a time. Henry did. Although the first stint of Edward IV’s rule was marred by the War of the Roses, and he lost his throne for a few months, his second reign led to a period of relative peace. It’s too bad that after his death (he was one of the very few kings who was lucky enough to die from natural causes during this era) the peace wouldn’t stick around, which sort of undermined his hopes for a Yorkist dynasty.
15. George III
Initially, as I was formulating these rankings in my head and thinking of funny things to do with them, I planned on ranking George III as the worst. Just as a big F-U from the U-S-of-A. Essentially my argument/joke was that losing America was the worst thing that could ever happen to England, and it’s all his fault. And as a gag, I didn’t really have a problem ranking him under the worst of the worst. Sure, I could hyperbolically joke that he was worse than a teenage boy who was murdered without ever being crowned. I could also throw in a couple jokes about how he was mad. But then as I researched some of the most mediocre, boring, and useless monarchs I just knew in my heart that I couldn’t honestly say that George the III was worse than his two useless shitbag sons, or his father and grandfather. So, to be honest… George III ruled for 59 years and 96 days, the third longest of any English Monarch, ever. And the longest reign for a male! In his reign as king, he defeated France first in the Seven Years War and later defeated them again in the Napoleonic Wars. England became a dominant world power in Europe, the Americas and India. The Slave Trade Act in 1807 was enacted during his reign – the beginning of the end of slavery for England and the world (technically he only banned the slave trade, not slavery - as previously noted, his son William IV did that). The British Agricultural Revolution reached its peak, and there was unprecedented growth in the British population that led the way to create the workforce that would light the Industrial Revolution. In a time when the power of the Monarch was waning, George III pushed forward his own agendas, often ignoring Parliament, and successfully installed Pitt as his Prime Minister against Parliament’s wishes. All of these qualities would usually lead to a successful and high-ranked reign. The fact that he was completely insane, especially through the latter part of his reign, can even be overlooked. I mean, with everything I said - he almost sounds like an AWESOME king. And he almost was, but (to get back to the reason why I initially thought of ranking him lower) he messed with ‘murica and we had to throw his tea in the harbor. Note the spelling. Not "harbour," and that's because we won. Look George III, you’re not terrible. 15th best monarch in 1000 years of history is actually pretty good. But the fact that the United States doesn’t have the Queen on its money today and isn’t part of the Commonwealth is totally your fault, buddy. If maybe you had been a little more flexible with that taxation-representation thing, then people would only talk about George Washington as some dead asshole Virginian surveyor who owned a bunch of slaves.
 |
| George IV allowed Beau Brummell to, alas, become a thing |
Wanna know how interesting and important George IV is? When I finally put together all my research to rank and write about the Monarchs, I realized that I was one short. I went through the list about four times before I realized who I was missing – this mediocre bag of nobody. He actually started having control over the country while his father, George III, was still alive but had gone batshit crazy. This was the “Regency era” of the UK, which is what I would essentially call “the Reign of the Foppish Dandies.” The king led an extravagant lifestyle where he was really more responsible for being an ambassador for the era’s lace-based gentlemanly fashion, rather than doing anything significant. He provided no leadership in times of crisis, infamously attempted to divorce his wife, was criticized for wasteful spending, and was condemned by his ministers as selfish, unreliable and irresponsible. For all this, he earned him the contempt of the majority of British people so much that, upon his death, The Times stated of him, “There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him?” Ouch. They could say that about kings in the 1800s?
27. George II
He had a pretty long reign of over 33 years, but overall didn’t have much of a lasting legacy with it. First of all, he was the last British monarch born and raised outside of Britain (he was German, like his father), and being a foreigner doesn’t always win you points with the English people you’re ruling. And it seems like he just spent most of his time hunting stags and playing cards rather than doing anything productive. England could have essentially just not had a king through the entire reigns of George I and George II, and history would be no different. He’s often depicted as a weak buffoon, totally controlled by his wife and ministers, and is also famous for being a total cheap ass who was unwillingness to spend money. In the legacy section of his Wikipedia page, there is a sentence that starts, “George may not have played a strong role in history, but he…” and I didn't even finish reading the sentence, because it told me everything that I needed to know.
 |
| Anne, looking pretty bangable here. |
Did you even know there was a Queen Anne? Do you know anything she did? Anne’s reign can be defined by a general sense of mediocrity. Nobody says her 12+ years on the throne were some of the worst years, but nobody says that they were great either. Sure, during her reign there was the Act of Union - which transformed England and Scotland into “Great Britain” (sorry if you feel left out Wales, I guess they just classified you as part of England in the whole deal. You’re always the forgotten stepchild). But beyond that? Not much. There were some pretty devastating takedowns of her reign by contemporaries and those who lived soon after - saying that she was a meek, weak, capitulating fatty who spent most of her reign pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen making sammiches for Prince George of Denmark. But a lot of those negative views reflect sexism in an age of male dominance, and others believe that she was able to wield at least some influence. Still, although she reigned in a time of economic power and stability, she also represents a reign where the final nails were being put in the coffin of the crown having the power that it used to.
