Who is or was the Worst Briton? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

tagos

06-01-2005, 04:05 AM

Call me unoriginal...
So let's have at it. Due to the different nature of the UK political system (to that of the USA in the counterpart thread), you can nominate politicians and prime ministers if you feel you must.

Personally, I nominate Oswald Moseley, British facist and leader of the Blackshirts; a politically and personally repugnant British human being.

There are a few kings I could also nominate, but hey, where to start?

Margaret Thatcher if only because she had the power Moseley lacked. The british economy needed changing but not in that gleefully brutal, uncaring fashion that sowed the dragon's teeth underclass we are now reaping. Before she came to power homeless begging on the street was something shocking. During her reign it became commonplace and unremarked. Totally shameful.

'There's no such thing as society'. Not now there isn't, you evil scum.

Not to mention the cheap sell-off of public property for well below market rates and the destruction of the council house building program by refusing to allow money made through the selling of existing homes to owners to be re-invested in a building program. She was an ideological terrorist.

Rail privatisation.

casdave

06-01-2005, 04:35 AM

You could look at a few colonialists, like Cecil Rhodes for starters.

The shameful plotting of war for diamonds and gold, exploitation of local populaces almost amounts to slavery.

The British establishment in South Africa, and company owners would yield a long list of Britains worst.

The Irish are likely to name Oliver Cromwell, who started out with ideals, but changed dramatically over time, to deny things such as democratic principles he originally thought would be a better system of governance that Monarchical rule.

Harol Shipman, convicted of multiple counts of murder and who committed suicide in prison fairly recently, his estimated victim count ranges from 250 to over 500(his killings are so extensive that almost anyone who died whilst he was their medical practioner might have been killed outright or had their oncoming death hastened, as such, authorities can only make educated guesses).

His crimes are particulary terrible in that he killed using the trust patients have in their medical staff, that all his murders were extremely personal things, he had to directly and personally administer the fatal drugs, these are not the faceless spur of the moment or nasty orders given in warfare.

He knew all his victims.

He also stole from them jewellery and tried to alter their wills in his favour, and its the latter that brought him down. Stealing was not his principle motive, it would appear he just liked killing people on a one to one basis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/shipman.shtml

I think William the Conqueror would be a good candidate. His systematic use of terrorism to try draw his opponents into battle, and his subesquent clearing of districts in Norhtern Engalnd, aka 'the harrying of the north'.

Its estimated that perhaps 100k died as a result of this one campaign, this was a campaign against any living person in those areas, not simply those capable of bearing arms.

His subsequent reign was bloody and ruthless, both in England and in France. The extent of his atrocities is very wide.

Fortean

06-01-2005, 04:41 AM

How about ‘Bomber’ Harris?

Aleister Crowley, while probably not the most evil man in Britain, was a bit of a bastard, I’ve heard.

GorillaMan

06-01-2005, 05:53 AM

I'd put Aleister Crowley in the 'extreme eccentric' catagory.

Cromwell probably gets my vote for the worst Briton.

FriarTed

06-01-2005, 07:00 AM

RE Rhodes as the worst Briton, I'm about to name Edward Mandell House in the Worst American thread. Now- who can tell me the connection?

sqweels

06-01-2005, 02:35 PM

Edward Teach, aka "Blackbeard" the pirate.

Sampiro

06-01-2005, 02:50 PM

Vortigern.

Quartz

06-01-2005, 02:58 PM

Not to mention the cheap sell-off of public property for well below market rates and the destruction of the council house building program by refusing to allow money made through the selling of existing homes to owners to be re-invested in a building program.

Since the council house program was significantly Labour gerrymandering - 'We will build you out' or somesuch - this was a case of turnabout is fair play.

Sampiro

06-01-2005, 03:37 PM

It's almost unfair because of England's Millennium+ of recorded history. Staying strictly to modern times I would second Mosley, or perhaps even Edward VIII (who was quite chummy with the Nazis himself). Profumo comes to mind also, but mainly that was just a sex scandal more than anything else.

eleanorigby

06-01-2005, 03:51 PM

Henry Tudor? (VII, not VIII)--he gave us(er, them) the Star Chamber and judicial murder. Also, I believe firmly that he had the Princes killed in tower.

