Tyler: "My British history is terrible." So is your American history, geography....

She's speaking flippantly and figuratively, few of these are actual verbatim quotes

Um, there was no "British Empire" in the 12th Century.

Fun fact: Very few 1215 exemplars of The Magna Carta exist. In fact, very few 13th Century exemplars of it exist; they're all in the UK, except for two: One in the USA & one in Australia. (During WWII, a 1215 copy was in the USA for safekeeping.)

People tend to overlook the fact that John's brother Richard the Lionheart had practically bankrupted the kingdom to pay for his Crusade and then his ransom when he was captured on his way back from the Holy Land. John was unfortunate in that besieging

England has had many civil wars, i don't know much or remember much from what was learnt about many of them, but here's a few examples chat gpt gave: England has experienced several civil wars throughout its history. Here are some of the most notable ones: The Anarchy (1135-1154): The Anarchy was a civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen for control of the English throne during a period of political instability and conflict. The Wars of the Roses (1455-1487): The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts between the rival houses of Lancaster and York, both vying for control of the English throne. These wars ultimately led to the establishment of the Tudor dynasty. English Civil War (1642-1651): The English Civil War was a major conflict between the Parliamentarians (Roundheads), who supported parliamentary authority, and the Royalists (Cavaliers), who supported King Charles I. The war resulted in the temporary overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Monmouth Rebellion (1685): The Monmouth Rebellion was an unsuccessful attempt by James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, to overthrow his uncle, King James II, and claim the English throne. Jacobite Rebellions (1688-1746): The Jacobite Rebellions were a series of uprisings by supporters of the exiled Stuart monarchy, particularly in Scotland and parts of England. The most significant of these rebellions were in 1715 and 1745. Cheshire Rising (1659): This was a short-lived rebellion in Cheshire, England, during the tumultuous period leading up to the English Restoration in 1660. First Barons' War (1215-1217): While not a traditional civil war, this conflict between King John and his barons resulted in the sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the king's powers and had significant implications for English governance.

2:10 "How they found this out", British monarchs had very meticulous records, especially when it came to the every day goings on with the monarchy, as every little detail of what they did or did not do was carefully recorded. Most, if not all, nobility of King George IV's era kept diaries of their lives at the time, making this type of stuff really easy to trace and track.

When it comes to executions, burning by the stake is by far the worst way to go. The alternatives are hanging (almost instant), beheading (instant), gutted (painful, but blood loss numbs you into death sooner or later). By comparison, burning to death takes a LONG time and you are in constant agony throughout the entire process. If by some curse you survive the initial fire you are covered in burns and even the very breeze of the air is enough to make you recoil in pain. There is a reason why Hell is described as 'fiery and burning', because that is by far the worst way to go.

