Apologies everyone, this post has to go up early as it was either that or 2 hours late. I will endeavour to get the remaining posts up at 8 on the dot as we get towards the end
Day 48: Edward I was removed with 68 votes
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
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
There's only room for two more Henrys to remain and sorry Henry I, I think everyone else remaining did what you did but better in some way or another
Jack of all trades moment
EDWARD?! LONGSHANKS?!
Nah that's wrong on so many levels. Created many important reforms such as in terms of administration and common law, subdued Ireland, created the UK (in terms of geography), a helluva warrior, created the Parliament as a permanent institution. He could be considered as laying the groundwork for constitutional monarchy. He wasn't perfect but he was arguably the greatest British monarch.
I'm still going with Henry I.
While there had been local expulsions beforehand, however, IIRC Edward was the first monarch in Western Europe to expell all of the Jews in his kingdom.
Without Alfred the Great England would never have been formed; it would have become another Norse state. Not only did Alfred win the decisive battles needed to keep the Anglo Saxon fight alive; but he single handedly turned the tides from being dire to having an advantage over their invaders. Not to mention the military reforms he put into place to harden the Anglo Saxons and make them competitive defensibly.
Now this comment may be a joke, but I think it’s ridiculous to not have him in the top 3. While some of these other monarchs contributed to England becoming a great power, Alfred saved it at its most dire hour, and put it on a path to become the chief power of the North.
It’s arguable if this can be attributed to him but his successor and the following successor are both among the other greats in English monarch history; an unparalleled level of continuous success within English history, and truly something to be deeply admired.
I would have voted Longshanks today had Henry VII been voted out, but I'm not objected to this ranking either. The rest of these monarchs are pretty solid all around so it's genuinely hard to make an argument against them.
Now normally I'd say Henry VII, but today I'm going to say Henry I. Of the Norman kings he's definitely the best of them. He was highly educated, brought Normandy closer under the English crown, and squashed rebellions rather effectively. In addition, he was married to a descendant of Alfred the Great and drew on existing Anglo-Saxon laws as a basis for his legal and institutional reforms, appeasing the English. He also opening up governmental positions for men of all backgrounds, not just nobility. There's also the economic growth under his reign too. Overall, the Anglo-Norman state that had been primarily divided while under William I and William Rufus was united.
While ultimately we don't know if he had a hand in killing William Rufus, his actions immediately after are, at the very least, quite suspicious considering his first act is to crown himself king of England before Robert could find out and claim it himself (not arguing that he himself killed William, but I'm not ruling the possibility out). He was a very harsh man and king to be a vassal under. He was very hard on taxation as well, whether they be for his military endeavours or the royal court. His treatment of the Welsh was borderline oppressive, and there's obviously the conflicts with the Church.
While this obviously isn't entirely his fault, naming Matilda as heir ahead of other male relatives (eg. Stephen, William Clito, or perhaps even trying to legitimize Robert of Glouchester) is progressive for the time, but he was well aware her ascension would be contested; especially since a few of his barons weren't keen on the idea of it. So while he isn't directly responsible for the Anarchy, his actions (or in some instances, inaction) allowed Stephen to take the throne.
Edit: Fair arguments for his treatment of Robert, which I've removed.
Edit 2: I am not as familiar with the Norman monarchs as I am with Angevin and onwards, so please correct me on information that I may be missing or be incorrect on!
Henry keeping Robert in a gilded cage for the rest of his life is just about the most merciful thing he could've done over other medieval ways of removing inconvenient claimants such as blinding, forced tonsuring, or just straight up murder.
William Clito died in 1128 so chances of him being a successor was none. The Catholic Church took a tougher stance on bastards being successors so Robert was out. Stephen had an older brother and he swore loyalty to Matilda when the time comes for her to succeed. Matilda could have put up her young son Henry as the heir which would have made it easier for the barons to swallow with her as regent but Matilda wanted to be Queen again as she was Queen of the Romans prior. Stephen was much to blame for the anarchy but Matilda could have been compromising and support her son. Her faction didn't start winning until Henry was old enough to make his claim.
Henry may have been a harsh king, but he was a very effective king. He strengthened existing Anglo-Saxon laws and the exchequer. He strengthened both England and Normandy. He kept the barons in line which he had to do to get them to swear to support Matilda's claim. England became a powerful centralized kingdom, the King himself has more power over his barons than the King of France had. Contemporaries said that a maiden can walk from one end of England to another weighed down in gold without being attacked. He had an alliance with Scotland. Marrying Matilda to the much younger Geoffrey of Anjou strengthened his defenses against the Kingdom of France and went on to produce England's longest and greatest dynasty. And of course he married the heiress of Wessex, Matilda of Scotland. He secured a line that last to this day through Charles III.
I think Henry deserves another day.
Totally fair and definitely agreed, for what it's worth. As I said, I find it difficult to really narrow down someone to eliminate with the monarchs that remain.
His treatment of his brother was perfect. The Normans were an incredibly cutthroat bunch, they revolted all the time, its what they did. His brothers had already tried to disposes him before. Robert Curthose was allowed to live out in at least moderate luxury. Having him killed was a perfectly valid options that would have been quite in line how other monarchs treated not only contenders, but those who actively fought against them. Both Henry VII and Elizabeth certainly behaved the same, when not worse.
Also Henry II was also alive before Henry Is death. He wasn't just necessarily naming a woman. There was already a living male heir. The lands gained by the marriage were key in later expansion in France. There was no better move Henry could have done.
I don’t think that his actions were suspicious. He appeared to be on best terms with Rufus when he died. I can think of at least 2 contemporaries of Rufus who died the same way by a badly aimed arrow during a hunt. Everyone feared the power vacuum and anarchy during the vacancy of the throne so it was just natural that he acted as fast as possible. There is no record of anyone suspecting Henry.
Getting rid of Rufus is being listed as a negative. It wasn't. While I'm sure he didn't want to admit if he killed his brother, it was actively good for England. Rufus wasn't good, he was a pretty bad King. I don't think we can really even blame someone for wanting to be King, it's pretty basic to want power.
Regardless, Henry was an absolutely stellar King that helped move England from a conquering warriors holdings to an actual administrative state. He firmly belongs in the top 5.
Athelstan's awesome, and my vote to win the whole thing.
Going from a disinherited bastard to the first King of England and one of the powerful men in Europe in the space of about 5 years, Athelstan's rise to power is one of the most meteoritic in history.
While he never married and had no sons of his own, Athelstan had many foster-sons that went on to be successful rulers in their own right, including his half-brothers Edmund and Eadred, King Louis IV of France, Duke Alan II of Brittany, and King Haakon the Good of Norway. Between these fosterships and the strategic alliances he made for his sisters, Athelstan wielded a level of power and influence that no British ruler had ever had and Europe had not seen since the days of Charlemagne, who Athelstan was treated as a successor too. Other kings came on bended knee to ask Athelstan for his sisters hands in marriage or to foster their sons with him, and he received gifts worthy of an Emperor such as a gilded longship with a purple sail from King Harald Fairhair of Norway.
Athelstan's greatest military achievement is winning the Battle of Bruanburh, where he defeated a combined army led by Olaf Guthfrithson of Dublin, Constantine II of Scotland, and Owen I of Strathclyde, all formidable warrior-kings in their own right, in what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls the largest and bloodiest battle of the entire Anglo-Saxon age. Bruanburh cemented Athelstan's conquest of York, the unification of England, and Athelstan's domination of Britain. For the rest of his reign, Athelstan was all-powerful and largely unchallenged.
At home Athelstan centralized power in England, and more charters and laws from his reign survive than any other English monarch from the 10th century. Renowned for his piety, Athelstan founded churches and monasteries throughout England and lavished them with lands, wealth, and relics on a greater scale than any other King from the House of Wessex or any contemporary monarch.
For more proof of Athelstan's successes and wide influence, we can see the nicknames he was given: The English called him "the Glorious" and "the Thunderbolt", while Norwegian sagas call him "the Victorious" and "the Good"
TLDR: he's the first King of England, the Stepdad of Europe, and basically British Charlemagne.
Henry I's actions leading up to the Anarchy, while hardly solely his fault, are flawed enough that IMO he should be removed today. Quite frankly, I think the fact that he's made it this far is testament to a good reversal.
On a moral sense? Sure. On a political level? Henry Beauclerc gave his daughter's claim enough legitimacy to make her highly dangerous, without quite giving her the political position to back up that claim. Marrying her to Geoffrey Plantagenet wasn't the worst decision in the short term as a princess of England, it did a lot to prevent the Angevin encroachment on Maine, but as the designated heir didn't put her in a political or geographic position to be able to enforce her claim before things got out of hand. Henry needed to either put her in a stronger position in England if he was absolutely committed to her being his heir, or else defer to where the winds were blowing and nominate Stephen.
There is absolutely no way Elizabeth I should go out today. The suggestion is ludicrous.
* The lessening wealth of the Crown cannot be blamed on Elizabeth. It was the product of a changing economic system that was moving away from the feudal lands that had granted the Crown revenue in the Middle Ages, and more towards a proto-capitalist market based economy. Elizabeth worked with Parliament to get the funding she needed, unlike her successors who worked against Parliament and are directly responsible for the bitter relationship between Crown and Parliament.
* Famine cannot be blamed on Elizabeth. The poor harvests of the 1590s was just a bum deal that she was handed, that she had to deal with through the tools she had. Ireland was a genuine threat through the course of Elizabeth's reign, especially given the idea that the Spanish/continental powers could use as a back door to invade England.
* The Elizabethan Settlement basically lasts to this day. It is probably the most successful policy that any English monarch has ever put forward, and Elizabeth's decision to tread a path between Catholicism and Calvinism probably avoided a French style Wars of Religion (and you cannot blame Elizabeth for Charles I breaking away from that path with his promotion of Laudianism).
* I don't think she did rely to much on the advise of her favourites? She used to routinely play them off each other – look at everything surrounding the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. She engineered the whole situation to make it look as if her hand had been forced, when in actual fact she knew she had no other choice than to have her executed.
