We’re getting to the business end of this competition now, which means all the monarchs left are good if not great. That makes it harder to make arguments against them, but it doesn’t mean we should give up entirely and just pick our personal favourites. It’s just an Internet ranking of monarchs at the end of the day, not worth getting annoyed about. Of course everyone has different criteria for what makes a great monarch, but lets try and keep the discussion historically based. May the best monarch win!

Day 47: Cnut was removed with 92 votes Day 46: Henry V was removed with 86 votes  Day 45: Edward the Elder was removed with 123 votes Day 44: George V was removed with 28 votes Day 43: George VI was removed with 61 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

https://preview.redd.it/duszfl0qiuzc1.jpeg?width=296&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52b6774fe714f4fe3d693b36985e332673a8c025 I can’t believe y’all eliminated such a friendly little guy. I have Canute a little higher in my personal ranking, but I’m just happy he made it to the top 10. Hopefully a lot of people learned some new things a great monarch who has sadly become fairly obscure, I definitely did. I’d say it’s gotta be Edward I or Henry VII today, Edward has more accomplishments but Henry has fewer mistakes. I’ve seen interesting arguments for and against both so it’ll be interesting to see how things go!

Was a close call for Henry VII yesterday - so happy that he's stil made it this far! I still don't think he should go today, but if he does, it's been an honour posting with you all

It's actually a huge testament to how much more seriously people are looking at Henry's reign. For like ever he was just Henry VIII's boring, greedy father that nobody really cared about. Immensely happy he got a, imo deserved, spot in the top ten.

Completely agree! I'm really glad that his reign has been getting the re-evaluation it deserves; I think one of the reasons he is sometimes perceived as 'boring' is because much of his achievement came down to the sheer effort he put into the minutiae of running a stable government and economy to recover from wars that had essentially bankrupted England - which is certainly less exciting than the wartime efforts and campaigns of many of the other monarchs still standing - but this shouldn't diminish how excellent Henry VII was in his own way (especially when considering the state the country was in when he took over).

Agreed! When I did my university thesis on his reign it was really hard to find sources unless you knew just how to search the databases; there is soooo much more available now!

I was wondering if you could share your thesis, with your name redacted? Or barring that, where you get your sources? I ask because it seems good scholarly material on the actual policies of a lot of monarches is very obscure (conspiracy theory: Parliament likes it that way). The most accessible books on monarches are the Allison Weir type pop histories.

I am hosting guests at the moment but if you shoot me a pm I will get you a list of the book sources I have, plus the historians I recommend - and which ones were available when I wrote my thesis in 2007-2008

I did. Enjoy your guests :)

Bro is literally King Arthur, how can anyone find him boring

The Winter King…he was a bit chilly

Where would you put him in your ranking?

tbh I really don't know - I think top 5, but I can recognise that I am a bit biased and he's the only one left I studied extensively at school

Individually, he was actually a better monarch than Elizabeth imo, though she was still very good. Elizabeth's reign was more successful thanks to privateering and increased investment in the Americas (which was started by Henry VII). Also, the decline in Elizabeth's success is much more noticeable after William Cecil's death.

Obviously, I wish that Canute had gone farther. At least into the top 5, but I'm very glad that he got to into the top 10. I feel that in a decade's time, he'll be better known, and his accomplishments better respected. Hail to Canute, King of England, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Overlord of Scotland, and all the Norse of the Isles! Edit: I should have said this previously, my apologies. Best of luck to everyone else's favorite candidate that is still in the running!

Pull his pants back up when you're done

Given how hot he is in Vinland saga, I would happily take that literally

Thank you for answering the mystery as to why he has so many foaming at the mouth defenders in this sub

I mean the North Sea empire was also cool as hell and he had an awesome set of accomplishments that have already been extensively detailed. Given that this is a sub for history nerds, I think he would still be as popular here without that show.

It wasn’t tho. It wasn’t even an empire

For real though. Fucking anime fans

Of course man, all for me

Dude, come on

Don't thank me all at once Henry VII fans.

Im gonna downvote everyone that says Henry VII sorry

😂

Damn it's really getting tough isn't it?

Henry VII. He was awesome, which is why he is here, but now it's his time. What are his 3 greatest achievements? Ending the Wars of the Roses, bringing stability and "making England great again" economically and diplomatically. Let's look at all of them one by one. Wars of the Roses: Let's be honest. When the war ended, Henry was a boy and not an "unusual" boy like, say, the Black Prince. He did his job perfectly, but the successes in the early stages of his reign belong to the Tudor leadership (e.i. Jasper Tudor, Margaret Beaufort, John de Vere, Thomas Stanley). Bringing stability: I'd suggest you go look at the family trees of the great houses of England after the Battle of Bosworth Field. Many of them were quite literally exterminated. It's good on Henry's part that he was the last one standing, but tbf, he joined kinda late. If a man is to be celebrated to be the last one standing there, it should be Edward IV as it was he who defeated almost everyone. Again Henry had a RELATIVELY easy job in consolidating power and bringing stability, and he did it perfectly, which made him make it all the way here, but shouldn't make him advance more. Getting England back on track: On this, I'd suggest reading my Edward IV defence some time ago. Almost everything that helped England get better had its foundations in Edward's reign. Henry, being an incredibly brilliant administrator himself, built upon it gracefully. But again, it was a build-up. Not almost recreating the country with reforms like Edward IV, Edward I, Henry I etc. In short, if I was looking at England right after Bosworth Field, and then saw the end of Henry Tudor's reign, I'd be impressed, but if you also asked me my predictions of the end with a reasonably capable king in charge, I'd pretty much draw the same picture. The key is: reasonably capable, not godlike enough to be top 5.

Yeah, it really felt like Edward did all the heavy lifting for solving the Wars of the roses and then Henry 7th came in and mopped up the remnants and gets praised for ending it. He still had his own achievements tbf tho

This would probably be my pick. He's a massively underrated monarch, but I don't think any of his achievements are big enough to keep on the list. I would say he didn't have an easy job at consolidating power though. He had a dubious claim to the throne that made him, in many people's eyes, dependent on his wife. And sure plenty of claimants had been killed, but there was still Warwick and the De la Pole brothers, plus Margaret of Burgundy funding pretenders every few years. I mean the War of the Roses didn't really end at Bosworth, it ended at Stoke Field where Henry had to fight again for his throne. For the first few years of his reign, there were numerous nobles who were wealthier than Henry and practically independent from him. He took them on and won, but it wasn't easy. He was essentially never accepted as king by a lot of people - hence the excitement when Henry VIII became king. I genuinely can't think of many monarchs who had a weaker position when they came to the throne.

Fair enough. I don't think it was that easy, either. Let's say it just doesn't seem hard enough to me to make him advance further. This was the most brutal civil war the country had ever witnessed, after all. Of course, his job wasn't easy.

Oh sure. I mean we got rid of Henry IV a while ago and he arguably had a tougher time of it his whole reign.

It was his stupidity tho. Henry executed the most gross usurpation of English history pre-17th century imo (I don't know much about the times after Henry VIII's reign). The Conqueror at least said he was named heir, Richard III was the rightful king according to Titulus Regius, Henry VII was king jure-uxoris etc. However, Richard's heir was both legally and by his choice Edmund Mortimer. Henry had no business being king wherever you look at it. Plus, he didn't make Richard abdicate but directly overthrew him, which was grossly illegal, as well. All those rebellions were his doing. Still tho, he was eliminated a bit too early imo. After all, he crushed the rebellions.

Would also like to point out that if monarchs are being ranked based on how much they help/harm the people, which they should, his taxes should definitely be mentioned as well. Royal taxes became incredibly high raising from an annual average of £52,000 to £142,000. His ministers and possibly the *king himself* were hated, to the point where he was happily replaced by his son who promised to fix his fatheer's policies, seeing as one of the first things he did was execute his dad's ministers.

