NetGalley ARC | The Worst Medieval Monarchs

I received a a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating | ⭐⭐⭐

The book covers the usual suspects when we are talking about the worst of England's kings: Stephen, John, Edward II, Richard II, and Richard III. I personally think a case could be made for Richard III, but for a much different reason - he simply did not GAF about England and literally would have sold the country if it would have helped him raise money for Crusade. He maybe spent a total of six months there the entire time he was king. BUT, the kings discussed here are viewed as the worst for different reasons - mainly because their reigns were constantly marred by conflict both within and beyond the borders.

It's the king or queen's job to protect their citizens and all failed quite spectacularly in that regard. Civil wars or wars with other countries decimated the population and land. Not to mention the fact that John was a freaking psychopath and Richard III had his nephews killed so he could take the throne.

For all their massive failures, each paid a heavy price:

1. Stephen's stolen crown passed to Henry Plantagenet when he died, thus ushering in the start of the Plantagenet Dynasty. Don't even get me started on how Stephen never should have been king in the first place, usurping the throne that rightfully belonged to his cousin Matilda that she should have received when her father Henry I died. The 18 years-long civil war was directly his fault.

2. Edward II never really stood a chance and is honestly the one I genuinely feel bad for. He was never cut out to be king and would have been quite happy on an estate somewhere doing his commoner things like ditch-digging and roof-thatching. He was most comfortable with those considered lower class and that would have been just fine had he not been the king. Whether he died of natural causes in captivity, or was murdered by order of his queen, Isabella and her lover Roger Mortimer, we will likely never know. I wish he could have just abdicated and lived a quiet life that he was really meant for.

3. John was THE WORST. Like, just all-around a terrible person, never mind a terrible king. He was a lazy, cruel, spoiled baby and never should have inherited the crown. Richard III had to go and get himself killed though, so here we are. He wasn't particularly skilled in any aspect of kingship so he will always belong to the worst of the worst lists. Plus, Geoffrey's son Arthur should have gotten the crown before John. But John had him killed, maybe even did it himself, so again, here we are. Imagine being the youngest of five boys (William, Henry the Young King, Richard III and Geoffrey came before him), getting a shot at the crown that never should have come your way, and completely messing everything up so badly that England will NEVER have another king named John EVER.

4. Richard II is a bit of a conundrum because he could have been a great king, but we will never know for sure because of a number of factors. He came to the throne young, so had several councils rule for him during his regency. This was led by his uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. The Peasants' Revolt pretty much solidified Richard's place as a 'worst' considering how brutal the suppression of the revolt was. Then there was his delayed revenge on the Appellants, and his disinheriting of John of Gaunt's son (and Richard's cousin) Henry Bolingbroke. That Richard thought he could do this with no repercussions was insane, and it cost him his throne and life.

5. Then we have Richard III, who I completely despise. We have a theme though, as he is yet another usurper, and typically those have not fared too well (Stephen, always looking at you. Henry VII, you got very lucky). Richard had his nephews murdered, and he knew people were talking about it. All he would have had to do was trot them out at court, let everyone see they were alive and well, and he might have then had a successful reign. But he couldn't do that, so he lost his crown and his life as well, the last king of England to die in battle.

Overall I would say this is a good assessment of the men and their times. The author explores how they were viewed against standards of their own time period compared to the following centuries up to today. He also discusses how the kings have been portrayed in fictional works, from Shakespeare to the screen, and how that impacts their reputations up to today. I don't think any of them can or should be redeemed, except maybe Edward II.

The author suggests that Richard III does not belong on this list but I disagree completely. Richard murdered his nephews to seize the crown. Had he just locked them up, that would be a different story because evidence suggests he actually could have had a decent reign. Murdering the boys, however, ensured that he would always remain the villain in the story. Given the time period however, Richard knew he had to get rid of them, otherwise there was potential for revolt and for Edward V supporters to place him back on his rightful throne. Like with John having his nephew murdered, they absolutely belong on this list for those acts alone.

Something I think would have been important is discussing how each king was raised - like John, not all were raised to be king in the first place but they manage to grab the throne anyway. Background of their life before becoming king would be good to cover as well - particularly for those who do not have a lot of background information on these men already. This was not an issue for me for the most part, but could impact other readers' experiences.

Overall it was a decent read and well-researched.

Recommended.