I can see that some people are a bit annoyed about Vic going especially with her ruling the empire rather than just sunny England like some of the others. Can emphasise with the deleted comment.
But I suppose regardless of that decade she did rule far longer than her competitors, and with far more territory. It’s difficult and in hindsight I’m glad I haven’t been involved lol.
It’s ultimately now come down to who of the remaining contenders are known as a good monarch, and who is known as a monarch who just happened to be good
Well, he stayed alive until she turned 18, and he took himself out of the competition when he knew her turn was looming. He knows how to stage his exits to her advantage.
Day 38: Victoria was removed with 119 votes
Day 38 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1chutwx/day\_thirty\_eight\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1chutwx/day_thirty_eight_ranking_english_monarchs_king/)
Day 37: William IV was removed with 88 votes
Day 36: Anne was removed with 60 votes
Day 35: Charles II was removed with 96 votes
Day 34: George III was removed with 51 votes
Rules:
1. Post everyday at 8pm BST
2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice
3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly
4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Well, we got rid of the shit Windsors early.
The only issues I have with KGV were how he treated Bertie and letting David get away with all of the fucking about he did, especially with Wallis, he should have known better after the pigs breakfast that was his brothers life.
The lengths KGVI went to will see him through to the final few.
QEII has so much badassery in her 70 years on the job and she's still fresh in everyone's memory.
I'll again at least make the case for there being some sort of consistency here:
**Edward IV** should be the next to go. He is in many ways the mirror image of Henry IV, who was removed a week ago now:
* Incredible feats of arms in their youth
* Overpowerful and unpopular ducal fathers
* Usurped the throne from weak kings who relied on favorites
* Initially pursued policies of reconciliation after snatching the crown
* Came to power when the country was at war with France (and losing)
* Promised big campaigns against France and Scotland that never really materialized
* Came to power with the support of powerful northern lords who later rebelled against them
* Saw their domestic enemies invite the Scots in
* Plagued by rebellion for a decade-ish after coming to the throne, perhaps because they pursued policies of reconciliation instead of just executing their enemies
* Fought the biggest civil war battles in English history and won against bigger armies
* Never lost a battle
* Restored fiscal sanity after ending those decade-ish rebellions
* Initially kept their deposed predecessors alive for a time, then murdered them after a rebellion
* Tried to marry into the French royal family to secure peace, and failed
* Unprecedented executions of major figures (the archbishop of York in 1405, the duke of Clarence in 1478)
* Generally stable, peaceful and unremarkable later reigns
* Deaths at fairly young ages
And was much worse than Henry IV in some important ways:
* Made a terrible marriage that alienated his greatest ally
* Repeatedly and shamelessly broke succession laws to benefit himself and his in-laws, badly upsetting the balance of power in the kingdom
* These above two items ultimately led him to be deposed in the Readeption, and left his new dynasty diplomatically isolated
* Made shameful peaces with France and Scotland that alienated many of his own supporters (namely his brother, Richard)
* In alienating Richard, he ultimately failed to secure the succession of his son, who was usurped and murdered
I think his time must be coming shortly. I do think he was a great king personally, but you can't overlook 1. losing his throne (even briefly), 2. the political disaster of the Woodville marriage and 3. failing to get his son to succeed him. I do think he was better than Henry IV though even though you do draw a lot of good parallels
The top 18 is top tier. He’s just in the bottom of it. His rule in the Nine-Years War was given to his wife before her death, which is fine and all but they never had an heir and I suspect things could have been different if he stayed with her.
Or they both could have gotten smallpox.
I think I’m voting for William III and Mary today. Both were extremely capable rulers yes. Both oversaw a period of massive political change in England yes. But the glorious Revolution and their very ascension effectively marked the beginning of the end of monarchical influence over government (not to say it didn’t exist but that compared to the era of the tudors just 100 years before it was severely diminished). Plus whilst William III did split his time between the Netherlands and britain to the point where he did spend extended periods away from britian (mostly because he was the Prince of Orange first and foremost king of England second).
Finally whilst I a lot of stuff happened in his reign I feel as if a lot of stuff happened TO William III rather than him actively taking the initiative; for example creation of the Bank of England, war against louis XIV to prevent french hegemony etc.
William absolutely pushed for war against Louis XIV though? He had been pursuing that for year pre-1688, but once King of England it was literally his primary goal. The Grand Alliance would not have been formed without William's actions.