How about Neville Chamberlain--appeasement and all that? (not too up on modern British history so I could be completely wrong).

Sampiro

06-01-2005, 03:59 PM

George Michael.

Jackmannii

06-01-2005, 04:45 PM

At least a (dis)honorable mention should go to General Sir Douglas "Machine Guns Are Overrated" Haig, for sacrificing incredible numbers of troops in useless battles in World War I.

Crowning achievement: the Battle of The Somme, July-November 1916.

60,000 British casualties the first day (the most in any battle in history), 420,000 total by the time it was over. Ground gained: 15 km. Strategic advantage: Nil.

SteveG1

06-01-2005, 07:02 PM

Edward Teach, aka "Blackbeard" the pirate.
Ned Teach? The man of letters and great poet who gave us "sing a song of six pence"? :D

stinkyuk

06-01-2005, 09:13 PM

The worst briton for me infact the worst filth from anywhere is somebody or a group of somebodys who get it into their heads that they are all seeing and all knowing ,and that they have to dump these perceived talents on the rest of us by way of witless laws and legislation that it is plain to an idiot is only being done to feed the fantasy they have, that is we need somehow looking after, and every single thing we do or say needs by force of law to be made available to them to ease the paranoia and phsycotic illusions that they all must suffer from and do there best to infect the vulnerable and the gullible with the same poisoness b***

Great britain is not under seige by rampaging teenagers and ten year olds and not every person who takes drugs is liable to go out and burgle anybodys property or terrorise there community with crazy drug induced frenzied behavior,

sorry bout that :smack:

astorian

06-01-2005, 09:15 PM

Well, a lot depends on your definition of "Briton."

Klaus Fuchs, the man who gave the atomic bomb to Joseph Stalin, was born in Germany, but lived in the UK and was ultimately arrested by MI5. Was he a British subject? If so, he's definitely the worst Briton of all time.

If not, I'd say the worst Briton ever is either professional Holocaust denier David Irving or rat bastard traitor Kim Philby.

casdave

06-02-2005, 01:09 AM

RE Rhodes as the worst Briton, I'm about to name Edward Mandell House in the Worst American thread. Now- who can tell me the connection?

Something to do with Rhodes view of trying to take over the entire world, he set up a scholarship to promote his view and House was a beneficiary of it.

FriarTed

06-02-2005, 01:26 AM

Something to do with Rhodes view of trying to take over the entire world, he set up a scholarship to promote his view and House was a beneficiary of it.

You know, I don't know if House was a Rhodes Scholar, HOWEVER...

Rhodes in one of his wills authorized the founding of the Round Table Society by Lord Alfred Milner. That became the Royal Institute of International Affairs. From 1919-21, the American version was organized by Edward Mandell House and called the Council on Foreign Relations.

GorillaMan

06-02-2005, 02:38 AM

Klaus Fuchs, the man who gave the atomic bomb to Joseph Stalin, was born in Germany, but lived in the UK and was ultimately arrested by MI5. Was he a British subject? If so, he's definitely the worst Briton of all time.

If not, I'd say the worst Briton ever is either professional Holocaust denier David Irving or rat bastard traitor Kim Philby.
Yes, Fuchs became a British citizen during the war. But 'definitely' the worst? And holocaust denial ranks higher than actually instigating genocide, as with Cromwell?

sewalk

06-02-2005, 02:51 AM

How about ‘Bomber’ Harris?How is Harris any different from Curtis LeMay? LeMay ordered the deaths of far more Japanese in the Tokyo firebombings than there were Germans killed in Dresden. Why do people continue to villify Harris while LeMay's actions warrant hardly a notice?

OtakuLoki

06-02-2005, 03:05 AM

<hijack>

Racism. Pure and simple. Consider the moral high ground that the ASAAF took in Europe about avoiding bombing population centers as a matter of course, and contrast that with the fact that bombing campaigns in Japan were night bombing and often targeting simply general city areas.