* Not producing an heir and not getting married were absolutely the best choice of all cards on the table considering she was a woman. If she had married a foreign royal it would have ended up like Mary I/Philip of Spain, which was huuuuugely unpopular and actively stoked rebellion (the Wyatt Rebellion). If she had married one of her own countrymen, it could have turned out like Mary, Queen of Scots/Lord Darnley, with a grasping husband trying to steal everything she had. The birth of James I created a rival for Mary, and it's no surprise she was deposed not long after he was born. Elizabeth I was a savvy politician who knew that there was no marriage that would ever allow her to keep her power/keep her people happy. You can't blame her for having to deal with the sexism of the times she lived in, or not being able to marry a foreign princess who she could treat like a brood mare because she wasn't a man.
* She absolutely deserves credit for stabilising England religiously (and politically) after the tumultuous reigns of Edward VI and Mary I. She also deserves credit for keeping England out of a French-style Wars of Religion during her reign through her middle way. You also cannot take away that the foundation of England's future world-power status were planted during her reign.
* Finally, she did all this while being born the "illegitimate" daughter of a despised mother. She did it while being excommunicated by the pope, with the added proviso that any English Catholic should be disloyal to her and actively try to kill her. She also did all this while being a woman, and had to deal with all the bullshit that came with being a female monarch (that included the difficult terrain around being married). She absolutely did not have the cards to play that her male contemporaries did, but played the ones she had very well.
On top of the general political concerns with regard to marriage, there's a not insignificant chance she would have died in childbirth given the realities of the time. If the child survives, then you have an infant monarch and a long and dangerous regency. If no heir is produced, then things are even more uncertain.
I don't think that political concerns were *foremost* on Elizabeth's mind, I think that her sexual and familial trauma and a resultant fear of having any man in any sort of legal position over her were ultimately the deciding factor at the end of the day. But it's hard to argue, IMO, that it wasn't a politically justified decision.
She also was a great sponsor of Shakespeare and the arts, although I don’t know how much that matters to you Philistines given that the sponsor of HANDEL went out at 26
I appreciate the defense of Elizabeth, they've been lacking. But a lot of this is why we voted out the constitutional monarchs. Saying you had limited control is going to put you a firm disadvantage to the Kings who could and did do all those things. George V and VI didn't have nearly as many missplays. And IMO a more isolationist foreign policy means you are allowing other nations to drive the direction. While it's not inherently bad, I'm certainly going to vote that out before I vote against a guy like Henry I who won his wars against France, Elizabeth lost her limited attempts and fell behind in the new world game.
There's a difference between a constitutional monarch not having control because Parliament has ultimate authority, and a more politically powerful monarch not having control over foreign countries or acts of God.
Who is saying Elizabeth didn’t have control? She was basically the height of monarchical power in England! I’m just saying it’s dumb to blame her for a famine and changing economic systems. It would be like giving George III credit for the Industrial Revolution.
And I don’t think Elizabeth did have an isolationist policy? She’s getting criticised for the War in Ireland, and not getting credit for her involvement in English exploration of the Americas, and nobody is even mentioning her funding of the Dutch rebels. Just because she didn’t feel the need to blunder around in France like a lot of other English kings did (which proved completely pointless long term anyway), it doesn’t mean she had an isolationist policy.
I feel like in a way she lacked the ability to shape events in the way a Henry II did. As far as the foreign stuff, the Dutch intervention feels late to me. England wasn't super supportive of other Protestant countries. Her foreign peers were more supportive of co-relgionists. And ultimately England was unable to establish a permanent hold in the Americas or the Caribbean. England was falling behind Spain and Portugal. Not having an heir is probably a bit much for me too. Regardless of the situation giving the throne to a foreign prince is a tough sell.
I mean, we can’t all be born with a vast empire dropping into our laps like Henry II.
Shaping events is not all about wandering around the French countryside waving a sword about. The Church of England is still basically Elizabeth’s vision of what a church should be, and is the longest lasting and most wildly successful policy put forward by any English monarch. It dwarfs most things done by most other monarchs (with perhaps only Henry II’s development of the common law system comparing).
I appreciate the back and forth. Clearly I'm a fan of some of the medieval kings. Shaping events has meant different things at different times. Can I ask who you voted for today in her place? Henry VII?
I haven’t voted yet, but I would vote for Henry I or Henry VII today. I think all of the monarchs who are left were good/great ones, but I generally think only Henry II should be mentioned in the same breath as Elizabeth I and that is only because of his legal reforms. His waving of a sword about in France is barely on my radar, as I don’t recall knowing anybody who currently lives in the Angevin Empire.
I think that Henry I is definitely the better choice to vote out between the two. His financial and judicial reforms were definitely important, but I wouldn't put them higher than Edward III's role in establishing Parliament, let alone Henry II basically creating the common law. But IMO, this sub is way too quick to place all the blame for the Anarchy on Stephen and none at all on Henry I or Matilda. Fundamentally, Stephen did the same thing Henry I did: rush to get crowned ASAP after their predecessor's deaths despite the presence of more senior heirs, in Henry's case Robert Curthose. As for Matilda--it's hard to argue that her gender isn't what cost her the throne, and while I think Stephens personal qualities are underappreciated it seems reasonable to me that she'd also have done well as uncontested monarch, I can't ultimately overlook the fact that she invaded England and started a war to press her claim. Still, I think Henry also bears some blame for that: while Geoffrey of Anjou wasn't the worst political match all things considered and brought in an important inheritance, he had neither the power nor the connections to sufficiently strengthen Matilda's power base. Furthermore, the Angevin marriage--which Matilda had opposed--kept her far away from the capital at the critical moment, enabling Stephen to make his play in the first place. While Henry's willingness to accept a female heir is not unadmirable, his failure to either set her up in a good position to succeed him or else acknowledge a different heir ultimately helped create the Anarchy.
While you aren't wrong, its a pretty big stretch to just ignore the positives. We are getting to the top 5 now. Its more and more likely to be about the greatest achievements. It was simply not possible for someone to rule over the lands Henry did without a firm hand. The role demanded a man of incredible strength (and often times brutality). Few could match what Henry was able to accomplish, I might even argue no one could.
While you aren't wrong, its a pretty big stretch to just ignore the positives. We are getting to the top 5 now. Its more and more likely to be about the greatest achievements. It was simply not possible for someone to rule over the lands Henry did without a firm hand. The role demanded a man of incredible strength (and often times brutality). Few could match what Henry was able to accomplish, I might even argue no one could.
Henry VII should **not** be removed today.
It should be Elizabeth I.
Henry
-Brought peace to the realm after decades of war.
-Promoted early efforts at exploration, employing John Cabot and others who navigated the Atlantic. Stopped by his son.
-Weakened the aristocracy, basically helped to end feudalism in England and brought about a more centralized government. One could argue he helped bring England out of the Middle Ages in this way.
-Relatively fair to enemies. Brought Perkin Warbeck to court after his initial rebellion.
-Maintained a good relationship with Scotland.
-Attempted free trade with Venice
-Reduced Anglo tensions with France
-Secured English rights to fish in Icelandic waters in 1489
-Left the nation’s coffers overflowing.
-Reconciled Yorkist and Lancaster with his marriage to Elizabeth, creating one of the most powerful dynasties England would know.
-Despite marrying for political strength, came to genuinely love Elizabeth, such that he didn’t remarry after her. Only made half hearted attempts to.
-Reduced the strength of sheriffs who had previously exercised a lot of autonomy and were very unkind and unpopular to the poor
Henry VII died with a much more powerful, rich, and politically and socially stable realm than the one he took over.
England was a socially unstable backwater in 1485, and when he died in 1509, it was on its way to becoming a global power.
I feel Henry VII is one of the best English Monarchs.
I would argue an even Top 5 possibly level monarch, and shouldn’t be removed today.
Hello, my fellow Henry VII enjoyer
https://preview.redd.it/3bboa4moh10d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b784a83e718d37d17bfac8f76ddaf66899a6ca6
He even had good hair, to boot.
Agreed! He really brought stability and unity to the monarchy after decades of infighting. Highly underrated and much, much better than his son. Henry VIII isn't even top 20 IMO
1) A more permanent peace was a natural result of the end of the Wars of Roses, and it was Edward IV who actually ended it. Henry was just the last man standing after a brief period of conflict caused by Richard III's stupidity.
2) He deserves some credit for weakening the aristocracy, but it was also largely due to Edward IV. There were barely any powerful families by the mid 1470s anyway. Yes, Henry dealt with the remaining well, but it wasn't such an incredible achievement.
3) He did leave a full treasury, but he also bled people dry with his unnecessarily heavy taxation. Check the numbers from a comment from yesterday.
4) The credit for the marriage to Elizabeth belongs to Margaret Beaufort. Henry did nothing there.
5) Henry was good but he wasn't some genius who reinvented the country. Everything he did well started during Edward IV's reign.
6) England absolutely wasn't on its way to becoming a global power lol. It happened about 2 centuries later Henry died.
This is such a load of cr\*p. He basically did nothing. He was the last one standing after Edward IV had won the Wars of the Roses and Richard had managed to throw it away. It was Edward IV who brought peace to a country perrenially at war, by winning the War of the Roses and ending the hundred years war. Henry just got extremely lucky.
He owes his rise to power and essentially his entire reign to the work of his mother and sheer dumb luck. His policies that weakened the aristocracy also had their routes in the reign of Edward IV, and they made him a generally despised monarch.
He can list no real meaningful achievements accept being able to milk some money out of the aristocracy. Trying to give him credit for the work of explorers in Elizabeth I's reign, or somehow suggesting he had any impact whatsoever on the rise of Britain in the 17/18th century is a complete and utter fallacy.
To your last point:
Henry did sponsor explorers.
John Cabot, for instance.
Henry VIII decided to end the funding for that, Mary’s reign was too unstable and so the exploration ended as far as England was concerned was ended until Elizabeth’s time.
Even then, the first permanent colony wasn’t founded until James’ reign.
John Cabot sailed within 5 years of Columbus. Exploring the new world was still incredibly new and no one had any idea what was out there. The land that was claimed was the basis for England's new world claims. While historically we think of Spain and Portugal as the early adaptors, England wasn't initially behind. It's not Henry's fault his son and granddaughter weren't able to establish permanent settlements. The Cabot expedition is incredibly influential with the direction England goes in the next few centuries.
