I also agree, Henry VIII was my first thought. I also want to be present in heaven when he finds out that the whole no boy thing was actually his fault, not theirs.
That's honestly what I've always thought. She gave him *three* sons, they poor darlings just didn't survive. Another thing that was not her fault. But I don't think Henry cared about such technicalities... :-/
Just about anyone who got involved with him ended up having a pretty tragic life with a lot of heartbreak. And they had no choice, because who could say no to the king? Poor little Katherine Howard was the saddest one for me.
He had options anyway, Henry FitzRoy was still alive and Henry was trying to legitimize him. He could’ve had Mary marry and have children of her own. He was just a horny piece of shit.
FitzRoy would never have been accepted as king, there's just no way. But Mary marrying and hopefully having kids? Especially if she married an Englishman who had royal blood (*cough* Reginald Pole *cough*)? England would have been **ecstatic**.
House of Wessex: Edward the Elder, mostly for his shitty treatment of his firstborn Athelstan.
House of Normandy: William I, literally went to his grave ranting about how much he hated his eldest son.
House of Plantagenet(including Yorks and Lancastrians): Henry II, mostly due to the incident with Alys of France and Richard
House of Tudor: Henry VIII, for all the obvious reasons
House of Stuart: idk of any parental drama with the Stuarts honestly, James II maybe?
House of Hanover: George II, none of the Hanoverians were good parents, but George II’s hatred for his eldest son was on a whole new level even for them.
House of Saxe-Coburg/Windsor: probably George V, though many of his parenting techniques were pretty typical for the time. The Coburg/Windsors were probably the best parents overall for all the dynasties.
Victoria was a Hanoverian, her son Edward VII was the first Saxe-Coburg Gotha monarch.
I'm kinda bummed that they're bending the rules and sticking with Windsor for Charles, he should technically be the first ruler of a new house.
Technically, yes. However, he is the first monarch since the updated succession laws and the reason new houses started before was the wife taking the husbands name, which I believe Elizabeth did not, nor did they give Charles his fathers last name.
Yeah, it's not a big sticking point, but what is the point of monarchy if not sticking to tradition?! I just think it would be fun to have a new house.
What happened was that almost as soon as Elizabeth became queen, Philip’s uncle Earl Mountbatten started mouthing off about how the new dynasty would have his name. This upset Queen Mary and the Queen Mother and the place issued a statement that the dynasty would still be Windsor. This caused drama with Phillip so they issued a convoluted policy authorizing certain descendants of the Queen to be able to use Mountbatten-Windsor (ie not Charles) if they needed.
Did Anne or Victoria's children take their father's name? I thought it was done kinda like in House of the Dragon with Jace being a Velayon until he takes the throne, then he takes it as a Targaryen so the name doesn't die.
It's confusing. Royals don't ever have a last name. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" thing is new, it was made to appease Phillip. Current European royals have changed a lot of things in the past century to fit the modern landscape--the world has changed so much and European monarchies are tenuous now. So, no, Anne's surviving child didn't take his father's name because they didn't use surnames. He was simply Prince William or Prince William of England, Scotland, and Ireland (this was before it was called Great Britain or the UK).
However, dynasties or "houses" are patrilineal. Queen Anne was the house of Stuart. If her son, Prince William, had outlived his parents and succeeded to the throne, then he would have been the first house of Oldenburg ruler.
Fun fact: the current Charles II could arguabely be the first house of Oldenburg ruler through his father, Prince Philip, but they bent those pesky rules!
The ruling house changed when Victoria's son took the throne. Victoria was a Hanoverian through her father. Victoria's son, Edward VI, was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his father.
Edward VI, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II were technically all the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but George V changed the house name to Windsor because of bad German sentiments during WWI. Royals love a name change!
I'll admit it's probably just because I'm american and therefore like the whole "princess/queen/royalty" nonsense, but I wish they would have just stuck with the Prince and Princess titles instead of adding last names! But again, fully admitting this is just because I'm american and we still think it's cool, not even going to try to deny that lol
Same here, that's the only reason why I wish the royal house had changed with Charles as it would have with any other monarch...cause it's fun, lol. Maybe I'd have a different opinion if I were British, but for me it is just fun to watch from a distance.
Mountbatten-Windsor was an assumed name, though. In the past, did royal families ever choose their own house names? If they hadn't assumed Mountbatten-Windsor, then Charles II would be the house of Glucksburg or Oldenburg.