Granted that there are differences in the temper of the men commanding the two forces. And that bombing Germany was far easier to perform than similar missions over Japan. And even with the USAAF's preference to avoid civilian targets in Germany and night bombing, the RAF was keeping that pressure on. It wasn't a simple black and white difference. But the reaction and memory I think is. *sigh*

And of course, I am very sardonically amused by the way that there are so many people who decry the horror of the two atom bombs dropped over Japan, but aren't aware that the Tokyo fire bombing raid killed more people than either atom bomb. (And I think some estimates place it as more than both atom bombs combined.)

</hijack>

tagos

06-02-2005, 03:23 AM

Since the council house program was significantly Labour gerrymandering - 'We will build you out' or somesuch - this was a case of turnabout is fair play.

Stuff and nonsense. It was a fundamental building block of the Welfare State. 'Homes Fit for Heroes' was the slogan. The heroes being those poor bloody bastards who did the fighting. Typical of tories to besmirch them from the cosiness of the suburbs.

The lack of it now in the Tory dominated shires (where I grew up and my family was saved from homelessness by getting a council house via our local tory councillor) is a major cause of rural poverty. It was the tories under Porter who were successfully prosecuted for gerrymandering in London.

Sarah Woodruff

06-02-2005, 03:43 AM

Henry Tudor? (VII, not VIII)--he gave us(er, them) the Star Chamber and judicial murder. Also, I believe firmly that he had the Princes killed in tower.
He's certainly one of the British kings on my "worst-of" list. King John seemed like a pretty nasty little scroat as well. A tyrant and a paedophile (he seduced and married a 12 year-old princess. Even in an age of youthful marriage, people thought this was a bit off).

tagos

06-02-2005, 03:44 AM

Stuff and nonsense. It was a fundamental building block of the Welfare State. 'Homes Fit for Heroes' was the slogan. The heroes being those poor bloody bastards who did the fighting. Typical of tories to besmirch them from the cosiness of the suburbs.

The lack of it now in the Tory dominated shires (where I grew up and my family was saved from homelessness by getting a council house via our local tory councillor) is a major cause of rural poverty. It was the tories under Porter who were successfully prosecuted for gerrymandering in London.

note also the Addison Act of 1919 established a council housing policy. Not Labour. note also that in the post-war period:

Between 1952 and 1955, the Conservative Government raised the
targets for provision of new homes and used the Local Authorities as the main
agents with 70% of new homes being built by them.

history of council housing (http://www.lincoln.gov.uk/doclib/History%20of%20Council%20Housing-the%20post%20war%20years%20(e).pdf) (pdf)

Council housing like the NHS was accepted by all parties as part of the postwar consensus and run through local authorities.

Here's a clue. Coucil houses were for poor people. Poor people voted Labour. Therefore council houses will tend to be in poorer areas, which would be inner cities and the (conservative) rural shires.

With the conservatives in power for the bulk of that time, to make accusations of gerrymandering is palpably absurd.

casdave

06-02-2005, 04:55 PM

Richard Couer de Lion might make a good candidate, he almost bankrupted his kingdom in his crusader zeal, a country he ruled but hardly ever actually attended.

His actions in the Holy Lands radicalised Islam, and we are living with those consequencies today. Prior to the interventions of the crusaders, and particularly Norma descended leaders and most especeially Richard himself, Islam was pretty tolerant of other religions, for its time anyway.

He massacred his prisoners whom he was holding ransom, he attacked and massacred wedding parties claiming the dowry for hs own greed.

His actions lead directly to the rise of Sultan Baybers, who kicked out the crusaders completely and the total loss of access to large areas of the mid east, and did much to bring about the great schism between Christianity and Islam with which we live today.

Tamerlane

06-02-2005, 06:28 PM

King John seemed like a pretty nasty little scroat as well. A tyrant and a paedophile (he seduced and married a 12 year-old princess. Even in an age of youthful marriage, people thought this was a bit off).