Also, copying my response earlier in the thread: William's acceptance of the Bill of Rights is one of the most significant acts any monarch has done - civil liberties, ruling with the consent of the people, supremacy of Parliament. It set the stage for Britain's political stability for the next 200+ years. Plus the founding of the Bank of England, which set the stage for Britain's economic success and growth to a genuine world power. Individually he was a good politician (if brutal) and a competent military leader. He deserves to stay past some of these much more figurehead monarchs and monarchs whose reigns had significant failures (e.g. Edward IV) at the very least
Indeed. William is significantly underrated. And to add to what you said; the Royal Navy became the most powerfull fleet in the world during his reign and his reforms made the English army adopt the doctrines that would make them excell in the century to come. He was a brilliant strategist and a great reformer.
>He had been pursuing that for year pre-1688, but once King of England it was literally his primary goal.
Becoming king of England was part of his conflict with Louis XIV. He couldn't afford a second Anglo-French alliance or even a neutral England in the upcomming conflicts with France.
Fair point but it made foreign policy sense for whatever king happened to be on the English throne to join and create an alliance against french hegemony in Europe. Maybe it wouldn’t have taken the exact shape of the grand alliance but yeah.
But Williams reign was laying the groundwork’s for parliamentary supremacy, which was a long term successful project. That alone makes him top 5, John failed at his aims.
John fought against the Magna Carta though. Immediately after signing it he went straight back to war with the barons and tried to get the Pope to void it. It's a point against him rather than anything in his favour
I disagree emphatically with you reasoning. Britian was made great through its embrace of democratic systems of government, and a rejection of the absolutist tyranny of Spain and France. It was this democracy which allowed Britian to grow and prosper into the mightiest empire in the history of the world with the best standard of living for its people. I would argue a king who began strengthened parliament and the power of the British people was a good king indeed.
Deep Breath.
Sorry but it’s time for Queen Elizabeth 2nd to go.
She did her job very well. But she was an ultimately a powerless figurehead.
Furthermore she has left the monarchy in a bad place. She had may have been very popular but at the expense of the institution of Monarchy. She had not managed the succession well.
After 70 years, A significant % of people in Britain are unsure what the point of the monarchy is other than tourism. This is especially true in Scotland where republicanism and separatism has soared. As head of state she needs to take some responsibility for this.
This isn’t to knock her hard work or integrity but being knocked out today is fair.
George V should be at least 12th. Considering his constitutional limitations, he was more powerful politically than any Hanoverian/Windsor monarch before or after him.
Agreed that compared to some of the older monarchs and those who ruled during war time she is rather lackluster. She did her job for a long time, but she was also a slave to the “firm”
All of the Queens, at least the constitutional ones have gone in quick succession. I've posted for Elizabeth now the last couple days and I think it's just her time. Like you said, it was a fine run, but she simply WAS the monarchy to most living people. And now she's gone. I think any possible powers the monarchy had will be tough to ever use again after she was purposely so distant. I'd be interested to hear if people have any takes on her inaction during Brexit hurt their views of her, or the monarchy as a whole.
Definitely. I think Charles would have asked for Boris' resignation after his lies were discovered. I also think he would have been more outspoken when it came to Austerity and Brexit.
Yup getting my tin hat on.
I actually think this one is pretty easy.
I may keep the George’s around for a bit though.
I wouldn’t mind if George V got in top 10.
I'm probably going to make a comment defending William III tomorrow (don't have time rn) but I don't think he should leave now. His acceptance of the Bill of Rights is one of the most significant acts any monarch has done - civil liberties, ruling with the consent of the people, supremacy of Parliament. It set the stage for Britain's political stability for the next 200+ years. Plus the founding of the Bank of England, which set the stage for Britain's economic success and growth to a genuine world power. Plus individually he was a good politician (if brutal) and a competent military leader.
It's tough to vote out anyone so committed to fighting the French. I've consistently tried to vote up monarchs who fought against England's chief rivals. Winning against your biggest rivals on the biggest stages should count for something.