You may have noticed that during King Charles III's Coronation, he had to promise to uphold the Protestant Church of England. Mary I is part of the reason! Before 1200 the Church of Rome was mostly great, but after that it was mostly bad until about 1890, and was a great advocate of tyranny. Two evil rulers of Spain, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, brought in the Spanish Inquisition, which invented many modern tortures. Mary I was their granddaughter. Now it is true that our Protestant rulers executed just over 300 people, but that was over 150 years, and was usually for political reasons, since many Catholics kept trying to overthrow the government. Mary I burnt just under 300 at the stake, often humble people, for religious reasons, in five years! I have recently visited a splendid castle, Chepstow Castle, just into Wales. One of the best nobles in English history, William Marshal, lived there and did a lot of building. As a child of about 5, he had been given as a hostage, and his father - saying he had more sons! - then rebelled against Stephen. By rights little William should have been slain, but they took him to the King's tent. Hours later they found the King playing a little game with him. Stephen was merciful! Unlike the Empress Matilda, who was a cow! When she got the throne in 1141, she so exasperated the Londoners that she had to flee, leaving her dinner. And the English throne does not go by strict hereditary succession. We choose the King we want from among the Royal Family. Stephen was the grandson of William the Conqueror, and his wife the granddaughter of the last Anglo-Saxon Princess. William Marshal grew up to be the best warrior of the age. He fought loyally for the Empress Matilda's son Henry II, a capable ruler, but a right twister, and Richard the Lionheart. William tried to be loyal to King John, but had difficulties. William Marshal helped John draft Magna Carta - which John had no intention of abiding by - but when William found himself Guardian for John's infant son, he reissued Magna Carta, which is why it became so important. John fell out with a former favourite, William de Braose, couldn't get hold of him, so he got William de Braose's wife and son starved to death. I believe one of them was found to have started to eat the other... It has to be said that John may have been an abuse victim. As a small child he was dumped in a French monastery, and ever afterwards he hated French clerics... Charles I was convinced he had the Divine Right to rule. How dare anybody question what he said? But when Parliament was negotiating with him, he lied and lied and lied, which is why he got executed. Oliver Cromwell was not an ultra-Puritan. He and the Parliamentary Army often fell out with the extreme Puritans. Edward II was bisexual. That would have been tolerated, but he showed extreme favouritism to his boyfriends. The second boyfriend, Hugh le Despencer, was a horrible man, who hung , drew, and quartered a Welsh Prince in 1318. In 1326, when Queen Isabella and her lover, Roger de Mortimer, Hugh took refuge in Chepstow Castle. But the local people hated him, gave him up, and Roger got him executed. Guess how? By hanging, drawing and quartering... Edward II was imprisoned in Berkeley Castle, but it was a bit of a rumour that he died with a poker up his rear end. He seems, with the help of the Pope, to have been let out of the country to end his days in an Italian monastery We have detailed histories dating back to the 700s, and there are even Roman histories.

Personally I think William 1st should have gotten an honourable mention if not a place on the list for the Harrying of the North alone.

People did write observations down 200 years ago, Tyler. (Good grief)

While Mary was a total cow is not disputed but her background story is not a happy one and she had a LOT to be angry about. At a young age her father divorced her mother in the biggest upset in history. She had been brought up a devout catholic. When Henry disolved the church and made him self head of the english church it went agaist everything she was taught. She was seperated from her mother at a time when she needed her most. When she started to mentrate she had extreme pains we now know as dysmenorrhoea. She was betrothed at just 13 (i think) to her Spainish cousin. And none of her many pregnancies during her later marriage went to full term causing her much pain and bleeding. When she accended to the English throne she then had to move back to England away from her husband. All in all she lead a very miserable life.

Yes, the US cannot relate directly to having a monarch, but during the existence of the US, even the UK has not had a ruling monarch either, only a reigning one. Both countries have experienced some terrible political leaders since 1776, however. Elections haven't always resulted in saintly, effective, or even uncorrupt political rulers!

I would highly recommend the "History Box" channel here on KZfaq of you want to learn any more about any of these kings or queens. It has a video giving a rundown of all of the English Monarchs even before William the Conqueror up to almost present day. But it's so also doing a separate video for each of the rulers. Some of by them out does group together because of how they affected each other. They're animated and the individual ones aren't too long and aren't overly heavy. Kind of like Horrible Histories, but a little more serious.

Stephen only gave up because Matilda's forces killed his only son and heir. After that it didn't really make sense to keep going. The logical course of action was to make peace with Matilda and name her son as his heir.

Magna Carta the 1st steps towards democracy system that eventually went around the world.

One good thing about Queen Elizabeth the first was she cared about was the sovereignty of England. She defeated the business traders who had been downing English trade for centuries and continued this after she died, she also insisted that her merchant adventurers only married English born women. I have always believed she did not marry a foreign aristocrat because she would be expected to give control of her country over to a man who probably hated England as was the case under her sister Queen Mary and Phillip of Spain. And the Spanish ambassador knew she was a woman. Few monarchs have truly cared about our country and have spent centuries trying to destroy us. She was one of the few that truly cared more about her country than her own self.

How I flinched at the idea of ‘scribes writing the history of George IV’. I knew my great-grandmother who knew her grandmother who was 45 when he died. Not that long ago really! Add to this those English civil wars apparently influenced by the power of the British Empire.

