George I and II (of the Ku Klux Klan; OK I'm kidding) being celebrated

There are many, many British monarchs who have committed more atrocious acts than this (e.g. Henry VIII, James II, George III). I am still clueless as to why you hate these particular monarchs so much, rather some of the other kings in English history. I don't know if I can prove that the kings were virtuous, since they didn't do anything that was spectacularly good, so I guess I will just disprove all your assertions on why they are "evil". I will say, however, that as a former German prince, King George I barely knew any English when he was put on the throne, and he left pretty much all his government tasks to Parliament, which isn't really good or bad in any way... Now, on with the rebuttals. "The English citizens of New York (note this did not happen under a Dutch government, but an Anglo-Saxon, and especially Lutheran religion) lied that black slaves were going to start a revolt. I believe there might have been a rumor that blacks were going to sexually assault and rape white ladies." What does the New York Conspiracy of 1741 have to do with King George's rule!? It was a completely colonial affair with virtually no involvement of the government! "Under George I, England regressed into a very puritan society" Actually Puritanism reached the height of its power during Oliver Cromwell's dictatorial rule over England, and after he left, there was a kingdom-wide rejection on Puritanism, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Additionally, you seem to think that "Lutheran" and "Puritan" mean the same thing, and they don't; Puritan Christianity is much stricter than Lutheran Christianity. And what does Queen Victoria have anything to do with this??? "The modern conflict in India started under George II." Just because it happened UNDER him doesn't mean anything! 9/11 also happened during the presidency of George Bush. That doesn't mean he caused it! (Unless you're one of those conspiracy-theory idiots). The real people at fault for the Carnatic Wars were the French governor of Pondicherry, Joseph-Fran'2;ois Dupleix, and the British governor of Bengal, Robert Clive. "As a matter of fact, the English Empire started under George I and II." No. England started colonizing in the early 17th century under the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. And the empire got its bad connotation during the 19th century when Parliament (which had gained more power than the monarch by that time) started enforcing policies of mercantilism and imperialism. "It's only when George I (and especially the second with the French-Indian War) became king that the Viking-style atrocities against the Amerindian people began." Actually, the English and Dutch had been fighting with and using various Native American tribes for a long time before that, particularly in the mid-1600s. Only the French had ever had peaceful relations with the natives. The French-Indian War was completely the work of British Prime Minister William Pitt. George I and George II didn't do anything that was out of the ordinary for a British monarch to do. They are not "evil" and deserve commemoration by the British people just as much as any other monarch. Sources: (1) http://www.britannica.com... (2) https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org... (3) http://www.britroyals.com... (4) http://www.britannica.com...