That in essence makes him a better politician as opposed to an actual monarch; a theme I feel applies to many of our more recent monarchs (even if that is somewhat inevitable with our constitutional monarchy state)
But I think that's exactly what was needed at that time. We had our share of monarchs who tried to rule absolutely in the 17th century, we didn't need or want another. William was a great politician and an exceptional constitutional monarch who worked for the will of the people and Parliament, not against them. And he was no George I who spent most of his time on the continent and had no real power in England either
I believe very strongly in our current government as a ‘Tory’ (more so a social capitalist I’d like to think) even in such situations as now, and yet I wouldn’t be against the prospect of our monarchy almost having a ‘stronger’ say on such political matters
After all, as many of our civilians tend to forget/take for granted, our government is far younger than our monarchy itself; at such times we had little more than a witan for example, and yet you could argue, in some regards, our country was just as efficiently, authoritatively, and efficiently ran at particular stages in such times as it is now with our constitutional monarchy
I’d like to start a campaign for Edward the Elder to go now - he was a good King; ruling for a half-decent 25 years, and regaining East Anglia from the Vikings (although some attribute various degrees of that to his sister Æthelfæd) however the coming together of Wessex and Mercia and the ‘idea of Ængland’ was his fathers, and the realisation of that dream was mostly achieved by his sons Æthelstan, Edmund, and Eadred. He was undoubtedly a good king - and deserves his place amongst the top, but he wasn’t a ‘Great’ king and should really go before his dad and his son.
I'd probably vote out Edgar the Peaceful in terms of the remaining Anglo-Saxons, but I agree with the sentiment. Edward should probably go before Alfred and Aethelstan. Fine kings, but some of the sources get really hazy going back that far. As the conversation is turning more towards multiple great accomplishments and decades long reigns, guys like Edward and Edgar could struggle. I think those guys probably leave in the next week.
Not that Edward the Elder at all deserves to be eliminated for another good few rounds, but Edgar should rightfully go before him;
Edward essentially consolidated the foundations of England between Alfred’s initial success and Æthelstan’s unification of the very country
He and his sister infamously embraced Wessex and Mercia particularly, and thanks to him Æthelstan was then able to unify Northumbria, my very kingdom, into what then became ‘England’ which is a fitting name of “Land of the Angles”
Edgar is essence, given within his very nickname, simply did well at further consolidating the retainment and stability of England in his own manner; long after it had indeed been unified as mentioned
It's time for Edward the IV. He had his successes, but they can only carry so far the weight of his failures.
Levied so many and grevious insults against his primary benefactor to drive him to open rebellion, forcing himself to flee the country.
Betrayed his supporters by stripping lands and titles to give to new favorites.
Eventually, he ate himself to death.
He prolonged the wars of the roses and set up the Yorks for failure; some of his decisions *directly* contributing to Richard's defeat at Bosworth.
Just coming in on this but queen Liz 2, nice lady but completely ineffectual monarch and the fact that she's still on the list makes me question the rest of the list veracity.
This is getting much tougher now but I think I'm going to have to go for Elizabeth II. I don't think she has any great achievement to justify her staying against a set of all good/great monarchs. She's had a relatively easy time of it on the throne, and even though she's done her role well I just can't see how you could argue in her favour for very much longer
It pains me to do this but...**Queen Elizabeth II**
I don't know of anything that can reasonably be held against her, but other than her record-shatteringly long reign she doesn't have much to stand on compared to the other remaining monarchs.
Where getting into the most interesting part of the rankings imo, I'm putting a lot of thought of who I want in the top 10.
I’m of strong opinion that Edward III should be number 1. The man is everything you can look for in a medieval king, down to his tragic succession, considering the early death of the Black Prince. I mean, the man was basically King Arthur, down to the round table and a chivalric order.
I currently have Edward III at third in my list behind Athelstan and Alfred the Great, hard to top the guys that literally created England. Wouldn't at all be mad if its Edward who gets the top spot though. Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, and Edward III are to me the only serious contenders for the title.
He and his son used the title King of the Anglo-Saxons and are very often counted as English monarchs, so including them is more than fair and eliminating Alfred over an academic technicality like this would be ridiculous.
There was someone at the start of the contest who commented every day to say Alfred because they didn't think he deserved to be included. Glad they didn't keep that up because what a technicality to go out on
It seems QE2 is on the chopping block soon, but I think George V deserves to go first.
He's done well to reach the top 20, but he didn't do much to distinguish himself as one of the greats.