‘A lot of jerks become King…’. Well, back in the Anglo-Saxon days, there was the Witan, a group of landowners considered Wisemen’ whose main job was to choose the Next King. This was not necessarily the King’s eldest son (this necessity only came in with the Normans in 1066) but whoever the Witan felt was the most suitable. This was not always someone from the ruling family - for instance, King Harold of 1066 was simply the son (Harold Godwinson) of the largest landowner in the country.

The document that limited the power of the king and give the people basic rights. Is called the Magna Carta and we still have it. It’s keep on public display in a museum 😊

We all know that you've "heard of" Bloody Mary only because it's a cocktail.

The red-hot poker was special to Edward II - their is a complex back-story to this. Btw, apparently, his screams can be heard outsdide Barclay Castle to this day on moonless nights.

Our 'kind of' Heroes, Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. (According to my friend) dispatched more people than Bloody Mary did? Henry yes, with his dissolution of the monasteries etc. Elizabeth?-not including Wars- ridding" those who threatened her life?

"I wonder how they found this out about one of the best documented figures of his age that there are literally millions of sources for"

I think the key point is that whether a particular monarch is considered good or bad depends very much on how you look at it and what values you have and your point of view on the times in question. The same monarch can be on some people's top 10 bad monarchs list and on other people's good monarch list. I presume in the USA the same can be said for presidents. Many monarchs divide opinions. The civil war involving Charles I and Cromwell, is still a contentious subject today for example. The same is true for other periods too; the Tudor period for example. It was always so. I have a history of England which says about Henry I "To the barons, he has the greatest knight of his age; to the Church, he was a depraved tyrant. From the different points of view of the two groups, it could be said that both were correct".

Mary I was the subject of what became the nursery rhyme, Mary Mary Quite Contrary. The silver bells, cockleshells and maids were all instruments of torture used against Protestants. A lot of nursery rhymes have a very dark history.

Buckingham Palace at the time of Charles I? It didn’t exist and the famous front is 20th century. He lived in Whitehall Palace which most,y burnt down later.

The red hot poker was applied through a cow's horn - this way there were no visible signs of cause of death. No autopsy in those days.

A great film Cromwell with Richard Harris and Alec Guinness

The Mary you were taught about may have been Mary II, who reigned from 1689-1694 alonside William III. They gave their name to (amongst other things) the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. Which brings me to another bad king: James II (or James VII if you're Scottish). He was so disliked he had to flee the country and instead we put his daughter Mary on the throne, along with her husband William, Prince of Orange (who was Dutch) - hence the aforementioned William & Mary.

Scribes? in 19thc?? Mate, you HAVE to go find an historical timeline - there's all kinds of on-line lists where you can get an idea of what happened & when. Scribes were part of ancient society long before the average worker could read & write. In the 19thC compulsory education was in place so everyone could read & write. The 19thC was the century of the Industrial Revolution - the beginning of the "Modern" age. No-one was wandering around the UK dressed in sheepskins and summoning scribes. We had steam power, electricity, flush-toilets, sewing machines , vacuum cleaners, motor cars, photography, telegraph...etc. etc. So that's how we know what was going on - and have ever since:. Diaries, journals, correspondence, books, Government records, newspapers, and archaeology and grave-stones. Just as we have the same ways of learning our history to-day - we read what the actual historical figures themselves had to say. That's how we date random writings we come across. Just reading one sentence allows us to place it in the right historical period. You're right - the word "losers" wasn't even in use in the 19thC- so no-one actually said those words except for the guy reading the script. (One of the reasons I can't bear vlogs about places & happenings that put them into a modern context - that isn't history, it's make-believe.)

England didn't decide to do with out a monarch, Oliver Cromwell decided that should do with out a monarch and that he would be a better ruler than a king or a parliament.

2:24 well, yes, there have always been court scribes to make official accounts for as long as we were literate. And in the 1800s most of the country was to some extent. Jane Austen and the Brontes existed by then, we had novelists, poets, newspapers! It was probably an opinion in the Times calling him out for laziness. Maybe even MPs wanting to know if His Majesty intended to do any fucking work this year.

Mary I, or Bloody Mary, is why England and Britain distrusts politician who are very devout.

