Rate the Stuart Monarchs

...really, this is just a fairly self-explanatory exercise. I'm just curious to see who will hit bottom first, Charles I or James II?

(Oh, and you must explain WHY you chose as such in posts below. Multiple choice is for the fun of it.)

Why are you treating William III as a Stuart? His wife was, but he wasn't.

Maeglin said:

Why are you treating William III as a Stuart? His wife was, but he wasn't.

Click to expand...

His mother was a Stuart; he and Mary were cousins. I'm including him just because of the proximity to the Stuart bloodline (not to mention the proximity in dates).

I would say Charles I was worst simply because his actions led to the English Civil War

Charles, bringer of war to three kingdoms

KingofArkham said:

I would say Charles I was worst simply because his actions led to the English Civil War

Click to expand...

To be slightly pedantic, but mainly to emphasize your point.

Charles caused civil wars to break out in all THREE of his kingdoms, plus generate at least three wars between England and Scotland.


I can't honestly think of a monarch in any country, any time period that had a worse record for internal peace and stability. Possibly some convoluted Roman Republic Civil War might have matched it but I'm dubious.


Certainly worse than King John, usually the standard bearer for poor English kingship, or Edward II. Didn't have the excuse of Athelred the unready re foreign invasion and becoming King as a minor.


I gather Charles was a decent father and good husband, just shouldn't have been in charge of a whelk stall let alone three countries.

Finbarr the Fair said:

To be slightly pedantic, but mainly to emphasize your point.

Charles caused civil wars to break out in all THREE of his kingdoms, plus generate at least three wars between England and Scotland.


I can't honestly think of a monarch in any country, any time period that had a worse record for internal peace and stability. Possibly some convoluted Roman Republic Civil War might have matched it but I'm dubious.


Certainly worse than King John, usually the standard bearer for poor English kingship, or Edward II. Didn't have the excuse of Athelred the unready re foreign invasion and becoming King as a minor.


I gather Charles was a decent father and good husband, just shouldn't have been in charge of a whelk stall let alone three countries.

Click to expand...

Nailed it. James I and Charles II may have been a half-drunk phillanderers, but they knew when and what to leave well enough alone.

Stolengood said:

His mother was a Stuart; he and Mary were cousins. I'm including him just because of the proximity to the Stuart bloodline (not to mention the proximity in dates).

Click to expand...

and not to forget that he was 2nd in the line of succession directly after mary.
so proximity is a wrong word, william was both orange and a stuart.

Why no Scottish Stuarts?

Embarassment of riches

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

Why no Scottish Stuarts?

Click to expand...

I suspect most on the forum couldn't tell one James from another. So they wouldn't know enough to rate them.


Of those who reigns in Scotkand only, I'd go for James IV incidentally. Built a magnificent castle at Stirling, after coming to power after a civil war that led to his fathers death. Then got himself killed in a foolish invasion of England leaving the kingdom in chaos and an infant successor. Though I suppose Mary has an equal claim on similar grounds


How many Stuart monarchs were called something other than James?

James IV was fantastic, but lost

Charles II was fantastic, but laid no foundation

Mary II was apparently an absolute babe but its a bit late to get to know her

Anne diddled and fiddled and ended up with Hannoverians after her

Best regards
Grey Wolf

James I/IV

He was a useless statesman and a rotten human being - probably the most pathetic British King.

He tried to please everyone and in the end pleased no one and drove an irrepearable wedge between the Star chamber/Kings Court and Parliment - a problem that his son (who again being not much of a statesman was a better 'man' than his father) would later inherit.

He would spend far far above his means - devalued the knight hood system by selling them to anyone who coughed up enough cash and blew money quicker than it could be parted from unwilling traders and land owners and what foreign adventures he did red light where expensive follies.

For me the most damming thing was not opposing Spanish adventurism in what is now Germany - effectively giving them the green light to attack the protestant nations - resulting in the 30 years war which resulted in 8 million lives being lost.

The best thing that could be said about his reign was that it was releatively peaceful (for Britain) - but this was not due to design or any brilliant statesman ship on his part but to a weak insepid bumbling king and a Parliment that increasingly opposed him.

While he might have been long dead by the time the English Civil War Kicked off in 1642 - it was IMO his lack of "kinglyness" that laid the foundations.

Later failures by the Stuarts can all point back to some part of James I/IV's reign.

From an Irish perspective, James II is the best because he was friendly to Catholics and fighting for them, while William is pretty awful because of the Penal Laws. If we have to go with members of the Stuart bloodline, then James I is the worst.

James IV was the Scottish monarch who got his ass kicked at Flodden but apart from that somewhat major blip on his legacy he was rather a good king

James VI was James I of England

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

William III was a great King who restrained Louis XIV's continental ambitions and also cemented the Glorious Revolution and staged the way for Parliamentary Democracy.

Charles I ended the monarchy for a little while. He may be the worst king.

Charles II restored normality and the monarchy was more secure after his departure. So he may actually be one of the best, from a long term perspective.

Finbarr the Fair said:

How many Stuart monarchs were called something other than James?

Click to expand...

Robert II, Robert III, and Mary Queen of Scots want a word with you.

In defence of Charles I (ugh!), he was to a large extent the victim of circumstances beyond his control. Parliament was keen on pushing a war it couldn't pay for, and he inherited problems dating from Elizabeth's reign.

James II/VII by contrast took a stable situation (they don't call it the Loyal Parliament for nothing) and flushed it down the toilet.

I would not count William III as a Stuart. Otherwise, the Hanovers are Stuarts too.

So to my opinion, the best is Charles II and the worst is Charles I.

Matteo said:

I would not count William III as a Stuart. Otherwise, the Hanovers are Stuarts too.

Click to expand...

He was third in line after Mary and Anne before the birth of the Old Pretender -- this was even before the "Protestant heirs of the Stuarts only" stipulation.

Comparing his claim to the relatively distant claim of Sophia, by comparison, would be a farce, because Sophia's claim only became relevant after cutting out probably dozens of otherwise suitable claimants who also happened to be Catholic. William had a legitimate claim before all that rigamarole; thus, he's on the list.

Maeglin said:

Robert II, Robert III, and Mary Queen of Scots want a word with you.

In defence of Charles I (ugh!), he was to a large extent the victim of circumstances beyond his control. Parliament was keen on pushing a war it couldn't pay for, and he inherited problems dating from Elizabeth's reign.

James II/VII by contrast took a stable situation (they don't call it the Loyal Parliament for nothing) and flushed it down the toilet.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Charles I was bad but at least he rallied a sizeable party to fight for him.

James II flopped so completely that he was swept away as soon as the opposing team appeared on the pitch. Of course that greatly reduced the casualty list, so perhaps it's better to have a very bad king that one who is merely bad.

By the way, just as a point of interest, how good of kings would the Old and Young Pretenders possibly have made? Good? Bad? Rubbish?