Greatest English monarch of all time?

[Хahar 🤔]

Edward VIII

Can  you explain your reasoning?

He had the good sense to abdicate.

[The Mikado]

Xahar makes an excellent point.  The only one of that lot to realize that the title wasn't worth having is a pretty good candidate for the best one.

[Boris]

Edward VIII

Can  you explain your reasoning?

He had the good sense to abdicate.

Why do you hate the motherland, Xahar?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Xahar makes an excellent point.  The only one of that lot to realize that the title wasn't worth having is a pretty good candidate for the best one.

^^^^

I probably would have done the same thing he did, even without the valid reason he had.

[Iosif]

Charles II

[minionofmidas]

Edward VIII

Can  you explain your reasoning?

He had the good sense to abdicate.

Why do you hate the motherland, Xahar?

What do Xahar's feelings towards Pakistan have to do with anything?

[minionofmidas]

Xahar makes an excellent point.  The only one of that lot to realize that the title wasn't worth having is a pretty good candidate for the best one.

"The King informed Baldwin that he would abdicate if he could not marry Mrs. Simpson. Baldwin then presented Edward with three choices: give up the idea of marriage; marry against his ministers' wishes; or abdicate.  It was clear that Edward was not prepared to give up Mrs. Simpson, and he knew that if he married against the advice of his ministers, he would cause the government to resign, prompting a constitutional crisis. He chose to abdicate."

I think it was George Orwell who summed that up as Edward being "let go" by the Tory Party like a butler.

[Horus]

Elizabeth I, definitely.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is very easy to point to one good thing that someone did. Mussolini, trains etc etc.

Oh, of course. And the example of Mussolini and trains isn't even true!

Yes, Cromwell was hardly a saint and his record in certain areas was certainly... patchy. But this thread reeks of bone china, suburban lawns, knick-knacks and the Daily Mail.

Mind you, the interesting thing is that most of the 'charges' that can be made against Cromwell whether fair or not (so, war crimes in Ireland, military aggression, religious intolerance, running an authoritarian regime, etc) can be directed against nearly every monarch before the point at which the position ceased to have much in the way of real power (why Lizzie One has been mentioned a few times and did her forces not commit war crimes in Ireland? Did she not run a sort of proto-police state? And so on. She was clearly better at propaganda though. Give her that) and after that point, really, what's the point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, more an early example of the tendency of revolutions to result in rule by military strongmen. I would dispute the use of 'usurp', naturally. Unless it's being used to refer to the coup within the post-revolutionary government. I should have replied at an earlier hour.

[patrick1]

It is very easy to point to one good thing that someone did. Mussolini, trains etc etc.

Oh, of course. And the example of Mussolini and trains isn't even true!

Yes, Cromwell was hardly a saint and his record in certain areas was certainly... patchy. But this thread reeks of bone china, suburban lawns, knick-knacks and the Daily Mail.

Mind you, the interesting thing is that most of the 'charges' that can be made against Cromwell whether fair or not (so, war crimes in Ireland, military aggression, religious intolerance, running an authoritarian regime, etc) can be directed against nearly every monarch before the point at which the position ceased to have much in the way of real power (why Lizzie One has been mentioned a few times and did her forces not commit war crimes in Ireland? Did she not run a sort of proto-police state? And so on. She was clearly better at propaganda though. Give her that) and after that point, really, what's the point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, more an early example of the tendency of revolutions to result in rule by military strongmen. I would dispute the use of 'usurp', naturally. Unless it's being used to refer to the coup within the post-revolutionary government. I should have replied at an earlier hour.

Ha, darned historians can never take a short hand popular example fwiw. I can't even use the Napoleon complex around some folk anymore.

Yeah, none of the monarchs had a very enlightened Ireland policy and religion did not matter as much as some try to claim. After all Queen Mary set about the first attempts at large scale plantations. That was a reason why I wanted to set it aside because it muddies the water a bit to his actual rule. A problem I have with Cromwell is that he was generally replacing a divine right of kings with his own divine right to rule. He was like George Bush on steroids. There were elements of religious extremism and yes a proto police state. I did mean his usurpation of power in post revolutionary phase (I don't support monarchs legitimacy). Even  in this there is a lot of nuance. He had to choose between Parliament (most of whom were even more religiously extreme than he was) and the army.  There were certainly positive developments in Cromwell's rule (for me more egalitarianism) and more tolerance for some (Jews, some non conformists).

