Rate the Hanoverian Monarchs

Which Hanoverian monarchs were the best? Which were the worst?

  • Total voters
    67
Stolengood

Stolengood

Banned
...again, really, this is just a fairly self-explanatory exercise. ;)

(Oh, and you must explain WHY you chose as such in posts below. Multiple choice is for the fun of it.)
 

Just a Rube

George III was the worst (between losing the American colonies, losing the monarchy's financial independence, and eventually being literally insane).

I chose George II as the best, as most of the later (post-George III) monarchs didn't have enough power to do much, and George II oversaw the height of the First British Empire, with the defeat of France in both India and North America. Besides, he was the last British monarch to lead an army in battle, and unlike most battles in that war, the British actually won that one.
 
Queeney

Queeney

There is one thing that always bothered me: Victoria was the last British monarch from the House of Hanover, and when her eldest son succeeded her as Edward VII, he took on the house of his father Albert, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, since it's traditionally always the house of the father that continues the line.

Now, the current British monarch, Elizabeth II, is once again a female, of the House of Windsor (which got its name after being rebranded from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha during the Great War); however, her descendants are members of the House of Windsor too, and not members of the House of Glücksburg, as their father Philip.

Can someone please explain this to me?
 
Maeglin

Maeglin

Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) said:
Can someone please explain this to me?
Click to expand...

There was a formal agreement about this decades ago: it's considered Liz's family, not Phil's, though the more distant ones are Mountbatten-Windsor.

To answer the question: blaming George III for the American Revolution is a bit unfair, since the actions that led to it were the fault of Parliament, not the King.

Worst: George IV was a fat, useless, reclusive, slob who spent money like a drunken sailor.

Best: William IV: affable, sympathetic to progress - the 1832 Reform Bill would have never passed under his brother.
 

Mikestone8

It reminds me of a remark by my old headmaster, who, after reading out the marks scored at the end of term, observed that there had been "stiff competition for bottom place".
 

mcdnab

It is a quirk of history and actually fits with a modern view of a married woman keeping her own surname and passing it to her children lol.

Partially it is based on the strong personal views of three people on the Queen's accession -
Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Winston Churchill

And in part was a reaction to the supposed comments of Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten about the house of mountbatten ruling.

George V and George VI were both highly regarded personally and both their widows were loathe to see the house name change. Though it is alleged to be Queen Mary who spoke to a lady in waiting about it whose son was Churchill's private secretary who raised it with the PM who in turn raised it and advised the Queen to act.

An additional problem was both Queen dowagers were not overly fond of Lord Mountbatten.

The arguements to keep Windsor was helped by the confusion over Philip's surname and which house he belonged to - which hadn't been completely overcome by his adoption of Mountbatten when he became a naturalised British subject (which he hadn't legally needed to do anyway)

Philip's surname was essentially made up and was based on the anglicised version of his mother's name Battenburg rather than his father's (which would have essentially been the House of Oldenburg - or as a male line descendant of Christian IX - Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg itself a branch of the house of Oldenburg)

Under normal practice on the Queen's death - her heir would be the first ruler of the House of Oldenburg - or if Philip's invented surname was chose the first ruler of the House of Mountbatten - neither was acceptable to a lot of people in the 1950s.

So came the first decree not withstanding the Queen's marriage her family and descendants would remain the House of Windsor.

It was later amended, largely because Philip was deeply hurt by the decree, that those of their descendants who required a surname would use Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically of course their children and male line grandchildren would all be Royal Highness and don't require a surname legally.
Prince Andrew and Princess Anne - both used it when signing the marriage registry but Charles and Edward didn't
Most grandchildren use their father's territorial designation as a kind of surname - William and Harry Wales (before William became Duke of Cambridge), Beatrice and Eugenie both use York, James would be styled Lord Severn (a courtesy title as the son of the Earl of Wessex) and Lady Louise is usually Lady Louise Windsor (though both Louise and her brother are still entitled to use HRH Prince or Princess)



Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) said:
There is one thing that always bothered me: Victoria was the last British monarch from the House of Hanover, and when her eldest son succeeded her as Edward VII, he took on the house of his father Albert, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, since it's traditionally always the house of the father that continues the line.