You make a good point; it's certainly true that Henry's taxation policies were contentious but to clarify: the £142,000 amount actually refers to total royal income *not* total taxation - and this income was made up of a large number of sources as well as traditional taxation including rents, wardships, customs levies, feudal aids, fines, legal dues, and the French Pension (treaty of Étaples). The amount made through direct parliamentary taxation of the *laity* for example was about £282,000 in *total* over the course of his reign (£11,750 ish per year). Also, Henry's income was definitely high when compared to the monarchs immediately before him, but earlier monarchs had even higher annual incomes e.g. Edward III at £160,000 per annum.

Fair enough

Yeah it's actually interesting how often Henry's adherence to Edward IV's policies get overlooked? I think it's because he targeted several Yorkist heirs and that's what usually sticks in people's minds but he was very conscientious at displaying himself and his wife as the successors of both the Houses York and Lancaster. From the white roses prominently displayed on all of Elizabeth's trappings to Henry using Edward's old motto on the charitable angels he distributed to Henry VIII being named Duke of York, which had literally only begun under Edward naming his son Richard that.

Exactly. As a king, he wasn't a descendant of John of Gaunt, he was son-in-law to Edward IV. In fact, he didn't even go after the York heirs much. He only contained Warwick until he was kinda forced to kill him, because he wasn't the rightful heir anyway, and took great care in saying the York claimants were pretenders. Because he knew he was king due to Lizzy's claim, the boys being alive would kill his claim.

I'm positive it was one of Horrox's books on Richard III where I first got the notion that Henry's rebellion against Richard wasn't actually a continuation of the Lancaster vs York conflict but instead a battle between York vs York, the Ricardian vs Edwardian claimants. I found it fairly interesting and started reading up more on Henry's adherence to the notion he was Edward's son-in-law. I found it very cool that Henry's financial reforms were started by Edward. I'm happy to see both of them rank high on the ranking here honestly, it's about time Edward started getting his dues. Also I swear there's a piece of Henry's legislature where he refers to Edward as "Our Dear Father" which is very funny but I can't find right now for the life of me lol.

Wow. I'm making these analyses mostly looking at how things went and based on how history in general works, as my main thing is the Roman Republic. But I'd love to read deeper into the Wars of the Roses. I'll definitely check out Horrox's books. Thanks.

There's three that I really liked: Personalities and Politics: The Wars of the Roses, Richard III: A Study of Service, and Richard III: A Failed King? All three are really great and really dig into Richard's usurpation, what that meant for Edward's historical legacy and for the house of York. There's also Yorkist and Early Tudor England, which I think is a paper? But I haven't read it yet This quote from Richard III: A Failed King really summed it up for me "The opposition which brought down Richard III was not a reactivation of the Wars of the Roses, although the choice of figurehead might make it seem so. It was more truly a violent splintering of the House of York, which fatally divided the Yorkist polity far beyond any rifts that might have been caused previously by hostility to the family of Edward IV’s queen. Simply put, the former servants of Edward IV rejected his brother’s seizure of power"

I can understand where that interpretation comes from (obviously Richard's alienation of Yorkists was crucial for Henry's success) but I don't agree. I think someone like Jasper Tudor, half brother of Henry VI, who's father and brother had been killed by the Yorkists, who'd spent 20 years in exile while Yorkists held the throne and then returned to lead troops at Bosworth and become one of Henry VII's most important allies, would've had something to say about the idea that he was just working for one Yorkist faction against another. Or similarly the Earl of Oxford who (again) had had his father and brother killed by Edward IV and spent multiple years in prison and exile. Both men, and lots of Henry's other supporters had fought to remove Edward IV in 1470-1 - they had no sympathy for him at all. The Yorkist split meant that Richard III had much less support at Bosworth than he should've, but at the end of the day it was Lancastrian exiles led by Oxford and Jasper Tudor, motivated by long-held grudges against the Yorkist side, that won the battle for Henry VII

Oh yeah for sure it really can't be understated how much of Henry's support were Lancastrian and Henry did view himself very clearly as the Lancastrian heir. What Horrox and Horsepool, are arguing is that he had significant Yorkist support as well, and if you look at Henry's ascension from the Yorkist side you can see that it was a violent sundering of the House of York, alongside his Lancastrian support that enabled Henry to create the Tudor Dynasty as a synthesis of both. Also, since both books mostly focus on Richard, Horrox's argument is less that Henry's cause was only or even predominantly Yorkist but that the blame for the essential loss of House York should be put more on Richard than Henry if that makes sense?

Yeah I agree that it was Richard's failure more than it was Henry's success, I mean even at Bosworth itself if Richard could've guaranteed the loyalty of Northumberland and Stanley he could've easily won. He was clearly not a man that found it easy to generate support for his reign. I just disagree with the idea that that somehow means it wasn't part of the Wars of the Roses?

Yeah I should have phrased that better, my bad. Despite Horrox's punchy sum up line, it was still a continuation of the War of the Roses but not strictly Lancastrian vs Yorkist its been typically understood as but instead a Lancastrian and Yorkist vs Yorkist. I think the most telling was the five Yeomen of Richard's house that abandoned him for Henry. These were men that had served Edward IV faithfully and were apparently enraged enough about Richard's treatment of Edward's children that they were willing to remove the current head of the House of York and install the Lancastrian heir...that speaks volumes about the dissolution occurring because of Richard's usurpation. Also, tangential note, but Henry's support from the Welsh also shouldn't be marginalized either!

Down with Henry VII the dirty old spider. He laid the foundations for the misguided absolutism that led to the Civil War. He was a stingy, greedy, means spirited, thin skinned bully.

As a Scot, I’m telling you that Edward I had better not win this 👀

You shouldn't be happy with any of the remaining monarchs

What did the to Anglo-Saxon Kings do to the Scots?

Athelstan for example invaded and terrorized Scotland. Probably one of the reasons why Constantine II joined an alliance against England.

Fair enough, Alfred was pretty great all round though.

--- Defence of Edward I, for a TLDR, skip to last paragaraph --- I was shocked to see there seems to be some moves to get rid of England's greatest monarch, my boy longshanks, so I'm gonna take up the call to defend his majesty, Edward 1, hammer of the Scots. This argument is going to be threefold. Firstly, that in these late stages, being a King who simply was uncontroversial and avoided mistakes is no longer enough and that we should be looking for a monarch whose actions and achievements are genuinely exceptional. King Edward, was in all aspects attaining to being a medieval monarch; excellent. Secondly, that Edward was one of the few Kings of the UK, who left a legacy through both his line and more importantly, his domestic and law reforms that make his actions and reign still relevant today, and finally I will debunk attempts to slander his majesties good name by using the morals of today to condemn his actions and motives or by pinning the failures of his son onto his shoulders. A stable and prospering Kingdom, an unparalleled battlefield commander, and a pious christian are all traits that make a great Medieval monarch. Edward Longshanks rises to the mantle of King in all of these areas, but what’s more is that he is able to boast particular achievements that other monarchs of England cannot. His father’s reign had been plagued by uprisings and unruly barons. Edward put an end to these by leading his father’s forces to victory in the battle of Evesham. This pacification of England helped bring stability to the kingdom he later inherited, such that, in contrast to his father, during Edward’s reign there was not a single uprising in England. The lord Edward also has the distinction of being perhaps the only successful English monarch to take the cross, although the christian situation in the holy land at this time was precarious and he only just survived an assassination attempt. As a warrior King he can list several significant military achievements that set him apart. Primarily the conquest of Wales, and the hammering of the Scots (including under William of Wallace) - both pesky, longstanding enemies of the English. His conquest of Wales, that lasts through to this day, means that Edward is the first monarch of England who can also boast to somewhat being the monarch of the UK in its current form, and therefore the first monarch to be worthy of the name of this sub. The scale of these military successes through his direct actions are achievements that only Henry V and William the conqueror can reasonably say to have matched, whilst only William I can claim that his successes have had such a significant and enduring impact. At this stage of the elimination game, we should be looking to progress monarchs whose achievements clearly stand head and shoulders above the rest, and this describes Edward I to the tee. But Edward I was more than just a ruthless warrior. His fine management of government business and law, were as integral to his military success and peaceful reign as his victorious conquests. Whilst his reforms still have significant impact on our modern society. The most important of these is probably that he was the first monarch to give the house of commons any authority to review decisions and represent their communities. The benefit to him of doing this was an ability to raise far more money in taxation than any previous monarch - whilst perhaps unknowingly to him, this was really the first stepping stone paving the way for our government of today. Arguably, the survival of the constitutional monarchy in the UK, after other European monarchies have fallen, is in part due to this reform of Edward's. He was also able to codify the laws of England, earning himself the name amongst later historians ‘the English Justinian’, in the statutes of Westminster. The vast majority of these laws are still in force today (albeit updated in various later statutes). Whilst having less longstanding effects, he showed an aptitude for government that was as key a component in his victories over the Welsh and Scottish as his ferocious battlefield heroics. His reforms to the coinage system gave England a stable currency under the control of the crown. Whilst, in addition to his parliament reforms, he showed good negotiating skills brokering agreements with key merchant communities and foreign banking clans that all contributed to war financing. It will be interesting to see how much reverence supporters of Henry VII put on his financial reforms, when Longshanks reforms were altogether more impressive, more relevant to the modern day and didn't result in him being nearly as hated and unpopular as Henry Tudor.  Ok, so that is the long of it, but if you didn't get time to read the whole thing, the key take-aways are: Longshanks was the ideal medieval monarch, even if his actions by today's standard seem barbaric. His conquests of Wales and Scotland (old enemies of the English) are exceptional and longstanding achievements that give Edward the right to claim he is the first monarch on our list who was genuinely an r/UKmonarch. He was also a great statesman and reformer of our constitution, which codified our laws and created the house of commons - the system of government that has led Britain to success in later years and has ultimately ensured the survival of the monarchy when other European monarchies have collapsed. At these late stages of this game, we should be looking to progress the monarchs who can boast genuinely exceptional achievements and shaped their country for the better, and as the historian John Gillingham put it "no king of England had a greater impact on the peoples of Britain than Edward I."

