[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Destroyer25)
Think the OP is only counting monarchs from the current line, which started with William the Conqueror.

Can William the Conqueror be described as British? I was going to say King Arthur tbh. I do find it a bit annoying that history appears to start from 1066 as there is a wealth of history prior to that which has helped shaped the country as it is today. I do enjoy reading up history beyond that though.

[geetar]

Charles I (ironically), because his reign put a conclusive end to the ideology of an absolutist monarch in England (and then Britain). Spoken like a true badass republican.

Also, Henry II and Edward I did a lot to change the legal landscape of the country for the better.

And I feel a bit sorry for John, because he probably wasn't as bad as his reputation suggests.

[RedBedHead]

Mine is Charles I. =

While studying him in AS History, I looked into his life and managed to make up my mind about the cause of the Civil Wars - the reasons I decided upon are why he's my favourite monarch. I found that he had been born quite crippled by rickets and so only grew to about 4'8", and was bullied mercilessly by his older brother. He was also abandoned in Scotland by his parents when his dad, James I, went to rule England, so he was bounced around to various nannies and didn't have much in the way of parental love. At some point in his teen years he was then looked after by the Duke of Buckingham (the very same one that caused all the problems with parliament in the 1620s) - who became like a father to him.

Looking at this I then decided the wars happened partially because poor old Charlie had little man syndrome (so he didn't want parliament controlling his stupidity as much as they were) and because he was angry at Parliament for cheering the assassination of the only real father he ever had.

So I mostly chose Charles I as my favourite because his reign was frought with drama, which is always interesting. Also because he was a midget king (as horrible as that sounds). This fact is hilarious to me. Mostly because you don't expect a monarch to resemble Lord Farquaad.

[navarre]

(Original post by geetar)
Charles I (ironically), because his reign put a conclusive end to the ideology of an absolutist monarch in England (and then Britain). Spoken like a true badass republican.

Also, Henry II and Edward I did a lot to change the legal landscape of the country for the better.

And I feel a bit sorry for John, because he probably wasn't as bad as his reputation suggests.

As someone doing coursework on this exact topic, I can tell you that that is complete nonsense.

Charles I didn't end absolute monarchy, for Charles II and then James II were absolute monarchs after the Interregnum. It was the Glorious Revolution, in a direct reaction to James II's idiotic religious policies, that ridded this country of absolute monarchy for good.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Psyk)
I think it's actually quite arbitrary to start from William the Conqueror. He was related to previous kings of England, and it's not like it has been an unbroken line since then.

No, he wasn't. His father's lineage can be traced back to the Viking warlord Rollo, while his mother was a French commoner.
Elizabeth II is also actually a descendant of the Saxon Kings Egbert of Wessex, Alfred the Great and Harold Godwinson, but these linages only connected with the William the Conqueror line centuries later, and William has absolutely no Anglo-Saxon heritage.

[Psyk]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No, he wasn't. His father's lineage can be traced back to the Viking warlord Rollo, while his mother was a French commoner.
Elizabeth II is also actually a descendant of the Saxon Kings Egbert of Wessex, Alfred the Great and Harold Godwinson, but these linages only connected with the William the Conqueror line centuries later, and William has absolutely no Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Yeah, sorry I think I misread the wiki page. He was related to the wife of two of the previous English kings, so there was no blood relation.

[khaiser turian]

The thread is called British monarchs when you have not listed a single King of Scotland or of Wales
My vote would go to Robert the Bruce

[Psyk]

(Original post by khaiser turian)
The thread is called British monarchs when you have not listed a single King of Scotland or of Wales
My vote would go to Robert the Bruce

Good point. Strictly speaking it should either include only monarchs of the British state (i.e. Queen Anne onwards), or include monarchs of any historical British state.

[jmenkus]

No Henry VI option? How disappointing.

[Larmas]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
No Henry VII in the poll?



He managed to arrange excellent marriages for his children so that not only was his surving son king of England, but his eldest daughter was Queen of Scotland and his youngest was Queen of Spain (for a while).

The youngest child, Mary, was married to the King of France not of Spain.

Otherwise I would vote for Edward III who won the great and understated battles of Crecy and Poitiers during the 100 years war.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Study)
William of Orange - has a cool name.

This

[navarre]

(Original post by khaiser turian)
The thread is called British monarchs when you have not listed a single King of Scotland or of Wales
My vote would go to Robert the Bruce

They generally tend to be more boring and far less known than their English counterparts.

I thought about James I, but then included Charles I instead, as their reigns were both absolutist and Stuart.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Larmas)
The youngest child, Mary, was married to the King of France not of Spain.

You're right of course. Good catch!

[alexlduffy]

Gotta go with Elizabeth I. When studying some of the monarchs, she was the one who I always found to be the most interesting. She seemed to be such a strong, powerful, independent woman.

[Angry Spartan]

Richard III

He was better than people think.

[Dux_Helvetica]

Queen Victoria. 1814 to 1914 was essentially the British century (after the French century and before the American one). Although she differed from many previous monarchs by having less individual control and a greater reliance on parliament, her rule coincided with the high watermark of the British Empire.

[Woody17]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
Queen Victoria. 1814 to 1914 was essentially the British century

Agreed. After she died, the decline began

[StarsAreFixed]

Henry VIII. Fascinating..him, his wives, and his courtiers. His descent into tyranny is interesting also. Elizabeth I certainly was a strong woman, but she was hopeless at making decisions, which often created chaos. I would moreso credit Cecil with the greatness of Elizabeth's reign.

[MrHayden]

(Original post by jmenkus)
No Henry VI option? How disappointing.

Haha!

[MrHayden]

I think it's quite unfair, although not totally misleading, to describe King John's reign as a disaster. He didn't do a particularly good job admittedly, but the odds were certainly stacked against him! His brother almost bankrupted the kingdom in his wars in the East and France, engaging in military competitions with some of the most established and talented generals of the era. When he died, he left John with a financially pooped kingdom and French territories under attack by French king Philipe Auguste, the "Castle Breaker". The only man in Europe who stood any chance of halting the French invasion of the Angevin territory had been Richard who got himself killed, leaving John to fight it out with virtually no funding at all. John wasn't a completely terrible strategist but he was no match for Philipe, and when he completely ran out of money leaving him no choice but to raise taxes on the Barons, they almost unanimously decided to start a revolution against him!
The poor chap didn't stand a chance.
I still didn't vote for him though. Cry God for Harry, England and St George!