Royally bad rulers

Murdering, womanising, tyrannical warmongering - even Britain's most successful monarchs have had their off days.

But some of Britain's Kings and Queens never balanced the occasional infamous act with popular adoration or military success.

A debate being held by English Heritage seeks to answer the question of which British monarch should be considered the biggest failure.

A panel of experts has narrowed the long list to a controversial worst three.

EDWARD II

After being forced to abdicate, Edward was imprisoned and brutally murdered

Edward ruled from 1307-1327. In that time he not only lost the war with Scotland that his father started but was also imprisoned by his estranged wife and forced to abdicate on grounds of incompetence.

Historian Alison Weir nominated Edward II. The charges are as follows:

• A poor soldier during the war with Scotland.
• Saw English defeat by Robert the Bruce in 1314, therefore failing to realize his fathers dream of a united Britain.
• Irritated the nobility by lavishing money and rewards on his male favourites.
• Forced to abdicate on grounds of incompetence following imprisonment by his own wife's army.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS

Mary was next in line to the English throne at the time of her execution

Scotland's queen from 1542 to 1567 managed to be implicated in murder and treason, forced into exile, imprisoned for 19 years and executed.

Historian Sarah Gristwood nominated Mary, Queen of Scots. The charges are:

• Suspected involvement in the murder of husband (and second cousin) Henry Stuart at Kirk o'Field in 1565.
• Marriage only three months after the murder to the Earl of Bothwell, also a suspect in the murder. This caused Scotland's Protestant Lords to rise against her.
• Decision to flee to England, where she thought Elizabeth I would protect her, but where she was imprisoned for 19 years.
• Suspected involvement in numerous plots to assassinate the English queen, eventually leading to a trial for treason - and execution.

GEORGE IV

George became obese from eating one too many lavish royal banquets

The Playboy prince ruled Britain as Prince Regent during his father George III's madness and as King from 1820-1830, following his father's death. Despite seeing Britain's victory in the Napoleonic Wars, George's reign was notable mainly for his lavish lifestyle and womanising tendencies.

Historian Martyn Downer nominated George IV. These are the charges:

• Serial womaniser.
• Scandals with his mistresses and extravagant spending while Britain suffered the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.
• Married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick to please his father and clear his debts.
• Barred his (by then estranged) wife from his coronation.

---

Should Ethelred be included for his lack of readiness? Was Henry VIII too prone to lose his head? Here's who you think has been the worst British monarch.

Victora - for overseeing the ethnic cleansing of nearly 3 million of her Irish subjects in the mid 1800s. One million starved to death and another two million left for America. The Famine Queen
Maurice, London

I`d say the whole lot of them as they all seem corrupt in some ways. In more recent times I`d nominate King Edward VII as other than giving his name to a pack of cigars what did he do ? Had a bundle of mistresses .Must have led his long suffering wife a merry dance. A real cad and a bounder. A waste of space.
Roger McDermaid, Edinburgh

Pound for pound it is without question Mary I as she failed in every single aspect of the job and will only be remembered for loosing our foreign lands and burning half the nation. Votes should also go to George IV and Edward II
Daniel Cure, Kingswinford

Vortigern? Legindarily to blame for the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the 5th century. May as well start at the beginning. But it might be a more difficult exercise to thing of one who couldn't be nominated, at least before 1914.
Chris, Sheffield

George I. He didn't want to come here and couldn't speak a word of English. For sheer cold-blooded cruelty his treatment of his wife and later his daughter-in-law takes some beating. No wonder the Jacobites did their best to get rid of him.
Emily, Carlisle

Aethelraed II - popularly known as Ethelred the Unready. (978-1016) Murdered his half-brother to get the throne; married a Norman, ultimately leading to William's invasion, and failed to stop the Viking attacks - in fact encouraged them by paying them off!
Alan Marson, Aberdeen, Scotland

How about James VII & II. Ruled for only 4 years to 1689 and as a result of changing his religion ended up being forced to abdicate the throne leading to the Jacobean wars which would blight Protestant - Catholic relations almost to this day!!!
Craig Barr, Lytham

Henry IV part II. For being only half the man his father was!
Paul Morley, Solihull, England

How about Henry VIII: murderer, iconoclast, war-monger, syphilitic, destroyer of centuries of cultural and artistic heritage and left England virtually bankrupt to boot!
Sean D. Lynch, Haywards Heath, England

Richard I gets my vote. He spoke no or Little English, and during his 10 year reign spent less than 6 months in the country.
Paul Barber, Chertsey, Surrey

Probably James II for me. He had it all, including adoration (New York was named after him, sympathy from his father's execution but as with all bigots (or as in his case bullies that then gain power) he wanted too much too fast and was unable to take his subjects with him. Even his own brother, charles II predicted that James would lose the crown in 3 years Came to thrown 1685.... Lost crown 1688
Gary Woolton, Dudley

It has to be Stephen I - a violent and arrogant usurper who plunged England into an unnecessary and brutal civil war, and then once he had the throne couldn't be bothered to ensure the succession and handed it to the son of his enemy! Although Mary I is certainly a contender - losing France for the sake of a good-looking Spaniard.
Kathy Toms, Ivybridge, Devon

Charles I for his vainglorious mismanagement of almost everything - in a close run contest with his son James II. The Stuarts are by far the worst dynasty.
Peter Lewiston, London, England

I think it was either King John (something to do with Robin Hood), or Richard III (Something to do with Laurence Olivier). Or it might have been King Canute - was he the same one as the one who lost his crown in the Wash? ...it was something to do with the sea, anyway.
Charles Nightingale, Felixstowe, England

Lady Jane Grey has got to be up there: not for being bad but for being so DIM. People with entire armies got worked over by the Tudors, so why she thought she was in with a chance is a mystery. Add to that the fact she picked a fight with Mary, possibly the most vindictive of them all, and the case for a serious lack of nous is complete.
SImon Jones, London, UK

I am quite shocked Charles I has not been nominated, he managed to make the general public he rules over unite and despise him.
Chris Malin, Stourbridge, UK

Edward VIII must be in the reckoning, if only as a quitter.
Alistair Adams, Giffnock, Scotland

How about William II who according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicles was "hated by almost all his people" and who's accidental death was seen as an act of god! I hope that I am remembered more kindly.
Alan Leal, Northampton, UK