I don't have a good biography of John ( damn hard finding some of those Oxford series books ), but I'm not sure their marriage was consummated right away ( and she was 13 ). Her first child wasn't born until seven years later when she was twenty. Regardless, the main reason for marrying her, aside from what was apparently considerable beauty ( and she later had quite the hot-to-trot reputation, deserved or not ), was the fact that she was heiress to the county of Angouleme, a rich possesion in Aquitaine.

Moreover the big objection wasn't that he was a cradle robber - marriages were often arranged with much younger, witness Richard II's second marriage. It was that she had been alreadly promised to a scion of the powerful house of Lusignan, who were thus deprived of a rich inheritance. They ran to Philip II Augustus to complain, who saw the issue as a great pretext to set John's own nobles against him and deprive his overpowerful vassal of some or all of his French fiefs.

Richard Couer de Lion might make a good candidate, he almost bankrupted his kingdom in his crusader zeal, a country he ruled but hardly ever actually attended.

Richard had his flaws, but his crusader zeal was widely lauded at the time and the fact he spent most of his time in his French possesions was due largely to the fact that he was at war with his technical sovereign, Philip II Augustus. England by contrast was relatively secure and calm. At any rate his attachement to them stemmed in good part from Henry II making him Duke of Aquitaine much earlier.

His actions in the Holy Lands radicalised Islam, and we are living with those consequencies today. Prior to the interventions of the crusaders, and particularly Norma descended leaders and most especeially Richard himself, Islam was pretty tolerant of other religions, for its time anyway.

Eh. It was other figures that were regarded with real revulsion by Muslim authors. Richard was less significant on this scale than more local resident crusaders.

His actions lead directly to the rise of Sultan Baybers, who kicked out the crusaders completely and the total loss of access to large areas of the mid east, and did much to bring about the great schism between Christianity and Islam with which we live today.

Now this you really can't blame Richard for. The Mameluke Sutanate wasn't even a glimmer at this point and Saladin had already established himself and his Ayyubid dynasty before Richard arrived in the Holy Land. No one could have expected his, as it turned out, rather weak dynasty would be overthrown a couple of generations hence. At any rate if Baybars hadn't done it, someone else would have. Eventually. The crusader states were just to precariously situated to survive.

- Tamerlane

astorian

06-02-2005, 10:41 PM

BrainGlutton

06-02-2005, 11:18 PM

Henry Tudor? (VII, not VIII)--he gave us(er, them) the Star Chamber and judicial murder. Also, I believe firmly that he had the Princes killed in tower.

Are you sure it wasn't Richard III who had the princes murdered?

OtakuLoki

06-03-2005, 02:57 AM

Actually, there's a good deal of room for doubt. From the point of view of opportunity - certainly both Richard and Henry had that. From the point of view of motive, however, Richard was already king - and there is little reason to believe that even had the princes reached their majority that he'd have been supplanted. Henry, however, had a great deal to lose if the princes showed up to press their claim by blood to the throne.

From the point of view of evidence... it's hard to tell at this point. Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time is fictionalized, but is a very good read and will at least put doubts in your mind, even if you choose to discount her evidence. (Of course, the novel gets serious historians hot under the collar. But I can't tell how much of that is legitimate disgust with her arguments and how much is intellectual snobbery.) I haven't made a study of the books arguing back and forth, now, over who killed the princes. But, there's at least room for legitimate doubt that it was Richard.

eleanorigby

06-03-2005, 10:06 AM

Thank you, Otaku . I do base most of my position on Tey's book--but also having Richard as the villain makes no sense.
He had all the power he needed--and he had a relationship with his nephews. I realize that royal sibs could be like so many pawns on the chess board of monarchy, but Richard had emotional ties to the boys as well.

It was Henry who needed them gone, who saw them as pawns, and it was Henry who needed to smear a well liked King (Richard) in order to draw attention away from his own misdeeds.

But I must admit an extreme prejudice against Henry VII--sneaky bastard. I always felt sorry for Margaret--married to that man.

On a lighter note: Benny Hill, anyone? nasty bugger.

yBeayf

06-03-2005, 10:22 AM

Oliver Cromwell. Before the Puritans came to power, England was a shining beacon of European cuisine, being known for the piquancy and richness of its dishes and rivalling France and Italy in the quality of its food. The Puritans believed excessive spices were immoral, and so banned their uses, thus instigating centuries of bland, pasty food, an affliction from which the British have only recently recovered.