25. William IV
Billy 4.0 ruled for a few days less than 7 years, the shortest reign Post-Union with the exception of the abdicating douche Edward VIII. And this was during the boring-ass 1830s. Like Queen Anne, you likely know almost nothing about him. I’m sure if most British people were shown his official portrait and asked to identify him, they would have no clue. The “Reform Crisis” was a part of his reign, which included the continued decline of the House of Lords, and the rise of House of Commons. There were also a number of reforms related to work in factories, child labor, and support to the poor. And even though those reforms sound great, they were sort of middle-ground compromises rather than any grand progressive social plan. He was criticized for not going far enough by some, and for going too far by others. If it were just for these facts alone, William IV would have been demoted down a few notches for just being so bleh like his even more forgettable brother George IV. But William IV also happened to be lucky enough to be king in 1833, when the Slavery Abolition Act was passed - ending slavery throughout the British Empire (mostly, even that he did as a compromise, and there were a few exceptions for another 10 years). That’s at least some legacy, right?
24. Richard II
Richard II never really had a chance to live up to the epic awesomeness of his namesake, Richard the Lionheart. But then again, who really does have a chance to be as cool as that? Richard of Bordeaux, as he was also known, came to the throne at the young age of 10 after the death of his grandfather Edward III (his father had already died) and you might only be aware of depictions of him from the eponymous Shakespeare play about him. No? Yeah, nobody else has read Richard II either, so don’t feel bad about it. That being said, Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard II as a cruel and terrible king is more a mix of Tudor politics and artistic liberties than historical fact. His reign was not prosperous or peaceful. Let’s just turn to Wikipedia again (I’m lazy) if you want a quick 101 on how things kind of went for him. The section titles for his entries include: “Peasants Revolt,” “First Crisis,” “A fragile peace,” “Second crisis,” and “Overthrow and death.” Yeah, so not very good. There is no section called "Great time had by all when there were lots of sexy parties." There are also accusations that towards the end of his reign, Richard II was plagued by mental illness. But nobody can quite say if that’s true or not. Whatever the case may be, the end of his reign did not go well, as alluded to with the whole “Overthrow and death” section mentioned above. Henry Bolingbroke (Richard II’s first cousin and childhood playmate) spent much time in Richard II’s reign as a close friend and advisor before then becoming a rival and enemy. Bolingbroke led an army against Richard, captured him, and allowed him to abdicate the crown in return for sparing his life. Although Bolingbroke wasn’t technically next in line for the throne, he argued that his claim through his male line was stronger, and thus became King Henry IV. And while Henry IV initially honored his promise not to kill Richard II, after a failed uprising to restore the former king – Henry eventually decided to just let Richard starve to death in prison. Thus endeth the House Plantagenet and beginneth the War of the Roses. OH! And hey look who’s up next…
.jpg) |
| If you think about it, Zach Galifianakis' entire career is just a post-modern take on Falstaff, right? |
Richard II’s successor, Henry IV, has two Shakespeare plays just about him, and also features as a character in the one about Richard II, so he must be totally great, right? Eh, well. He was just okay. After deposing his first cousin to assume the throne, he spent most of his time as king facing a number of plots and rebellions against him. Almost immediately after taking the crown he was faced with the Epiphany Rising to kill him and restore Richard II. That was followed by a rebellion by Owain Glyndŵr in Wales, and the Percy Rebellion (actually a set of another three plots between 1402 and 1408 to overthrow him). The play Henry IV Part I is largely about a lot of the activities happening during the Percy Rebellion, while Part II is just a filler comedy with very little historic material that just directly mirrors the first play. Like it was thrown together quickly because someone demanded a sequel. It’s the Hangover 2 of Shakespeare plays. And Henry IV isn’t even really as important a character in his own plays as is his son Hal (AKA Henry V, you'll see him later in the list of awesome monarchs) and the buffoonish fatass Falstaff. Much of Henry IV’s reign was also marred by frequent illness, including a recurring bout of some skin disease (perhaps leprosy or psoriasis). He finally succumbed to his illnesses, which brought Henry V to the throne, ready to put things back on the right course and kick major French ass.
