The most successful English monarch.

January 28, 2007 5:48pm CST
Which king or Queen did the most for England and hy do you think this is so?
2 people like this
3 responses
@Woodpigeon (3710)
• Ireland
22 Apr 07
I am going to have to throw in a vote for Queen Elizabeth the I. I love the way she politcked her way through waters that were dominate by men, and all of her flirtatious, diplomatic courtships. I think she was a brilliant tactician, although much of her reserves were wasted by just having to prove, and keep proving, that she was strong enough to hold the throne. Had she been born in a different time, and in a succession that was secure and not clouded by the religious tensions of the time, I think Elizabeth would have had the makings of a very great leader indeed. Here are a couple of my favourite quotes, whic typify why I think she was so successful: ... What a family is without a steward, a ship without a pilot, a flock without a shepherd, a body without a head, the same, I think, is a kingdom without the health and safety of a good monarch. To her brother, King Edward, c.1550. Chamberlin, The Sayings of Queen Elizabeth (1923), ch. 1. I would rather be a beggar and single than a queen and married. To the Ambassador of the Duke of Wurtemberg, 1564. Chamberlin, The Sayings of Queen Elizabeth (1923), ch. 2. There is small disproportion betwixt a fool who useth not wit because he hath it not and him that useth it not when it should avail him. To Baron Buckhurst (Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset), c.1587. Chamberlin, The Sayings of Queen Elizabeth (1923), ch. 11.
2 people like this
@snowflake5 (1579)
• United States
30 Jan 07
I would say the most successful was William the Conqueror. It's not easy to conquer a country (as Iraq proves) and he did so with fewer troops than Harold. He was very pragmatic, clever and efficient - probably the most efficient monarch Britain ever had.
1 person likes this
30 Jan 07
good answer. My one point would be though in the days of Harold and William it is argued that the people on the ground level, serfs and bondsmen didnt really care who was running the country as they lost one set of ruthless overlords and gained another. it could be said then that William didnt have to subdue a whole country but mearly defaet its army. That said i agree that William was a clever guy, just reading about the upbringing in normandy he had shows you that. thanks for joinuing in.
2 people like this
• United States
30 Jan 07
True, and Harold was actually Danish - there is dispute as to whether he really was the heir to Edward the Confessor, he wasn't a blood heir, he was the son of one of Edward's henchmen. Hence the Duke of Normandy's claim that Edward had left the throne to him instead. So the ordinary English probably felt resigned at the thought of either ruling.
1 person likes this
30 Jan 07
I guess there is never a good time to be a peasant...LOL. Harolds claim to the throne was as tenuous as Williams, both were distantly connected by a marriage. I often wonder what the culture today would have been like if we had stayed with our germanic saxon influences longer instead of the french influences that followed.
2 people like this
@livewyre (2450)
26 Jun 07
QEII has been on the throne so long that there are few who would really know what it was like under any other monarch. I would suggest that the current Queen has 'ruled' (such as the system allows) with dignity, restraint and diligence for a massive portion of her life and deserves due recognition. When you think that she was not destined to be a monarch, it is remarkable how she has taken to the role. She is the head of a powerful family and represents an influential country and her role will probably be recognised in the fullness of time. I think she will be seen as a quiet ruler for whom most right-minded people have the utmost respect whether you agree with the principle of monarchy or not. I don't want to appear as an ardent monarchist - I am no fan of the personality cult that surrounds the royals in general, but I do have the utmost respect for the apparent dignity and integrity of Queen Elizabeth II.
1 person likes this
@livewyre (2450)
26 Jun 07
...don't think she was incumbent before 1770 though... How about Arthur??
1 person likes this