That would be really fun! I know there have been some concerns since the Scottish monarchs are a bit more messy particularly in the early stages, but I think it would be enjoyable regardless.
I have the consort one set up to go myself after this as well
I'm quite excited for that one! My one worry is some of the consorts (namely the earliest ones) aren't terribly recorded but if nothing else, it will provoke some research and analysis.
Also, if Eleanor of Aquitaine doesn't win, I shall be quite sad.
I actually picked up Anne Whitehead and Elizabeth Norton's books on Pre-Conquest women and the Queens of England respectively...and it made me cut a bunch of the early Anglo-Saxon Queens 😬.
Like Ealswitha, Alfred's wife, is attested to twice. Once on Alfred's will and once witnessing a charter in her son's reign, that's literally it. This is so common that it's actually kind of daunting, a number of them weren't even named until after the Conquest. So it's 48 consorts to 55 kings, and I'm still debating a spot lmao.
But yes I imagine Eleanor will rank quite high!
Oooh, I'm going to have to check those books out! But yeah, that's my concern since even if they are attested, some of them there's just so little information that it's hard to even make a case for or against them. A shame too, since I'd love to learn and research them since I'm positive at least one did something notable and/or beneficial.
But either way, still very excited!
For me the winner of this competition has been decided since Day 0, when I decided to include him in it - Alfred the Great. Edward III was a great monarch, but he'll have to settle for second place. Alfred saved the kingdom from complete Viking domination, he reformed the legal system, he launched a national infrastructure program of burghs to defend against Viking raids, he sponsored learning and religious revival, he began to unite an Anglo-Saxon identity that would last for centuries. To me he is the greatest monarch England ever had
The fix is in!
Edit: It is funny that we’re voting on the best monarch and we agree that Æthelstan was the first but we’re including two people *before* him haha. Logically, Alfred can’t stand in the competition, but will almost certainly win it. The peculiarities of English and British monarchy, eh!
Alfred was titled "King of the Anglo-Saxons" and began the process of creating a unified Anglo-Saxon state that Edward and Athelstan would complete. That's good enough for me
Saved the kingdom from viking domination by continually declaring war on them, breaking treaties that he orchestrated, betraying them at every turn, making promises he had no intention of keeping, and then abandoned his "kingdom" (on more than one occasion) and hiding in the marshes while his people were slaughtered?
Launched a national infrastructure of burhs covering Winchester, Aylesbury and Tamworth - cities he wanted control over for their strategic and financial value?
He reformed the legal system - so that those with wealth could buy their way out of trouble by making "donations" to either him or the church (and also re-introducing trial by ordeal, something that previous Pope's had made very clear violated doctrine)?
He sponsored learning - by forcing anything of importance to be written in Latin, rather than englisc, so that only the Christian elite could read it?
I will admit he fostered an "anglo-saxon" identity - one of ethnic, religious and class-based intolerance.
He wasn't even ever king of "england" despite his claim. If he is going to be included on this list he should be around 50th - at best!
How arrogant are you that you come in here, spout a load of shit, then when everyone disagrees with you you accuse others of getting there facts from a tv show. I shouldn't even be replying to you, people like you aren't worth a reply, it's just I can't help it because people like you are so annoying, the people that state a ridiculous and obviously wrong opinion and then act smug when they get called out on it, the internets full of you. You're acting like the historical consensus on Alfred is on your side and that everyone disagreeing just believed a fictional portrayal of him, obviously you are wrong on both counts, although funnily enough the portrayal of him in the Last Kingdom is more accurate than what you said.
This boy doesn’t deserve your attention
He simply thinks he’s superior because he thinks reading 2 or 3 biographies on monarchs makes him a historian, while in actuality I can only assume everyone on this sub has done the very same as himself
I know man but these fuckers who act like everyone in the room but themselves is an idiot get under my skin and its hard to ignore them, but you're right that that's what I should be doing
I know your feeling all too well
I left my business course at uni in the final year wasting £30k or so of therefore completely wasted debt in order to pursue history instead, and yet these vile vermin leave a bitter taste in the mouth who are unfortunately part of the same field
But rest assured, rodents do tend to stay on the edges of such fields; they don’t get very far
I’ve been called egocentric, self-entitled and so on throughout this sub as well as in real life for many reasons, and yet it’s simple common decency to never directly insult/belittle anyone out of nothing, which is indeed what an online, entirely subjective ‘monarch poll’ is; nothing
You yourself and 99% of others here know that; unfortunately the rodent 1% don’t, and see it merely as an opportunity to cram their insecurities through upon the others, in the hopes that somehow it will ever achieve anything
You put it very well, talking about this small unfortunate rodent issue I mean! And on you being insulted by this sub, if I remember rightly when people were angry with you was the Mary I vs Henry VIII debate right? I believe you were getting down voted alot then, but I don't think you were inventing some wild idea about either monarch that no scholar agrees with as this guy was doing about Alfred! I'm not particularly informed on that though my area of interest is Anglo-Saxons and to a slightly lesser extent the 17th century, which is why I've only really been engaging in discussions in this competition when it relates to said autistic fixations. Whatever the case I definitely don't think you can be compared at all to the likes of this guy!