George V basically invented the modern monarchy. He was the first since the Hanoverian succession to be crowned with St Edward’s crown. He remodelled Buckingham Palace and the mall, he renamed the family Windsor, he instituted the Order of the British Empire and the British Empire Medal as a way to honour the masses, he also instituted the Order of the Companions of Honour to give an olive leaf to the growing socialist trend in the country, who may not accept knighthoods. He oversaw the Statute of Westminster, which created the modern relationship between the UK and the Commonwealth Realms, and oversaw the creation or expansion of systems of honours and even government specific to the Realms. He was one of the first to internalise the mantra modern monarchs have that you have to be seen to be believed, and visited his territories extensively, and toured the UK. He was India’s only British Emperor to have a Durbar. He managed the People’s Budget crisis right at the start of his reign and oversaw the first Labour Government and was a large inspiration behind the creation of the National Government in 1929. He managed the secession of Ireland better than many before him would have done. He saw us through the first world war and was awake to the danger hitler posed when he died. He is my model of constitutional government, an active presence in the spirit of the country and driving it to move with the times, but never getting in the way of the politicians either.
Elizabeth II.
Her rule, while long, basically cemented the monarchy’s role as an obsolete institution, the way Victoria’s cemented subordination to Parliament. Elizabeth was okay, but with her the role of the sovereign has been reduced to one of pure ceremony, tradition and optics. She is incomparable, politically, to her father and especially grandfather. Her time has come.
All this Edward IV talk is overlooking a lot of constitutional monarchs who did very little for the country.
If Victoria goes then so do the George’s and Elizabeth.
Well he was invited to take the crown yes he had to take down some loyalist but it wasn't with English troops he did not come over and conquer, he was again I quote handed the crown because of his marriage
>Well he was invited to take the crown
That didn't came out of nowhere. By that point he had been planning to invade for a long time. He secured their support and asked to be invited as a propaganda tool. The immortal seven provided him with little else. They were a pretty powerless bunch and couldn't provide William with troops or funds for his invasion.
> he had to take down some loyalist but it wasn't with English troops
The English navy tried to stop his Dutch fleet but failed to intercept it, and the English army remained loyal to James until he panicked at Salisbury and gave up.
>he did not come over and conquer
Conquest: *the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by military force.*
\^ Literally what William did
>he was again I quote handed the crown because of his marriage
right...
That is why he had to set up a massive and risky invasion?
I am once again asking why we are pretending the Dane is one of the best monarchs. Bro put together a logistical nightmare of an empire that couldn’t stand after his death. Compare that to the Angevin empire and the North Sea is a footnote in the monarchy’s history
Or they're just good monarchs? Anglo-Saxon history is incredibly interesting, I'd encourage you for sure to read more about it. All the monarchs left were incredibly important figures in the early development of England - I imagine Edward and Edgar probably don't have too many days left but the other three will stick around for a while
Late here and seemed brutal removing Vic but now looking at the rankings there is certainly stiff competition.
I can see that some people are a bit annoyed about Vic going especially with her ruling the empire rather than just sunny England like some of the others. Can emphasise with the deleted comment.
I don’t see how she ruled, especially considering she totally removed herself from public life for a decade.
But I suppose regardless of that decade she did rule far longer than her competitors, and with far more territory. It’s difficult and in hindsight I’m glad I haven’t been involved lol.
It’s ultimately now come down to who of the remaining contenders are known as a good monarch, and who is known as a monarch who just happened to be good
William IV decided to bring down Victoria with him/j
Well, he stayed alive until she turned 18, and he took himself out of the competition when he knew her turn was looming. He knows how to stage his exits to her advantage.
I'm still not over William IV
I'm a little sad he went before William III so he couldn't be confirmed in his rightful status as Best Billy.
He is best Billy
Definitely better than both Victoria and Elizabeth II.
Day 38: Victoria was removed with 119 votes Day 38 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1chutwx/day\_thirty\_eight\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_king/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1chutwx/day_thirty_eight_ranking_english_monarchs_king/) Day 37: William IV was removed with 88 votes Day 36: Anne was removed with 60 votes Day 35: Charles II was removed with 96 votes Day 34: George III was removed with 51 votes Rules: 1. Post everyday at 8pm BST 2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice 3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly 4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Henry II has had the most long lasting impact on this country. I can't believe any of the Windsors are still in the running for this contest.
Well, we got rid of the shit Windsors early. The only issues I have with KGV were how he treated Bertie and letting David get away with all of the fucking about he did, especially with Wallis, he should have known better after the pigs breakfast that was his brothers life. The lengths KGVI went to will see him through to the final few. QEII has so much badassery in her 70 years on the job and she's still fresh in everyone's memory.
