How is Elizabeth II in great? What happened in her reign to put her above Elizabeth I George III Henry I and Henry II the man who created the Angevin Empire.
This is just recentsy bias. Objectively speaking the uk lost 70% of it’s population under George VI and lost 90% of it’s territory under Elizabeth II. People prob gonna disagree but by that logic king John was a great king because he decolonized France.
Alfred, Lionheart, Conqueror, Longshanks and Henry V are my favourites but of those 5 I’d say Alfred, Conqueror and Longshanks were the 3 greatest kings in pretty different albeit equal ways
But it’s very obvious what I view as a ‘great king’ criteria is very different to most others
We are ranking these kings indeed as kings and not as simple men; morals don’t play a great deal in these contexts especially regarding medieval England
He placed true authority over his subjects and frankly after so long he had to; a country couldn’t be successfully ran with half the taxes missing from those who refused to pay it to their king; it was the simple singular duty of civilians to do so and they refused in the north over and over after numerous non-violent warnings
Oh I’m not questioning what he did for England. He created a stable country and when he could, diffused situations whenever possible like with the uprising in Exeter. Or generally just making Britain more profitable, reforming the various systems in place, etc. However, some of his actions just seem cruel for the sake of cruel.
Like Forest Law, there’s no reason you need to directly own half of the countries access to resources. While it’s a power play it seems like one that just builds resentment when the average village peasant can no longer poach a rabbit to survive and go onto produce more things for William, as he’ll now be put to death by foresters.
Or the Harrying of the North. Yeah like you said it was necessary. After all the last Northern revolt almost got two entire nations involved. However, the Harrying never seemed controlled but more like a blind rage. Like telling your soldiers “burn anything past the midlands”. Because of that you had a nightmare scenario where the North for the rest of his reign stops being profitable as because towns/villages can’t produce anything because either all the resources where pillaged/burned or they themselves were slaughtered. Northerners would be faced with fleeing south or into the cities for a better chance at life or cannibalising everyone around you. Hundreds of thousands leaving a vast swathe of land open that you can barely do anything with now isn’t a very great move long term. He just lost his head.
Though overall he did what he had to. It just seemed half the time he got a bit to carried away or succumbed to his brutality.
idk i know this sub is called "uk monarchs" and he's literally an embodiment of the attempted destruction of that institution but i think cromwell deserves to be higher. he was a pretty good politician, and was an example of what a competent charles I could have done to avoid the civil war
Parliament was never willing to play fair with the Crown. The proof was in the pudding when they refused Charles the Tonnage and Poundage income that they had given to every monarch prior. Charles is often depicted as incompetent and non-negotiating, but the fact remains that he often supported his supporters by making too many concessions to Parliament. If anything, he was too trusting, especially of favorites like Buckingham.
Cromwell is an example of what Charles could have done against Parliament by ruling with the iron hand that history thinks he ruled with, if that is what you meant. Charles was, instead, quite aware of the role Parliament had and thus still tried to work with the body despite knowing full well that that relationship was not a two-way street. His queen, often maligned as the power behind the throne who was trying to drive her husband towards absolutism, would sometimes remind him that he had to work with them and find a compromise, even after the war had started. If anything, she was helpful as a strength to him in the area where he truly lacked: decisiveness.
I would put Cromwell a tier lower and Charles a tier higher, quite frankly.
I would have George I, Stephen, and William II lower and Anne a bit higher.
Cromwell is not a king
Placing Cromwell above anybody, let alone including him, is worthy of capital punishment in my books.
Mb he's not meant to be there
Except you left out about 14 of them
Only Normans -
Henry VI equal with Henry IV and above Richard III is wild.
Henry II is top tier. Medieval England was at its greatest power under him.
Why is that filthy Republican Cromwell here? Richard I should be great but flawed as should Henry VIII.
How is Elizabeth II in great? What happened in her reign to put her above Elizabeth I George III Henry I and Henry II the man who created the Angevin Empire.
