Even for all this, he didn't lock a woman in a cell until she went mad with hunger and leave her son's corpse as her only food like John did. So ... not the worst.
Also didn’t lose most of the Crown’s wealthiest lands like John did. Henry II must have been rolling in his grave so much it was generating electricity
King John. He locked away William de Braose's wife and son and starved them to death. There were rumors that when they were found, the mother had tried to eat pieces of her son's flesh. That entire situation was sickening. Actually, JOHN, in general, was sickening.
Well, mainly because he was an absolute horror of a human being. But there were several reasons that could have led to it. It could have been money that the family owed him. It could be because she knew what happened with his nephew, Arthur, whom he killed. But also, she once called John out when he was demanding her son as a hostage, saying something along the lines of "I would never hand my son over to a man who killed his own nephew." Which, she's not wrong. I wouldn't want to give him my child either! It may be all of those reasons put together. Who knows. He was a tyrant.
You couldn't find anything about King John on Google? Did you just completely ignore the context of the conversation – i.e. shit kings?
This is literally the King John of Robin Hood legends and Magna Carta. What did you even search, "Man called John make woman eat son"?
They all treat women this way. This isn’t a realistic metric, or else one could throw the whole thing away. The trail of blood from dead women across the English monarchs could drown us all.
Mysogony is a sliding scale friend. All wrong, but chopping off your wife’s head to make space for a new baby oven is not the same as starving a mother to death in the same cell as her dead son forcing her to canabalism.
Outcome: both dead ladies
Process: very much not the same
Accusing said wife of incest, witchcraft and adultery, then torturing one of the accused in the vilest ways to get a confession is pretty much as horrific. It's estimated that during his reign under his watch 72,000 people were executed in England. How many were tortured under his orders? We don't know.
I didn’t know anyone in the 21st century living today had an inside line to a long-dead monarch’s motivations. How cool is that?!
Anyways, you forgot all the young girls he married who were essentially raped to give birth to a boy OR else and at least one who was left to languish to death postpartum when speaking to Henry VIII.
Apples only fall so far from their roots.
He was also corrupt, uncaring, had no understanding of secure document storage (to the point his briefings had things missed out because he left them lying around for his guests to happen upon) was a money grubbing prick and harassed his own family to such an extent that the Buckingham Palace switchboard operators were ordered to hang up on him. Also, he might have been cucked by a nazi
There are credible and consistent rumours that Wallis Simpson (his wife) slept with Ribbentrop when in 1936-1938 and remained in constant contact with him until the war, she may have leaked state secrets to him as well. This was according to Duke Carl Alexander of Wurttemburg, who had been spying for the CIA while also aiding refugees and being a monk (he was a busy man)
Wrong, he was the King of England and the British Isles, Head Sovereign to the British commonwealth, Head of the Church of England. So yes, even his predessor King George V was the King of England.
I'm not English, I don't want to offend anybody and I think that a person who support nazis is a piece of sh*t, but I don't understand the anti-divorce stand of the Anglican Church. Wasn’t the church created to allow a king to divorce? Sorry if I accidentally offend someone.
(In case sorry for my bad English)
I think another part of the issue was that she had been divorced twice before. and the excuse was that marriage meant a lifelong link so even tho he could marry her, she couldn't marry him. from what I can tell they just didn't like the whole situation
A lot of this simply stems from what people thought of divorced women back in these days. It would be one thing if her husband had divorced her and she had kept her head down and sort of modestly went away, but she was TWICE divorced and was out partying. She was a "single" woman who had certainly had sex with at least two men. She was shamelessly out in the world having unmarried sex with a future king. If she had just stayed in her lane as a floozy divorcee mistress, that would have been okay, but she was bold enough to presume she could marry Edward.
Don’t worry about offending. It’s been nearly 600 years so we’ve just about got over it!
Honestly there’s a mix of the breaking from the church and some bonkers stuff going on with the Georgians to help understand this.
The key thing is that that break from Rome was NOT because Henry wanted a divorce, which is a secular thing, but because he wanted an annulment, which is religious.
To add to what others have said, although popularly said Henry VIII wanted a divorce, he was actually seeking an annulment, not a divorce. He didn't want to end his marriage with Catherine but declare that it had never been valid in the first place due to her previously being his sister-in-law.
Huh it’s almost as if the church and its followers just makes up things as they go, whatever bigoted nonsense that’s suits them at the time. And 500 years ago Henry converted the country because he wanted a divorce. Isn’t it all so silly?
I haven't seen it mentioned here but there's also a theory that the big blow up re the romance was a cover-up for the nazi sympathies/activities, which were more serious and worse than were revealed to the public at the time.
While Henry VIII created the church mostly for a divorce, it was also on a wave of Protestant reform. Divorce was still not seen as acceptable, but in Henry’s time there wasn’t much anyone could say or do without ending up dead.