They just can't get away from those pesky German names, can they? The next time the UK has a queen, she better marry an Englishman to please all her ancestors!
Long story short is he disowned and disinherited him and exiled him from Wessex as a kid to be raised by his aunt Athelflaed in Mercia. Athelstan was only able to take the throne when Edward died cause Edward’s preferred heir Aelfweard died just after Edward did.
Also Edward third wife Edgiva was in his custody since she was a newborn because her father died in battle. Edward married her when she was 16 and he was 45 despite her being 9 years younger than Athelstan and 1 year younger than Aelfweard he definitely groomed her.
Henry II has to be on the top of my list. Not many monarchs have a war with most of their children. James II obviously has the glorious revolution.
Hate to say it, but Victoria was not very nice to her children either. In today's terms, very emotionally abusive. Her calling her daughters cows because they dared to go against her and breastfeed their children; then not speaking to them over it, is a bit much for me. Also the hate that she had for Edward VII was a bit unfair. Sure, he was a handful, but she started calling him stupid and ugly from a very young age because he wasn't typically intelligent like Vicky was. If Beatrice hadn't destroyed her diaries, I am sure that we would have a lot more to say about how she truly treated her children. But, a lot of that is gone from us.
This is widely believed to untrue even at the time. It comes from the play/movie The Lion in Winter. Richard used it as a pretext to get out of his bretrothal to Alys.
Alice (which I’ve also seen as Alys) was the daughter of Louis VII and his second wife, Constance of Castile. But her name is pretty close to Alix (which I’ve also seen as Alice), one of the two daughters Eleanor of Aquitaine had with Louis VII. I wonder how Alix felt when that name was announced haha
Wait a minute... did King Henry make his son Richard impregnate Henry's mistress???
If so that's as weird as weird... only I wonder. There's a lot of speculation these days about Richard's sexual orientation, I can't say the idea of Henry making Richard have sex with a woman Henry trusted puts my mind to rest on that subject.
Have reliable historical sources verified the knocking up, or is that must more speculation about that family. SO much rumor and speculation about that family...
Alys being Henry’s mistress, and Henry getting her pregnant, aren’t proven but it’s been a consistent rumor from back then all the way to today. There isn’t really any other reason for Henry to delay her marriage to Richard for so long that the Pope had to intervene or for Richard to call off the match as soon as he ascended the throne.
In short, it’s in that territory of “impossible to prove but highly plausible” that a lot of pre-modern history is in.
If anything I suppose I’m more regarding how he essentially abandoned his wife during his final ‘endeavours’ of sorts like his siege of Richmond castle for example and I suppose naturally that means he abandoned his children too, even if he had spent more time with his earlier, older children beforehand in his earlier, less chaotic reign
Naturally there are many theories surrounding his relationship with both his wife and children, but as is the case with many other similar situations, it very much likely is one of two things; pure made up lies or, at the very least, hugely exaggerated issues perhaps in a propaganda sense; like William the Conqueror and his wife’s theories even though in real life they were a great couple; a wife whom William never betrayed in any manner
Even so, I simply believe it comes down to the very fact he did ultimately abandon his wife and children for these endeavours that were, at this stage, merely false hopes of regaining his losses. I believe he’d have been far more respected if he had remained with his family and accepted defeat; even if it meant relinquishing his crown to Henry at a very young age with the aid of others to guide him as we’ve seen with other young/child monarchs at the start of their ‘reigns’
*but all in all, while indeed an awful king, he wasn’t quite as hideously awful as most consider him; he indeed signed the Magna Carta…for all we know he could’ve easily just made things even more awkward by not doing so etc*
I don't think it would've mattered if he had stayed with his family or not. John would still not be respected. I wouldn't call what he did abandonment. He was essentially putting down rebellions. Not really any different than other kings who had to do the same things. And before he died, John might very well have won. Defeat wasn't inevitable since he had William Marshal with him.
John did sign the Magna Carta but almost immediately reneged on it. He even had the pope annul it on religious grounds. John like many monarchs was complicated.
That's not at all what happened.
James II was run off his throne by the people because they didn't want a Catholic ruler. William & Mary were then basically invited to "invade" England and assume the throne together.
