WORST BRITONS OF THE PAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS
I see that a panel of "distinguished" historians have complied a list of the worst Britons of the last millennium. Can't say I agree with many of their selections but I offer you my list of the worst Britons of the past 100 years, in no particular order.
1. Edward Heath - the Prime Minister who conned this country into joining the European Union. A man whose loyalty to Europe was placed above that of his loyalty to this United Kingdom
2. Neville Chamberlain - the Prime Minister who tried to appease Hitler and who sold out the Czechs to the Nazi invasion as a "faraway country containing people of whom we know nothing"
3. Ken Livingstone - the Dhimmi embracing anti-British Mayor Jihad-understanding Mayor of London.
4. Aneurin Bevan - the Marx-loving Labour politician who did much to bring about the evils of the modern Welfare State.
5. Oswald Mosley - the Nazi loving Briton who formed the British Union of Fascists.
6. Kim Philby - the Cambridge educated spy who betrayed his country to the Soviet Union and whose traitorous activties led to the deaths of many patriots.
7. Harold Pinter - the self loathing pretentious playwright whose enthusiasm for leftist dictatorships remains undiminished.
8. John Lennon - the wife-beating terrorist-supporting drug-fueled egotistical buffoon who did us all a favour when he left the UK and infested the USA.
9. John Major - the man who frittered away the golden Thatcher legacy.
...and
10. Tony Blair - the Prime Minister who destroyed democracy in Northern Ireland. A total disgrace.
Neither Oswald Mosley nor Jack the Ripper were important enough to be nominated the worst villains of their respective centuries.
I can think of several potential candidates, but none that really stands out as the *worst*.
I'd certainly agree about Hugh Despenser the Younger, and Thomas Beckett. For the sixteenth century I'd nominate either Henry VIII or Mary.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 27, 2005 at 11:26 AM
For the 11th century, I'd nominate William the Bastard.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 27, 2005 at 11:27 AM
All of them are politicians bar Lennon.
No room for Fred West or Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley?
Posted by: Garfield | December 27, 2005 at 11:52 AM
Just too many to chose from!
I agree that Henry and Mary were monsters (and the former was one of the main reasons that the latter became one). I would also say that More and Cromwell (Thomas not Oliver) would be competition for them. God knows what things would have been like if More, especially had been a King). Looking at the link, I don't agree about Richard Rich. He may not have been an example of nobility of spirit, but if his inclusion is because of his evidence at More's trial, it seems a trifle harsh. He did not actually lie. More should have known better than to fet drawn into a theoretica debate assuming that it was off the record lawers musings.
Re the 20th centuary, we have so many home grown terrorists to chose from, where would I start?
Posted by: Aileen | December 27, 2005 at 11:54 AM
Does "worst" mean activity or intention and is it independant of mental health?
Posted by: Aileen | December 27, 2005 at 11:56 AM
You left out Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and ....
Posted by: Madradin Ruad | December 27, 2005 at 12:03 PM
I define worst in the sense of having caused damage to this UK. Mass murderers like West or Hindley were evil but I don't think their malignancy spread outside their group of victims.
Posted by: David Vance | December 27, 2005 at 12:03 PM
Also bear in mind that most medieval rulers and statesmen were atrociously cruel. To qualify as the "worst" IMO they would have to be both cruel and selfish (eg William the Bastard, Henry VIII, Hugh de Spenser) as opposed to being cruel but beneficial (such as Edward I, Henry I and II, Henry VII).
Come to think of it, the Black Prince may have been worse than Hugh de Spenser. His behaviour towards his French subjects and enemies was pretty atrocious.
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 27, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Also bear in mind that most medieval rulers and statesmen were atrociously cruel.
From what I can see everybody then - by todays standards - was atrociously cruel.
Posted by: Madradin Ruad | December 27, 2005 at 12:20 PM
King John shouldn't be on the list. He was a bit of a tyrant all right, but not a monster.
Posted by: Peter | December 27, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Almost all. The one who was genuinely merciful, by anybody's standards, was Alfred the Great,
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 27, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Madradin,
Gerry or Martin aren't Britons (a native or inhabitant of Great Britain) so they can't be included.
Posted by: Garfield | December 27, 2005 at 12:28 PM
They are British with British names - that's close enough. But if you want to be fussy ( and as a pedant I recognise a kindred Spirit) then how about Pat Doherty who is a native of GB ?
Posted by: Madradin Ruad | December 27, 2005 at 12:37 PM
Would leave out Major from that list. Really, he was more often than not a victim of circumstances.
A far better choice would be Anthony Blunt. Soviet spy, and a paedophile
Posted by: RJM | December 27, 2005 at 12:42 PM
Madradin,
they are British but they are not Britons. I don't rate Pat Doherty even negatively although he would qualify.
I'm amazed David ignored Arthur Scargill.
Posted by: Garfield | December 27, 2005 at 12:48 PM
Peter
I think that John suffered from clinical depression but didn't he murder his nephew. Murdering children was even considered taboo in those days.
Posted by: Aileen | December 27, 2005 at 12:53 PM
Aileen, I don't think John can be compared to William the Conqueror for brutality and mass-slaughter.
Posted by: Peter | December 27, 2005 at 01:06 PM
I'd take Johm Major out - he was merely a victim of his own weakness - and replace him (and higher in the order) by George Galloway. Galloway is the most treacherous sleazeball in the modern era to have a seat in Parliament.
Posted by: Allan@Aberdeen | December 27, 2005 at 01:43 PM
Would George Bernard Shaw or H.G. Wells have a case for being on the list in place of Harold Pinter? Their support for Stalin was more influential than Pinter's denunciations of the USA, which I doubt anyone actually takes seriously.
Posted by: Ross | December 27, 2005 at 02:55 PM
George Bernard Shaw wasn't a Briton so he fails to qualify Ross.
Posted by: Garfield | December 27, 2005 at 03:23 PM
I note Ian Paisley, arch-bigot, is not on this list.
Is this because you endorse his anti-Catholic views? Of course not. The Phantom knows better.
It must be because you know he is not British. He's Irish. A bad, bad, bad self-hating Irishman, but an Irishman nonetheless.
The Phantom also notes no Ulstermen on this list at all. They're all mainland British, not Irish. For a second, I thought I had stumbled onto the United Irelander site.
Posted by: The Phantom | December 27, 2005 at 03:32 PM
Why on Earth would Ian Paisley make it onto this list?
Posted by: Sean Fear | December 27, 2005 at 03:44 PM
No-one mentioned Lord Haw Haw?
Posted by: John Hustings | December 27, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Phanthom,
Why do you imply I endorse anti-Roman Catholic views?
As for the absence of Ulstermen, I thought about traitors like Trimble but they are in the next 20!
Posted by: David Vance | December 27, 2005 at 03:52 PM
DV
Thats not what I meant...I do not think that is the case.
My point is that Ulstermen are Irish, and that is why none are on the top ten list!
Phantom
Posted by: The Phantom | December 27, 2005 at 04:04 PM