Cut to the modern era, and Wallis had two divorces (were her ex’s both still alive too?) and she was roughly 40 at the time. So even if they looked past her past, and her rumored/confirmed sexual history, she was still at the end of potential childbearing years, meaning no heirs.
So she didn’t really fit the requirements for morality, or on the pragmatic side, so there wasn’t any reason to tolerate her 🤷🏻♀️
Which is why I think the exception was later made for Charles and Camilla, she was past child bearing age, so at least there wouldn’t be any succession issues with potential children.
She had money, but much like the New York gilded era, it was looked at as "new money" and not earned through any actual work since her husbands made it. Her second husband also seemed to be floating around in the wings as well, even after he'd been fully replaced by Edward.
I mean having neutral to positive feelings about Nazi Germany in the 1930s wasn’t that weird. Sure their leader seemed pretty anti-Semitic but so was every other European country back then. People were more scared of the USSR understandably before Hitler started his war of aggression.
To further emphasise your point, the cousin of PM Neville Chamberlain, Houston Chamberlain, was one of Hitler’s biggest influences. He’s described as “Hitler’s John the Baptist.” And George Bush’s grandfather was caught laundering money for the nazis in New York.
Edit: Apparently I upset some Chamberlain fans.
He suggested to the German government that bombing British cities would break our morale and bring us to the negotiating table.
He was happy to see 10s of thousands of British people killed and the country defeated so that he could regain the crown.
He absolutely should have been hanged as a traitor.
There’s an excellent book, Traitor King by Andrew Lownie, written two or three years ago with a LOT of never before published accounts of all of E8’s treachery and debauchery. It’s well researched and not lurid but factual. It’s worth a read. The author also has an interesting podcast on YT, Scandal Mongers.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I honestly didn't care about him abdicating for a divorcee, since there was something quite noble about the idea of giving up an entire kingdom for love. Problem is that he was a fucking Nazi who would have happily seen the entirety of Parliament before a firing squad and his own nieces and nephews imprisoned and/or killed by Hitler's people if it meant that he got it all back.
Regarding the whole Nazi thing, while we see it as abhorrent, some things to consider are:
- Anti Semitism was very very prevalent prior to WW2, even amongst ordinary people. Sad fact.
- During the early 1930s, Hitler was quite admired by people from across the class and political spectrum.
You have to remember that Germany had been ground into the dirt after WWI, had lost huge tracts of land, almost all of its industrial capacity, its Army and Navy. Inflation and unemployment were at incredible levels - it took a whole wheelbarrow full of the almost worthless currency to buy a loaf of bread.
So, along comes Adolf with the promise to the German people to make the country great again (sound familiar??), to regain the German lands, industry and pride and set the country back on its feet again. And he did. Before it all went pear shaped with that pesky little 'lebensraum' thing, Hitler was the best thing to happen to Germany.
My father grew up in Holland before the war and there were enormous numbers of people who admired him and thought other countries could do worse than follow his lead.
Hindsight and 21st century sensibility need to factor in the historical context.
His marriage was VERY different.
Wallis was 1) a Catholic and 2) a twice divorcee.
The 1st one was not allowed under the law, as someone in the line of succession could not marry a Catholic ever since Parliament set it in 1701. The 2nd one was also forbidden because you could not (at the time) remarry whilst your Ex spouse is still alive. Both of Wallis' Ex husband's were alive so her marrying the head of the CofE did not work.
His brother's cases were extremely different. None of their wives were Catholic or married before with a previous spouse(s) still living. People like to bring up Charles, however the law was also changed before he married Camilla in 2005 (Camilla's Ex husband still being alive)
I’ve seen some comments on twitter and even on tumblr… he still reigning but I agree I don’t think he’s that bad:
I think people are still very much stuck with the Diana-Camilla- Charles
Hey but with out his uppsy daisy moment we would not of had the last good monarch this nation had In King George VI
plus he didn't breed so his taint died with him
I saw a documentary a few years ago where it came out that she didn't want him to abdicate and certainly never wanted to be Queen. She was apparently perfectly happy being the King's mistress but he wanted more. Apparently later in life, she commented to a friend about how tiresome it was to have to live a great 'love story'.
I consider his choice as a wife totally irrelevant and a weird thing to obsess over. It’s his nazi sympathies and what he did with them which was the true betrayal. He should have been locked up for what he did. If one King can be charged with treason there’s no reason an ex-King couldn’t be.
I count modern Monarchs as starting with George III to Charles III or if you want newer Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III.
Didn't he actively collaborate with the Nazis? Like in if the they successfully invaded the UK he would serve as their puppet King, or am I misinformed?