OtakuLoki

06-03-2005, 10:39 AM

eleanorrigby, you do have to admit that there's only one instance to support the belief that Richard was well-liked. (The record that Tey mentions her book about 'Our good King Richard was killed today.') I agree with her reasoning that for every recorded instance of a sentiment, especially in a time frame where literacy was rare, there would be many more instances of that sentiment that weren't recorded. But to extrapolate from one instance to a general mood for the country is still a bit of a leap. ;)

AIUI, Richard was viewed as something of an usurper, and he was keeping the Princes in the Tower to prevent them from being used against him. That doesn't mean that he was keeping them in creul conditions, or that he meant them any harm. Just that in that time minor children would be pawns of power-hungry people. The modern perception of the Tower of London as nothing more than a prison ignores the fact that it used to be the home of the royalty of England. And owes a LOT to Henry's campaign to smear Richard after his death.

I do discount a lot of Tey's arguments, actually. I don't doubt the evidence that she presented. (In part because none of the books about Richard I've ever read since then has accused her of making up evidence or ignoring evidence.) But nothing that any of the people attacking Richard can say changes three facts that, taken as a whole, remain damning:

The reports of their disappearance didn't begin until after Henry had killed Richard.
The princes were even more of a threat to Henry's right to rule and dynasty than they were to Richard's, since Richard was accepted (if only reluctantly) as king while they were alive.
If Richard were going to kill the princes the time for him to have done it would have been immediately upon siezing the throne. Not a year and a half later. Whereas, the timing of their 'disappearance' matches, precisely, that window for Henry.

In the end, I believe that Henry is responsible for the death of the Princes. Just as I do believe that Lizzie Borden killed her step-mother and father. And that OJ was the killer.

Of course, I can prove none of these beliefs. So it's just something to debate.

eleanorigby

06-03-2005, 04:18 PM

Well--OK, so maybe Richard wasn't the most liked monarch around.
Are there references to his being hated, though? It's been 20+ years since I took British history, so I'm a bit rusty!

I like your summation of the reasons to support Richard's innocence--and I agree.

As to the usurping--don't you think that on the one hand the populace might have been tired of the constant bids for power, but also that the players used the resulting instability to garner more? So, (just a thought) if those who were jockeying for position had stopped doing so, mightn't Richard's reign have been less likely to have been labelled usurping?

I have often played with the idea what if.....Richard had won on Bosworth field.

No Henry Tudor--but no Elizabeth I either.......(coulda skipped Mary, IMO :) ).

Re; the Tower--kinda like with Elizabeth and Mary Stuart--again, another Alan Grant reference, but Mary's entourage hardly supported the notion of ill treatment!

OtakuLoki

06-03-2005, 05:11 PM

As to the usurping--don't you think that on the one hand the populace might have been tired of the constant bids for power, but also that the players used the resulting instability to garner more? So, (just a thought) if those who were jockeying for position had stopped doing so, mightn't Richard's reign have been less likely to have been labelled usurping?

Oh, I agree completely here. Had Richard survived and remained king it would be viewed as just as legitimate as... Henry VII's own reign is viewed, now. ;)

And, if you want to see a case of a population suffering through successive governments nothing, I believe, is a better example than The Time of Troubles after the death of Ivan IV of Russia. 16 years, IIRC, with something like 20 Tsars crowned in that time period. Makes the Roman 'Year Of Four Emporers' look minor. (BTW, as I recall it, that 20 Tsar figure counts Dmitri, and the two False Dmitris, as one Tsar.)

I don't recall that Richard was particularly hated - and as I am a Yankee - you've likely got a better grasp on general English history than I do. I just don't believe that we can assume Richard was all that popular, either. To make an analogy using the board - there are a number of posters here (from the states) who view Shrub as the worst catastrophe to strike Western Civilization since the sack of Rome. But while the vitriol of someone like rjung is more likely to survive for hundreds of years, because it's been repeated so often, than the single instance that most people would comment upon their view of Shrub.