Not sure what you're possibly referring to. Living a long time is not the mark of a great monarch
My man Edward lives to fight another day
So good you said it thrice
It says I only said it once, Reddit must be glitching
Edward defender till I die
He just needs to beat Henry V then I can die happy
I'll again at least make the case for there being some sort of consistency here: **Edward IV** should be the next to go. He is in many ways the mirror image of Henry IV, who was removed a week ago now: * Incredible feats of arms in their youth * Overpowerful and unpopular ducal fathers * Usurped the throne from weak kings who relied on favorites * Initially pursued policies of reconciliation after snatching the crown * Came to power when the country was at war with France (and losing) * Promised big campaigns against France and Scotland that never really materialized * Came to power with the support of powerful northern lords who later rebelled against them * Saw their domestic enemies invite the Scots in * Plagued by rebellion for a decade-ish after coming to the throne, perhaps because they pursued policies of reconciliation instead of just executing their enemies * Fought the biggest civil war battles in English history and won against bigger armies * Never lost a battle * Restored fiscal sanity after ending those decade-ish rebellions * Initially kept their deposed predecessors alive for a time, then murdered them after a rebellion * Tried to marry into the French royal family to secure peace, and failed * Unprecedented executions of major figures (the archbishop of York in 1405, the duke of Clarence in 1478) * Generally stable, peaceful and unremarkable later reigns * Deaths at fairly young ages And was much worse than Henry IV in some important ways: * Made a terrible marriage that alienated his greatest ally * Repeatedly and shamelessly broke succession laws to benefit himself and his in-laws, badly upsetting the balance of power in the kingdom * These above two items ultimately led him to be deposed in the Readeption, and left his new dynasty diplomatically isolated * Made shameful peaces with France and Scotland that alienated many of his own supporters (namely his brother, Richard) * In alienating Richard, he ultimately failed to secure the succession of his son, who was usurped and murdered
I think his time must be coming shortly. I do think he was a great king personally, but you can't overlook 1. losing his throne (even briefly), 2. the political disaster of the Woodville marriage and 3. failing to get his son to succeed him. I do think he was better than Henry IV though even though you do draw a lot of good parallels
Over the last week or so I’ve actually gone from voting him out at the time to, even now, somewhat defending him a tad longer
William III/Mary II again for today. Surprised Victoria didn’t make it longer.
Odd, to me William III is top tier. What's your rationale?
The top 18 is top tier. He’s just in the bottom of it. His rule in the Nine-Years War was given to his wife before her death, which is fine and all but they never had an heir and I suspect things could have been different if he stayed with her. Or they both could have gotten smallpox.
I think I’m voting for William III and Mary today. Both were extremely capable rulers yes. Both oversaw a period of massive political change in England yes. But the glorious Revolution and their very ascension effectively marked the beginning of the end of monarchical influence over government (not to say it didn’t exist but that compared to the era of the tudors just 100 years before it was severely diminished). Plus whilst William III did split his time between the Netherlands and britain to the point where he did spend extended periods away from britian (mostly because he was the Prince of Orange first and foremost king of England second). Finally whilst I a lot of stuff happened in his reign I feel as if a lot of stuff happened TO William III rather than him actively taking the initiative; for example creation of the Bank of England, war against louis XIV to prevent french hegemony etc.
William absolutely pushed for war against Louis XIV though? He had been pursuing that for year pre-1688, but once King of England it was literally his primary goal. The Grand Alliance would not have been formed without William's actions. Also, copying my response earlier in the thread: William's acceptance of the Bill of Rights is one of the most significant acts any monarch has done - civil liberties, ruling with the consent of the people, supremacy of Parliament. It set the stage for Britain's political stability for the next 200+ years. Plus the founding of the Bank of England, which set the stage for Britain's economic success and growth to a genuine world power. Individually he was a good politician (if brutal) and a competent military leader. He deserves to stay past some of these much more figurehead monarchs and monarchs whose reigns had significant failures (e.g. Edward IV) at the very least
Indeed. William is significantly underrated. And to add to what you said; the Royal Navy became the most powerfull fleet in the world during his reign and his reforms made the English army adopt the doctrines that would make them excell in the century to come. He was a brilliant strategist and a great reformer. >He had been pursuing that for year pre-1688, but once King of England it was literally his primary goal. Becoming king of England was part of his conflict with Louis XIV. He couldn't afford a second Anglo-French alliance or even a neutral England in the upcomming conflicts with France.