It was all part of a dispute over who got ownership of a castle in Normandy. Henry’s daughter Juliane and her husband Eustace were threatening rebellion against him so Henry set up a hostage exchange of their daughters – his granddaughters – with the son of the castle constable. Eustace had the constable’s son blinded, so according to the rules of hostage exchange Henry retaliated by blinding his own granddaughters.
Juliane later on tried to shoot Henry with a crossbow.
George II apparently celebrated the death of his son Frederick, it’s a big question as to why Freddie named his son after the father who hated him.
Queen Victoria was a miserable parent who got mad at Albert for spending time in the nursery with the kids
I’ll do each dynasty
Normans/Blois: not sure really probably Henry I there’s not really a worse parent
Plantagenet: I probably have to say Edward II or John
Tudor: I mean both Henry VII and VIII weren’t the best parent well VII at least was fine but VIII yea he’s the worse
Stuarts: prob James II although he prob is a good father
Hanover: George I and George IV with Victoria behind them
Windsors: George V wasn’t that bad as a parent but not that good
Why Henry I ?? He was so heartbroken when his son and heir died. He enriched most of his bastards which was way more than most kings did to theirs. He made his daughter heir and had his barons swear fealty to her 3 times
Did one of his daughters not try and murder him? After he had her daughters blinded and mutilated? Arguably justifiable, but not dad of the year behaviour.
Here is that C. Warren Hollister wrote about the incident in case you’re interested:
There then occurred a series of events that are at once tragic and incomprehensible. Orderic Vitalis is our only source for these events, and his account defies belief. On the advice of the omnipresent Amaury de Montfort (who perhaps was endeavoring to effect a definitive break between Eustace and King Henry), Eustace put out the eyes of his young hostage, Ralph Harnec's son, and sent the blinded boy back to his father. Why Eustace would have mutilated an innocent young man—and thereby put his own daughters in the gravest jeopardy—is impossible to fathom. Ralph Harnec, appalled and enraged at his son's mutilation, confronted Henry and demanded vengeance. Henry, deeply moved by Eustace's seemingly gratuitous atrocity and in accordance with the custom of hostage exchanges, handed over his two granddaughters. Ralph thereupon avenged the blinding of his son by putting out their eyes and cutting off the tips of their noses. “Thus,” writes Orderic, “innocent childhood, alas, suffered for the sins of the fathers.”
Henry VIII isn’t getting any ‘Best Dad’ mugs on Father’s Day.
Literally killing your daughter’s mother is pretty bad.
Making your daughter a servant for her half sister, and declaring them both bastards isn’t going to win you a popularity contest either.
Neither is leaving your first wife in poverty to slowly languish and die because she, through no fault of her own, was unable to give you a son.
Agreed.
I also agree, Henry VIII was my first thought. I also want to be present in heaven when he finds out that the whole no boy thing was actually his fault, not theirs.
...you think he's going to heaven?
Maybe he gets to the gate, and St Peter shows him a highlight reel before not letting him in.
Yeah…. But we’ll all get the highlight reel
Lol I have to have hope for all of us
Thinking on, she DID give him a son, the poor little thing died after about a month though.
That's honestly what I've always thought. She gave him *three* sons, they poor darlings just didn't survive. Another thing that was not her fault. But I don't think Henry cared about such technicalities... :-/
Just about anyone who got involved with him ended up having a pretty tragic life with a lot of heartbreak. And they had no choice, because who could say no to the king? Poor little Katherine Howard was the saddest one for me.
He had options anyway, Henry FitzRoy was still alive and Henry was trying to legitimize him. He could’ve had Mary marry and have children of her own. He was just a horny piece of shit.
FitzRoy would never have been accepted as king, there's just no way. But Mary marrying and hopefully having kids? Especially if she married an Englishman who had royal blood (*cough* Reginald Pole *cough*)? England would have been **ecstatic**.
Probably, but given that he was attempting to legitimize him it seems like he believed it was an option.
I'm pretty sure he believed he was God's gift to England, so we can't really put much value on his opinions.
worst parent, worst king, almost worst person
House of Wessex: Edward the Elder, mostly for his shitty treatment of his firstborn Athelstan. House of Normandy: William I, literally went to his grave ranting about how much he hated his eldest son. House of Plantagenet(including Yorks and Lancastrians): Henry II, mostly due to the incident with Alys of France and Richard House of Tudor: Henry VIII, for all the obvious reasons House of Stuart: idk of any parental drama with the Stuarts honestly, James II maybe? House of Hanover: George II, none of the Hanoverians were good parents, but George II’s hatred for his eldest son was on a whole new level even for them. House of Saxe-Coburg/Windsor: probably George V, though many of his parenting techniques were pretty typical for the time. The Coburg/Windsors were probably the best parents overall for all the dynasties.