I am not trying to say anything about rjung's views other than they are repeated often, and are very negative towards the man currently in the Oval Office. I may not always agree with rjung, but that's different from condemning him for those views. The amount of repetition is something different, but as I can get repetitive, too, I'm only using him to illustrate an argument.

Don't hurt me. ;)

BrainGlutton

06-03-2005, 05:21 PM

I have often played with the idea what if.....Richard had won on Bosworth field.

But he did! On Ralph the Liar's Day!* ;)

* See Blackadder the First.

eleanorigby

06-03-2005, 06:27 PM

Brain--too funny. I am hoping that my library gets those DVD's so that I can watch this show that so many have raved about.

Otaku --while I appreciate the compliment (being of complete WASP heritage and an Anglophile to boot), I am a Yankee, too.

I don't think that the final say has been had re: Bush. For instance, contempt for Ford and Carter tends to run high (depending on who you talk to) but who can say in 50 years what their stature will be?

I tend to think that history will be quite condemnatory re: Bush. At least I hope so......

Polycarp

06-04-2005, 12:05 AM

Vortigern.

::: contemplates recruiting a suitable Neopagan to cast a Merlinesque curse on Sampiro ::::

Beautiful answer -- my only problem is that you beat me to it! :D

Wallenstein

06-05-2005, 01:16 PM

Worst Briton?

David Hankins - used to beat the crap out of me at school on a regular basis; stole my lunch money and tried to flush my head down the bogs.

He's in prison now, which is nice - but none of those other lads you've mentioned have given me a dead leg on a cross-country run in December, so they're not nearly as bad.

scm1001

06-06-2005, 04:56 AM

George III - lost us those american colonies - just think how rich we would be now!

sewalk

06-07-2005, 02:59 AM

Sarah Woodruff

06-07-2005, 03:17 AM

Has no one nominated Guy Fawkes? Considering what you people do to him every year, he has to be universally hated, doesn't he? Or do you perversely admire him for having the balls to blow up the government?
I've always thought that Guy Fawkes' Night is one in the eye for James I, rather than for old Guy himself.

There's an old Punch cartoon that satirises the contemporary pen-portrait (http://www.fringeblog.com/images/guyfawkes.jpg) of all the conspirators - it shows them in the same suspicious-looking group, complete with 1600s-style goatees and big buckled hats - saying, "Gunpowder, Treason and Plotte! And we all go Wearing these Funny Hats?"

Malacandra

06-07-2005, 07:05 AM

I come from an Irish family, so I've heard all the horror stories about Oliver Cromwell. That he was cruel and heartless toward the Irish is undeniable. That many Irish loath his to this day is understanndable.

And yet...

I can't name him as the worst Briton, or even ONE of the worst Britons, because his legacy is not uniformaly negative. IF you believe in republican (small "r"), representative government, you have to acknowledge Cromwell's role in making that a reality... or at least in bringing it NEARER to reality.

I have to ask myself, would the world (or even poor Ireland) be a better place if Charles Stuart and the Cavaliers have won?

The answer is no.

I'm inclined to agree about Ireland. I clued myself up a little recently with a long read through the Encylopædia Britannica essay on Irish history, and came away with the impression that the place has been a mess since forever, and it's harsh to attribute too much of it to Cromwell. Still and all, let's not forget that Cromwell dealt pretty high-handedly with Parliament in his own turn. I'm struggling to think of any major political reforms originating from the Commonwealth that have led to benefits since, though anyone's welcome to educate me.

Cromwell left a legacy of great good AND great evil. Klaus Fuchs, David Irving and Kim Philby left legacies only of evil.

Oh, incidentally, why hasn't anybody nominated Lord Haw Haw?

Haw-Haw was a scuzzbucket, no error, but it's doubtful that he actually achieved much that was ill, though he gets points for trying.

My nomination, though not necessarily destined to make the cut, is Matthew Hopkins, the Witch-Smeller Pursuivant (sorry, channelling Blackadder again there: that should be "Witch-Finder Generall"), who managed to find an awful lot of witches by the most dubious of means...