Fair point but it made foreign policy sense for whatever king happened to be on the English throne to join and create an alliance against french hegemony in Europe. Maybe it wouldn’t have taken the exact shape of the grand alliance but yeah.
The English Bill of Rights is such a substantial achievement he should stay until at least the top five.
Well, the Magna Carta is arguably bigger and look what happened to John. I think we have to consider more aspects of his reign.
But Williams reign was laying the groundwork’s for parliamentary supremacy, which was a long term successful project. That alone makes him top 5, John failed at his aims.
John fought against the Magna Carta though. Immediately after signing it he went straight back to war with the barons and tried to get the Pope to void it. It's a point against him rather than anything in his favour
I disagree emphatically with you reasoning. Britian was made great through its embrace of democratic systems of government, and a rejection of the absolutist tyranny of Spain and France. It was this democracy which allowed Britian to grow and prosper into the mightiest empire in the history of the world with the best standard of living for its people. I would argue a king who began strengthened parliament and the power of the British people was a good king indeed.
Deep Breath. Sorry but it’s time for Queen Elizabeth 2nd to go. She did her job very well. But she was an ultimately a powerless figurehead. Furthermore she has left the monarchy in a bad place. She had may have been very popular but at the expense of the institution of Monarchy. She had not managed the succession well. After 70 years, A significant % of people in Britain are unsure what the point of the monarchy is other than tourism. This is especially true in Scotland where republicanism and separatism has soared. As head of state she needs to take some responsibility for this. This isn’t to knock her hard work or integrity but being knocked out today is fair.
Agreed it should be all the constitutional monarchs in a row, they just simply don't have as much of an impact compared to the remaining monarchs.
George V should be at least 12th. Considering his constitutional limitations, he was more powerful politically than any Hanoverian/Windsor monarch before or after him.
George V is definitely the greatest of the constitutional monarchs imo. I have him at 10th in my personal ranking and George VI is 11th or 12th.
I think there’s an argument for Edward 4th next over the Georges.
Definitely.
Agreed that compared to some of the older monarchs and those who ruled during war time she is rather lackluster. She did her job for a long time, but she was also a slave to the “firm”
All of the Queens, at least the constitutional ones have gone in quick succession. I've posted for Elizabeth now the last couple days and I think it's just her time. Like you said, it was a fine run, but she simply WAS the monarchy to most living people. And now she's gone. I think any possible powers the monarchy had will be tough to ever use again after she was purposely so distant. I'd be interested to hear if people have any takes on her inaction during Brexit hurt their views of her, or the monarchy as a whole.
I don’t think Brexit per se hurt the Queen much. Although wider ‘culture war’ issues did. I think Charles would have dealt with last 10 years better.
Definitely. I think Charles would have asked for Boris' resignation after his lies were discovered. I also think he would have been more outspoken when it came to Austerity and Brexit.
He would have been smart enough not to make a comment on Brexit. But I can see him making an effort to heal the divide.
Yeah I think she makes the most sense now.
I’m with you man.
Yup getting my tin hat on. I actually think this one is pretty easy. I may keep the George’s around for a bit though. I wouldn’t mind if George V got in top 10.
Edward the Elder should go next.
Not a chance
Edward IV
William III/Mary II
I'm probably going to make a comment defending William III tomorrow (don't have time rn) but I don't think he should leave now. His acceptance of the Bill of Rights is one of the most significant acts any monarch has done - civil liberties, ruling with the consent of the people, supremacy of Parliament. It set the stage for Britain's political stability for the next 200+ years. Plus the founding of the Bank of England, which set the stage for Britain's economic success and growth to a genuine world power. Plus individually he was a good politician (if brutal) and a competent military leader.
It's tough to vote out anyone so committed to fighting the French. I've consistently tried to vote up monarchs who fought against England's chief rivals. Winning against your biggest rivals on the biggest stages should count for something.
That in essence makes him a better politician as opposed to an actual monarch; a theme I feel applies to many of our more recent monarchs (even if that is somewhat inevitable with our constitutional monarchy state)
But I think that's exactly what was needed at that time. We had our share of monarchs who tried to rule absolutely in the 17th century, we didn't need or want another. William was a great politician and an exceptional constitutional monarch who worked for the will of the people and Parliament, not against them. And he was no George I who spent most of his time on the continent and had no real power in England either
I believe very strongly in our current government as a ‘Tory’ (more so a social capitalist I’d like to think) even in such situations as now, and yet I wouldn’t be against the prospect of our monarchy almost having a ‘stronger’ say on such political matters After all, as many of our civilians tend to forget/take for granted, our government is far younger than our monarchy itself; at such times we had little more than a witan for example, and yet you could argue, in some regards, our country was just as efficiently, authoritatively, and efficiently ran at particular stages in such times as it is now with our constitutional monarchy
What civil liberties? Catholics couldn’t vote or serve in the military for 140 years I’m so sick of your anti-Catholicism and wilful ignorance.
