Which English sovereign was the greatest?

Scroll to see replies

You're so awesome :colondollar:

! History undergrad i assume? XD

Well, postgrad now - just finished my third year. I'm not quite done with it yet though, as I'm going onto York to do Medieval studies for an MA, and then after that I plan to do a PhD (most likely on the Normans, since I've got a rough idea of what I'd research).

Reply 21

lilyobz

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

Alevel student here, hopefully will be studying History at the university of exeter this year XD

Reply 22

Old_Simon

Original post by lilyobz

I wrote in the midst of the wars of the roses for poetic effect, the wars of the roses ended with his marriage to Elizabeth of York. I to have a grasp of history thank you very much.. :angry:

Henry VII concluded the War of the Roses by defeating and killing Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field with his body given a rudimentary field burial. He then moved to secure his position by killing off his remaining potential rivals, and by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Thus the last surviving Lancastrian claimant - a descendant of an illegitimate line - returned the throne to - in effect - the Lancastrians, and the terrible strife caused by the war was ended, with the two claims being united in the issue of Henry and Elizabeth. There then followed a long period of stable succession until Oliver Cromwell. Whether he deserves the appellation of greatness is debatable. His prolific expenditure and dissipation of the public finances caused massive resentment, which Henry VIII in due course needed to act swiftly to quell.

So then in conclusion Henry Tudor certainly did not "hang on to his throne in the midst of the War of the Roses". He claimed the throne by ending the same war in battle.

Reply 23

lilyobz

Original post by Old_Simon

essentially repeating what i said in my previous post, so i may as well repeat this one again "I wrote in the midst of the wars of the roses for poetic effect!" :rolleyes:

Reply 24

Old_Simon

Original post by lilyobz

essentially repeating what i said in my previous post, so i may as well repeat this one again "I wrote in the midst of the wars of the roses for poetic effect!" :rolleyes:

Ridiculous. Henry VII did not end the War of the Roses by getting married as you state. He ended it by defeating Richard III.

Reply 25

lilyobz

Original post by Old_Simon

Ridiculous. Henry VII did not end the War of the Roses by getting married as you state. He ended it by defeating Richard III.

Or or ORRRR! maybe his is subject to HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY!!?!?!
By defeating Richard he didn't end the wars of the roses, he just won a battle. His marriage with Elizabeth of York is what truly ended the wars of the roses, as it united both the lancastrians and the yorkists and allied them to Richard. ENDING THE WARS OF THE ROSES.! -.-

Winning a battle does not equate to winning a war.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 26

Jjj90

Original post by Old_Simon

Ridiculous. Henry VII did not end the War of the Roses by getting married as you state. He ended it by defeating Richard III.

Henry could have married a Lancastrian, he didn't, he was savvy enough to marry a Yorkist, uniting the the warring sides, ending the Wars of the Roses.

Reply 27

Old_Simon

Original post by lilyobz

Well as a one sentence summary to omit the only death in battle on English soil of an English monarch from your account substantially mis states the facts.

Reply 28

Jjj90

Original post by Old_Simon

Well as a one sentence summary to omit the only death in battle on English soil of an English monarch from your account substantially mis states the facts.

Just as you omitted and continue to ignore the importance of the marriage?

Reply 29

lilyobz

Original post by Jjj90

Just as you omitted and continue to ignore the importance of the marriage?

Reply 30

Old_Simon

Original post by lilyobz

No I don't.

Reply 31

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by lilyobz

Alevel student here, hopefully will be studying History at the university of exeter this year XD

Ah, good luck in your exams and whatnot then :wink:

Original post by Old_Simon

No I don't.

All of it contributes really. Bosworth is undoubtedly decisive, but his marriage to Elizabeth was important too (especially considering her claim was better than his - something he tried to downplay).

I'd be tempted even to say the wars weren't really over after Bosworth either, as while Henry himself was secure after a while, there was still the potential for (and attempts to) bring about a Yorkist comeback - the Simnal and Warbeck rebellions being good examples.

In addition Warwick (Clarence's son, Edward IV's closest male relative bar the missing, presumed dead princes) was also a potential threat as well - so much so Polydore Vergil recorded Henry locked him in the tower on becoming king to prevent him from causing trouble, going so far as to execute him in 1499 when he was implicated in an escape attempt by Warbeck (which I reckon was probably just so Henry could be rid of him), and some contemporaries and Tudor writers also hint of anxiety about a return to conflict too.

Edward Hall (or Edmund Hall, I can't remember his name off the top of my head) for e.g. in one of the speeches he attributed to Henry VIII when he was trying to divorce Catherine of Aragon justified it on grounds of not having a male heir and warning of the instability it would cause by referring to the wars - so I think it's only with hindsight we can say the wars were definitely over after Bosworth...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 32

Old_Simon

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

Ah, good luck in your exams and whatnot then :wink:

Errrrrrrrrrrr. We don't need hindsight. After Richard died there were no more "wars" and no more overthrows of the monarchy (until Cromwell as stated). It is true there were opposing claims, plots and pretenders but these are not components of a "war". I am opposing three erroneous contentions in this thread by the protagonist.

