Who was the worst king in English History?
>English history
Haha. Les bains?
Henry VI
There's no other correct answer. There were plenty of tyrants, but this guy was an absolute nullity and England paid the price. Shame because his father was a champion.
Aethelred was pretty shit, but I'd agree that it would have to go to Henry VI.
Other close runners up are Stephen, John, Henry III and Richard II
Probably John.
Harold "King of the Hill" Godwinson
All he had to fucking do was stay on that hill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8wLBOlCKPU
William the Bastard
John
>>982967
the guy built universities and cultivated education, seems pretty based desu
>>983040
As far as i know William is the only one who committed genocide (5% of the population died in the harrying of the north) on the English people. Even back then people were like, that shits fucked up.
Victoria. She was a good Queen, though.
ARTHUR
Though from the American perspective, he is the best.
>>983303
I was about to complain about no Edward II on the list
>Father dies aged 68 in the middle of a successful military campaign against Scotland in the North
>Within the first 7 years of his reign the war totally turns around and English forces have largely retreated south of the border
>Sends reinforcements to relieve a stronghold in Scotland in 1314 and has his army decimated by a Scottish force less than half the size of his own
>Imprisons a Roger Mortimer, a powerful lord in 1322 after a revolt against him, but Mortimer escapes shortly after to France
>Roger Mortimer then invades England in 1326 with a mercenary army raises in Flanders and the support of much of the English court, including his now mistress Queen Isabella - Edward's wife
>As Isabelle and Mortimer advance through England the King's armies desert him in favour of his wife and her lover abandoning London and fleeing as far north as he could
>Edward II is forced to abdicate the throne and Isabella and Mortimer are established as regents for Edward's son Edward III
>Edward II dies in suspicious circumstances shortly later
>>983550
>
Explain.
>>983572
Single greatest ruler of Ireland
Economy was cucked before he even got to the throne
The continental holdings were a lost cause, doesn't matter who was monarch they were going to be gone anyways
Started Englands naval supremecy and cucked France at sea
I'm surprised the kingdom lasted as long as it did, should've been in alot worse condition if it wasn't for John
All modern literature is based off of a few extremely biased accounts -- specifically church records. John was exommunicated, obvs they had an axe to grind with him
> Shakespeare plays him as incompentent
> Disney makes him a Lion sucking his thumb
> Legend of Robin Hood is around his reign, historically Robin of Loxley (the figure Robin Hood is based off of) was declared an outlaw by Richard I, not even John
John is so badly maligned underservedly
Edward the Confessor
Alfred the "Great"
>>983614
how was he the worst, he kicked the danes out
Æthelred Unræd comes to mind.
>>982916
All of the non-French or Norman ones.
>>983673
kek
>>982916
>no Henry VIII
Ed VIII
wtf is up with any other answer
Elizabeth II is easily the worst if you think about it.
>>983603
Nigga lost almost all of the English territories in France. Half of France belonged to the English including Normandy, Brittany and Aquitaine. The guy is on the lowest tier, the "oh shit nigger, what are you doing" tier.
>>983310
Is he the biggest cuck in history or what?
>>982916
Henry VIII
>>983603
>Continental Holdings a lost cause
They absolutely weren't, the Plantagenet family could have kept ahold of them if he had just tried to negotiate with Arthur instead of kidnapping and killing them.
Though the economy was bad that was no excuse for his plunder and treasure hordes.
And John was rightly excommunicated and maligned by the church, he had the most devil and least lion in him of all of Henry II's sons.
>>983310
And he was a poofter. Had an affair with Piers Gaviston. Strongly suggested that Edward III was actually his wife's son by a random archer
>>984678
Just because half of France belonged to England, doesn't mean there wasn't conflict. All of the Plantagenet kings experienced the exact same problems: The English nobles didn't fight wars in France, and the French nobles didn't fight wars in England because they didn't consider themselves of that nation. It was falling apart as soon as it was formed and just happened to collapse during Johns reign, not because of John's reign.
>>984701
Best part about Arthur is that there is zero evidence saying that John murdered him.
>>985687
The fact he murdered him was the secret everybody knew about during his reign though, and he had people that were stupid enough to say so tortured and killed.
Either way, if Arthur were allowed to inherit the French lands there wouldn't be that problem of nobles because there would be French Plantagenet and an English Plantagenet line, which is preferable to anything else.
Also nothing you have said about John makes him a good King
>>984678
>>985687
>half of France belonged to England
You got it backward guys
England belonged to half of France
France had been divided before like that before England even came in the picture
Then the Western French faction (Plantagenets) took control of England, and eventually moved the capital city there so it would be unreachable by their enemy
>>985894
No, it's the Plantagenets controlled half of France and the Kingdom of England.
>>985929
And the Plantagenets were Western French
Western France controlled England and was at war with Eastern France
>>985934
Okay I can see you are retarded and haven't realized why I was correcting you:
You were looking at it in ethnic/national terms instead of dynastic terms, which is anachronistic.
>>985947
Oh, come on
The Plantagenets were French and forever cucked English language with millions of French words
French and English identities existed back then, and the Plantagenets were clearly French
Anything else is just British denial and buttpain
>>985934
How did they manage to lose? Their vassals helped the Valois?
George IV
>>983603
>petty, spiteful and cruel
>despite reforming England and having some early military victories, he basically started failing very hard
>pissed off all of his barons, even the badass William Marshal (Only Marshal was willing to help this spiteful little cunt because he is The Knightiest Knight Who Ever Knighted.)
>literally forced into signing the Magna Carta
>famously called "Lackland" and "Softsword"
>modern depictions of him does not talk about his acheivements, only his character and incompetence
I'm pretty sure this "hard-working administrator, able man and able general" wasn't excommunicated because he was a cunt and argued with Pope Innocent III and told said Pope to go fuck himself regarding who should be the Archbishop of Cantebury.
Or that his actions kicked off the first Barons' War and then we have this gem from Wikipedia.
>>John's first period of rule in Ireland was not a success. Ireland had only recently been conquered by Anglo-Norman forces, and tensions were still rife between Henry II, the new settlers and the existing inhabitants.[28] John infamously offended the local Irish rulers by making fun of their unfashionable long beards, failed to make allies amongst the Anglo-Norman settlers, began to lose ground militarily against the Irish and finally returned to England later in the year, blaming the viceroy, Hugh de Lacy, for the fiasco.[28]
>>985955
They were Vasals of France.