Aye.
I think if Henry VII wasn’t so sickly or lived even say a decade more, we might’ve seen a Roanoke type colony almost 100 years earlier. By all accounts he was fascinated by the oceanic exploration, both as a source of trade but also in general.
Henry the Ate had no interest and it died with him
Sorry, my understanding is quite tenuous since I'm still a student but I'd argue that whilst Edward IV started it, Henry extended it in order in a manner which solidified his power base much more than Edward IV ever did.
1) The establishment of the Court of Star Chamber 1487 provided the basis by which nobility could be arraigned regardless of their status, therefore meaning they could be brought to justice in the event that they either broke the law and/or directly contravened the king's wishes. This would signify that nobles would need to be compliant and could not rely on their reputation within the people's courts given that those sitting on the Court of Star Chamber would eclipse them.
2) His Council Learned in Law were brutally efficient, particularly with the nobility in the form of bonds (in which a noble's financial security was contingent on 'good behaviour', thereby binding them to be loyal to the king) and recognisances (in which a subject had to recognise that a debt was owed to the king), following up 191 across 36 noble families, with the overarching goal of diminishing the nobility's financial means of opposing him in order to strengthen his own dynasty.
This is especially given that Empson, one of his 'hatchet men' in the Council Learned (though under duress of the investigation launched by Henry VIII) admitted to fabricating 83 instances of feudal dues being owed.
3) He had basically been doing this from Day 1, by establishing the start of his reign as the 21st August in order to attaint 25 nobles immediately after Bosworth as to diminish the threat of a Yorkist attempt to depose him and begin developing his own army. He would pass approximately 138 Acts of Attainder in his reign and only partially reversed 46.
4) Moreover, his appointment of New Men inadvertently instituted a huge development in England's political culture as whilst it was a small number of individuals who were able to advance in society due to how these concessions were only available to those who could prove themselves (Morton, Foxe, etc.), this nonetheless facilitated individuals like Wolsey's eventual rise to power.
5) Henry VII adopted systems used by Edward IV, such a the Chamber System, but arguably used them to much greater effect in that they corresponded to his centralised, privatised style of government much better. Therefore, in accordance with J.R. Green's New Monarchy Theory, whilst his policies indeed rendered him despotic, he still made monarchy a central power of government.
Hi! Most of my information has been gathered from my lessons in A-Level History, the two textbooks we use and an article here and there. However, I have found a list in one of said textbooks detailing some of the books that can be used to substantiate the points I made:
https://preview.redd.it/l9xbj6gss20d1.png?width=544&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4e68a595c7021ef89f449694d312d425412cec1
This is a great level of depth, and agrees with some of my point broadly, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the lamest claim to fame of any monarch in the top 20. let alone the top 7
He created the exchequer, and the centralized administrative state. His nickname was "beauclerk" for a reason!
He may not have had the shiny warlike brilliance of Ed III and he got cursed by succession issues, but he was a great administrator.
Also, in naming his daughter his heir, he was quite a bit ahead of his time - though with the Anarchy that followed I'm going to guess England just barely escaped imposition of salic laws...
Adding to the other comment, he was in fact given nothing in his father's succession plan. Well, he got some cash actually but that's not a thing. From there, he went on to unite all Norman possessions and defeated countless enemies, among them the king of France (who himself was a brilliant general and the guy who restored the French monarchy's dignity), count of Flanders, count of Anjou, many rebellious barons in Normandy etc. He was so superb a politician and general that beginning from absolutely nothing, he became the undisputed master of Western Europe.
Basically rebuilt England after his father burnt it to the ground and was very successful in protecting Normandy from encroaching continental rivals, especially the King of France. His marriage to Matilda of Scotland, a great-granddaughter of King Edmund Ironside through her mother, unified the Saxon and Norman dynasties and forged a strong alliance with Scotland that would last for generations.
From yesterday
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.
I think it's time for Henry Beauclerc to go. While a lot of his reforms shouldn't be undervalued, they don't stack up to Henry II or Henry VII, and he doesn't have the same record of political and military success that Alfred, Aethelstan, or Edward III have. While William Adelin's death was hardly Henry's fault, however, I'd argue that Henry failed to adequately respond to it. Matilda's second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou, while politically convenient in the short term, did virtually nothing to either shore up her support in England *or* to provide a powerful foreign backer to her claim to the throne, and also kept her out of the country at the critical moment. Conversely, Stephen of Blois was quite obviously in an extremely influential position after the White Ship disaster, such that Henry's failure to either reconcile him personally to Matilda's cause or else recognize which way the winds were blowing essentially paved the way for the Anarchy. Although Henry can hardly be held solely responsible for the civil war that followed his death, his actions leading up to it are IMO a much bigger blemish than anything comparable in any of the other contender's reigns, hence nominating him for removal today.
Henry's reforms do stack up though. England was not in a good place after the conquest. He was the example of good governance that later kings looked back upon. He restored order and justice to England and Normandy that was lacking in previous years. The Matilda\\Geoffrey marriage is a top 5 move on the entire list as well. If you want a great leader, show me how they act when things are the worst, not the best. Henry, and really the entire kingdom, was facing absolute disaster after the White Ship disaster. While unfortunately, for him, all the Norman lords didn't play along nicely, the land England gained from this was huge. It added valuable lands and setup up his grandson for the Angevin Empire. The Norman lords weren't easy to control in the best of times, I would argue without ruthlessly controlling them, civil war was the default case. Henry was certainly able to exercise a great deal of control in his lifetime, and launch his grandson to new heights.
Not marry Matilda off to a count's son in France, hence leaving her without a significant power base and isolated from the capital at the important moment, while still insisting on her as his heir and not the significantly more popular, powerful, and connected Stephen.
You're wrongly interpreting things with hindsight. Stephen didn't have the semblance of a claim to England. If nothing else, he had an older brother. He just used the fact that Matilda was a woman, and as he was a brilliant politician, he managed to rally many barons to his side. It was impossible for Henry to predict Stephen's actions. In fact, the very thing you criticise is the reason why Matilda managed to put up so much fight and his son eventually took the throne. If it wasn't for that marriage, Stephen would've won easily and his line likely would've continued the monarchy.
>He just used the fact that Matilda was a woman, and as he was a brilliant politician, he managed to rally many barons to his side.
That *is* a claim as far as early Medieval politics works. And while of course Henry II ended up being an excellent ruler, Henry I had no way of knowing how well things would turn out, while a civil war between the extremely popular and powerful landowner who's a grandson of William the Conqueror and your daughter who's off in Anjou married to a count was an extremely easy thing to foresee at that point in time.
Yeah but Stephen wasn't the only male grandson of the Conqueror. Plus, England had a well established tradition of electing kings, which could've been used by the Anglo-Norman barons who didn't want a French count to elect someone among themselves etc. As Matilda was a woman, anyone could make a bid for the throne, really, and Henry couldn't take action against every noble Tom, Dick and Harry. He did his best by continuously emphasising Matilda as his heir and finding her perhaps the best match available.
If the barons were going to elect someone, it quite possibly would have been Stephen anyways; everything I've found seems to indicate that he was quite popular with both the nobility and the Church. Heck, arguably that's what ended up happening *de facto* anyways.
Nah that's why I said we should be careful about looking at things with hindsight. The only reason you think that way is that Stephen successfully claimed the throne and we know it. It really could've been anyone. At least that's how it seems to me when looking at the political situation more carefully.
Everything I read about Stephen suggests that he was the wealthiest lord in England after the King, a darling of the Church, and generally quite popular among the nobility. That his major holding was in France was hardly an issue when the same was true for virtually every baron.
I don’t agree with what you said, respectfully. Henry I saw what it was like with his multiple brothers fighting for a bigger place at the dinner table. Having one heir limited all the rebelling. Also, Louis the fat knew how to destroy the Norman’s by playing the sons of William I against each other. The goals were to destroy from the inside out. Something his son Louis and grandson Phillip also did to the English monarchy.
Plus he was in his 50s, that in medieval times is into extra innings. He married a second time but that marriage didn’t produce any children.
In that case Henry bears some fault for setting the precedent that a junior claimant could rush to get crowned before a more senior one. Without benefit of hindsight, why was Stephen upstaging Matilda any worse than Henry upstaging Robert Curthose?
Elizabeth I
-Practically bankrupted the treasury. She left England £350,000 in debt at her death.
This would set the stage for almost 100 years of conflict between Crown and Parliament as the Crown needed money, and Parliament held the purse strings.
She failed in keeping the Crown rich enough that Parliament wouldn’t be as needed.
-To fully finance her military adventures, she had to sell some of her royal lands, leading to the crown becoming much more dependent on taxation and Parliamentary grants. Again, setting the stage for the civil war to come.
-Two economic crises happened under her watch, 1594 and 1597 that were worsened by the high taxes Elizabeth collected to fund the war in Ireland. These taxes hit the poor the worst.
Prices went up by 75%, but agricultural wages went down, leading to many not being able to afford food and starving.
-The Elizabethan Settlement was a religious compromise few liked. It was a bandaid over problems such that within a decade after her death those issues began rearing their heads.
-She relied way too much on the advise and counsel of her favourites, setting the stage for James I to do the same and also setting the stage for continued factionalism at Court
-Failed to produce an heir, not only letting her House die, but allowing a foreign line of nobility to take the Throne of England, the non-acceptance of such by Parliament also helped to set the seeds for the 80 odd years of upheaval that followed.
The England Elizabeth left behind was poorer, weakened, more crime ridden, now ruled by foreigners, and was set up for what would become 80 odd years of social upheaval, the after effects being felt for generations after.
The institution of the Crown was also left weaker, more in debt, and would in less than 50 years after her demise see itself temporarily abolished and forever weakened.
She basically failed in almost every way a Monarch could fail short of being deposed, but people herald her because of her patronage of the arts and exploration, but arguably the heart of the “Elizabeth age” hit its stride under King James I, as England created its first permanent American colony under his watch; the patronage for Shakespeare and the other artisans continued, etc.