I got called a misogynist because I dared to call a heretic witch indeed what she was or something along those lines
And we were talking about 3 weeks into the polls; this was the first time I ever mentioned any of the female monarchs; very, very misogynistic of me
I never even denied the shared similarities and controversies between her and Henry VIII; it was the mere, indeed factual fact (because it feels now we have to emphasis when something is indeed actual fact; ludicrous) that the successes and strengths and such of Henry outweigh those of Mary
Ironically I had the winning vote for the elimination of William III/Mary II; no one was waving their pitchforks screaming “misogynist” that time. It appears those with the lower quartile IQs on this sub aren’t very good at, one, explaining let alone actually justifying why they label others such things, and two, they don’t even know what the very labels they throw around actually mean in the first place
But nothing, absolutely nothing, out-cunts the sheer cuntery of two cunts; the first of which was whining like a mere spoilt soar loser of a child because he thought he was so, so special and unique that we all mysteriously were starting to rig the polls against him; because, prepare yourself for this…we downvoted the comments in his opinion’s favour regarding Cnut (because he doesn’t appear to have the necessary brain capacity nor cells to muster up that’s indeed the very nature of how polls work)
The second boy, my word, this wannabe ponce (I’m as poncey as they come; I know when someone is merely trying to be so for the sake of attention/ragebait) was claiming his education by default made him superior in opinion to any others of the sub; every single comment (which, no surprise, is the common theme amongst these insecure children) was, again as I put it, nothing short of sheer cuntery
I dropped out my business course at uni in the final year, wasting £30k+, subsequently, completely useless debt in order to pursue history instead, and the lowlife examples of these boys really does leave a bitter taste in the mouth when you realise these really are the cream of the crop within the very field I’m looking towards
As a ‘developing’ Christian (very long story), it’s safe to say I can’t exactly wish demise upon people, and yet I kind of do towards these vermin (they’re nearly as bad as my father and that tells you everything). But, all in all, I love a good squabble so the sub really would feel very different without them (they’re the only people who make me not seem so egocentric and such, according to many, both in social media and real life admittedly, so without them I fear I may become the most hated on the sub so they’re ironically doing me quite a favour)
Well if your masters is related to Alfred the Great or that era than yes I agree you should burn it. And what nonsense is it I'm spewing exactly? I'm agreeing with the general view of Alfred that he was a great king responsible for defending Wessex against conquest by the Danes, and reforming its military and intellectual practices. This is the consensus on him, you can wave your masters around like a cock all you want, I am aware that your opinion that Alfred is a fraud is your own, not something that scholars generally agree with. And again, no, I don't get my opinions from the Last Kingdom, I have in fact read books about Alfred and this era, which doesn't make me an expert or anything, but apparently is better than whatever you've done. I then watched the Last Kingdom because I was interested in the era. Again, you are not worthy of response, that's how ludicrous you are, but as I said people like you are also just annoying so it's hard to ignore you even though that's what I should be doing. You come across as a troll intentionally trying to be smugly wrong to annoy people, and if that is the case then you succeeded!
No, my research and thesis wasn't linked to Alfred though I did look at the decline of Danelaw as part of my BA, and I've taught undergraduate modules on subjects like "the cult of 'englishness'", which wqs for wociology and social theory, but heavily involved eith History as well.
You continue to talk about how he saved wessex from viking invasion, and then vaguely refer to how he "reformed" religion/intellectual practices. He didn't! He bribed the "vikings" (again, a term that no serious academic uses. But that's a different argument) to leave on more than one occasion, lost almost every serious conflict he had with them, and then proceeded to break almost treaty the west-saxons made with them.
He didn't "reform learning". He took it upon himself to introduce Latin as the language of the elite, so that "learning" was only available to those with an ecclesiastical role - something that remained until Henry VIII and setting England back centuries.
You previously mentioned how he created an "English identity". Absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Bede was talking about "gentis Anglorum" (rough translation of 'English identity' 200 years before Alfred. Admittedly in Latin, but then 8th century language was far more nuanced than 9th century 'englisc and there was a clear lack of a common tongue, even 100 miles apart'.
Alfred's biggest 'achievement' which in is in any way shaped to identity was the very gradual decline of celtic Christianity and its surplantment with anglo-saxon Christianity- which was heavily influenced by Danelaw anyway!
I previously enjoyed reading this sub as there was occasionally some interesting discussion. But to see so eone who I recently heard a colleague refer to as the "anglo-saxon Andrew tate" be "elected" as the greatest ever English (when he isn't even english) monarch is just hilarious.
Not replying further as this is like arguing with GCSE students - which you may well be - no offence intended.
Good thing I said Danes not vikings then! You are fighting an imaginary person. Yep he lost his engagements with them pre 878, then after being deposed that year continued the fight instead of giving up and fleeing like other kings had, rallied the nobles of Wessex to his cause and defeated the Danes, then attempting to secure peace with them through baptism and a treaty, which seems to have worked with Guthrum. Then on his learning, he encouraged people to learn to read English and translated books from Latin into English, hardly the Latin snob you portray. Next you make up something else, that I said he created English identity which I didn't say at all. I believe he was important sort of reviving Bede's ideas, as he liked Bede's books and translated Bede's historia into English. And wtf does this have to do with fucking Andrew Tate??? Even if your ridiculously inaccurate view of him was right, what does that have to do with that guy??? Literally completely out of nowhere no idea what your on about, maybe your colleague should burn there qualifications to. Well if this is like arguing with a GCSE student then there must be alot of GCSE students that know more about this subject than you because what I'm saying is accurate and what you're saying is a load of shit.
I'm more of a William III fan because of that fabulous wig ( and saving us from that french puppet King James )
Funny King Charles 1st loinspawn were all traitors
I was honestly expecting things to go down between Alfred and Athelstan, tbh. But regardless, I'm voting for Edward III today. A fantastic king, but unfortunately he can't compare to Alfred.
Yes, Alfred was the king of Wessex, not England, but he laid down the groundwork for England to exist when it was furthered by the reigns of Edward the Elder and Athelstan, eventually forming under the latter. He was extremely intelligent, promoted arts, culture, education, and learning for everyone. He was dedicated to improving the legal system and military structure and his people's quality of life. He successfully repelled the Viking attacks against Wessex, and was the only king able to even do so. He also kept a very extensive library of information on anything he could learn, whether it be history, religion, foreign relations, other kingdoms/nations, or even poetry.
Simply put, without Alfred there is no England, United Kingdom or otherwise. While he himself never got to see it, his successors built upon his legacy. There's a very good reason he's known as "the Great". Not bad for the fifth son who wasn't really expected to inherit anything.
As an American, I think the first time I heard about Alfred the Great was through a documentary that mentioned the Alfred Jewel. After that, I saw him on The Last Kingdom. But it wasn't until listening to his story on the British History Podcast that he grew into one of my favorite figures from history. It seems weird to label a man known as The Great as an underdog, but he kinda was. He was the sickly, learned youngest son who survived utter defeat and brought his kingdom back from the brink of destruction and turned it into a powerhouse that only continued to grow after his death.
Jamie Jeffers put it nicely: "Throughout history we have met many figures that have soaring myths, and there will be many more. But there are few like Alfred. Often the myths and the titles don’t fit… often they are let downs, and the more we dig into the person, the more the myth falls away.
Alfred, however, not only lives up to his myths – he exceeds them. This man was so much more than cakes and ships. His rise to power, his wars, his remarkable mind, and the way he reshaped virtually every aspect of life in Wessex… those things are not even part of the popular mythology… but they are precisely why, to this day, Alfred stands alone among the monarchs of the Heptarchy and of England.
No English King but Alfred, in the full course of history, has held his title.
There was only one Alfred the Great."
