The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsFavorite English King
3 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Æthelred the Unready | |
1 (33%) |
|
Gurguit Barbtruc | |
0 (0%) |
|
Richard IV | |
0 (0%) |
|
Edgar the Peaceful | |
1 (33%) |
|
Uther Pendragon | |
0 (0%) |
|
Kong | |
0 (0%) |
|
Sweyn Forkbeard | |
0 (0%) |
|
Cadwallader | |
0 (0%) |
|
Burger | |
0 (0%) |
|
William the Bastard | |
1 (33%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
petronius
(26,581 posts)struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)Sedona
(3,769 posts)Duh.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms"
Smart lady: survived despite the Nine Days Queen and the Thomas Seymour affair and Wyatt's rebellion
Earned a AAA rating IMO
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Aristus
(66,096 posts)Scandalously maligned.
Brave warrior, skilled general, gifted administrator, possibly not the murderer of the Princes in the Tower. (I'm betting it was Henry VII.)
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)One of the "princes" in the Tower was Edward V, at 12 the eldest son of Edward IV (d. 9 April 1483). He had come to London in May 1483 for his coronation; his uncle, Richard Plantagenet, intercepted him along the way and sent him to the Tower as a "protective" move. In June, after his younger brother, the Duke of York, had joined Edward V in the Tower, Richard Plantagenet assumed the throne (an act confirmed by Parliament early in 1484). Shortly thereafter, the Tower princes simply vanished forever: before the end of the summer, rumors circulated locally and internationally that they had been murdered at the new king's request. Two more years passed before Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth -- so there is a two-year gap, between the time the princes were last seen (when they were completely under their uncle's control) and the first moment Henry Tudor could possibly have exercised any control over their fates
Aristus
(66,096 posts)He was writing during the reign of the granddaughter of the man who overthrew Richard III. So it was a good idea to portray Richard as villainously as possible.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)union_maid
(3,502 posts)The argument as to whether Richard did the princes in has been going on ALMOST as long as the Mac vs PC argument. It will never be settled. I think he did it if only because killing off any rival to the throne that you could kill off was SOP of good governance at the time. And he did usurp the hell out of the throne. But did that make him a bad person? Well, maybe a little, but the subsequent carrying on about it all was just a bit disingenuous considering that everyone was busy killing everyone else off at the time, and whenever there was time there was the burning of villages and farms and other things that were not good for children and other living things.
I voted for Edgar the Peaceful because no one else had. Also he was quite possibly not insane, which seemed to be unusual for a monarch.
trueblue2007
(17,138 posts)nickinSTL
(4,833 posts)While I think it's possible that he was responsible for the murder of his nephews, there's just no way to prove who did it.
His reputation as we have known it mostly comes from Sir Thomas More & Shakespeare, both of whom wrote under Tudor monarchs.
More's work was really a means of claiming that no king was legitimate without consent of Parliament, and the facts weren't all that important. He used Richard III as a villain because that's what he could get away with. The Tudors' best claim to the throne was by conquest, not by blood or inheritance, so vilifying Richard made them seem heroic, rather than usurpers.
Shakespeare probably went in large part from More's work (and probably others writing under the Tudors) and was again likely to be safest making Richard out to be a villain.
He was a solid administrator and loyal to his brother Edward. I suspect he'd have been much happier had he been able to stay up in York administering the north of the country, rather than being at court and becoming king.
While I'd like to think he didn't murder his nephews, the truth is that there were rumors of their deaths during his lifetime, and he never produced them alive to counter those rumors. That doesn't look good. Of course, even if they were dead, that doesn't mean Richard necessarily ordered the murders.
mokawanis
(4,434 posts)Has a nice ring to it. For some reason that name humors me.
ohiosmith
(24,262 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)
Erin go bragh!
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)I'm one of his people. And you got to like a guy who pushes his own dad off the throne.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)IcyPeas
(21,747 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)jrandom421
(999 posts)Edward I aka "Longshanks" aka "Malleus Scotorum" aka "Hammer of the Scots".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England
A close second is George VI and Elizabeth still hates her uncle with a white-hot passion unsurpassed by any star in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Her uncle is Edward VIII (real name David), the guy who ruled for less than a year in 1936, and abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson. I think that was a coverup. I think the real reason he abdicated was that he saw war coming in Europe, and since the Windsors changed their name from Hanover, and were German, that he didn't want to fight his cousins.
Also, the English Royal Family was quite concerned that England would become a satellite of Germany, because Edward VIII and Wallis were hanging out with Hitler a lot.
Elizabeth's grandfather, George V said about Edward VIII, "He will ruin himself within the year" after he is crowned which became true. George V also said that he hoped that the younger brother, Bertie (George VI) would rule and Lilibet (Elizabeth) would ascend the throne, which is exactly what happened.
Demoiselle
(6,787 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)If you want to see something strange re: Edward VIII, check out:
http://we3.org
jrandom421
(999 posts)at the age of 57, due to the lung cancer he got from the excessive smoking he did as a stress relief. The war and everything else took its toll on George, and Elizabeth still hates her father's older brother for that, thinking he would have lived another 30 years without the stress of carrying the Empire through World War 2.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Don't give me that Uther crap!
Bucky
(53,795 posts)You're thinking of Atlantis
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Learn some HISTORY dammit!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)It would be hard to pick a favorite.
Incidentally, the History Channel begins a new series tonight on the Vikings. The story parallels the history of my Viking ancestors.
Scary stuff!!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)King of Zydeco
geardaddy
(24,924 posts)So's Uther Pendragon.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img][/img]
charlie and algernon
(13,447 posts)Afterall, if it weren't for his dumb ass, we might still have the Queen on our currency.
madinmaryland
(64,920 posts)have any teabaggers today, and would have had universal health care years ago!!