There's alot more to Mary's reign. In some ways she came at the wrong time, a devout Catholic when England was embracing Protestantism so she thought she could scare the people back to her religion. She married Philip (Prince, and later King, of Spain) who convinced her to go to war with France which was a mess. She was so desperate for a child she convinced herself she was pregnant, causing her husband to leave her when no baby turned up. It felt like everything she tried went wrong and it didn't help that she was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I, who is seen as one of the best monarchs. So Mary's reign is generally seen as a weird mix of evil, embarrassing failures and sad tragedy.

I'd say James VI and I should be up there. He wrote a book called 'Daemonologie', and took a great interest in witch trials, which gave them a legitimacy that they sort of lacked before. And that led to the deaths and torture of countless people around the world, mostly women. Even though he later rescinded it, it was way too late. On John - The Forest Charter was more important for ordinary people and their rights than Magna Carta (which initially only really impacted the barons). Though MC did guarantee a trial for all free men, the Forest Charter guaranteed the ancient rights to the 'forest' (which also meant common land), which the Normans had eroded - and the land was an important source of things like food and firewood. It also removed the death penalty and maiming penalty for poaching. The Great Charter (the MC) and Forest Charter are the combined rights of freedom that underpin UK and US law today.

Surely even Tyler must realise that "I'm tired of tripping over you losers" was a joke not a genuine quote. Doesn't he?

Well, their heads are not chopped off but they are shot by guns....

Tyler, come to the UK and visit Salisbury. Then you can see the Magna Carta for yourself! We have it on display in the Cathedral.

Mary 1st wasn’t alone in being an unpleasant monarch of the Tudor Era. The tudors in general were a pretty awful bunch. Henry 7th took the throne by killing Richard 3rd at the battle of Bosworth. Henry has questionable claims to the throne and he marries to also someone who had questionable claims. Henry 8th (Henry 7th younger son) discounted with the pope & made himself head of the Church of England so he could divorce (in the end divorcing twice) & beheaded 2 of his wives so that he could marry someone else. Then not the tudors but back to Richard the 3rd he took the throne claiming to be the legitimate heir, imprisoned his nephews in the Tower of London & some think also killed his nephews (although there is no legitimate proof of this) as they went missing suddenly. He was buried in a part of old church in an unidentified grave that was later knocked down and the ground was made into a car park (parking lot). Several years ago his body was found & identified. There was a huge state funeral for him to brining him back to where he grew up to be buried formally.

Cromwell outlawed Christmas celebrations.

Stephen definitely was not one of the worst kings, especially compared to some of the ones this video bafflingly excluded (Henry VI, Richard II, James II)

George IV was the loose template for stupid Prince George in Blackadder the Third. On the chaos, if you ever watched Game of Thrones, a lot of it is loosely inspired by British history, with some supernatural spins, but the contempt for the North, especially the savages north of the wall (the Scottish) and all the back-stabbing was there. After all, monarchy were just the off-spring of thieves and warlords, aggrandised by the endorsement of religion.

14:30 well it is something you identified with, before you moved to that big rock over the other side of the pond.

"Worst" is a very subjective term in this context. I hope you do a vlog in London sometime. Westminster Abbey is amazing. Mary I has an incredibly tragic and sad story. I'm not surprised she was insane. A great book to read is, "The Children of Henry VIII" by Allison Weir. All three Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I have incredible stories. No to mention all the illegitimate children.

Tyler you kept saying British Kings but most were only Kings of England. Scotland did not have the same King as England until James I in 1603 (he was James VI of Scotland). I would say George IV should not really be included in place of Richard II or Henry VI. Even the famous Richard the Lionheart could have been included - he most probably did not speak English, spent most of his rule abroad fighting in wars and what time he spent in England (10 months in his whole reign) was spent raising taxes so he could go back to war - though to be fair, his youngest brother John when he became King was right to be included because he was a spectacularly bad ruler.

Aethelred the Unready should be there. Possibky at the top of the list.

The only reason Stephen agreed that Matilda’s son would succeed him was because he had no surviving heirs, not out of any sense of realising he did anything wrong. Also, Edward was probably smothered in his sleep l rather than the poker thing.

No war with France is unnecessary.

Personally, I'd put Henry VIII in the top 6. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed so much of Englands culture, history and architecture. It gets me angry just thinking about what was lost.

