It's not at all surprising that Mary took the English Reformation personally. Her entire youth she was publicly humiliated. Her once-loving father renounced her, and her mother was treated despicably for not doing the same. Thousands and thousands of people changed their religion for the specific purpose of not having to accept her as a future leader. How was she supposed to react? Now of course that certainly doesn't justify religious persecution; but Mary was hardly unique there. During the reign of the stratospherically popular Elizabeth many Catholic priests were drawn and quartered. I suppose I'd take that over burning if those were my only two options, but it's not exactly an easy way to go. And even if it were, it's still persecution. Why should Mary's crimes be singled out while many others' are ignored?
I'm William the Conqueror My enemies stood no chance They call me the first English king Although I come from France 1066, the Doomsday book I gave to history So fat on death my body burst But enough about me To help remember all your kings I've come up with this song A simple rhyming ditty For you all to sing along Oh, William (Bit short init? We need more kings. Who came next?) William second, cheeks were red Killed out hunting, so it's said I took over, Henry one That's my next eldest son Then King Stephen, it's true check it! Hi, Henry two, killed Thomas Beckett Richard Lionheart? That's right! Always spoiling for a fight Oh King John, what a disaster Rule restrained by Magna Carta William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Time for my mate, King Henry eight To take up this song Henry three built the abbey Ed one hated Scots A red hot poker killed Ed two That must have hurt him lots Edward third was a chivalry nerd Began the hundred years war Then Richard two was king aged ten Then Henry, yes one more King Henry four, plots galore Not least from Henry five, why? Killed ten score at Agincourt Then Henry six arrived Edward four, Edward five Richard the third, he's bad 'Cause he fought wars with Henry seventh First Tudor and my dad So Henry eight, I was great Six wives, two were beheaded Edward the sixth came next But he died young and so my dreaded Daughter Mary ruled, so scary Then along came... me I'm Liz the first, I had no kids So Tudors RIP William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess That's me, time for more men James six of Scotland next As England's James the first he led Then Stuarts ruled, so Charles the first The one who lost his head No monarchy until came me Charles two, I liked to party King Jimmy two was scary, woooh Then Mary was a smarty She ruled with Bill, their shoes were filled By sourpuss Queen Anne Gloria And so from then, you were ruled by men Till along came me Victoria William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria Still to come, it's Queen Victoria And so began the Hanover gang George one and George two (grim) Then George the third was quite absurd Till I replaced old him King George the fourth and known henceforth As angry, fat and cross (hang on) It's true you beat Napoleon But for mostly a dead loss (bang on) Old William four was a sailor (ahoy) It's nearly the end of the story-a As onto the scene comes the best loved queen Hail to Queen Victoria William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria Victoria Victoria Victoria (I ruled for sixty four years, you know.) Ed seven, George five Then Ed, George sixth Liz two then reigned and how And so our famous monarch song Is brought right up to now, oh William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria Edward, George, Edward, George six And Queen Liz two completes the mix That's all the English kings and queens Since William first that there have been
Not strictly true , The Normans settled in Normandy , but were kind of vikings ,really . They took up the French language and catholicism , to appease the French.
Who keeps coming back here like me just to watch the funny Siobhan Thompson and her funny and informative little videos like this sarcastically made one here?! lol Can’t get enough of her videos bc sorry not sorry I like her bettter than the other one …and btw it’s 2024 already.. cheers 😂
Mary was actually pretty popular because most of England was still catholic- that's why the device (the document put together to try and cut Mary out of the succession) fell through within a couple of weeks. It all fell apart a bit after she married a Spanish king because no one liked a foreign ruler. Also George IV may have been a bad king but he does have the best horrible histories song
Interesting video, though I noted Richard I was missing (who I'd put at #1 personally!). James II was pretty terrible too, and...yeah, there are many other options!
I'm not sure I'd put Richard I as no. 1, but he was certainly bad. He only spent six monthos of his ten year reign in England and he just used the country as a source of money for his crusades. Mind you, when he died it meant that John became king and he was probably even worse.
King John? I did an essay on him. Many of his faults were due to Richard Lionheart, who went off to war every 15 seconds, plunging England into debt. Also, he was never around, so the barons thought they could do what they wanted, so they were unhappy when John took over and taxed the hell out of them. BTW John left the poor alone, and didn’t tax them.
Richard I, a warmonger who's constant crusading left England bankrupt, and who left the place in the care of a bunch of men who weren't up to the job, and whos failure to pick a successor (his younger brother John, or Arthur of Brittany, the son of Geoffrey, younger than he, but older than John) did lead to a succession war, which was a major reason why John did so poorly in France.
actually from historical sources I have seen King Richard I left the Kingdom in the hands of their MOTHER Queen Eleanor (which is with the exception of Normandy), Eleanor brought all the French land that Jonh "Lackland: later lost. Some sources say that King John like Richard III killed their nephew (in this case Arthur)
Right. The barons didn't like John but liked his nephew Arthur far less. John was more English than Arthur and the barons didn't like Arthur's mother, either, also very French. So they went with John but never liked him too much, even forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
+battletoads22 For example, in England, they used to have these 'Church courts' which were run by the Catholic Church, these were basically just corrupt establishments that allowed people who worked in the Catholic Church to get a lighter sentence than anyone else. Another good example would be tithes, taxes that you had to pay to the church that typically accounted for around 10% of your income.
+battletoads22 Stopped domination of the country by a pope 1500 miles away at a time when they were a corrupt bunch, running a church that was very far from Christian.
+battletoads22 Stopped domination of the country by a pope 1500 miles away at a time when they were a corrupt bunch, running a church that was very far from Christian.
How is Mary I worse than her dispicable father - who isn't even mentioned in the list - or much worse than her sister, who did much the same sans the burning.
Technically speaking John was neither a bad regent, nor a bad king, rather he was trying deal with the categorically worst king in history, his brother, the much beloved glory hound Richard. Richard bankrupted the country for his gloryhunting expeditions in the crusades, never spent any time in the british isles if he could help it (he was french nobility of the plantagenet lines and most of their interesting holdings were in france), he also warred with other french monarchs, got captured, ransomed for another huge fortune, and finally died in a pointless battle (history tells us his men skinned alive the men of the fort from which the arrow came that killed him) in France. He also was quoted as saying "I'd sell the city of london, if only I could find a buyer" John was attempting to resurrect the british economy, and rather than Magna Carta being an actually good check on royal power, it was the nobles forcing the king into a corner because he wanted them to pay the tab for the gloryhunting they and his brother had been on. He was certainly the most competent monarchs of the pre-tudor era (don't judge a ruler on how good a situation is, rather judge them on how much worse it could be if they were not holding back disaster by force of will and political brinksmanship), and belongs in the annuls of great kings, rather than villainous ones.
I TOTALLY agree. I knew John would make this list, while Richard I would never (heaven forbid) make it on a list of bad kings. Richard I was a selfish king who did not give two figs about England - which he used as a piggy bank and despised. Yet he is hailed as a Hero. John is totally villainised, and unfairly; because he had to deal with the mess his over-glorified brother made.
Wranglerstar a proper fish and chips is a big large cod tons of chips and a nice topping of salt and vinegar. Course I never have any of that except the chips i usually have a nice battered sausage
Wranglerstar CHIPS should be deep golden brown,. NOT that horrible looking almost white that so many shops serve up....they are often limp, flabby sticks of grease,. They should be CRISP on the outside soft white on the inside!!!!Every true Brit, should be able to tell a GOOD chippy from at least 500 meters away ( on windy day,,). using his/ her built in " Chippy detector". Which we are all born with!!!!Just SMELL it folks!
I was glad for that also. Then again, there is nothing to demonise. He was a good king! And had he reigned for longer than 2 years and 2 months; he'd have been a great king. Sadly Henry VII had to take that away from him; then leave England with his tyrant son...
Richard the First was pretty bad, he may have been likable but he never bothered learning the language, only came to the country for something like six weeks and then got himself captured on the way back from the Crusades.Eleanor of Aquitaine spent a load of time running about to raise money to ransom him and then he went off to wage war in France. The fact that he was John's brother really only adds insult to injury.
Agree. His three days of constant executions at Acre where "the streets ran red with blood", was also one of his most remembered acts. But Sir Walter Scott so ennobled him in his novels that no one remembers the bad reality.
Since you asked, few other un-praiseworthy monarchs might include.... - Vortigern (invited the Saxons in at the expense of the Celts) - Ethelred the Unready (the name says it all, even if it is mistranslated) - Henry VI (lost France) - James II (blew the Stuart Restoration) - Queen Anne (signed away the remains of Scotland's independence without thinking) - Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor (gave up the crown for "love," when Wallis didn't want him to)
+Nick Hentschel France would have been lost anyway, by someone else if not by Henry VI. Even Edward III lost back many Plantagenet possessions to the French.
Thanks for not including Richard III--the poor man has suffered quite enough because of Shakespeare. How about a list of Britain's best monarchs? I'd d definitely include Edward VII...he was a jolly, avuncular sort.