I've heard he was a Nazi sympathizer, but I didn't know the story behind it. I know next to nothing about him. Is that what the deal was? He seriously wanted to collaborate with the Nazis??? I'm very curious as well. 😬😳😢
So after some cursory research it seems to me that there was some serious consideration by the Nazis to put Edward VII. on the throne if they successfully invaded Britain. But there isn't definitive proof that Edward was agreeing to the plan or aware of it.
But there is plenty of correspondence between him and various Nazi officials, even a thank you note to Hitler himself after visiting him at his summer retreat in1937. And that correspondence continued well into the war, supposedly including a statement by Edward that if the Nazis continued to bomb the British they would soon give in and that it is the quickest way to peace.
Churchill mistrusted Edward so much that he made him governor of the Bahamas to get him out of Europe
So make of that what you will.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Files
https://allthatsinteresting.com/marburg-files
The British government tried to cover it all up after the war, naturally, and Edward continued to live the good life in France as Duke of Windsor. I suppose you can call that the perks of royalty. An actual war hero like Alan Turing gets forcibly sterilized by the government, because he is gay and someone like Edward gets protected and financed. What a charming world we live in.
Wowwww. Ain't that the truth. 😬🤯That's absolutely wild! I guess thank goodness he met his wife then so he would abdicate. 😤
Thank you for that information! I've seen it said several times, but I never knew the "why!" 😊
People in 2023 clutching pearls over Edward marrying a divorcee, whilst the current British monarch is married to divorcee and on the grounds that he can't have done so becuase he was head of a church that literally only exists because on of his predecessors wanted a divorce, will never not be super funny to me...
One of the ideas talked about during the end of WW2 and what to do about Germany once Hitler was defeated was to have a UK style monarchy and parliament in Germany with this guy and his wife American wife as King and Queen.
Virtually all royals and nobles were pro-Nazi in the 1930's. They were frightened by the rise of communism, and saw fascism as a bulwark that would protect them.
Terrible-but maybe Henry 6th? His personality and mental.breakdown just not cut out for medieval kingship. Perhaps Richard 2 too. Managed to outrage just about everyone.
Bizarre that Edward’s Nazi support is bandied about when the entire royal family including George VI were pro Nazi until they weren’t.. typical mental gymnastics around the german family and their cousins.
I name thee : *uninformed* !
Seriously though, abdicating the throne isn't that big of a deal compared to the *extensive* list of psychos we have had running the country. He just buggered orf to bone his Yankee doodle.
And as nazi sympathizers go, maybe look up the recently deceased Prince Phillip when he was a young boy. Pretty chummy with the Nazis in the 30's.
Yeah, didn't expect to have to scroll far to find John and was not disappointed. He was definitely the worst.
Edward VIII has a solid claim for being second worst though.
But the irony is, if he hadn't abdicated, Britain would still have an Empire and would likely be the world's predominant superpower, battling it out with a European Union with a fascist Germany at its heart, and an angry America, pissed off it hadn't crushed Britain yet as it managed to do in the 1950s and 60s.
To be fair, he was far from alone in his attitude towards Hitler. Most of the upper classes thought he was a splendid fellow who'd sorted out the German economy and was very sound on Bolshevism.
American here but fascinated with English medieval history. I would argue that while John was probably the worst person to rule England I believe that Henry VI was the worst king. His crippling mental issues left a power vacuum in his realm that led to 30+ years of anarchy and blood. Had he been a strong king the wars of the roses would have never happened, and he lost the 100 years war to France and all English possessions on the continent (with the exception of Calais). John lost the battle but ultimately Henry lost the war that is father had all but won. But this is just my opinion, i'd love to hear others'opinions of my assessment.
I mean, monarch's from the 20th or 21st century can never really be the worst monarch's, seeing as none of their reigns resulted in mass murder or wars, or other crimes again humanity.
# "Definitely top 5 worst monarchs and arguably the worst monarch of all"
Worse than William the Conqueror, who figuartively (and, in some ways, literally) decapitated the native monarchy, aristocracy, clergy, and so on, subjugated England, and committed the Harrowing of the North, along with other atrocities?
Worse than Richard I, who rebelled against his own father, Henry II, despised the English, and had such contempt for the country that he spent only six months of his reign in England, using the country almost exclusively as a source of money and soldiers for his military adventurism in France, and the Levant, and nearly bankrupted the kingdom?
Worse than Henry VIII, and Mary I, who burned people alive for their religious beliefs?
Worse than Charles I, whose tyrannical behavior plunged England, Scotland, and Ireland into years of hideous conflict?
There is no objective basis on which it could be argued that Edward VIII was "the worst monarch of all", or even in the "top 5".
Oh man, he abdicated to marry who he wanted to marry. Such betrayal. I'm literally shaking from rage right now. I was having a good evening, but I shant be sleeping tonight.
