Bad Rulers – But maybe not very bad enough? Over the millennia, we have had more than our share of rulers – likely more bad than good, truth be told. Stephen (1135-54): The grandson of William the conqueror might have been tainted and finally weak as it came to battling his cousin Matilda to the crown but was he actually all that bad? I’m surprised by how frequently he makes these kinds of lists; following all he did agree to a truce with Matilda, also to the accession of Henry II. Yes khoa tieng anh van phong, he might have become a courageous warrior, but he was a haughty and cruel competitor to his enemies at the crusades.
He was largely a warrior crusades overseas, and also did little except broke it so as to cover his small forays. Not far out of creating the last ten years, in my view. Henry VII (1485-1509)He did manage to deliver an item of the end to the renowned”Wars of the Roses”, a civil war that had ripped England aside and also cost many lives from the 15th century. However, a lot of men and women forget he was also callous. Worse yet, by the conclusion of the reign, he had been also paranoid and tainted, and enforced taxation on several of the wealthy individuals of England.
Edward VI (1547-53): The son of Henry VIII was a thing of a religious enthusiast, and enforced harsh anti-Catholic legislation around the nation for his decades responsible. Much of this may be blamed and educated that the boy king. James I (1603-25): Rude, disgusting, disgusting, and also a small over-zealous with all the chopping block. But aside from that, not a poor principle? He was a smart and considerate guy, who (due to his faith ) was able to drag Britain into a catastrophic civil war. George IV (1820-30): Not kingly substance – a small primitive loudmouth, who poured scorn to his spouse, had affairs and drunk a lot.