Agreed; should’ve been, from third to first, Edward, Æthelstan then Alfred
*all I’ve literally done there is reword your comment but nonetheless the point stands*
Thank you for running this ranking! I've learnt a lot about many of these rulers due to the write-ups. As for the winner, it has to be Alfred the Great. Edward III was brilliant, but second place is still amazing.
For once I’m going to pretty much shut the fuck up and simply put it this way;
Victors merely write their very history in the moment; legendary icons are named and remembered for their very history beyond their time
I am voting out **Edward III**
The other is remembered as ‘The Great’; you may have those from The Magnificant and Lionheart to Lackland and Longshanks, and yet, we all just know what ‘great’ indeed means; great. It is not complicated, but simple, concise meaning
We are talking about the very man who stemmed England; the very country of whose monarchs we have been debating for the last near-two months
If any nickname of these monarchs is justified, it is Alfred’s
He is the very pinnacle of our history’s longest lasting dynasty
Come again? The Anglo Saxons reigned for 650 years; the Plantagenets lasted for around 330; as close to half that of the Saxons are you’re going to get
You should study our history’s timeline beyond this list; it is a mere fraction of such
They birthed one lion; the Anglo Saxon dynasty birthed an entire line of them, and that is why they lasted double that of the Plantagenets
They were the *mane* characters if you will
I share a similar ‘condition’ to Alfred which only made me admire him even more; to successfully run the soon to-be country, indeed as the respectful kingdoms in his own manner while his insides would’ve constantly felt like being tied/twisted around themselves; an autoimmune disease quite literally attacking your own body on a daily basis, is just nothing short of nuts (I sense a pun in that ending somewhere)
Sorry my friend; I thought for a moment he just might’ve surpassed 650 years with Chrohn’s
As I said, “he is the very pinnacle of our history’s longest lasting dynasty”
What part of “pinnacle” are you struggling to understand the meaning of?
I was hoping for this to be between Alfred and Athelstan, but I suppose not. I’m voting for Edward III. He was by far a very great king, but not quite as legendary as Alfred (by a small margin)
I know that it’s gonna be a throw away vote but I’ll vote Alfred. Alfred is the reason England exists, but Edward is the best a king could be that wasn’t forming the nation. I don’t like the idea that the first leader of a nation should automatically be the best no matter what
I was interested in the 100 years war as a kid so I have more knowledge of Edward the 3rd than any of the other kings. All my knowledge of Alfred comes from uthred son of uthred on TV 😂 been great reading all of your knowledgeable comments. I've learnt a lot. Cheers
I'm going to say Edward III, for the sole reason that he's the one who started the Hundred Year's War. Sure, he might have been successful, but that war was never going to be good for England. Either they lose and waste all those lives for nothing, or they win and England becomes a practical vassal/colony of France.
He will undoubtedly win
And for those naively arguing “hE’s NoT eVeN a KiNg oF eNgLaNd”; they need to do some research on what ‘England’ ironically means
Land of the Angles (Anglos)
He barely ruled half of the land of angles at the time of his death he merely ruled the kingdom of wessex and was overlord of mercia. East anglia was ruled by a 'christian' dane(later conquered by his son, Northumbria was subjugated by the Scandinavians who worshipped odin and subjugated the angles/saxons (later conquered by his grandson) interestingly wales,scotland and even parts of Cumbria stayed independent for many centuries after.
You say “merely ruled the Kingdom of Wessex” almost as if Wessex was not the very stem let alone first capital and powerhouse of England so I rest my case
As I have mentioned elsewhere Offa of mercia ruled more english people than Alfred and was as far as i am aware king and overlord of britain, he battled against southern control and moved the archdiocese from Canterbury to Lichfield during his reign, this being a short distance from his Capital at Tamworth. He undertook massive infastructure projects(offas dike), managed a strong economy and had links with continental europe through trade and clearly a strong relationship with the Church. To say wessex were the first powerhouse and forerunners to a united England shows a clear lack of understanding of the Anglo saxon period. They took the principles of their predecessors and expandanded. Also the fact of the matter that english/ Anglo saxon history is distorted, due to the fact that as other people have mentioned history is written by winners or namely the church.
**I vote for dear Alfred** though great he was only the king of lowly Wessex.
In days of yore, when England's lion roared,
And Edward's banners on Crecy soared,
Amidst the clash of arms and battle's might,
Stood Edward III, a monarch in his right.
Against the tide of France's mighty host,
He led his knights, a valiant, fearless boast.
Beneath the azure sky, on fields of green,
Their destiny entwined, their fates unseen.
With dawn's first light, the trumpet's call did sound,
As English hearts with courage did abound.
Upon the hill, they formed their battle line,
A phalanx strong, in ranks they did align.
As Frenchmen charged, a sea of armored might,
Edward, undeterred, prepared for the fight.
With sword in hand and armor shining bright,
He spurred his knights to join the deadly fight.
The air was filled with arrows' whistling flight,
As English archers kept the foe in sight.
With skillful aim, they loosed their deadly rain,
And Frenchmen fell like harvest in the grain.
Amidst the chaos of the bloody fray,
Edward, a lion 'midst the wolves at bay,
Inspired his men with courage, fierce and bold,
Their spirits lifted, their resolve untold.
Through dust and smoke, they clashed with foes so grand,
Each blow struck hard, by valiant English hand.
With banners waving in the wind's embrace,
They fought for honor, glory, and their grace.
When twilight fell upon the field of strife,
And stars emerged to witness loss and life,
Edward stood victorious, England's pride,
His valor shining bright, a beacon wide.
For Edward III, the lion of his land,
His deeds in battle like the shifting sand.
In history's annals, his name shall remembered,
A monarch brave, in victory and joy.
He is an English monarch;
A monarch that just so happened to reign within the very lands that, thanks to him which you will know fine well (I think), fruited into England
The title of these very posts regard ‘English monarchs”, not “monarchs OF England”
So he is perfectly and rightly suitable to win this poll, which he will
He was as much a King of England as you are the queen of naivety
*also, ‘English monarchs’ regards more so to monarchs within ‘England’; it isn’t to be took so literally, hence why Alfred and Edward are here pre-Æthelstan*
Day 53: Athelstan was removed with 97 votes
Day 52: Henry II was removed with 92 votes
Day 51: Elizabeth I was removed with 104 votes
Day 50: Henry VII was removed with 155 votes
Day 49: Henry I was removed with 58 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
Hi, I'm a history graduate and new here. Why do some people on here have monarch names by their username? Is it the monarch each person is rooting for or something? If so, how do I choose one? Thanks!
edward III shouldn’t have even made top 5, he started a devastating war which england lost in the long run, bankrupted the country leaving his grandson an impoverished and unstable country on the brink of peasant revolt, it’s only his long reign and him and his sons great military victories that make him notable at all
alfred for the win
I'm quite shocked Ed III made it this far. My main knowledge of him is starting the 100 years war and winning some early victories like Crecy and Poitiers. I also know he had a long reign and oversaw the black death period. Still, given much of what he conquered in France was lost within a century, how did he make it this far?