22. William III & Mary II
Many people are divided on William and Mary - placing them solidly in the “meh” camp of middle-ground monarchs who were neither amazing, nor terrible. In some ways they were good. They skillfully worked a political situation in order to overthrow the ruling king (James II) and force him to abdicate. They were also sort of OG’s for knowing how to manipulate the press and public opinion - as they arrived in England with a printing press and a solid plan to win wars with propaganda as much as traditional warfare. And then when James II tried to make a comeback with the support of the Irish and French, William and Mary’s forces proved to be victors at the Battle of Boyne. It was also a rare example of a co-regents, with two married monarchs ruling at the same time. Too bad they were first cousins. Gross. But really, the “Glorious Revolution” wasn’t actually that glorious. Mary didn’t last too long herself and died less than six years into the reign. William was never super beloved by the people, as he was a Dutchman and not even English. At least he wasn’t German.
21. William II
William Rufus had the somewhat unenviable task of being the second Norman king of England. With William the Conqueror dead - it was time to see if this whole "Norman domination of England" thing was going to be for real or just fall apart after the man responsible for it was gone. Well, things didn’t fall completely apart for him and the Normans, so I guess William II had some success there. In fact, the biggest uprising Rufus faced wasn’t from the conquered Anglo-Saxons, but from a fellow Norman named Robert de Mowbray. The Normans were just ornery people. William II defeated his challenger though, proving to be an effective military commander. He also successfully put down a Scottish invasion, had some minimal gains in the Welsh marchlands, and secured the northern Maine from France. The First Crusade also happened during William II’s time, and while he didn’t directly participate, his brother Robert did and he showed adequate skill in collecting taxes to fund it. Don't underestimate just how hard and important collecting taxes was in this time. But overall, his reign wasn’t that great. Most of his rule can be defined by a struggle between church and state, with William II frequently banging heads with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Still, it never got quite to the level of the Henry II and Thomas Beckett feud. In the end, William II decided to go hunting in the woods and was “mysteriously” shot with an arrow through the lung and died. Did his brother, Henry I, do it to take the throne? Nobody really knows. It’s the kind of thing that just happened back then. You just gotta shrug it off and keep going. Well not William, because he was dead.
 |
| Regal as fuck |
He ruled for a little over 9 years, but like now with Prince Charles waiting for his mom to die, Edward VII had to wait forever to get to the throne since his own mother, Victoria, just wouldn’t kick the bucket. And while his reign was technically enough time on the throne so that there is a distinctly recognized “Edwardian Age,” it’s still in almost every way seen as a subservient continuation of, and little brother to, the “Victorian Age.” The Edwardian Age is the New Coke of ages. It wasn’t actually that bad, but people just didn’t care for it when their memories were so tied to the way things used to be. He’s lauded as a constitutional British sovereign, expert diplomat, and as a peacemaker who helped prevent war in Europe (at least for the time being, WWI was just around the corner). Other than that though - the definition of an uneventful reign.
19. Henry III
Henry of Winchester reigned for over 56 years, which makes him the longest reigning king in the medieval era. The son of the lousy King John, Henry assumed the throne at age nine and had a long reign that didn’t include enough excitement to leave him much of a lasting legacy. When he assumed the throne, England was in the middle of a revolt by landowners known as the First Baron’s War. Although the crown was victorious in the war, they never quite "won the peace” and struggled to maintain royal control in distant parts of the realm. He disregarded what a lot of his predecessors did and never really assembled a powerful cabinet of chancellors and justicars – wishing to keep personal power as king rather than rely on advisors. That beings said, he generally followed charters closely and ruled in a constitutional, rather than autocratic, manner. He took up the pious pre-Norman king Edward the Confessor as his role model and tried to be a devout, religious king. That might sound nice and all, but he also enacted policies against Jews that included fining them all a third of their wealth, forced conversions, and made them where badges to identify themselves as Jews. And we all know that that type of thing can never go terribly wrong in history. Later in his reign, there was yet another revolt – the (creatively named) Second Baron’s War, which led to more instability and crisis. As he got older, he relied more on his son, Edward, to help run the government and named him the “Stewart of England.” Which was a good thing, because this is Edward I we're talking about.
 |
| How can you hate a guy with such beautiful stained glass depictions? |
"Wait, what?!", you might be saying. "Richard III was terrible! How are you ranking him this high?" Well yeah, Richard III gets a lot of hate. People often assume that he must have just been one of the worst. But much of that hate is probably from being the villain in a Shakespeare play because Shakespeare thought people with physical disabilities were evil. Okay yes, he did probably murder his nephews, including Edward V. But I mean what kings in this era didn’t murder rival family members? It’s kind of what they did back then. How well was that twelve year old going to rule anyway when the country is in the middle of a civil war between Lancasters and Yorks? And I mean there’s technically no proof that he murdered Edward V anyway. Richard III’s reign wasn’t long, ruling just over two years, so it’s not like he had a great amount of time to build a lasting empire of awesome. But it’s not like he didn’t do anything at all. His Council of the North and his Court of Requests had lasting effects on the country for centuries and helped to centralize regional governance under the crown and provide the poor with a court for grievances, respectively. And although he died losing to Henry VII, he at least died on the battlefield – being the last King of England to die in battle. Which is a pretty sharp way to go out, especially for a dude with spine issues. If I have a cold I don’t even go to work, so I couldn’t even imagine riding out on a horse to fight in a war with lifelong crippling back pain. So I’m not saying that Richard III should be given the “World’s #1 Uncle” trophy or anything, just that maybe he deserved a little better than being buried in a parking lot. In an era when kings had to be warriors - Richard III was actually a warrior and not just someone who threw on armor and played warrior at the joust.
