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

REFUTAL"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."Name one atrocitious act committed by any of those kings. George III doesn't count because his main war was during the American Revolutionary War. I have read the entire article of George III. Not a single bad thing about him (unless you're one of those Patriotic conspiracist type who are saying that becuase America won the Revolutionary War which was made by lalala land historians in the 19th century, who think George III was horrible). His treatment of wartime was rather humane. It was under his reign that corruption was fought. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).Under George I, there were quite a few Scottish uprising (quite understandable, given the disgusting and cruel oppression the hands of the Anglo-Saxons)http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org..."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!"I would agree if you were talking about the colonies that were not directly Crown colonies. But New York became a royal colony before that happened. Part of the reason this vicious and disgusting suppression occured was because the KING's chapel was burned down, and the king-loving citizens wanted to kill blacks in revenge. And you can actually make the case that George II was trying to bring back absolute monarchy to England. Historians have a war named after him (King George's War) which implies that he did indeed have a say in that war."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???"Right, if you consider being greedy and living a lavish life less strict. George II was a greedy and tyranical king, and his father was a womanizer who cheated on his wife, all while believing in God. He was a stubborn man as well. So much for the righteous Lutherans. And BTW, I bring up Victoria, because while was an Anglican, it was her Lutheran prince husband who planted those bigoted ideas Victoria had in her. As for the Puritans (who are very underrated), public education was invented. It was not the arrogant type of religion often portrayed by the media. Some of the most heinous atrocities occured by Lutheran countries. Danish rule in Greenland was cruel as f--k."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." OK, you seemed to have misunderstood it. The French had a trading relationship with the Indian tribes. Similar to the Native American relations. The English wanted a piece of the pie and would do at any means necessary, so technically the English did start that war."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." Actually you can blame the atrocities on the colonists. John Smith was a cruel bastard. England didn't have royal colonies yet."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."Yes, true, but the Royal colonies came with George I. And then, the blame can go on George I and II. Actually, like I said before, George II did technically try to bring back absolute rule, because he instigated some wars. Why was there a war called George's War? Doesn't sound like a constitutional monarch to me. So technically George II especially had some power, and it was his policies that led to the Revolutionary War.