Agreed. I was fearing seeing Richard on here. I do believe he was a good king, and would have been a great king had he been allowed to rule in peace and longer than a mere 2 years.
Got to disagree with you on Mary Tudor to be honest. I mean she wasn't the best monarch but I honestly wouldn't say she was the worst. Yes she killed many of her subjects however Elizabeth I actually burned a lot more just over a longer time span so it is over looked. As to returning Catholicism, well that only seems natural given her background. Her mother was Catherine of Aragon, Spanish and a devout Catholic and Mary grew up in the time when England was still tied with Rome so obviously she was going to have Catholic views. When she brought back Catholicism to England she did so with a lot of support, particularly Cornwall and the northerners were still Catholics and supported her change in religion. Therefore she was actively ruling the country in ways she genuinely believed beneficial to her country and that can't be disregarded... If you're looking for the worst King in England I would personally look at Henry VI in the 15th Century who caused the Wars of the Roses
TwoLovelyGirls Mary killed 284 yes, however compared to the monarchs around her time period... Henry VIII - around 72,000 Edward VI - over 5,000 yet Mary is the one known for her brutality?
Thank you for not putting Richard III on this list! Shakespeare really did a number on his reputation. Richard II and Henry VI could have easily made the list too. Best ruler I'd say was probably James I. He seems the most likeable, anyway.
psyplops Guy Fawkes was more anti-parliament, wasn't he? If he was anti James I, he would have tried to blow up a royal palace instead. In any case, James I was just ... cool. A decent, moderate chap - and somewhat openly bisexual! Dickens wrote that pretty much the only thing wrong with James I was his unattractiveness.
+Benjamin Rome Clarke he got done for treason though. Probably shouldn't have chosen the State Opening of Parliament with the King present at least we get Bonfire Night. remember, remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot
+Benjamin Rome Clarke He planned to blow up Parliament while James was opening it. So if he had succeeded he would have destroyed Parliament AND the King.
+simhedges Fawkes was hired to blow up Parliament it was planned by Catesby and pals, while it is true Guido Foulks was a rabid Catholic sympathser he was really only a catspaw .........M
Henry V 8 was a pretty skanky sum buck. Two of my ancestors were beheaded by the Tudors: the original "Queen of Hearts".... {sarcasm is intended, those aren't typos}
They came from the island of Britain. Just because it didn't exist as a political entity didn't mean it didn't exist unless you're seriously suggesting that until the act of union a stretch of water separated England from Wales and Scotland.
TehFrasssaa Well yeah if you are talking the British Isles, although that term didn't even get used before 1600. Ever since the Scottish referendum though we have seen countless programmes/youtube channels where British history really equals English history(with no history from the other nations). Britain is now self conscious and trying to up its identity, its not really working.There is no empire/industry or war to hold it together. Politically the 4 nations are now very divided.
Even though the UK wasn't officially formed until 1707, Great Britain goes back at least as far as the time of Christ. The first King of England was Egbert I who reigned 800-839. He was a Saxon king.
beatlesrgear great britain was once joined physically to norway.then the earthquakes split it all up. england only came into being when the a nglos and the saxons came to what is not england. there was no england in the days of christ. jesus only set foot on cornish soil, not english soil. cornwall is ancient. england is just the new kid on the block.
Big fan of Siobhan. Will look for her elsewhere. Having said that, I decided to go through the playlist after seeing her replacement (whom I can't remember the name but seemed lovely) so I'll file through until I get to see her. Neat show - particularly for those who are American and married into a British family. Cheers.
Obvious Thatcher jokes aside, if we're looking at actual kings, I would think you'd have to get James II in there-- whored around, apparently contracted syphilis, got himself deposed as completely intolerable within three years, and also fathered two other weak monarchs (Mary II and Anne), who were sickly because they, you know, got syphilis from him. Other candidates: Harold II (somehow managed to get invaded twice and overthrown within a year of becoming king); Henry VI (mentally challenged, lost virtually all of France, eventually overthrown leading to thirty-year series of civil wars).
Maxwell Day if he wanted brexit then yes the man is a genius. if, as he lead us to believe, he did not want brexit then ibwould say he is not very clever at all.
Both John and Edward II were WAY worse than Mary ever was. In fact Edward never really ruled for himself, but let his lovers rule for him. The hot poker up the bum rumour of his death is a myth.
Ok, Mary was not that bad. She wasn't a good ruler by any means, but she certainly wasn't the worst. The fuss about her is based pretty much entirely on the fact that in the end, the Protestants won, and therefore got to proclaim pursecuting protestants the Worst Thing Ever. But in terms of body count, she's relatively tame; especially compared with the thousands of soldiers and peasants who died in all those wars. And every monrch at the time persecuted people of other religions, hell, Elizabeth I killed her fair share of Catholic priests. Mary was fairly typical in terms of brutality, and a far more interesting, complex and, yes , tragic character than she's made out to be. She's perhaps most interesting as a study in just how much"history is written by the victors"is true.
Mary burnt far, far more people than previous monarchs & at a time the country was not at war. Henry VII burnt 10 people in 2 years Henry VIII burnt 81 in 38 years Edward VI burnt 2 in 6 yrs MARY 284 people in 5 years Her successor Elizabeth I burnt 5 people in 45 years. It was this brutality that ensured the Protestants won
Andrew Betts As if it were all about burning and not also about beheading, hanging-drawing-quartering, starving, imprisoning, fining and destroying the land's culture!
Mary did kill more than Elizabeth despite ruling for a far shorter time, she definitely deserved the nickname "Bloody Mary". Although I agree, if she'd lived longer and restored Catholicism she probably would have gone down in history as a great monarch. History is definitely written by the victors.
Mary Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow? With silver bells and Cockell shells and pretty maids all in a row. I used to love that nursery rhyme when I was little lol. Always thought it was about an actual garden not a queen who liked murdering and torturing people haha
I am enjoying your postings! I would fancy adding Richard I, given he a) was away most of the time b) spent a lot of money elsewhere and c) cost the country a lot to get him back.
Well.. I am from Germany... I don't even know where to start.. but champion of the worst ruler.. I know you know him... and he wasn't even a German... he was a Austrian -.-
I love Germany and when I tell people this if they're stupid they obviously bring him up, so I have to keep having to telling people that he's Austrian.
Northumberland was as heavily populated as Southern England before William I. It still relatively empty 1000 yrs later. That's how bad the harrowing was.
Maybe because he did things during his rule that can be seen as attributes of a good ruler. His 'new model army' model, seeds of a more democratic society, many military victories etc. Those on the other end of military campaigns will never see him as a good man but the fact he is divisive doesn't mean he was a bad ruler.
sealaughin He was never king, although he WAS asked to be king AND was offered a coronation. Crowned or not, he was, though, "in locum tenens regis" as it were - he was the ruler of England when there was no king. He ruled with more authority than any king since, was succeeded by his son and was buried with a crown. As they say, "if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, chances are..." and the video isn't titled "worst British/English monarchs". He's worth more of a mention than some of the monarchs on the list, but not as worthy as some of the omissions - his own successor, for example!
He seems to have been good for the economy and had a huge impact on making England independent from Europe, though he added more land from France to the kingdom with his conquests. I would put him under "one of the worst human beings of all time" but not call him a terrible monarch, though his seizure and ransacking of the religious buildings (and his forcing all monks and nuns to marry) under the name of converting the populace to Protestantism makes me come mighty close.
I'm surprised good ole' Henry VIII wasn't on the list. sure he wasn't too terrible for the country itself but the way he was with the wives has to count for something, right?
Henry the VIII for some reason has gone down in history as a 'great ruler'. He was, in certain things. What he did to his first wife was atrocious. And all the rest, except for Jane Seymore, who died after birth giving him his much coveted son. He was a pedophile, e.g., Catherine Howard whom he made queen, and other concubines. Yes, he killed many, many people, all because he couldn't get a son, or for political expedience. Luckily, he died before having Katherine Parr, wife #6 beheaded. She came close. His only son, Edward, died in his teens, leaving him his two daughters. Both became queens. His second daughter, by Anne Boleyn, ended up with the throne for years after bloody Queen Mary died. Elizabeth I. She was a very good ruler and very smart. She learned from her mother to NEVER MARRY and give some man power over her. She wasn't a saint, by any means. But a good ruler. Then came King James.........
+Pamster Berg I think you're going way out on a narrow-minded limb with the paedophile accusation. Age of consent is a relatively modern concept based on sociological exigencies. There's a gravestone - 17th century, I think - somewhere in East Anglia of a 13-year-old girl, and the stone is inscribed with her name followed by 'virgin.' That's because it was relatively uncommon in those days for a 13-year-old woman still to be in such a condition. Earlier cultures were more inclined to follow the natural line - once you've gone through puberty, you're ready for sex. There's no point in judging the past sniffily through modern eyes.
