Is Elizabeth II the greatest monarch in British history?

what has she done? did she lead her own troops into battle? did she start her own church? did she do anything other than nothing, really? if "nothingness" is the criterion of goodness here then a monarch, modernly, is more lazy than a fat single mother on benefits

How does leading troops into battle make a monarch 'great'? Particularly when such battles are unjustified or examples of warmongering which killed a lot of young men and were the result of a monarch's greed or ambition.

And creating your own church because you can't marry your mistress in probably the best example of throwing one's toys out of the pram is 'great'?

Are you seriously suggesting that the current Queen could have done nothing her whole reign, which would essentially be here doing what she wanted at home and putting her feet up, and the monarchy would still survive?

I think she is a prime contender.

In previous times, monarchs could be dicks without any real risk of losing their position. Queen Victoria was a terrible monarch for a long period of time; she shut herself away from the people and didn't bother to interact with them. However, she still retained the throne (although there were calls for a republic).

Other monarchs, such as Elizabeth I, are remembered for the great victories that occurred in the reigns. Yet, Elizabeth I did not actually devise strategy or lead the troops against the Spanish Armada on the battlefield.

These days, monarchs have to be extremely careful and maintain substantial popularity to protect their position. I reckon it's taken a lot of effort for Queen Elizabeth II to have had a 60 year reign and not put a foot wrong, and avoided Britain becoming a republic. For an hereditary monarch to have such a high approval rating in a modern, Western democracy such as Britain takes a lot of doing.

She is closely followed by George V and George VI as they also managed to retain their positions in times of republicanism.

avoided Britain becoming a republic.

I think she is a prime contender.

In previous times, monarchs could be dicks without any real risk of losing their position. Queen Victoria was a terrible monarch for a long period of time; she shut herself away from the people and didn't bother to interact with them. However, she still retained the throne (although there were calls for a republic).

Other monarchs, such as Elizabeth I, are remembered for the great victories that occurred in the reigns. Yet, Elizabeth I did not actually devise strategy or lead the troops against the Spanish Armada on the battlefield.

These days, monarchs have to be extremely careful and maintain substantial popularity to protect their position. I reckon it's taken a lot of effort for Queen Elizabeth II to have had a 60 year reign and not put a foot wrong, and avoided Britain becoming a republic. For an hereditary monarch to have such a high approval rating in a modern, Western democracy such as Britain takes a lot of doing.

She is closely followed by George V and George VI as they also managed to retain their positions in times of republicanism.

I prefer great medieval monarchs who actually did things like Henry II and Edward III

waittt a second...... you prefer henry the 8th who beheaded people/ yet all your posts are criticising islam and violence lool making you seem like some inhumanely peaceful person loooool

Elizabeth I for the first time trod the line between Protestants and Catholics, rather than imposing fear on each half of the populace consecutively as her predecessors had done. Progressive for her time.

Difficult to say Elizabeth II has been the best when her role has required her to do very little.

what has she done? did she lead her own troops into battle? did she start her own church? did she do anything other than nothing, really? if "nothingness" is the criterion of goodness here then a monarch, modernly, is more lazy than a fat single mother on benefits

Doing very little, i.e. sticking to her duties and not doing anything controversial or meddling in things she shouldn't be, has kept the monarchy going.

I would rather a monarch who does very little in that sense, than someone like Charles who will do a lot, but not necessarily a lot of good.

waittt a second...... you prefer henry the 8th who beheaded people/ yet all your posts are criticising islam and violence lool making you seem like some inhumanely peaceful person loooool

I quite like Queen Elizabeth.

I preferred Henry II.

And Charles II.

And Edward who came to the throne at 13? He was good, too!

Well done for inventing something I didn't say.

waittt a second...... you prefer henry the 8th who beheaded people/ yet all your posts are criticising islam and violence lool making you seem like some inhumanely peaceful person loooool