Saxe-Coburg has to be Victoria, she honestly believed her first born was responsible for her husband’s death Edit: firstborn son
Victoria was a Hanoverian, her son Edward VII was the first Saxe-Coburg Gotha monarch. I'm kinda bummed that they're bending the rules and sticking with Windsor for Charles, he should technically be the first ruler of a new house.
Technically, yes. However, he is the first monarch since the updated succession laws and the reason new houses started before was the wife taking the husbands name, which I believe Elizabeth did not, nor did they give Charles his fathers last name.
Yeah, it's not a big sticking point, but what is the point of monarchy if not sticking to tradition?! I just think it would be fun to have a new house.
I certainly would be interesting to hear the actual reason that they didn’t
Could you elaborate on your second point please? Why should it be a new house?
Because dynasties are patrilineal. Charles should be a Mountbatten-Windsor.
What happened was that almost as soon as Elizabeth became queen, Philip’s uncle Earl Mountbatten started mouthing off about how the new dynasty would have his name. This upset Queen Mary and the Queen Mother and the place issued a statement that the dynasty would still be Windsor. This caused drama with Phillip so they issued a convoluted policy authorizing certain descendants of the Queen to be able to use Mountbatten-Windsor (ie not Charles) if they needed.
If only Lord Mountbatten kept his mouth shut!
Interesting. Thank you.
Did Anne or Victoria's children take their father's name? I thought it was done kinda like in House of the Dragon with Jace being a Velayon until he takes the throne, then he takes it as a Targaryen so the name doesn't die.
It's confusing. Royals don't ever have a last name. The "Mountbatten-Windsor" thing is new, it was made to appease Phillip. Current European royals have changed a lot of things in the past century to fit the modern landscape--the world has changed so much and European monarchies are tenuous now. So, no, Anne's surviving child didn't take his father's name because they didn't use surnames. He was simply Prince William or Prince William of England, Scotland, and Ireland (this was before it was called Great Britain or the UK). However, dynasties or "houses" are patrilineal. Queen Anne was the house of Stuart. If her son, Prince William, had outlived his parents and succeeded to the throne, then he would have been the first house of Oldenburg ruler. Fun fact: the current Charles II could arguabely be the first house of Oldenburg ruler through his father, Prince Philip, but they bent those pesky rules! The ruling house changed when Victoria's son took the throne. Victoria was a Hanoverian through her father. Victoria's son, Edward VI, was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his father. Edward VI, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II were technically all the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but George V changed the house name to Windsor because of bad German sentiments during WWI. Royals love a name change!
It was Edward VII
I'll admit it's probably just because I'm american and therefore like the whole "princess/queen/royalty" nonsense, but I wish they would have just stuck with the Prince and Princess titles instead of adding last names! But again, fully admitting this is just because I'm american and we still think it's cool, not even going to try to deny that lol
Same here, that's the only reason why I wish the royal house had changed with Charles as it would have with any other monarch...cause it's fun, lol. Maybe I'd have a different opinion if I were British, but for me it is just fun to watch from a distance.
Yes. Victoria was a Hanoverian, her children belonged to her Husband’s dynasty. Dynasty inheritance is always patrilineal.
Well, I hate it, lol But it sparked some really interesting conversations so I'm glad it was asked! I am learning a bunch from this thread
Not all dynasties are patrilineal
Mountbatten-Windsor was an assumed name, though. In the past, did royal families ever choose their own house names? If they hadn't assumed Mountbatten-Windsor, then Charles II would be the house of Glucksburg or Oldenburg. They just can't get away from those pesky German names, can they? The next time the UK has a queen, she better marry an Englishman to please all her ancestors!
As someone said before Mountbatten-Windsor. But Charles's father was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
I think her firstborn was a daughter.
Never heard of what Edward the elder did go Athelstan. Can you elaborate?
Long story short is he disowned and disinherited him and exiled him from Wessex as a kid to be raised by his aunt Athelflaed in Mercia. Athelstan was only able to take the throne when Edward died cause Edward’s preferred heir Aelfweard died just after Edward did.