Because he was actually quite a good king. A terrible person, but a good(ish) king. Good people don't make the best rulers and vice versa. Mary I - rightly called 'Bloody Mary' - executed hundreds of men, women and children just for being Protestant. This was the only time England's Reformation came close to killing people on a large scale, but even so it was nothing compared with what was happening in continental Europe.
eugene chua Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, but they were both awful human beings with millions of people's blood on their hands. Many people say Mao Zedong, the Chinese dictator, killed more than both Hitler and Stalin, but I don't know enough about him to tell you how many deaths he was responsible for.
AndrewofWare She is called Bloody Mary by protestants. Catholics rightly call Elizabeth Bloody Bess. She and William Cecil made life hell for English Catholics and made them second class citizens in their own country.
braemtes23 I think you have been reading some very dodgy history books. Elizabeth killed very few people for religious reasons. The Jesuits and (very few) Cathoplics she did kill were for political reasons. The Jesuits were in England to encourage the Catholics to rebel and kill Elizabeth. Mary killed hundreds of men, women and children just for being Protestants. Eluizabeth did not do this to Catholics. The Jesuits I mentioned were hung not burnt (which was the way heretics were killed). Before you criticise Elizabeth you had probably better look at the tens of thousands (if not hundreds) of Protestants killed by the Catholics in Europe. An estimated 70,000 alone (men, women and children) were killed in the months after the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, for example). Mary was the only time such religious bigotry was seen in England.
Richard I (Lion-Heart) spent every dime he could get his hands on in order to fight his wars, nearly broke the country's bank in the process, and was hardly ever in England during his 10-year reign. He was off on Crusades or in France defending Plantagenet lands from the French (which they eventually won anyway). On his way back from a Crusade, he was kidnapped and had to be ransomed extraordinarily expensively. (This may be where the phrase "a king's ransom" comes from). But he was popular because he was a handsome, dashing warrior-king.
+Jill Elliott People (mostly women) were accused of being witches. They were then put on trial for performing witchcraft and sentenced to burn at the stake. People believed that if they were truly a witch, they would be able to get out of the fire. Of course, everyone was falsely accused, so they were all burned to death. I would recommend looking up The Crucible. It will give you a better idea of what went on.
Oh I see. Just like the protestants in Mary's time I guess however a big difference here was that it affected men more. I assume there was a president of the US during the Salem witch trials to which you refer.
With Charles I having his head chopped off, it's ironic that Cromwell after he died was exhumed and his head ended on a spike and was handed around until 1960 before finally buried. Just goes to show how successful being anti monarchy gets you. Too right as well.
Sofia Altherr Tell that to the Catholics he murdered and impoverished; whose land , churches, monasteries and religious freedom he stole. All for the evil, conniving Anne Bolyn did he bring this on his country. What a great leader.
Margaret Thatcher did not rule - she only thought she did. Awful woman. I'm not sure I'd put Stephen third. Mary I and John were probably worse, but it's hard to judge monarchs from different eras.
mshara1 I don't know, William the Conquerer did some good. He paved the way for the end of the slave trade with a law that he probably wrote to make money more than on a moral principal. But without it, the British Empire would never have had their staunch stance against slavery post-napoleonic wars which then in turn stopped it for the rest of the world (as Britannia did indeed rule the waves.)
Queen Mary really doesn't make the list. Henry VIII was far worse, and killed far more people. Unlike Mary, he also almost destroyed the English constitution and launched a succession of disastrous wars. Let's just say he was no Elizabeth I.
This is just a terribly uninformed list that seems to put more stock in pop culture than historical fact. King John was a far better king than was King Richard. Britain didn't "decide to get rid of the monarchy", the monarchy was overthrown by Cromwell. And Charles was such a horrible king that they begged him to come back after the Commonwealth collapsed. And leaving Aethelred the Unread off the list is just ridiculous. The man was a boob.
You do realize Charles I was dead by then, right? They invited his son, Charles II. And he was an okay guy, unlike his dad. King John was obviously worse than Richard I. Richard had his shortcomings as a king but in the end of the day he largely managed to keep his father's empire intact and his subjects were loyal to him. John lost all of the lands on the continent, blowing away all of his subjects' money in the process and was a terrible person who got much deserved comeuppance in the end. And pre-Norman rulers usually aren't counted as kings of England/Britain.
I slipped up on Charles, but nearly all historians agree that John was a far far better king than Richard. Richard was one of the worst kings in English history, at least if you don't get your history from watching Kevin Costner movies. What was his comeuppance? Ruling for 17 years before he got sick and died? Surely that's divine retribution paying him for all his sinful ways. And pre-Norman rulers are absolutely counted among the kings of England. www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/KingsQueensofBritain/ . Go away son, you bother me.
03:30 ...and then he promptly went back on his word, hired Danish mercenaries, and began systematically killing every Lord that had made him sign it. He then attacked Rochester Castle, but after a prolonged siege, was repulsed by French reinforcements summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and after another two years of war, died in camp of Dysentery. Wonder why no one ever mentions all that?
Not entirely accurate. Stephen became king after the English asked him to do so, since they didn't trust Matilda's husband, the Count of Anjou, whose family were traditional enemies of the Normans. (And nobody back then believed a woman could rule, so it wasn't just Stephen.) And Queen Mary didn't rule during the medieval period, she was a Renaissance monarch-and despite the prevailing beliefs many hold about medieval torture, the Renaissance was much more brutal due to political resistance to the Protestant Reformation. Mary's father, Henry VIII, executed between 57,000 and 72,000 subjects during his reign, while Elizabeth executed as many of her subjects as her sister did-but Elizabeth ruled 45 yrs while Mary ruled about 4 yrs. So Mary was more 'bloody' than Elizabeth, but not nearly as bloodstained as her father-but she was much less popular because she was Catholic, and because she married Philip of Spain.
I agree. Even the witch-hunts associated with the middle-ages were only a thing from the 16th century onwards. Mary was and still is, condemned for doing what other contemporary monarchs of her time did.
Anglican propaganda. I remember Simon Schauma, a jewish historian in his landmark BBC series saying he was taught at school the Protestant Christian perspective of the Reformation and it wasn't until he went to university that he realised it was bull. He wasn't even Protestant. Now consider how few people study Tudor history at Uni. The lie has become so prevalent, its stopped being considered a lie.
Your history is pretty bad. King John faced off against one the most capable kings in French history. He also didn't exactly start those wars. Finally you forgot to mention that he was stuck cleaning up after the mess left by his older brother; you know the one who bankrupted the country funding pointless wars and crusades. Richard I, who argurable is one Britain's worst Kings. For goodness sake, that man niether spoke english or ever event set foot on the Island. At least John did both. Also Mary I? Really number 1 after a father like Henry VIII? A man who ordered the death of over 50,000 people. A man who's temper often made him easy prey for manipulation by foreign kings (leading to disastrous foreign policy), and who left the kingdom in far worst shape than when he got it. When Henry VIII ascended to the throne, England was one of the top powers of Europe. By the time he died, the kingdom of Naples was considered more consequential than England. Finally Edward II? As kings go, Edwards only real problem was that he was gay. This was the reason he had so many problems. Hardly a reason to name him a worst ruler. Also a bit homophobic really...
There is also the perpetuation of the myth of Magna Carta. Sure John signed it (because he was forced to by his barons and the Church) but it was not in any way intended to grant rights to "yer average English bloke" - it was entirely about ensuring the rights of the barons and the Church. More importantly, pretty much as soon as he got away from Runnymede where he'd been forced to sign it, he dismissed it as invalid because he'd been forced to sign it! I think you underestimate Henry - he had expensive tastes and, by the end of his rule especially, his sanity is doubtful. It's also doubtful that he was "more bloody" than Mary - sure he executed more than she did, but then again, he had longer to do it! Edward II? His real problem was NOT that he was gay. There is no real evidence that he WAS gay except the propaganda of his enemies. His real problem was that he was rubbish at being king and his rubbishness was made all the worse not by his "allegedly fluid" sexuality directly but by his allowing himself to influenced by his favourites having chosen unpopular favourites. Indeed, he chose favourites whose popularity matched his own. And the red hot poker story? "Almost certainly" untrue.
There was a lot more about Edward II that was bad. He was a terrible administrator, pitted people against each other, skyyved off on duties, abandoned his pregnant wife and took his boyfriend with him while fleeing a rebellion... not to mention his behavior regarding the Ordinances of 1311. Yeah, the issue was more than who he liked to sleep with.
I agree about Richard I, he was a crap king of England. Even though he was born in England, favourite son of Elanor of Aquitaine, lived in France, couldn't speak English and he disliked England. His remains are in France too.
John Does that makes no sense. Were French Kings, kings of Europe because France is in Europe? The flag is British but the title term Anglophenia means England. I think she has no idea the difference between England and Britain.
There are a number of television shows with both British and American versions (the Office is an obvious example). You should do a run-down of the prime examples.
Well---Mary I has some pretty stiff competition when it comes to executing and torturing people of the "wrong" religion, such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and Boy-king Eddie. Oliver Cromwell wasn't a king (strictly speaking), but he was a pretty nasty piece of work.
