Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard III’s Body Found? (310 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Were any of these people actually good? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    By today's standards we'd consider basically all of these royals to be brutal dictators.  How popular is Bashar al-Assad?  

    •  Actually... (4+ / 0-)

      Edward III was probably a pretty good ruler, as long as you weren't Jewish.  And Elizabeth I ruled with an eye toward what was good for "her" people, at least some of the time.  And Charles II -- even as he struggled with Parliament over some of the same issues that his father did -- he reigned through and supported some really important scientific and artistic breakthroughs.

      But the royal probably most responsible for a reasoned and non-authoritarian monarchy was  the Prince Consort Prince Albert.  He may have been the best monarch the British didn't have, who did more to maintain the institution of monarchy and help Britain move into modern notions about the treatment of its people.  

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:22:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really like Charles II, to be honest (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nellgwen, tardis10, vcmvo2

        He seems like quite the likable guy, easy-going and able to poke fun at himself. And he was certainly entertaining, given how much he loved the ladies.

        He was also rather politically adept and very skilled at his duty - wholy unlike either his dad or his dimwit of a brother.

      •  Elizabeth I: low taxes, avoid wars (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Geogre, a gilas girl

        Add in as much religious tolerance as you could find in Europe in those days, and you have her formula for being a good queen to her people.

      •  Chuck 2! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl

        Charles II was insolvent, but he could party, in the political and festive sense of the word.

        The man knew how to run several girlfriends at the same time, and had he kept his "maker" more under control some of the plots would have similarly been under control. Without the torture scheme that his predecessors ran, he kept things rolling, and he increased trade immensely.

        He set an enigmatically libertine example that fostered not merely science, but also a thumb-in-the-eye investigation into philosophy (Locke did get banned, but was also celebrated). Compared to William or the German Georges, he was wonderful (and Anne was rough, due to Sarah Churchill). George III was really quite good . . . until he went bats.

        Everyone is innocent of some crime.

        by The Geogre on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:27:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chuck II in the service of Louis XIV? (0+ / 0-)

          Apply some standards of statecraft, and he's a total louse.  Taking payment from a foreign warmongering absolutist/ Catholic fanatic is not good.

          •  In service eh? What did Louis get? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a gilas girl

            Charles renegged like mad. He was the king of the kited check, and that includes Louis. His "service" to Louis amounted to "not war." That's it.

            Meanwhile, he promised everything, delivered nothing, and got gold. This was a pattern he repeated with his courtiers, the Spanish, the Dutch, and everyone else. For a restored crown, it was masterful.

            I actually think you're missing the real statecraft here.

            Everyone is innocent of some crime.

            by The Geogre on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:40:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Prince Albert was a gem. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl

        One of the last political acts he participated in was the furor over the "Trent Affair" during the US Civil War.  Albert personally redrafted the British Government's demands to the US, softening them to the point of providing a diplomatic out to both countries and thus avoiding war.  He was already feverish with the diphtheria which a week or so later killed him.

        His death was a great misfortune, because afterwards his wife the Queen fell into the clutches of the arch-imperialist Disraeli.

        I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

        by Pragmatus on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 01:05:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site