17. Henry I
Henry Beauclerc (I guess French for "beautiful clerk?") ruled for over 35 years, which is pretty impressive for the 12th century when people could pretty much die from anything. He’s considered by many to be a harsh, but effective, ruler who was adept at manipulating his barons for his own gains. Henry I began the process of adopting existing Anglo-Saxon justice systems and practices to win the people over and cement his rule. He would also strengthen those systems with additional institutions, such as the royal exchequer and itinerant royal justices. I know administrative reform isn’t as sexy as epic wins on battlefields, but it does go towards proving competence and leadership skills. Henry has a bit of a mixed legacy though, like his older brother (that maybe he killed), William II. Just like William, he came into conflict with the church on issues such as ecclesiastical reform. The biggest problem in his reign though came from a succession crisis. His only legitimate male heir (although he had a plethora of bastard sons) drowned at sea, which would eventually lead to chaos between Matilda (his daughter) and Stephen (a grandson of William the Conqueror), both claiming the throne after his death.
16. Edward IV
For an Edward, Eddie Quatro is actually doing fairly well for himself by elevating to near the top of the mid-level monarchs. He was the first king from the House of York, and was actually king twice - being the aforementioned monarch who secured the throne away from the absolutely awful and insane Henry VI of the House of Lancaster. Edward IV was everything that Henry VI was not. Edward was daring and capable military commander who never defeated in a single battle. Henry was not. Edward’s motto was modus et ordo (method and order). Henry’s government was plagued by a complete breakdown of law and order. And, of course most importantly, Edward never experienced recurring total mental breakdowns where he was completely unresponsive to everything that was going on around him, sometimes for more than a year at a time. Henry did. Although the first stint of Edward IV’s rule was marred by the War of the Roses, and he lost his throne for a few months, his second reign led to a period of relative peace. It’s too bad that after his death (he was one of the very few kings who was lucky enough to die from natural causes during this era) the peace wouldn’t stick around, which sort of undermined his hopes for a Yorkist dynasty.
 |
| George III's final years were not unlike this |
Initially, as I was formulating these rankings in my head and thinking of funny things to do with them, I planned on ranking George III as the worst. Just as a big F-U from the U-S-of-A. Essentially my argument/joke was that losing America was the worst thing that could ever happen to England, and it’s all his fault. And as a gag, I didn’t really have a problem ranking him under the worst of the worst. Sure, I could hyperbolically joke that he was worse than a teenage boy who was murdered without ever being crowned. I could also throw in a couple jokes about how he was mad. But then as I researched some of the most mediocre, boring, and useless monarchs I just knew in my heart that I couldn’t honestly say that George the III was worse than his two useless shitbag sons, or his father and grandfather. So, to be honest… George III ruled for 59 years and 96 days, the third longest of any English Monarch, ever. And the longest reign for a male! In his reign as king, he defeated France first in the Seven Years War and later defeated them again in the Napoleonic Wars. England became a dominant world power in Europe, the Americas and India. The Slave Trade Act in 1807 was enacted during his reign – the beginning of the end of slavery for England and the world (technically he only banned the slave trade, not slavery - as previously noted, his son William IV did that). The British Agricultural Revolution reached its peak, and there was unprecedented growth in the British population that led the way to create the workforce that would light the Industrial Revolution. In a time when the power of the Monarch was waning, George III pushed forward his own agendas, often ignoring Parliament, and successfully installed Pitt as his Prime Minister against Parliament’s wishes. All of these qualities would usually lead to a successful and high-ranked reign. The fact that he was completely insane, especially through the latter part of his reign, can even be overlooked. I mean, with everything I said - he almost sounds like an AWESOME king. And he almost was, but (to get back to the reason why I initially thought of ranking him lower) he messed with ‘murica and we had to throw his tea in the harbor. Note the spelling. Not "harbour," and that's because we won. Look George III, you’re not terrible. 15th best monarch in 1000 years of history is actually pretty good. But the fact that the United States doesn’t have the Queen on its money today and isn’t part of the Commonwealth is totally your fault, buddy. If maybe you had been a little more flexible with that taxation-representation thing, then people would only talk about George Washington as some dead asshole Virginian surveyor who owned a bunch of slaves.
 |
| Such a waste of tea. |
No comments:
Post a Comment