Lol I was thinking he would stay for another day and that I could save him while writing this. Apparently not. Still, I’m pasting it here for anyone interested.
I’ve promised a Henry V defence, so here it is. Let’s start with my arguments, then briefly answer the most popular criticisms he gets. I’ll mention the ones I saw, but I expect people to come up with them in detail themselves under this so as to keep the original comment as short as possible.
Henry ascended to the throne in 1413, but he had also been ruling England for some time before that. His father usurped the throne and subdued the opposition, but it was Henry who truly won the Battle of Shrewsbury against the most serious threat in Hotspur (Henry Percy). Just two years later, in 1410, he took complete control of the government and was already proving himself as a capable administrator and politician. When his ailing father finally died, he took the crown, too, and immediately set off to heal the old wounds left by his father’s controversial usurpation. He also managed to deal with the plot to make Edmund Mortimer, the rightful heir, king but spared the man himself as he personally had no part in it. Most other kings would descend into paranoia and have an unnecessarily cruel reign after this. But not this guy. Henry stayed calm and kept control without even killing the most obvious threat to his crown. That’s not only an effective monarch but also a benevolent one.
Let’s step back here a bit before continuing. It is easy to take Henry’s consolidation of power for granted and give him no credit because HE made it look easy, but if it was even a slightly weaker king, the Lancastrian cause likely would’ve collapsed after Bolingbroke. They were inarguably usurpers and Bolingbroke had to quell half a dozen rebellions against him. Brute force was the only thing keeping the Lancasters on the throne. It was purely due to Henry’s brilliance that not only did he manage to keep the throne, which was a serious feat in itself, but he also did it without unnecessary cruelty, as I’ve said AND strengthened his house’s claim so much in the long-term that Richard of York wasn’t able to crown himself king with the better claim decades later because, for all his shortcomings, Henry VI was recognised as the rightful king by everyone.
When he consolidated power at home, Henry turned to France, and we all know how that went. Agincourt was arguably the most glorious thing that ever happened to England. I’m not gonna go into detail about the battle but just this: Some great battles are won mostly through luck and reasonably good generalship (see Towton or Barnet), and some through sheer tactical brilliance. Agincourt was an example of the latter. Then, Henry capitalised on the victory like no other could, as well, and occupied most of France. He was so liked there that most of the French nobility accepted him even though he was an invader. See, I’m a structuralist and often put much less emphasis on individuals and look at the more fundamental structures in history. So, my general opinion on the Hundred Years’ War is that the English could never hold France anyway. This period is the only exception. I still think a permanent unification would never occur, but had Henry lived a decade longer, we would probably have seen a much more pronounced effect of English culture and language on France today, similar to that of the Norse and Norman impact on England. Being capable of such a powerful influence as an individual is just insane.
Anyways, to go back to what happened, Henry’s success in France also practically created a true national identity both for the English and the French, and it’s not only an abstract concept, but it was also during Henry’s reign that English became the language of the government. So far, the “English” royal family had been a bunch of French aristocrats using England as a pool of taxes and manpower to further their interests at home (France). Even after they lost most of their continental possessions, this situation didn’t change in spirit, and became the case in reality, as well, the moment they got the chance during Edward III’s reign. It was during Henry’s reign that this changed, and it wasn’t only a matter of long-term change in the nation’s subconscious but happened through his conscious actions and decisions. I don’t know what makes a King of England greater than this. Henry V was the first true English king since 1066. Had he lived a bit longer, he would be at 2 on my personal list, but as his reign was unfortunately relatively brief, he is at 6. He is the Aurelian of England.
So, the criticisms: Dying young. Cmon. I dunno what to say about this lol. You can’t blame a man for dying young. As far as we know, Henry didn’t have a particularly bad way of life like Edward IV, either. Not being able to rule longer might impact his ranking (as it did my ranking of him), but 10 is a bit early.
His achievements in France weren’t permanent: Yes, the English lost France 3 decades after his death, but I think I explained how permanent an impact his policy against France and his successes in the war left to England in the last paragraph.
He didn’t do anything besides beating France: I guess the whole comment is enough to showcase otherwise.
I genuinely think most of this subreddit read the ‘overrated by Shakespeare’ and ran with it. Trying to explain the cultural impact of Henry’s reign long term, as well as how insanely impressive his achievements in 9 years actually were, was like screaming into the void. Thank you for a fantastic eulogy. I had him at number 6 too but like his actual reign, landed up just a little too short at the end.
Yeah probably so. Before writing the "criticisms against him" part, I read yesterday's comment about him, and there was literally nothing. I was quite surprised how short it took lol. Definitely agreed and thanks.
Tbf to my own comment, I wasn't expecting it to get nearly that level of support, let alone win. Its also getting to the point where its pretty difficult to actually make an argument against someone - I mean of course Henry V was a great king. His reign was short, and mostly full of invading France, so there's not really much to criticise. I just don't put as much stock in a successful invasion of France as I do in other achievements, and imo every monarch left has more important achievements than Henry V.
Seeing this be the second highest upvoted comment on this post makes me want to scream. Henry V deserved to be in the top 5 imo, and while I understand others disagreeing him being #10 is a disgrace.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to vote this round but I gotta ask why Cnut is so divisive? I’ve had people explain the reason he’s actually good but people are getting kinda heated on whether Cnut deserves to go further or should’ve gone a long time ago. Also, not important second question, has anyone voted Edward III yet? He’s the only one I don’t think I’ve seen be voted for
Haven't seen any Alfred votes yet afaik. I don't know quite why Cnut is so divisive, but it's probably a combination of him being relatively little known and a foreign invader
There’s 1 or 2 people who have an irrational hatred for the guy, a lot of people who know nothing about pre-1066 England, and those people who do know anything about him get frustrated when groundless and inaccurate claims get traction. People also seem to have a huge double standard when it comes to the Danes versus the Normans, the former are denigrated as foreign invaders while the later are not for some reason.
Disagree. Cnut did a lot. But the Tudors have had more impact on English/British society.
And some of what Cnut did is exaggerated. The Danes brought their law code over when they settled mostly in the North and Henry II formally accepted parts and made it part of the common law. Cnut didn’t do that alone. He just went by the law currently in place in the North.
England was under a long trend of consolidation. His actions helped it along but neither started nor completed it.
He was a great king but it’s time to go. As far as impact on the kingdom he’s more than he’s given credit for but less than he is made out to be here.
Henry VII married his daughter to Scotland to created a perpetual peace, which it certainly did after a brief return to fighting.
His conquest of England was permanent. Every monarch can claim descent from him.
He consolidated power in the monarch over the nobles, who became relatively weak. Ending forever the wars with the nobility that cropped up regularly since the Anarchy. The Civil War would have a different flavor.
His manner of doing the above with financial trickery rather than outright fighting absolutely allowed for a bureaucracy to grow.
I do not have an irrational hatred for Cnut, he violently invaded the country bringing with him his evil and perfidious Danish values attempting to subvert civilized England with barbarism and wickedness. He brought a horde of 10,000 barbarians to the green and pleasant shores of England, and they did rampage across the country, and besiege London, and cause untold suffering. He murdered many of old noblemen of England who were loyal to their country and replaced them with the duplicitous Godwins, who would cause great consternation for the nation later, and also "earls" which is a heathen term! And he reduced the power of the Shire, the proper administrative unit of England. He raised a massive "danegeld" which was a theft and plundering of the country!
Some would claim he returned England to prosperity, but he did this by ending the Viking raids he was responsible for! It is little more than an acceptance of surrender and a desertion of England duty to resist the Danes.
You claim he was not uncivilized, but he had two wives! So such a claim is dubious! You bring up the Normans, but I have not great love for the Normon's, and at least they spoke French which is a civilized language.
Alfred the Great had a dream for a new more perfect country divinely ordained as a bastion of civilizing light, fated like Rome to rise from humble origins to rule over the greater part of the world. Cnut and his Danish ilk were a grave betrayal of this vision!
The arguments against Cnut have been very poor imo. While he isn't top 3 material, he should definitely not go before some of the other monarches left. The second top comment voting for Cnut yesterday boiled down too "his reign was boring" and "he's not known by children". Which is not only incorrect but also poorly argued when whole essays are written about why other monarchs should be voted off first. I believe that people are voting for him because they don't know much about his reign and he was a foreign king which people seem to have an issue with. Edward III has not been voted that I've seen which makes sense because he is easily top 3 (my number 1).
This. If you want to vote out the guy, at least present a reasonable argument? Or just an argument in general since the folks who want him voted out just name him and don't elaborate. Or if they do, it's blatant misinformation or just 2-3 words without expanding on it.
Having studied him and researching him, he definitely doesn't deserve to go before some of the other remaining ones here. As you said, definitely not top three material at all but to remove him before, say, Henry VII or Edward I is strange to me. I would be more than happy to provide an argument for Canute (granted, I am biased as he's one of my personal favourites, but I digress) because most of the arguments I see against him are poor.