Taking the throne by force was THE way to become king way back when. It's only in the recent centuries that the throne was inherited instead of elected or conquered.

George IV is the model for Humpty Dumpty...and the famous, "Georgie, Porgie, pudding and pie..."

Why did Tyler sound like Kermit the Frog when he said George the 4th? 😂

Burning at the stake can be quick if they are feeling generous, they can make the wood very smokey so you die of smoke inhalation. But if they are feeling really evil they can make it burn long and slow so that it takes ages to die in excruciating pain.

Even today we can't have a catholic monarch.

OK, here we go. First stop. By the time Prinny became King George IV, monarchs didn't rule. They merely reigned. There is a huge difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute ruler. There were the two houses of Parliament, and the Government was led by the First Lord of the Treasury/the Prime Minister. His father, George III, was 81 when he died. George IV was the eldest of his 15 children. He was the Prince of Wales, and became Prince Regent at the age of 48 when his father King George III was declared non compus mentis. He was 57 when he became King and 67 when he died in 1830. As a younger man, he was good looking, charming, well educated, enjoyed the arts, was a leader of society, and enjoyed an extravagant lifestyle. By the time he became King he was extremely overweight and feeling the effects of an over indulgent lifestyle. But he was not nasty or bad in any meaningful way. The Industrial Revolution was well on its way in the UK, and the British Empire was expanding nicely. Mostly, King George IV was virtually irrelevant as a King. He was married to a woman he hated. He had only one child, a daughter, his heir, Princess Charlotte, who he adored, but unfortunately, she died in childbirth at age 21, in 1817. All rather sad considering his youthful potential.

My knowledge of American history is non existent luvvy. So we don’t expect you to know English history. Rock on babes

Should react to witch hunts of England and Europe

Queen Matilda, I love that name. We should have another one. I never knew about her and Stephen.

I'd say there are a number of other candidates for this list. William the Conqueror for his atrocities during the harrying of the north, etc. Henry the VII who was a psychopath, some of the monarchs during the war of the Roses, plus various others. King Steven was an opportunist rather than a particularly evil or incompetent ruler. It's just that when he tried to usurp Matilda it divided the country and plunged it into a long civil war. Matilda was unpopular for several reasons. It's true that many nobles didn't want a woman ruler, however she also had appalling people skills and managed to piss a lot of them off. Plus she preferred to live in France and didn't even bother coming to England when her father died. Since she showed so little interest in the realm Stephen saw his chance and took it. He may not have been a great ruler but at the time many people felt Maud was worse.

I guess it’s Subjective who was the worst rulers

She's making the history fun, but hardly accurate.

I'm now getting pissed off with you Tyler. We're way back in the 12th century with Stephen and Matilda. There was no such bloody thing as a British Empire back in those days. There was no Great Britain. There was no UK. Wales, Scotland and Ireland were all doing there own thing. England had been conquered by William, Duke of Normandy at the Battle of Hastings. And he'd been crowned as King William I, in Westminster Abbey on Christmas day in 1066. In 1100, Henry, the 4th son of William the Conqueror (William I) was crowned as King Henry I. He inherited the crown on the death of his elder brother King William II. But thereby hangs another tale and rumour. The succession problems arose because despite fathering many illegitimate children, Henry only had two legitimate offspring with his first wife, and none with his second. To make matters worse. His son died in the White Ship disaster of 1120 on a trip between England and Normandy. This left his daughter Matilda who on her marriage had become Empress of the Holy Roman Empire. Henry named her as his successor, and got his Court to swear an oath to support her becoming Queen of England when he died. By the time Henry died in 1135. Matilda's first husband had died. She had remarried Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and had two of the three sons she eventually had with him. There followed an 18 year period called "The Anarchy". During which time Matilda and her cousin Stephen, (both grandchildren of the Conqueror), disputed the throne of England. Stephen won and became King. However, neither of his two sons succeeded him. When Stephen died, Matilda's eldest son became King Henry II of England.

