PDA

View Full Version : Who, in your opinion, is the Greatest English (later British) monarch?


Sam L
Apr 10th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Please vote and discuss.

Pengwin
Apr 10th, 2005, 12:46 PM
I think this shouldn't even be a discussion.

Queen Elizabeth I wins by a few light years.

Sam L
Apr 10th, 2005, 12:51 PM
I think this shouldn't even be a discussion.

Queen Elizabeth I wins by a few light years.
Hush. Just give your reasons. ;)

jrm
Apr 10th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Victoria by far

Sam L
Apr 10th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Victoria by far
Good. Now argue for your choices please. ;)

jrm
Apr 10th, 2005, 03:02 PM
Good. Now argue for your choices please. ;)

her reign was the longest of any English monarch

she was extremely popular

Victoria's long reign witnessed an evolution in English politics and the expansion of the British Empire, as well as political and social reforms on the continent

unlike Elisabeth I. she wasn't barren plus Judi Dench was better Queen Victoria than Kate Blanchett as Elisabeth I. ;)

Pengwin
Apr 10th, 2005, 03:19 PM
her reign was the longest of any English monarch

she was extremely popular

Victoria's long reign witnessed an evolution in English politics and the expansion of the British Empire, as well as political and social reforms on the continent

unlike Elisabeth I. she wasn't barren plus Judi Dench was better Queen Victoria than Kate Blanchett as Elisabeth I. ;)

If you're basing this on the movies :o

Victoria didn't actually do much, she didn't do anything to live long and although Britain prospered under her reign, it was very little to do with her, as the houses of Commons gained huge amounts of power after Cromwell etc.

Also her empire was hugely racist, although we can't dock her for that since every empire of the time was racist to some degree.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 10th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Victoria, by far too.

CJ07
Apr 10th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Elizabeth was too much of a ho :lol:

no but definitely Victoria

Dava
Apr 10th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Liz the first...Vickis a close second, but she loses points for being a bitch about the whole Womens suffrage thing. Nobody captured the publics imagination more then these two figuires, of the ones listed IMO and they still do today.

DevilishAttitude
Apr 10th, 2005, 04:40 PM
Who the fuck cares :)

Experimentee
Apr 10th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Elizabeth I. She overcame adversity to get to the throne, being imprisoned in the Tower of London for a while, and having to battle some challenges from Mary Queen of Scots. Britain prospered under her reign through some clever diplomacy and she fought off some serious threats like the Spanish Armada. She was strong enough not to marry and relinquish some of her power to any man.

I would say Henry VIII was also important as he was the first to establish the Protestant religion as the official one, and William the Conqueror would also be up there as he won the Battle of Hastings which set up the Normans in England and changed its subsequent history.

Pengwin
Apr 10th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Elizabeth was too much of a ho :lol:

no but definitely Victoria

How can a Ho die a virgin?

Andy T
Apr 10th, 2005, 05:16 PM
The next monarch will be the greatest because, unless the law changes, s/he will be the first one never to have consented to the execution of anyone.

Pdm1987
Apr 10th, 2005, 06:33 PM
King Henry VIII - Creation of the Church of England (just to get himself a divorce i know), which I think is a pretty important thing

CJ07
Apr 10th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Elizabeth was NOT a Virgin. She did everyone and their cousin in Europe :o

Sam L
Apr 11th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Elizabeth was NOT a Virgin. She did everyone and their cousin in Europe :o
Tell me about it. But let's not exaggerate, she only had at most a handful of men in her life. ;)

Pamela Shriver
Apr 11th, 2005, 11:49 AM
HRH Virginia Wade.

Shonami Slam
Apr 11th, 2005, 12:41 PM
willy, England looks like it is toda only because of him.
he's all man :lol:

Scotso
Apr 11th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Elizabeth I, hands down. She made England into the most powerful country in the world.... especially with the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

Szymanowski
Apr 11th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Possibly not icequeen......

Pengwin
Apr 11th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Elizabeth was NOT a Virgin. She did everyone and their cousin in Europe :o

She was famous for being very flirtatious and 'slutty' but that doesn't means she wasn't a virgin.

Fingon
Apr 12th, 2005, 01:24 AM
I have to go with William,

I agree with those that said that although Victoria's periods was when Great Britain reached the peak of its power, it had very little to do with her, but rather the Prime Ministers such as Salisbury.

For me it would be a toss between Elizabeth I and William, Elizabeth was a good Queen, she established England as a world's superpower, largely by defeating the Spanish armada, however, that victory was partially by luck (or Felipe's stupidity), it was mostly the North Sea who won the battle for England. The English fleet did a great job keeping the Spanish ships away from their safe ports but the North Sea's storm did most of the job.

That wasn't of course Elizabeth's only contribution, she was a very good administrator, and dealt well with the different issues she had to face, and if you consider she was a illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII that's even more notable (and let's not forget she was a woman).