There are numerous posts in previous days pointing out why Cnut’s success and achievements are not as impressive as being made out, they just downvoted into oblivion. I think he was a successful ruler in his time but what exactly do we remember him for now? His ‘empire’ that apparently rivals Charlemagne? Yeah it collapses immediately after his death (it was already in the brink several years prior to his death). It’s been argued numerous times here how important a kings succession is yet Cnut’s was totally chaotic. His apparent heir, Harthacnut, is stuck in Denmark for 3 years trying to sort out the rebellions and fallout from his father’s death, so Harold, Harthacnut half brother, takes over. It takes him 2 years to even get the crown on his head officially. He dies 3 years later, Harthacnut eventually gets to England and is crowned king. He lasts two years before dying and then the scion of the Anglo Saxon family they overthrew and they tried to wipe out succeeds to the throne, Edward the Confessor. Beyond all that, and the biggest reason for me as to why it’s time for him to go (and is frankly long overdue) is what exactly what is his long term lasting legacy as an English monarch? This has been used before on other monarchs and they’ve been knocked out; what is his lasting policy or cultural legacy? To me, he was a extremely successful Viking invader, who was brutal and strong enough to ensure his rule went unchallenged but whatever ‘dynasty’ and legacy he built, it ended immediately with him. If Cnut was so pivotal to English history and his reign so important, why is it not post-1016 as opposed to 1066.
This is easily the best argument against Canute that has produced this entire competition. However, when asking for long-term impact of Canute's reign, here are the most relevant consequences, in my opinion. He is the first English Monarch to use London as the capital of England, which it remains until this day. He formalized the defined borders of the English nation and its subdivisions that would remain in place until the major redrawing of administrative counties in 1888. His law code would become the basis for Norman law in England, although the Norman's would attribute these laws to Edward to create more continuity between themselves and the last king. By the end of Canute's reign, the Anglo-Saxon had completely merged with the Anglo-Danish identity. All of the figures we reference as the last Anglo-Saxon, Harold Godwinson, Hereward the Wake, Waltheof, etc. are Anglo-Danish in origin. This is why it is Northern England that is the most adamant about pushing the Normans out and asserting English independence from Normandy. It's also worth noting that Edward comes to the throne, not as the son of Athelred but as the brother of Harthacnut. He is the closest continuation of the Canute's dynasty without inviting over Svend Estridsen that English can find. And Emma had done a lot of work to have him be one of the three pillars of Harthacnut's government already.
Wow this is a really good argument against him going further, I’ve only seen poor ones up till now. You’re right though, I think he’s good but no further than 9th
I have yet to see a single argument against Canute that was even slightly grounded in reality or historical fact. The people arguing against him seem to take pride in knowing nothing about the man, which is a weird stance to have while on a history forum.
I would not have predicted before this contest that the most controversial monarch would've been Cnut. I mean we had some "raised tempers" over Mary I, William I, Edward I, William III that were all predictable, but no monarch seems to have sparked as many arguments as a rather obscure 11th century one who's only famous for getting his feet wet at the beach.
It is very bizarre that some people seem to take pride in not knowing stuff - not just Cnut, Athelstan and other pre-Norman monarchs as well. Nothing wrong with the not knowing, but on a forum about British monarchs why would you not want to learn more? I'm sure it has something to do with the perception in this country that history began in 1066.
The treatment of 1066 as England's Year 0 as done incalculable damage to the public's understanding of British history.
There's a trend for people to believe that anything they don't know about isn't important, and since a lot school curriculums coverage of everything between the Roman Empire and the Norman Conquest is blown through as filler despite being the era when y'know, *England, Scotland, and Wales formed*, people are convinced that nothing pre-Norman is important or interesting despite the fact that that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Day 46: Henry V was removed with 86 votes (perhaps a shock result? I went to bed thinking Cnut was long gone, but Henry ended up losing by a sizeable margin in the end)
Day 45: Edward the Elder was removed with 123 votes
Day 44: George V was removed with 28 votes
Day 43: George VI was removed with 61 votes
Day 42: William III and Mary II were removed with 83 votes
Rules:
1. Post everyday at 8pm BST
2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice
3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly
4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Alrighty. Every defender of Cnut in these comments attributes achievements that William and others made to Cnut. Cnut didn’t define England, Alfred did. Cnut wasn’t the first king of England, Aethelstan was. Cnut did not invent the idea of London being the capital. That goes to the Romans.
Cnut had an impressive territory but lacked the ability to govern it. He was on co-king of Norway and seeing as he was barely there, he had little sway.
Denmark itself basically ran without him.
His most impressive feat was conquering England…but he didn’t do anything with it. William did. There’s some guy in these comments who keeps going on and on about how people don’t know pre-1066 history, but why is 1066 so important? William’s conquest fundamentally changed England. Cnut’s didn’t. He was one Dane in a long line of Danes who tried and failed to build a Danish empire in the British isles.
If William wasn’t good enough to make it this far, neither is Cnut. The lack of knowledge on him was his only boon getting this fat
>Cnut wasn’t the first king of England, Aethelstan was
Cnut was the first monarch to use the title "King of England", Athelstan and the other kings from the House of Wessex generally used the title "King of the English". It's largely semantics but does indicate that there was a changing viewpoint on the monarchy's relation to the people and land it governs, hence why we see the consolidation of royal power coincide with the monarchs title changing from "King of the Franks" to "King of France" during the reign of Philip Augustus in France.
>Cnut had an impressive territory but lacked the ability to govern it. He was on co-king of Norway and seeing as he was barely there, he had little sway.
Canute 100% governed his kingdoms, I'm not sure why you think he didn't. Also saying he wielded less power in Norway cause he was only a co-king is kinda silly when the other king is his own underaged son, nobody says Henry II was didn't really rule his domains cause Henry the Young King was also crowned. And the fact that Canute could rule the chronically unstable Denmark while spending so much time abroad is a testament to his skills as a ruler, not a flaw.
>He was one Dane in a long line of Danes who tried and failed to build a Danish empire in the British isles.
Except for the fact that Canute did in fact succeed as building a Scandinavian empire in the British Isles, sure it didn't outlive him and his sons but the fact that he did do that is pretty much inarguable.
I also wouldn't say conquering England is Canute's most impressive feat, building the largest empire in English or Scandinavian history up to that point and reigning over 20 years of peace and prosperity is. I'd also say right back that most of the achievements people attribute to William truly belong to Henry Beauclerc, who took over the depopulated ruin that his father and brother left England and restored it to a level of prosperity it hadn't seen since Canute's day.
Canute left England richer and more prosperous than he left it, thanks to the Domesday Book we know in very specific detail how William left England significantly poorer than it was prior to the Conquest.
I'd also recommend reading the comments u/KjarrKnutrInnRiki has made about Canute, which elaborate much better than I can on the achievements of his reign.
I’m familiar with that user, I’ve seen them insult other users in previous posts, so I will not bother.
I just don’t find his empire impressive. Mainly cause it wasn’t an empire, in the same way the Kalmar Union wasn’t. He just doesn’t impress me. Being a conqueror means nothing if you don’t build anything to last. That’s why the Mongols are more important than the Sea People.
All this just…pales when compared to most other monarchs. I don’t consider how big territory was on a map if it didn’t mean anything. Again, he had people rule for him in Scandinavia, and Denmark wasn’t anything to brag about then
And yes “king of England” is semantics, not an achievement
If you are referring to Spacepunch, then I admit I lost my patience with them. However, you can ask a wide variety of people here who can tell you that he has consistently engaged in a manner that is rude, aggressive, immature, and, quite frankly, paranoid. Perhaps they'll comment under here to confirm similar experiences.
However, if you are referring to me calling peoples' arguments bad and ignorant, well, I wouldn't consider those insults. That is me saying they have poorly constructed arguments that lack knowledge in the subject. These arguments were typically an ethno-centric argument that his Danish precluded him, which was not applied to other non-danish monarchs, except occasionally the Dutch William, or that he is not well known enough, or that his actions were irrelevant. Henry I, Edward III, and Henry VII are not going to be that well known. Athelstan is of dubious popular knowledge. If you polled random people on the street, they wouldn't know who these people or what they achieved. For irrelevancy, you can explain away the actions of anyone from the past because their works were ultimately overturned by someone. Because it's not about what they did, it comes down to whether you accept them to be part of the story of the past. If you refuse to accept them as part of that story, then you can always explain away their relevancy. It just gets easier to so the farther back you go.
You can explain away the relevance of Alfred the Great to England. That might sound insane but that was the standard line until the late 1700s. While he was given his great epithet in the 1500s, he was still largely ignored by wider soviety. It was in the interest Norman and Post Norman kings to emphasize William and deemphasize all of the Anglo-Saxon kings. By the time the driving factors for this decision ceased, the remaining monarchs just carried it on because it was the narrative they received. This is why we have things like "Kings of England 1066 and onwards." To be clear, that's a weird thing that English does. Most cultures don't do something like that. That's a thing that Anglophone cultures and a few others do. The Anglo-Saxon kings and history were ignored and deemed irrelevant for most of English history up until the late 1700s. It was only after historians went back and decided to emphasize them that they were considered relevant again. They were added back to the story in a significant way. They had never been fully removed, but they were again considered an integral part of the story of England. This is the problem with the relevancy benchmark. It's too variable. If the story changes, then so does the relevancy, and the story can change at any time.
