It recently occurred to me that most of the English kings named Edward had very severe problems with their reigns. Not all of them, but most of them.
Edward I - he was a very powerful and successful ruler, but…
Edward II - homosexual, widely despised, killed by having a red hot poker shoved up his anus
Edward III - all of his sons died before they could become king; his grandson took over the throne.
Edward IV - died prematurely, probably from health problems due to overindulgence in food, alcohol and women; his death left the monarchy in complete disaster
Edward V - locked up in the tower of London with his brother and killed, by his uncle Richard III
Edward VI - died an agonizing death at 15, possibly from congenital syphillis; his death created a power vacuum that resulted in severe turmoil
Edward VII - basically a successful and popular king
Edward VIII - had an affair with an American divorcee and was friends with Adolf Hitler; created a gigantic scandal and abdicated in utter disgrace
Why did the English kings named Edward seem to disproportionately get fucked over by the hand of fate? Or is this just my imagination?
Being king in the past was a hazardous affir, and being heir to the throne even more so.
What are really looking at are short lifespans due to primitive medical care, average lifespans in the UK were typically less than 50 for the aristocratic classess right up until mid 19thC, and somewhat less for the lower order.
You could argue same thing for…well, most of the ‘popular’ king names. Take George, for instance.
George I - ridiculed at the time for being too German, had a reputation for stupidity and ‘woodenness’
George II - Also disliked for dragging Britain into a war the War of Austrian Succession, his reign also saw the Jacobite rebellion.
George III - batshit bonkers.
George IV - “There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow? … If he ever had a friend—a devoted friend in any rank of life—we protest that the name of him or her never reached us.” - from The Times when he died.
George V - WW1 forced him to give up all his German heritage, plauged by ill-health later in reign.
George VI - reluctant king whose reign saw the dismantling of the Empire.
Depends how much you accentuate the bad, which is always going to occur due to the intense scrutiny the position comes under.
That’s not even true. John of Gaunt and Edmund of Langley both survived him by more than 20 years, but because the Black Prince had a son the crown passed to him instead.
Also, why do you think Edward VI died a particularly agonizing death? He died young, true, but I’ve never heard anything to suggest his death was especially worse than that of other children who died of disease in that era: certainly agonizing by contemporary standards, but not by contemporaneous ones.
The first one famously got himself executed in 1649 (RIP) and the second presided over a Great Plague and a Great Fire, although this is not to suggest he personally started either of them.
And Richard. The first spent hardly any time in England and died from a gangrenous crossbow would. The second was overthrown and starved to death. The third was killed at Bosworth and subsequently vilified by the descendants of his enemies.
That was my understanding as well; I thought the entire ‘Henry VIII and syphilis’ theory was no longer taken particularly seriously. Some biographers (Alison Weir) also believe he may have been poisoned while he was dying. At any rate, his symptoms during his last illness are well documented, and fit what was then called ‘consumption’.
It’s worth noting that Henry VIII’s other son, Henry Fitzroy, is also believed to have died from tuberculosis.
The OP doesn’t mention Edward the Martyr (even his nickname is a clue – he was assassinated at age 16, and some accounts indicate his own mother was behind it), Edward the Confessor (whose reign wasn’t all that bad, but who was foolish enough to name two heirs, leading to war; also, his own mother didn’t think him right to be king).
And then there are the princes:
Edward the Exile should have been (by inheritance rules) the successor to Edward the Confessor, but died before Edward.
Edward the Black Prince. Died at age 46, before his father Edward III (who did OK otherwise). This brought Richard II to the throne much too young and John of Gaunt as the regent, which led to friction between the two and the start of the Wars of the Roses.
Edward of Westminster, the heir of Henry IV, was killed in battle (some accounts say he was captured and killed by Richard III, though that may be just propaganda) and was really a pawn in the Wars of the Roses – his mother insisted he be put on the throne and tried to overthrow Edward IV (who, the OP didn’t mention, was deposed from the throne himself, though he managed to gain it back) to do it.
Finally, Richard III’s son Edward of Middleham died young – unlucky for him and even worse for his father, since the lack of a Yorkist heir allowed Henry Tudor to gain support.
Admittedly the three Richards had bad ends, but the listing for the Georges above is spurious – it only shows the fact that they some of them were unpopular, not unlucky. Of the Edwards only Edward I, Edward III, and Edward VII lived long and had successful reigns.
You are listing Edward III here, typically considered to have had one of the longest and most successful reigns of any English king, ever. And yet he still had myriad problems, including financial, military and familial.
Just to reiterate the point - most kings had difficult reigns or family tragedies. It was the nature of being a king.
William I - civil war with his eldest son, left divided inheritance.
William II - civil wars with his brothers, died without direct heirs from a hunting accident ( probably wasn’t assassinated, though it is a possibility ).
Henry I - civil war with his brother, left no legitimate male heir, leading to a civil war between his daughter and nephew.
Stephen - civil war, dynasty replaced on his death.
Henry II - civil war with his sons, multiple times. Died heartbroken and alone.
Richard I - died without direct heirs.
John - on the losing end in the conflicts with his nominal sovereign, the king of France. Suffered a French invasion of England and multiple rebellions.
Henry III - as with John, above( minus the French invasion of England ).
I’d say the only British King name that has a really bad history is Charles.
Fortunately, Kings often take new names when they succeed to the throne, so our Prince Charles might choose to be anything, really, once he becones King, but especially one of his middle names (Phillip, Arthur or George. I only remember them because Di got the whole name in the wrong order when they got married). Even the last King George was actually Albert by first name and the name he was always known by.
Course, the current Prince Edward hasn’t had the best run of luck in life.
I was reading up on William IV and found that he forcibly prorogued Parliament. Is it too much to hope that HMQ would do the same?
And yes, Charles has a particularly bad reputation. And I’m not looking forward to Prince Charles becoming King; I don’t think he’s got the right temperament. I’m hoping that he will be sufficiently old by the time he succeeds that he will pass the Crown directly to the next generation.