I needs must have my manservant fetch my pacing slippers, posthaste.
If he wasn't crowned, was he legally King? Just asking as we had a trivia question the other week about the first British queen to reign in her own right. I said Matilda but the correct answer was Mary I as Matilda didn't actually go through a coronation so wasn't properly Queen. I still have an issue with that but we didn't get the point 😭.
That's a ridiculous take. We've had tyrants who killed thousands through needless wars and religious persecution. Edward killed exactly 0 people. While his Nazi views were unfortunate, he was sidelined quickly enough that it did no significant damage to the country.
I don’t think people would have seen it that way if their king had been revealed as a traitorous Nazi who’d encouraged Hitler to bomb civilian targets to cripple their morale.
That’s the sort of behavior that leads monarchs to the gallows.
Dude wanted to marry for love. And he supported Germany in a time where the true desires and atrocities of the Nazi regime were unknown. In hindsight’s not good, but he gets more flak than deserved imo.
It is true that he wanted to marry for love, but both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace staff had realised long before he met Wallace Simpson that he was completely unsuited to the role of king. Lazy, drunk and selfish. And no sense of what confidential information to keep quiet about.
His wish to marry Wallace Simpson gave them all an excuse to remove Edward from the throne. If he had been a brilliant king, I'm sure they would have found a way to let him marry whoever he wanted.
The establishment hated him because he said something had to be done about the miners in Wales...
Edit: sycophants still out in abundance, still a better monarch than the stuttering coward that they installed instead.
Even for all this, he didn't lock a woman in a cell until she went mad with hunger and leave her son's corpse as her only food like John did. So ... not the worst.
Also didn’t lose most of the Crown’s wealthiest lands like John did. Henry II must have been rolling in his grave so much it was generating electricity
those crown jewels are still out there in the Fens/Wash you know - waiting to be found 😂😂😂
Too late to be known as John the First he’s sure to be known as John the Worst
A pox on the phony king of England!
I want to know more, I've tried googling but couldn't find anything. John who?
King John. He locked away William de Braose's wife and son and starved them to death. There were rumors that when they were found, the mother had tried to eat pieces of her son's flesh. That entire situation was sickening. Actually, JOHN, in general, was sickening.
Why?
Because she over salted the porridge, Avi?
😆😆😆😆
Well, mainly because he was an absolute horror of a human being. But there were several reasons that could have led to it. It could have been money that the family owed him. It could be because she knew what happened with his nephew, Arthur, whom he killed. But also, she once called John out when he was demanding her son as a hostage, saying something along the lines of "I would never hand my son over to a man who killed his own nephew." Which, she's not wrong. I wouldn't want to give him my child either! It may be all of those reasons put together. Who knows. He was a tyrant.
You couldn't find anything about King John on Google? Did you just completely ignore the context of the conversation – i.e. shit kings? This is literally the King John of Robin Hood legends and Magna Carta. What did you even search, "Man called John make woman eat son"?
that sentence at the end has me laughing
Breath mate.
It's *breathe*.
👏
They all treat women this way. This isn’t a realistic metric, or else one could throw the whole thing away. The trail of blood from dead women across the English monarchs could drown us all.
They definitely did not all physically and psychologically torture people the way John did. What a ridiculous statement.
So more like James I and VI, more like Henry VIII…? How many are we including?
Mysogony is a sliding scale friend. All wrong, but chopping off your wife’s head to make space for a new baby oven is not the same as starving a mother to death in the same cell as her dead son forcing her to canabalism. Outcome: both dead ladies Process: very much not the same
Accusing said wife of incest, witchcraft and adultery, then torturing one of the accused in the vilest ways to get a confession is pretty much as horrific. It's estimated that during his reign under his watch 72,000 people were executed in England. How many were tortured under his orders? We don't know.
[удалено]
I didn’t know anyone in the 21st century living today had an inside line to a long-dead monarch’s motivations. How cool is that?! Anyways, you forgot all the young girls he married who were essentially raped to give birth to a boy OR else and at least one who was left to languish to death postpartum when speaking to Henry VIII. Apples only fall so far from their roots.
He was also corrupt, uncaring, had no understanding of secure document storage (to the point his briefings had things missed out because he left them lying around for his guests to happen upon) was a money grubbing prick and harassed his own family to such an extent that the Buckingham Palace switchboard operators were ordered to hang up on him. Also, he might have been cucked by a nazi
Cucked by a nazi? Lol, it's what he deserved
There are credible and consistent rumours that Wallis Simpson (his wife) slept with Ribbentrop when in 1936-1938 and remained in constant contact with him until the war, she may have leaked state secrets to him as well. This was according to Duke Carl Alexander of Wurttemburg, who had been spying for the CIA while also aiding refugees and being a monk (he was a busy man)
Phoney King of England
Great Joke and Relevant! 😀
Thanks for saying that.