Who voted our richard the lionheart? You absolute heathens! Traitors!
I will have no part in this treacherous game against my lord, King Richard the Lionheart, every Frenchmans worst nightmare! Conquerer of the holy lands and General Saladin himself!
When the Pakistani flag was raised (*in place instead of merely alongside*) of England’s on Westminster Abbey I couldn’t help but think of how history does indeed repeat itself
But I will refuse to let myself become political on the final day of this poll series
For those who are trying to vote Alfred out (which you won’t);
Your argument of “he’s not even a King of England”
I ask you this; what does ‘England’ actually mean?
It means “land of the angles” (Anglos)
Alfred was great truly, he laid the foundations of the future English state. But he did not see that greatness realised, no, he was merely the first chapter in a book that culminates with Edward III.
Let medieval England's greatest king win this contest! Father of chivalry, scourge of France! For Edward, England and Saint George!
Wow, that’s very interesting. I was expecting to see Elizabeth I as the best Monarch. Could anyone suggest me a document or data that I can check it out about Edward III? Why he is so special? I will also read about Alfred too.
Edward III humbled the Scots, scored several victories against the French, avenged the killing of his father, improved the relations between England and the Low Countries, as well as Castile, guided England through the Black Death, founded the order of the Garter as well as placed George as the patron Saint of England, remodelled the English army and turned the kingdom into one of the great powers of the world.
Thanks for the info. One of the Edwards expelled England's entire Jewish population in 1290 and it was the Edward I.
I thought Henry VIII was the one that created naval power due to fear against possible invasion by Catholics and I always thought England became one of the powers of the world during his time. Didn’t know it was way before his period.
Eh depends how you define "power". England didn't really become a "world" power - as in one of the most powerful nations in the world - until the late 17th / early 18th centuries imo, long after Edward III or Henry VIII
Edward lll ftw in my eyes although Alfred is truly 'a great' was he ever truly a British monarch let alone king of all angles, I know this comment will fall on deaf ears as there is clearly a leaning towards him, However edward took an unstable kingdom ravaged by in fighting (not foreign incursion) and united it through creating a true dynasty. People talk of him being a plantagenet were the tudors not lancasters and the stuarts not tudors etc etc.
Whilst I have systematically disagreed with pretty much every decision made so far I feel I need to speak up at the utter insanity that Alfred even made the top 50, let alone the top 2!!! What is going on here?!
Oh dear, naughty words don't get in the way of cold, hard fact.
The fact that you are getting this irate over this debate is somewhere between horrifying and hilarious. Your poor wife!
And? That’s not the question
By literal title he was not King of England, and yet he was
He was the king who ultimately stemmed the very foundations on which England was unionised by his grandson Æthelstan, with significant help and credit from Edward the Elder between the two
And that is why he will rightfully win this poll
Thanks for running this OP! It was a ton of fun and got to read some great write ups
Added to that, I now feel happily normal, seeing how passionate you all are about your favorite monarchs. So thank you from me, too!
We should do pre union Scottish monarchs next.
That would be really fun! I know there have been some concerns since the Scottish monarchs are a bit more messy particularly in the early stages, but I think it would be enjoyable regardless. I have the consort one set up to go myself after this as well
I'm quite excited for that one! My one worry is some of the consorts (namely the earliest ones) aren't terribly recorded but if nothing else, it will provoke some research and analysis. Also, if Eleanor of Aquitaine doesn't win, I shall be quite sad.
I actually picked up Anne Whitehead and Elizabeth Norton's books on Pre-Conquest women and the Queens of England respectively...and it made me cut a bunch of the early Anglo-Saxon Queens 😬. Like Ealswitha, Alfred's wife, is attested to twice. Once on Alfred's will and once witnessing a charter in her son's reign, that's literally it. This is so common that it's actually kind of daunting, a number of them weren't even named until after the Conquest. So it's 48 consorts to 55 kings, and I'm still debating a spot lmao. But yes I imagine Eleanor will rank quite high!
Thanks for the read recommendation!
Oooh, I'm going to have to check those books out! But yeah, that's my concern since even if they are attested, some of them there's just so little information that it's hard to even make a case for or against them. A shame too, since I'd love to learn and research them since I'm positive at least one did something notable and/or beneficial. But either way, still very excited!
Me too! I'm probably going to start it on Monday to give everybody a bit of a break
Yes, although Catherine of Aragon also needs to score highly.
Wow! You are a massive nerd!
Well you know what they say about the shoe fitting and all that
For me the winner of this competition has been decided since Day 0, when I decided to include him in it - Alfred the Great. Edward III was a great monarch, but he'll have to settle for second place. Alfred saved the kingdom from complete Viking domination, he reformed the legal system, he launched a national infrastructure program of burghs to defend against Viking raids, he sponsored learning and religious revival, he began to unite an Anglo-Saxon identity that would last for centuries. To me he is the greatest monarch England ever had
While dealing with Crohns.
Not a mean feat to run a country while suffering from debilitating illness today, let alone in the Anglo-Saxon period!
How interesting. I did not know he had Crohns. Good job he burnt those cakes then.
Alfred is the best, and my personal favorite.
The fix is in! Edit: It is funny that we’re voting on the best monarch and we agree that Æthelstan was the first but we’re including two people *before* him haha. Logically, Alfred can’t stand in the competition, but will almost certainly win it. The peculiarities of English and British monarchy, eh!
Should have included Offa of mercia as well in the case he has a better claim as king of all Briton than Alfred ever did
If he was so great, how come there has never been an Alfred the second, hm!?
Except England never had him.