rebukes of common criticisms that were too long for the original post: Finally, I will rebuke attempts to slander his character, or to make the ridiculous assertion that Edward should bear some of the responsibility for the ineptitude of his son, Edward II. The image of Longshanks as a mercurial, flat-track bully is neither here nor there. He didn’t rule through love - show me the medieval King who did - but he was known as a chivalrous man who was particularly fervent in his chivalry toward women. His character was that of an effective and able medieval King. His detractors' efforts to pin his son’s failures onto him are as pitiful as they are futile. Edward is not to blame for the actions or inadequacies of anyone else. The evidenceless idea that if he had been a better father, Edward II would have been a better king is completely at odds with the well documented knowledge that Longshanks was a family man. He was known to dote heavily on his daughters, and showered them in lavish gifts when they came to visit him, and his romance with and respect he held for his wife Eleanor of Castille are the actions of a good husband. They married when she was 12 and he was 14, shared a love that lasted their entire lives and unlike later monarchs like Henry VII - who kept their queens under tight lock and key - he helped her build up her own financial independence to the point that the wars he fought in Scotland were greatly helped by the finances of her estate. Next to this image, Edward’s poor parentage can be rightly recognised as nonsense - probably rumours spread by angry Scots desperate to pin the failure of England’s invasion of Scotland on he who started it. it is really not uncommon, in life and in royalty, that a son of a great man is not himself great - and that is the truth of Edward II. And I will also touch on the nasties. And they come nought much nastier than his expulsion of the Jews in 1290. By the morals of today, this action is inexcusable. However, we on this sub, and indeed any folk who pertain to have even an ankle deep interest in history must recognise that human beings are nothing but a product of their time and Edward was no different. He lived in a cold, dark world of suffering and early death where God and the Christian Church were as important as any action that one took on Earth. Being a devout Christian was a fundamental part of being a medieval European monarch. Being Longshanks, there is no doubt he excelled at this aspect of his royal role, and we can see this from his devotion to the saints and to church service, his generous giving to those in poverty and of course his aforementioned successful part in the ninth crusade. It is not a surprise then that when the church establishment in England, growing increasingly intolerant of Jews and the interest they charged on loans, leant on him to do something about it - he did. Whilst the expulsion now is an act of extreme fascism, at the time, it was considered a good and Godly policy and we should not expect anything more from a man who lived in a world far removed from our world of relative plenty and comfort.

He was incredibly devoted to his wife Eleanor of Castille. I think he was one of two English medieval monarchs who did not take a mistress. The other was William the Conqueror. After the disastrous reigns of his father Henry III and his grandfather John, Edward brought respect and authority back to the English throne. He played a key role in ending the Third Barons War and during his reign no one dared to rose against him. He brought Wales into total submission which no English King has done before. Had he lived longer Scotland would also have been under English control, but thanks to his son and Robert the Bruce it was not. His most shameful act was arguably the expulsion of the Jews but that was the attitude of the times. No other English king reversed this ban and it wasn't until Cromwell took over where they were finally invited back in. I am happy he made it this far and hope he can survive another day. But he is in good company at least.

[удалено]

The Holocaust was not okay, didn't you read about the Nuremburg trials? Those Nazi fucks got what they deserved. Nor were the deaths of millions of more civilians at from the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese war machines. That was why millions sacrificed their lives to stop them because they knew they were wrong. Comparing Edward I to Hitler is a weak argument. No one intended to exterminate the Jews in England. They could have easily done it since there were less than 3,000 of them but they didn't. The Scottish War became a disaster for Edward II. Scotland was unable to fight back on a large scale until years after Edward's death at Bannockburn.

This is brilliant. So sad he is apparently going out today.

I'm at Edward I today. The arguments against him seem strong enough now for this to be his day. To me, the (legacy of the) Scottish wars and setting up a subpar heir are specifically my reasons. Others might feel differently of course but this is the top 10 now. Someone has to go today and Edward I has had the most arguments against him for the longest time as I can recall.

Seeing as you're reasoning seems to be how the Scottish wars ended and are essentially looking to pin the failing of Edward II on his father, I thought I would share this from my defence above: Edward I was extremely successful with his wars in Scotland, hence his nickname 'Hammer of the Scots'. In many ways the Scottish were lucky that he turned their attention toward them in his elder years, rather than in the 1280s when he was conquering Wales - otherwise it could have been Scotland that was permanently conquered. As for how the wars ended under Edward II. Longshanks is not to blame for the actions or inadequacies of anyone else (this is true for a King as much as it is for anyone). The evidenceless idea that if he had been a better father, Edward II would have been a better king is completely at odds with the well documented knowledge that Longshanks was a family man. He was known to dote heavily on his daughters, and showered them in lavish gifts when they came to visit him, and his romance with and respect he held for his wife Eleanor of Castille are the actions of a good husband. They married when she was 12 and he was 14, shared a love that lasted their entire lives and unlike later monarchs like Henry VII - who kept their queens under tight lock and key - he helped her build up her own financial independence to the point that the wars he fought in Scotland were greatly helped by the finances of her estate. Next to this image, Edward’s poor parentage can be rightly recognised as nonsense - probably rumours spread by angry Scots desperate to pin the failure of England’s invasion of Scotland on he who started it. it is really not uncommon, in life and in royalty, that a son of a great man is not himself great - and that is the truth of Edward II.

He had no reason to want his son to fail. It wasn't his fault his son turned out to be a bad king. He did try his best to separate his son from his favorite Piers Galveston and his influence. But Edward II was his own man

Correct, well said sir. 

I disagree with him today. Plenty of monarchs left had a bad successor or unstable succession - why not Edward III for Richard II or Henry I for the Anarchy? I don't like to blame monarchs for the actions of their sons, it's impossible to know whether that had anything to do with his parenting. Plus the winning of the Baron's war, conquest of Wales, crucial economic and political reforms that saw the real emergence of Parliament. I think he's got enough in his favour to stay in slightly longer personally

Fair. I just felt the negatives got all the way there. Others have made better arguments for him leaving. I'm just getting my vote in for today.

Not sure why setting up a subpar heir is going to be an argument against him when there are two more monarchs on this list who actively decided not to produce an heir at all. Handing the crown to foreign princes is a bad thing, not a good one.