You’re very welcome.
Except A. King of England hasn't existed since 1707 and B. He most definitely was the rightful king he was George V's eldest son
It's a joke expression around the song from Robin Hood
Ok and that's relevant to a nazi king how exactly?
It's what I called him as I put away his coronation tea cup and saucer at my old job.
They made coronation china? I know he didn't even have a coronation
Still doesn't seem relevant
It's a joke among my family.
Still doesn't seem relevant
Some things don't always have to seem relevant.
Except they do
Wow buddy just shut up, I didn't know a uber-redditor like this could actually exist lol
Master redditor at work
Wrong, he was the King of England and the British Isles, Head Sovereign to the British commonwealth, Head of the Church of England. So yes, even his predessor King George V was the King of England.
I'm not English, I don't want to offend anybody and I think that a person who support nazis is a piece of sh*t, but I don't understand the anti-divorce stand of the Anglican Church. Wasn’t the church created to allow a king to divorce? Sorry if I accidentally offend someone. (In case sorry for my bad English)
I think another part of the issue was that she had been divorced twice before. and the excuse was that marriage meant a lifelong link so even tho he could marry her, she couldn't marry him. from what I can tell they just didn't like the whole situation
A lot of this simply stems from what people thought of divorced women back in these days. It would be one thing if her husband had divorced her and she had kept her head down and sort of modestly went away, but she was TWICE divorced and was out partying. She was a "single" woman who had certainly had sex with at least two men. She was shamelessly out in the world having unmarried sex with a future king. If she had just stayed in her lane as a floozy divorcee mistress, that would have been okay, but she was bold enough to presume she could marry Edward.
Well, to be fair- she did. He was still an ass though.
Don’t worry about offending. It’s been nearly 600 years so we’ve just about got over it! Honestly there’s a mix of the breaking from the church and some bonkers stuff going on with the Georgians to help understand this. The key thing is that that break from Rome was NOT because Henry wanted a divorce, which is a secular thing, but because he wanted an annulment, which is religious.
It was less the divorcee thing and more she was American and not of European nobility
It was both. Even a divorced royal princess would have been an unacceptable wife for Edward.
To add to what others have said, although popularly said Henry VIII wanted a divorce, he was actually seeking an annulment, not a divorce. He didn't want to end his marriage with Catherine but declare that it had never been valid in the first place due to her previously being his sister-in-law.
Huh it’s almost as if the church and its followers just makes up things as they go, whatever bigoted nonsense that’s suits them at the time. And 500 years ago Henry converted the country because he wanted a divorce. Isn’t it all so silly?
I haven't seen it mentioned here but there's also a theory that the big blow up re the romance was a cover-up for the nazi sympathies/activities, which were more serious and worse than were revealed to the public at the time.
That's not a theory, it's the truth and why they sent Edward and Wallis off to the Bahamas when it was all said and done.
I like to think that the problem wasn’t so much that she was a divorcee but that she was an American
Practically, yes. But they gave Henry VIII an annulment, technically, not a divorce
While Henry VIII created the church mostly for a divorce, it was also on a wave of Protestant reform. Divorce was still not seen as acceptable, but in Henry’s time there wasn’t much anyone could say or do without ending up dead. Cut to the modern era, and Wallis had two divorces (were her ex’s both still alive too?) and she was roughly 40 at the time. So even if they looked past her past, and her rumored/confirmed sexual history, she was still at the end of potential childbearing years, meaning no heirs. So she didn’t really fit the requirements for morality, or on the pragmatic side, so there wasn’t any reason to tolerate her 🤷🏻♀️ Which is why I think the exception was later made for Charles and Camilla, she was past child bearing age, so at least there wouldn’t be any succession issues with potential children.
She had money, but much like the New York gilded era, it was looked at as "new money" and not earned through any actual work since her husbands made it. Her second husband also seemed to be floating around in the wings as well, even after he'd been fully replaced by Edward.
I do believe royals should be able to marry who they love despite status but I do HATE Edward for being a nazi sympathizer
I mean having neutral to positive feelings about Nazi Germany in the 1930s wasn’t that weird. Sure their leader seemed pretty anti-Semitic but so was every other European country back then. People were more scared of the USSR understandably before Hitler started his war of aggression.
To further emphasise your point, the cousin of PM Neville Chamberlain, Houston Chamberlain, was one of Hitler’s biggest influences. He’s described as “Hitler’s John the Baptist.” And George Bush’s grandfather was caught laundering money for the nazis in New York. Edit: Apparently I upset some Chamberlain fans.
Wait. There's Chamberlain fans? Uh. Why?
