Worst English monarch?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

(quiz leads from Norman Invasion - Acts of Union. I don't know jack about the Anglo-Saxon/Viking monarchs)

My vote goes for Richard I, funnily enough. The "Lionheart" is certainly an overrated bastard. Due in some part to his education, he believed he was living in some romantic fairy tale. To that end he viewed the country as little more than a springboard for his dubious adventures - he was in London for about a month before skedaddling off to fight Saladin.

On the way back, he decided to indulge himself in some stupid "adventure" through Europe, and promptly got captured in an inn in Vienna; forcing England to pay through the teeth to get him back. Throughout his life (up to and including his particularly stupid death), the guy never clocked the idea that the world wasn't a storybook.

The most pathetic goes to Edward II; the most psychopathic to Longshanks; William I has the most Engish blood on his hands; Richard II had the worst consequences and the most overrated is clearly Henry VIII.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm surprised with this forum's affection for Scottish independence that Longshanks has no votes. The guy was an Anti-Semetic brute, just terrible. He also butchered one of the biggest FF's in English history (Simon de Montfort) and all his supporters so I'm possibly biased against him.

I didn't like the way that Liz strutted around at William's wedding, enjoying 20 million pounds of tax money while 1/5 of the country is in relative poverty.

That's post union silly.

Though that does bring to mind - who was the worst King or Queen of the United Kingdom? Probably a toss-up between the playboy in chief (George IV) and the fascist (Edward VIII).

Mary I is not there (EDIT: Yes she is - didn't see her, would have voted Mary I), so it's a toss-up between John and Charles. Both very rightfully should have been overthrown. John gets my vote, though, because I've looked fairly closely into the events leading up to the Great Charter, and John's behavior was frankly appalling. Incompetent, psychotic, and probably suffered from paranoia. As good as Henry II's reputation is, his sons were awful.

Stephen just basically didn't have much control. He's always depicted with his falcon, so I'd guess he probably spent a lot of time hunting.

Henry VI was incompetent, but he suffered some kind of breakdown that's been the subject of a lot of interesting conversation. He probably inherited an inclination for mental illness and catatonia, and then the bad news that continued to come in and the losses in France probably caused him to have a breakdown. He was never really well again, and this of course provided pretext for the Wars of the Roses.

I guess I didn't vote for Lackland because I do feel kind of sorry for him. People like John (and Henry VI / Edward II) would probably be sectioned and put on medication in modern times; and they managed to find themselves head of a country? Especially one that Richard had treated like a gigantic ATM for the past decade. Needless to say, the guy was a complete moron - especially when he betrayed his father for literally no reason whatsoever...

The blame for the War of the Roses could also just also be blamed on that spoilt twerp Richard II exiling Henry of Lancaster out of paranoia. If only Watt Tyler and co. hadn't been taken in by his lies.