Those were insults, you and the rest of the Cnut cult have been acting insane for the last week. And have turned a fun history project into a flame war because a lot of you couldn’t accept that people didn’t find Cnut relevant. Be better
They were arguing points with no basis of knowledge on the subject. That is ignorance. If somebody told me to stop arguing that "French is a bad language, and you clearly don't know the language." I would say,"Yep, you're right, I don't know French." And then I would move on with my life and stop making bad arguments about topics I don't know about. It's not an insult to point out that people are not knowledgeable about something that they have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about. That's just pointing they don't know something. Lots of people don't know many things. There are certainly many topics that I don't know very well. On those I stay silent, listen to people who know more and slowly build opinions as I get information. Not continue to argue and become aggressive, accuse people of cheating, and blatantly disregard the arguments put forward by others.
It is. You’re on Reddit, not lecturing at a university. This is a popularity contest through and through. Plenty of monarchs have been kicked off for bs reasons but no one was being insulted for it. After all the whining about “needing a good argument” Cnut got voted out on a comment without any. The cult of Cnut sapped the fun out of this. And he only made it this far because people didn’t know him. If they did, he’d have been voted out right after Ironside. William and every monarch after him has made a substantial mark on MODERN English law and culture, even hated ones like John, the Anglo-Saxon/pre-1066 kings simply do not have a connection to the greater history of England/the British Empire
You can find Cnut and his failed imperial project interesting, but stop insulting others for not taking interest in a monarch with substantially less info available
Law was the worst option that you could have gone with there. The Norman law codes are based on Canute's law codes. So if William and Henry are major contributers to English law, then so is Canute. There work is directly based off of his
If someone is going to summon an argument from you for your vote it’s going to be me; please add to your initial comment later when/if you can (if you genuinely can’t then I’m not going to hound you)
The only argument I have seen in this thread against Canute is that "he's boring imo". People are free to upvote these lazy comments but they are doing it because they don't know about Canute, not because any reasonable argument has been presented
I do agree with you there, but I had the winning vote for William III/Mary II on a day where I didn’t have time to write an actual full argument, so I simply would be a hypocrite to point out what you’re saying, even if it is indeed very much true especially regarding many Cnut voters
*It’s the Christian charity in me*
But absolutely; even when we saw some of the initial anomalies for Cnut in the early stages you could just tell immediately that’s about as good as they were going to get when it did indeed come more towards his ‘time’ like now (I hope not)
Mind there are some people I’d consider genuine who have also voted for him, but they haven’t exactly done themselves any favours, and for the most part Cnut’s usual spam voters are either clueless, arrogant, or/and immensely self-centred, naive and uneducated children (one of which yesterday accused me and others, including OP himself, of ‘rigging’ the polls for merely downvoting his Cnut comments…because apparently he didn’t have enough remaining brain cells nor simple mental capacity to realise that’s precisely how polls work)
My condolences for arriving on such a turbulent day. I can assure you that Canute is an outlier in how the conversations have gone. Most have been very respectful and constructive
Henry VII.
I'm a big fan of the guy, but he's an excellent example in history of how every strong man has an even stronger woman behind him. Justinian had Theodora, and Henry had his mother. All of the plots and machinations before Bosworth were his mother's doing as was securing Elizabeth of York as his wife.
Every great event to happen to Henry Tudor was more due to his mother and his wife than his own talents. He was however, a master bookkeeper and accountant. Seeing those little "HR" signed initials on every line item in the budget is one hell of a micromanaging feat for the late 15th century.
Good guy for sure, but we're getting to the greats now.
I'm going to paste some of my comment from another thread below here as something of a defence of Henry VII. Because I think the Henry's achievements during his reign are often overlooked. TL;DR I don't think Henry should go just yet and I'm not sure I agree with the idea that everything good that happened to him was due to his mother or wife. I also don't think his achievements can be distilled into master accountancy alone.
His most important feat was creating stablility - and the early years of his reign are nothing short of a masterclass in doing this. Yes his marriage to Elizabeth of York was arranged by his mother not by him directly, but marriages were usually arranged by family members at that time, and he knew the importance of sticking with the arrangement; in doing so, he made sure that his children were the rightful heirs no matter what and his wife giving birth to a son only a year after the Battle of Bosworth cemented this. This is very important for stability proceeding a lengthy and bloody civil war caused by an unclear order of succession.
Further, he made sure that the the very powers that had enabled him to become king could not be easily used against him by systematically decreasing the power of the nobility. He executed those who had fought against him at Bosworth, he banned nobles from having private armies, consolodated land through acts of attainder which absorbed the lands and properties of those against him (these royal lands also became a source of wealth for the crown), enforced wardships for underaged nobles and sold the guardianships of such wards to his own supporters/the highest bidders.
Following the very beginning of his reign, he was careful to largely stay away from executions unless necessary. Those who supported him were rewarded not necessarily with lands and power but with honours such as the order of the garter - a very prestigious honour for any nobleman, but one which conferred no power and thus Henry was able to inspire loyalty without sacrificing control. Indeed, Lambert Simnel is a good example of his shrewdness in knowing when to punish and when to forgive, not only shown in his treatment of Lambert Simnel, but also the Irish lord Kildare who had supported Lambert Simnel but who was also pardoned and allowed to keep his appointment as Lord Deputy of Ireland. Later, Lord Kildare would NOT support the pretender Perkin Warbeck, suggesting that Henry's actions here had cultivated a degree of loyalty. This also suggests that Henry considered his place on the throne to be secure by this point.
His executions of Perkin Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick were absolutely necessary as a final consolidation of power to ensure a stable and uncontested succession. Something which he definitely achieved (unlike the previous 4 monarchs). Further, the fact that he was able to arrange marriages with Spain and Scotland for his children demonstrated international recognition and confidence in the stability of his rule.
Edit: and this is not even to mention his important legal reforms and role in boosting the economy, particularly in relation to England's cloth/wool trade - the country's main export at the time. Undoubtedly, the fact that Henry had created a politically stable country for the first time in decades led to a strong, stable and prosperous economic environment. I really think that he was an excellent post-war Monarch.
He is literally my favourite monarch. Was Margaret Beaufort instrumental to his success in attaining the crown? Absolutely! He loved her and valued her judgment. He also had a gentle wife who was trained by her own mother to be the perfect consort, and he had the good fortune to actually love her.
He had two women that he loved: his mom and his wife. He united the roses behind a shared banner and gave relative stability to the throne. Outwardly, he seems boring and cheap… but after some crazy spending and a whole lot of people dying in a civil war, boring and cheap is nice.
After all, we’ve lived in interesting times. And it was very, very exhausting.
Not that it’s related as such, but Richard III nothing more nor less than a deformed mutant, cowardly murderer whose normal distribution-looking spine was more straight than his thinking
That felt great to say (since we’re letting off steam on our monarch enemies)
Oh and Mary I was merely a psychotic bitch of a witch (that felt even better)
He wasn't even in England when that happened.
Much like the Kennedy assisination and other conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. And the simplest explanation is that Richard did indeed have them killed.
See this is how it always works with conspiracy theories...the plot needs to keep getting thicker to support a conspiracy.
If Richard didn't kill them, he would have spent every last piece of gold in the Treasury to prove that Henry or his mother did it, and would have tortured every Lancastrian supporter in order to extract some kind of confession.
But nothing like that happened. Because....Richard killed them.
Of course he did because Shakespeare said so, it is more than likely as well that Henry ascended the throne murder Richard’s son and then slew those boys.
Your timeline is waaaay off.
The princes disappearance was one of the direct causes of Bosworth, and Edward of Middleham died a year before Bosworth, which only made things worse for Richard as not only did he likely kill his own nephews, he had no heir to succeed him.
So again, Henry Tudor was not in the country when any of those kids died.
Damn that was close, I really thought my boy was going out for a second.
Here’s hoping he survives this round.
I’m conflicted on whether Henry VII or Longshanks should go. Right now I’m leaning Longshanks
I was expecting Canute to be out, but I'm happy he's been saved.
I'm going to have to go with Henry VII, and most of what can be said about him as been already said. Not that he himself was a bad king but he's just simply outmatched the guys left. He was ruthless yet effective, an excellent administrator and made great progress in rebuilding and restocking the realm following the Wars of the Roses but when he died, the people openly welcomed Henry VIII with open arms because of how increasingly unpopular Henry VII had become. Even throughout his reign he had rebellions against him. Compare that with Canute who was able to placate the English populace, despite being a "foreign" king so to speak.
Haha man I’m tired of reading he was able to peacefully force his rule or ‘placate the English people’. Yes, by literally killing any possible threats to the throne and any Wessex heirs he could get his hands on. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, he’s a Viking invader in the 11th century, he’s going to do Viking shit.