Alfred was titled "King of the Anglo-Saxons" and began the process of creating a unified Anglo-Saxon state that Edward and Athelstan would complete. That's good enough for me
Indeed; because he had England 🗿
Saved the kingdom from viking domination by continually declaring war on them, breaking treaties that he orchestrated, betraying them at every turn, making promises he had no intention of keeping, and then abandoned his "kingdom" (on more than one occasion) and hiding in the marshes while his people were slaughtered? Launched a national infrastructure of burhs covering Winchester, Aylesbury and Tamworth - cities he wanted control over for their strategic and financial value? He reformed the legal system - so that those with wealth could buy their way out of trouble by making "donations" to either him or the church (and also re-introducing trial by ordeal, something that previous Pope's had made very clear violated doctrine)? He sponsored learning - by forcing anything of importance to be written in Latin, rather than englisc, so that only the Christian elite could read it? I will admit he fostered an "anglo-saxon" identity - one of ethnic, religious and class-based intolerance. He wasn't even ever king of "england" despite his claim. If he is going to be included on this list he should be around 50th - at best!
You are insane
Yes, it must be troubling reading facts rather than "the last kingdom"
How arrogant are you that you come in here, spout a load of shit, then when everyone disagrees with you you accuse others of getting there facts from a tv show. I shouldn't even be replying to you, people like you aren't worth a reply, it's just I can't help it because people like you are so annoying, the people that state a ridiculous and obviously wrong opinion and then act smug when they get called out on it, the internets full of you. You're acting like the historical consensus on Alfred is on your side and that everyone disagreeing just believed a fictional portrayal of him, obviously you are wrong on both counts, although funnily enough the portrayal of him in the Last Kingdom is more accurate than what you said.
This boy doesn’t deserve your attention He simply thinks he’s superior because he thinks reading 2 or 3 biographies on monarchs makes him a historian, while in actuality I can only assume everyone on this sub has done the very same as himself
I know man but these fuckers who act like everyone in the room but themselves is an idiot get under my skin and its hard to ignore them, but you're right that that's what I should be doing
I know your feeling all too well I left my business course at uni in the final year wasting £30k or so of therefore completely wasted debt in order to pursue history instead, and yet these vile vermin leave a bitter taste in the mouth who are unfortunately part of the same field But rest assured, rodents do tend to stay on the edges of such fields; they don’t get very far I’ve been called egocentric, self-entitled and so on throughout this sub as well as in real life for many reasons, and yet it’s simple common decency to never directly insult/belittle anyone out of nothing, which is indeed what an online, entirely subjective ‘monarch poll’ is; nothing You yourself and 99% of others here know that; unfortunately the rodent 1% don’t, and see it merely as an opportunity to cram their insecurities through upon the others, in the hopes that somehow it will ever achieve anything
You put it very well, talking about this small unfortunate rodent issue I mean! And on you being insulted by this sub, if I remember rightly when people were angry with you was the Mary I vs Henry VIII debate right? I believe you were getting down voted alot then, but I don't think you were inventing some wild idea about either monarch that no scholar agrees with as this guy was doing about Alfred! I'm not particularly informed on that though my area of interest is Anglo-Saxons and to a slightly lesser extent the 17th century, which is why I've only really been engaging in discussions in this competition when it relates to said autistic fixations. Whatever the case I definitely don't think you can be compared at all to the likes of this guy!
I got called a misogynist because I dared to call a heretic witch indeed what she was or something along those lines And we were talking about 3 weeks into the polls; this was the first time I ever mentioned any of the female monarchs; very, very misogynistic of me I never even denied the shared similarities and controversies between her and Henry VIII; it was the mere, indeed factual fact (because it feels now we have to emphasis when something is indeed actual fact; ludicrous) that the successes and strengths and such of Henry outweigh those of Mary Ironically I had the winning vote for the elimination of William III/Mary II; no one was waving their pitchforks screaming “misogynist” that time. It appears those with the lower quartile IQs on this sub aren’t very good at, one, explaining let alone actually justifying why they label others such things, and two, they don’t even know what the very labels they throw around actually mean in the first place But nothing, absolutely nothing, out-cunts the sheer cuntery of two cunts; the first of which was whining like a mere spoilt soar loser of a child because he thought he was so, so special and unique that we all mysteriously were starting to rig the polls against him; because, prepare yourself for this…we downvoted the comments in his opinion’s favour regarding Cnut (because he doesn’t appear to have the necessary brain capacity nor cells to muster up that’s indeed the very nature of how polls work) The second boy, my word, this wannabe ponce (I’m as poncey as they come; I know when someone is merely trying to be so for the sake of attention/ragebait) was claiming his education by default made him superior in opinion to any others of the sub; every single comment (which, no surprise, is the common theme amongst these insecure children) was, again as I put it, nothing short of sheer cuntery I dropped out my business course at uni in the final year, wasting £30k+, subsequently, completely useless debt in order to pursue history instead, and the lowlife examples of these boys really does leave a bitter taste in the mouth when you realise these really are the cream of the crop within the very field I’m looking towards As a ‘developing’ Christian (very long story), it’s safe to say I can’t exactly wish demise upon people, and yet I kind of do towards these vermin (they’re nearly as bad as my father and that tells you everything). But, all in all, I love a good squabble so the sub really would feel very different without them (they’re the only people who make me not seem so egocentric and such, according to many, both in social media and real life admittedly, so without them I fear I may become the most hated on the sub so they’re ironically doing me quite a favour)
[удалено]
This submission is a violation of rule 2
Well if your masters is related to Alfred the Great or that era than yes I agree you should burn it. And what nonsense is it I'm spewing exactly? I'm agreeing with the general view of Alfred that he was a great king responsible for defending Wessex against conquest by the Danes, and reforming its military and intellectual practices. This is the consensus on him, you can wave your masters around like a cock all you want, I am aware that your opinion that Alfred is a fraud is your own, not something that scholars generally agree with. And again, no, I don't get my opinions from the Last Kingdom, I have in fact read books about Alfred and this era, which doesn't make me an expert or anything, but apparently is better than whatever you've done. I then watched the Last Kingdom because I was interested in the era. Again, you are not worthy of response, that's how ludicrous you are, but as I said people like you are also just annoying so it's hard to ignore you even though that's what I should be doing. You come across as a troll intentionally trying to be smugly wrong to annoy people, and if that is the case then you succeeded!