Now, the current British monarch, Elizabeth II, is once again a female, of the House of Windsor (which got its name after being rebranded from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha during the Great War); however, her descendants are members of the House of Windsor too, and not members of the House of Glücksburg, as their father Philip.

Can someone please explain this to me?
Click to expand...
 

KingofArkham

I agree with Maeglin, George IV was by far the worst of the Hanoverian Monarchs due to his habits regarding money and other things.
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
Need to separate what the monarch did as opposed to what the country did.

Britain's power was at a zenith during Victoria but that had little or nothing to do with her. On the other hand George II established (or consented to) the position of Prime Minister following his father's tentative steps thus pushing Britain along the path to a democratic system.

George IV was a complete wastrel who very nearly threw the country into a constitutional mess over catholic emancipation
 

Stateless

George I: Didn't like the limits of Parliament in Great Britain, so spent most of his time in Hanover where he was absolute. Would have been quite happily passed over if James Francis Edward Stuart had converted to Anglicanism. On the plus side, actually an Enlightenment ruler, and helped establish parliamentary democracy as we know it today (especially the office of the Prime Minister).
George II: Also preferred being in Hanover. Did not get on with either his father or his son. Meddled too much in politics for my liking. Was okay on foreign policy, but most successes should really be attributed to his governments. Crushed the Jacobites.
George III: Very ill for good amounts of his reign. The most British of the Hanoverians so far. Very charitable, but also racked up large debts. Not responsible for the outbreak of war in America, as he largely followed the advice of his ministers. Refusal to see the Olive Branch Petition could be a negative, but not surprising given conditions (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms and John Adams' confiscated letter). Possibly kept the war going too long, though victory was still a real possibility until 1780/81. Post-war, tried to meddle in politics. Actually very popular. Promoted the agricultural revolution in Great Britain. Funded science.
George IV: Tried too hard to oppose Catholic emancipation. Unpopular. Racked up enormous personal debts. Didn't do too badly as Prince Regent, and did meddle less in politics.
William IV: Struggled with the Reform Act. Thrifty. Prejudiced against the French, but otherwise a shrewd diplomat. Did appoint Peel counter to Parliament's wishes. Often tried to go for the middle of the road, and ended up pleasing no-one.
Victoria: Of mixed popularity at the time, often vacillating between unpopular and popular. Financially prudent. Greatly helped by her husband, but as a result entered seclusion after his death. Influential in the expand of the British Empire. Seemed racially somewhat before her time - learnt Hindustani and seemingly treated her Indian subjects as qualified equals.

I would say that it's probably Victoria who was best, George III second/third, William IV third/second, George I fourth, George II fifth, and George IV worst. But I don't think that much of any of them.
 

Mikestone8

Derek Pullem said:
Need to separate what the monarch did as opposed to what the country did.

Britain's power was at a zenith during Victoria but that had little or nothing to do with her. On the other hand George II established (or consented to) the position of Prime Minister following his father's tentative steps thus pushing Britain along the path to a democratic system.

George IV was a complete wastrel who very nearly threw the country into a constitutional mess over catholic emancipation
Click to expand...



I voted for Victoria, but for what she did for the Monarchy rather than for the country.

In the 1830s, its popularity was really in the doldrums, thanks to her unimpressive set of uncles. There was serious talk of revolution. By the time she died, the Monarchy had never been more popular, and the idea of any other form og government in GB had receded into the realm of fantasy. For good or ill that was her achievement.

She also did her sex a favour by insisting on using chloroform for her fnal lying in. That must have made it far more respectable.
 

Kerney

Don't see what's so great about Vickie. She REIGNED during a time of great prosperity but she spent a lot of time as a secluded widow and her instincts, unlike her husband, were generally conservative. Typical example, she had a opportunity to head off Irish independence very early in her reign but didn't take it and could have taken symbolic action as a reigning monarch to not have as many starve (and there are other examples). And what she did to sexual mores was annoying.
I admit not liking the her personally and not being an expert on the Hanovarians on general. Is it simply that she is the one monarch who was not a bore, German in spirit, or insane, and didn't lose a major war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top