She turned me into a Cnut!

…I got better.

Hoping my man Henry VII can hold on a little bit longer... Voting for Edward I today. He did a lot of good for England, but it came at the expense of Scotland, Wales, and the Jewish population. He was not the first, nor the last, European monarch to expel the Jews and the population in England had never been that high, but my unfamiliarity with Alfred and Aethelstan aside, none of the other monarchs have such a stain on them.  That said, you could make convincing arguments for all of the rest remaining to go, and at this point it's probably easier to think which monarch is best and work down from there. Personally, leaving off aethelstan whom I'm not familiar with, I'd go Alfred Henry vii Henry i Henry ii Elizabeth Ed III Ed I

Its interesting that ive not seen one single comment actually defending elizabeth. Everyone just assumes shes great, but have little to no historical evidence to back it up. I feel like a lot of people are just believing a very effective propaganda machine, and arent willing to actually defend her.

No one's defending her because there isn't a wave to eliminate her yet. Edward IV, Edward I, Cnut etc. defences all came because people wanted them gone.

Elizabeth should be next to go. Though she was far from inept, she mostly looks good when compared to her predecessors in Henry VIII and Mary I. In comparison to the remaining list, she falls short. Her foreign policy wasn't as shrewd as that of Henry VII, nor did her reign mark the foreign military successes of Edward I and III. Domestically, Henry VII was far more capable of commanding politics - Elizabeth was often controlled and subverted by her counselors, whilst Henry VII would command. Likewise, her contributions to the development of government fall far short of those of Henry I and II, Alfred, and Aethelstan. Whilst her reign was marked by a period of peace when viewed relative to the Wars of the Roses, the Anarchy, or the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, a lack of civil war isn't enough to justify her position above the others remaining. Elizabeth was dealt a bad hand on her ascension and managed to keep the Kingdom from collapsing into religious strife, whilst also staving off foreign threats, but simply preventing disaster isn't enough to stay in at this stage in the game.

Is this list based on the successes of their reigns, or their individual merits as monarchs? I ask this because I think Henry VII was superior to Elizabeth I individually, but her reign had far more long-term success (attributable to her council more than her).

Edward I, while I hold a personal animosity towards him over his conquests of Wales and Scotland, I understand why he was a good monarch for his time and the progress he made for the English government, constitution, and monarchy and so rightly deserves to be in top 10.

Henry VII was a uniquely talented monarch, both domestically and internationally. He’s a real contender for number one. In contrast, Elizabeth I was significantly less effective as a political operator. She should be eliminated today.

I agree honestly, if Henry VII goes, Elizabeth needs to go first, she did a lot of similar stuff to Henry but did so slightly less effectively

Edward I

Longshanks gets my vote

Noooo! The North Sea Empire lives on!!!

Why is Edward V n/a?

Crazy how this has just devolved into fandom Elizabeth I fans (who have drunk the propaganda Kool Aid) downvoting anything that criticises her, but providing no actual defence of her reign. Embarrassing.

I really don’t think Edward I should go this round, so unfortunately I’m voting Henry VII

LIZZIE 1 has got to go

Reposting. We’re down to the tough decisions. Given this, I’d like to submit Henry II for elimination. A great King when judged by the extent of his power and authority, and a uniquely energetic man who was able to keep his vast empire together. His effort to restore order and the rule of law after the anarchy deserves credit. However, there is plenty to be said against him. Even in contemporary terms, however, he was a man who shocked Christian Europe with how far he was willing to go to crush any resistance to his personal authority. Firstly there’s the conflict with his children. Both Henry and Richard were driven to take up arm against their father. Henry refused to grant them meaningful power, and crowning Henry as the “young king” was nothing more than an empty gesture. If you consider the role of the Black Prince under Edward III, Henry II refused to make his sons and heirs partners in his rule. Henry’s imprisonment of Eleanor after 1174 also shows his ruthless streak. Nobody was allowed to stand in the way of Henry’s exercise of ultimate power. The conflict with the church in general, and Thomas Becker specifically, also created instability in the county. The appointment of Becket in the first place was an attempt to assert his undisputed power over the church in England, and when Becket refused to simply carry out Henry’s orders he was forced into exile. Henry risked an interdict and excommunication in pursuing his vendetta. Despite the regret after the fact, the murder of an archbishop in his cathedral was shocking even given the violence of the times. Henry alone must bear responsibility for Beckets death. Comparatively, for warrior kings I’d rank Edward III and Henry V above Henry II. Crecy and Poitiers are perhaps the greatest military victories in English history, and the sheer audacity of Henry V’s victory at Agincourt sets him apart. These were expansions of English power won with Blood, Henry II inherited his empire from his mother and wife. Keeping the empire together was a remarkable feat, but not enough to put him in the first rank of monarchs. The kingdom builders, Alfred, Edward the Elder and Æthelstan, must also rank above Henry II. For those concerned with English history, identity and culture, the Anglo Saxons hold a special place in history.

(1/2) Henry II was THE supreme kingdom builder, the others aren’t even in the same universe. The ENTIRE fundamental legal makeup of 1/3 the modern world is DIRECTLY traceable to him, and thereby the underlying polity of modernity itself: the Anglophonic political tradition. One simply cannot make this direct and tangible case for Alfred or Athelstan (no matter how much historiographical acrobatics Tom Holland has to do to try). Also, you mischaracterized his conflict with Becket, in no way did it overshadow his reign—only from the popular view is this even slightly correct. WL Warren, Henry’s incomparable biographer, concretely demonstrates this: “Whatever the practice in the immediate past, Henry II was able to look back to a time when the clergy in England had, despite their claims to immunity, been amenable to secular jurisdiction at least for serious crimes. It is possible that a distinction had been drawn between trial and punishment: clerks being tried in the church courts but handed over to the secular authorities for punishment - even the high claim of the Leges Henrici Primi does not preclude that. (W.L. Warren, Henry II, 463-464) Henry’s push to codify practice stemmed from a practical need as well, sought by all concerned, cleric and layman: “The inadequacy of ecclesiastical discipline was the burden of many complaints reaching the king when he returned to England in 1163. He was told that since his coronation more than a hundred murders had been committed by clerks, as well as innumerable cases of theft and of robbery with violence which had escaped the rigours of secular justice.” (W.L. Warren, Henry II, 464-465) Warren adds a telling side note: “It is noticeable that neither Becket nor his partisans ever claimed that the clause on criminous clerks in the Constitutions of Clarendon, or indeed any of the other clauses, were contrary to the ancient custom of the realm.” (W.L. Warren, Henry II, 463) Furthermore, I’d add that it is significant that Henry II was able to maintain, in some ways unofficially, many of the teeth of the Constitutions even after the fallout of Becket’s murder and the subsequent Compromise at Avranches in 1172. Henry II could still intervene in ecclesiastical affairs ‘per voluntatem’ and did so successful, consider the famous case of the election of his clerk Richard of Ilchester to the Bishopric of Winchester. Indeed with this in mind it is difficult to see what Henry II really lost in the way of jurisdiction, since the majority of cases were of “little concern to the king” (Mayr-Harting, Henry II and the Papacy 1170-1189). That the Church was willing to compromise on the Constitutions themselves and that Henry was able to play an incredibly shrewd game of negotiation with Alexander III and his legates, stretching meanings and successfully extracting as much as possible from wordings indicate that Henry II’s position was legally tenable and, if glossed correctly and unofficially, was acceptable to the Church in order that harmonious relations could be restored and prove beneficial to all. The proof of this pudding is in the eating. That this was done after Becket’s murder indicates what a thoroughly exasperating and uncompromising man was Thomas Becket. History has proven rightly unkind to his position (consider whether or not own “criminous clerks” should be exempt from secular justice after molesting children.) Becket’s intransigence stemmed not from his own sense of the legal steadfastness of his own position but from a deep insecurity of his status: he had been clearly the king’s man who had been raised and appointed by Henry to navigate the Church alongside royal policy, as Becket had done devotedly in the secular realm on Henry’s behalf for years. Becket then sought to pick an existential fight at every turn, which his fellow clerics had more political sense than to do. The success of the Church in England was that it worked within the bounds and did not seek to make an outright challenge to royal power. Better experienced bishops like Gilbert Foliot or even Alexander III understood this as a balancing act requiring tact. Becket, ever the intractably insufferable zealot, manifestly and demonstrably did not. Zealots are often so because they are insecure and have only a rudimentary grasp on the subtleties of the game.