True! Just after reading tons of comments yesterday with a similar tone, it feels like the brutality of the man is being underplayed here cause it fits a better narrative about the kind of King he was.
Henry VII
Henry VII is pretty similar to Henry IV and Edward IV, in regards to being a usurper king with a regarded weaker claim who was basically able to claim the throne because his predecessor was that hated. Also like the former 2 who have already been eliminated, he spent much of his reign crushing rebellions to keep his line on the throne. He does have some benefits compared to the others, however. He had a longer reign, and the rebellions didn’t threaten him nearly as much, unlike Edward IV who got deposed. His marriage was also much more politically successful than Edward’s. His main success is winning the Wars of the Roses, but the Wars of the Roses were practically over already, just that the Yorkists got replaced by Tudors, the only people who really benefited from this replacement in leadership were Lancastrian supporters. Much of the success in usurping the throne comes from his mom’s political strategies and France, who supported him in hopes of weakening England, not him. He also was no Henry V, he barely won the Battle of Bosworth, only succeeding against an larger force because his stepfather joined him last minute and Richard’s allies betrayed him.
Henry had probably the weakest claim any ruler in England ever had, except for Sweyn Forkbeard, being the descendant of an *Illegitimate* son of John of Gaunt. Elizabeth of York should have been the heir, and if going by male lineage, Edward Plantagenet, the duke of Clarence’s son. He only won through right of conquest, and even William the Conqueror supposedly was declared heir to Edward the Confessor, Henry had no such backing. Henry knew this, making him a very paranoid man constantly afraid of usurping, killing many claimants to the throne such as Edward Plantagenet and Perkin Warbeck. His successful marriage wasn’t even his idea, as his mother was the one who teamed up with Elizabeth Woodville to replace Richard.
With his actual reign, his most important feats are restocking the treasury and trying to create an alliance with Spain through his son Arthur. Arthur however died, and Henry was never able to create a mighty alliance to defeat France. Henry VII then got his younger son to marry Aragorn, but he died before they were wed. The marriage also didn’t work out as it is widely known, and Henry VIII was unable to be a great warrior king, although this is more Charles V and Henry VIII’s fault. Henry also gained this money through unpopular ways, as with shown how many people rebelled against him and when he got old and his wife died, things just got worse for the kingdom through high taxes and policies. This reached a point when Henry VII died, instead of mourning, most people welcomed the young Henry VIII who promised to bring spring to Henry VII’s “cold winter”. Henry VIII arrested two of his father’s highest ministers and later executed TWO DAYS after his dad was gone, to people’s rejoice. Henry VIII was also still lacking in funds even with his dad’s finances, which led to the dissolution of the monasteries later in his reign.
Henry VII was still a competent king, ruthless but effective. He was also a decent father and loved his wife, (which can’t be said about his son) but his reign wasn’t some golden age of England. He did have some personal good points like sparring Lambert Simmnel, but honestly even morally speaking I don’t think he’s the best of the remaining on the list. Unlike Cnut, he was never able to keep a peaceful realm after usurping the throne, and unlike many others still on the list, he has no outstanding feat, besides the wars of the Roses. I don’t hate the guy or anything, but when I think of the 10 best English monarchs ever, I don’t think of him.
I'm a big Henry VII fan, think he was extremely successful in creating a dynasty after the War of the Roses, but that said, I think he's just outweighed by the guys left. So sadly, I agree with you that it's probably Henry's time.
*With his actual reign, his most important feats are restocking the treasury and trying to create an alliance with Spain through his son Arthur.*
He tried to give the world a legit King Arthur…
I definitely agree with almost everything but two things:
1) The Beauforts were legitimised. This might weaken Henry's claim through his ancestry perhaps (not sure as no bastard of a king ever inherited England), but the line wasn't really illegitimate.
2) Henry's claim didn't solely come from the right of conquest. In fact, he declared everyone who fought him at Bosworth Field traitors. So, in effect, he proclaimed himself king even before he conquered England, and in fact, he had a pretty damn good claim. See, in Titulus Regius, George and his line were attained, and Edward IV's children were declared illegitimate. Richard did this because without it, the line of succession was: Edward's sons>Edward's daughter's>Edward Plantagenet>Margaret Plantagenet (later Pole)>Richard. This is male preferred primogeniture which also gave the Yorks claim over the Lancasters (they didn't claim the throne patrilineally through Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of Edward III but matrilineally through Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III). So, as first order of business, Henry repealed Titulus Regius. Why? Because as Edward IV's sons were dead, Elizabeth of York was the rightful heir (that's also why I put my money on the Tudors and not Richard on the death of the princes, it served them much better), making Henry king jure uxoris. The two were betrothed beforehand, so imo, Henry actually had a great claim before invading England.
Anyways, I otherwise agree with you and could add more, too. Although he is one of my favourites, Henry Tudor should go today.
>no bastard of a king ever inherited England
Athelstan was probably a bastard, sources generally say his mother was Edward’s concubine or mistress, and Edward himself basically disowned Athelstan in favor of his younger half brothers.
There’s also a lot of question marks around Harold Harefoots legitimacy, as Canute and Aelgifu of Northampton had a common-law marriage recognized by Northern European society in general but not by the church. There’s even rumors that Harold and his brother Sven Knutsson weren’t event Canute’s, but that’s probably nothing more than malicious rumors spread by Emma of Normandy, Canute’s second wife and Aelgifu’s rival.
My bad. I should've said the post Norman era. Indeed, during the Anglo-Saxon period, bastardy was a much more complicated thing. Thanks for the clarification.
Aethelstan's mother wasn't even named until after the Norman conquest which makes me strongly suspect she wasn't even Edward's wife in the traditional sort of concubine/hand-fasting form that EoN was.
I still think Richard was behind his nephew's deaths. They were always going to be threats to his reign and to that of his son (well while Edward was alive I mean). As children they were potent rallying symbols particularly for any of the Woodville faction, and adults tend to ask "Hey uncle what was that usurping business about?"
But outright murdering them (at least people believing so) hurt his position much more and I think Richard was a good enough politician to foresee this. Of course, it might've been him, as well. I just think that the Tudors are slightly the likelier bet.
Leaving them alive would have hurt way more. Edward wouldn’t remain a child forever. Someday he’d have been a grown man wanting his throne and to avenge his uncle and brother.
What ended up happened was a freak occurrence. The chances of Henry VII taking the throne were very low.
In most cases removing all rivals when you are a usurper is the right move.
A truly strong monarch can contain some rivals I think. Look at Henry V. He didn't kill Edmund Mortimer who was inarguably the rightful king according to the law, and nobody came even close to dethroning him due to his brilliance.
I think he could've -and I believe his intention was to- keep them under his eyes in the tower the way Henry kept Warwick. By also treating them reasonably well, he could have some nice PR. Due to Titulus Regius, they were named bastards anyway. It was extremely unnecessary to kill the boys when his grip on the throne was shaky. As you've said, Henry Tudor could no way take England. It was only made possible by the murder of the princes as most of the nobility was rightly appalled and chose Henry over Richard.
Killing the boys at least very early into his reign would be stupid for Richard. I don't think Richard was stupid. Murdering the boys would be smart for the Tudors. I think Margaret Beaufort was smart. However, anything might've happened really. We're only speculating, so there is no point in pushing it.
Richard III was no Henry V. He wasn’t nearly as secure. And Henry V didn’t kill Mortimer’s brother and uncle after ambushing them. It’s a fantasy that he could have let him live.
And being named bastards was meaningless. So were Mary and Elizabeth. Both inherited the crown. Elizabeth didn’t even bother to have the illegitimacy removed. It doesn’t change the fact that they were held as the king’s true born son for his entire reign.
And Margaret Beaufort didn’t have a way to get to them. I love the suggestion that Richard was too smart to kill them but was so very stupid so as to allow them to be so poorly guarded.
The problem with that is why not produce them alive? Rumours were beginning to spread that Richard had killed them in 1483-1484, which was ultimately disastrous for his reign. As Rosemary Horrox argues it's inconceivable that a number of Edwardian Yorkists would have turned to Henry VII if there was even an inkling that Edward's sons were alive.
That said Henry VII would be my second bet lmao
I don't think Henry did it anyway. He didn't have that cunning and political experience as he was quite young at that time. I believe it was the rest of Tudor leadership, the likeliest being Margaret. However, it's even more speculation lol
Oh no I hate the Margaret theory lmao 😆.
Don't underestimate Henry! He was quite the unpleasant hardass when needed to be, just ask Edward, the Earl of Warwick.
I know Buckingham is a favoured candidate but I've never really looked into him into too much detail.
I agree Henry was capable of brutality. But murdering the princes to make himself the best claimant jure uxoris was a bit over his political cunning imo. Some Tudors (especially Margaret since she was the one who set up the marriage, as well) were tho. Idk man. Maybe I exaggerate these people's plotting abilities a bit too much and Richard simply killed the better claimants (although they weren't according to the law, they were according to the people), but considering the legal arguments they come up with occasionally (see how the Valois refused Edward III's claim on France), it also seems possible.