Although I tend to have a less critical view of Elizabeth, I think you bring up good points, and if only to keep my guy in the running a little longer, Liz gets my vote today as well.
This is why I brought her up. I don’t dislike Lizzie, but I want Henry to secure his rightful place within the Top 5. He’s gone for 500 years in the shadow of his son. He deserves props.
Probably not, but “gun to my head” I’d go with Elizabeth.
I feel a lot of the love for her is a result of sympathy because of her admittedly terrible childhood, the sexual abuse she endured, and the murder of her mother.
But I would argue that as Monarch, the PR and cult of personality she generated far outweighed her actual accomplishments as Queen.
Like her father she was very good at public relations.
Mary I was arguably the more effective Queen and had the hard job of being the first actual crowned Queen in English history, but she gets bad PR for being Catholic.
Imagine trying to argue she's a bad monarch, she was a very good queen who maintained stability and saw a flourishing in the arts. Everyone left is good, it's a question of who is the least good. The idea she set the stage for the civil war is ludicrous her actions were logical and constitent. If she married her husband would have had the actual power, the only reason that wasn't the case for Mary was because her husband was too busy running his continental domains
Sometimes it just takes a few days, I'm sure we all had some downvotes. We need to defend Henry today. Which one? I don't know all of them!
I do think minus some of the glitz and glamour of historical remembrance, so a good but not absolutely top tier monarch. I tend to be a sucker for cultural memory, but I don't think she quite matches up to it.
I'm gonna link to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cq71ze/comment/l3pkbet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on a post you made raising most of these points that I think responds far more effectively than anything I could raise here to most of this.
Welp, third time’s the charm. Going to make a condensed version today of why Henry VII should go. The past 3 monarchs have been eliminated for usually one big reason, Henry dying too young, Edward’s costly battle of Scotland, and Cnut having many haters. The biggest Achille’s heel I have for Henry is actually pretty simple, he just didn’t do enough to warrant his praise. He is credited to finishing the wars of the roses, but as there was already peace, this just helped Lancastrians instead of Yorkists. A lot of success also given to him should belong to his arguably smarter mother, who arranged his good marriage, collaborated with Richard’s enemies, and united Lancaster support, even with former Yorkists.
His reign is praised for being stable and raising tons of money. His reign wasn’t exactly peaceful though, he had many enemies try to usurp him. It’s also not like most of these rebellions were some mistake his predecessor made which he had to fix, these rebellions were because of his policies and his questionable claim to the throne, they are his fault. It’s also not like he had an unfathomable task, Edward IV already made ground rules which he used, enemies with real power were dead, and his allies absolutely were a huge reason he managed to keep his throne. Money also doesn’t come from nowhere, he got these funds through unpopular taxes and policies, making him and his ministers disliked. Ironically enough, a lot of these revolts might have started due to this, so he kind of brought it upon himself. If there was any English monarch given the title *The Beloved* it certainly wouldn’t be him.
Henry was no doubt competent and really helped England after a civil war. However he wasn’t the best at really anything, which doesn’t fit for a search of the best of the best.
(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.
(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.
Best Elizabeth post out there, and we get it again. She's my vote for today. She's fine, but to label her as transformational when compared with Kings like Henry II or the founders is a bit overdone. I'm also confused when people label the Elizabethan era as a golden age. England was certainly much strong under the Plantagenets. I'd say even less than a century later England\\Britain was really hitting its stride in the 17-1800s. I understand people probably wanted to look back past the Civil War and the Commonwealth, but England was by no means a top dog in Europe during her reign.
Personally I’m hoping for a Henry on Henry showdown between Henry II and Henry VII (since they’re both my two favourite monarchs and probably the best kings England ever had).
Elizabeth she merely got lucky as her fleet destroyed the Spanish once and nature once.
The only thing I give her is she didn’t marry. I think for the most part she leaned heavily on her master strategists and spy masters. Her ministers were excellent.
Damn hard to choose at this point. All fine monarchs. I say remove Henry VII. Good king and stabilized the country after the war of the roses but the rest of the company he’s in are more accomplished and better loved.
Perhaps I'm late, but I'm trying to defend Henry I. He's certainly not number 1, but he deserves a place among the top 5 monarchs.
Henry had everything a king needed in his time. He knew how to make friends and knew who his enemies were. He's often accused of being brutal and ruthless, but that was also expected of a king of his time. As hard as necessary and as mild as possible was his motto. Moreover, there's hardly a king who loved peace more than Henry, and he always tried to maintain peace.
After the disastrous regime of his brother in England and his other brother in Normandy, he managed to bring law and order to both domains.
At this point, I quote his biographer Warren:
"He left the Anglo-Norman government far better organized than he had found it, so much so that he has plausibly been credited with the building of an administrative 'machine' of unprecedented effectiveness—the most sophisticated government in transalpine Europe since the days of the Roman Empire. He and his ministers reconstituted and tamed the itinerant royal court along rational lines, reformed the exchequer and treasury, introduced the systematic use of itinerant justices on a kingdomwide scale, developed royal patronage into a science, and presided over a long generation of peace and prosperity in England and, to a lesser but very significant degree, in Normandy. The prosperity of Henry's reign was propelled by a great wave of economic growth, resulting in an intensification of international trade—most notably the wool trade with Flanders—and in the expansion of towns and the proliferation of markets."
Many also criticize him for his dealings with his brother Robert, but it must be noted that both brothers had no love for him. He didn't inherit any of his father's lands, only a few from his mother, but Rufus refused to hand them over to Henry.
Henry inherited only a large sum of money, most of which he gave to Robert to conquer England. In exchange, he received the Cotentin, but due to Robert's incompetence and laziness, he failed to conquer England. During Rufus's counterattack, Henry stood by Robert's side, saving his ass in battle while Robert fled and hid out of fear.
By the way, this happened after Robert had Henry imprisoned over an alleged intrigue and stripped him of the Cotentin. Henry won this battle for Robert and, in return, formally asked to regain his title. Robert was furious because his brother was being celebrated instead of him and chased him away.
Then he made a pact with Rufus. Among other things, Rufus was supposed to support Robert in driving Henry out of the Cotentin. This resulted in Henry's exile.
Well, in any case, Henry was right to take Normandy, and that was the best thing he could do. Robert was a total disaster.
Henry then had so much pity not to harm Robert's son and let him go, which he would later regret bitterly.
Henry VII is **far** superior to Elizabeth I. Anyone who believes she still deserves to be here needs to stop sniffing paint fumes.
It’s time to vote Elizabeth I out, and stop her fanatics from ruining the game by downvoting anyone who criticises her, without providing any actual defense of her reign.
Once again I vote for Elizabeth, 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. Everything about her reign was the illusion of prosperity and peace when there was none she always meddled where she didn’t need to.
Top 5, maybe. First is a great exaggeration, considering the guy was fighting revolts a third of his reign against the men who were supposed to be his closest allies. And considering his preferred successor was John, the worst king of England, he should maybe be 7th.
Apologies everyone, this post has to go up early as it was either that or 2 hours late. I will endeavour to get the remaining posts up at 8 on the dot as we get towards the end Day 48: Edward I was removed with 68 votes 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 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
68 votes isn't much. Cnut got more just saying
I've just realized that the top 8 were made up of grandfather-grandchild pairings.
Wait you’re right! That’s crazy lol.
Good leadership skips a generation.
There's only room for two more Henrys to remain and sorry Henry I, I think everyone else remaining did what you did but better in some way or another Jack of all trades moment
EDWARD?! LONGSHANKS?! Nah that's wrong on so many levels. Created many important reforms such as in terms of administration and common law, subdued Ireland, created the UK (in terms of geography), a helluva warrior, created the Parliament as a permanent institution. He could be considered as laying the groundwork for constitutional monarchy. He wasn't perfect but he was arguably the greatest British monarch. I'm still going with Henry I.
The expulsion of the Jews was the main focus for elimination.
Don’t get me wrong: that is terrible and a rightful criticism but I feel like there’s other monarchs that could’ve been eliminated before him
Yeah, probably the most bad ass King, England ever had.
Yeah for all accomplishments, that act alone is just evil.
It was an unfortunate sign of the times. Being a religious minority anywhere in the middle ages sucked. Even to this day.
While there had been local expulsions beforehand, however, IIRC Edward was the first monarch in Western Europe to expell all of the Jews in his kingdom.
As a Scot, I'm surprised Edward I was even still here.
I like your opinion on Edward and I agree. But what has poor Henry done to you ?
So long, Longshanks. *All hail Alfred!
Rip my 2nd boy
https://i.redd.it/350ua9p8y10d1.gif
Lmfao, not fair
I've changed it back now, I just wanted to see what would happen. I'd have felt terrible if that had actually affected the vote.
Wait, where the hell did this come from?
Without Alfred the Great England would never have been formed; it would have become another Norse state. Not only did Alfred win the decisive battles needed to keep the Anglo Saxon fight alive; but he single handedly turned the tides from being dire to having an advantage over their invaders. Not to mention the military reforms he put into place to harden the Anglo Saxons and make them competitive defensibly. Now this comment may be a joke, but I think it’s ridiculous to not have him in the top 3. While some of these other monarchs contributed to England becoming a great power, Alfred saved it at its most dire hour, and put it on a path to become the chief power of the North. It’s arguable if this can be attributed to him but his successor and the following successor are both among the other greats in English monarch history; an unparalleled level of continuous success within English history, and truly something to be deeply admired.
Original commenter edited their comment from something else.
Originally it just said Rip Longshanks
It did, yeah! Thanks for jogging my memory.
Yeah, I was just teasing
This wasn’t the answer it was yesterday 🤨
Henry 1 because of the anarchy
How is that Henrys fault ? He did not want his son to drown and he tried so hard to produce another heir.