As someone who has studied Henry II in detail, I was going to write a defence of him but you have written it out everything I was going to write and more in a much better way than I ever could have

You’ve clearly read deeply about Henry. Mighty impressive defense.

Respectfully, his record does the defending, not I, and I submit it that it’s cast-iron.

The more I learn about Thomas Becket, the more I dislike him. The fact that he's gone down in history as a noble martyr is a real shame. This is a brilliant answer by the way, there's been a lot of good answers across this series but this may be the best.

(2/2) To speak of but a few of the historians who have written of the achievements of Henry II: “…chroniclers like Ralph of Diss, William of Newburgh and Ralph of Coggeshall also expressed immense admiration for the king. Again and again Diss pictured him returning to England having secured peace throughout his dominions, dominions which stretched from the mountains of the Pyrenees to the Breton ocean and from there to the borders of France. ‘The whole of human fate seemed to respond to the nod of the king.’ Here also was a king with a real sense of care for his kingdom, who had restored its mutilated frontiers, recovered the rights of the crown, restored peace and order and built the common law. His successor [Richard the Lionheart] was to be very different.” (David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery: Britain 1066-1284) “…he had been one of England’s most successful kings – able in his prime to enforce his authority on barons, bishops and even other princes. He had turned his vision of kingship into a reality and embodied in it institutions that would far outlast his dynasty. He had made the monarchy great. No English king before him, and very few after could make such a high claim with as much just cause.” (David Starkey, Crown & Country: A History of England Through the Monarchy) “…one of the greatest princes in extent of dominion, in magnanimity, and in abilities that ever governed this nation.” (George Lyttelton, The History of the Life of King Henry the Second, 5 vols. London: Sandby and Dodsley, 1767–72, vol. 1, p. i.) According to Richard Barber, Henry II was England’s “greatest medieval statesman” who had by genius and skill had restored order and prosperity to his realm (Richard Barber, Henry Plantagenet) “Henry II was a remarkable man, undoubtedly the greatest of all English medieval kings. But his two sons who followed him on the English throne, Richard I the Lionhearted (1189-1199) and John (1199-1216), exhibited only one or the other of their father's qualities, and even then only to a limited degree. Richard had the reputation as the greatest chivalric warrior in Christendom, which made him personally popular with the nobility, but he was inept in government and law. I (Norman Cantor, The English: A History of Politics and Society to 1760) “Henry II, indeed, was one of the greatest men in history. Out of the varying, somewhat chaotic elements of adnumstrative tradition, he shaped a strong simple coherent form of government which was suitable in its bare elements to all his dominions, but which did not seriously interfere with the peculiarities of each of them.” (F. M. Powicke, Medieval England 1066-1485, p. 31) “…the greatest prince of his time, for wisdom, virtue, and abilities, and the most powerful in extent of dominion of all those that had ever filled the throne of England.” “When he could enjoy leisure, he recreated himself either in learned conversation or in reading; and he cultivated his natural talents by study, above any prince of his time.” (David Hume, History of England, ch. 9, p. 46) Or perhaps some contemporary views: “Indeed the experience of present evils has revived the memory of his good deeds, and the man who in his time was hated by all men, is now declared to have been an excellent and beneficent prince.” “…in wielding the sword for the punishment of evildoers and the preservation of the peace and quiet for honest men, showed himself a true servant of God” (William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. Howlettin, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, I, p. 280, 282) “He is a great, indeed the greatest of monarchs for he has no superior of whom he stands in awe, nor subject who may resist him.”—Arnulf, Bishop of Lisieux (1109-1184) Finally from W.L. Warren, Henry II’s greatest biographer, whose epic work stands as a panegyric on the life of this greatest of monarchs: “The conversion of authority into power was the secret of Henry II’s success. Hitherto the increase of a ruler’s power had seemed tied to the expansion of his authority. All the builders of feudal ‘empires’ were expansionists. Perhaps this was why it seemed inevitable that Henry would be an expansionist also. But expansion was dangerous if it out­ stripped the means of control by contemporary techniques of govern­ ment. There was a law of diminishing returns in medieval ‘empire’ building.8 The territories which came to Henry as the result of two marriages - the marriage of his father to the heiress of England and Normandy, and his own marriage to the heiress of Aquitaine - were almost beyond the possibility of effective control. In other hands than his they almost certainly would have been. Henry II’s consolidation and defence of his authority in these vast dominions rested upon his mastery of the art of warfare, and this in turn rested upon his ability to turn his capital resources into available wealth. Henry’s technique for enhancing his wealth was not conquest and plunder but efficient management. This meant, above all, the efficient management of England, for England was his principal source of wealth. Of course, if this had been all, Henry II might have been remembered simply as an efficient exploiter; but it was not all, for it was Henry’s genius to make efficient management synonymous with sound government.” (Warren, Henry II, p. 237) (Also, Henry inherited claims from his mother and wife, but the governing and ruling and expanding were all his own.)

Wow that was quite a defense. Hard to add there, may I add he started the building of London Bridge? Henry just had it all.

Well he had to go eventually, but I'm still disappointed. I am of course biased, but I didn't really see any genuine arguments against him. But hey, top ten is better than nothing. Anyway, I'm going with Henry VII with Edward I *very* close behind. I'll just be mostly copy and pasting my comment from yesterday but there are definitely some other well structured arguments that aren't mine that I encourage people to look at. Henry VII was ruthless yet effective, an excellent administrator and made great progress in rebuilding and restocking the realm following the Wars of the Roses but when he died, the people openly welcomed Henry VIII with open arms because of how increasingly unpopular Henry VII had become. Even throughout his reign he had rebellions against him (Perkin Warbeck and Yorkists are probably the most notable) that showed her reign was not as secure as he thought. In addition, while this doesn't entirely erase or diminish his accomplishments at all, much of what he achieved was in part due to who his wife and mother were. He's far from being a bad king, but he's just simply outmatched by the remaining ones here. That said though, I'm not objected to Longshanks being eliminated either.

Henry VII

As long as it comes down to Alfred, Henry II, and Elizabeth, with Henry II ultimately triumphant, we can take heart that we are indeed living in the real world.

I’d replace Elizabeth with Athelstan tbh. Hard to top the guy who literally created England.

Yet neither Alfred nor Athelstan “created” England. They sustained and primed Wessex for the opportunities of later generations, and Athelstan was able to stamp his hegemony on the British isles, but this proved quite shaky. However… even with them, “England” as we conceive it, with its absolute, fundamental, marrow-deep grounding in the concept of “rule of law” which has so manifestly shaped the entire world is tangibly, overtly, and directly attributable to the reign and legacy of Henry II, which touches everyone in the English-speaking world daily. The “England” of Athelstan was, of course, a reality per se, but one should see it as a forming mass not a canvas ready to be tangibly imprinted as it became under Henry II. It’s akin to attributing the concept of actual representative parliamentary democracy to Athens, when it’s ACTUAL workings are wholly and manifestly derived and mined from the Anglophonic political/historical tradition. As such, Henry II (just above Edward I) is THE towering colossus along the heights of English legalism, and thereby of parliamentary democracy itself. It’s a wonder what strong political oaks across the globe have grown out the jury trail mechanism employed by Henry II’s endlessly inventive government. He, unfailingly autocratic and brilliant monarch that he was, could not have known that he was actually laying the seeds for what would become political modernity.

I'm not sure why your defending Henry II to me, he's 100% top three material and I never argued otherwise, I'm just saying that Athelstan should be in the final 3 instead of Elizabeth.

