Biggest Bastards in British History

[Wannabestepfordwife]

I've read through the Henry VIII what a bastard thread and it's made me wonder who is the biggest bastard in British history.

My historical knowledge is pretty limited to the wars of the roses and Tudor era so it would be great to learn about some new historical figures.

My nominations are-
Earl of Warwick (the kingmaker)- a vicious bastard to all that encountered him.
Duke of Norfolk (Thomas Howard)- a reprehensible man with seemingly few redeeming qualities but I can't help but like and be fascinated by him
Thomas Boleyn- Odious man pimping his daughters out and discarding them when they were no longer useful
Cromwell both Thomas and Oliver
Duke of Northumberland (John Dudley)- the way he used Lady Jane Grey to further his own ends with no regard for her welfare.
Duke of Suffolk (Henry Grey)- the indefensible way he treated him daughter I don't know who was worse him or his wife

Sir John Hawkins, the first British slave trader also puts in a good bid for worst Briton of all time.

Henry II was a great king. I know this is a lighthearted thread (hopefully) but he didn't lock up Eleanor because she objected to his mistress but she plotted with their sons to rebel against him. He spent most of his reign on horseback, traveling from one end of the country to the other to administer justice and break the power of the barons. It was said that, during his rule 'a maid could travel round the country with a purse of gold in her bosom and come to no harm' (or something like that). His sons , apart from John, all rebelled against him. Yes, he perhaps slept with Princess Alys, Richard's fiancee, but how can you judge him just on that?

...and I don't ANY historical figure was 'nice'. How could you be, living the way they did? What would be interesting is how they would judge us (harshly, I think)

Richard III was one of the best kings England ever had. He did more good in his short rule than other kings who are thought of as good did in a comparable time.

He did not kill the princes in the tower, and had no incentive to do so. (Henry Tudor on the other hand...). In any case, no one could have secretly killed anyone in the tower. It was a royal palace with a huge staff.

Shakespeare's villain is gloriously evil, though.

James II of Scotland invited the 6th Earl of Douglas to dinner in 1440 then had him and his 10 year-old brother beheaded, 12 years later he killed the 8th Earl of Douglas after a dinner at Stirling Castle.

The 9th and last Earl probably didn't accept many dinner invitations.

Fantastic thread!

Thinking about kings, the absolute worst I can think of is Edward I. Yes, he was ruthless. Even by the standards of the day he was ruthless and had an absolutely fearsome reputation. Apparently he was so frightening that his one of his officials fell down dead from fear at the prospect of a confrontation with him.

If that isn't enough, during a row with his adult son (the future Edward II), he dragged him round the floor during a row, tearing out lumps of his hair in the process and calling him a 'filthy whoreson'.

Oh, he also had a man blinded when he was a young man. Just because.

Not to mention arranging a special execution squad for Simon de Montfort who was defeated and dismembered at the Battle of Evesham.

Thats just a fraction of his bastardly behaviour. Truly he was the biggest, nastiest bastard of a really bastardly bunch.

He wasn't all bad though, he did love his first wife.

cdtay the Stewarts had absolutely the worst luck out of any royal dynasty. They got off to a bad start and things pretty much got worse from then on.

Robert III - disabled by an accident and suffered from severe depression. His heir was killed by his brother and the next in line (who became James I)was sent away to avoid the same fate, only he got captured by the English and imprisoned for 20 years).

James I - after his imprisonment was released only to be murdered in a rebellion 12 years later aged around 42 and succeeded by..

James II (the one who liked chopping peoples heads off) - came to the throne at age 7 and was blown up by his own cannon at the age of 30 to be succeeded by...

James III - king at age 9, he died 'mysteriously' after the battle of Sauchieburn aged 36 to be succeeded by..

James IV - king at 15 (so in a better position than any of his recent ancestors) who was actually a rather successful king; and was married to Margaret Tudor (H8s sister). Except he made a bad judgement call re Flodden and was succeeded by..