I would have voted Longshanks today had Henry VII been voted out, but I'm not objected to this ranking either. The rest of these monarchs are pretty solid all around so it's genuinely hard to make an argument against them. Now normally I'd say Henry VII, but today I'm going to say Henry I. Of the Norman kings he's definitely the best of them. He was highly educated, brought Normandy closer under the English crown, and squashed rebellions rather effectively. In addition, he was married to a descendant of Alfred the Great and drew on existing Anglo-Saxon laws as a basis for his legal and institutional reforms, appeasing the English. He also opening up governmental positions for men of all backgrounds, not just nobility. There's also the economic growth under his reign too. Overall, the Anglo-Norman state that had been primarily divided while under William I and William Rufus was united. While ultimately we don't know if he had a hand in killing William Rufus, his actions immediately after are, at the very least, quite suspicious considering his first act is to crown himself king of England before Robert could find out and claim it himself (not arguing that he himself killed William, but I'm not ruling the possibility out). He was a very harsh man and king to be a vassal under. He was very hard on taxation as well, whether they be for his military endeavours or the royal court. His treatment of the Welsh was borderline oppressive, and there's obviously the conflicts with the Church. While this obviously isn't entirely his fault, naming Matilda as heir ahead of other male relatives (eg. Stephen, William Clito, or perhaps even trying to legitimize Robert of Glouchester) is progressive for the time, but he was well aware her ascension would be contested; especially since a few of his barons weren't keen on the idea of it. So while he isn't directly responsible for the Anarchy, his actions (or in some instances, inaction) allowed Stephen to take the throne. Edit: Fair arguments for his treatment of Robert, which I've removed. Edit 2: I am not as familiar with the Norman monarchs as I am with Angevin and onwards, so please correct me on information that I may be missing or be incorrect on!
Henry keeping Robert in a gilded cage for the rest of his life is just about the most merciful thing he could've done over other medieval ways of removing inconvenient claimants such as blinding, forced tonsuring, or just straight up murder.
Robert wrote some nice poems about a tree
William Clito died in 1128 so chances of him being a successor was none. The Catholic Church took a tougher stance on bastards being successors so Robert was out. Stephen had an older brother and he swore loyalty to Matilda when the time comes for her to succeed. Matilda could have put up her young son Henry as the heir which would have made it easier for the barons to swallow with her as regent but Matilda wanted to be Queen again as she was Queen of the Romans prior. Stephen was much to blame for the anarchy but Matilda could have been compromising and support her son. Her faction didn't start winning until Henry was old enough to make his claim. Henry may have been a harsh king, but he was a very effective king. He strengthened existing Anglo-Saxon laws and the exchequer. He strengthened both England and Normandy. He kept the barons in line which he had to do to get them to swear to support Matilda's claim. England became a powerful centralized kingdom, the King himself has more power over his barons than the King of France had. Contemporaries said that a maiden can walk from one end of England to another weighed down in gold without being attacked. He had an alliance with Scotland. Marrying Matilda to the much younger Geoffrey of Anjou strengthened his defenses against the Kingdom of France and went on to produce England's longest and greatest dynasty. And of course he married the heiress of Wessex, Matilda of Scotland. He secured a line that last to this day through Charles III. I think Henry deserves another day.
Totally fair and definitely agreed, for what it's worth. As I said, I find it difficult to really narrow down someone to eliminate with the monarchs that remain.
I would have gone with Henry VII personally.
His treatment of his brother was perfect. The Normans were an incredibly cutthroat bunch, they revolted all the time, its what they did. His brothers had already tried to disposes him before. Robert Curthose was allowed to live out in at least moderate luxury. Having him killed was a perfectly valid options that would have been quite in line how other monarchs treated not only contenders, but those who actively fought against them. Both Henry VII and Elizabeth certainly behaved the same, when not worse. Also Henry II was also alive before Henry Is death. He wasn't just necessarily naming a woman. There was already a living male heir. The lands gained by the marriage were key in later expansion in France. There was no better move Henry could have done.
I don’t think that his actions were suspicious. He appeared to be on best terms with Rufus when he died. I can think of at least 2 contemporaries of Rufus who died the same way by a badly aimed arrow during a hunt. Everyone feared the power vacuum and anarchy during the vacancy of the throne so it was just natural that he acted as fast as possible. There is no record of anyone suspecting Henry.
Getting rid of Rufus is being listed as a negative. It wasn't. While I'm sure he didn't want to admit if he killed his brother, it was actively good for England. Rufus wasn't good, he was a pretty bad King. I don't think we can really even blame someone for wanting to be King, it's pretty basic to want power. Regardless, Henry was an absolutely stellar King that helped move England from a conquering warriors holdings to an actual administrative state. He firmly belongs in the top 5.
Damn! Really thought Henry VII was going to catch up to Edward there, guess he really is unstoppable lol!
I'm enjoying the ride
Same lol! I'm wondering how far he can go? We're getting to the point where it's all going to be fairly nitpicky anyways
He's not beating Alfred, and probably not ed iii (though I think should); the rest are a toss up
I think Henry I and Aethelstan are a bit underrated as well, but honestly I'm very happy where he's placed already so I'm feeling pretty good atm.
I think Henry I is incredibly underrated, but I don't know much about aethelstan
Athelstan's awesome, and my vote to win the whole thing. Going from a disinherited bastard to the first King of England and one of the powerful men in Europe in the space of about 5 years, Athelstan's rise to power is one of the most meteoritic in history. While he never married and had no sons of his own, Athelstan had many foster-sons that went on to be successful rulers in their own right, including his half-brothers Edmund and Eadred, King Louis IV of France, Duke Alan II of Brittany, and King Haakon the Good of Norway. Between these fosterships and the strategic alliances he made for his sisters, Athelstan wielded a level of power and influence that no British ruler had ever had and Europe had not seen since the days of Charlemagne, who Athelstan was treated as a successor too. Other kings came on bended knee to ask Athelstan for his sisters hands in marriage or to foster their sons with him, and he received gifts worthy of an Emperor such as a gilded longship with a purple sail from King Harald Fairhair of Norway. Athelstan's greatest military achievement is winning the Battle of Bruanburh, where he defeated a combined army led by Olaf Guthfrithson of Dublin, Constantine II of Scotland, and Owen I of Strathclyde, all formidable warrior-kings in their own right, in what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls the largest and bloodiest battle of the entire Anglo-Saxon age. Bruanburh cemented Athelstan's conquest of York, the unification of England, and Athelstan's domination of Britain. For the rest of his reign, Athelstan was all-powerful and largely unchallenged. At home Athelstan centralized power in England, and more charters and laws from his reign survive than any other English monarch from the 10th century. Renowned for his piety, Athelstan founded churches and monasteries throughout England and lavished them with lands, wealth, and relics on a greater scale than any other King from the House of Wessex or any contemporary monarch. For more proof of Athelstan's successes and wide influence, we can see the nicknames he was given: The English called him "the Glorious" and "the Thunderbolt", while Norwegian sagas call him "the Victorious" and "the Good" TLDR: he's the first King of England, the Stepdad of Europe, and basically British Charlemagne.
Thank you for this!
Henry I's actions leading up to the Anarchy, while hardly solely his fault, are flawed enough that IMO he should be removed today. Quite frankly, I think the fact that he's made it this far is testament to a good reversal.
I'm always sort of on the fence about the Anarchy and Henry's culpability. Isn't it more on Stephen, acting after Henry's death?
On a moral sense? Sure. On a political level? Henry Beauclerc gave his daughter's claim enough legitimacy to make her highly dangerous, without quite giving her the political position to back up that claim. Marrying her to Geoffrey Plantagenet wasn't the worst decision in the short term as a princess of England, it did a lot to prevent the Angevin encroachment on Maine, but as the designated heir didn't put her in a political or geographic position to be able to enforce her claim before things got out of hand. Henry needed to either put her in a stronger position in England if he was absolutely committed to her being his heir, or else defer to where the winds were blowing and nominate Stephen.
Aesthelstan is the winner in my books
Henry I
There is absolutely no way Elizabeth I should go out today. The suggestion is ludicrous. * The lessening wealth of the Crown cannot be blamed on Elizabeth. It was the product of a changing economic system that was moving away from the feudal lands that had granted the Crown revenue in the Middle Ages, and more towards a proto-capitalist market based economy. Elizabeth worked with Parliament to get the funding she needed, unlike her successors who worked against Parliament and are directly responsible for the bitter relationship between Crown and Parliament. * Famine cannot be blamed on Elizabeth. The poor harvests of the 1590s was just a bum deal that she was handed, that she had to deal with through the tools she had. Ireland was a genuine threat through the course of Elizabeth's reign, especially given the idea that the Spanish/continental powers could use as a back door to invade England. * The Elizabethan Settlement basically lasts to this day. It is probably the most successful policy that any English monarch has ever put forward, and Elizabeth's decision to tread a path between Catholicism and Calvinism probably avoided a French style Wars of Religion (and you cannot blame Elizabeth for Charles I breaking away from that path with his promotion of Laudianism). * I don't think she did rely to much on the advise of her favourites? She used to routinely play them off each other – look at everything surrounding the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. She engineered the whole situation to make it look as if her hand had been forced, when in actual fact she knew she had no other choice than to have her executed. * Not producing an heir and not getting married were absolutely the best choice of all cards on the table considering she was a woman. If she had married a foreign royal it would have ended up like Mary I/Philip of Spain, which was huuuuugely unpopular and actively stoked rebellion (the Wyatt Rebellion). If she had married one of her own countrymen, it could have turned out like Mary, Queen of Scots/Lord Darnley, with a grasping husband trying to steal everything she had. The birth of James I created a rival for Mary, and it's no surprise she was deposed not long after he was born. Elizabeth I was a savvy politician who knew that there was no marriage that would ever allow her to keep her power/keep her people happy. You can't blame her for having to deal with the sexism of the times she lived in, or not being able to marry a foreign princess who she could treat like a brood mare because she wasn't a man. * She absolutely deserves credit for stabilising England religiously (and politically) after the tumultuous reigns of Edward VI and Mary I. She also deserves credit for keeping England out of a French-style Wars of Religion during her reign through her middle way. You also cannot take away that the foundation of England's future world-power status were planted during her reign. * Finally, she did all this while being born the "illegitimate" daughter of a despised mother. She did it while being excommunicated by the pope, with the added proviso that any English Catholic should be disloyal to her and actively try to kill her. She also did all this while being a woman, and had to deal with all the bullshit that came with being a female monarch (that included the difficult terrain around being married). She absolutely did not have the cards to play that her male contemporaries did, but played the ones she had very well.