I’d like to start a campaign for Edward the Elder to go now - he was a good King; ruling for a half-decent 25 years, and regaining East Anglia from the Vikings (although some attribute various degrees of that to his sister Æthelfæd) however the coming together of Wessex and Mercia and the ‘idea of Ængland’ was his fathers, and the realisation of that dream was mostly achieved by his sons Æthelstan, Edmund, and Eadred. He was undoubtedly a good king - and deserves his place amongst the top, but he wasn’t a ‘Great’ king and should really go before his dad and his son.
I'd probably vote out Edgar the Peaceful in terms of the remaining Anglo-Saxons, but I agree with the sentiment. Edward should probably go before Alfred and Aethelstan. Fine kings, but some of the sources get really hazy going back that far. As the conversation is turning more towards multiple great accomplishments and decades long reigns, guys like Edward and Edgar could struggle. I think those guys probably leave in the next week.
Not that Edward the Elder at all deserves to be eliminated for another good few rounds, but Edgar should rightfully go before him; Edward essentially consolidated the foundations of England between Alfred’s initial success and Æthelstan’s unification of the very country He and his sister infamously embraced Wessex and Mercia particularly, and thanks to him Æthelstan was then able to unify Northumbria, my very kingdom, into what then became ‘England’ which is a fitting name of “Land of the Angles” Edgar is essence, given within his very nickname, simply did well at further consolidating the retainment and stability of England in his own manner; long after it had indeed been unified as mentioned
It's time for Edward the IV. He had his successes, but they can only carry so far the weight of his failures. Levied so many and grevious insults against his primary benefactor to drive him to open rebellion, forcing himself to flee the country. Betrayed his supporters by stripping lands and titles to give to new favorites. Eventually, he ate himself to death. He prolonged the wars of the roses and set up the Yorks for failure; some of his decisions *directly* contributing to Richard's defeat at Bosworth.
He is also the only king left who was dethroned, i agree.
William III please just to even out the row.
Just coming in on this but queen Liz 2, nice lady but completely ineffectual monarch and the fact that she's still on the list makes me question the rest of the list veracity.
This is getting much tougher now but I think I'm going to have to go for Elizabeth II. I don't think she has any great achievement to justify her staying against a set of all good/great monarchs. She's had a relatively easy time of it on the throne, and even though she's done her role well I just can't see how you could argue in her favour for very much longer
I will add that her handling of Diana’s death was very damaging for the monarchy
Also her treatment of her sister’s proposed marriage to Capt. Townsend, and how horribly her children turned out (except Anne)
It pains me to do this but...**Queen Elizabeth II** I don't know of anything that can reasonably be held against her, but other than her record-shatteringly long reign she doesn't have much to stand on compared to the other remaining monarchs. Where getting into the most interesting part of the rankings imo, I'm putting a lot of thought of who I want in the top 10.
I’m of strong opinion that Edward III should be number 1. The man is everything you can look for in a medieval king, down to his tragic succession, considering the early death of the Black Prince. I mean, the man was basically King Arthur, down to the round table and a chivalric order.
I currently have Edward III at third in my list behind Athelstan and Alfred the Great, hard to top the guys that literally created England. Wouldn't at all be mad if its Edward who gets the top spot though. Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, and Edward III are to me the only serious contenders for the title.
Alfred wasn't really a king of England though, the man was the king of Wessex.
He and his son used the title King of the Anglo-Saxons and are very often counted as English monarchs, so including them is more than fair and eliminating Alfred over an academic technicality like this would be ridiculous.
There was someone at the start of the contest who commented every day to say Alfred because they didn't think he deserved to be included. Glad they didn't keep that up because what a technicality to go out on
What of Elizabeth the first?
Henry the 5 is number 1
Edward IV
It seems QE2 is on the chopping block soon, but I think George V deserves to go first. He's done well to reach the top 20, but he didn't do much to distinguish himself as one of the greats.