James V - his baby son (came to the throne at 17 months old) by Margaret Tudor. James, funnily enough, also died in battle at a young age and was succeeded by..

Mary Queen of Scots. And we know what happened to her...

I read somewhere (vague) that younger societies are more violent. So the majority of adults in most of the UK history periods mentioned above would be much younger than the average in modern times. More likely to lead to hormonal rages and ruthlessness.

One of my favourite historical biographies, although it's actually a novel, is Katherine, by Anya Seton. About Katherine Swyfotd, who married John of Gaunt

Heylilbunny that makes perfect sense especially when you think about the likes of IS who are young and utterly barbaric

katiekaye it is a really good book but I always preferred "Passage to Pontefract" by Jean Plaidy

Titus Oates. Awful man.

Oh, and Antonia Fraser's book about the Gunpowder Plot is a fabulous read. I'd also recommend Tracy Borman's book about Elizabeth I's Women.

Titus Oates? Who went outside for a bit? Say it ain't so

Don't worry, IHeart - not that Oates!

This is the original Titus Oates.

Titus Oates? Who went outside for a bit? Say it ain't so
No, Titus Oates was the Popish plot guy.

I'm sure that Captain Oates wasn't a bastard. He was noble and self-sacrificing, not at all bastard material.

Wannabe I think 'Passage to Pontefract' must be one of the few Plaidy novels that I haven't read. Since you recommend it I'm going to try and get hold of a copy.

x post, fair.

I totally agree about the big bastard qualities of Titus.

Not for strong reasons but I have always despised George I. My 'P ' Pageant of History' book described him as DAWDLING to the throne from Germany 6 WEEKS after Queen Anne's death. NEVER learnt English and locked his wife up in a castle for infidelity even though HE used to flaunt his mistresses in front of HER. I remember being apoplectic when reading this aged 8 and so unfortunately George, first impressions count for a lot, I still hate you.

Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm not sure I'm clever enough for this thread!

Well, IHeart, Captain Oates' nickname was Titus!

He was a bit more: "I'm going outside now; I may be some time", and a bit less: "I'm going outside now to denounce some Catholics..."

iheart I'd never heard of him either (or most of the people on this thread)

Bad King John who hung the little boys who were Welsh hostages. What a shithead.

Maggie Thatcher for sure.

Clive of India.

Maggie T too but I also think she was the figurehead for a gang of hateful gits who were not in the foreground but almost as culpabale. I grew up in a very Tory household but I had an instinctive dislike of her.

I doubt there is a king or queen - especially in early history - who wasn't an utter bastard. That's how you play the Game of Thrones - you win or you die, etc, etc. George Martin is bang on with that.

It might be easier to pick out a non bastard. Ironically, the two most reviled Kings - John, and Richard III - are probably the only two who were slight but not total bastards. At least John bothered to learn English, which is more than Richard the Lionheart did.

Charles I was a total troll - marrying a French catholic, such a blatantly stupid thing to do and ended in the deaths of thousands and a civil war.

History is about way more than boring old kings and queens, though.

I'd go along with Thatcher (and most if not all of her cabinet) being amongst the most evil bastards in history. Ditto Cameron and Osbourne.

Sir Banastre Tarleton was actually nicknamed 'the Bastard' or 'Bloody Ban', I think. (British Commander in the American Revolutionary Wars, later politician). Hot, though:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Banastre-Tarleton-by-Joshua-Reynolds.jpg

Duke of Wellington always struck me as a bit of a twat. And such a snob, too. And brown-nosed the young Queen Victoria, shockingly. I much prefer Napoleon.

And going through the mists of time to my A Level History so this may be wrong... was it Lord Curzon (a Viceroy of India) who, seeing his estate's labourers swimming in a pond on his estate, expressed surprise that working class people weren't covered all over with hair, like monkeys?