House of Plantagenet - An English Monarchs Poll

Plantagenet?

oh lord - MODS!!!

Ed I had the best two nicknames of any king ever: LONGSHANKS and HAMMER OF THE SCOTS. Obviously an enormous cunt.

would gladly rid hank II of troublesome priest

I voted for Henry III because he ruled for ages and is kind of anonymous.

He was ousted by Simon De Montfort and held captive until Eddy Longshanks came along and cut off Simon's balls and hung them on his nose.

I was leaning towards Henry II, but I have much love for the tragic failure that was Richard II, and Edward III had all the chivalry.

Henry II by far. His legal reforms and the way he brought the nation together after the Stephen/Mathilda Anarchy and left the treasury in a good state are praiseworthy for his time.

Richard is a great romantic figure; possibly gay troubadour crusader kick-ass but he bankrupted his kingdom and, despite being born there, spent very little time there at all.

John sans terre. Feckless overeater of lampreys who broke his father's heart and sold out his brother.

Henry III. We should remember him for the Magna Carta as much as John but he really is mostly forgettable as a king.

Longshanks kind of scares me. He was essentially the John Terry of his day.

Edward II. What a way to die, eh?

Edward III. Always been a fan but he's kind of hard to defend from a modern point of view, though honni soit qui mal y pense. His son was perhaps the most kick-ass of all the Plantagenets.

Richard II. I don't think I can ever forgive his treachery though I have sympathy for him due to the age at which he took the throne.

If I could write-in in-laws, it would be Aliénor d’Aquitaine by a million miles.

I think Richard II, who did a lot of treacherous, shitty things, was a victim of being a man out of his time. Pious, loved the arts, didn't want war (aside from that Crusade), was always trying to get peace with France, faithful to his wife. It all marked him out as weak to the nobility - especially the loss of income from tear-assing through France that his grandfather was so keen on. Tough to be that kind of king when you're father was The Black Prince, who was just awesome.

Richard wanted peace as much anything to be able to concentrate on England where he always felt shaky after the Lords Appelant but he was also the first 'majesty' and I'm ambivalent about that. His grandfather was more of a primus inter pares war leader but Richard wanted a more regal monarchy and that is precisely why the high nobility never really took to him.

(Rule no 2 in hereditary monarchies: Have heirs early and sufficiently often.)

Had Charles VI been less crazy and his brother less grasping, Bolingbroke might never have been allowed to leave...

Wasn't he also the first "your highness"?

First 'Highness' and first 'Majesty' and sometimes 'High Majesty' (perhaps in anticipation of the English later getting their hands on Jamaica).

I don't see what's wrong with just 'sire'. It's just as submissive but more personal and less fawning.

I don't get the impression this guy was bothered with 'less fawning'

http://madameevangelista.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wilton_diptych.jpg

You ask the lords to fawn to you too much and you end up crownless

First of the line is almost always the best, last is usually worst.

I dunno, I'd wager that John and Edward II were worse than Richard II.

Well, Aimless, you don't become the founder of an English Royal dynasty unless you have the support of very powerful ppl and they won't give it unless you're pretty good at kinging and siring and such.

Henry II also got sonned by his sons in a rebellion at the end. I don't think Edward III had that much trouble.

John and Edward II were worse than Richard II.

Hmm, that brings up an interesting point. When the Conqueror had finished, England was his to parcel out to his faithful vassals. (In this sense English and French history go in almost opposite directions from this period; the history of the English crown is a trajectory from total control to increasing devolution while France's is one of a precarious and relatively weak one to an increasingly strong and centralized one. Indeed the Revolution and Napoleon only served to strngthen that tendancy.) The first 'sin' to blemish the English royal house is the fratricide of William Rufus. The defeat at Tinchebray of Robert means that the house will not continue divided. The anarchy and resultant rise of the ambitious nobility is eventually countered by Henry but the cancer remains; the nobles, often plotting with Scots and French help must be led and John, esp after his mother's death, has essentially lost them both in England and in his French possessions. John's faults are manifest but he wasn't the worst, he was simply the first to get in over his head and he was a good sight better than Edward II. It's hard to compare him to Richard II, though I suppose they were both petty little shits at their worst.

Actually Henry's brood fought pretty much anybody they could get their hands on, including each other.

i read a book of brief bios of every british king from 1066 onward last month. none of this crop really struck me as remotely admirable people, though richard ii did inspire one of shakespeare's most underrated plays.

crop really struck me as remotely admirable people

Le premier roi fut soldat un heureux

They're essentially gangsters arisen from a protection racket from other gangsters.

Edward II and Richard II also had widely-loathed favourites they foisted upon everyone. I don't think John had anyone like De Vere or Gaveston. xposts

They're essentially gangsters...

Now we're talkin' real talk.

Otoh, John sold the charter to found Liverpool

xpost

Le premier roi fut soldat un heureux

This ^ is Voltaire, btw, so the gangsterism is not exactly news, Aimless

(hangs head dejectedly)

Cool fact: John's second son was King of the Romans (Germany) prior to the first Hapsburg king, Rudolf

Michael, you seem very knowledgable. Are there recent books about these fellows worth seeking out?

I haven't really read about the Angevins/Plantagenets in a long time. It was kind of a childhood obsession. The last one I read (about ten years ago) was Eleanor of Aquitaine, A Life' by Allison Weir.

Ha ha. Eleanor's maternal grandma was named Dangereuse

richard I was really everything you wld want a medieval king to be - constantly warring and tearfully making up with his dad, roving around fighting crusades, blowing money and having sex with everybody. quite a charming death too, no wonder everyone loved him. not very good at stopping jews being murdered or running the country but this the medieval era so I'm prioritising romance

Otoh, he left William Marshall and his mom on the council of regency so he wasn't that bad at running the country, at least when he wasn't around personally trying to squeeze new taxes out of his subjects so he could give the Muslins what for or buy his way out of jail.

Henry II the deserved winner

(sniff) He'd be so proud, if he could be here today.

I fair enjoyed Robert Bartlett's The Plantagenets on BBC2 yesterday, some enlightening gory details that Schama missed in his History of England series. Essential viewing if like me you only have a sketchy knowledge of this bunch of bastards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03yr973/The_Plantagenets_The_Devils_Brood/

oooh Bartlett. gonna try to track that one down.

Yeah it was pretty good