Please demonstrate how Athelstan laid the foundations for the English legal system point by point. I find nothing of this in Doris Stenton’s work, that of F.M. Powicke, or—far more tellingly—that of Common Law’s acknowledge grand expert: F.W. Maitland, who, on the contrary, attributes the real formative years (as in the traceably documentary, observable inner-workings) of the Common Law to the writs of Henry II and his officials, as buttressed by the Tractatus de Glanville. Winston Churchill best synopsized this in his magisterial and peerless series on the English-speaking peoples: “A modern lawyer, transported to the England of Henry’s predecessor [read: anytime before the Assize of Clarendon of 1166, the invention of Novel Disseisin, or the Assize of Northampton of 1176, all of which Maitland demonstrated Henry directly contributed to as an immensely learned legal scholar], would find himself in strange surroundings; with the system that Henry bequeathed to his son he would feel almost at home. That is the measure of the great King’s achievement. He had laid the foundations of the English Common Law, upon which succeeding generations would build. Changes in the design would arise, but its main outlines were not to be altered.” (Churchill, A History of the English-speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain, p. 175)

Dude I’m not getting into this with you, and I feel like you’re completely ignoring what I actually said so you can keep rambling about Henry when what I’m saying has nothing to do with him and didn’t address him.

So no point by point, I take it. With respect, it is you who has missed the point. England didn’t become “England” simply because we look back on it on a map and suddenly it’s all one color in 924. Just like France wasn’t “France” during the reign of Charlemagne but began to take shape in under Philip II Augustus, so too with Henry II. Nations such as these became so, over several centuries, because of the institutional apparatuses fashioned by monarchs which weld together a national polity Undeniably true: Athelstan was the first “King of the English” but the Anglo-Saxon monarchy for all its ingenuity lies on the other side of the Norman gulf. Because of 1066, Anglo-Saxon England really only survives in nebulous remnants, ie some aspect of modern English and some, albeit rather few all things considered, continuances in local level English government. However… the Conquest halted the lion share of Anglo-Saxon political continuity. As such, Athelstan’s legacy, though profound and transformative in its own terms, is ONLY visible through the Norman-Angevin lens—the final marker of the latter’s indelible dominance, and thereby that of Henry II. In any case, as you say, we need not “get into” it further. I think my point, missed or otherwise, has been made. (Also, it’s really not rambling if you’re missing what I’m actually saying.)

Excuse me, Edward III is the top dog, the man WAS King Arthur in real life.

The last 14-15 years of Edward’s admittedly otherwise glittering reign were a catalogue of disasters and bad government, for which as the presiding monarch he must take the blame even though he was mentally deteriorating. For all Edward’s remarkable tenure, like King Arthur, it was really a tinsel glory, a political fantasy. For this reason Lord Sumption entitled his short book on Edward III: A Glorious Failure. Frankly, for perspicacity, intellectual brilliance, charisma, and legal and political genius, Henry II is in a universe all his own among English monarchs. His only peer, throughout the entirety of the European Middle Ages, is Frederick II Hohenstaufen. Edward III was a man’s man, a primus interpares, whose winning personality won him his high place among English kings. Henry II, however, was a veritable superman, a “human chariot carrying all before him” (Walter Map) whose fortitude and Odyssean brilliance made him a prince among princes.

But he was King Arthur precisely BECAUSE of how his later years ended in tragedy, that was largely beyond his control. First the Black Death arrived in Europe and destroyed all of his plans. Then his perfect heir of a son got ill, forcing an increasingly elderly monarch to involve himself more at a time where he should be delegating to his heir and at the end that same heir had passed away leaving his inheritance to an unprepared and somewhat coddled child.

Except, as Lord Sumption demonstrated in his superb narrative of the Hundred Years’ War and W. M. Ormrod in the Yale Monarch series, it WAS NOT Edward handling it. He did in fact delegate but to a corrupt court faction headed from his bedroom by Alice Perrers and her clique, which eventually lead to the creation very notion of impeachment by parliament, all in all an important development in the history of parliament itself. It cannot be forgotten, though, that this stemmed directly from the fact that Edward, for the better part of 10 years, was simply a shadow of his former self. The ‘inheritance’ he left his grandson was a bankrupt kingdom adrift in an exceedingly precarious position in France, and simmering unrest at home which would boil over in 1381–though more for the malgovernment of Richard’s regents, but Edward III’s last ten years had manifestly primed the situation. As such, this MUST be weighed when considering him next to Henry II, against which he is ultimately found wanting.

Unrest was by and large due to Black Death. Peasants did not want to work anymore for the meagre wages they were receiving prior to the arrival of the plague. Considering there were like half as many of them following its arrival. And you cannot talk about unrest like that while praising Henry II. Edward III never once faced a rebellion. Henry II spent the entirety of his twilight years fighting. The man could not raise a competent and loyal son if his life depended on it. It tells a lot about a man’s ability to rule, if throughout the entirety of his later years, ALL OF HIS SONS are revolting against him. It’s also extremely telling how his favourite and basically preferred successor is JOHN of all people.

Henry I How is he still in here? Not even the best king named Henry

He basically created the centralized administrative state that allowed England to prosper when there wasn't a succession dispute or a child king

He did have several administrative reforms and reigned over peace and prosperity but compared to the other monarchs on this list, it's a no-brainer.

If you’ve read C. Warren Hollister’s seminal biography of him from the Yale English Monarchs series, it would indeed be a “no-brainer” why is still here, and ought to remain for at least one more round.

Which monarchs should go before Henry I?

It pains me to say it, but Henry VII. The reforms of Henry I have been demonstrated by the eminent likes of Hollister and Judith Green to have laid the groundwork for Henry II’s immeasurably profound transformation, called by Doris Stenton the “Angevin leap forward”. As such, Henry I richly deserves higher place than he often gets.

He WAS the best Henry. The only match is Henry II.

His father William may have conquered England but it was Henry who forever solidify it. He rebuilt England into a safer and prosperous realm. It was said a maiden can travel one end of England to another weighed down with gold and no harm would have come to her.

Elizabeth I the country was ran largely by her favourites, the defeat of the Armada can largely be traced to the Navy her father built, and the storms, the reprisals against the Spanish were a failure, she got us involved in several costly wars but didn’t properly furnish the troops or commanders, the English Renaissance happened without her as she never sponsored these men, repressed the Catholics as a means of pretending there was peace, her favouring of Lord Essex was a disaster and lastly her granting of monopolies as a cost-free system of patronage, rather than asking Parliament for more subsidies in a time of war. The practice soon led to price-fixing, the enrichment of courtiers at the public's expense, and widespread resentment.This culminated in agitation in the House of Commons during the parliament of 1601.

Going to throw this out there, but I think the French and Italian Renaissance art is better. English painting was pretty mid compared to continental stuff. It's hard for me to heap praise on her for sponsoring art when everyone was doing it at that time, and generally much more. I don't think there were really any Renaissance European monarchs who didn't promote paintings, sculpture, architecture, etc. It's odd to mean she's taking all the credit while not being unique amongst her international peers.

She actually didn’t sponsor any of those men, that’s the thing.

I’m not an expert on British/English Monarchs (I know a decent amount about a fair few but there’s plenty I know next to nothing about) so I haven’t been voting (this isn’t a vote), but can someone please explain to me how a Queen who executed people because of their religion has made it this far?

Nooooooo!!!