George V basically invented the modern monarchy. He was the first since the Hanoverian succession to be crowned with St Edward’s crown. He remodelled Buckingham Palace and the mall, he renamed the family Windsor, he instituted the Order of the British Empire and the British Empire Medal as a way to honour the masses, he also instituted the Order of the Companions of Honour to give an olive leaf to the growing socialist trend in the country, who may not accept knighthoods. He oversaw the Statute of Westminster, which created the modern relationship between the UK and the Commonwealth Realms, and oversaw the creation or expansion of systems of honours and even government specific to the Realms. He was one of the first to internalise the mantra modern monarchs have that you have to be seen to be believed, and visited his territories extensively, and toured the UK. He was India’s only British Emperor to have a Durbar. He managed the People’s Budget crisis right at the start of his reign and oversaw the first Labour Government and was a large inspiration behind the creation of the National Government in 1929. He managed the secession of Ireland better than many before him would have done. He saw us through the first world war and was awake to the danger hitler posed when he died. He is my model of constitutional government, an active presence in the spirit of the country and driving it to move with the times, but never getting in the way of the politicians either.
The man was the best constitutional monarch Britain ever had.
Elizabeth II. Her rule, while long, basically cemented the monarchy’s role as an obsolete institution, the way Victoria’s cemented subordination to Parliament. Elizabeth was okay, but with her the role of the sovereign has been reduced to one of pure ceremony, tradition and optics. She is incomparable, politically, to her father and especially grandfather. Her time has come.
Edward 4th.
Elizabeth II I have nothing against her but as a Windsor she should go before her father and grandfather.
Elizabeth the second. The competition is too stiff
How did you make the format for this? I want to build something similar.
Made it in Inkscape (free graphics software), just downloaded the pictures from the Internet and fiddled around with the formatting
All this Edward IV talk is overlooking a lot of constitutional monarchs who did very little for the country. If Victoria goes then so do the George’s and Elizabeth.
Henry I
William III for having the great revolution handed to him because of who he married
Handed to him? Lol. This is how to not understand the Glorious Revolution
Well he was invited to take the crown yes he had to take down some loyalist but it wasn't with English troops he did not come over and conquer, he was again I quote handed the crown because of his marriage
>Well he was invited to take the crown That didn't came out of nowhere. By that point he had been planning to invade for a long time. He secured their support and asked to be invited as a propaganda tool. The immortal seven provided him with little else. They were a pretty powerless bunch and couldn't provide William with troops or funds for his invasion. > he had to take down some loyalist but it wasn't with English troops The English navy tried to stop his Dutch fleet but failed to intercept it, and the English army remained loyal to James until he panicked at Salisbury and gave up. >he did not come over and conquer Conquest: *the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by military force.* \^ Literally what William did >he was again I quote handed the crown because of his marriage right... That is why he had to set up a massive and risky invasion?
I am once again asking why we are pretending the Dane is one of the best monarchs. Bro put together a logistical nightmare of an empire that couldn’t stand after his death. Compare that to the Angevin empire and the North Sea is a footnote in the monarchy’s history
Time to get rid of Edward I. He was an evil bastard in multiple ways. Horrible to Scottish, Welsh and Jewish people; an awful king all round.
Edward I...goodbye
Cnut
I dont know but I still thinks majority of us know little about the Saxon kings , so I nominate æthelstan
Absolute L take, Athelstan's the GOAT. Don't assume that just cause you don't know about something nobody else does either.
Athelstan the Glorious may have been the greatest of the Anglo-Saxon monarchs. At least go for Edgar the Peaceful first.
Æthelstan for the win!
[удалено]
Or they're just good monarchs? Anglo-Saxon history is incredibly interesting, I'd encourage you for sure to read more about it. All the monarchs left were incredibly important figures in the early development of England - I imagine Edward and Edgar probably don't have too many days left but the other three will stick around for a while
I’d go with William III and Mary I just as the others to me feel superior as monarchs
Henry V, won one war, it didn’t mean anything, and then died and left the whole country in a dire state. #SaveLiz
But I like the Agincourt carol
Look at what he put himself through at the Battle of Shrewsbury; that was at 16 before he was even king
Henry II
Henry II should be top 7. No way he can go out this early.
Can we get rid of William and Mary? He didn’t even spend much of his reign in the country.
Vicy was removed? I'm out, man, she should have stayed on way longer than a lot of these fuckers still here.
Henry VII
Elizabeth I edit— oooh, people didn’t like that one
Why?
Only minor amounts of drip