"There's no rules back in the day" Well, yes, there were rules....the first of which was that the King (or Queen) was in charge, and it was up to them to run the show as they saw fit.....That's what an absolute Monarchy IS. Changed a bit after Magna Carta, but still pretty much the same. No British Empire until the late 1500's.Obviously this was a tongue-in-cheek light touch runthrough- but obviously each story was a lot more complex than was given here.

King John was a complete prat. He started a civil war, attempted to end it by signing Magna Carta at Runnymede, then ignored and violated that agreement, so was pursued again, and, according to legend lost his fortune in The Wash while escaping, then died at Newark after gorging himself on lampreys. In the meantime, he lost most of what had been Crown territory in what is now France. If it hadn't been for him, most of what is now France would have been part of the UK. Bloody Mary lost the last bit, Calais.

Bloody Mary invented the cocktail tequila sunrise

hmm..before I listen, I'm going to guess Richard III, Richard II, John, Mary I, thrown in a Henry and and Edward for good measure.

PS....it would have been difficult to have been "a fly on the wall" when Magna Carta was signed. It was signed by King John and his leading nobles in a previously insignificant field. There were no walls. 😂. Btw, this field is now dedicated to US President Kennedy, and was gifted to the US by the British people following his murder.

of that list King Stephen is the most obscure id bet 98% of Britain don't know who he is.

Henry VIII should have been no1, he was the most monstrous murderer to sit on the throne.

I think Mary, being a Catholic believed Protestants would actually burn in hell for all eternity so if she could scare other people out of it she was doing them a really big favour (religion 🤔😜😵‍💫🥴🙄) and did she really burn more people than other rulers 🤔. Basically her side lost- so the other side gained by making her look even worse (history 🤔😵‍💫)

Hi Tyler, have you heard of Britain's nuclear bomb development and testing site on a spectacular shingle spit at Orford, Suffolk in East Anglia England? A region sadly neglected by responders! You will like all the decaying buildings overlooked by a 12ç castle.

Harold I and his half-brother Harthacnut were both pretty awful too

The part about Charles I is utterly wrong. He was not a bad King, in fact he is still remembered as the Blessed Martyr. He lost both Civil Wars purely because he was reluctant to shed English blood. Had he listened to the advice of Prince Rupert, his nephew and attacked London, he would have won easily. He did not mock anyone's religion, nor did he ever call people losers. In fact, he was hated for his progressive views on religious tolerance. He was killed because he would not become the puppet of a tyrannical regime. His murderer Cromwell (whose own daughter said would go to Hell for his atrocities) wanted to make himself king, but was warned that having just murdered one king, they were ready to kill another. The King's reason for refusing to be a puppet was that his job was to protect the rights of his people. He remains the only King ever to sacrifice his life for our people. Cronwell's uncrowned tyranny was so terrible that after his death and his incompetent son's bungling, Charles I's son was begged to return and rule. Anyone who thinks Charles was a bad man or a bad King has not studied history.

Richard II (r. 1377-1400) was a nasty piece of work

One anecdote that I have heard (and this is probably not true) is that the reason people in the UK sometimes call a toilet 'the John' is because King John was a sh1t.

King John sold the UK to France having first lost lots of France to the French. King Louis of France turned up to take over and... war, battle in Lincoln... then de Marshall had to step in and run the place whilst Henry III grew up. King John lost the crown jewels, seriously, sunk in the Wash. No other king has been called John.

There are two sides to every story. Charles had an opposition of extremists, like Cromwell, who ended as a military dictator, who slaughtered thousands in Scotland, & particularly in Ireland. Stephen was only King in England, as there was no British Empire at that time. Edward 2nds wife took a lover, with whom she opposed her husband. John stole the money raised to pay for his brother Richard's Ransome, so that he could steal the throne. John revoked magna carts as soon as he could, with the Pope's help. Many thousand died on both sides in these religious wars. Her father Henry surely killed many more than Mary. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, a famous saying. Ruling is difficult, there are always enemies out to get you.

