I offered my thoughts on Setanta's bias or lack thereof and am I not going to get further involved in that debate. If you feel you have a legitimate gripe, I'm not going to tell you that you don't. I just offered my observation for what it was worth.
Not to flog a dead horse, but my point wasn't that American have a general view of all
monarchs being morons because I definitely do not think that is the case. The current
, widespread perception may be that they are all vapid and silly, and, if so, this is due the antics of a few of the members of the House of Windsor. However I sense that Prince William and even Prince Harry are doing a fine job of turning that perception around. Harry is likeable and Americans appreciate a rogue. Assuming Harry becomes less involved in youthful indiscretions as he matures, he may end up an American favorite. (Probably a tall order for a Royal who will likely never be king, but he could emulate his Great Uncle Edward, but with a bit more personality)
As for the European monarchs of old, the American perception is a mixed bag. Because of the popular accounts of the French Revolution, there may be a basic perception of French monarchs being silly and out of touch. I just don't think enough are familiar with Louis XIV to allow his reign to color their perception, and even as respects the educated American (meaning simply that they have secured a college degree whether it be in history or basket weaving) I doubt many are familiar with any French monarch, other than The Sun King, beyond Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and possibly Louis Philippe I. What they do know is that all the damned French kings were named Louis!
There may be some degree of widespread knowledge about "German"
monarchs beyond Wilhelm II, but it's not likely to be deep.
Beyond that the only other monarchs to inform American perception are likely to foremost be Ferdinand II and Isabella and we were all taught in grade school that she was of great intelligence and wisdom and is something of the mother of America.
I would not be surprised if many Americans also had a passing familiarity with Ivan The Terrible, the Greats, Catherine and Peter and Nicholas II. Ivan's name says it all about what is thought of him. Peter we are taught was Great because he Europeanized
Russia (he gets high marks in the intelligence area), Nicholas, depending upon one's politics was either a cruel oppressor of the Russian peasants, or a generally hapless tzar, and very little is taught about Catherine, although quite a few people seem to associate her with an amorous equine encounter.
Of the older monarchs we've been taught about Charlemagne and Cnut and they both received favorable treatment.
The Popes are not considered as monarchs, although they should be, and so none of them would be likely to inform American perception.
Ultimately, it is probably the British monarchs that any widespread American perception is based on, and since so many were actually German, any negatives can be diverted to that nation or its original components.
All this is to say, in a long winded way with no insult or criticism intended towards my fellow Americans, that there isn't widespread knowledge or interest in European monarchs, but the perception of them is as likely to be favorable as not.