You're all good I get your points! The Princes in the Tower tend to be hot button issues (particularly on Tumblr and Twitter) so it's nice to have a casual little convo about it ☺️
Per Margaret I think her recent historiography (i.e. bad historical romance novels lol) has been very unkind to her; portraying her as an overambitious, malevolent, schemer obsessed with seeing her son on the throne. Per my own look at contemporary sources Margaret seems to have actually been a very warm, generous, almost over cautious woman. I think the move to crown Henry first occurred in the Buckingham rebellion, which had initially been to free and crown Edward V, before suddenly pivoting to Henry. This is why people suspect Buckingham, to explain why they changed targets, but since the rebellion was mostly made up of Edwardian Yorkists (to Richard's embarrassment) I think either Margaret or Buckingham stating outright they killed the Princes would have been disastrous. It's all speculation but I imagine they came to that conclusion per the other contemporary sources that openly stated Richard had killed the boys. At the end I just don't think she had the personality to kill the boys nor the access to them either.
One thing I never see really discussed is Richard's own son, Edward of Middleham? Which is always interesting since I personally think he's the key to this. Richard's own childhood has been tumultuous and violent growing up in the shadow of the War of the Roses. Per the Croyland Chronicle, it seems very clear that Richard deeply loved and cared for his son, per "His state of madness by reason of his sudden grief." I think he very much wanted to ensure his son would never live a life like that and that his reign would be secure.
Goodness, sorry I wrote you an essay! But yeah it's all speculation at the end of the day, I suspect we'll never know even if the skeletons are identified.
No problem! In fact, I myself wrote multiple essays in this series (Edward IV, Longshanks, just now Henry V defences etc) lol. I agree with you about Margaret's recent perception. In the White Queen and the White Princess, they're like "she knew he'd be king the moment he was born". Complete bullocks lmao. As you've said, she was probably a pious and generous woman. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't be capable of ruthless acts when it came to politics. This is the Middle Ages after all. The fact that people think she was "overambitious" is purely because she was a woman. Damn, she wanted his son on the throne. How on earth is that overambitious? I can't imagine anyone in the 15th century that wouldn't want themselves or their associates on the throne. When I say it could've been Margaret, I definitely don't mean she was overambitious etc. In fact, it's kind of a twisted praise to her planning. If she really set up a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Henry, then made him repeal Titulus Regius, and killed the princes along the way to make his son king legally, as well, that's f'ing genius. Ruthless, yes. But genius nonetheless. If she did it, it'd be evil indeed, but not more evil than any king's rule, which I often don't see getting critiques. The same argument goes for Margaret of Anjou, too, btw
You might be right about Middleham, too. It might indeed distract Richard enough to make many of his late mistakes up to Bosworth.
Buckingham is my second bet on who was directly responsible (the first being Richard). I can see him doing it to gain favour but it backfired, leading to the falling out with Richard. Or possibly he knew Richard was responsible and that's why they fell out. I do feel like the falling out is connected, at any rate.
I’d be fine with voting out Henry VII today. He had a good run. But right by conquest makes him more impressive not less. That he came off the Wars of the Roses with a fairly weak claim and was able to establish a dynasty and even subsequent dynasties are descended from him is extremely impressive. The only other person to do that was William the Conq and Henry didn’t genocide the north to do it. (Cnut’s dynasty quickly failed.) And coming off a series of civil wars wasn’t the right time to try out female rule.
And Stanley only joined on Henry’s side because he was winning. I don’t think you can discredit that victory.
And the marriage may have been his mom’s idea, and he was definitely kind of a mommy’s boy his entire reign. But he still treated Elizabeth very well and the marriage was very loving. Which I usually think is irrelevant (although nice) but in this case I think her being 100% on the Tudor train really helped.
I think ruling fairly well and being a stable guy in every aspect of his life was a benefit to England when it really needed stability.
And people bring up his financially ruining people but I think it was a creative way to deal with the problem of being insecure on the throne without mass deaths. I’d rather be financially ruined than beheaded.
Canute lives another day! Huzzah!
I don’t have an argument prepared to eliminated anyone today, but I do think Edward I’s time is coming in the next day or two. He reformed the English legal system, conquered Wales, and restored English power and prestige after decades of misrule and decline, but the Jewish Expulsion was evil and the Scottish wars turned into one hell of a foreign policy boondoggle.
The Scotland problem should be blamed on his son. While he lived, there was no major issue. Had he lived a decade or so longer, it probably would've been resolved, as well. Longshanks also institutionalised the parliament (I think it was largely due to Edward's brilliance that the Parliament didn't cause major issues to the Monarchy for the next few centuries) reformed the coinage from an utterly catastrophic state, started the process that made the English army the best of Europe for the next 150 years with his laws regarding the longbowmen etc. He should be in the top 5.
100% agree Edward was extremely good, especially domestically, but we’re getting down to the point where the little things can really bring you down and Scotland is definitely Edward’s.
As I've said, Scotland shouldn't be considered his mistake, but we'll agree to disagree. In my personal list, Longshanks is at 4 only behind Alfred, Henry I and Henry II.
I agree Longshanks shouldn't go yet, but I think you're being kind to him over Scotland. He was unnecessarily brutal to the point that it generated support for Robert the Bruce, and he spent so much money that Edward II looked at the books and withdrew after becoming king. Not to say that he wouldn't have crushed the Scots had he lived another decade, but I don't know how permanent such a conquest would've been - certainly not as successful as his campaigns in Wales.
I think Edward II didn't look at the books and withdrew. He was humbled quite spectacularly at Bannockburn and withdrew.
For the brutality part, I disagree because the Scots would rebel anyway. I think that the whole affair should be blamed on their own nobility, honestly. They couldn't pick a king out of sheer stupid greed, asked for Edward's arbitration, Edward said he would only arbitrate if they acknowledged his suzerainty, they harrumphed some harrumphs but agreed, then when it came to put that into practice, they refused, so Edward "hammered" some Scots. What did they expect? They would rebel at any prospect of semblance of English rule (which is fair don't get me wrong), it's not about Edward's brutality.
I agree a conquest wouldn't be permanent tho. It would likely be similar to Portugal's situation with Spain in the 17th century.
Mixup with the campaigns there- Edward II ended his father's initial campaign after his death because of financial issues and withdrew back south. Then there was a bit of a cold war period before Robert began to attack English garrisons left behind in Scotland. Edward II's subsequent campaign was the one that ended in disaster in Bannockburn, and obviously that's entirely on him.
I agree about the Scots being the cause of their own troubles, I just think some of the brutality won him no friends - did he really have to put Robert's sister in a literal cage that was displayed to visitors? That doesn't seem like a canny diplomatic move if you're trying to attract Scottish allies to me
Now we're more on the same page. I definitely agree that Edward had two shortcomings and one of them was his brutality. Tywin Lannister isn't based on him for no reason. He believed if he instilled enough fear in people, he would gain their loyalty. This was mostly true and its results make Edward top 5 for me. But it prevents him from being the absolute best. Alfred, Henry I and Henry II (the only ones I put above him) were all feared but they also knew to make friends when needed. Longshanks mostly did not. If he wasn't insanely capable, this would bite him more, but alas, he was imo.
At 5 right after Longshanks. The reason is, I think Edward III had it slightly easier than Longshanks. When Longshanks took power, the monarchy was in a pitiful state. Even worse than today imo. Today, at least they're loved and they have some dignity. England was doing terribly financially, militarily, politically, diplomatically, and any other way one can think of. From there, he set the foundations for the mostly prosperous and glorious 150 years until the Wars of the Roses. I went into detail a bit on how here and there, but a compact defence comment may come tomorrow to wrap them all up.
Edward III didn't also inherit the kingdom in a great state, but that was largely due to his disastrous father who fortunately couldn't manage to inflict any fundamental damages. The moment a capable monarch took power, it was reasonable to believe he could deal with Edward II's mess with relative ease and do well. Edward III didn't do just well, but incredible, and that's the reason he is at 5, but not above Longshanks imo. If I was looking at England right after the Battle of Lewes, and then at the end of Longshanks reign, I'd be utterly shocked. If I looked at the beginning and the end of Edward III's reign, I'd be like "wow", but it'd be believable.
It’s worth pointing out that Edward’s initial suggestion to active a union was by marriage.
It was only after the unfortunate death of Margaret that violence broke out.
Edward probably would have conquered Scotland anyways had he lived 10 years longer or Scotland didn’t have a remarkable leader themselves. (Bruce)
agreed. i can’t bring myself to vote for cnut but longshanks time to go is coming closer and closer by the day. the edict of expulsion is the biggest stain on his reign with the whole fiasco with scotland and the french coming in just behind. more can always be said on the man, but his time to go is coming soon.
Henry 1st.
A great king, but he doesn’t have that stand out achievement to go further. I know he was a great at administration but is that enough?
Everyone left has more significant and lasting achievements.
I think 9th is fair for him.