Actually Elizabeth I did not execute many people for being Roman Catholic. She tolerated Catholicism - indeed her greatest lover, the Earl of Essex, was Catholic. She did have a lot of Jesuits executed after the Spanish Armada, but not for their religion. They were sent to England by the Pope to encourage the Roman Catholics to rebel. So they were executed for being terrorists - as were the few Catholics who helped them. Compared with the tens of thousands of Protestants killed on the continent at this time she was remarkably tolerant.
aperson22222 I agree with most you have said but "Thousands and thousands of people changed their religion for the specific purpose of not having to accept her as a future leader." doesn't seem right. People mostly changed their religion because they were told to or they profited from the reformation (monastery money, anyone?) - some even out of conviction. How many belong to which group is hard to tell but Protestantism was hardly the people's wish during that time. And when the ultraprotestant Edward VI died, the country was overwhelmingly against that Lady Jane/Dudley plot, favouring Mary as Queen.
John Jorgensen "And Mary was the people's choice when she came to the throne." - That's what I said: that she wasn't unpopular in the beginning. "Henry's theological and liturgical orientation remained very much in line with the church of his youth, much to the Reformers' frustration. He did not consider himself a Protestant" - That's true for his personal views but the line the CoE took was constantly shifting back and forth due to advisors' influence. Still, Henry VIII had the monasteries robbed and destroyed etc. Also, Edward VI's government took a decidedly, radical Protestant approach. That wasn't nudging but a willful, radical, authoritarian supplanting of the country's traditional culture. Elizabeth was more cautious - or maybe more hands off - but still, her CoE was a Protestant body. James differed from Liz that he was very much about controlling the CoE and everyone inside. All the time, there was nothing Catholic about the CoE save for a few vestments. Charles I tried to reestablish a minimum of order into forms of worship (e.g. altar rails to keep dogs from snatching things from the altar table, repairs to buildings) and that was misinterpreted as Catholicizing. Note, that some Lutheran churches in Germany weren't that different from the supposed "middle way" of Anglicanism. I don't see how Anne or the Hannoverians changed anything about the CoE. That people became Methodists was due to the CoE being spiritually dead by the 18th century.
+battletoads22 The Shakespearean story of Richard III was largely Tudor propaganda. I do't know how much of the events were true, but Henry VIII and other Tudors promoted a largely negative image of Richard, and portrayed him as a villain.
Savannah Myers Henry VIII never had six wives. He either had two wives (if you're a Protestant - as Henry VIII became) or four wives (if you're Catholic - as all Popes are)... It's complex, but all to do with annulments (marriages never taking place) and sleeping with your dead brother's wife, and forms of bigamy - All to do with either the Old Testament, laws, or legal changes.
geography27 It's nothing to do with Catholicism or Protestantism. It's to do with the Laws of England at the time. He had four wives - whether you are Catholic or Protestant. Catherine of Aragon was a legal wife. Yes, she was his brother's wife, but his brother was dead when he married Catherine. This made it a legal marriage. Anne Boleyn was not a legal marriage. When he married Anne Henry had yet to annul (not divorce!) Catherine so Anne's marriage was bigamous. Jane Seymour - a legal wife (and Henry VIII's favourite). Anne of Cleves - not a wife. Laws of England at the time said that for a marriage to be considered valid then it had to be consummated. Despite the Royal Household examining the bedsheets every morning they never found any evidence of sexual relations. Both Catherine Howard's and Catherine Parr's marriages were legal.
I’m actually related to king John and Henry II via one of john’s welsh mistresses I think. I’m somewhere around king Henry II 39th great granddaughter.
The BBC just announced their prediction on The UK referendum about EU membership. The UK has decided to win the War of 1776 (the one for Independence) and the War of 1812 (the one that secured sovereignty and created our close relations). They did this without firing a shot. I am very pleased and will cook a roast beef with Yorkshire Pudding tomorrow.
are these post william the conqueror rulers? because you shouldve put æthelred the unready or eadwig if not for post william the conqueror you should’ve added richard iii
Siobhan and her "gonna learn you something" videos just make every day a little brighter (^^)
Another great video.
"Started an unnecessary war with France" Isn't that just the traditional pastime of British monarchs?
P99AT Wakes up one day and decides to go to war with a country because they felt like it.
Since when has war with France been "unnecessary"?
It's not at all surprising that Mary took the English Reformation personally. Her entire youth she was publicly humiliated. Her once-loving father renounced her, and her mother was treated despicably for not doing the same. Thousands and thousands of people changed their religion for the specific purpose of not having to accept her as a future leader. How was she supposed to react?
Now of course that certainly doesn't justify religious persecution; but Mary was hardly unique there. During the reign of the stratospherically popular Elizabeth many Catholic priests were drawn and quartered. I suppose I'd take that over burning if those were my only two options, but it's not exactly an easy way to go. And even if it were, it's still persecution. Why should Mary's crimes be singled out while many others' are ignored?
I'm William the Conqueror
My enemies stood no chance
They call me the first English king
Although I come from France
1066, the Doomsday book
I gave to history
So fat on death my body burst
But enough about me
To help remember all your kings
I've come up with this song
A simple rhyming ditty
For you all to sing along
Oh, William
(Bit short init? We need more kings. Who came next?)
William second, cheeks were red
Killed out hunting, so it's said
I took over, Henry one
That's my next eldest son
Then King Stephen, it's true check it!
Hi, Henry two, killed Thomas Beckett
Richard Lionheart? That's right!
Always spoiling for a fight
Oh King John, what a disaster
Rule restrained by Magna Carta
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Time for my mate, King Henry eight
To take up this song
Henry three built the abbey
Ed one hated Scots
A red hot poker killed Ed two
That must have hurt him lots
Edward third was a chivalry nerd
Began the hundred years war
Then Richard two was king aged ten
Then Henry, yes one more
King Henry four, plots galore
Not least from Henry five, why?
Killed ten score at Agincourt
Then Henry six arrived
Edward four, Edward five
Richard the third, he's bad
'Cause he fought wars with Henry seventh
First Tudor and my dad
So Henry eight, I was great
Six wives, two were beheaded
Edward the sixth came next
But he died young and so my dreaded
Daughter Mary ruled, so scary
Then along came... me
I'm Liz the first, I had no kids
So Tudors RIP
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
That's me, time for more men
James six of Scotland next
As England's James the first he led
Then Stuarts ruled, so Charles the first
The one who lost his head
No monarchy until came me
Charles two, I liked to party
King Jimmy two was scary, woooh
Then Mary was a smarty
She ruled with Bill, their shoes were filled
By sourpuss Queen Anne Gloria
And so from then, you were ruled by men
Till along came me Victoria
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
Still to come, it's Queen Victoria
And so began the Hanover gang
George one and George two (grim)
Then George the third was quite absurd
Till I replaced old him
King George the fourth and known henceforth
As angry, fat and cross (hang on)
It's true you beat Napoleon
But for mostly a dead loss (bang on)
Old William four was a sailor (ahoy)
It's nearly the end of the story-a
As onto the scene comes the best loved queen
Hail to Queen Victoria
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
George, George, George, George
Will, Victoria
Victoria Victoria Victoria
(I ruled for sixty four years, you know.)
Ed seven, George five
Then Ed, George sixth
Liz two then reigned and how
And so our famous monarch song
Is brought right up to now, oh
William, William, Henry, Stephen
Henry, Richard, John, oi!
Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two
Then three more Henrys join our song
Edward, Edward, Rich the third
Henry, Henry, Ed again
Mary one, good Queen Bess
Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then
Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria
George, George, George, George
Will, Victoria
Edward, George, Edward, George six
And Queen Liz two completes the mix
That's all the English kings and queens
Since William first that there have been
I've seen that too :3 I learned the chorus
Not strictly true , The Normans settled in Normandy , but were kind of vikings ,really . They took up the French language and catholicism , to appease the French.
Martynn 1969 you just blinded me with science :)
Ola Los 😂
Martynn 1969 it's a song from horrible history
Who keeps coming back here like me just to watch the funny Siobhan Thompson and her funny and informative little videos like this sarcastically made one here?! lol Can’t get enough of her videos bc sorry not sorry I like her bettter than the other one …and btw it’s 2024 already.. cheers 😂
finally been waiting for a new video!! keep them up :D
Mary was actually pretty popular because most of England was still catholic- that's why the device (the document put together to try and cut Mary out of the succession) fell through within a couple of weeks. It all fell apart a bit after she married a Spanish king because no one liked a foreign ruler.
Also George IV may have been a bad king but he does have the best horrible histories song
***** Thumbs up for the Horrible History reference XD
***** Mary's Horrible Histories song is pretty great though.
***** i was wondering if he was Georgie Porgie...
DragonLandlord He was.
Just realized I meant Charles II not George IV. Forget his song.
Henry IV is also pretty good
Interesting video, though I noted Richard I was missing (who I'd put at #1 personally!). James II was pretty terrible too, and...yeah, there are many other options!
I'm not sure I'd put Richard I as no. 1, but he was certainly bad. He only spent six monthos of his ten year reign in England and he just used the country as a source of money for his crusades. Mind you, when he died it meant that John became king and he was probably even worse.