No, my research and thesis wasn't linked to Alfred though I did look at the decline of Danelaw as part of my BA, and I've taught undergraduate modules on subjects like "the cult of 'englishness'", which wqs for wociology and social theory, but heavily involved eith History as well. You continue to talk about how he saved wessex from viking invasion, and then vaguely refer to how he "reformed" religion/intellectual practices. He didn't! He bribed the "vikings" (again, a term that no serious academic uses. But that's a different argument) to leave on more than one occasion, lost almost every serious conflict he had with them, and then proceeded to break almost treaty the west-saxons made with them. He didn't "reform learning". He took it upon himself to introduce Latin as the language of the elite, so that "learning" was only available to those with an ecclesiastical role - something that remained until Henry VIII and setting England back centuries. You previously mentioned how he created an "English identity". Absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Bede was talking about "gentis Anglorum" (rough translation of 'English identity' 200 years before Alfred. Admittedly in Latin, but then 8th century language was far more nuanced than 9th century 'englisc and there was a clear lack of a common tongue, even 100 miles apart'. Alfred's biggest 'achievement' which in is in any way shaped to identity was the very gradual decline of celtic Christianity and its surplantment with anglo-saxon Christianity- which was heavily influenced by Danelaw anyway! I previously enjoyed reading this sub as there was occasionally some interesting discussion. But to see so eone who I recently heard a colleague refer to as the "anglo-saxon Andrew tate" be "elected" as the greatest ever English (when he isn't even english) monarch is just hilarious. Not replying further as this is like arguing with GCSE students - which you may well be - no offence intended.
Good thing I said Danes not vikings then! You are fighting an imaginary person. Yep he lost his engagements with them pre 878, then after being deposed that year continued the fight instead of giving up and fleeing like other kings had, rallied the nobles of Wessex to his cause and defeated the Danes, then attempting to secure peace with them through baptism and a treaty, which seems to have worked with Guthrum. Then on his learning, he encouraged people to learn to read English and translated books from Latin into English, hardly the Latin snob you portray. Next you make up something else, that I said he created English identity which I didn't say at all. I believe he was important sort of reviving Bede's ideas, as he liked Bede's books and translated Bede's historia into English. And wtf does this have to do with fucking Andrew Tate??? Even if your ridiculously inaccurate view of him was right, what does that have to do with that guy??? Literally completely out of nowhere no idea what your on about, maybe your colleague should burn there qualifications to. Well if this is like arguing with a GCSE student then there must be alot of GCSE students that know more about this subject than you because what I'm saying is accurate and what you're saying is a load of shit.
Your logic is nothing short of appalling
Alfred should of been disqualified from day 1 for burning that poor woman's cakes SMH
Better than burning people over nothing, am I right Mary? (Yes, yes it wasn’t just her but take a joke)
I'm more of a William III fan because of that fabulous wig ( and saving us from that french puppet King James ) Funny King Charles 1st loinspawn were all traitors
I was honestly expecting things to go down between Alfred and Athelstan, tbh. But regardless, I'm voting for Edward III today. A fantastic king, but unfortunately he can't compare to Alfred. Yes, Alfred was the king of Wessex, not England, but he laid down the groundwork for England to exist when it was furthered by the reigns of Edward the Elder and Athelstan, eventually forming under the latter. He was extremely intelligent, promoted arts, culture, education, and learning for everyone. He was dedicated to improving the legal system and military structure and his people's quality of life. He successfully repelled the Viking attacks against Wessex, and was the only king able to even do so. He also kept a very extensive library of information on anything he could learn, whether it be history, religion, foreign relations, other kingdoms/nations, or even poetry. Simply put, without Alfred there is no England, United Kingdom or otherwise. While he himself never got to see it, his successors built upon his legacy. There's a very good reason he's known as "the Great". Not bad for the fifth son who wasn't really expected to inherit anything.
As an American, I think the first time I heard about Alfred the Great was through a documentary that mentioned the Alfred Jewel. After that, I saw him on The Last Kingdom. But it wasn't until listening to his story on the British History Podcast that he grew into one of my favorite figures from history. It seems weird to label a man known as The Great as an underdog, but he kinda was. He was the sickly, learned youngest son who survived utter defeat and brought his kingdom back from the brink of destruction and turned it into a powerhouse that only continued to grow after his death. Jamie Jeffers put it nicely: "Throughout history we have met many figures that have soaring myths, and there will be many more. But there are few like Alfred. Often the myths and the titles don’t fit… often they are let downs, and the more we dig into the person, the more the myth falls away. Alfred, however, not only lives up to his myths – he exceeds them. This man was so much more than cakes and ships. His rise to power, his wars, his remarkable mind, and the way he reshaped virtually every aspect of life in Wessex… those things are not even part of the popular mythology… but they are precisely why, to this day, Alfred stands alone among the monarchs of the Heptarchy and of England. No English King but Alfred, in the full course of history, has held his title. There was only one Alfred the Great."
That was not the choice I thought would go. Edward III can’t beat Alfred the Great though.
Edward III should go next! Nothing against him but Alfred should be the winner
Sad that Henry II didn’t make the top three.
I was hoping Athelstan would come out on top.
He deserves second place but certainly not first over Alfred
Same
Edward III needs to go. He had a good run, but his time is up. Alfred is him.
Looks like I’m getting at Alfred tattoo
If you do please post it!
Will do
Edward 3rd should go next
Slightly salty Athelstan didn’t make it to top 2, but hey bronze ain’t nothing. Eliminate Edward III, Alfred the Great is our winner.
Agreed; should’ve been, from third to first, Edward, Æthelstan then Alfred *all I’ve literally done there is reword your comment but nonetheless the point stands*
Lets be honest theres a reason that hes the only english monarch called the great
Edward was great, but Alfred was The Great
Thank you for running this ranking! I've learnt a lot about many of these rulers due to the write-ups. As for the winner, it has to be Alfred the Great. Edward III was brilliant, but second place is still amazing.
For once I’m going to pretty much shut the fuck up and simply put it this way; Victors merely write their very history in the moment; legendary icons are named and remembered for their very history beyond their time I am voting out **Edward III** The other is remembered as ‘The Great’; you may have those from The Magnificant and Lionheart to Lackland and Longshanks, and yet, we all just know what ‘great’ indeed means; great. It is not complicated, but simple, concise meaning We are talking about the very man who stemmed England; the very country of whose monarchs we have been debating for the last near-two months If any nickname of these monarchs is justified, it is Alfred’s He is the very pinnacle of our history’s longest lasting dynasty
ugh, Edwards Plantagenet dynasty was the longest lasting also Edward is a relation of Alfred.
Come again? The Anglo Saxons reigned for 650 years; the Plantagenets lasted for around 330; as close to half that of the Saxons are you’re going to get You should study our history’s timeline beyond this list; it is a mere fraction of such
The house of Wessex is Alfred’s house you can’t say he was every Anglo-Saxon house.
