The Normans, Plantagenets, Lancastrians and Yorkists seem to me to have been no better than a bunch of gangsters, perpetually squabbling with relatives and wasting the country's resources on civil and foreign wars. The only excuse for them is that, like most ruling cliques then and now, they were so morally undeveloped that they knew no better. Indeed, I suspect that Stephen and John were not really quite as bad as they've been painted, though that's not saying much. (The ghastly civil war of Stephen's reign might never have occurred if the king hadn't been too chivalrous to arrest and imprison Matilda when she first landed in England.)

The exploitative tax policies of Henry VII, the megalomania of Henry VIII, the religious persecution of Mary I and Elizabeth's odious systematised espionage against her subjects ought to rule out the Tudors. Then we get the Stuarts, with their ineradicable belief in divine right. From then on the power of monarchs is lessened and I don't think there's very much good or bad that you can really attribute to the sovereigns rather than their governments.

If I have to choose the worst of an unspeakable collection, I think I'll plump for James VI of Scots and I of England. He trusted nobody, because he knew that he was utterly untrustworthy himself. His court was a circle of corrupt cronies and and he sold "honours" (as we still absurdly call them in Britain) on an amazing scale. In fact, the more I consider him, the more I realise that he must be Tony Blair's role model.

He dispossessed Roman Catholic landowners in Ireland and "planted" the north of Ireland with a very nasty lot of English and Scots: the consequences of this are still with us. He did his best to perpetuate belief in witchcraft, which was beginning to die out among the educated, and to encourage the persecution of "witches".

Finally, he seems to have been the first of the rabid anti-tobacco brigade who have become so vocal nowadays. I gave up smoking a long time ago, and I know it's an offensive habit, but there are many filthier and more noxious ones, which are often practised by vociferous non-smokers.

So it's Jamie the Saxt for the Bastard of Bastards crown.

I hadn't realised that there were tributes to James in "Macbeth". But yes, various books say that Malcolm's speech (Act 4, Scene 3) about the King of England's God-given power to cure the "King's evil" was intended to flatter James and his belief in divine right. So too Macbeth's own recognition of Banquo's virtues is supposed to have been taken as referring to James ("In his royalty of nature reigns that which would be feared. 'Tis much he dares, and to that dauntless temper of his mind he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety").

"Macbeth" was produced soon after the Gunpowder Plot: no doubt it was politic for the King's Man to emphasise that legitimate kings were God's chosen governors.

Professor Lamb also points out that "No less than five of the VIRTUOUS characters in Macbeth are direct ancestors of King James: Duncan,Malcolm, Siward,Banquo and Fleance."

For some reason or other Shakespeare leaves out Mary Stuart from the procession of Scottish monarchs.(Act Four, Scene One,112-121).
The eighth king bears a 'glass' (mirror) in which the future is shown. And 'some I see That TWO-FOLD balls and TREBLE sceptres carry'.
Funny though: had Shakespeare foreseen the creation not only of G.B. but also of U.K. ? The Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland.
"The whole procession of kings scene would be costumed and performed with the most stately magnificence both for its spectacular effect and because it is a full dress tribute to James I and the Stuart dynasty."

"One day a great feast was held, and after dinner the representation of Solomon’s Temple and the coming of the Queen of Sheba was made – or, as I may better say, was meant to have been made – before their Majesties, by device of the Earl of Salisbury and others.

But alas! As all earthly things do fail to poor mortals in enjoyment, so did prove our presentment hereof. The lady who did play the Queen’s part did carry most precious gifts to both their Majesties, but forgetting the steps arising to the canopy, overset her caskets into his Danish Majesty’s lap, and fell at his feet, though I rather think it was in his face. Much was the hurry and confusion; cloths and napkins were at hand to make all clean. His Majesty then got up and would dance with the Queen of Sheba; but he fell down and humbled himself before her, and was carried to an inner chamber and laid on a bed of state, which was not a little defiled with the presents of the Queen which had been bestowed on his garments, such as wine, cream, jelly, beverage, cakes, spices and other good matters.

The entertainment and show went forward and most of the presenters went backward or fell down; wine did so occupy their upper chambers. Now did appear in rich dress Hope, Faith and Charity. Hope did essay to speak, but wine rendered her endeavours so feeble that she withdrew, and hoped the King would excuse her brevity. Faith was then all alone (for I am sure she was not joined with good works), and left the Court in a staggering condition. Charity came to the King’s feet and seemed to cover the multitude of sins her sisters had committed. In some sort she made obeisance and brought gifts, but said she would return home again, as there was no gift which Heaven had not already given his Majesty. She then returned to Hope and Faith, who were sick and spewing in the lower hall.

Next came Victory, in bright armour, and presented a rich sword to the King - who did not accept it but put it by with his hand – and by a strange medley of versification did endeavour to make suit to the King. But Victory did not triumph for long, for after much lamentable utterance she was led away like a silly captive and laid to sleep on the outer steps of the antechamber.

Now did Peace make entry, and strive to get foremost to the King, but I grieve to tell how great wrath she did discover unto her attendants, and (much contrary to her own semblance) most rudely made war with her olive branch, and laid on the pates of those who did oppose her coming.

I have much marvelled at these strange pageantries, and they do bring to my remembrance what passed of this sort in our Queen’s days, of which I was sometime an humble presenter and assistant; but never did I see such lack of good order, discretion and sobriety as I have now done."

Quote:

---

I say Richard III was probably the worst

---

Quote:

---

I was born less than a mile from where he lost his crown.

---

Quote:

---

I never thought Henry VIII was very good. He took a rich Catholic country and turned it into a bankrupt Protestant country. He executed loads of people . . . yet people still love him.

---