💙

Now, now, Tyler. You must know she's not quoting what King Charles I said. She's trying to be witty. We're now back in the first half of the 17th century. Charlie's problem was that he believed in the "Divine Right of Kings". In other words, that the monarch should be an absolute ruler. Like back in the day, before Magna Carta. The equivalent of a modern day Dictator. This did not go down well with the people or the Government. By this time in history an absolutist monarchy was well past its sell by date. He hated that he had to go to the government for money which they refused, so he kept closing down Parliament. This led to the English Civil Wars, his trial, and eventually to his beheading.

Nor did I 😮 so is mine and I'm English

Stephen’s wife was amazing

Why was comment deleted? Can’t we explain to people that any and all English kings prior to the 1600s were not British!!! The English adopted Britishness in this period after the Tudors rose to power. Any “Kings” prior to this were English, Scottish and/or British (Welsh).

Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown. A saying best remembered. As for history, they keep diaries and documents that show us how it was.

Am

I think you have been duped by the makers of this video. Only two of the six are British monarchs: the other 4 are English. The union of the crowns occurred in 1603 so all those kings and queens who reigned before that date were not British monarchs. When reviewing stuff like this it is really important to realise that a lot of it is made by people who, through ignorance, think that English history and British history are one and the same. Scotland does have quite a lot of its own history and a lot of it took place prior to the union of the crowns. An example of this type of issue is the late Queen Elizabeth who was officially referred to as Queen Elizabeth the Second despite her being only the first Queen Elizabeth in Scotland's history. Just be careful is all I'm saying.

do americans not how how history is recorded, do you guys not know about old books, diaries, historians etc lol. OC someone wrote down what happened, often times they documented it themselves.

I disagree with this list personally, I'll give my own: 6. Edward the 8th - forced to abdicate in 1936, pro-Nazi, antisemite, neglected his duties when king. 5. Oliver Cromwell - A despotic individual who did some pretty horrible thing especially in Ireland 4. James the 2nd - forced to abdicate, pissed everyone of about religion, is the reason there were lots of revolts in the 18th century. 3. Henry the 8th - complete and utter despot who fought tones of pointless and unsuccessful wars. 2. Mary the 1st - burnt tones of protestants, allowed England to get pulled into Spain's sphere of influence (she was married to the King of Spain) and she lost Calais, England's last possession in France. 1. John - its pretty obvious.

William the Conqueror was pretty worst. Remember the Harrying of the North? They still do.

Put that poker down you heathens...

Also The Puritans were not persecuted.America is founded on their beliefs .They were narrow minded, bigoted and very cruel.

Henry VIII must be the worst

The records do not state "A red hot poker up the bum" The records state a funnel was inserted into his back passage and a red hot iron inserted into his "Fundament". His screams were heard all over the castle where he had been imprisoned for quite a while.

This is very, very unfair to Charles I and to Mary. Why isn't Elizabeth I on the list? One of the worst of all English monarchs with the possible exception of Henry VIII. Charles I was certainly imprudent, but he was much, much better than the evil commonwealth that followed and deserves to be considered at the very least as a not bad king. Mary was also very imprudent and had she been more careful and heeded the advice of people like Cardinal Pole and others and if she had only executed the really evil people like Cranmer and the like, she might have succeeded in restoring the Church, as her subjects certainly wanted. Presumably, it is the result of the dreadful reign of Elizabeth succeeding in establishing error in England that resulted in Mary's reputation being so bad. As for Stephen, it is more complicated that stated. One of the main reasons many people did not want Matilda is that she was married to Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou and there was historical animosity between the Normans and the Angevins.

So called quotes are not quotes

She's using british ruler very loosely. The only rulers you can consider british rulers are those from James VI of Scotland and first of England and Wales from the union of the crowns. Edward II and King John were just English kings

Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 54BC. I wish you could start here and work your way through the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans. We are only at 1066 and today's English doesn't even exist yet.The peasants spoke Anglo Saxon and the ruling classes spoke French for another 300 years. This is your history.

The king should rule no the bloody fools we got in charge now long live the king 🇬🇧

There wasn’t a british empire in the 12th century, not even a uk, it was just England, wales, Scotland, and Ireland, but I believe the whole monarchy thing is Englands thing

To be an English kings in these periods doesn’t make them British! British in these periods solely described the people who are known as the Welsh. Suggesting anything else is nothing short of denying history and carrying out cultural theft.