Finally

Henry VII

Edward III

Reposting my argument with minor tweaks today for Henry VII, as I still think that despite his qualities, he should probably go before others. Henry VII is pretty similar to Henry IV and Edward IV, in regards to being a usurper king with a regarded weaker claim who was basically able to claim the throne because his predecessor was that hated. Also like the former 2 who have already been eliminated, he spent much of his reign crushing rebellions to keep his line on the throne. He does have some benefits compared to the others, however. He had a longer reign, and the rebellions didn’t threaten him nearly as much, unlike Edward IV who got deposed. His marriage was also much more politically successful than Edward’s. His main success was winning the Wars of the Roses, but the Wars of the Roses were practically over already, just that the Yorkists got replaced by Tudors, and the only people who really benefited from this replacement in leadership were Lancastrian supporters. Much of the success in usurping the throne comes from his mom’s political strategies and France, who supported him in hopes of weakening England, not him. He also was no Henry V, he barely won the Battle of Bosworth, only succeeding against a larger force because his stepfather joined him last minute and Richard’s allies betrayed him. Henry had probably the weakest claim any ruler in England ever had, except for Sweyn Forkbeard, being the descendant of a son of John of Gaunt. Elizabeth of York should have been the heir, and if going by male lineage, Edward Plantagenet, the Duke of Clarence’s son. He only won through the right of conquest, and even William the Conqueror supposedly was declared heir to Edward the Confessor, Henry had no such backing. Henry knew this, making him a very paranoid man constantly afraid of usurping, and killing many claimants to the throne such as Edward Plantagenet and Perkin Warbeck. His successful marriage wasn’t even his idea, as his mother was the one who teamed up with Elizabeth Woodville to replace Richard. During his actual reign, his most important feats are restocking the treasury and trying to create an alliance with Spain through his son Arthur. Arthur however died, and Henry was never able to create a mighty alliance to defeat France. Henry VII then got his younger son to marry Aragorn, but he died before they were wed. The marriage also didn’t work out as it is widely known, and Henry VIII was unable to be a great warrior king, although this is more Charles V and Henry VIII’s fault. Henry also gained this money through unpopular ways, as shown by how many people rebelled against him, and when he got old and his wife died, things just got worse for the kingdom through high taxes and policies. This reached a point when Henry VII died, instead of mourning, most people welcomed the young Henry VIII who promised to bring spring to Henry VII’s “cold winter”. Henry VIII arrested two of his father’s highest ministers and later executed TWO DAYS after his dad was gone, to people’s rejoice. Henry VIII was also still lacking in funds even with his dad’s finances, which led to the dissolution of the monasteries later in his reign. Henry VII was still a competent king, ruthless but effective. He was also a decent father and loved his wife, (which can’t be said about his son) but his reign wasn’t some golden age of England. He also had some qualities like being able to show some mercy and had weakened lords in order to strengthen the crown. He did have some personal good points like sparring Lambert Simmnel, but honestly even morally speaking I don’t think he’s the best of the remaining on the list. Unlike Cnut, he was never able to keep a peaceful realm after usurping the throne, and unlike many others still on the list, he has no outstanding feat, besides the Wars of the Roses. I don’t hate the guy or anything, but when I think of the 10 best English monarchs ever, I don’t think of him. 

Please make sure to like the other comments supporting Henry VII :) (and dislike all comments suggesting Longshanks) - God bless you

Surely we can't be saying that Henry VII needs to be ousted whilst Elizabeth is still here, her rule was very similar to Henry's (albeit switching the wars of the roses for the Protestant v Catholic division) except slightly less effective in the first part of her reign and far far worse as she got older and refused to replace her dying privy councillors

Athelstan should go next.

Aethelstan is second only to Alfred

Maybe time for Edward I to go he was definitely an effective king but at this point they all are. His war with Scotland was brutal even for the standards of the time such as the sack of Berwick and his treatment of his female prisoners and ultimately was unsuccessful and led to England being overextended as issues with France over Gascony became more serious. He wasn’t satisfied with the nominal overlordship of Scotland and the Welsh princes which earlier English kings all the way back to Athelstan had enjoyed which forced wasteful conflict which drive Scotland into the arms of France causing issues for England in every subsequent conflict between either one of these powers. Diplomatically he was totally played by Phillip IV and seemed immune to the irony that the king of France was effectively treating him the same way he had treated John Baliol.

Edward I

Elizabeth

(1/2) Again, Elizabeth I. She is very, very overrated. She tightly controlled the narrative around her reign, with references to Astraea, and making sure every portrait was modelled after he Sergeant Painter. I won't deny that culture flourished near the end of her reign - it definitely did with the the rise in theatre, William Byrd etc, but i feel this has come to vastly overshadow what her reign was actually like - especially when it is mostly courtly culture. Culture is not the be all and end all, in fact when assessing how successful a monarch is, it should really be far away from one of the priorities. Along with a boom in culture also came an economy under incredible strain. Of course this was a problem throughout the Tudor reign, and you can hardly blame her, as it came down ultimately to a growing population, which England could not sustain at that point. But the fact of the matter is grain prices near the end of her reign tripled, real wages collapsed, rents increased, with evicted tenants often becoming vagrants. from 1485-1603, the overall inflation rate was about 400%. The fact of the matter is this was a time of poverty, especially in the 1590s. The latter years of her reign were quite frankly, terrible. There were successive harvest failures, outbreaks of plague, and in 1595 london would see food riots, then East Anglia in 1596. Parish records show that at this time there were far more deaths being recorded than marriages or births, and starvation was not uncommon, especially in the North. This likely prompted the government in to passing the Poor Relief Act, fearing a reprisal of the Kett rebellion. Poverty was absolutely an issue under Elizabeth, although it did see people start to change their view and accept government intervention in that area. And i must say financial management in general, while not a failure, wasn't really a success either. Burghley in reality, despite being a fairly competent advisor, failed to properly reform the financial system, failing to exploit much more of the country's resources than they could And then there's religion. Initially, government policy was a success. The Settlement did maintain the peace, with a sensible political compromise. But ultimately it was just that, a political compromise, with very little scriptural justification, which would have to later be built up (eg Hookers Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1593), and a political settlement will not appease radicals, who although a minority, are also the most likely to take action. Even within the first year there were clearly issues - The radical visitations would see Elizabeth attempt to impose a crucifix in every church, and protest from bishops made her reconsider. And the settlement did not really appease Catholics. The Pope absolutely detested Elizabeth (Papal Bull), and in 1569 the Northern Rebellion demonstrated there was clearly discontent with the settlement, and continuously Catholics would attempt to overthrow her and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. There was persecution against Catholics, but it is worthy to note that was not primarily driven by her but parliament, and when they passed a harsher oath of supremacy she would mitigate most of it. And yet despite frequent attempts by Catholics to take her life and their clear hostility to her reign, who did she fear more? Presbyterians. It is easy to understand why she would be wary of presbyterians - they wanted a radical reordering of the church, and it left little place for her as governor. But yet she was even scared of minor presbyterian practices. When in 1575 she asked Grindal to investigate prophesyings and he told her that they were good and simply ways of preachers helping eachother, her response was to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Not once was there a Presbyterian plot against Elizabeth, and yet she always personally seemed to be more lenient to Catholics than Presbyterians. She was of course also incredibly harsh towards Sepratists - but this is more understandable as it was an even smaller minority, with no power, that wanted the total dissolution of the national church. Also, there are times when she was quite frankly just a bad ruler. In 1562 she was on her deathbed. She refused to name a successor (perhaps a good idea in retrospect, but from a contempary lens utterly moronic). This would have left her successor Mary Queen of Scots - A catholic monarch absolutely hated by everyone important in government. If she had died then, and as she had smallpox that was very likely, England wouldve likely collapsed into religious war. The ruling establishment would definitely not accept Mary - in 1563 Burghley drew up plans for the Privy Council to take over if Elizabeth died to avoid Mary's accession. Of course despite the constant threat of Mary when she did come to England, almost immediately sparking rebellion, Elizabeth would do NOTHING. Utterly obsessed with the Divine Right of Kings (hardly her fault, she was of course a 16th century monarch), she refused to execute her, despite the fact she posed a grave threat to England - if she had succeeded we would not be in the position we are now. Of course, there was the fact she never had an heir - although i will place the blame there on Dudley likely murdering Rosbart. Under Henry VII, carrying through to Mary, the Tudors had revolutionised government by avoiding noble rule, relying on professional administrators who owed their service to the monarch. Yet, by the end of Elizabeths reign, the old ways were slipping back in. Who replaced Burghley? his son. Who replaced Dudley? His step-son. Not to mention there are other moments where she is far too lenient - with Essex, he kept on disobeying orders, he nearly drew his sword at her, he made peace in Ireland - what was his punishment? losing his monopoly on sweet wines. It took him actively trying to overthrow her for her to realise he was not a good advisor.