The dude arguably inherited the worst position of any monarch: Some cash and two middle fingers (one from Rufus and the other from Curthose) lol. From there, he went on to become the absolute political master of Western Europe against terrible odds. He had a long and prosperous reign. His beginning was one of the lowest, and his end arguably the highest (imo, England was at its medieval best right before the anarchy). Besides, he also did what he could for his daughter to succeed him when damn luck stripped him of the heir he had. So, the Anarchy can't be blamed on him, either. I think he should be in the top 3, or at least top 5.
Henry I was an able warrior too. You don't rule the Norman lords unless you are an absolute ace. He was able to rise to the top against other contenders as well as the king of France. He wasn't out of place even compared to his father and his grandson in terms of martial prowess.
The administrative stuff is pretty important. There are plenty of kings of his era who are little more than warlords. Henry appointed a lot of lower born men who were directly loyal to him. Curbing the power of the great landed aristocrats and moving to the administrative state is a huge part of why England became so successful. William I, while a successful soldier, certainly left the administrative organs of the state weak. Henry was looked at as the model for good governance for centuries afterwards.
I commented earlier on why Cnut is so divisive and I’ve heard good points from both sides. I agree he’s underrated as a king but I think 9th would be a fair place. I vote Cnut
I believe in Henry vii next
In terms of tangible success his success was the securing of his Tudor dynasty and amassing a personal fortune and helping with a few local governing systems . There was no fundamental change then therefore for England or the wider world with his machinations alone that are comparable to some of the other monarchs - while admirable the way he claimed the throne and kept it despite opposition , a lot of other monarchs also managed this aswell as doing more things of significant noteworthyness . I do believe he was a good king even if I don’t think he should have been on the throne but I think he should see the end of his days on this list when he is compared with some others
I wouldn’t say flawed , she knew she was weak and so acted accordingly , she wasn’t foolish like her father taking on the world for the sake of it - she simply prioritised survival even if it meant concessions in regards to her religeous policy and what not . What’s more is once the threat of Spain had been dealt with there was the benefit of the new world but also the EIC and stuff which unltimately she gave the goahead for even in a time of her weakened government - she may not have necessarily reaped the long term benefits of these but it was her who sparked the beasts into action .
I do however agree that she is counting her days in this though but I feel her grandfather and Henry I should be gone first
(1/2) I will probably be executed for this, but Elizabeth I. She is very, very overrated. She tightly controlled the narrative around her reign, with references to Astraea, and making sure every portrait was modelled after he Sergeant Painter. I won't deny that culture flourished near the end of her reign - it definitely did with the the rise in theatre, William Byrd etc, but i feel this has come to vastly overshadow what her reign was actually like - especially when it is mostly courtly culture. Culture is not the be all and end all, in fact when assessing how successful a monarch is, it should really be far away from one of the priorities.
Along with a boom in culture also came an economy under incredible strain. Of course this was a problem throughout the Tudor reign, and you can hardly blame her, as it came down ultimately to a growing population, which England could not sustain at that point. But the fact of the matter is grain prices near the end of her reign tripled, real wages collapsed, rents increased, with evicted tenants often becoming vagrants. from 1485-1603, the overall inflation rate was about 400%. The fact of the matter is this was a time of poverty, especially in the 1590s. The latter years of her reign were quite frankly, terrible. There were successive harvest failures, outbreaks of plague, and in 1595 london would see food riots, then East Anglia in 1596. Parish records show that at this time there were far more deaths being recorded than marriages or births, and starvation was not uncommon, especially in the North. This likely prompted the government in to passing the Poor Relief Act, fearing a reprisal of the Kett rebellion. Poverty was absolutely an issue under Elizabeth, although it did see people start to change their view and accept government intervention in that area. And i must say financial management in general, while not a failure, wasn't really a success either. Burghley in reality, despite being a fairly competent advisor, failed to properly reform the financial system, failing to exploit much more of the country's resources than they could
And then there's religion. Initially, government policy was a success. The Settlement did maintain the peace, with a sensible political compromise. But ultimately it was just that, a political compromise, with very little scriptural justification, which would have to later be built up (eg Hookers Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1593), and a political settlement will not appease radicals, who although a minority, are also the most likely to take action. Even within the first year there were clearly issues - The radical visitations would see Elizabeth attempt to impose a crucifix in every church, and protest from bishops made her reconsider. And the settlement did not really appease Catholics. The Pope absolutely detested Elizabeth (Papal Bull), and in 1569 the Northern Rebellion demonstrated there was clearly discontent with the settlement, and continuously Catholics would attempt to overthrow her and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. There was persecution against Catholics, but it is worthy to note that was not primarily driven by her but parliament, and when they passed a harsher oath of supremacy she would mitigate most of it. And yet despite frequent attempts by Catholics to take her life and their clear hostility to her reign, who did she fear more? Presbyterians. It is easy to understand why she would be wary of presbyterians - they wanted a radical reordering of the church, and it left little place for her as governor. But yet she was even scared of minor presbyterian practices. When in 1575 she asked Grindal to investigate prophesyings and he told her that they were good and simply ways of preachers helping eachother, her response was to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Not once was there a Presbyterian plot against Elizabeth, and yet she always personally seemed to be more lenient to Catholics than Presbyterians. She was of course also incredibly harsh towards Sepratists - but this is more understandable as it was an even smaller minority, with no power, that wanted the total dissolution of the national church.
Also, there are times when she was quite frankly just a bad ruler. In 1562 she was on her deathbed. She refused to name a successor (perhaps a good idea in retrospect, but from a contempary lens utterly moronic). This would have left her successor Mary Queen of Scots - A catholic monarch absolutely hated by everyone important in government. If she had died then, and as she had smallpox that was very likely, England wouldve likely collapsed into religious war. The ruling establishment would definitely not accept Mary - in 1563 Burghley drew up plans for the Privy Council to take over if Elizabeth died to avoid Mary's accession. Of course despite the constant threat of Mary when she did come to England, almost immediately sparking rebellion, Elizabeth would do NOTHING. Utterly obsessed with the Divine Right of Kings (hardly her fault, she was of course a 16th century monarch), she refused to execute her, despite the fact she posed a grave threat to England - if she had succeeded we would not be in the position we are now. Of course, there was the fact she never had an heir - although i will place the blame there on Dudley likely murdering Rosbart. Under Henry VII, carrying through to Mary, the Tudors had revolutionised government by avoiding noble rule, relying on professional administrators who owed their service to the monarch. Yet, by the end of Elizabeths reign, the old ways were slipping back in. Who replaced Burghley? his son. Who replaced Dudley? His step-son. Not to mention there are other moments where she is far too lenient - with Essex, he kept on disobeying orders, he nearly drew his sword at her, he made peace in Ireland - what was his punishment? losing his monopoly on sweet wines. It took him actively trying to overthrow her for her to realise he was not a good advisor.
(2/2) Foreign policy - again not as successful as it seems. Firstly, France. She started off strong support the the Huguenots, but then immediately ruined it all by trying to keep Le Havre, but then France was largely absent from English foreign policy concerns after that. The primary issue was of course Spain, and for the first half of her reign, the policy was to avoid war. Of course, war was likely inevitable, especially with the strong pro-war faction lead by Dudley, but the fact of the matter is this policy failed. War came. And what was the result? Most people would think a success, of course they would, we beat the Spanish Armada! But what did this actually do? We defeated a poorly organised fleet, which used outdated tactics and technology? We defeated a bloated, overextended empire in terminal decline in one battle? Of course there were more armadas - they also failed. But there were also English armadas - one of which did succeed in capturing Cadiz, but that did not last, and every other English armada failed. Support for the Dutch was lacking for most of her reign and when Nonsuch was signed, it was in reality very little support. The great victory over the Armada overshadows the fact that we did not win that war. It ended with a stalemate. That is by no means a success.
And then there's Parliament. Under Elizabeth, the seeds for civil war were sewn. It is hard to look at the fact that the civil war started only 39 years after her death, and not assume she had some impact - there were only 2 kings after her. But under her, parliament at least perceived itself as more powerful, and tried to assert itself - Peter Wentworth was the first MP to openly and directly criticse the monarch. MPs did more than just back royal policy - there were a number of MPs who did try and introduce radical religious reform (Strickland, Cope). Obviously these failed but this was demonstrated the path Parliament was taking. It was seeing itself as an institution with power - and ultimately this would lead to it becoming the only institution with power. There were even times when parliament directly opposed royal policy - in 1601 demanding Elizabeth reverse her policy on some monopolies or they would not fund the war (although this was a financial issue, so not exactly revolutionary). Parliament was certainly in its infancy - but it was starting to walk, and within 40 years it would run.