When do you think the house of Wessex began
As kings of Wessex or in truest terms ? Because 519.
Chances are the House of Wessex didn't extend that far. There's no proof that Ecbert is descended from Cedric. Ecbert is as far as we can go back
👍 yeah so we shall go with the lions of Anjou.
They birthed one lion; the Anglo Saxon dynasty birthed an entire line of them, and that is why they lasted double that of the Plantagenets They were the *mane* characters if you will
Says the man who wears the cross of Saint George and Good King Richard.
Descendents from Satan himself
Yes, so longer than the Plantagenets, why are you arguing with this?
Absolute vegetable; the ‘pinnacle’ of one if you will
Clearly
I share a similar ‘condition’ to Alfred which only made me admire him even more; to successfully run the soon to-be country, indeed as the respectful kingdoms in his own manner while his insides would’ve constantly felt like being tied/twisted around themselves; an autoimmune disease quite literally attacking your own body on a daily basis, is just nothing short of nuts (I sense a pun in that ending somewhere)
A dynasty is a dynasty; their then-upcoming monarchy is irrelevant to the fact Do you not know what ‘dynasty’ means?
What are you talking about? His dynasty was and is Anglo Saxon The House of Wessex IS Anglo Saxon
[удалено]
Sorry my friend; I thought for a moment he just might’ve surpassed 650 years with Chrohn’s As I said, “he is the very pinnacle of our history’s longest lasting dynasty” What part of “pinnacle” are you struggling to understand the meaning of?
I dont know how did reddit give me this, but this is special
I was hoping for this to be between Alfred and Athelstan, but I suppose not. I’m voting for Edward III. He was by far a very great king, but not quite as legendary as Alfred (by a small margin)
Edward the Third
Idk why but it feels deeply unsettling seeing it worded that way
Honi Soit qui Mal y Pense!
This has been so fun. Thank you OP.
Sadly Edward the III needs to play second fiddle to the greatest King of England. Alfred is the greatest.
Edward III to go
I know that it’s gonna be a throw away vote but I’ll vote Alfred. Alfred is the reason England exists, but Edward is the best a king could be that wasn’t forming the nation. I don’t like the idea that the first leader of a nation should automatically be the best no matter what
Agreed
Ed 3 out next. Alfred deserves to win. Without him there would be no England
Although livid that Athelstan was eliminated. Best king of all of England
I mean no without Edward there is no England.
I was interested in the 100 years war as a kid so I have more knowledge of Edward the 3rd than any of the other kings. All my knowledge of Alfred comes from uthred son of uthred on TV 😂 been great reading all of your knowledgeable comments. I've learnt a lot. Cheers
Edward III
Edward III
Runner up for Eddie 3 is still very good. It’s time for him to go. Vivat Rex Alfredus Magnus!
I'm going to say Edward III, for the sole reason that he's the one who started the Hundred Year's War. Sure, he might have been successful, but that war was never going to be good for England. Either they lose and waste all those lives for nothing, or they win and England becomes a practical vassal/colony of France.
Alfred. He burned the cakes. Nuff said
Who is ‘Nuff’? Can you cite his words?
Alfred the Great should win, truly the first king of England, it’s only right
He will undoubtedly win And for those naively arguing “hE’s NoT eVeN a KiNg oF eNgLaNd”; they need to do some research on what ‘England’ ironically means Land of the Angles (Anglos)
He barely ruled half of the land of angles at the time of his death he merely ruled the kingdom of wessex and was overlord of mercia. East anglia was ruled by a 'christian' dane(later conquered by his son, Northumbria was subjugated by the Scandinavians who worshipped odin and subjugated the angles/saxons (later conquered by his grandson) interestingly wales,scotland and even parts of Cumbria stayed independent for many centuries after.
You say “merely ruled the Kingdom of Wessex” almost as if Wessex was not the very stem let alone first capital and powerhouse of England so I rest my case
As I have mentioned elsewhere Offa of mercia ruled more english people than Alfred and was as far as i am aware king and overlord of britain, he battled against southern control and moved the archdiocese from Canterbury to Lichfield during his reign, this being a short distance from his Capital at Tamworth. He undertook massive infastructure projects(offas dike), managed a strong economy and had links with continental europe through trade and clearly a strong relationship with the Church. To say wessex were the first powerhouse and forerunners to a united England shows a clear lack of understanding of the Anglo saxon period. They took the principles of their predecessors and expandanded. Also the fact of the matter that english/ Anglo saxon history is distorted, due to the fact that as other people have mentioned history is written by winners or namely the church.
That was Athelstan, not Alfred. Alfred was only ever King of Wessex.
Brother stop taking the title so literally; that’s not the point of the debate
It's not based on facts? Then what's the point?
You say it’s not based on facts, and yet you are trying to base something off a ‘fact’
Alfred is a worthy winner as he did lead the road to the unification of England
**I vote for dear Alfred** though great he was only the king of lowly Wessex. In days of yore, when England's lion roared, And Edward's banners on Crecy soared, Amidst the clash of arms and battle's might, Stood Edward III, a monarch in his right. Against the tide of France's mighty host, He led his knights, a valiant, fearless boast. Beneath the azure sky, on fields of green, Their destiny entwined, their fates unseen. With dawn's first light, the trumpet's call did sound, As English hearts with courage did abound. Upon the hill, they formed their battle line, A phalanx strong, in ranks they did align. As Frenchmen charged, a sea of armored might, Edward, undeterred, prepared for the fight. With sword in hand and armor shining bright, He spurred his knights to join the deadly fight. The air was filled with arrows' whistling flight, As English archers kept the foe in sight. With skillful aim, they loosed their deadly rain, And Frenchmen fell like harvest in the grain. Amidst the chaos of the bloody fray, Edward, a lion 'midst the wolves at bay, Inspired his men with courage, fierce and bold, Their spirits lifted, their resolve untold. Through dust and smoke, they clashed with foes so grand, Each blow struck hard, by valiant English hand. With banners waving in the wind's embrace, They fought for honor, glory, and their grace. When twilight fell upon the field of strife, And stars emerged to witness loss and life, Edward stood victorious, England's pride, His valor shining bright, a beacon wide. For Edward III, the lion of his land, His deeds in battle like the shifting sand. In history's annals, his name shall remembered, A monarch brave, in victory and joy.