Also Edward third wife Edgiva was in his custody since she was a newborn because her father died in battle. Edward married her when she was 16 and he was 45 despite her being 9 years younger than Athelstan and 1 year younger than Aelfweard he definitely groomed her.
I see. That is pretty shitty
Tbf you'd hate Robert Curthose lol
Henry II has to be on the top of my list. Not many monarchs have a war with most of their children. James II obviously has the glorious revolution. Hate to say it, but Victoria was not very nice to her children either. In today's terms, very emotionally abusive. Her calling her daughters cows because they dared to go against her and breastfeed their children; then not speaking to them over it, is a bit much for me. Also the hate that she had for Edward VII was a bit unfair. Sure, he was a handful, but she started calling him stupid and ugly from a very young age because he wasn't typically intelligent like Vicky was. If Beatrice hadn't destroyed her diaries, I am sure that we would have a lot more to say about how she truly treated her children. But, a lot of that is gone from us.
Edward VII’s pull to chill ratio was pretty good. His looks clearly didn’t hold him back.
Henry ll allegedly made his son fiance his mistress and impregnated her
This is widely believed to untrue even at the time. It comes from the play/movie The Lion in Winter. Richard used it as a pretext to get out of his bretrothal to Alys.
Which son?
Richard the lionheart
Alice, sister of Philip Augustus, King of France.
Wait his step daughter???
Alice (which I’ve also seen as Alys) was the daughter of Louis VII and his second wife, Constance of Castile. But her name is pretty close to Alix (which I’ve also seen as Alice), one of the two daughters Eleanor of Aquitaine had with Louis VII. I wonder how Alix felt when that name was announced haha
Wait a minute... did King Henry make his son Richard impregnate Henry's mistress??? If so that's as weird as weird... only I wonder. There's a lot of speculation these days about Richard's sexual orientation, I can't say the idea of Henry making Richard have sex with a woman Henry trusted puts my mind to rest on that subject.
Henry knocked up Richard’s fiancé, who was the King of France’s sister.
Have reliable historical sources verified the knocking up, or is that must more speculation about that family. SO much rumor and speculation about that family...
Alys being Henry’s mistress, and Henry getting her pregnant, aren’t proven but it’s been a consistent rumor from back then all the way to today. There isn’t really any other reason for Henry to delay her marriage to Richard for so long that the Pope had to intervene or for Richard to call off the match as soon as he ascended the throne. In short, it’s in that territory of “impossible to prove but highly plausible” that a lot of pre-modern history is in.
Also when the affair started alys was like 14 and Henry was 41
Sounds like something a Henry would do
It is pretty much perceived as untrue even back then.
I thought as much, "impossible to prove but highly plausible", and thank you for admitting it. I agree that it's highly plausible!
People loved horny gossip at the time. Did you hear the rumors about Eleanor? Oh boy
William the Conqueror was such a dick to his eldest son that we still know Robert by the mean nickname his father gave him.
Which was?
Curthose. Short-legs. Though Henry II also called his son John Lackland, if I'm not mistaken, prior to gaining Ireland.
Robert the idiot
Basically all the Hanover Dynasty
Henry VIII and honestly it's not even close
"After the rain comes the rainbow. Sorry I killed your mom"
John This is definitely the one aspect of his reign you cannot argue in more than one way
Actually John was a pretty loving father. He loved his illegitimate daughter immensely.
A real father wouldn’t have a favourite🗿he definitely took after his father in that regard
Well he had his heir Henry late in his life. I believe Henry was 6 when John died. So don't really know how John treated him.