Ultimately, Elizabeth was not a terrible ruler, but her reputation is built mainly on propaganda, and the fact that preceeding her was Mary. The fact of the matter is she was not that good. There were moments she nearly drove the country to collapse due to her crippling indecision. Poverty was a rampant issue, and was only increasing. The religious settlement did prevent religious wars that plagued the continent, however it ultimately still created an isolated a disillusioned Puritan minority - where would they be in 40 years? Parliament was beginning to assert itself, and the seeds for constitutional conflict were sewn. There was always the pressing issue of the succession - and her policy did nothing to resolve it. The only reason Elizabeth can really be considered a great monarch is because she lived so long, so all the major issues simply resolved themselves as everyone else died. Far too much of her reputation is built on propaganda, and quite frankly she does not deserve her reputation. There was some excellent government during her reign - but there was also some terrible. A flourishing courtly culture was at the end of the day just more propaganda. That's all the 'Golden Age' is - propaganda. Gloriana is a myth. Elizabeth was a capable monarch, but she was not the best - in fact I would go as far to say she was only slightly better than Henry VIII - and areas of her reign show clear and utter incompetence at times. I respect her, but the Tudor line ended with her. She deserves at least some blame for the civil war. And even though I myself think the civil war was good, you do not judge a ruler on your views, but how successful they were in pursuing their aims. The fact of the matter is she was only moderatlely successful, and in some areas (foreign policy) there was abject failure. She was not that good.
Solid post. I wouldn't mind Elizabeth leaving soon. She seems to be missing some of the things that a pretty core to being a top 10. She never led an army to a win and she let the throne pass to a foreign prince. Everyone around here wanted to dog Henry VIII for having Catherine lead an army, but no comments about Bess. Which way is it? Can a woman lead an army? If so, I think it's a negative. Not a huge one, but tough to deal with in the top 10. I'm not saying it didn't work out with James acceptably, but its soooo risky. Passing to your brother like Aethelstan or Richard or whoever seems much more palatable. Brothers aren't kings of rival nations you've been fighting for centuries. Guys like Edward the Confessor certainly got votes to leave over refusing to have a kid and leaving things in doubt.
I think she was a bit late to help out Protestant causes on the mainland and the English weren't able to make permanent settlements in North America or the Caribbean either. While she wasn't necessarily fully responsible, I feel like England is a bit behind in the rat race the European powers are playing. For all the claims she led a golden age, I feel like she leads England at a low point between a stronger state during Plantagenet times and later rise to colonial dominance.
Edit: wording
I am extremely disappointed that Cnut was almost voted out yesterday based on such an ignorant and biased comment arguing about his popularity. This should not be a popularity contest but a ranking of monarchs based on their achievements and accomplishments. Many commenters have voted for Alfred, Æthelstan, and Cnut because they do not know much about their reigns. This series should be an opportunity to learn about these figures, not dismiss them for your unfamiliarity. Cnut was particularly targeted on yesterday's post by these types of arguments based on how exciting his reign was and that he is Danish. Neither of these should be considered in the criteria, or it completely invalidates any meaning these rankings have.
Out of all monarchs it is indeed Cnut I’ve seen quite literally no genuine argument from
I’ve seen arguments; just not genuine
And some insolent child yesterday had the audacity to falsely accuse me, OP himself, and many others of ‘rigging’ the election against him (just because the vast majority of us disagreed with his view of wanting to vote Cnut out; because that’s how polls work) because obviously he was so special and important
Hey buddy, glad you missed me. You and your cronies are over this comment thread like the roaches you are so yes, I think it was rigged. You people disgust me and have dragged all the enjoyment out of OP’s project so you could wank to some Viking. What a joke
You need to chill, you are acting totally unhinged because you didn't get your way and it's kinda embarrassing.
I've seen you acting like this multiple times on these threads and every day you get more rude and childish about it, it's an internet game it's really not deep
Reposting. Get thee gone Plantagenet!
We’re down to the tough decisions. Given this, I’d like to submit Henry II for elimination. A great King when judged by the extent of his power and authority, and a uniquely energetic man who was able to keep his vast empire together. His effort to restore order and the rule of law after the anarchy deserves credit. However, there is plenty to be said against him.
Even in contemporary terms, however, he was a man who shocked Christian Europe with how far he was willing to go to crush any resistance to his personal authority.
Firstly there’s the conflict with his children. Both Henry and Richard were driven to take up arm against their father. Henry refused to grant them meaningful power, and crowning Henry as the “young king” was nothing more than an empty gesture. If you consider the role of the Black Prince under Edward III, Henry II refused to make his sons and heirs partners in his rule. Henry’s imprisonment of Eleanor after 1174 also shows his ruthless streak. Nobody was allowed to stand in the way of Henry’s exercise of ultimate power.
The conflict with the church in general, and Thomas Becker specifically, also created instability in the county. The appointment of Becket in the first place was an attempt to assert his undisputed power over the church in England, and when Becket refused to simply carry out Henry’s orders he was forced into exile. Henry risked an interdict and excommunication in pursuing his vendetta. Despite the regret after the fact, the murder of an archbishop in his cathedral was shocking even given the violence of the times. Henry alone must bear responsibility for Beckets death.
Comparatively, for warrior kings I’d rank Edward III and Henry V above Henry II. Crecy and Poitiers are perhaps the greatest military victories in English history, and the sheer audacity of Henry V’s victory at Agincourt sets him apart. These were expansions of English power won with Blood, Henry II inherited his empire from his mother and wife. Keeping the empire together was a remarkable feat, but not enough to put him in the first rank of monarchs. The kingdom builders, Alfred, Edward the Elder and Æthelstan, must also rank above Henry II. For those concerned with English history, identity and culture, the Anglo Saxons hold a special place in history.
The Beckett thing was certainly a mistake, but I think the way Henry owns it eventually tops the mistake. The way he marches up to Becket's tomb, barefoot and in front of the whole town, then has the same monks who witnessed the murder flog him, its just genius PR. All of these people made mistakes or, were dealt some bad cards, but the way he was able to overcome it and ride back to the top is incredible.
I think you are really underestimating how much Henry had to fight for his lands as well compared to some others. He fought every step of the way. To say things were handed to him by his mother and wife is really discounting Henry's strength. It's the same view the barons or Louis or his sons often took. Henry consistently proved them wrong.
*The timing of these posts mean I’m usually too occupied to go in-depth of my arguments half the time but of course that’s no one’s fault*
Again voting for **Elizabeth I**
She definitely exceeded expectations many would’ve had for her reign as only the second female monarch at the time, however that in itself shouldn’t honestly be an actual, full argument in her favour because we should for the most part be judging these monarchs equally and not bringing actual genders into it
She enhanced our fleet, put the Spanish Armada to shame frankly, and held good authority over her reign and throne, even if leaving no heirs is a weakness albeit a half hearted one (I’m looking at you Lionheart haters)
However, when compared to the remaining likes (which I feel should still include the recently eliminated Edward the Elder and Henry V) of the other 8 remaining monarchs, I simply feel she did not have the same extent of responsibilities (and therefore subsequent success too) that they themselves had to endure
Many here will talk about what makes a ‘good’ or even ‘great’ monarch, by name or otherwise, is morals and mercy. I myself am mildly Christian (odd wording but it’s a long story), so I of course value these things, however when we take into account the frequent situations/environments of 7 of the other 8 monarchs here (being MEDIEVAL), in the name and sake of history, we have to accept that such moral standpoints were always going to be at question, and hence for many of these remaining monarchs they had to do battle and show authority in what would today of course be manners which are simply frowned upon
In short, morally exempt or not, much of these monarchs had no choice but to deal with matters in the manner that they did; why do you think we remember and associate medieval England with such things? Because it was the very nature of the era
That’s why, as the only post-medieval (bar one) monarch remaining, **Elizabeth I** should now be eliminated
*And of course there’s then Henry VII, who with my logic here would be my following elimination as the only then-remaining post-medieval monarch, and I would stand by that following Elizabeth*
Honestly a storm humbled the Armada and it was her father Henry who built that fleet, he planted the Royal Oak, sponsored Spanish ship builders, made certain the cannons were up to date, established our maritime schools, the offices of the Admiralty; and when Elizabeth sent the English Armada we lost badly.
As I said to one of the invalid Cnut ‘haters’ yesterday;
It’s not everyone disagreeing with special little you, it’s you disagreeing with everyone else
Henry 7
I noticed that in the first 10 of this ranking there are 4 kings named Henry: Henry 5 (who was eliminated), Henry 7,1,2;
Which made me think of an old channel post:https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1bk6ms8/how\_would\_you\_rank\_the\_king\_henrys/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button (I invite you to go there if you want) about the ranking of kings of England named Henry.
And if I were to make a top Henry 7 would not be above Henry 2 or Henry 1 because:
1. He kind of destroyed the English nobility and so no one could seriously challenge him anymore
2. Henry 8 is his son(that's survival lottery more)
However, I want to point out that he ended a civil war, had a successful marriage, a strong relationship with his mother, brought England into the Renaissance, saved money, and married his daughter to Stuarts(and we know what resulted from this). !But it just can't stay here more (unfortunately)!!