King John? I did an essay on him. Many of his faults were due to Richard Lionheart, who went off to war every 15 seconds, plunging England into debt. Also, he was never around, so the barons thought they could do what they wanted, so they were unhappy when John took over and taxed the hell out of them. BTW John left the poor alone, and didn’t tax them.
Richard I, a warmonger who's constant crusading left England bankrupt, and who left the place in the care of a bunch of men who weren't up to the job, and whos failure to pick a successor (his younger brother John, or Arthur of Brittany, the son of Geoffrey, younger than he, but older than John) did lead to a succession war, which was a major reason why John did so poorly in France.
actually from historical sources I have seen King Richard I left the Kingdom in the hands of their MOTHER Queen Eleanor (which is with the exception of Normandy), Eleanor brought all the French land that Jonh "Lackland: later lost. Some sources say that King John like Richard III killed their nephew (in this case Arthur)
Right. The barons didn't like John but liked his nephew Arthur far less. John was more English than Arthur and the barons didn't like Arthur's mother, either, also very French. So they went with John but never liked him too much, even forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
Doesn't matter what Siobhan is speaking about, I'd listen to her forever! So professional!
Henry VIII. Absolute bloody tyrant. He did ditch Rome which in the long run was a good thing. But he executed so many people for some flimsy reasons.
+Simon Watts How was ditching Rome a good thing?
+battletoads22 For example, in England, they used to have these 'Church courts' which were run by the Catholic Church, these were basically just corrupt establishments that allowed people who worked in the Catholic Church to get a lighter sentence than anyone else. Another good example would be tithes, taxes that you had to pay to the church that typically accounted for around 10% of your income.
+battletoads22 Stopped domination of the country by a pope 1500 miles away at a time when they were a corrupt bunch, running a church that was very far from Christian.
+battletoads22 Stopped domination of the country by a pope 1500 miles away at a time when they were a corrupt bunch, running a church that was very far from Christian.
How is Mary I worse than her dispicable father - who isn't even mentioned in the list - or much worse than her sister, who did much the same sans the burning.
Technically speaking John was neither a bad regent, nor a bad king, rather he was trying deal with the categorically worst king in history, his brother, the much beloved glory hound Richard.
Richard bankrupted the country for his gloryhunting expeditions in the crusades, never spent any time in the british isles if he could help it (he was french nobility of the plantagenet lines and most of their interesting holdings were in france), he also warred with other french monarchs, got captured, ransomed for another huge fortune, and finally died in a pointless battle (history tells us his men skinned alive the men of the fort from which the arrow came that killed him) in France. He also was quoted as saying "I'd sell the city of london, if only I could find a buyer"
John was attempting to resurrect the british economy, and rather than Magna Carta being an actually good check on royal power, it was the nobles forcing the king into a corner because he wanted them to pay the tab for the gloryhunting they and his brother had been on.
He was certainly the most competent monarchs of the pre-tudor era (don't judge a ruler on how good a situation is, rather judge them on how much worse it could be if they were not holding back disaster by force of will and political brinksmanship), and belongs in the annuls of great kings, rather than villainous ones.
Good point. John was given an impossible situation, then used as the scapegoat when it blew up on him.
I TOTALLY agree.
I knew John would make this list, while Richard I would never (heaven forbid) make it on a list of bad kings.
Richard I was a selfish king who did not give two figs about England - which he used as a piggy bank and despised. Yet he is hailed as a Hero.
John is totally villainised, and unfairly; because he had to deal with the mess his over-glorified brother made.
I love your channel!!! I am totally into British history, it's so colourful! Thanks for making these videos they are awesomeee!
I have a video recommendation. What makes a proper fish-n-chips,
White fish and potatoes
Wranglerstar a proper fish and chips is a big large cod tons of chips and a nice topping of salt and vinegar. Course I never have any of that except the chips i usually have a nice battered sausage
Wranglerstar CHIPS should be deep golden brown,. NOT that horrible looking almost white that so many shops serve up....they are often limp, flabby sticks of grease,. They should be CRISP on the outside soft white on the inside!!!!Every true Brit, should be able to tell a GOOD chippy from at least 500 meters away ( on windy day,,). using his/ her built in " Chippy detector". Which we are all born with!!!!Just SMELL it folks!
If there is one thing that SPOILS the taste of Chips It's VINAGAR.....YUK , YUK ,YUK! Why do you do that?
The happy bhuddist er .well yes, I hadn't thought of that!!!!
Thank you for not demonizing Richard third
I was glad for that also. Then again, there is nothing to demonise. He was a good king! And had he reigned for longer than 2 years and 2 months; he'd have been a great king. Sadly Henry VII had to take that away from him; then leave England with his tyrant son...
no cromwell? Dude, he BANNED CHRISTMAS!!!
+Flora Gosling He is a Hero for banning Christmas.
+Chris66able, Siobhan [sp.] does mention Oliver Cromwell in passing.
+Flora Gosling Cromwell banned anything that was fun.
+Flora Gosling That is because he wasn't technically a Monarch.
Rishabh Daga He was a ruler though, yes?
Absolutely loving your channel!
Richard the First was pretty bad, he may have been likable but he never bothered learning the language, only came to the country for something like six weeks and then got himself captured on the way back from the Crusades.Eleanor of Aquitaine spent a load of time running about to raise money to ransom him and then he went off to wage war in France. The fact that he was John's brother really only adds insult to injury.
Agree. His three days of constant executions at Acre where "the streets ran red with blood", was also one of his most remembered acts. But Sir Walter Scott so ennobled him in his novels that no one remembers the bad reality.
Great videos. Very informative as well as entertaining. Wry and witty.
Since you asked, few other un-praiseworthy monarchs might include....
- Vortigern (invited the Saxons in at the expense of the Celts)
- Ethelred the Unready (the name says it all, even if it is mistranslated)
- Henry VI (lost France)
- James II (blew the Stuart Restoration)
- Queen Anne (signed away the remains of Scotland's independence without thinking)
- Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor (gave up the crown for "love," when Wallis didn't want him to)
Ron Lewenberg I think that Henry VI falls in that time frame, as it happens.
Matt Warwick Not a monarch.
Matt Warwick Not a monarch: don't give him the dignity of the term.
+DreamyEyedLover Going insane probably didn't help him. Well, at least Henry founded some good schools.....
+Nick Hentschel France would have been lost anyway, by someone else if not by Henry VI. Even Edward III lost back many Plantagenet possessions to the French.
every time i watch your video i learn something new.
you are slowly making me smarter.thanks.
i wish you and your team all the best.
At least when George IV died, he was replaced by his butler Edmund.
+evrbody you mean WILLIAM IV
Best Blackadder ever.
Dying
No, wait. He had a cigarillo case in his pocket, too.
Oh. Left it at home.
Best Comment Ever!
What about Oliver Cromwell? He literally got rid of Christmas!
Thanks for not including Richard III--the poor man has suffered quite enough because of Shakespeare.
How about a list of Britain's best monarchs? I'd d definitely include Edward VII...he was a jolly, avuncular sort.
Agreed. I was fearing seeing Richard on here. I do believe he was a good king, and would have been a great king had he been allowed to rule in peace and longer than a mere 2 years.
A new episode.. FINALLY haha,, nice video, Cheers from Venezuela.
Got to disagree with you on Mary Tudor to be honest. I mean she wasn't the best monarch but I honestly wouldn't say she was the worst.
Yes she killed many of her subjects however Elizabeth I actually burned a lot more just over a longer time span so it is over looked.
As to returning Catholicism, well that only seems natural given her background. Her mother was Catherine of Aragon, Spanish and a devout Catholic and Mary grew up in the time when England was still tied with Rome so obviously she was going to have Catholic views. When she brought back Catholicism to England she did so with a lot of support, particularly Cornwall and the northerners were still Catholics and supported her change in religion. Therefore she was actively ruling the country in ways she genuinely believed beneficial to her country and that can't be disregarded...
If you're looking for the worst King in England I would personally look at Henry VI in the 15th Century who caused the Wars of the Roses
In 6 years Mary burned over 200
Elizabeth burned 9 in 10 years
TwoLovelyGirls
Mary killed 284 yes, however compared to the monarchs around her time period...
Henry VIII - around 72,000
Edward VI - over 5,000
yet Mary is the one known for her brutality?
Yes, Anglophenia suckered in by hundreds of years of protestant indoctrination there
Let's not forget Henry XIII who executed over 50,000 of his own subjects as well as two wives.
Good King Hal wasn't all that good!
Henry VIII was useless and he kept on beheading people.
Useless? How?!
Useless? How?!
You should've classed Cromwell as one. Went into more detail. He banned Christmas. What a monster.
Worst british Prime ministers ... David Cameron anyone?
He's really not that bad... I'd put John Major up there though.
Margaret Thatcher
"Ding dong the wicked witch is dead"
the oakley family show Thatcher
U can get arrested for doing that. True
Eren Jaeger Pretty bad. But let's not forget the evil Thatcher. I lived through her time as Prime minister and I still have nightmares about it.