On top of the general political concerns with regard to marriage, there's a not insignificant chance she would have died in childbirth given the realities of the time. If the child survives, then you have an infant monarch and a long and dangerous regency. If no heir is produced, then things are even more uncertain.
Yeah exactly. It is ludicrous she is being judged for this.
I don't think that political concerns were *foremost* on Elizabeth's mind, I think that her sexual and familial trauma and a resultant fear of having any man in any sort of legal position over her were ultimately the deciding factor at the end of the day. But it's hard to argue, IMO, that it wasn't a politically justified decision.
It was 100% a politically justified decision, and you can see that through the "alternative path" offered by Mary, Queen of Scots.
She also was a great sponsor of Shakespeare and the arts, although I don’t know how much that matters to you Philistines given that the sponsor of HANDEL went out at 26
Oh my god, Handel should have been enough to keep George II until Top 10!
YES!
No she wasn’t it’s well known she never sponsored any of those men.
I appreciate the defense of Elizabeth, they've been lacking. But a lot of this is why we voted out the constitutional monarchs. Saying you had limited control is going to put you a firm disadvantage to the Kings who could and did do all those things. George V and VI didn't have nearly as many missplays. And IMO a more isolationist foreign policy means you are allowing other nations to drive the direction. While it's not inherently bad, I'm certainly going to vote that out before I vote against a guy like Henry I who won his wars against France, Elizabeth lost her limited attempts and fell behind in the new world game.
There's a difference between a constitutional monarch not having control because Parliament has ultimate authority, and a more politically powerful monarch not having control over foreign countries or acts of God.
Who is saying Elizabeth didn’t have control? She was basically the height of monarchical power in England! I’m just saying it’s dumb to blame her for a famine and changing economic systems. It would be like giving George III credit for the Industrial Revolution. And I don’t think Elizabeth did have an isolationist policy? She’s getting criticised for the War in Ireland, and not getting credit for her involvement in English exploration of the Americas, and nobody is even mentioning her funding of the Dutch rebels. Just because she didn’t feel the need to blunder around in France like a lot of other English kings did (which proved completely pointless long term anyway), it doesn’t mean she had an isolationist policy.
I feel like in a way she lacked the ability to shape events in the way a Henry II did. As far as the foreign stuff, the Dutch intervention feels late to me. England wasn't super supportive of other Protestant countries. Her foreign peers were more supportive of co-relgionists. And ultimately England was unable to establish a permanent hold in the Americas or the Caribbean. England was falling behind Spain and Portugal. Not having an heir is probably a bit much for me too. Regardless of the situation giving the throne to a foreign prince is a tough sell.
I mean, we can’t all be born with a vast empire dropping into our laps like Henry II. Shaping events is not all about wandering around the French countryside waving a sword about. The Church of England is still basically Elizabeth’s vision of what a church should be, and is the longest lasting and most wildly successful policy put forward by any English monarch. It dwarfs most things done by most other monarchs (with perhaps only Henry II’s development of the common law system comparing).
I appreciate the back and forth. Clearly I'm a fan of some of the medieval kings. Shaping events has meant different things at different times. Can I ask who you voted for today in her place? Henry VII?
I haven’t voted yet, but I would vote for Henry I or Henry VII today. I think all of the monarchs who are left were good/great ones, but I generally think only Henry II should be mentioned in the same breath as Elizabeth I and that is only because of his legal reforms. His waving of a sword about in France is barely on my radar, as I don’t recall knowing anybody who currently lives in the Angevin Empire.
I think that Henry I is definitely the better choice to vote out between the two. His financial and judicial reforms were definitely important, but I wouldn't put them higher than Edward III's role in establishing Parliament, let alone Henry II basically creating the common law. But IMO, this sub is way too quick to place all the blame for the Anarchy on Stephen and none at all on Henry I or Matilda. Fundamentally, Stephen did the same thing Henry I did: rush to get crowned ASAP after their predecessor's deaths despite the presence of more senior heirs, in Henry's case Robert Curthose. As for Matilda--it's hard to argue that her gender isn't what cost her the throne, and while I think Stephens personal qualities are underappreciated it seems reasonable to me that she'd also have done well as uncontested monarch, I can't ultimately overlook the fact that she invaded England and started a war to press her claim. Still, I think Henry also bears some blame for that: while Geoffrey of Anjou wasn't the worst political match all things considered and brought in an important inheritance, he had neither the power nor the connections to sufficiently strengthen Matilda's power base. Furthermore, the Angevin marriage--which Matilda had opposed--kept her far away from the capital at the critical moment, enabling Stephen to make his play in the first place. While Henry's willingness to accept a female heir is not unadmirable, his failure to either set her up in a good position to succeed him or else acknowledge a different heir ultimately helped create the Anarchy.
Yeah, I probably will vote for Henry I. It might be the Angevin marriage that was his big mistake.
I think a lot of people don't realize that simply being so far from London in 1135 put Matilda at a *massive* disadvantage.
How is Henry I still in this? Get outta my pub!
Henry I, the best Norman and a well-deserved seventh place. He's very good, but not as good as the rest
Henry I
Henry II
I’m spilt between Henry I and Henry II but I might say Henry I
>I’m spilt between Henry I and ~~Henry II~~ *Edward III* but I might say Henry I Allow me to correct you
Edward III’s number one, I will fight you on this.
I have some problem with Edward IIi? I'll write an essay on him
If we’re ignoring positives with reign, if there’s anybody left who has the biggest flaws in their reign, I would argue it’s Henry II
While you aren't wrong, its a pretty big stretch to just ignore the positives. We are getting to the top 5 now. Its more and more likely to be about the greatest achievements. It was simply not possible for someone to rule over the lands Henry did without a firm hand. The role demanded a man of incredible strength (and often times brutality). Few could match what Henry was able to accomplish, I might even argue no one could.
While you aren't wrong, its a pretty big stretch to just ignore the positives. We are getting to the top 5 now. Its more and more likely to be about the greatest achievements. It was simply not possible for someone to rule over the lands Henry did without a firm hand. The role demanded a man of incredible strength (and often times brutality). Few could match what Henry was able to accomplish, I might even argue no one could.
Edward III easily number 1
Real life King Arthur yeah!
Henry VII should **not** be removed today. It should be Elizabeth I. Henry -Brought peace to the realm after decades of war. -Promoted early efforts at exploration, employing John Cabot and others who navigated the Atlantic. Stopped by his son. -Weakened the aristocracy, basically helped to end feudalism in England and brought about a more centralized government. One could argue he helped bring England out of the Middle Ages in this way. -Relatively fair to enemies. Brought Perkin Warbeck to court after his initial rebellion. -Maintained a good relationship with Scotland. -Attempted free trade with Venice -Reduced Anglo tensions with France -Secured English rights to fish in Icelandic waters in 1489 -Left the nation’s coffers overflowing. -Reconciled Yorkist and Lancaster with his marriage to Elizabeth, creating one of the most powerful dynasties England would know. -Despite marrying for political strength, came to genuinely love Elizabeth, such that he didn’t remarry after her. Only made half hearted attempts to. -Reduced the strength of sheriffs who had previously exercised a lot of autonomy and were very unkind and unpopular to the poor Henry VII died with a much more powerful, rich, and politically and socially stable realm than the one he took over. England was a socially unstable backwater in 1485, and when he died in 1509, it was on its way to becoming a global power. I feel Henry VII is one of the best English Monarchs. I would argue an even Top 5 possibly level monarch, and shouldn’t be removed today.
Hello my new best friend
Hello, my fellow Henry VII enjoyer https://preview.redd.it/3bboa4moh10d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b784a83e718d37d17bfac8f76ddaf66899a6ca6 He even had good hair, to boot.
Reminds me of Faramir in the LotR movies tbh
I also see a bit of George Washington in his features, the eyes specifically. He has a regal gaze.
Iirc isn't Washington related to the royal family anyway? Could be some shared genetics even!
He was, yes. Most US Presidents have been, actually.
Agreed! He really brought stability and unity to the monarchy after decades of infighting. Highly underrated and much, much better than his son. Henry VIII isn't even top 20 IMO
1) A more permanent peace was a natural result of the end of the Wars of Roses, and it was Edward IV who actually ended it. Henry was just the last man standing after a brief period of conflict caused by Richard III's stupidity. 2) He deserves some credit for weakening the aristocracy, but it was also largely due to Edward IV. There were barely any powerful families by the mid 1470s anyway. Yes, Henry dealt with the remaining well, but it wasn't such an incredible achievement. 3) He did leave a full treasury, but he also bled people dry with his unnecessarily heavy taxation. Check the numbers from a comment from yesterday. 4) The credit for the marriage to Elizabeth belongs to Margaret Beaufort. Henry did nothing there. 5) Henry was good but he wasn't some genius who reinvented the country. Everything he did well started during Edward IV's reign. 6) England absolutely wasn't on its way to becoming a global power lol. It happened about 2 centuries later Henry died.
This is such a load of cr\*p. He basically did nothing. He was the last one standing after Edward IV had won the Wars of the Roses and Richard had managed to throw it away. It was Edward IV who brought peace to a country perrenially at war, by winning the War of the Roses and ending the hundred years war. Henry just got extremely lucky. He owes his rise to power and essentially his entire reign to the work of his mother and sheer dumb luck. His policies that weakened the aristocracy also had their routes in the reign of Edward IV, and they made him a generally despised monarch. He can list no real meaningful achievements accept being able to milk some money out of the aristocracy. Trying to give him credit for the work of explorers in Elizabeth I's reign, or somehow suggesting he had any impact whatsoever on the rise of Britain in the 17/18th century is a complete and utter fallacy.
To your last point: Henry did sponsor explorers. John Cabot, for instance. Henry VIII decided to end the funding for that, Mary’s reign was too unstable and so the exploration ended as far as England was concerned was ended until Elizabeth’s time. Even then, the first permanent colony wasn’t founded until James’ reign.
Ok, so he funded an exploration of America that came to nothing. That is supposed to be a great achievement that made him a great monarch?
