r/UKmonarchs

by pre 20th century, i mean people who werent alive by Jan 1 1901, so folks like queen victoria and her eldest daughter vicky don't count.

None of the obvious stuff that I listed in the title!

I didn't include Edward III as I suppose he wins. Edward did have a ferocious temper and was feared by all his enemies (something which sometimes gets overlooked in depictions of him) but he's also famous as a magnanimous ruler who created his own Knights of the Round Table and when he held feasts and tournaments he had knights from across Scotland, France, etc. flocking to them.

But of the other three who would you rather serve under? I don't mean which do you think was the best king or the best warrior, but which you'd personally rather live in close contact with. Who would be the most likeable as a person? Would you love them or fear them more, or both?

Edward had technically been king since his father Henry III died in 1272, but he was away on crusade and did not return to England until August 1274. He was anointed and crowned by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby, with Alexander III of Scotland and many of the English nobility present.

The coronation marked the beginning of a long, turbulent, and memorable reign. Edward would go on to conquer Wales and wage decades of war against Scotland, earning the nickname “Hammer of the Scots.”

Eleanor of Castile was also crowned Queen of England on the same day as her husband.

Nickname is the Tudors, they’re about 5 or 6 leagues below the Premiership.

Not mine, just something I saw online and thought was really neat

Mary II was the eldest daughter of James II, which meant that she was seen as the rightful Protestant heir to the throne after the Glorious Revolution and was conveniently married to William, the Prince of Orange who in his own right, had a decent enough claim himself (and an army, of course).

However, Mary wrote something along the lines of 'it has ever been my belief that women should not meddle in politics' in her memoirs, and was content to give all power to her husband (who was already a de facto sovereign) and functioned more like a regent, ruling when her husband was away at war. She proved to be a capable regent and was much more popular than her husband ever was, and he approved of almost all her decisions, and though she did prefer to take advice from him, she could act on her own if she had to.

For this reason however, many view her as 'boring' and a 'doormat' and a very forgettable monarch because she relied on her husband too much and gave him the 'real' power.

Now, for me personally, I think she gets way too much hate for this. Yes, she was the Protestant heir, but she was a product of her time, hence her more traditional beliefs. And she had a very bad education for someone who was so close to the crown, if you read some of her childhood letters, they're filled with spelling and grammar mistakes. She also stated that she preferred a 'retired life', which also explains why she was so happy in Holland and not as happy in England. You can make the argument that her sister Anne also had a poor education and yet took the position of queen more seriously, but another thing to remember is who Mary's husband was. He was already a ruler in his own right with far more experience than her, which is why she was comfortable to let him take control. Either way, she was an effective and popular regent and I'd say she was a pretty good queen. Had she outlived her husband and not died so young, I think her perception would be very different.

But either way, that's just my opinion. What do you think of the Princess of Orange aka Mary Stuart's 'passiveness?'

The purpose is to surmise what monarchs would think of their successors based on their respective personalities, leadership styles, how they thought of their heirs while alive, and how their successor’s reign ultimately turned. Y’all likely know much more than me when it comes to pre-Tudor monarchs, and so I think it’ll be an interesting way to evaluate these monarchs.

RULES:

1. Say what you think the predecessor would’ve liked about their successor.
2. Say what you think predecessor would’ve disliked about their successor.
3. Give what you think their overall rating/review would be based on these out of 10

Be as thorough as you wish.

Yesterday, Elizabeth gave James a cool 7/10; not bad. Today, James I reviews his son Charles I. I think he’d be shocked to say the least. What do y’all think?

Looking forward to reading!

Pictures number 5, 9, and 10 are with plushies I have in real life that’s where I got the idea from.

Henry II is one of my favorite historical figures, Edward III is also up there but the drama lover in me loves to read about Edward II and Richard II because they were so messy