But her personal achievements have nothing to do with this, she was at the right place at the right time, and did take advantage of it.

William on the other hand, establish the basement of England's future, he was the first monarch that truely organized the kindom.

He kept the nobility under control (he wasn't the kind of man you could fuck with) and that was extremely important, because the nobles usually disrupted any effor to establish an strong government.

He was the first to order a detailed record of all English properties.

He brought the traditional Normand efficiency to England, and that would mark the country for the rest of its history, a great deal of England's achievements is due to the organization and discipline that William set up.

Denise4925
Apr 12th, 2005, 03:45 AM
That wasn't of course Elizabeth's only contribution, she was a very good administrator, and dealt well with the different issues she had to face, and if you consider she was a illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII that's even more notable (and let's not forget she was a woman).


How was she illegitimate? :confused: Wasn't Ann Bolyn her mother and weren't she and Henry married at the time of her birth? Elizabeth was the rightful heir to the throne after her sister died, correct?

ys
Apr 12th, 2005, 04:27 AM
Victoria, for sure.. All that great that comes from old good English colonial tradition, English aristocracy, it is all Victoria. Style and class.

alexusjonesfan
Apr 12th, 2005, 04:41 AM
The whole Spanish Armada thing is being a tad overstated. After the defeat, Spain and Portugal were still much richer and stronger than England and colonised and traded with parts of the world that England had yet to hear about. The Anglo-Spanish war itself was a stalemate. Yeah good for Liz for avoiding annexation/forced marriage but it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Fingon
Apr 12th, 2005, 05:38 AM
How was she illegitimate? :confused: Wasn't Ann Bolyn her mother and weren't she and Henry married at the time of her birth? Elizabeth was the rightful heir to the throne after her sister died, correct?

I think you are right, I got confused in my mind because Mary was the "legitimate" heiress to the throne. Of course Elizabeth was the legitimate Heiress after Mary died.

William was illegitimate though (at least I got that right).

Fingon
Apr 12th, 2005, 05:42 AM
The whole Spanish Armada thing is being a tad overstated. After the defeat, Spain and Portugal were still much richer and stronger than England and colonised and traded with parts of the world that England had yet to hear about. The Anglo-Spanish war itself was a stalemate. Yeah good for Liz for avoiding annexation/forced marriage but it wasn't a big deal at the time.

it was psychologically important. Elizabeth was really worried that Felipe could annex England, the English army had no chance against the Spaniards, only the channel protected them.

With the destruction of a big part of the Spanish fleet, it was known as a fact that Felipe wouldn't try again (or any other king after him), Elizabeth and the English could feel safe.

Plus the myth of spanish invincibility was broken. In its dealing with European matters, England ofter relied in alliances (like Austria against Napoleon, or Austria and Prusia agaisnt Charles XIV). That victory increased the confidence in England.

Denise4925
Apr 12th, 2005, 05:44 AM
I think you are right, I got confused in my mind because Mary was the "legitimate" heiress to the throne. Of course Elizabeth was the legitimate Heiress after Mary died.

William was illegitimate though (at least I got that right).
Phew, I got confused there myself. :lol:

Scotso
Apr 12th, 2005, 06:05 AM
Actually Elizabeth wasn't the legitimate heir. Her mother was branded a traitor and that really should have given up her claim to the throne. She was lucky that Mary didn't have the guts to execute her half-sister. :)

Elizabeth, on the other hand, did.

Denise4925
Apr 12th, 2005, 06:13 AM
Actually Elizabeth wasn't the legitimate heir. Her mother was branded a traitor and that really should have given up her claim to the throne. She was lucky that Mary didn't have the guts to execute her half-sister. :)

Elizabeth, on the other hand, did.
Just because her mother was branded a traitor and beheaded, didn't effect her heirship. She was still the legitimate daughter of Henry VIII and second in line to the throne and the only reason why she was imprisoned in the tower and almost executed was because she was a practicing Protestant.

Scotso
Apr 12th, 2005, 06:18 AM
I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth was still considered a bastard. We're talking about the 1500s... back then a girl would be punished for what her mother did/was (in this case what she was accused of). Just because your parents were wed when you were born, doesn't mean that you were considered "legitimate." Elizabeth only succeeded Mary because that's what Mary wanted.