[afleitch]

The treatment of Scotland (and indeed our involvement in the Wars) often goes unnoticed by both sides. Ultimately, Cromwell's regime was guilty of regicide. A country may do what it wishes with it's king, but Charles I was the king of Scotland too (and technically first and foremost). Furthermore despite the problems that the Covenanters had with Charles I, they recognised, through the Treaty of Breda his son as king resulting in the invasion and annexation of Scotland.

Simply unforgiveable.

[patrick1]

The treatment of Scotland (and indeed our involvement in the Wars) often goes unnoticed by both sides. Ultimately, Cromwell's regime was guilty of regicide. A country may do what it wishes with it's king, but Charles I was the king of Scotland too (and technically first and foremost). Furthermore despite the problems that the Covenanters had with Charles I, they recognised, through the Treaty of Breda his son as king resulting in the invasion and annexation of Scotland.

Simply unforgiveable.

Good point.  I havent studied that period for a long time.

Any historiographers know when the term War of the three kingdoms started to gain prominence?  I don't remember it being described as such back in my college days.

[afleitch]

Only very recently, and it's still not a very well accepted term (certainly amongst the more established historians) At university (in Scotland) I always referred to it as the 'Wars' to encompass a wider area and also make the distinction that it was a series of civil wars punctuated by brief interbellae.

The period of 1603-1707 has often been ignored, even by Scottish historians despite being amongst the most productive and independent periods of our history with the king literally being distant and the Parliament showing a remarkable degree of legislative prowess (though not always successful) While the Covenanters has always been a favoured period of study, it was often looked at too independently from the main Civil Wars.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's actually kind of ridiculous that it is ignored so much, that period was one of the most cathartic for Scotland since the late 13th Century.

The period from the beginning of the reign of James VI of Scotland as James I of England, the monarchy overall ignored Scotland. While Charles I may have been born there, the numbers of times he had been on Scottish soil could easily be counted on both hands.

The socio-religious Wars in Scotland were arguably just as, if not, more violent than those in England.

I wrote an essay during my undergrad period which examines the reigns of the post-Elizabeth monarchs, up to the Glorious Revolution in 1688-9.

My determination was that the worst rulers of that period were Charles I, Cromwell and James II because of moral and religious absolutism, as well as a strong sense of self-righteousness... which led to a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of ruling three completely separate Kingdoms. Cromwell, Charles and James all used the Scots, the Irish and the English against each other. Mind you, even Charles never went as far as to steal the lands from Irish Catholic nobility and divide it among his Model Army as pay.

My determination that the best rulers of that period were James I (VI) and Charles II as both of these rulers saw the consequences of religious absolutism, and tried to avoid the style of rule that brought down the others.

[afleitch]

My determination that the best rulers of that period were James I (VI) and Charles II as both of these rulers saw the consequences of religious absolutism, and tried to avoid the style of rule that brought down the others.

Spot on

James VII

No one picked up on my post but you've pretty much captured how I feel.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As someone with strong Scottish ancestry, I respect the need for some to refer to James I and II as VI/VII since they were completely separate countries until the Act of Union.

[afleitch]

As someone with strong Scottish ancestry, I respect the need for some to refer to James I and II as VI/VII since they were completely separate countries until the Act of Union.

There was a legitimate campaign back in 1952/3 for the new Queen not to be known as Elizabeth II in Scotland (even made itself into a song "She might be the Queen but ye cannae have the Second when the First one's ne'er been") Given that Elizabeth I did have a passive claim over the Scottish throne it was seen by some as a concession too far.

For the record, the relationship between Elizabeth and Mary Stewart was my own focus during my Honours History. I left with a far better impression of Elizabeth than I had of Mary

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As someone with strong Scottish ancestry, I respect the need for some to refer to James I and II as VI/VII since they were completely separate countries until the Act of Union.

There was a legitimate campaign back in 1952/3 for the new Queen not to be known as Elizabeth II in Scotland (even made itself into a song "She might be the Queen but ye cannae have the Second when the First one's ne'er been") Given that Elizabeth I did have a passive claim over the Scottish throne it was seen by some as a concession too far.

For the record, the relationship between Elizabeth and Mary Stewart was my own focus during my Honours History. I left with a far better impression of Elizabeth than I had of Mary

Elizabeth certainly had her issues, but Mary was virtually without political skill besides batting her eyelids. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As someone with strong Scottish ancestry, I respect the need for some to refer to James I and II as VI/VII since they were completely separate countries until the Act of Union.

When Elizabeth took the regnal name Elizabeth II, they decided at the time that if there ever is a King James of the United Kingdom, he will reign as James VIII. since the Scottish number is higher than the English number.