You videos are always great!! I love them all!! keep it up)
Thank you for not putting Richard III on this list! Shakespeare really did a number on his reputation.
Richard II and Henry VI could have easily made the list too.
Best ruler I'd say was probably James I. He seems the most likeable, anyway.
And thats why guy Fawkes tried to kill him
psyplops Guy Fawkes was more anti-parliament, wasn't he? If he was anti James I, he would have tried to blow up a royal palace instead.
In any case, James I was just ... cool. A decent, moderate chap - and somewhat openly bisexual! Dickens wrote that pretty much the only thing wrong with James I was his unattractiveness.
+Benjamin Rome Clarke he got done for treason though. Probably shouldn't have chosen the State Opening of Parliament with the King present
at least we get Bonfire Night.
remember,
remember,
the 5th
of November,
Gunpowder,
Treason,
and Plot
+Benjamin Rome Clarke He planned to blow up Parliament while James was opening it. So if he had succeeded he would have destroyed Parliament AND the King.
+simhedges Fawkes was hired to blow up Parliament it was planned by Catesby and pals,
while it is true Guido Foulks was a rabid Catholic sympathser he was really only a catspaw
.........M
Henry V 8 was a pretty skanky sum buck. Two of my ancestors were beheaded by the Tudors: the original "Queen of Hearts".... {sarcasm is intended, those aren't typos}
How can these be British rulers when Britain didn't even exist yet for half of the ones mentioned.
They came from the island of Britain. Just because it didn't exist as a political entity didn't mean it didn't exist unless you're seriously suggesting that until the act of union a stretch of water separated England from Wales and Scotland.
TehFrasssaa Well yeah if you are talking the British Isles, although that term didn't even get used before 1600.
Ever since the Scottish referendum though we have seen countless programmes/youtube channels where British history really equals English history(with no history from the other nations). Britain is now self conscious and trying to up its identity, its not really working.There is no empire/industry or war to hold it together. Politically the 4 nations are now very divided.
Even though the UK wasn't officially formed until 1707, Great Britain goes back at least as far as the time of Christ. The first King of England was Egbert I who reigned 800-839. He was a Saxon king.
beatlesrgear great britain was once joined physically to norway.then the earthquakes split it all up. england only came into being when the a nglos and the saxons came to what is not england.
there was no england in the days of christ. jesus only set foot on cornish soil, not english soil. cornwall is ancient. england is just the new kid on the block.
heres johnny This is Barry here, i just created this fake account to prove you wrong that you can have an apostrophe in your name on google+.
Big fan of Siobhan. Will look for her elsewhere. Having said that, I decided to go through the playlist after seeing her replacement (whom I can't remember the name but seemed lovely) so I'll file through until I get to see her. Neat show - particularly for those who are American and married into a British family. Cheers.
Didn't kind Henry the eighth kill more people though?
Nope
I think you are just assuming that because of the way he treated his wives
+Alex “ap123” Palmer No, he was a paranoid bastard and he executed a hell of a lot of people.
Obvious Thatcher jokes aside, if we're looking at actual kings, I would think you'd have to get James II in there-- whored around, apparently contracted syphilis, got himself deposed as completely intolerable within three years, and also fathered two other weak monarchs (Mary II and Anne), who were sickly because they, you know, got syphilis from him.
Other candidates: Harold II (somehow managed to get invaded twice and overthrown within a year of becoming king); Henry VI (mentally challenged, lost virtually all of France, eventually overthrown leading to thirty-year series of civil wars).
You missed David Cameron.
He is one of the best parlementarian leader the country has ever known
+Slated neither just a well informed conservative who lime to pay atyention to what is happening and i believe him to be great
+Slated after all he did win the election
Maxwell Day if he wanted brexit then yes the man is a genius. if, as he lead us to believe, he did not want brexit then ibwould say he is not very clever at all.
Love your vids. Love 'em I say!
Both John and Edward II were WAY worse than Mary ever was. In fact Edward never really ruled for himself, but let his lovers rule for him. The hot poker up the bum rumour of his death is a myth.
Yes; and Richard I and Henry VIII.
Loved the GOT reference. :) Love your videos! They're great!
Ok, Mary was not that bad. She wasn't a good ruler by any means, but she certainly wasn't the worst. The fuss about her is based pretty much entirely on the fact that in the end, the Protestants won, and therefore got to proclaim pursecuting protestants the Worst Thing Ever. But in terms of body count, she's relatively tame; especially compared with the thousands of soldiers and peasants who died in all those wars. And every monrch at the time persecuted people of other religions, hell, Elizabeth I killed her fair share of Catholic priests. Mary was fairly typical in terms of brutality, and a far more interesting, complex and, yes , tragic character than she's made out to be. She's perhaps most interesting as a study in just how much"history is written by the victors"is true.
Mary burnt far, far more people than previous monarchs & at a time the country was not at war.
Henry VII burnt 10 people in 2 years
Henry VIII burnt 81 in 38 years
Edward VI burnt 2 in 6 yrs
MARY 284 people in 5 years
Her successor Elizabeth I burnt 5 people in 45 years.
It was this brutality that ensured the Protestants won
Andrew Betts
As if it were all about burning and not also about beheading, hanging-drawing-quartering, starving, imprisoning, fining and destroying the land's culture!
Mary did kill more than Elizabeth despite ruling for a far shorter time, she definitely deserved the nickname "Bloody Mary". Although I agree, if she'd lived longer and restored Catholicism she probably would have gone down in history as a great monarch. History is definitely written by the victors.
Depends on whose telling the story. The Vatican considers Bloody Mary a great queen for obvious reasons.
Mary Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow? With silver bells and Cockell shells and pretty maids all in a row. I used to love that nursery rhyme when I was little lol. Always thought it was about an actual garden not a queen who liked murdering and torturing people haha
I am enjoying your postings! I would fancy adding Richard I, given he a) was away most of the time b) spent a lot of money elsewhere and c) cost the country a lot to get him back.
Well.. I am from Germany... I don't even know where to start.. but champion of the worst ruler.. I know you know him... and he wasn't even a German... he was a Austrian -.-
I love Germany and when I tell people this if they're stupid they obviously bring him up, so I have to keep having to telling people that he's Austrian.
+Ruby Rogers hitler is cool (constipated overrated out of shape loser)
I can think of several worse than Hitler
Stalin, hirihito and mao was much worse
I was expecting Richard I on this list. The guy who was good at killing and...yeah, that.
No William I? What about The Harrying of the North where up to 66% of the population of some counties died?
I would have definitely had William the conqueror a.k.a William the bastard on this list for the harrowing of the North
+tallthinkev people seem to dismiss the harrying of the north because of a lack of evidence.
i'm just a messenger don't bark at me plz
+joey clay that's because he burned all the evidence, along with the north
True!
Northumberland was as heavily populated as Southern England before William I. It still relatively empty 1000 yrs later. That's how bad the harrowing was.
These vidoes are the best!
Why did you not do more on Oliver Cromwell he was a terrible ruler who's' actions still cause friction between England and Ireland to this day.
Because Cromwell was never King.
Because they only had 5 minutes?
Maybe because he did things during his rule that can be seen as attributes of a good ruler.
His 'new model army' model, seeds of a more democratic society, many military victories etc.
Those on the other end of military campaigns will never see him as a good man but the fact he is divisive doesn't mean he was a bad ruler.
sealaughin He was never king, although he WAS asked to be king AND was offered a coronation. Crowned or not, he was, though, "in locum tenens regis" as it were - he was the ruler of England when there was no king. He ruled with more authority than any king since, was succeeded by his son and was buried with a crown. As they say, "if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, chances are..." and the video isn't titled "worst British/English monarchs". He's worth more of a mention than some of the monarchs on the list, but not as worthy as some of the omissions - his own successor, for example!
He was however, extremely good at killing people. Especially the Dutch.
I love these videos!
How about Henry VIII himself? Or do we just put him on the terrible person not terrible monarch list?
well he wasn't a horrible monarchy... though he was a terrible father, friend and of course husband (just ask Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard)
He was mentally impaired because of a joisting accident.
He seems to have been good for the economy and had a huge impact on making England independent from Europe, though he added more land from France to the kingdom with his conquests. I would put him under "one of the worst human beings of all time" but not call him a terrible monarch, though his seizure and ransacking of the religious buildings (and his forcing all monks and nuns to marry) under the name of converting the populace to Protestantism makes me come mighty close.
I'm surprised good ole' Henry VIII wasn't on the list. sure he wasn't too terrible for the country itself but the way he was with the wives has to count for something, right?
Oliver Cromwell banned Christmas!
