Who Was the Greatest English/British Monarch - Page 4 - Historum

**notgivenaway** · January 5th, 2018, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreuxeng

What about the diplomatic instinct. The best rulers are those that command the respect and loyalty of others, and other rulers, but also choose the best course of action even if that means working in alliance with others.

Athelflead was his sister, so he didin't have to work hard to get her allegiance. She also won some important battles on her own strength, but as king and as a man, he would have got more of the credit.

**notgivenaway** · January 7th, 2018, 03:55 AM

Hywel Dyr is an honourable mention, since his law codes only were ended once the Norman Conquest happened. He did ally with King Athelstan, but then only out of (possibly) self-preservation. He knew Athelstan had the power to destroy Dyfed, and Athelstan knew this too.

samshit · January 8th, 2018, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valens

I've always considered Henry VIII to be the most powerful English/British monarch, even though 'powerful' and 'greatest' are two different categories.

Agree! It is a valid point!

vans · January 8th, 2018, 10:13 AM

If you asked my mum and any of her generation it would be the current queen, hands down, no question.

dreuxeng · January 8th, 2018, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vans

If you asked my mum and any of her generation it would be the current queen, hands down, no question.

Can we ask what generation that is.

vans · January 8th, 2018, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreuxeng

Can we ask what generation that is.

She was a child during WW2

dreuxeng · January 8th, 2018, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vans

She was a child during WW2

Too young perhaps for George VI. QE2 was of her time.

But there are a number of side issues: dress sense is one. I mean she does the symbolic head of, stand out thing, quite stupendously, by the garish, gaudy, clashing, shocking even, apparent dress sense !!! And then has people even in fashion, comment quite seriously about how remarkable her outfits are etc.

As a symbolic head of state, how does she symbolise!? By doing absolutely nothing whatsoever except literally trundling about, being disinterested, she appears, well, just like what she is (in recent years), a very well cared for elder lady. In order to represent no one group for example in particular, she is a symbol of appearances representing everyone or anyone thereby.

**GogLais** · January 8th, 2018, 01:38 PM

I have a soft spot for KGV. Did his job as constitutional monarch through the pre WWI political crises, the War itself, the Irish conflict, the first Labour governments and the Depression. Mind you, I don't think I'd have wanted him as my father.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · January 8th, 2018, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer

English history is so popular among foreign amateur historians thanks undoubtedly to the fact that modern lingva anglorvm is a common lingva franca across the globe, but also due to many strong (and some weak) monarchs & important historical events - Duke William invasion, Magna Carta, rise of Elizabeth I as Queen. I personally prefer to read about Normans (House of Normandy) and Plantagenets. Please allow my to add Henry of Bolingbroke to your list of Henry's

Yeah he'd be next, he's got a case as well. Henry has tended(VI and I weren't really good) to be great in all it's times as the King's name.

Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 · January 8th, 2018, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samshit

Henry V was a great king, no doubt. But it seems that his policy in France during Hundred years war was wrong. Winning battles is good, but trying to establish English king in France was wrong idea from the beginning. That is why I refused him.

Going to defend Henry V here.

My issue is, nothing actually went wrong until he died. Even then if his heir wasn't a baby I can't see how things go the way they did in our timeline. The Hundred Years War was done, England had won, Henry dying set off the sequence of events that reversed what at the time was a fact. English kings claiming the French throne was due to Edward III(and therefore all his descendants) having a claim, the English forced the issue because the French tried to seize all their feudal holdings. The end of the first part of the conflict saw both sides retracting their aggressive behavior.

Even ignoring all that how is Henry V's conquest of France, marrying the eldest surviving daughter of the previous defeated King and making an heir any different, except Charles VII was too old to be a prince in the tower while Edward V of England wasn't? Henry VI was the grandson of the King of France and if Charles VII and his family had all been killed he'd have been the rightful heir. Some of Henry V's credit does belong to the Burgundians and Henry still did die and fail to eliminate the opposition the French rallied behind.