Reply 33

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by Old_Simon

I think it does to be honest. It depends, in my view, on how you view the wars, what their nature was and so forth (dynastic for example). My own view is that the conflict was a dynastic one, which was only ever going to end when one side or another (Lancaster or York) was firmly in control of the crown with no possibility of being unseated and was accepted as being so by his contemporaries. At the beginning of Henry VII's reign this does not seem to have been the case for the reasons both you and I point to - rival claims, pretenders and plots - the very fact that these were able to get up and running with a decent amount of support (certainly Warbeck) to me, says the wars were still going on, albeit not with the same intensity of previous occasions. Some, notably Margaret of Burgundy, were determined to have a Yorkist back on the throne, and so while that resistance went on in my view, the wars of the Roses continued.

Alfred the Great

For me it would be Henry 8, Elizabeth 1, James 1 and possibly Victoria.

For the worst it would be a tie between Charles 1 (lost the throne) and George 3 (should have been hung for losing the USA).

Reply 36

Observatory

Original post by RK

The 'obvious' answer is Elizabeth I, given how she's regarded in lists of greatest Britons. She'd therefore come top of greatest English sovereigns.

So with this in mind, does anyone have a reason for anyone else to challenge her for the position?

Elizabeth I did not strengthen England's position very much and most of her overseas policies failed. She launched a half-hearted invasion of Spain as disastrous as the Armada, which itself failed mostly due to chance, and her support for the Dutch Revolt was limp. Ultimately, her war with Spain was a defeat in which she was forced to make concessions and even execute some of her best Admirals. The defeat could have been far worse, but that's all.

She is best remembered for succeeding at staying in power for a long time in adverse circumstances, but it's unclear why that in itself is desirable. Even by this measure, by dying childless she paved the way for James I to displace much of the native court with Scottish carpet baggers, while the disastrous English Stuart dynasty he began brought about a century of civil war and the ultimate destruction of many of the monarchy's privileges. Most of this must also be considered a function of her age on ascension, and comparatively good health; very few English or British monarchs have actually been at risk of deposition.

Elizabeth I is remembered well because, in the past, she was a hero of Protestant chauvinists, fighting off the Catholic Spanish and Irish, although her own Protestant programme was not very radical, certainly less so than that of her predecessor Edward VI. In later times, she is remembered well because she is seen in the light of the political liberalisation, and economic revolution it sparked, that had been brought about by the end of the tumultuous 17th century, and for which she laid the foundations. But Elizabeth I neither intended nor envisioned these changes and would probably have been horrified by them.

There is a far stronger case for practically any of the post-1688 monarchs who exercised real power. William, Mary, Anne, and the Hanoverians made Britain a great power and created (or at least accepted) the onward march of liberalism that would make it the birthplace of the industrial revolution. As a stable and long-lived placeholder, Victoria reigned over a far happier and more successful Empire than Elizabeth.##

---

That's the best hatch job I can give you.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 37

DarknessVisible

Ever since starting history at university, I have come to hate terms like 'greatest' when applied to leaders - especially kings. If by 'greatest' you mean those who upheld the sentiments you most relate to, then there is little room for academic debate. However, if by 'greatest' you mean the most successful at their job of king, then I would say William III. He stands out wonderfully when viewed alongside the incompetent and disruptive kings who preceded him. Unlike James II, Charles II, Charles I (and Cromwell the de facto king), William III co-operated with Parliament and institutionalised crucial liberal values in the Bill of Rights 1689. I read a book recently called 'A Land of Liberty? England, 1688-1730' which detailed at great length the achievements of his reign. But the most memorable I recall:

- Had the most stable reign of the 17th century (except for the odd enclosure riots, but enclosure was an ongoing process that also characterised previous Stuart and Tudor reigns)

- For the first time since the height of the Hundred Years' War, England became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe - thanks to the Duke of Marlborough and the active commanding presence of William III. England under William achieved great success in the Eight Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession (whilst grabbing a few Caribbean Islands)

- Perhaps most important of all: he licensed the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694. Its legacy is measured by the swift takeover of Dutch mercantilism and Stock Exchange in the 18th century, thereby paving way for Britain's maritime dominance.

Reply 38

DarknessVisible

Original post by lilyobz

Alevel student here, hopefully will be studying History at the university of exeter this year XD

I study history at Exeter :smile:

Reply 39

HarrietGilbraith

Ooh, that's a tough one. Henry 2nd had his problems but he and his wife Eleanor were the first to truly put England on the map, Edward 3rd, Henry 5th, Henry 7th and Elizabeth 1.