Is Elizabeth II the greatest monarch in British history? Watch

Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I prefer great medieval monarchs who actually did things like Henry II and Edward III
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
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
1
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
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.
it shows determination/respect for one's country
she's technically the commander-in-chief of the armed forces yet she just shades off from that kind of thing, yet still gets the $

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'?
well, it's partly the reason the christians in this country are protestants...and at least it was an example of a monarch "doing something"

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?
the monarchy by law will survive no matter what the monarch does - which is why she's allowed to do nothing and get away with it
0
reply
Zarek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
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.
Pretty wooden Xmas Day message, mind. Even after years of practice..
0
reply
Skyy9432
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
avoided Britain becoming a republic.
Wait, it's a good thing to avoid democratic leadership? :confused:
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
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.
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.
0
reply
s.c.a1
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
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
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by s.c.a1)
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
4/10.
1
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by TurboCretin)
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.
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.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
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
She supremely governs The Church of England, defends the faith, form the government, pacifies god, heads the Commonwealth, and rules Great Britain from home.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
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.
Yeah, and I'd further prefer someone who did do things and the things they did were positive. Elizabeth I's chief recommendation is that she's inoffensive - hardly a ringing endorsement. Chocolate teapots are also inoffensive.
0
reply
The Legal Eagle
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
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!
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by s.c.a1)
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
Well done for inventing something I didn't say.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by The Legal Eagle)
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!
Henry II was definitely one of our greatest monarchs. He made government and the legal system a lot more efficient and was a master of political intrigue and cunning. Ironically his own deviousness ended up alienating his son Richard the Lionheart.
0
reply
s.c.a1
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Well done for inventing something I didn't say.

as usual go into denial when you get caught out
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
William III or Queen Ann.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Worst Monarch's. Basically all the long serving ones. George III, Victoria or Queen Elizabeth II. I rather wish the Duke of Cumberland has stop Victoria taking the Throne.
0
reply
Maradiah
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by s.c.a1)
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
He never said Henry the 8th, he said Henry the second.:facepalm:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How many universities have you heard back from?

0 (76)
15.08%
1 (70)
13.89%
2 (65)
12.9%
20.44%
20.24%
5 (88)
17.46%

Watched Threads

View All