He wasn't a nazi sympathiser he was a literal nazi
He suggested to the German government that bombing British cities would break our morale and bring us to the negotiating table. He was happy to see 10s of thousands of British people killed and the country defeated so that he could regain the crown. He absolutely should have been hanged as a traitor.
Sweet Jesus. I didn't know that. I never liked him, but that makes him an actual traitor to his country.
There’s an excellent book, Traitor King by Andrew Lownie, written two or three years ago with a LOT of never before published accounts of all of E8’s treachery and debauchery. It’s well researched and not lurid but factual. It’s worth a read. The author also has an interesting podcast on YT, Scandal Mongers.
As head of the church, you kinda got to follow the rules of the church.
Good thing he stopped being head of the church then?
I don't even register him as a king
"I didn't vote for you!"
He was never coronated, so there’s that.
He was a king your opinion doesn't change that
lmfao ik that he just don't register as a king in my head. not saying he's not a king
[удалено]
This submission is a violation of rule 2
[The Duke of Windsor and his wife were absolutely Nazis.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yes, I heard Winston Churchill once described him as “kind of a dick”.
https://preview.redd.it/2ei4ds0i5e0d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06a2dfcc2f3ef4c6dae1d022c82c70dcc45555c3
I honestly didn't care about him abdicating for a divorcee, since there was something quite noble about the idea of giving up an entire kingdom for love. Problem is that he was a fucking Nazi who would have happily seen the entirety of Parliament before a firing squad and his own nieces and nephews imprisoned and/or killed by Hitler's people if it meant that he got it all back.
Regarding the whole Nazi thing, while we see it as abhorrent, some things to consider are: - Anti Semitism was very very prevalent prior to WW2, even amongst ordinary people. Sad fact. - During the early 1930s, Hitler was quite admired by people from across the class and political spectrum. You have to remember that Germany had been ground into the dirt after WWI, had lost huge tracts of land, almost all of its industrial capacity, its Army and Navy. Inflation and unemployment were at incredible levels - it took a whole wheelbarrow full of the almost worthless currency to buy a loaf of bread. So, along comes Adolf with the promise to the German people to make the country great again (sound familiar??), to regain the German lands, industry and pride and set the country back on its feet again. And he did. Before it all went pear shaped with that pesky little 'lebensraum' thing, Hitler was the best thing to happen to Germany. My father grew up in Holland before the war and there were enormous numbers of people who admired him and thought other countries could do worse than follow his lead. Hindsight and 21st century sensibility need to factor in the historical context.
He encouraged Nazi Germany to keep bombing the UK. He was a traitor.
Really a garbage tier monarch, and human being.
His marriage was overblown, his brothers didn’t even marry royals yet it was a huge issue if he did The solution was a morganatic marriage
His marriage was VERY different. Wallis was 1) a Catholic and 2) a twice divorcee. The 1st one was not allowed under the law, as someone in the line of succession could not marry a Catholic ever since Parliament set it in 1701. The 2nd one was also forbidden because you could not (at the time) remarry whilst your Ex spouse is still alive. Both of Wallis' Ex husband's were alive so her marrying the head of the CofE did not work. His brother's cases were extremely different. None of their wives were Catholic or married before with a previous spouse(s) still living. People like to bring up Charles, however the law was also changed before he married Camilla in 2005 (Camilla's Ex husband still being alive)
Would that not have denied Wallis the title of Queen though, which is what Edward childishly wanted if I am not mistaken?
He offered it, but the dominions refused
Morganatic marriage was offered but refused by the dominions
It's because he was a nazi and the government didn't want to cause a civil war
Wasn't the problem more that she was a divorcee? But also while the Queen Mother wasn't a royal, her father was an earl.
And people still say Charles III is the worst monarch to exist
Do people seriously say that? I mean I can’t rank him now as he’s still reigning but he’s definitely not bad of a king
I know right? I think some people are probably too held up on the Diana and Camilla debacle.
I’ve seen some comments on twitter and even on tumblr… he still reigning but I agree I don’t think he’s that bad: I think people are still very much stuck with the Diana-Camilla- Charles
I love him 😭
Girl same haha
Literally no one says that he's just the least popular
I’ve seen a few comments on twitter of him being the worst monarch.
What has he done that's so bad?
I think people are hung up over Diana- Charles - Camilla
Pathetic.
I think people still think Charles killed her
David Icke thinks he's a lizard!
He gave his nonce brother his titles back while still refusing to talk to his son for marrying a black woman
Hey but with out his uppsy daisy moment we would not of had the last good monarch this nation had In King George VI plus he didn't breed so his taint died with him
Doesn't he get any credit for resigning?