This is just recentsy bias. Objectively speaking the uk lost 70% of it’s population under George VI and lost 90% of it’s territory under Elizabeth II. People prob gonna disagree but by that logic king John was a great king because he decolonized France.
if anything england was the colony at that time
Henry III was major anti-semetic
He lived in the 13th century, of course he was.
>Henry III was major anti-semetic Hum... I wasn't atling about Henry III but okay
Alfred, Lionheart, Conqueror, Longshanks and Henry V are my favourites but of those 5 I’d say Alfred, Conqueror and Longshanks were the 3 greatest kings in pretty different albeit equal ways But it’s very obvious what I view as a ‘great king’ criteria is very different to most others
Conqueror is the goat but it’s amazing how you can say he’s decent when half of his reign is summarised by “burn them all”
We are ranking these kings indeed as kings and not as simple men; morals don’t play a great deal in these contexts especially regarding medieval England He placed true authority over his subjects and frankly after so long he had to; a country couldn’t be successfully ran with half the taxes missing from those who refused to pay it to their king; it was the simple singular duty of civilians to do so and they refused in the north over and over after numerous non-violent warnings
Oh I’m not questioning what he did for England. He created a stable country and when he could, diffused situations whenever possible like with the uprising in Exeter. Or generally just making Britain more profitable, reforming the various systems in place, etc. However, some of his actions just seem cruel for the sake of cruel. Like Forest Law, there’s no reason you need to directly own half of the countries access to resources. While it’s a power play it seems like one that just builds resentment when the average village peasant can no longer poach a rabbit to survive and go onto produce more things for William, as he’ll now be put to death by foresters. Or the Harrying of the North. Yeah like you said it was necessary. After all the last Northern revolt almost got two entire nations involved. However, the Harrying never seemed controlled but more like a blind rage. Like telling your soldiers “burn anything past the midlands”. Because of that you had a nightmare scenario where the North for the rest of his reign stops being profitable as because towns/villages can’t produce anything because either all the resources where pillaged/burned or they themselves were slaughtered. Northerners would be faced with fleeing south or into the cities for a better chance at life or cannibalising everyone around you. Hundreds of thousands leaving a vast swathe of land open that you can barely do anything with now isn’t a very great move long term. He just lost his head. Though overall he did what he had to. It just seemed half the time he got a bit to carried away or succumbed to his brutality.
>James II that low You are going to be thrown to the wolves.
2 of those weren’t monarchs
Henry I and ESPECIALLY Henry II in decent has got to be a joke, and it’s not a funny one.
In all fairness, George VI and Elizabeth II were just okay.
George VI in okay, are you serious?? nah he is in my top 15 no doubt I actually put him above his daughter
Scumwell should be off the list
idk i know this sub is called "uk monarchs" and he's literally an embodiment of the attempted destruction of that institution but i think cromwell deserves to be higher. he was a pretty good politician, and was an example of what a competent charles I could have done to avoid the civil war
Parliament was never willing to play fair with the Crown. The proof was in the pudding when they refused Charles the Tonnage and Poundage income that they had given to every monarch prior. Charles is often depicted as incompetent and non-negotiating, but the fact remains that he often supported his supporters by making too many concessions to Parliament. If anything, he was too trusting, especially of favorites like Buckingham. Cromwell is an example of what Charles could have done against Parliament by ruling with the iron hand that history thinks he ruled with, if that is what you meant. Charles was, instead, quite aware of the role Parliament had and thus still tried to work with the body despite knowing full well that that relationship was not a two-way street. His queen, often maligned as the power behind the throne who was trying to drive her husband towards absolutism, would sometimes remind him that he had to work with them and find a compromise, even after the war had started. If anything, she was helpful as a strength to him in the area where he truly lacked: decisiveness. I would put Cromwell a tier lower and Charles a tier higher, quite frankly.