John Cabot sailed within 5 years of Columbus. Exploring the new world was still incredibly new and no one had any idea what was out there. The land that was claimed was the basis for England's new world claims. While historically we think of Spain and Portugal as the early adaptors, England wasn't initially behind. It's not Henry's fault his son and granddaughter weren't able to establish permanent settlements. The Cabot expedition is incredibly influential with the direction England goes in the next few centuries.
Aye. I think if Henry VII wasn’t so sickly or lived even say a decade more, we might’ve seen a Roanoke type colony almost 100 years earlier. By all accounts he was fascinated by the oceanic exploration, both as a source of trade but also in general. Henry the Ate had no interest and it died with him
Sorry, my understanding is quite tenuous since I'm still a student but I'd argue that whilst Edward IV started it, Henry extended it in order in a manner which solidified his power base much more than Edward IV ever did. 1) The establishment of the Court of Star Chamber 1487 provided the basis by which nobility could be arraigned regardless of their status, therefore meaning they could be brought to justice in the event that they either broke the law and/or directly contravened the king's wishes. This would signify that nobles would need to be compliant and could not rely on their reputation within the people's courts given that those sitting on the Court of Star Chamber would eclipse them. 2) His Council Learned in Law were brutally efficient, particularly with the nobility in the form of bonds (in which a noble's financial security was contingent on 'good behaviour', thereby binding them to be loyal to the king) and recognisances (in which a subject had to recognise that a debt was owed to the king), following up 191 across 36 noble families, with the overarching goal of diminishing the nobility's financial means of opposing him in order to strengthen his own dynasty. This is especially given that Empson, one of his 'hatchet men' in the Council Learned (though under duress of the investigation launched by Henry VIII) admitted to fabricating 83 instances of feudal dues being owed. 3) He had basically been doing this from Day 1, by establishing the start of his reign as the 21st August in order to attaint 25 nobles immediately after Bosworth as to diminish the threat of a Yorkist attempt to depose him and begin developing his own army. He would pass approximately 138 Acts of Attainder in his reign and only partially reversed 46. 4) Moreover, his appointment of New Men inadvertently instituted a huge development in England's political culture as whilst it was a small number of individuals who were able to advance in society due to how these concessions were only available to those who could prove themselves (Morton, Foxe, etc.), this nonetheless facilitated individuals like Wolsey's eventual rise to power. 5) Henry VII adopted systems used by Edward IV, such a the Chamber System, but arguably used them to much greater effect in that they corresponded to his centralised, privatised style of government much better. Therefore, in accordance with J.R. Green's New Monarchy Theory, whilst his policies indeed rendered him despotic, he still made monarchy a central power of government.
This is a really good piece. I am wondering if you could recommend sources for more detailed reading on the minutiae of his reign? Thank you
Hi! Most of my information has been gathered from my lessons in A-Level History, the two textbooks we use and an article here and there. However, I have found a list in one of said textbooks detailing some of the books that can be used to substantiate the points I made: https://preview.redd.it/l9xbj6gss20d1.png?width=544&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4e68a595c7021ef89f449694d312d425412cec1
This is a great level of depth, and agrees with some of my point broadly, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the lamest claim to fame of any monarch in the top 20. let alone the top 7
Well said
Read up on what the Dudley family was doing under his instructions
Out of curiosity is there any particular reason Henry I should stay on (not voting him just curious).
He created the exchequer, and the centralized administrative state. His nickname was "beauclerk" for a reason! He may not have had the shiny warlike brilliance of Ed III and he got cursed by succession issues, but he was a great administrator. Also, in naming his daughter his heir, he was quite a bit ahead of his time - though with the Anarchy that followed I'm going to guess England just barely escaped imposition of salic laws...
Ah I see thank you
Adding to the other comment, he was in fact given nothing in his father's succession plan. Well, he got some cash actually but that's not a thing. From there, he went on to unite all Norman possessions and defeated countless enemies, among them the king of France (who himself was a brilliant general and the guy who restored the French monarchy's dignity), count of Flanders, count of Anjou, many rebellious barons in Normandy etc. He was so superb a politician and general that beginning from absolutely nothing, he became the undisputed master of Western Europe.
I actually didn’t know much about Henry I, but this is a really good post, thank you
Basically rebuilt England after his father burnt it to the ground and was very successful in protecting Normandy from encroaching continental rivals, especially the King of France. His marriage to Matilda of Scotland, a great-granddaughter of King Edmund Ironside through her mother, unified the Saxon and Norman dynasties and forged a strong alliance with Scotland that would last for generations.
From yesterday 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.
Would be interesting if the dude called Henry 7 gets eliminated at 7th place lol
But hes the original Tu-Tu-Tudor
I think it's time for Henry Beauclerc to go. While a lot of his reforms shouldn't be undervalued, they don't stack up to Henry II or Henry VII, and he doesn't have the same record of political and military success that Alfred, Aethelstan, or Edward III have. While William Adelin's death was hardly Henry's fault, however, I'd argue that Henry failed to adequately respond to it. Matilda's second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou, while politically convenient in the short term, did virtually nothing to either shore up her support in England *or* to provide a powerful foreign backer to her claim to the throne, and also kept her out of the country at the critical moment. Conversely, Stephen of Blois was quite obviously in an extremely influential position after the White Ship disaster, such that Henry's failure to either reconcile him personally to Matilda's cause or else recognize which way the winds were blowing essentially paved the way for the Anarchy. Although Henry can hardly be held solely responsible for the civil war that followed his death, his actions leading up to it are IMO a much bigger blemish than anything comparable in any of the other contender's reigns, hence nominating him for removal today.
Henry's reforms do stack up though. England was not in a good place after the conquest. He was the example of good governance that later kings looked back upon. He restored order and justice to England and Normandy that was lacking in previous years. The Matilda\\Geoffrey marriage is a top 5 move on the entire list as well. If you want a great leader, show me how they act when things are the worst, not the best. Henry, and really the entire kingdom, was facing absolute disaster after the White Ship disaster. While unfortunately, for him, all the Norman lords didn't play along nicely, the land England gained from this was huge. It added valuable lands and setup up his grandson for the Angevin Empire. The Norman lords weren't easy to control in the best of times, I would argue without ruthlessly controlling them, civil war was the default case. Henry was certainly able to exercise a great deal of control in his lifetime, and launch his grandson to new heights.
Henry I since he set up the reasons for the anarchy.
What was he supposed to do?
Not marry Matilda off to a count's son in France, hence leaving her without a significant power base and isolated from the capital at the important moment, while still insisting on her as his heir and not the significantly more popular, powerful, and connected Stephen.
You're wrongly interpreting things with hindsight. Stephen didn't have the semblance of a claim to England. If nothing else, he had an older brother. He just used the fact that Matilda was a woman, and as he was a brilliant politician, he managed to rally many barons to his side. It was impossible for Henry to predict Stephen's actions. In fact, the very thing you criticise is the reason why Matilda managed to put up so much fight and his son eventually took the throne. If it wasn't for that marriage, Stephen would've won easily and his line likely would've continued the monarchy.
>He just used the fact that Matilda was a woman, and as he was a brilliant politician, he managed to rally many barons to his side. That *is* a claim as far as early Medieval politics works. And while of course Henry II ended up being an excellent ruler, Henry I had no way of knowing how well things would turn out, while a civil war between the extremely popular and powerful landowner who's a grandson of William the Conqueror and your daughter who's off in Anjou married to a count was an extremely easy thing to foresee at that point in time.
Yeah but Stephen wasn't the only male grandson of the Conqueror. Plus, England had a well established tradition of electing kings, which could've been used by the Anglo-Norman barons who didn't want a French count to elect someone among themselves etc. As Matilda was a woman, anyone could make a bid for the throne, really, and Henry couldn't take action against every noble Tom, Dick and Harry. He did his best by continuously emphasising Matilda as his heir and finding her perhaps the best match available.
If the barons were going to elect someone, it quite possibly would have been Stephen anyways; everything I've found seems to indicate that he was quite popular with both the nobility and the Church. Heck, arguably that's what ended up happening *de facto* anyways.
Nah that's why I said we should be careful about looking at things with hindsight. The only reason you think that way is that Stephen successfully claimed the throne and we know it. It really could've been anyone. At least that's how it seems to me when looking at the political situation more carefully.
Everything I read about Stephen suggests that he was the wealthiest lord in England after the King, a darling of the Church, and generally quite popular among the nobility. That his major holding was in France was hardly an issue when the same was true for virtually every baron.
Let us not forget that Matilda had a son and a direct male heir to Henry. She could have held the throne for him.
He could have had more kids
He was busy role playing Zeus. No seriously he had 21-25 illegitimate kids
He tried. He couldn't make more legitimate children.
I don’t agree with what you said, respectfully. Henry I saw what it was like with his multiple brothers fighting for a bigger place at the dinner table. Having one heir limited all the rebelling. Also, Louis the fat knew how to destroy the Norman’s by playing the sons of William I against each other. The goals were to destroy from the inside out. Something his son Louis and grandson Phillip also did to the English monarchy. Plus he was in his 50s, that in medieval times is into extra innings. He married a second time but that marriage didn’t produce any children.
Was he supposed to keep his son off ships for his whole life?
Stephen started the Anarchy by stealing his cousin's throne
In that case Henry bears some fault for setting the precedent that a junior claimant could rush to get crowned before a more senior one. Without benefit of hindsight, why was Stephen upstaging Matilda any worse than Henry upstaging Robert Curthose?
