John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Since comparing monarchs across English and British history can be a case of comparing apples to oranges, we'll be focusing on the period after the Norman Conquest but prior to the Reformation.
I mean, one can't deny that their personalities influed on the course of history since they where the one at the head of the state.I usually consider all royals as nothing to special, but since the Anarchy is during Stephen's reign and thats basically Dance of Dragons without the dragons.
My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.Screw it, I'm voting for Richard III. He seems to have had some good policies, and I at least want to give him credit for that.
If I'm being honest, I'd say Edward IV was a much better king overall, so I've changed my vote.My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.
That being said, his reign ended after a few years with him dead on the field of Bosworth, a battle he lost because a good chunk of his army defected to Henry Tudor (the Stanleys) and another good chunk simply refused to engage the ennemy forces when it came down to it (the Earl of Northumberland). The Yorkist cause, who had seemed unnassailable at the death of Edward IV had been dealt a grieveous blow and was never to recover.
As such, I feel we can't really see his reign as anything else then a failure, and definitely short of what would make him a contender for a great king.
Probably Henry II. Most of the English legal system as we know it started with him. But Edward I has a good claim since Parliament became a regular feature of the landscape under him.
My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.
That being said, his reign ended after a few years with him dead on the field of Bosworth, a battle he lost because a good chunk of his army defected to Henry Tudor (the Stanleys) and another good chunk simply refused to engage the ennemy forces when it came down to it (the Earl of Northumberland). The Yorkist cause, who had seemed unnassailable at the death of Edward IV had been dealt a grieveous blow and was never to recover.
As such, I feel we can't really see his reign as anything else then a failure, and definitely short of what would make him a contender for a great king.
Are Medival English II monarchs doomed to be terrible? William II, Edward II, Richard II...Henry II wasn't that bad though
I mean, I would deem William II pretty average all things considered.Are Medival English II monarchs doomed to be terrible? William II, Edward II, Richard II...Henry II wasn't that bad though
Maybe that's fair for Richard but Edward II would probably have still ended up being remembered as the man who lost Scotland even if he hadn't personally been defeated at Bannockburn.Timing is all. At least the last three of those might have been remembered as reasonably successful had they died a few years sooner.
I mean, I would deem William II pretty average all things considered.
Maybe that's fair for Richard but Edward II would probably have still ended up being remembered as the man who lost Scotland even if he hadn't personally been defeated at Bannockburn.
Just for the record - that was to distinguish him from previous “Edwards”, like Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor.Longshanks. The only one given a nickname in the poll, so clearly the intended choice