So I'm wondering. There are more than a few kings known as "The Great" -- the best known are Alfred, Charles (of the HRE), Alexander, Peter (of Russia) and so on. The coolest, in my not-so-humble, is King Scorpion II of Thinis (ancient Egypt). How metal is that? Can you just imagine some heavy metal group growling a song about KING SCORPION!!! YEAH!!! There are quite a few kings nicknamed "The Brave", "The Strong", "The Wise" and so on. I can imagine such kings being puffed up with pride. Possibly they even deserved their nicknames. But what are some of the worst (and most deserved? I'm not interested in nicknames that make sense, like "King So-And-So The Lazy" which is given to some king because he focused on consolidating his power. But if a king is called "the Lazy" because he was definitely lazy ... that's different). So let's see: 12. William the Bastard Everyone knows this guy, more famously known as William the Conqueror. He was known as "the Bastard" because he was literally an illegitimate child; although his father was the Duke of Normandy, his mother was the wife of a poor tanner (or leatherworker). When besieging a castle once, the defenders hung animal hides from the wall and shouted "Hides for the tanner." After he took the castle, he had their hands and feet chopped off. (OK, so as far as "Yo mama" jokes go, that one's bad. He's got the right to be touchy. But still ...) 11. Ivalyo the Lettuce (aka the Radish or the Swineherd) Ivaylo was a poor pig farmer in Bulgaria. In 1277, Bulgaria was struggling both with the Tatar invaders and an economic crisis. Ivalyo put together an efficient peasant army that defended Northern Bulgaria against the Tatars and defeated them in several battles. Instead of being grateful, the Bulgar Tsar Constantine chose to wage war against the peasants; but against all odds, his army was routed and Constantine was killed. With Bulgaria still under threat from both the Tatars and the Byzantines, the widowed Queen Maria chose to marry Ivalyo and make him the new Tsar. He went on to beat both the Tatars and the Byzantines with his army of peasants, but eventually met his match in King Georgi Terter of Tsarnovo. Ivalyo went to a rival, Nogai (the leader of the Tatars) for help. Instead, Nogai killed him. His various nicknames refer to his humble farming background. As kings go, he wasn't particularly bad, but could never get the support of the various Bulgar noblemen. 10. John the Babymaker John II ruled Cleves from 1481 until his death in 1521. He fathered sixty-three (!!!) illegitimate children before his marriage, and three 'legitimate' kids during his marriage to Anna of Katzenelnbogen. Presumably this left him with very little time for actual kinging. 9. William The Greatest Debauchee Of The Age William III was King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg from 1849 until his death in 1890. He also had what you could call 'an enthusiasm for extra-marital relations.' Apparently The New York Times called him 'the Greatest Debauchee.' I wonder if they forgot about John the Babymaker. 8. Piero The Unfortunate Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici was the Gran maestro of Florence from 1492 until 1494. He was feeble, arrogant, and undisciplined - but because his dad was named Lorenzo the Magnificent, he was given a chance at leadership. Spoiler alert - he blew it. He abandoned an with France in favor of one with Naples, lost control of the city when the French invaded, and was then ousted from power when the people revolted, plundered the Medici Palace, and exiled his family from Florence. As if that wasn't bad enough, he eventually drowned crossing a river while fleeing from a battle in 1503. 7. Lulach The Foolish Lulach mac Gille Coemgáin was nicknamed "the Simple-minded" or "the Foolish," yet he still managed to be King of Scots in 1057. The stepson of Macbeth, Lulach was the first king in Scotland that there are coronation details for - but his reign was weak, and he was assassinated less than a year into the job. 6. John George The Beer Jug John George I, Elector of Saxony (king 1611-1656) was politically smart, but not a great ruler. He decided that the Thirty Years' War (a particularly unlovely religious war) was not for him, so he simply went down to his local (I presume it was called The Cabbage and Schnitzel), got a few pints, and waited for the whole thing to blow over. What? Some kings prefer to wait in the pub. His people were not very forgiving, and started calling him 'John-George Beer-jug', making him sound like a footballer's dodgy mate. He's also distantly related to the British Royal Family, so if anyone wants to know what the reign of Prince Harry would be like… 5. Louis the Unavoidable Poor old Louis XVIII of France spent much of his reign in the late 18th century in exile due to the French Revolution. When things began to stabilise once after Napoleon's defeat in 1815, Louis was deemed the 'unavoidable' choice to reclaim the throne. Talk about a blow to his self-esteem! 