Which Tudor Monarch Was The Best Ruler?

As the title says!

Personally, I'd say Elizabeth (is that too easy to argue?). England enjoyed a pretty long peace time under her rule, and there was decently minimal religious argument going on.

However, obviously the definition of 'best' is important here - how would you define it? I'd define it as a ruler who keeps their country at peace with others, but of course there are things like economic security and charity to the poor etc that could easily be the most important factor to someone else.

Reply 1

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

21

As you say, it does hugely depend on how you'd define 'best'. Personally, my knowledge of that period isn't good enough to give a proper answer to which monarch this would be, but I think it would be the ruler who kept the country at peace, but also looked after the welfare of their people.

On a parallel to the original question, however, perhaps the most infamous of the time was Henry VIII; though certainly not the best by any means.

Reply 2

Charles_worthex

8

Well she didn't produce an heir, thus putting an end to the tudor reign. I would say either her or Henry VII for setting up the tudor dynasty and securing the throne, an heir, trade relations and foreign relations, increasing the revenue of the crown and instigating law and regulation upon the people. Personal choice I guess

Reply 3

roarchika

OP

14

Original post by Onde

I would agree with Elizabeth. Henry VIII basically bankrupted the country at times with unnecessary wars/skirmishes.

With someone like Mary...you can't really evaluate someone who was around for five years, but if she had reigned a long time, she would have had a prestigious marriage to a big Catholic, while reigning a country that was still predominately Catholic. Although she didn't have the tolerance for both Protestants and Catholics that Henry VIII and Elizabeth did... (Elizabeth herself had one or two purges of Jews I think...so none of them would really be likeable by modern standards).

But could you argue that because the rebels of 1549 under Edward's reign made demands for things to go back to the way they were during Henry's reign that Henry was a better ruler than Edward? Especially since things like the debasement of the coin happened under Edward's reign?

Original post by shadowdweller

As you say, it does hugely depend on how you'd define 'best'. Personally, my knowledge of that period isn't good enough to give a proper answer to which monarch this would be, but I think it would be the ruler who kept the country at peace, but also looked after the welfare of their people.

On a parallel to the original question, however, perhaps the most infamous of the time was Henry VIII; though certainly not the best by any means.

I remember in year 6 we did a play about Henry VIII, and one of the songs was "Henry the eighth was a big fat man! A big fat man! A big fat man! Henry the eighth was a big fat man who had a lot of wives!"

Original post by Charles_worthex

Well she didn't produce an heir, thus putting an end to the tudor reign. I would say either her or Henry VII for setting up the tudor dynasty and securing the throne, an heir, trade relations and foreign relations, increasing the revenue of the crown and instigating law and regulation upon the people. Personal choice I guess

Hmm, but her not producing an heir and thereby not marrying anyone meant that England could juggle multiple political alliances with relative ease, perhaps? But yeah, those are all really good points!

Reply 4

Charles_worthex

8

Original post by roarchika

Hmm, but her not producing an heir and thereby not marrying anyone meant that England could juggle multiple political alliances with relative ease, perhaps? But yeah, those are all really good points!

Then you can argue that by not producing an heir she created unease and tension within england, but that's only a small part of her reign which could be argued as insignificant, but you are right with your point(s) about her

Reply 5

IAmAStegosaurus

9

Original post by Charles_worthex

Well she didn't produce an heir, thus putting an end to the tudor reign. I would say either her or Henry VII for setting up the tudor dynasty and securing the throne, an heir, trade relations and foreign relations, increasing the revenue of the crown and instigating law and regulation upon the people. Personal choice I guess

Definitely agree with this - Henry VII often gets ignored because he wasn't around in the most thriving part of the Tudor dynasty, but he did great things in establishing that dynasty and setting solid foundations for Henry VIII.

Reply 6

a noble chance

3

Original post by shadowdweller

On a parallel to the original question, however, perhaps the most infamous of the time was Henry VIII; though certainly not the best by any means.

Certainly the best by some means, such as the enormous impact he had on the religious and educational life of the country. How many schools are called 'King's' after him? How many Oxbridge colleges owe their existence to him? Trinity College, Cambridge and Christ Church, Oxford are two examples. He also created a religion and insodoing spurred architectural and artistic developments that would have otherwise remained purely in a small number of imaginations.

Reply 7

Cybele

14

Elizabeth, but I might be bias because I adore her. :ahee:

I would much rather have lived during Elizabeth's "Golden Age" than under Henry's reign, when the country was incredibly unstable and nearly bankrupt!

Reply 8

roarchika

OP

14

Original post by a noble chance

Certainly the best by some means, such as the enormous impact he had on the religious and educational life of the country. How many schools are called 'King's' after him? How many Oxbridge colleges owe their existence to him? Trinity College, Cambridge and Christ Church, Oxford are two examples. He also created a religion and insodoing spurred architectural and artistic developments that would have otherwise remained purely in a small number of imaginations.

Did he create the religion or simply take advantage of it? The only real change Henry made was to declare himself head of the Church; otherwise England was still Catholic in its beliefs if you discount the dissolution of the monasteries. It wasn't until Edward's reign that truly pro-Protestant legislation started to be enacted.

Original post by Cybele

Elizabeth, but I might be bias because I adore her. :ahee:

I would much rather have lived during Elizabeth's "Golden Age" than under Henry's reign, when the country was incredibly unstable and nearly bankrupt!

Don't we all? <3 Elizabeth's 'Golden Age' also had a war against Ireland and continuing political tension due to the lack of an heir and events such as the Spanish Armada attack, though!

Reply 9

RogueBlossom

Sorry to be off topic here but I hate the Tudors. In case some people aren't aware, the Tudors were on a mission to wipe out British wildlife and kill all of the animals including hedghogs, rabbits, birds, butterflies and pets. They went around butchering animals and really hated them. Animals in Britain were almost wiped out by these evil people. Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I made the Preservation of Grain Act so it allowed every person to kill and slaughter every creature. Obviously people got sums of money for a killing. No it wasn't for food or really sport. There were drawn targets that if a certain town or village didn't eradicate as much animals, they would get severe fines and imprisonment. Parishes benefited from the destruction of wildlife too as it helped raise money to fill church and lord's bellies.

The Tudors were cruel against citizens also. No to mention how ugly they looked in their weird costumes and hairstyles. Women who committed petty minor offenses were executed by burning at the stake. The society adopted pressing, crushing people to death, relished in public executions that were as disgusting and bloody as any horror film could make. People were also boiled to death!

Sadly children suffered a lot. There was severe poverty in Tudor times. A lot of poor people, and many children, caught stealing some bread crusts were publically whipped.

Murderers and thieves were branded with hot irons and so were homeless people too!!!!

People in modern Britain attack Muslims in Islamic countries. But Britain under the Tudors were far extreme. A person who didn't wear the right dress code was forced into public humiliation in the stocks, where members of the public could throw food and even stones.

Women were forced to wear muzzles for speaking. A woman asking for help from an abusive partner or relative was muzzled also.

People's arms were cut off for stealing and even being suspected of thievery.

People who suffered illnesses, ailments, were alcoholic, mentally ill and disabled were always humiliated. Another favourite at the time was forcing someone to wear a barrel so everyone could torture them.

People wish to return to those good old days?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 10

roarchika

OP

14

Original post by RogueBlossom

......

People wish to return to those good old days?

That was uh,very passionate. I don't have enough knowledge to agree or disagree, since my course focuses on government and rebellion, but I do know there was a disproportionate violent reaction to the rebellions of 1549 by Somerset.
However, people want to return? Is that like, a thing in a community somewhere or....?