Why did the Plantagenet dynasty constantly jump from having a really strong king...

William's wife Mathilda had descent from Alfred the Great. As did Edith, Henry Beauclerc's wife who was half-English half-Scottish.

>implying bloodline can pass through women

The Plantagenets had the devil's blood in them according to their Anjou ancestors. So the descendants of Henry II had a mix of being incredibly sadistic or incredibly inept. As much as the Norman dynasty was fucked up, the Plantagenets were worse.

Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Hard times create strong men.

Attached: 1509041314895.jpg (1242x2208, 3.13M)

Except the ruling dynasty of England and practically all its nobility originated from the Kingdom of France since 1066. It was just one group of frogs based in Britain killing another group of frogs based in Gaul.

Templars cursed them also what the fuck is that portrait

Attached: F3A2E814-142C-4A81-ADDC-8C542353833D.jpg (1280x720, 101K)

There was a Welsh house in charge at one point

Except the French accepted this with Henry V, even through cousins

>cadets of cadets are welsh when all the welsh lords were Anglo-normans

>THATS LIKE SAYING EVERY FRENCH KING IS DESCENDED FROM CHARLEMANGE
But they are it just is one generation in a bastard one in a women

>Britain’s bloodiest dynasty was historically accurate
You can’t have that in one generation tho or hitler would be strong

Well Henry IV's heir was Henry V, so that breaks tradition

That Welsh house was the Tudors and they were a non-legitimate offshoot of the Plantagenets. And they were practically a new dynasty seeing how the language of the court was in English rather than French like their predecessors.

I was actually impressed that documentary had the actors playing the royals and nobility speak French, they usually don't do that.

Nice meme

don't forget Richard and his brother

...

>Chooses 3 random Kings
>Decide to create a conclusion ignoring any political, economical, military, social, and even sometimes ungodly consequences who could explain why the Kingdom of England did better or worse under one King or another

You are the cancer of Veeky Forums

Only English monarch from Henry II onward is related

strong men create good times
good times create weak men
weak men create hard times
hard times create strong men

Not the OP, but he's absolutely right that for every good king in the Plantagenet line, bad ones usually followed.

The founder of the dynasty, Henry II was a dynamic sovereign. He was a great jurist and his massive holdings made him one of the most powerful sovereigns in the Middle Ages. He held more land in France than the Capetian kings.

Henry II's sons Richard and John were utter shit. Richard gets lionized because of the Third Crusade, but he didn't do jackshit for England besides milking it (twice!) for all the wealth it can provide for his Crusading and later for his ransom. John was a thoroughly reprehensible man, but he actually had some gift of administration and legal ability (like his father). Too bad he couldn't match up to either his father or brother.

Henry III spent too much time and money in his continental schemes, but the one thing I would give him credit for is that he reintroduced Anglo-Saxon flavor to court. He named his son and heir after Edward the Confessor. It was the first time since 1066 that a King of England would bear an Anglo-Saxon name and not a Gallic one.

Edward I was a very good lawmaker, but his wars of conquest in Wales and Scotland certainly make him the hated enemy of the Celtic peoples.

And yeah, Edward II fucked up big time by alienating his queen and preferring the company of his Gascon favorite. But it says a lot how Edward III avenged his father and then kick-started the Hundred Years' War.

Richard II was a spoiled brat, nuff said. He shouldn't have pissed off his uncle John of Gaunt or his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. When Bolingbroke overthrew Richard II, it set a VERY dangerous precedent and thus the Plantgenets fractured into the Houses of York and Lancaster because of Richard II's ineptitude and Bolingbroke not having any of it.

I treat the Lancasters and Yorkists somewhat separately since they're offshoots so out of 8 kings, you could only argue that Henry II was the one that truly stood out.

>welsh lords were Anglo-normans
Not true desu

Every English/British monarch after the Stuart period was absolute shit.

>Edward III
Should have killed his cunt of a mother

>No Danes
Hmmm...

By shoving a red hot poker up her butt?

Sure. He was too nice for his own good

Hey dipshit, hop outta this board.
That does not work in just one generation. And it sure as fuck does not work for the politics of the time and how there were shit kings during hard times.

>Britain’s bloodiest dynasty was historically accurate
>what I love about the Plantaganet story, is that it more shocking, more brutal and more astonishing that anything you'll find in fiction
GOT BTFO

Attached: 1490304027269.jpg (480x436, 31K)

They were mostly descended from Henry II, a based French count who conquered England through diplomatical genius

From that tree it looks like William le Conqueror had nothing to do with Alfred and just cucked England hard

Attached: 2azs.jpg (155x160, 10K)

Attached: NEED MORE WIVES.jpg (640x360, 38K)