Who we're the GOOD Kings & Queens throughout history? What about the earlier French Kings, any of them good ?

Phillipe II Auguste (Phillip the Great) etait mon ancetre.


He was a descendent of Charlemagne (Charles the Great) and Jaroslav the Wise (Prince of the Kiev Rus) and many other good and noble kings and princes who earned their names.

King Cole....I heard he was quite merry...always tokin' it up and having fiddle concerts.

ALL European nobility were merely the best and most dedicated thieves and robbers with the most swords and bows/arrows. That's it. They routinely went around demanding food and goods from the peasants and if you refused to pay a 'tax' off with your head.

If it wasn't for my ancestor, Charles Martel, a king in all but name, you would be praying five times a day to Allah, Hans.

double post

Believe it or not, Vladimir the simpler's father, was completely loved and wonderful..

My guess is they were as good as the political climate. If relations to other kingdoms were good and prosperous they were great and if economically downcast and facing war, shitty.

Reread Han's. Charles Martel, was an able man, selected to be the "Mayor of the Palace", for a line of incompetent monarchs.

I would dare say, Charles Martel was moreso the first Statesman in Western Civilization(Western Civilization was born, when the Western Roman Empire died). It is a shame, that after him, few great Statesmen followed, until perhaps the Age of Enlightenment. He was a soul modeled before his time, because his time had no one up to the task that was set before him.

I learned from my history lessons that they all did the best job six feet under.
So all can be considered good, well, in a way...

King Alfred the Great

I disagree. Charlemagne,Martel's grandson, was a great king also and the father, in a real sense, of Latin Christendom and Western Civilization -- a great warrior and patron of the arts and learning.

You are related to Charles the Hammer? Nice lineage. We could use some more like him now, since we are facing another Muslim onslaught.

There was this Russian czar who faked his own death and moved to Siberia to become a monk.

[link to siberiantimes.com]

I am a descendent of the Rurikids as well == through the daughter of Jaroslav who married a French king, Anne of Kiev.

Many of the czars and their queens, such as Olga, also my ancestor, were great rulers.

He killed King Asclepiodutus to assume the throne, at least according to geoffrey of monmouth.

Fair enough, it is a shame vipers took over Europe after that time. Maybe because, I know the Germanic's where originally a flat society(not a pyramid, hierarchy structure based society), I do not know if the Frank's where a flat society as well. Maybe being so close to the people, and somewhat accountable to them, is what produced such great leaders?

The majority were, but to answer OP's question, there have been several decent people throughout history who have found themselves at the helm of a nation's monarchy. Unfortunately, many of them were either killed, or had corrupt deeds committed in their name by their advisors, without their knowledge. For example, Jane (the nine day's queen), an extremely virtous and disciplined student of protestant thought, an advocate of peace and diplomacy, who believed in separating england from both the catholic church and the corrupt anglican church, and returning the nation to a relationship with the creator free from the confines of organized religion ... she found herself at the helm of england's monarchy in june 1553, and was usurped within nine days by mary tudor's demonic slaves, and murdered.

Another example is Henry VI, a pious individual who advocated that even those who plotted his own death should be forgiven and pardoned ... however, in his name many of his corrupt advisors executed and murdered many advocates for a republic, and many opponents to the roman church's satanic paradigm ... when Henry VI caught on to this, TPTB ignited the wars of the roses, by sending their stooge Edward IV to usurp the throne ... after this, however, they stepped in as the "opposition" to Edward IV, and claimed to support the reigning king Henry VI, only to sully his name by perverting his core beliefs and declaring war against Edward IV in his name, something he abhorred, as he believed in diplomacy.

The war of the roses was also meant to tarnish Henry VI's name by creating another engineered war/conflict, where the controllers of both sides were both ultimately pawns of TPTB, and both used occultic rose symbols which were connected to various orders of ritual magick in association with the cabbalists who ran the vatican .... It was intended to mock Henry VI's spiritual nature, by creating an elite-engineered, controlled war, but having one side PRETENDING to support Henry VI, so as to sully his name ... of course, the side which pretended to support him surrendered to Edward IV, since they really served the same master anyway ... Edward IV became king in 1461 and imprisoned Henry VI. However Henry VI managed to regain control of his kingdom in 1470. Outraged, the elite re installed Edward IV as king in 1471, and Henry VI was murdered. Of course the elite ended up using the outrage at this to ignite hatred of their own puppet, the york dynasty, so that, amidst the chaos generated by the public's fury, they would destroy themselves ... creating a power vaccuum that could be filled by the Tudors, a bloodline with an obscene amount of genetic links to ancient babylonian cults ... basically, the exact same bloodline as the pendragons .... Henry VII Tudor was a male line descendant of arthur, who the elite portray as a saviour to propagate the meme of an aryan messiah, so as to mock the biblical savior, Yahusha Ha Mashiach, who was hebrew ... Anyway, Henry VII decided to further taint Henry VI's character by claiming to be his supporter, and perverting the positive energy he radiated to the masses by using it for his own agenda, to promote his claim to the throne, by claiming to be a supporter of the late king Henry VI. This has given modern establishment controlled 'historians' an excuse to portray the piety of Henry VI as a myth created by the tudors, since the tudors claimed to support Henry VI - his reputation has been further stained by individuals wishing to portray his empathy and creativity as a 'disorder' and claiming he was 'mentally ill', etc ...

Geoffrey of Monmouth, "History of the Kings of Britain",book 5 chapter 6

" Meanwhile Coel, Duke of Kaercolvin, that is, Colchester, raised an insurrection against King Asclepiodotus, and after slaying him in a pitched battle, did set the crown of the kingdom upon his own head. When the tidings thereof were announced at Rome, the Senate rejoiced greatly over the death of the King, who had throughout been so sore a trouble unto the Roman power. "

What a guy.

Good King Wenceslas

[link to www.youtube.com]

many many many

you'd be surprised how many were murdered.

That's the thing about the old days... if the king was a cnut, he would be taken care of

Charles II once burned out his cousin's eyes over a dispute and he died several days later. I think most of them are flawed in some way. Maybe their upbringing deadens their empathy. And, Charles II is my 34th Great Grandfather.

I understand. I am a descendent of a king whose eyes were gouged out by his brother-king, Bernard, Roi D'Italie, King of the Lombards.

Some were good. Some were bad.

The point is, in answer to the op's question: yes, many were good.

I understand. I am a descendent of a king whose eyes were gouged out by his brother-king, Bernard, Roi D'Italie, King of the Lombards.

Some were good. Some were bad.

The point is, in answer to the op's question: yes, many were good.

Dagobert

You have Nanaak in Punjab ~ 15th Cent.
King Bela of Hungary
King Stefan of Roumania

The Sejohn the Great of Korya

Lots of Great Kings throughout this planet's history.

Last Edited by John Sela on 08/16/2015 01:11 PM

The Dutch and Jordanians of today are pretty chill.

Eleanor of Aquitaine - Legend. She ran the country while her husband was away on crusades, among other things.

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Ivan the Terrible was actually a great guy. Catherine the Great, on he other hand, was not so great.

He was a son of Pippin II who was the King of the Francinian Empire.

Charles (Karl) Martel became Majordomus Franconia in 714.

Karl's son Pippin III was Majordomus Franconia from 741-751
and became King of the Franconians 751-752

Pippin III's son was Karl I The Great.


It seems we are related, Hi very distant Cousin nice to meet you.

Last Edited by Michael. on 08/16/2015 03:11 PM