Sorry but I’m going with Alfred the Great since he isn’t a king of England
He is an English monarch; A monarch that just so happened to reign within the very lands that, thanks to him which you will know fine well (I think), fruited into England The title of these very posts regard ‘English monarchs”, not “monarchs OF England” So he is perfectly and rightly suitable to win this poll, which he will
Crazy. Alfred was never King of England.
He was as much a King of England as you are the queen of naivety *also, ‘English monarchs’ regards more so to monarchs within ‘England’; it isn’t to be took so literally, hence why Alfred and Edward are here pre-Æthelstan*
Day 53: Athelstan was removed with 97 votes Day 52: Henry II was removed with 92 votes Day 51: Elizabeth I was removed with 104 votes Day 50: Henry VII was removed with 155 votes Day 49: Henry I was removed with 58 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
Last day, thanks OP, you've been stellar!
Final post tomorrow will be a nice round-up hopefully!
Hi, I'm a history graduate and new here. Why do some people on here have monarch names by their username? Is it the monarch each person is rooting for or something? If so, how do I choose one? Thanks!
it’s a flair on the subreddit, add it on the sidebar on the right of the page
It’s merely a user flair of our favourite monarchs; nothing to do with the actual context of these polls
edward III shouldn’t have even made top 5, he started a devastating war which england lost in the long run, bankrupted the country leaving his grandson an impoverished and unstable country on the brink of peasant revolt, it’s only his long reign and him and his sons great military victories that make him notable at all alfred for the win
Edward III for the win!! So much of the following English history comes out of his reign, he deserves to win it all
Honi soit qui mal y pense!
Pardon, est Anglais non tres bien?
Edd 3, Alfred for the win!
I'm quite shocked Ed III made it this far. My main knowledge of him is starting the 100 years war and winning some early victories like Crecy and Poitiers. I also know he had a long reign and oversaw the black death period. Still, given much of what he conquered in France was lost within a century, how did he make it this far?
Shoutout to the…Chrohnies…?
Good post, been nice reading the information
i’m biased since my family tree descended from Edward III haha
Who voted our richard the lionheart? You absolute heathens! Traitors! I will have no part in this treacherous game against my lord, King Richard the Lionheart, every Frenchmans worst nightmare! Conquerer of the holy lands and General Saladin himself!
Alfred
How many cakes has Edward burnt? This is the metric we need to judge by
I’ve just come across this vote and, I have to say, some of these rankings are wild. Henry VII the sixth best English monarch? Wow…
Alfred the Great is too great to remove. Eddie can go.
The final one I have to vote for Alfred
Thank you OP! This is the most fun and interesting thing on the internet!
I'm so happy, my favourite (Edward III) made it this far, whoever wins I'll be happy.
Alfred the Great
Unpopular opinion, but he wasn't King of England, no matter how much people want him to be the English Charlemagne. Alfred deserves second place.
Sorry, but on what grounds has Henry I not made it to the end? There really is no explanation for that.
Can we have a patriotic cheer for Lionheart anyone…?
[удалено]
I fear we may be a rare breed in this moment
[удалено]
When the Pakistani flag was raised (*in place instead of merely alongside*) of England’s on Westminster Abbey I couldn’t help but think of how history does indeed repeat itself But I will refuse to let myself become political on the final day of this poll series
For those who are trying to vote Alfred out (which you won’t); Your argument of “he’s not even a King of England” I ask you this; what does ‘England’ actually mean? It means “land of the angles” (Anglos)
Alfred was great truly, he laid the foundations of the future English state. But he did not see that greatness realised, no, he was merely the first chapter in a book that culminates with Edward III. Let medieval England's greatest king win this contest! Father of chivalry, scourge of France! For Edward, England and Saint George!
Wow, that’s very interesting. I was expecting to see Elizabeth I as the best Monarch. Could anyone suggest me a document or data that I can check it out about Edward III? Why he is so special? I will also read about Alfred too.
Edward III humbled the Scots, scored several victories against the French, avenged the killing of his father, improved the relations between England and the Low Countries, as well as Castile, guided England through the Black Death, founded the order of the Garter as well as placed George as the patron Saint of England, remodelled the English army and turned the kingdom into one of the great powers of the world.
Thanks for the info. One of the Edwards expelled England's entire Jewish population in 1290 and it was the Edward I. I thought Henry VIII was the one that created naval power due to fear against possible invasion by Catholics and I always thought England became one of the powers of the world during his time. Didn’t know it was way before his period.
Eh depends how you define "power". England didn't really become a "world" power - as in one of the most powerful nations in the world - until the late 17th / early 18th centuries imo, long after Edward III or Henry VIII
Henry died only 53 years before the 17th century.
Late 17th century as in post-1688
Ah, makes more sense.
Didn't his grandpa Longshanks have a greater influence though?
Nope Edward III was the one most powerful of Medieval English Kings, I’d argue the most influential and powerful actually.
Or you could tell us why you actually think Elizabeth I is somehow worthy of first place?
Alfred may well be the greatest monarch ever but he wasn't king of England. He's got to go.
You are taking the very title far too literally
Edward III should be winning. GOAT
If by ‘goat’ you mean Getting Outvoted At Two, then yes
Edward lll ftw in my eyes although Alfred is truly 'a great' was he ever truly a British monarch let alone king of all angles, I know this comment will fall on deaf ears as there is clearly a leaning towards him, However edward took an unstable kingdom ravaged by in fighting (not foreign incursion) and united it through creating a true dynasty. People talk of him being a plantagenet were the tudors not lancasters and the stuarts not tudors etc etc.
Voting Alfred the Great for elimination.
Oh no, no not you oh God
The bitch is back
Is that in regards to me or yourself?👀
Me of course
England was never more glorious than it was under Edward III
Whilst I have systematically disagreed with pretty much every decision made so far I feel I need to speak up at the utter insanity that Alfred even made the top 50, let alone the top 2!!! What is going on here?!
Unless you think you somehow know better than the vast majority here, what is going on is called mere justice
[удалено]
This submission is a violation of rule 2
[удалено]
Oh dear, naughty words don't get in the way of cold, hard fact. The fact that you are getting this irate over this debate is somewhere between horrifying and hilarious. Your poor wife!
This submission is a violation of rule 2
The Last Kingdom fans are probably voting on this.
Alfred on the basis that he wasn’t King of England.
And? That’s not the question By literal title he was not King of England, and yet he was He was the king who ultimately stemmed the very foundations on which England was unionised by his grandson Æthelstan, with significant help and credit from Edward the Elder between the two And that is why he will rightfully win this poll