4. Halfdan the Bad Entertainer King of Norway, having taken over from his father King Eystein (who had an even more embarrassing nickname). His real name was Halfdan Eysteinsson, King of Uppsala, and he was said to have been a brave and brilliant warrior in battle who was something of a champion when it came to pillaging and bringing back the spoils of war to his kingdom. So it may seem a bit strange that he wasn't known as Halfdan the Mighty or Halfdan the Brave, but ended up with a nickname that makes him sound like he was crap at charades or something. The real reason he went down in history as The Bad Entertainer is simple: although he gifted land and money to the men who served under him in battle, he was a bit mean with the drinks and snacks when they visited him at his home. So always break out the booze and biscuits for your visitors. If you forget, they won't. 3. Eystein the Fart Formally known as Eystein Halfdansson (also father of Halfdan the Bad Entertainer), an 8th century king of Norway. The epithet "Fart" is usually taken to mean that he was a busybody or loudmouth, although no definitive explanation has yet been found. He was definitely a mighty fighter, was quick to battle and had fast ships, so perhaps the nickname came about because he was so fast, it was as if he was propelled by a wind? (And the word "wind" reminded someone of "fart"?) Who knows. 2. Archibald the Loser If you want proof that insults don't change much, there's the story of Archibald Douglas (4th Earl of Douglas, born back in 1372). He was the son of the equally unfortunately nicknamed Archibald the Grim and inherited the Earldom. So why "The Loser"? Archibald wasn't short of bravery; he took part in numerous major battles (e.g. Homildon Hill, the Battle of Shrewsbury and the Battle of Verneuil), but he ended up on the losing side every time. He lost an eye to the English at Homildon Hill and one of his testicles (!!!) at the Battle of Shrewsbury. Maybe he was named "The Loser" because he lost bits of himself on the battlefield? Nevertheless, at the Battle of Verneuil (between England and France, 1424), he lost his life. 1. Séamus an Chaca (James the Shit) Alas for poor James II, perhaps England's most rubbish King. In 1685 he inherited a state that was peaceful, prosperous, and financially secure ... and yet he messed it all up faster in three years. Never one to miss the opportunity for a strop, he chucked the Great Seal into the Thames and legged it to Ireland where he made some lovely new allies, before promptly deserting them. They showed their appreciation appropriately, and dubbed him Séamus an Chaca (or, in English, 'James the Shit'). Charming! What are some of your favourites?
Allow me to raise you Æthelred the Unready - a nickname that works on two levels, both in modern English and in the Anglo-Saxon tongue of 10th-11th century England. To us, unready means he was unprepared, which suitably sums up his state of readiness for the Viking threat faced by England at the dawn of the 11th century, having been on the throne since 978. But in old English, unræd means 'ill-counselled', itself a play on words of his name, which means 'well-counselled'. So he was, to contemporaries, Well-Counselled the Ill-Counselled over his handling of the Viking threat. Fair to say, he was bloody useless. Perhaps he would have done better had he not married Emma of Normandy (who doesn't have a really spectacular nickname, and she probably deserves one), who married him, then, almost before his body was cold in 1016, married his vanquisher, King Cnut, the Dane who would subsequently reign for the next quarter of a century. Was she involved in her Anglo-Saxon husband's downfall, or was this a politically expedient move to secure her own position? Most likely the latter, but at a millenium's distance, and considering what happened to her sons - bar the man who would become Edward the Confessor - there is a murkiness to her motivations. Someone should write a novel. I forgot to add about Emma: she herself had to bear the name of another. As Æthelred's second wife, he forced her to assume the name of his first wife, Ælfgifu, which means exactly what it looks like - gift of the elves. It does appear to have been ceremonial, rather than some weird kink, but it did create problems between offspring. Emma herself is one of the first queens of England to have her life written about, albeit likely at her own behest, so we have an unusual level of knowledge about her as a medieval woman.
I'm very surprised not to see Constantine V "Copronymus" ("Dung-Named") at the top of the list. He was actually a highly competent emperor- however, due to his iconoclasm, later iconodule historians vilified him and leaned into a rumor that he had pooped in the baptismal font when he was an infant. And unfortunately for him the name stuck.
