Who was the worst King or Queen of England?

>when you happily preside over the total dissolution of the empire, the surrender of sovereignty of your country to the EU, not to mention being the bitch of the US
>when you're a-ok with your national capital having the demography of Karachi
The only thing she is ever praised for is how she's shut her mouth for 80 years. I'm totally aware what the official role of a constitutional monarch is but there were so many opportunities for a little breach in protocol that would have been massively appreciated by millions. I agree with Charles on the environment, religion and architecture. Though I disagree with him on a lot I still think it is admirable he isn't such 2D phony like his mum

Retard

>Presides over the greatest and fastest national decline in English/British history
hmm clue

Apparently you're unaware of the parliamentary restrictions on the monarchy.
But aye, Charles looks like he'll toe the line a lot harder, which could be pretty great.

What was she supposed to do? If she'd tried to say something she'd be threatened with being forced to abdicate or even with a full on republic. The little she could have done without getting her shit pushed in would have paled in significance to what politicians wanted and did. Nowadays she might be able to get away with a grumble or two about Europe but for most of her reign her position hasn't been as strong as it is atm.

I'm basically suggesting the queen considering the fucking state shits in should have kamikazied the monarchy. She should have threatened to abdicate after the Suez Crisis if they didn't fix everything. Not to mention the demographic shifts shortly after that time...

A republic would be trash but at least the institution of monarchy in Britain wouldn't have been tarnished by being complicit in all this. People do get upset by this but I feel it would have been better to go out with dignity. That way when people think about "the good old days" they'd associate it with the monarchy and the queen who refused to be a part of it

cont. realistically the government would have found some minor royal or semi-related duke and shoved him in. But everyone would know there was something wrong from then onwards

>Not to mention the demographic shifts shortly after that time

Eh, in the 60s there was both sufficient space to house immigrants and sufficient need for extra labour to keep them gainfully employed. It was the New "Labour" ramping up of immigration that has fucked us beyond repair, but God himself couldn't have gone up against Blair until about 2006 so even if she was willing to take one for the team she wouldn't have achieved anything.

>She should have threatened to abdicate after the Suez Crisis if they didn't fix everything.
To which Parliament would say, "Go for it." Not only was that a period of lowered monarchism, but they can pretend that anything they do is what people want.

Not even a question

I still maintain it could have served as a rallying point somewhere down the line. However, you're probably right which is more disappointing than I thought.

I have to say I agree with these anons Her Maj didn't let Britain down, Britain let her down. If history doesn't look kindly on her I'll be miffed.

>ctrl f Edward VI
>no results

???

>I agree with Charles on the environment, religion and architecture. Though I disagree with him on a lot I still think it is admirable he isn't such 2D phony like his mum

Well what do you expect, she's a woman. Nice tripple dubs.

She has the power to condemn and have her own opinion, though that doesn't relate to executive power she is still the Queen and her opinions hold water and might change minds.

Pretty decent guy though
Always hurts when a nice, generally decent guy ends up being a bad ruler, some people just aren't born for it.

>Always hurts when a nice, generally decent guy ends up being a bad ruler, some people just aren't born for it.

they didn't have to kill the children fucking animals

...

James II was worse

The monarch can't persuade people politically, though. Parliament is too afraid of losing their grip on the people.

Catholics, fuck off.

Anyone who doesn't think this is lying to themselves

...

Every king between William I and Edward III
They literally didnt speak English
Fucking frogs I swer, how disrespectful can you be toward the country you rule?

>Crusades were worth it.
no they weren't, they barely accomplished anything

>the total dissolution of the empire
>a bad thing
it was going to happen whether they fought it or not, and I think the Brits were pretty damn wise for not trying. Look at what happened to the countries that did try to fight their colonies' independence movements, France and Portugal. They had to endure years of bloody and unwinnable war that caused so much anger in the home country that it nearly toppled the French government, and DID topple the Portuguese government. And then they lost their colonies anyway.

Elizabeth the shekel sucker.

They united Europe against a common enemy and caused some important cultural exchanges with the Arab world, surely that counts for something?

Is it true that they killed him last after forcing him to watch his wife and children being killed? Because that's pretty fucking brutal if true.

those cultural exchanges were nice but they would have happened eventually anyway with the rise of the mongol empire and reopening of the silk road. The costs of the crusades far outweighed its benefits though, and Europe was hardly united in the struggle. Just look at the crusader states.

What they did the byzantines was pretty damn unforgivable though, especially when the goal of the crusades was supposedly to defend Christendom from the muslims.

Take a broom off your arse and just enjoy slaughter.

clearly you've never been to war

Ethelred. Got BTFO by Vikings pretty much every day, almost got England turned into a Viking vassal state.

You raise some interesting points I'd not really considered, thanks user.

Charles I based and did nothing wrong

Again, did nothing wrong. Plus he was a Catholic and that makes him even more based.

DAVID PIG-DIDDLING CAMERON! *SPIT*

William III of Orange, """king of """england""""""

FUCK PROTESTANTS

LONG LIVE THE TRUE KING JAMES II

>user is a traitor, and probably a heretic too

pls

Cromwell

>worst king
Charles I, no contest

>worst queen
Mary Queen of Scots

dabbling in the restoration of England to Catholicism put her in a little over her head there at the end.

Not a king, also did nothing wrong to anyone who didn't manifestly deserve it.

>Mary Queen of Scots

based tbqh

>cromwell did nothing wrong to anyone who didn't manifestly deserve it

oh yeah those 50,000 Irish civilians sure did deserve to be shipped to the Caribbean as slaves

I swear brits are completely deluded

>inb4 muh papists

Charles I did nothing wrong

Edward I spoke English and identified as English. He spoke French as well but at that time who didn't?

>Edward I identified as English

you're gonna need to sauce me on that one

>spoke French
>as well

weasel words desu

Edward III was the first English king since 1066 who could speak proper English

People from Ireland pay good money to go to the Caribbean. Cromwell was basically the first travel agent.

This

John "fucks up everything" Lackland is #1 Worse English Monarch. Richard wasn't a nice man or great administrator, but he was powerful enough to hold the realm together.

James

>Again, did nothing wrong.
Well, that whole Catholic thing was pretty lousy.

England didn't deserve to be fucked like that. Not to mention Charles and the Irish were innocent.

lmao