You forgot James II an egregious creep even by the particularly low standards expected of the Stuart dynasty up to then
Henry the VIII for some reason has gone down in history as a 'great ruler'. He was, in certain things. What he did to his first wife was atrocious. And all the rest, except for Jane Seymore, who died after birth giving him his much coveted son. He was a pedophile, e.g., Catherine Howard whom he made queen, and other concubines. Yes, he killed many, many people, all because he couldn't get a son, or for political expedience. Luckily, he died before having Katherine Parr, wife #6 beheaded. She came close. His only son, Edward, died in his teens, leaving him his two daughters. Both became queens. His second daughter, by Anne Boleyn, ended up with the throne for years after bloody Queen Mary died. Elizabeth I. She was a very good ruler and very smart. She learned from her mother to NEVER MARRY and give some man power over her. She wasn't a saint, by any means. But a good ruler. Then came King James.........
Manuel Lujan From what I've read, Catherine Howard was just barely 16.
Pamster Berg in England 16 is still the legal age of consent
The age of consent was lower then no doubt. Women were nothing but chattel at that point.
+Pamster Berg I think you're going way out on a narrow-minded limb with the paedophile accusation. Age of consent is a relatively modern concept based on sociological exigencies. There's a gravestone - 17th century, I think - somewhere in East Anglia of a 13-year-old girl, and the stone is inscribed with her name followed by 'virgin.' That's because it was relatively uncommon in those days for a 13-year-old woman still to be in such a condition. Earlier cultures were more inclined to follow the natural line - once you've gone through puberty, you're ready for sex. There's no point in judging the past sniffily through modern eyes.
I am far from narrow minded. I've read and researched a lot from that time period. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
The worst thing is, Mary was the first ever official queen of England
Why is henry the 8th not on the list but bloody mary
Because he was actually quite a good king. A terrible person, but a good(ish) king. Good people don't make the best rulers and vice versa. Mary I - rightly called 'Bloody Mary' - executed hundreds of men, women and children just for being Protestant. This was the only time England's Reformation came close to killing people on a large scale, but even so it was nothing compared with what was happening in continental Europe.
eugene chua Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, but they were both awful human beings with millions of people's blood on their hands. Many people say Mao Zedong, the Chinese dictator, killed more than both Hitler and Stalin, but I don't know enough about him to tell you how many deaths he was responsible for.
Agree
AndrewofWare She is called Bloody Mary by protestants. Catholics rightly call Elizabeth Bloody Bess. She and William Cecil made life hell for English Catholics and made them second class citizens in their own country.
braemtes23 I think you have been reading some very dodgy history books. Elizabeth killed very few people for religious reasons. The Jesuits and (very few) Cathoplics she did kill were for political reasons. The Jesuits were in England to encourage the Catholics to rebel and kill Elizabeth. Mary killed hundreds of men, women and children just for being Protestants. Eluizabeth did not do this to Catholics. The Jesuits I mentioned were hung not burnt (which was the way heretics were killed). Before you criticise Elizabeth you had probably better look at the tens of thousands (if not hundreds) of Protestants killed by the Catholics in Europe. An estimated 70,000 alone (men, women and children) were killed in the months after the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, for example). Mary was the only time such religious bigotry was seen in England.
i would say king henry the 8th because he behead two wives and really was evil. And people know how to summon bloody mary in a mirror at three am.
Richard I (Lion-Heart) spent every dime he could get his hands on in order to fight his wars, nearly broke the country's bank in the process, and was hardly ever in England during his 10-year reign. He was off on Crusades or in France defending Plantagenet lands from the French (which they eventually won anyway). On his way back from a Crusade, he was kidnapped and had to be ransomed extraordinarily expensively. (This may be where the phrase "a king's ransom" comes from). But he was popular because he was a handsome, dashing warrior-king.
Dime? This is England for crying out loud!
+Alex “ap123” Palmer Every quid? Every shilling? Every sixpence? Every crown? Every guinea? Every pound?
How did Henry VI not make it onto this list
Katy Fisher you mean VIII?
We have had some pretty useless Presidents but...so far...none have burned anyone at the stake!!!
+scarletfluerr yeah, the mid ages, cruel time for europe
+scarletfluerr like george w. bush
+scarletfluerr I'm sorry as an englishman I am confused. What happened at Salem?
+Jill Elliott People (mostly women) were accused of being witches. They were then put on trial for performing witchcraft and sentenced to burn at the stake. People believed that if they were truly a witch, they would be able to get out of the fire. Of course, everyone was falsely accused, so they were all burned to death. I would recommend looking up The Crucible. It will give you a better idea of what went on.
Oh I see. Just like the protestants in Mary's time I guess however a big difference here was that it affected men more. I assume there was a president of the US during the Salem witch trials to which you refer.
With Charles I having his head chopped off, it's ironic that Cromwell after he died was exhumed and his head ended on a spike and was handed around until 1960 before finally buried. Just goes to show how successful being anti monarchy gets you. Too right as well.
Uhh... hello... Henry VIII....HELLO???
Sofia Altherr Tell that to the Catholics he murdered and impoverished; whose land , churches, monasteries and religious freedom he stole. All for the evil, conniving Anne Bolyn did he bring this on his country. What a great leader.
Sofia Altherr Different guy. I agreed with your agreement :)
What about a video on Britain's best rulers?
Unfairest ruler of them all? Thats easy, 1) Margaret Thatcher , 2) William the Conquerer and 3) King Stephen.
Margaret Thatcher did not rule - she only thought she did. Awful woman. I'm not sure I'd put Stephen third. Mary I and John were probably worse, but it's hard to judge monarchs from different eras.
AndrewofWare Glad she is dead
***** What, even Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot etc ?
mshara1 I don't know, William the Conquerer did some good. He paved the way for the end of the slave trade with a law that he probably wrote to make money more than on a moral principal. But without it, the British Empire would never have had their staunch stance against slavery post-napoleonic wars which then in turn stopped it for the rest of the world (as Britannia did indeed rule the waves.)
mshara1 What about Ethelred the Unready? He was never ready when the vikings were
Queen Mary really doesn't make the list. Henry VIII was far worse, and killed far more people. Unlike Mary, he also almost destroyed the English constitution and launched a succession of disastrous wars. Let's just say he was no Elizabeth I.
This is just a terribly uninformed list that seems to put more stock in pop culture than historical fact. King John was a far better king than was King Richard. Britain didn't "decide to get rid of the monarchy", the monarchy was overthrown by Cromwell. And Charles was such a horrible king that they begged him to come back after the Commonwealth collapsed. And leaving Aethelred the Unread off the list is just ridiculous. The man was a boob.
You do realize Charles I was dead by then, right? They invited his son, Charles II. And he was an okay guy, unlike his dad.
King John was obviously worse than Richard I. Richard had his shortcomings as a king but in the end of the day he largely managed to keep his father's empire intact and his subjects were loyal to him. John lost all of the lands on the continent, blowing away all of his subjects' money in the process and was a terrible person who got much deserved comeuppance in the end.
And pre-Norman rulers usually aren't counted as kings of England/Britain.
I slipped up on Charles, but nearly all historians agree that John was a far far better king than Richard. Richard was one of the worst kings in English history, at least if you don't get your history from watching Kevin Costner movies. What was his comeuppance? Ruling for 17 years before he got sick and died? Surely that's divine retribution paying him for all his sinful ways. And pre-Norman rulers are absolutely counted among the kings of England. www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/KingsQueensofBritain/ . Go away son, you bother me.
You forgot King Baldrick who was notorious for his cunning plans.
MORE GIVE ME MORE!
03:30 ...and then he promptly went back on his word, hired Danish mercenaries, and began systematically killing every Lord that had made him sign it. He then attacked Rochester Castle, but after a prolonged siege, was repulsed by French reinforcements summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and after another two years of war, died in camp of Dysentery. Wonder why no one ever mentions all that?
After 1660 The king had very little power. Edward 8 was pretty awful as well.
Everyone's favourite fornicating fascist :)
Not entirely accurate. Stephen became king after the English asked him to do so, since they didn't trust Matilda's husband, the Count of Anjou, whose family were traditional enemies of the Normans. (And nobody back then believed a woman could rule, so it wasn't just Stephen.) And Queen Mary didn't rule during the medieval period, she was a Renaissance monarch-and despite the prevailing beliefs many hold about medieval torture, the Renaissance was much more brutal due to political resistance to the Protestant Reformation. Mary's father, Henry VIII, executed between 57,000 and 72,000 subjects during his reign, while Elizabeth executed as many of her subjects as her sister did-but Elizabeth ruled 45 yrs while Mary ruled about 4 yrs. So Mary was more 'bloody' than Elizabeth, but not nearly as bloodstained as her father-but she was much less popular because she was Catholic, and because she married Philip of Spain.
I agree. Even the witch-hunts associated with the middle-ages were only a thing from the 16th century onwards.
Mary was and still is, condemned for doing what other contemporary monarchs of her time did.
Ah, the four George's. Horrible histories anyone!
Where's king Henry viii!??!?!!!!??? Do you know how many people he killed
Not too many compared to say, William the Conqueror in the brutal 'harrowing of the north'
Don't get it, Mary burned 400 at the stake but Henry the Eight killed 5000+
Anglican propaganda. I remember Simon Schauma, a jewish historian in his landmark BBC series saying he was taught at school the Protestant Christian perspective of the Reformation and it wasn't until he went to university that he realised it was bull. He wasn't even Protestant. Now consider how few people study Tudor history at Uni. The lie has become so prevalent, its stopped being considered a lie.
