Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't consider Richard II to be among the cruelest monarchs. I would consider him to be among the most incompetent and clueless monarchs.
It's really hard to judge him after a couple centuries of Tudor propaganda and the great Shakespire did such a number on his image.
I would actually consider the famous Richard Lionheart to be among the worst (not necessarily cruelest) English kings. He wasn't interested in England other than as a source to finance his foreign adventures.
Ah yes, Edward the 1st the guy who had William Wallace, put on the rack, disemboweled , beheaded and the drawn and quartered. Then had the head put on a pike and displayed on London Bridge. The remaining four parts were sent to Ireland , Wales, Scotland and the other parts of the realm to show what opposing Longshanks would get you! One of my ancestors The 5th Earl of Surrey John de Warren commanded Edward the 1st's army at Stirling Bridge which was soundly beaten by William Wallace thus forcing Edward the 1st to come North to deal personally with Wallace which he did at Falkirk.
The Scots got some payback in the year of our Lord 1314 when they soundly beat the army of Longshank's successor at Bannockburn and freed Scotland from English rule until 1706
Don't think for one moment that William Wallace and the Scots were all 'long haired, peace loving, hippies' just because you've seen it on Braveheart, that is a film, its not factual.
Bess was bloody, too. A number of Catholic martyrs were made under her watch.
Of course. Religion was much more then religion then. It was your power base and allegiences and someone to watch your back, and someone to watch them to make sure they still worked for you. Religion just became an alegience with a name. And there were Catholics in Britan with wealth and property which the Crown really wished to relieve them of, since then they had less chance of unseating the Crown.
Life for royals then was like a real life, can't put it away game of Risk where if you failed you died.
Go back over my posts and find the part where you believe I was arguing over the value of a monarchy. The post to which you originally responded concerned the Queen living on and on and denying Charles his shot at being king. Is that what you are interpreting as some stance against monarchy?
You are assigning me a position I never took and demanding that I defend it.
Henry XIII had thousands put to death, often for petty reasons , and/or on false charges.
The number of people executed under his orders was listed at 72,000 ; but that number is believed to be an exaggeration. I've also read a number over 50,000 , which also seems pretty huge.
His daughter Mary has a bloodier reputation, but that's probably due to propaganda by her enemies. Catholics and Protestants fought for religious domination in Tudor England, and her side lost. Henry was far bloodier. Most executions during Mary's reign weren't even ordered by her, but by the church. She certainly didn't sentence someone to death to marry somebody else, or to punish their child for badmouthing the king.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
