Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;sylvester, post: 73726, member: 708&quot;]The sad lot of English kings is that none of them can ever win;</p><p><br /></p><p>Henry I (1100-1135) Condemed because he was inflexible, overly dominant and no one dared to argue with him or you might find yourself being thrown off the top of a castle keep (as happened to one individual). He mutilated some of his female relations by gouging out their eyes whilst they were his hostages. He had many moneyers castrated for daring to produce underweight coinage, and he was kind enough to do it at Christmas. (This technically could have consituted breaking the king&#039;s peace, something which Stephen got bad rap for when he arrested people he&#039;d summoned to court, but because it was Henry no one dared to say anything).</p><p><br /></p><p>Stephen (1135-54) Seen as too, too soft. At first everyone thought he was a breath of fresh air after Henry&#039;s oppressive regime. Unfortunately in the succession dispute he because ridiculed by his enemies for being a push over. People dared to raise up against him because once Stephen had defeated them, he&#039;d give them a slap on the wrist and demand they not do it again. You got third, fouth and fifth chances with Stephen. He drove his allies mad by being so lenient. Suddenly Henry I&#039;s period was seen as a golden age!</p><p><br /></p><p>Skipping forward a century you can see nothing has changed. Henry III is condemed for being too weak a king, unkingly. Yet they argued Royal Prerogative should be reduced? Suggesting he was too strong? The king was too weak, but his powers were too strong, he was weak willed and advisers could push him into making decisions with all this power he had.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edward was what the barons wanted a strong warrior like king who knew his own mind (they wanted another Henry I) and this is what they got.</p><p><br /></p><p>By 1304 though most of the barons were ticked off with Edward having the final say on everything and being inflexible. Thus they drew up a list of grievances and complaints and waited, they knew Edward I would never give concessions and thus they sat and twiddled their thumbs hoping he was gonna die sometime soon. When he finally did all the complaints and suggestions of alterations got thrown in Edward II&#039;s face before he&#039;d even been crowned. They were glad to have a more lenient king.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course by the end of Edward II&#039;s reign the nobility was hacked of that Edward II was being ruled by his favourites and was too weak willed and unkingly. Suddenly Edward I was a marvellous king and they&#039;d give anything to have him back! Edward III proved a success for the first 30 years of his reign.</p><p><br /></p><p>You find English history does this; Strong king, weak king, strong king, weak. Also goes Bad, good, bad, good.</p><p><br /></p><p>The real problem comes when you get two srong kings in a row, aka Edward III, followed by Richard II.</p><p><br /></p><p>After Edward III&#039;s reign they were hoping for something a bit more subtle and lenient, what they actually got was someone stubborn who though of himself as God&#039;s representative on earth and therefore infallible. Strong got followed by stronger. Which explains why they all saw Richard as despot. Now if he had followed Edward II and not Edward III, he probably would have been seen as a good king![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in