Welcome, welcome, welcome to the award-winning list of Personages Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Rulers But Were! This has been internationally acclaimed as the Only blog post to be internationally acclaimed for not being internationally acclaimed. Without further ado, dear readers, I shall embark on the List of People Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Monarchs But Were!* (Listed in order of prominence).
George III:(1738--1830) His upbringing and consequent personality did not a efficient ruler make.
Czar Nicholas II:(1868--1918) Times were changing. It was best for the rulers to change with them. Unfortunately, for many there was a chronic learning curve so, thanks to a lot of vitriol and brimstone and some psychopaths, the Russian Revolution was begun.
Queen and King Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI:(1755--1793, 1753--1793) Poor people at the wrong place at the wrong time. Desperate revolutionaries with, again, some more psychopaths are not the most bonny good adversaries.
Edward VIII:(1894--1972). Good people, let's face it; It's hard to conjure much sympathy when you see him shaking hands with Adolf Hitler, and I do not have great deals of it. However, as my father points out, he did not have the most easy of childhoods; not either, with all rulers, the least stressful of adolescences. Conflicted, unfortunate person. History turned it around... Certainly should not have ruled.
Honourable Mention: Queen Victoria(1819--1901). Good old obstinate Vicky. Unfortunately, although her longevity of reign is definitely impressive and she was an impressive person, Dickens shows clearly the spectrum of Victorian life was not favorable to the dis-affianced. Cite: The Indian Populace, elsewise the victims of imperialism, and the impoverished of the British Isles and the Potato Famine? Eeegads. NOT PRETTY.
See, The List of People Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Monarchs But Were! It's lovely, c'est ne pas?
Thank you so much for reading, I hope you liked it.
~Anacostia.
*I agree. Very nice title.
No comments:
Post a Comment