Yes, I've often read about Æthelred Unræd (poorly-advised) often (the "Unready" nickname came much, much later), so I assumed everybody knew him. (Whoops). I agree, Æthelred as a king was utter pants. Unwilling to lead his troops into battle against the Vikings, he bought them off again and again with danegeld. In no time at all, the England he inherited from his ancestors (Alfred the Great, Athelstan the Glorious and Æthelflæd, aka Lady of the Mercians, who I think should also be called "The Great") -- a land rich, prosperous, moderately learned and at least somewhat peaceful -- was nearly bankrupt. So let's recap. England is nearly broke. Morale is at an all-time low. So what does Æthelræd do? Massacre all the Vikings in London, Oxford, Gloucester and Bristol, of course -- including the sister (and brother-in-law) of Sweyn Forkbeard, king of Denmark and one of the most ferocious warriors of his age. Right. Because something like that will never backfire. Cue A Scene Of Indescribable Mayhem!!!!! ... and when the smoke clears, Æthelræd is a refugee, a king without a kingdom. Even worse, it ushers in the eventual accession of Sweyn and his son Cnut, and the end of Anglo-Saxony as any kind of power (political or cultural) in England. Nice going, bonehead. Emma the Pragmatic, perhaps? Or, for something more spectacular, Emma the Survivor of Two Kings (since she survived both Æthelred and Cnut, and lived for another 17 years). Not a bad effort for such a violent age. One further thing we should note about Æthelred: Emma's father was Richard the Fearless, and her grandfather was William Longsword -- both titles earned in battle. Maybe Æthelred should be renamed "the Chicken-hearted" (reference to Sir Robin), or something related? Just a thought. He doesn't seem to have minded the blood, as long as there was no chance of him being hurt. There's a whole trilogy. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/series/DR5/emma-of-normandy-trilogy/ . Strangely, though, Penguin Random House only lists two books. *searches* Ah! Here's the third one: https://www.patriciabracewell.com/ Strange, I had no idea about this aspect of Emma. Thanks, Dante Dases! ============== This is only for two reasons: 1. I was already aware of Constantine V "Copronymus"; and 2. More seriously, as you point out, later historians (ones hostile to him) spread the "poop-in-the-font" rumour. So I'm not sure if this should count; I'm thinking more of embarrassing nicknames that kings deserve. I've also read varieties on this story, e.g. that Constantine urinated in the font, or even that he was baptised in the feces-polluted water. (Yuck!) I can't say the latter sounds likely at all. Besides, he was only a baby at the time, so even if he had a 'wee accident', he can hardly be blamed for it. So, I don't think he deserves the nickname, which is why I don't include him. Also, if we include every king/emperor/etc. whose enemies spread nasty rumours about, this list would be much longer. Julius Caesar, for instance, was hardly universally popular -- as Phil Matyszak reminds us in his excellent Chronicle of the Roman Republic: "History has been kinder to Caesar than he deserves. Caesar replaced an elected constitutional government -- however imperfect -- with a military dictatorship. Over a million Gauls died to further his ambitions, and about another million were enslaved. Caesar left Rome to face another bout of internecine warfare, followed by the establishment of autocratic government. A century after Caesar's death, his biographer Suetonius delivered his verdict: 'He deserved assassination'." (Matyszak, p. 208) So, I tried to find kings/emperors/etc. that were utter crap at the job and got the nickname they deserved, not the nickname that their critics thought they should have. Speaking of which, I wonder why crap Roman emperors never got a deserving nickname. Examples could be Caligula the Utterly Bonkers, Nero the Bloodthirsty Crap Artist , Commodus the Self-Glorifying, Heliogabalus the Suicidal. Some of them truly deserve a bad nickname: Caracalla the Paranoid, Honorius the Indecisive, Domitian the Suspicious -- stuff like that. Also, some of the Popes (especially during the 9th century) were hardly an admirable or long-lived bunch. Pope Stephen VI (896-897) is possibly the best-known; just 7 months into his pontificate, he instigated the bizarre Cadaver Synod, which frankly embarrassed not only him but the whole Catholic Church. Four to five months later, he was deposed, imprisoned, and eventually murdered himself. What goes around, comes around. Not many Popes in the 9th century were much better. Among the worst, by all accounts, was John XII (955-964), though his dual role -- being the secular prince of Rome as well as the spiritual head of the church -- couldn't have been easy. His behaviour was definitely more secular than spiritual, but given that he was only eighteen when he became Pope -- yes, EIGHTEEN -- I suppose he can be forgiven. (Remember some of the stuff you did when you were eighteen?) Anyway, John is unusual among Popes, in that he died while enjoying an adulterous sexual encounter outside Rome (either as the result of apoplexy or at the hands of an outraged husband). John XII is not the only sexually active Pope, of course. Far from it. But his death is certainly unusual.
If you can get it, the BBC podcast You're Dead to Me is worth a listen. A recent episode focused on Emma of Normandy, and another on the early medieval papacy. The Cadaver Synod is spectacular, though, complete with deacons divining the will of the deceased in macabre ritual vindictiveness. Anyone with an image of the papacy being holier than thou needs to think again. And we haven't even got to the Borgias. John XII's entire papal career is magnificent in its unGodliness. I take it you know the whole story of his death, that there were three in the room? And one of them wasn't (according to certain medieval scholars at any rate, scribbling in their mountain scriptoriums like a gossiping Name of the Rose) of this plane of reality?