Denise4925
Apr 12th, 2005, 06:24 AM
I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth was still considered a bastard. We're talking about the 1500s... back then a girl would be punished for what her mother did/was (in this case what she was accused of). Just because your parents were wed when you were born, doesn't mean that you were considered "legitimate." Elizabeth only succeeded Mary because that's what Mary wanted.
No, Mary would have had to sign a decree saying that she was a bastard and that she was not a legitimate heir, because their father always considered her legitimate.

controlfreak
Apr 12th, 2005, 11:48 AM
It's Alfred of course, why do you think they called him Alfred the Great? Can't be William because William the Great or the Great Conqueror just sounds silly; Henry the Eighth is Eighth not Greath, just because it rhymes doesn't mean it's true; Elizabeth I was a woman so it can't be her because women are never Great apart from Claudia Schiffer; having a King James is just plain wrong because James is a name for a cat not a king so he can't have been Great; Victoria was too fat, she did have Greatness of girth but not Great stature; and Eliz II is a pointless powerless old granny whom I could overpower with a basic disguise and the might of my not-so-Great little finger. Hence Alfred is the Greatest. Amen.

Scotso
Apr 13th, 2005, 05:12 AM
They call a lot of people Great that weren't so Great.

duck
Apr 13th, 2005, 11:29 AM
What about Henry V, King of England and heir to the throne of France?
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon35.html

~Cherry*Blossom~
Apr 13th, 2005, 11:34 AM
omg, I voted Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth I :o

-Kieron-
Apr 13th, 2005, 12:39 PM
Queen Victoria I guess..

Andy T
Apr 13th, 2005, 01:02 PM
I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth was still considered a bastard. We're talking about the 1500s... back then a girl would be punished for what her mother did/was (in this case what she was accused of). Just because your parents were wed when you were born, doesn't mean that you were considered "legitimate." Elizabeth only succeeded Mary because that's what Mary wanted.

The Catholics considered Elizabeth a bastard because they didn't recognise the Boleyn marriage and Catherine of Aragon was still alive when Elizabeth was born in 1533. Henry bastardised both his daughters by act of parliament in the 1530s only reinstate them in the succession the mid 1540s. His last will and testament, however, clearly established the succession Edward->Mary-> Elizabeth.

Halardfan
Apr 13th, 2005, 03:46 PM
King Harold II, he kinda started the grand English tradition of liking the doomed runner-up or underdog...

(See also Henman, Tim. Radcliffe, Paula ;))

Pengwin
Apr 13th, 2005, 04:59 PM
omg, I voted Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth I :o

:lol: :tape:

Circe
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:01 PM
wasn't James the one who was famous for "never saying a foolish thing and never doing a wise one"?

Denise4925
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:28 PM
The Catholics considered Elizabeth a bastard because they didn't recognise the Boleyn marriage and Catherine of Aragon was still alive when Elizabeth was born in 1533. Henry bastardised both his daughters by act of parliament in the 1530s only reinstate them in the succession the mid 1540s. His last will and testament, however, clearly established the succession Edward->Mary-> Elizabeth.
:worship: :worship: :worship: Thank you.

Andy T
Apr 13th, 2005, 10:28 PM
wasn't James the one who was famous for "never saying a foolish thing and never doing a wise one"?

James VI & I was also one of the Queens of England, along with, allegedly, William II, Richard I, Edward II, Richard II, Charles I (a little) and William III. If that is all true, England has had more King-Queens than Queens since 1066!!! The current Queen's uncle, the Duke of Kent was, it seems, a total junky, slapper and celebrity slut. Get this:

"Dismissed by one observer as cultivated, effeminate, and smelling too strongly of perfume (http://0-days.net/?go=perfume), the Duke of Kent had a long string of affairs with men and women before and during his marriage. The better known of his partners were black cabaret singer Florence Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Mills), banking heiress Poppy Baring (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poppy_Baring&action=edit), Ethel Margaret Whigham (later Duchess of Argyll) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret%2C_Duchess_of_Argyll), musical star Jessie Matthews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_Matthews) and actor Noel Coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Coward), with whom he carried on a 19-year affair. (Love letters from the Duke to Coward were stolen from Coward's house in 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942)). There is some suggestion that the duke had an affair with Indira Raje, the Maharani of Cooch Behar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharani_of_Cooch_Behar&action=edit) (1892-1968), in the late 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920s), according to British historian Lucy Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Moore&action=edit). He also is said to have been addicted to drugs (notably morphine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine) and cocaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine)) and reportedly was blackmailed by a male prostitute to whom he wrote intimate letters. Another of his reported homosexual affairs was with his distant cousin Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Louis_Ferdinand_of_Prussia&action=edit); spy and art historian Anthony Blunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt) was another lover.
In addition to his legitimate children, the Duke is said to have had a son by Kiki Preston (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiki_Preston&action=edit) (née Alice Gwynne) (1898-1946), an American socialite whom he reportedly shared in a ménage à trois with Jorge Ferrara (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jorge_Ferrara&action=edit), the bisexual son of the Argentine ambassador to the Court of St. James's. Known as "the girl with the silver syringe", drug (http://0-2u.com/?go=drug) addict Preston, a cousin of railroad heiress Gloria Vanderbilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Vanderbilt), was married first to Horace R.B. Allen and then, in 1925, to banker Jerome Preston. She died after jumping out of a window of the Stanhope Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanhope_Hotel&action=edit) in New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City). According to the memoirs of a friend, Loelia Westminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loelia_Ponsonby&action=edit), Prince George's brother the Duke of Windsor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Windsor) believed that the son was Michael Canfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Canfield&action=edit) (1926-1969), the adopted son of American publisher Cass Canfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cass_Canfield&action=edit) and the first husband of Lee Radziwill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Radziwill) (sister of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis)).