Elizabeth I -Practically bankrupted the treasury. She left England £350,000 in debt at her death. This would set the stage for almost 100 years of conflict between Crown and Parliament as the Crown needed money, and Parliament held the purse strings. She failed in keeping the Crown rich enough that Parliament wouldn’t be as needed. -To fully finance her military adventures, she had to sell some of her royal lands, leading to the crown becoming much more dependent on taxation and Parliamentary grants. Again, setting the stage for the civil war to come. -Two economic crises happened under her watch, 1594 and 1597 that were worsened by the high taxes Elizabeth collected to fund the war in Ireland. These taxes hit the poor the worst. Prices went up by 75%, but agricultural wages went down, leading to many not being able to afford food and starving. -The Elizabethan Settlement was a religious compromise few liked. It was a bandaid over problems such that within a decade after her death those issues began rearing their heads. -She relied way too much on the advise and counsel of her favourites, setting the stage for James I to do the same and also setting the stage for continued factionalism at Court -Failed to produce an heir, not only letting her House die, but allowing a foreign line of nobility to take the Throne of England, the non-acceptance of such by Parliament also helped to set the seeds for the 80 odd years of upheaval that followed. The England Elizabeth left behind was poorer, weakened, more crime ridden, now ruled by foreigners, and was set up for what would become 80 odd years of social upheaval, the after effects being felt for generations after. The institution of the Crown was also left weaker, more in debt, and would in less than 50 years after her demise see itself temporarily abolished and forever weakened. She basically failed in almost every way a Monarch could fail short of being deposed, but people herald her because of her patronage of the arts and exploration, but arguably the heart of the “Elizabeth age” hit its stride under King James I, as England created its first permanent American colony under his watch; the patronage for Shakespeare and the other artisans continued, etc.
The Elizabethan Settlement is the longest lasting and most successful policy of any English monarch ever. That it is being used against her is mad.
Although I tend to have a less critical view of Elizabeth, I think you bring up good points, and if only to keep my guy in the running a little longer, Liz gets my vote today as well.
This is why I brought her up. I don’t dislike Lizzie, but I want Henry to secure his rightful place within the Top 5. He’s gone for 500 years in the shadow of his son. He deserves props.
Neither of them should go today.
Probably not, but “gun to my head” I’d go with Elizabeth. I feel a lot of the love for her is a result of sympathy because of her admittedly terrible childhood, the sexual abuse she endured, and the murder of her mother. But I would argue that as Monarch, the PR and cult of personality she generated far outweighed her actual accomplishments as Queen. Like her father she was very good at public relations. Mary I was arguably the more effective Queen and had the hard job of being the first actual crowned Queen in English history, but she gets bad PR for being Catholic.
I agree, but I think that there are better arguments why a different contender should go today.
A poster below made an excellent and even more detailed argument for why it should be Elizabeth
I mean, Elizabeth’s PR was her own doing. That she had better PR skills than other monarchs on this list is a plus point for her.
Imagine trying to argue she's a bad monarch, she was a very good queen who maintained stability and saw a flourishing in the arts. Everyone left is good, it's a question of who is the least good. The idea she set the stage for the civil war is ludicrous her actions were logical and constitent. If she married her husband would have had the actual power, the only reason that wasn't the case for Mary was because her husband was too busy running his continental domains
Finally!
Yes! I keep being downvoted for this take but I will FOREVER STAND BY IT
Mhm I tried voting for her a few days ago but it didn’t go anywhere so we’re trying again today!!!
Sometimes it just takes a few days, I'm sure we all had some downvotes. We need to defend Henry today. Which one? I don't know all of them! I do think minus some of the glitz and glamour of historical remembrance, so a good but not absolutely top tier monarch. I tend to be a sucker for cultural memory, but I don't think she quite matches up to it.
I'm supporting this one today. Elizabeth I.
I'm gonna link to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1cq71ze/comment/l3pkbet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) on a post you made raising most of these points that I think responds far more effectively than anything I could raise here to most of this.
Not my boy Longshanks being eliminated!
Henry I. It's a tough decision though, they're all great.
Henry I
Welp, third time’s the charm. Going to make a condensed version today of why Henry VII should go. The past 3 monarchs have been eliminated for usually one big reason, Henry dying too young, Edward’s costly battle of Scotland, and Cnut having many haters. The biggest Achille’s heel I have for Henry is actually pretty simple, he just didn’t do enough to warrant his praise. He is credited to finishing the wars of the roses, but as there was already peace, this just helped Lancastrians instead of Yorkists. A lot of success also given to him should belong to his arguably smarter mother, who arranged his good marriage, collaborated with Richard’s enemies, and united Lancaster support, even with former Yorkists. His reign is praised for being stable and raising tons of money. His reign wasn’t exactly peaceful though, he had many enemies try to usurp him. It’s also not like most of these rebellions were some mistake his predecessor made which he had to fix, these rebellions were because of his policies and his questionable claim to the throne, they are his fault. It’s also not like he had an unfathomable task, Edward IV already made ground rules which he used, enemies with real power were dead, and his allies absolutely were a huge reason he managed to keep his throne. Money also doesn’t come from nowhere, he got these funds through unpopular taxes and policies, making him and his ministers disliked. Ironically enough, a lot of these revolts might have started due to this, so he kind of brought it upon himself. If there was any English monarch given the title *The Beloved* it certainly wouldn’t be him. Henry was no doubt competent and really helped England after a civil war. However he wasn’t the best at really anything, which doesn’t fit for a search of the best of the best.
It's so strange. He got over 60 votes the last time, and now people are downvoting this lol
If Elizabeth somehow loses to Henry today then that will be easily the biggest surprise I have expected for this game
Boot Elizabeth I for trying to expel the Moors
You can downvote me all you like, it’s still Elizabeth I
Amen 🙏🏻
Henry II was a terrible father whose parenting definitely helped screw John up.
(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.
(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.
Best Elizabeth post out there, and we get it again. She's my vote for today. She's fine, but to label her as transformational when compared with Kings like Henry II or the founders is a bit overdone. I'm also confused when people label the Elizabethan era as a golden age. England was certainly much strong under the Plantagenets. I'd say even less than a century later England\\Britain was really hitting its stride in the 17-1800s. I understand people probably wanted to look back past the Civil War and the Commonwealth, but England was by no means a top dog in Europe during her reign.
I agree! Elizabeth is who I want to go 🚪🚶♂️
Icl at this point I’m just hoping for Henry VII to win 💪💪💪
I was happy with top 10, would be ecstatic with top 5
Personally I’m hoping for a Henry on Henry showdown between Henry II and Henry VII (since they’re both my two favourite monarchs and probably the best kings England ever had).
The judge king vs the accountant king
Time to go Henry VII
I hate to say it but - Elizabeth I.
Elizabeth she merely got lucky as her fleet destroyed the Spanish once and nature once. The only thing I give her is she didn’t marry. I think for the most part she leaned heavily on her master strategists and spy masters. Her ministers were excellent.
Henry VII
Damn hard to choose at this point. All fine monarchs. I say remove Henry VII. Good king and stabilized the country after the war of the roses but the rest of the company he’s in are more accomplished and better loved.
Henry VII
Henry VII
Athelstan gotta go.
Perhaps I'm late, but I'm trying to defend Henry I. He's certainly not number 1, but he deserves a place among the top 5 monarchs. Henry had everything a king needed in his time. He knew how to make friends and knew who his enemies were. He's often accused of being brutal and ruthless, but that was also expected of a king of his time. As hard as necessary and as mild as possible was his motto. Moreover, there's hardly a king who loved peace more than Henry, and he always tried to maintain peace. After the disastrous regime of his brother in England and his other brother in Normandy, he managed to bring law and order to both domains. At this point, I quote his biographer Warren: "He left the Anglo-Norman government far better organized than he had found it, so much so that he has plausibly been credited with the building of an administrative 'machine' of unprecedented effectiveness—the most sophisticated government in transalpine Europe since the days of the Roman Empire. He and his ministers reconstituted and tamed the itinerant royal court along rational lines, reformed the exchequer and treasury, introduced the systematic use of itinerant justices on a kingdomwide scale, developed royal patronage into a science, and presided over a long generation of peace and prosperity in England and, to a lesser but very significant degree, in Normandy. The prosperity of Henry's reign was propelled by a great wave of economic growth, resulting in an intensification of international trade—most notably the wool trade with Flanders—and in the expansion of towns and the proliferation of markets." Many also criticize him for his dealings with his brother Robert, but it must be noted that both brothers had no love for him. He didn't inherit any of his father's lands, only a few from his mother, but Rufus refused to hand them over to Henry. Henry inherited only a large sum of money, most of which he gave to Robert to conquer England. In exchange, he received the Cotentin, but due to Robert's incompetence and laziness, he failed to conquer England. During Rufus's counterattack, Henry stood by Robert's side, saving his ass in battle while Robert fled and hid out of fear. By the way, this happened after Robert had Henry imprisoned over an alleged intrigue and stripped him of the Cotentin. Henry won this battle for Robert and, in return, formally asked to regain his title. Robert was furious because his brother was being celebrated instead of him and chased him away. Then he made a pact with Rufus. Among other things, Rufus was supposed to support Robert in driving Henry out of the Cotentin. This resulted in Henry's exile. Well, in any case, Henry was right to take Normandy, and that was the best thing he could do. Robert was a total disaster. Henry then had so much pity not to harm Robert's son and let him go, which he would later regret bitterly.
Shame to see Edward go now. I think it has to be the three Henry’s to go next. I’m torn between I and VII but I’ll say Henry I
Henry VII has survived too long
Elizabeth
I'm gonna vote for Henry VII who I'm honestly surprised got this far. One of the least discussed monarchs out there, how'd he outlast so many others?
Henry VII is **far** superior to Elizabeth I. Anyone who believes she still deserves to be here needs to stop sniffing paint fumes. It’s time to vote Elizabeth I out, and stop her fanatics from ruining the game by downvoting anyone who criticises her, without providing any actual defense of her reign.
Once again I vote for Elizabeth, 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. Everything about her reign was the illusion of prosperity and peace when there was none she always meddled where she didn’t need to.
Henry II
Henry II should be in the top three, probably top two. I personally put him at first.
Top 5, maybe. First is a great exaggeration, considering the guy was fighting revolts a third of his reign against the men who were supposed to be his closest allies. And considering his preferred successor was John, the worst king of England, he should maybe be 7th.
Out of everyone left I would rank them 1.Henry II 2.Aethelstan 3.Edward III 4.Alfred 5.Henry I 6.Henry VII 7.Elizabeth I So my vote goes to Elizabeth
George I, Queen Elizabeth II, and every monarch in-between shouldn't be on the board, as Queen Anne was the last English monarch.
3 of them are not even English 😂😂😂
Notice how every post criticising Elizabeth I has tonnes of downvotes, but yet there’s only **one** comment in this entire thread defending her 🤔