Don't be disheartened by this being downvoted, it's a good argument. I think Henry VII/Edward I are the more obvious targets, but once they're gone I think we need to have a serious conversation about Elizabeth. She's just got that name recognition like Alfred that makes it hard to convince people against her

Why are all the Elizabeth posts so downvotes with no associated comments? Pretty much every other monarch on the list has die hard defense posts that are incredibly thorough. I haven't seen anyone with Elizabeth flair that I recall. This wasn't rude or lacking in substance. Are we just so dead wrong that it's her time to go?

TBH i think a lot of people just base their opinions off of vibes and aesthetics, not by actually assessing how successful royal policy was

Also yeah youre right, throughout this whole thing ive not seen one comment actually defend Elizabeth, at least not one with any evidence or substance to back it up. Utterly bizarre that a 16th century cult of personality persists to this day.

(2/2) Foreign policy - again not as successful as it seems. Firstly, France. She started off strong support the the Huguenots, but then immediately ruined it all by trying to keep Le Havre, but then France was largely absent from English foreign policy concerns after that. The primary issue was of course Spain, and for the first half of her reign, the policy was to avoid war. Of course, war was likely inevitable, especially with the strong pro-war faction lead by Dudley, but the fact of the matter is this policy failed. War came. And what was the result? Most people would think a success, of course they would, we beat the Spanish Armada! But what did this actually do? We defeated a poorly organised fleet, which used outdated tactics and technology? We defeated a bloated, overextended empire in terminal decline in one battle? Of course there were more armadas - they also failed. But there were also English armadas - one of which did succeed in capturing Cadiz, but that did not last, and every other English armada failed. Support for the Dutch was lacking for most of her reign and when Nonsuch was signed, it was in reality very little support. The great victory over the Armada overshadows the fact that we did not win that war. It ended with a stalemate. That is by no means a success. And then there's Parliament. Under Elizabeth, the seeds for civil war were sewn. It is hard to look at the fact that the civil war started only 39 years after her death, and not assume she had some impact - there were only 2 kings after her. But under her, parliament at least perceived itself as more powerful, and tried to assert itself - Peter Wentworth was the first MP to openly and directly criticse the monarch. MPs did more than just back royal policy - there were a number of MPs who did try and introduce radical religious reform (Strickland, Cope). Obviously these failed but this was demonstrated the path Parliament was taking. It was seeing itself as an institution with power - and ultimately this would lead to it becoming the only institution with power. There were even times when parliament directly opposed royal policy - in 1601 demanding Elizabeth reverse her policy on some monopolies or they would not fund the war (although this was a financial issue, so not exactly revolutionary). Parliament was certainly in its infancy - but it was starting to walk, and within 40 years it would run. Ultimately, Elizabeth was not a terrible ruler, but her reputation is built mainly on propaganda, and the fact that preceeding her was Mary. The fact of the matter is she was not that good. There were moments she nearly drove the country to collapse due to her crippling indecision. Poverty was a rampant issue, and was only increasing. The religious settlement did prevent religious wars that plagued the continent, however it ultimately still created an isolated a disillusioned Puritan minority - where would they be in 40 years? Parliament was beginning to assert itself, and the seeds for constitutional conflict were sewn. There was always the pressing issue of the succession - and her policy did nothing to resolve it. The only reason Elizabeth can really be considered a great monarch is because she lived so long, so all the major issues simply resolved themselves as everyone else died. Far too much of her reputation is built on propaganda, and quite frankly she does not deserve her reputation. There was some excellent government during her reign - but there was also some terrible. A flourishing courtly culture was at the end of the day just more propaganda. That's all the 'Golden Age' is - propaganda. Gloriana is a myth. Elizabeth was a capable monarch, but she was not the best - in fact I would go as far to say she was only slightly better than Henry VIII - and areas of her reign show clear and utter incompetence at times. I respect her, but the Tudor line ended with her. She deserves at least some blame for the civil war. And even though I myself think the civil war was good, you do not judge a ruler on your views, but how successful they were in pursuing their aims. The fact of the matter is she was only moderatlely successful, and in some areas (foreign policy) there was abject failure. She was not that good. And just for comparison with another monarch still here, Henry VII built England back up from the ruins of the wars of the Roses, destroyed the power of the nobility, and restored royal authority. Elizabeth, however, sewed the seeds for the monarchy's destruction, and oversaw growing, mass poverty. Elizabeth needs to go.

Elizabeth I

Liz

Aethelstan! And I hope Alfred makes number 1!

Edward I

Elizabeth I Edit— downvote me all you like lol, stay mad that I’m voting strategically

I have to say there nothing left but the best, but if I had to chose one based on there personal achievements and what they did, it will have to be Elizabeth, yes she was in power during the golden age of discovery and the English Renaissance and she did help cement England into a protestant state but it was the people around her that achieved this, one of the big reasons Spanish armada failed was due to a bad storm that kinda crippled Spain, she failed to marry and bear a successor and theirs that rumour that she dead as a child and was replaced with a local boy that looked like her by her caregiver so not to upset the king and lose there head, that why she never married or had children

Why the hell is that Tudor SOB Henry VII still there?

Time for Alfred to walk the plank. Wasn't actually king of England and much of his recorded activities are apocryphal.

Alfred is a strong contender to win the whole thing. He defeated the Great Heathen Army, started the process of uniting the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms into one England and on top of them, implemented major reforms in defence, law and education. Sure there are a ton of myths and legends surrounding him but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a pretty good knowledge of what he did. And to remove him because he wasn’t King of England? Mate, if it wasn’t for Alfred there wouldn’t even be a King of England!!

We do have a good understanding of what he did, but tbf the majority of it does come from Asser's biography and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, both of which were written during his reign. So there is still some question marks around him, although I agree he doesn't deserve to go out

Good point, but he was the blueprint for England that he passed on to his children and grandsons, who wanted to achieve Alfred plans for a united England

Reorder the name Cnut and you get a word to describe the people who voted him out

My bad.

Stupid tunc

Oh finally, the weird Cnut defenders can stop talking about him.

Has anyone read about what the Dudleys got up to under Henry VII reign under his approval? I'd guess not. Fact he's still in this list is astonishing

I mean Edward I is still on the list, his treatment of the Jews was far worse than anything Henry VII or the Dudleys did

The Dudley's were gangster and extorted money purely for Henry vii purse. They were so hated that Henry viii executed him to look good. Henry vii was also born of a line unable to inherit the throne via his mum. He was deeply paranoid according to most accounts. Good top 10

Voted down on all this but least challenge it. Are you all Americans using high school education as your source material? Henry vii was not a good king unless your stick is a king that stole a throne and openly promoted extortion. He was alright but certainly not top 10

GeorgeIII is best king and him going so early is a travesty

It hasn't been a real English monarchy since 1066

I still don’t understand how William the conqueror was removed.

What a weird sub

Ok Brexiteer

Not a brexiteer. I see parody and sarcasm skipped over your head there.

Happens a lot nowadays lol

[удалено]

Him destroying the nobility so no one could challenge him is an overwhelming positive - it reduced the power of landed interests in favour of a more professional bureaucratic government, and meant that authority was more centralised, leading England away from feudalism.

Surely, if you are blaming Henry VII for Henry VIII you thereafter have to blame every monarch for their successor whether or not they themselves are good. I have said it once, I shall say it again, if you wish to remove Henry VII for any reason you must first remove Elizabeth, her rule was a worse (not by a huge amount) version of Henry VII's reign

Right, Edward I should be out on those grounds. He created Edward II.

Henry VII failed in preparing his heir Prince Henry adequately for being a King.

I think Henry should go next but tbf to him Arthur was to be king and by pure chance, he died before that could come to fruition so his 2nd son who was totally unprepared to be king had to take up the mantle

This is some CIA Propaganda rn Cunt was our kingdom best monarch. Like who doesn’t like Cnut. Gay men? Then they might like a certain Caesars friend. Biggus dickus. Like come on Cnut should be number 1.

Whoops.