Much of this history was outlined in the documentary film The Queen's Lost Uncle mentioned above. The Duke's bisexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual) and drug (http://go-advertising.com/?go=drug) addictions were explored in "African Nights", a 2004 play written by American playwright Jeffrey Corrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Corrick&action=edit)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George%2C_Duke_of_Kent

Kart
Apr 14th, 2005, 03:32 AM
I think Henry VII did a fair amount in what I remember from my history lessons about 15 years ago.

mboyle
Apr 14th, 2005, 04:28 AM
In order to be a good monarch, you actually have to have an opportunity to mess up, meaning you must weild real power. That eliminates the last two. James didn't do anything but frolic in a kingdom Elizabeth gave him. Williams the conquerer just drove other people off their land. Henry the VIII was too violent, but still comes in second. He built up the British navy and broke away from the Catholic church, securing great independence and power for the country. However, his daughter was perhaps the best monarch of all time. During Elizabeth's reign, England had both Europe's lowest tax rate and lowest poverty rate (Kings and Queens of England by oh darn i forget). Elizabeth was a woman who came to the throne under dubious circumstances (and was the first female monarch of her country.) Elizabeth's reign saw relative tolerance for Catholics (they were still persecuted, to be sure, but less violently than under her father or the vice versa under her sister,) and the ascension of the golden age of literature and art. Elizabeth was known to inspire her troops with a humble, grateful yet confident speaking manner, and, resultingly, changed the balance of world power in her favor in one single battle (Spanish Armada.) She sent Francis Drake around the world (gaining tremendous wealth and trading privledges for England,) and even granted the first English new world charter (Sir Walter Raleigh's colony off the coast of S. Carolina, which mysteriously disappeared three years later.) She began no wars and made few if any political blunders. Most interestingly, she never married. She kept her suitors in constant anticipation of her response, but never let them know one way or another. For all these reasons and more, Elizabeth I was not only England's greatest monarch, without doubt, she was perhaps the greatest monarch of the modern era of any country.

Sam L
Apr 14th, 2005, 11:14 AM
In order to be a good monarch, you actually have to have an opportunity to mess up, meaning you must weild real power. That eliminates the last two. James didn't do anything but frolic in a kingdom Elizabeth gave him. Williams the conquerer just drove other people off their land. Henry the VIII was too violent, but still comes in second. He built up the British navy and broke away from the Catholic church, securing great independence and power for the country. However, his daughter was perhaps the best monarch of all time. During Elizabeth's reign, England had both Europe's lowest tax rate and lowest poverty rate (Kings and Queens of England by oh darn i forget). Elizabeth was a woman who came to the throne under dubious circumstances (and was the first female monarch of her country.) Elizabeth's reign saw relative tolerance for Catholics (they were still persecuted, to be sure, but less violently than under her father or the vice versa under her sister,) and the ascension of the golden age of literature and art. Elizabeth was known to inspire her troops with a humble, grateful yet confident speaking manner, and, resultingly, changed the balance of world power in her favor in one single battle (Spanish Armada.) She sent Francis Drake around the world (gaining tremendous wealth and trading privledges for England,) and even granted the first English new world charter (Sir Walter Raleigh's colony off the coast of S. Carolina, which mysteriously disappeared three years later.) She began no wars and made few if any political blunders. Most interestingly, she never married. She kept her suitors in constant anticipation of her response, but never let them know one way or another. For all these reasons and more, Elizabeth I was not only England's greatest monarch, without doubt, she was perhaps the greatest monarch of the modern era of any country.
I agree. :eek: Those were the exact reasons I was going to post for my decision to vote for her. :eek:

Sam L
Apr 14th, 2005, 11:22 AM
I think Henry VII did a fair amount in what I remember from my history lessons about 15 years ago.
Yes, he is. I forgot to add him. Under his reign, the "Wars of the Roses" were brought to a close and he ushered in the Tudor Dynasty.

I also forgot Henry II who played a significant role in crusades and also set up a lot of the Laws.

I think a lot of you also underrate William the Conqueror. Many things happened under his reign that made England what it is today.

Andy T
Apr 14th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Elizabeth was the first female monarch of her country.)

Mary I 1553-58. Elizabeth 1558-1603
There were two less clear-cut situations before Mary: Jane Grey (1553) and Matilda (1141).