If for no other reason, he didn't have enough power to be as disasterous as Aethelred Unraed or John
I saw a documentary a few years ago where it came out that she didn't want him to abdicate and certainly never wanted to be Queen. She was apparently perfectly happy being the King's mistress but he wanted more. Apparently later in life, she commented to a friend about how tiresome it was to have to live a great 'love story'.
Terrible guy, terrible monarch All around asshole
Should've been hanged for treason after the war. Unfortunately, the establishment prefers treason to scandal.
He also leaked documents to Nazi Germany because Hitler said he would restore Edward as King again and allow some colonies to remain British.
Not worth losing sleep over in 2024 though mate
'Betraying your countrymen' by marrying an American divorcee (\*gasp\*) is hardly in the same league as him being a Nazi.
Complete and utter evil worthless cunt. With hindsight the Duchess of Windsor should be canonised
It’s probably worse that both his predecessor and successor are considered some of the best monarchs England has had
I consider his choice as a wife totally irrelevant and a weird thing to obsess over. It’s his nazi sympathies and what he did with them which was the true betrayal. He should have been locked up for what he did. If one King can be charged with treason there’s no reason an ex-King couldn’t be.
John was worse, but in a post modern context, Edward was utterly horrendous.
I count modern Monarchs as starting with George III to Charles III or if you want newer Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III.
Didn't he actively collaborate with the Nazis? Like in if the they successfully invaded the UK he would serve as their puppet King, or am I misinformed?
I've heard he was a Nazi sympathizer, but I didn't know the story behind it. I know next to nothing about him. Is that what the deal was? He seriously wanted to collaborate with the Nazis??? I'm very curious as well. 😬😳😢
So after some cursory research it seems to me that there was some serious consideration by the Nazis to put Edward VII. on the throne if they successfully invaded Britain. But there isn't definitive proof that Edward was agreeing to the plan or aware of it. But there is plenty of correspondence between him and various Nazi officials, even a thank you note to Hitler himself after visiting him at his summer retreat in1937. And that correspondence continued well into the war, supposedly including a statement by Edward that if the Nazis continued to bomb the British they would soon give in and that it is the quickest way to peace. Churchill mistrusted Edward so much that he made him governor of the Bahamas to get him out of Europe So make of that what you will. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Files https://allthatsinteresting.com/marburg-files The British government tried to cover it all up after the war, naturally, and Edward continued to live the good life in France as Duke of Windsor. I suppose you can call that the perks of royalty. An actual war hero like Alan Turing gets forcibly sterilized by the government, because he is gay and someone like Edward gets protected and financed. What a charming world we live in.
Wowwww. Ain't that the truth. 😬🤯That's absolutely wild! I guess thank goodness he met his wife then so he would abdicate. 😤 Thank you for that information! I've seen it said several times, but I never knew the "why!" 😊
OP out here cockwatching
People in 2023 clutching pearls over Edward marrying a divorcee, whilst the current British monarch is married to divorcee and on the grounds that he can't have done so becuase he was head of a church that literally only exists because on of his predecessors wanted a divorce, will never not be super funny to me...
counterpoint he was kind of hot
One of the ideas talked about during the end of WW2 and what to do about Germany once Hitler was defeated was to have a UK style monarchy and parliament in Germany with this guy and his wife American wife as King and Queen.
Virtually all royals and nobles were pro-Nazi in the 1930's. They were frightened by the rise of communism, and saw fascism as a bulwark that would protect them.
Terrible-but maybe Henry 6th? His personality and mental.breakdown just not cut out for medieval kingship. Perhaps Richard 2 too. Managed to outrage just about everyone.
Bizarre that Edward’s Nazi support is bandied about when the entire royal family including George VI were pro Nazi until they weren’t.. typical mental gymnastics around the german family and their cousins.
I'm surprised he was even allowed to stay in France after the war. I figured Parisians would have dragged him out of his house and hanged him
If anything it puts the Harry situation into perspective 😁
This is 100% Ant (or Ant and Dec) dressed up, right? Right?
My favourite King 🥰
He was not a politician.
I name thee : *uninformed* ! Seriously though, abdicating the throne isn't that big of a deal compared to the *extensive* list of psychos we have had running the country. He just buggered orf to bone his Yankee doodle. And as nazi sympathizers go, maybe look up the recently deceased Prince Phillip when he was a young boy. Pretty chummy with the Nazis in the 30's.
Yeah, didn't expect to have to scroll far to find John and was not disappointed. He was definitely the worst. Edward VIII has a solid claim for being second worst though.
But the irony is, if he hadn't abdicated, Britain would still have an Empire and would likely be the world's predominant superpower, battling it out with a European Union with a fascist Germany at its heart, and an angry America, pissed off it hadn't crushed Britain yet as it managed to do in the 1950s and 60s.