And you couldn't have been my history teacher some years ago?
1) Margaret Thatcher
Tony Blair !!
What about James II of England or as he was known in Scotland James VII?
Your history is pretty bad. King John faced off against one the most capable kings in French history. He also didn't exactly start those wars. Finally you forgot to mention that he was stuck cleaning up after the mess left by his older brother; you know the one who bankrupted the country funding pointless wars and crusades. Richard I, who argurable is one Britain's worst Kings. For goodness sake, that man niether spoke english or ever event set foot on the Island. At least John did both.
Also Mary I? Really number 1 after a father like Henry VIII? A man who ordered the death of over 50,000 people. A man who's temper often made him easy prey for manipulation by foreign kings (leading to disastrous foreign policy), and who left the kingdom in far worst shape than when he got it.
When Henry VIII ascended to the throne, England was one of the top powers of Europe. By the time he died, the kingdom of Naples was considered more consequential than England.
Finally Edward II? As kings go, Edwards only real problem was that he was gay. This was the reason he had so many problems. Hardly a reason to name him a worst ruler. Also a bit homophobic really...
There is also the perpetuation of the myth of Magna Carta. Sure John signed it (because he was forced to by his barons and the Church) but it was not in any way intended to grant rights to "yer average English bloke" - it was entirely about ensuring the rights of the barons and the Church. More importantly, pretty much as soon as he got away from Runnymede where he'd been forced to sign it, he dismissed it as invalid because he'd been forced to sign it!
I think you underestimate Henry - he had expensive tastes and, by the end of his rule especially, his sanity is doubtful. It's also doubtful that he was "more bloody" than Mary - sure he executed more than she did, but then again, he had longer to do it!
Edward II? His real problem was NOT that he was gay. There is no real evidence that he WAS gay except the propaganda of his enemies. His real problem was that he was rubbish at being king and his rubbishness was made all the worse not by his "allegedly fluid" sexuality directly but by his allowing himself to influenced by his favourites having chosen unpopular favourites. Indeed, he chose favourites whose popularity matched his own. And the red hot poker story? "Almost certainly" untrue.
There was a lot more about Edward II that was bad. He was a terrible administrator, pitted people against each other, skyyved off on duties, abandoned his pregnant wife and took his boyfriend with him while fleeing a rebellion... not to mention his behavior regarding the Ordinances of 1311. Yeah, the issue was more than who he liked to sleep with.
I agree about Richard I, he was a crap king of England.
Even though he was born in England, favourite son of Elanor of Aquitaine, lived in France, couldn't speak English and he disliked England. His remains are in France too.
Richard the Lionheart, bad king, brilliant military leader.
P.S. He was born on the island.
Can't agree with King John being there, he did incredibly well for the circumstances he'd been placed in by his predecessor and brother Richard I
This should be titled Worst ENGLISH Rulers, not British. Most of these did not rule all of Britain.
But they were rulers in Britain.
John Does that makes no sense. Were French Kings, kings of Europe because France is in Europe? The flag is British but the title term Anglophenia means England. I think she has no idea the difference between England and Britain.
Henry VI - when he went mad it was a private tragedy but his recovery was a national disaster
There are a number of television shows with both British and American versions (the Office is an obvious example). You should do a run-down of the prime examples.
Why?
British versions tend to be significantly different than US versions even though the show premise is the same.
I love this stuff.
Well---Mary I has some pretty stiff competition when it comes to executing and torturing people of the "wrong" religion, such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and Boy-king Eddie. Oliver Cromwell wasn't a king (strictly speaking), but he was a pretty nasty piece of work.
Actually Elizabeth I did not execute many people for being Roman Catholic. She tolerated Catholicism - indeed her greatest lover, the Earl of Essex, was Catholic. She did have a lot of Jesuits executed after the Spanish Armada, but not for their religion. They were sent to England by the Pope to encourage the Roman Catholics to rebel. So they were executed for being terrorists - as were the few Catholics who helped them. Compared with the tens of thousands of Protestants killed on the continent at this time she was remarkably tolerant.
Happy 804years, 14 days bday magna carta
How about the best 6?
aperson22222 I agree with most you have said but "Thousands and thousands of people changed their religion for the specific purpose of not having to accept her as a future leader." doesn't seem right.
People mostly changed their religion because they were told to or they profited from the reformation (monastery money, anyone?) - some even out of conviction. How many belong to which group is hard to tell but Protestantism was hardly the people's wish during that time. And when the ultraprotestant Edward VI died, the country was overwhelmingly against that Lady Jane/Dudley plot, favouring Mary as Queen.
John Jorgensen
"And Mary was the people's choice when she came to the throne." - That's what I said: that she wasn't unpopular in the beginning.
"Henry's theological and liturgical orientation remained very much in line with the church of his youth, much to the Reformers' frustration. He did not consider himself a Protestant" - That's true for his personal views but the line the CoE took was constantly shifting back and forth due to advisors' influence. Still, Henry VIII had the monasteries robbed and destroyed etc.
Also, Edward VI's government took a decidedly, radical Protestant approach. That wasn't nudging but a willful, radical, authoritarian supplanting of the country's traditional culture.
Elizabeth was more cautious - or maybe more hands off - but still, her CoE was a Protestant body. James differed from Liz that he was very much about controlling the CoE and everyone inside. All the time, there was nothing Catholic about the CoE save for a few vestments.
Charles I tried to reestablish a minimum of order into forms of worship (e.g. altar rails to keep dogs from snatching things from the altar table, repairs to buildings) and that was misinterpreted as Catholicizing. Note, that some Lutheran churches in Germany weren't that different from the supposed "middle way" of Anglicanism.
I don't see how Anne or the Hannoverians changed anything about the CoE. That people became Methodists was due to the CoE being spiritually dead by the 18th century.
You missed Margaret Thatcher.
***** Someone should have told her that - we can't tell her now ... hey, ho ....
+LucifersSweetAngel I don't think anyone ever mentioned that to her...
We should have cut the price on her useless funeral...
+Twirlyhead LOL agree, same way the Cons here in the US revere Saint Ronnie.
Twirlyhead Maggie was a legend
What about one of the most Shakespeare villains, Richard III?
+battletoads22 The Shakespearean story of Richard III was largely Tudor propaganda. I do't know how much of the events were true, but Henry VIII and other Tudors promoted a largely negative image of Richard, and portrayed him as a villain.
Mona Mohamed All of that I knew, but it would still have been nice to see him on the list.
TV-94 You people need to lighten up.
TV-94 It was a joke and would've been a cool reference if it was in the video. Seriously, people.
Henry VIII definitely.
"Divorce, beheaded, and died. Divorce beheaded survived! I'm Henry VIII I had six sorry wives. Some might say I ruined their lives!"
Savannah Myers Henry VIII never had six wives.
He either had two wives (if you're a Protestant - as Henry VIII became) or four wives (if you're Catholic - as all Popes are)...
It's complex, but all to do with annulments (marriages never taking place) and sleeping with your dead brother's wife, and forms of bigamy - All to do with either the Old Testament, laws, or legal changes.
Savannah Myers #horriblehistories
geography27
It's nothing to do with Catholicism or Protestantism. It's to do with the Laws of England at the time. He had four wives - whether you are Catholic or Protestant. Catherine of Aragon was a legal wife. Yes, she was his brother's wife, but his brother was dead when he married Catherine. This made it a legal marriage. Anne Boleyn was not a legal marriage. When he married Anne Henry had yet to annul (not divorce!) Catherine so Anne's marriage was bigamous. Jane Seymour - a legal wife (and Henry VIII's favourite). Anne of Cleves - not a wife. Laws of England at the time said that for a marriage to be considered valid then it had to be consummated. Despite the Royal Household examining the bedsheets every morning they never found any evidence of sexual relations. Both Catherine Howard's and Catherine Parr's marriages were legal.
AndrewofWare It was all about Catholicism and Protestantism. The Pope and Henry VIII weren't liking each other's religious rules and regulations :-)
Good list. Very much agree on the choices...
For some reason your comments are not showing up on the UA-cam page??? This has happened to me before as well.
modernknightone That's odd.
Good video, madam!
Hmm? Why would that be ol' chap?
The ironic thing here is of course that one can't see into the near future to perform an accurate comparison.
Episode 9 isn't available for mobile users. I'm a little upset.
I’m actually related to king John and Henry II via one of john’s welsh mistresses I think. I’m somewhere around king Henry II 39th great granddaughter.
The BBC just announced their prediction on The UK referendum about EU membership. The UK has decided to win the War of 1776 (the one for Independence) and the War of 1812 (the one that secured sovereignty and created our close relations). They did this without firing a shot. I am very pleased and will cook a roast beef with Yorkshire Pudding tomorrow.
are these post william the conqueror rulers? because you shouldve put æthelred the unready or eadwig if not for post william the conqueror you should’ve added richard iii