If anything I suppose I’m more regarding how he essentially abandoned his wife during his final ‘endeavours’ of sorts like his siege of Richmond castle for example and I suppose naturally that means he abandoned his children too, even if he had spent more time with his earlier, older children beforehand in his earlier, less chaotic reign Naturally there are many theories surrounding his relationship with both his wife and children, but as is the case with many other similar situations, it very much likely is one of two things; pure made up lies or, at the very least, hugely exaggerated issues perhaps in a propaganda sense; like William the Conqueror and his wife’s theories even though in real life they were a great couple; a wife whom William never betrayed in any manner Even so, I simply believe it comes down to the very fact he did ultimately abandon his wife and children for these endeavours that were, at this stage, merely false hopes of regaining his losses. I believe he’d have been far more respected if he had remained with his family and accepted defeat; even if it meant relinquishing his crown to Henry at a very young age with the aid of others to guide him as we’ve seen with other young/child monarchs at the start of their ‘reigns’ *but all in all, while indeed an awful king, he wasn’t quite as hideously awful as most consider him; he indeed signed the Magna Carta…for all we know he could’ve easily just made things even more awkward by not doing so etc*
I don't think it would've mattered if he had stayed with his family or not. John would still not be respected. I wouldn't call what he did abandonment. He was essentially putting down rebellions. Not really any different than other kings who had to do the same things. And before he died, John might very well have won. Defeat wasn't inevitable since he had William Marshal with him. John did sign the Magna Carta but almost immediately reneged on it. He even had the pope annul it on religious grounds. John like many monarchs was complicated.
William the Conquerer
James II’s daughter kicked him off the throne. There must have been some issues there.
That's not at all what happened. James II was run off his throne by the people because they didn't want a Catholic ruler. William & Mary were then basically invited to "invade" England and assume the throne together.
Henry I had his granddaughters blinded, I think that’s pretty reprehensible behaviour as both a father and a grandfather
Omg why?
It was all part of a dispute over who got ownership of a castle in Normandy. Henry’s daughter Juliane and her husband Eustace were threatening rebellion against him so Henry set up a hostage exchange of their daughters – his granddaughters – with the son of the castle constable. Eustace had the constable’s son blinded, so according to the rules of hostage exchange Henry retaliated by blinding his own granddaughters. Juliane later on tried to shoot Henry with a crossbow.
tbh I cant imagine any of them were actually any good
Will I was pretty shitty
Henry II was pretty terrible
Henry VIII.
George II apparently celebrated the death of his son Frederick, it’s a big question as to why Freddie named his son after the father who hated him. Queen Victoria was a miserable parent who got mad at Albert for spending time in the nursery with the kids
I’ll do each dynasty Normans/Blois: not sure really probably Henry I there’s not really a worse parent Plantagenet: I probably have to say Edward II or John Tudor: I mean both Henry VII and VIII weren’t the best parent well VII at least was fine but VIII yea he’s the worse Stuarts: prob James II although he prob is a good father Hanover: George I and George IV with Victoria behind them Windsors: George V wasn’t that bad as a parent but not that good
Why Henry I ?? He was so heartbroken when his son and heir died. He enriched most of his bastards which was way more than most kings did to theirs. He made his daughter heir and had his barons swear fealty to her 3 times
Did one of his daughters not try and murder him? After he had her daughters blinded and mutilated? Arguably justifiable, but not dad of the year behaviour.
Here is that C. Warren Hollister wrote about the incident in case you’re interested: There then occurred a series of events that are at once tragic and incomprehensible. Orderic Vitalis is our only source for these events, and his account defies belief. On the advice of the omnipresent Amaury de Montfort (who perhaps was endeavoring to effect a definitive break between Eustace and King Henry), Eustace put out the eyes of his young hostage, Ralph Harnec's son, and sent the blinded boy back to his father. Why Eustace would have mutilated an innocent young man—and thereby put his own daughters in the gravest jeopardy—is impossible to fathom. Ralph Harnec, appalled and enraged at his son's mutilation, confronted Henry and demanded vengeance. Henry, deeply moved by Eustace's seemingly gratuitous atrocity and in accordance with the custom of hostage exchanges, handed over his two granddaughters. Ralph thereupon avenged the blinding of his son by putting out their eyes and cutting off the tips of their noses. “Thus,” writes Orderic, “innocent childhood, alas, suffered for the sins of the fathers.”
You forgot the house of Wessex
I don’t know a lot about them sorry 😞
The worse was probably aethelred the unready
Aethelread seemed like an okay dad. Edward the Elder seemed like a shitty dad.
Queen Elizabeth, let her kids be nonces and protected them
Andrew is the only one that is a pedo
Charles was best friends with Jimmy Saville. Miss me with your bullshit.
Then explain Edward and Anne then
She was a pretty cold and uncaring mother. It’s insane considering how good of a parent her dad Albert was
she paid for his defenese but i dont think there's any record she actually helped in a unethical way
King Henry VIII Tudor and Queen Alexandria Victoria I.