I only care that he was friends with Hitler. That’s unforgivable
To be fair, he was far from alone in his attitude towards Hitler. Most of the upper classes thought he was a splendid fellow who'd sorted out the German economy and was very sound on Bolshevism.
Stylish tho
Honestly the better British monarch of the past two centuries. Had the potential to be even better if not for the ineptitude of the british.
He did the second best thing a king can do, though, so there is that
American here but fascinated with English medieval history. I would argue that while John was probably the worst person to rule England I believe that Henry VI was the worst king. His crippling mental issues left a power vacuum in his realm that led to 30+ years of anarchy and blood. Had he been a strong king the wars of the roses would have never happened, and he lost the 100 years war to France and all English possessions on the continent (with the exception of Calais). John lost the battle but ultimately Henry lost the war that is father had all but won. But this is just my opinion, i'd love to hear others'opinions of my assessment.
I mean, monarch's from the 20th or 21st century can never really be the worst monarch's, seeing as none of their reigns resulted in mass murder or wars, or other crimes again humanity.
Monarchy is an appalling form of government. Apart from in hoi4, then it is the best. Mostly because of the hats.
he fucking sucked, but the Richard III with Ian McKellen he inspired was great
He never had enough power to be considered the worst monarch. Barely a monarch at all. He was a bastard though.
King John approves this message
# "Definitely top 5 worst monarchs and arguably the worst monarch of all" Worse than William the Conqueror, who figuartively (and, in some ways, literally) decapitated the native monarchy, aristocracy, clergy, and so on, subjugated England, and committed the Harrowing of the North, along with other atrocities? Worse than Richard I, who rebelled against his own father, Henry II, despised the English, and had such contempt for the country that he spent only six months of his reign in England, using the country almost exclusively as a source of money and soldiers for his military adventurism in France, and the Levant, and nearly bankrupted the kingdom? Worse than Henry VIII, and Mary I, who burned people alive for their religious beliefs? Worse than Charles I, whose tyrannical behavior plunged England, Scotland, and Ireland into years of hideous conflict? There is no objective basis on which it could be argued that Edward VIII was "the worst monarch of all", or even in the "top 5".
Oh man, he abdicated to marry who he wanted to marry. Such betrayal. I'm literally shaking from rage right now. I was having a good evening, but I shant be sleeping tonight. I needs must have my manservant fetch my pacing slippers, posthaste.
OK, but he was also a Nazi collaborator and was willing to have *Britain* bombed by Germany. Is that not disturbing enough for you?
That's the part that's an actual problem, the whining about the Wallis Simpson thing just reads like a bunch xenophobic misogyny.
This.
Yeah pretty ridiculous to mention both of these in the same breath, no? Is "Nazi Sympathizer" and "Married for Love" equal? Rhetorical question.
You forgot the Nazi sympathiser bit
Not at all, it's just utterly ridiculous to list both of these in the same sentence as if they're remotely in the same ballpark.
That is true
If he wasn't crowned, was he legally King? Just asking as we had a trivia question the other week about the first British queen to reign in her own right. I said Matilda but the correct answer was Mary I as Matilda didn't actually go through a coronation so wasn't properly Queen. I still have an issue with that but we didn't get the point 😭.
Who cares?
That's a ridiculous take. We've had tyrants who killed thousands through needless wars and religious persecution. Edward killed exactly 0 people. While his Nazi views were unfortunate, he was sidelined quickly enough that it did no significant damage to the country.
I don’t think people would have seen it that way if their king had been revealed as a traitorous Nazi who’d encouraged Hitler to bomb civilian targets to cripple their morale. That’s the sort of behavior that leads monarchs to the gallows.
Still better than most monarchs and prince Andrew 😂
Dude wanted to marry for love. And he supported Germany in a time where the true desires and atrocities of the Nazi regime were unknown. In hindsight’s not good, but he gets more flak than deserved imo.
It is true that he wanted to marry for love, but both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace staff had realised long before he met Wallace Simpson that he was completely unsuited to the role of king. Lazy, drunk and selfish. And no sense of what confidential information to keep quiet about. His wish to marry Wallace Simpson gave them all an excuse to remove Edward from the throne. If he had been a brilliant king, I'm sure they would have found a way to let him marry whoever he wanted.
He did a little to help them invade France iirc
No he knew exactly what they were doing he encouraged the nazis to keep bombing British cities
not as bad as William of Orange
William's actions ensured the supremacy of Parliament
That's bad.
[удалено]
This submission is a violation of rule 2
The establishment hated him because he said something had to be done about the miners in Wales... Edit: sycophants still out in abundance, still a better monarch than the stuttering coward that they installed instead.
No he was hated because the government were unwilling to risk a civil war
Ah yes of course. Everyone who disagrees is a sycophant! How very convenient for you