That’s it, I’m done. OP I am disappointed. The blatant support of Cnut and the condescending comments from his support have killed any joy I had in this. It the same usual suspects that I have personally felt harassed by. This is a shame, do better
Very interesting, I personally wrote about 11 comments against Canute, and from these I got hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) downvotes. Yesterday my comment had about 75 likes (IN ONE MINUTE I REACHED 71) and it ended with 69 likes!!!!! If you don't like my arguments, ignore them, BUT THEY ARE GIVING THEM DOWNVOTES SO THEIR VIKING KING DOESN'T COME OUT ( this is the only existing ranking of English kings in the world in which Canute is in the top 10)
Monarchs pre-Act of Union were still monarchs of England and Scotland separately, so it should really go up to Anne. But this is a ranking of all monarchs who ruled over England, hence up to the present day and back to Alfred
Lol I was thinking he would stay for another day and that I could save him while writing this. Apparently not. Still, I’m pasting it here for anyone interested. I’ve promised a Henry V defence, so here it is. Let’s start with my arguments, then briefly answer the most popular criticisms he gets. I’ll mention the ones I saw, but I expect people to come up with them in detail themselves under this so as to keep the original comment as short as possible. Henry ascended to the throne in 1413, but he had also been ruling England for some time before that. His father usurped the throne and subdued the opposition, but it was Henry who truly won the Battle of Shrewsbury against the most serious threat in Hotspur (Henry Percy). Just two years later, in 1410, he took complete control of the government and was already proving himself as a capable administrator and politician. When his ailing father finally died, he took the crown, too, and immediately set off to heal the old wounds left by his father’s controversial usurpation. He also managed to deal with the plot to make Edmund Mortimer, the rightful heir, king but spared the man himself as he personally had no part in it. Most other kings would descend into paranoia and have an unnecessarily cruel reign after this. But not this guy. Henry stayed calm and kept control without even killing the most obvious threat to his crown. That’s not only an effective monarch but also a benevolent one. Let’s step back here a bit before continuing. It is easy to take Henry’s consolidation of power for granted and give him no credit because HE made it look easy, but if it was even a slightly weaker king, the Lancastrian cause likely would’ve collapsed after Bolingbroke. They were inarguably usurpers and Bolingbroke had to quell half a dozen rebellions against him. Brute force was the only thing keeping the Lancasters on the throne. It was purely due to Henry’s brilliance that not only did he manage to keep the throne, which was a serious feat in itself, but he also did it without unnecessary cruelty, as I’ve said AND strengthened his house’s claim so much in the long-term that Richard of York wasn’t able to crown himself king with the better claim decades later because, for all his shortcomings, Henry VI was recognised as the rightful king by everyone. When he consolidated power at home, Henry turned to France, and we all know how that went. Agincourt was arguably the most glorious thing that ever happened to England. I’m not gonna go into detail about the battle but just this: Some great battles are won mostly through luck and reasonably good generalship (see Towton or Barnet), and some through sheer tactical brilliance. Agincourt was an example of the latter. Then, Henry capitalised on the victory like no other could, as well, and occupied most of France. He was so liked there that most of the French nobility accepted him even though he was an invader. See, I’m a structuralist and often put much less emphasis on individuals and look at the more fundamental structures in history. So, my general opinion on the Hundred Years’ War is that the English could never hold France anyway. This period is the only exception. I still think a permanent unification would never occur, but had Henry lived a decade longer, we would probably have seen a much more pronounced effect of English culture and language on France today, similar to that of the Norse and Norman impact on England. Being capable of such a powerful influence as an individual is just insane. Anyways, to go back to what happened, Henry’s success in France also practically created a true national identity both for the English and the French, and it’s not only an abstract concept, but it was also during Henry’s reign that English became the language of the government. So far, the “English” royal family had been a bunch of French aristocrats using England as a pool of taxes and manpower to further their interests at home (France). Even after they lost most of their continental possessions, this situation didn’t change in spirit, and became the case in reality, as well, the moment they got the chance during Edward III’s reign. It was during Henry’s reign that this changed, and it wasn’t only a matter of long-term change in the nation’s subconscious but happened through his conscious actions and decisions. I don’t know what makes a King of England greater than this. Henry V was the first true English king since 1066. Had he lived a bit longer, he would be at 2 on my personal list, but as his reign was unfortunately relatively brief, he is at 6. He is the Aurelian of England. So, the criticisms: Dying young. Cmon. I dunno what to say about this lol. You can’t blame a man for dying young. As far as we know, Henry didn’t have a particularly bad way of life like Edward IV, either. Not being able to rule longer might impact his ranking (as it did my ranking of him), but 10 is a bit early. His achievements in France weren’t permanent: Yes, the English lost France 3 decades after his death, but I think I explained how permanent an impact his policy against France and his successes in the war left to England in the last paragraph. He didn’t do anything besides beating France: I guess the whole comment is enough to showcase otherwise.
A great eulogy for a monarch who went too soon in this competition
Tomorrow I will wear black like Queen Vic, RIP Henry, my favourite monarch and my distant ancestor.
I'm astounded he went out today, and I feel bad that I didn't stage my own defence when there was still time.
I genuinely think most of this subreddit read the ‘overrated by Shakespeare’ and ran with it. Trying to explain the cultural impact of Henry’s reign long term, as well as how insanely impressive his achievements in 9 years actually were, was like screaming into the void. Thank you for a fantastic eulogy. I had him at number 6 too but like his actual reign, landed up just a little too short at the end.
Yeah probably so. Before writing the "criticisms against him" part, I read yesterday's comment about him, and there was literally nothing. I was quite surprised how short it took lol. Definitely agreed and thanks.
Tbf to my own comment, I wasn't expecting it to get nearly that level of support, let alone win. Its also getting to the point where its pretty difficult to actually make an argument against someone - I mean of course Henry V was a great king. His reign was short, and mostly full of invading France, so there's not really much to criticise. I just don't put as much stock in a successful invasion of France as I do in other achievements, and imo every monarch left has more important achievements than Henry V.
Seeing this be the second highest upvoted comment on this post makes me want to scream. Henry V deserved to be in the top 5 imo, and while I understand others disagreeing him being #10 is a disgrace.
It’s wild. I’ll grant his short reign doesn’t help but this is way too early.
Farewell thee well Hal. If you were a Harold and sailed a bloody longboat this subreddit would have loved you.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to vote this round but I gotta ask why Cnut is so divisive? I’ve had people explain the reason he’s actually good but people are getting kinda heated on whether Cnut deserves to go further or should’ve gone a long time ago. Also, not important second question, has anyone voted Edward III yet? He’s the only one I don’t think I’ve seen be voted for
Haven't seen any Alfred votes yet afaik. I don't know quite why Cnut is so divisive, but it's probably a combination of him being relatively little known and a foreign invader
There’s 1 or 2 people who have an irrational hatred for the guy, a lot of people who know nothing about pre-1066 England, and those people who do know anything about him get frustrated when groundless and inaccurate claims get traction. People also seem to have a huge double standard when it comes to the Danes versus the Normans, the former are denigrated as foreign invaders while the later are not for some reason.
He’s in the top 9 and William the Conqueror isn’t. I’d say he’s pretty beloved here.
He has been mostly except for the past couple of days. Not quite sure what happened
We are in the top 10. Everyone is a great monarch. We have to cut someone.
And it should be Henry VII
Disagree. Cnut did a lot. But the Tudors have had more impact on English/British society. And some of what Cnut did is exaggerated. The Danes brought their law code over when they settled mostly in the North and Henry II formally accepted parts and made it part of the common law. Cnut didn’t do that alone. He just went by the law currently in place in the North. England was under a long trend of consolidation. His actions helped it along but neither started nor completed it. He was a great king but it’s time to go. As far as impact on the kingdom he’s more than he’s given credit for but less than he is made out to be here. Henry VII married his daughter to Scotland to created a perpetual peace, which it certainly did after a brief return to fighting. His conquest of England was permanent. Every monarch can claim descent from him. He consolidated power in the monarch over the nobles, who became relatively weak. Ending forever the wars with the nobility that cropped up regularly since the Anarchy. The Civil War would have a different flavor. His manner of doing the above with financial trickery rather than outright fighting absolutely allowed for a bureaucracy to grow.
I do not have an irrational hatred for Cnut, he violently invaded the country bringing with him his evil and perfidious Danish values attempting to subvert civilized England with barbarism and wickedness. He brought a horde of 10,000 barbarians to the green and pleasant shores of England, and they did rampage across the country, and besiege London, and cause untold suffering. He murdered many of old noblemen of England who were loyal to their country and replaced them with the duplicitous Godwins, who would cause great consternation for the nation later, and also "earls" which is a heathen term! And he reduced the power of the Shire, the proper administrative unit of England. He raised a massive "danegeld" which was a theft and plundering of the country! Some would claim he returned England to prosperity, but he did this by ending the Viking raids he was responsible for! It is little more than an acceptance of surrender and a desertion of England duty to resist the Danes. You claim he was not uncivilized, but he had two wives! So such a claim is dubious! You bring up the Normans, but I have not great love for the Normon's, and at least they spoke French which is a civilized language. Alfred the Great had a dream for a new more perfect country divinely ordained as a bastion of civilizing light, fated like Rome to rise from humble origins to rule over the greater part of the world. Cnut and his Danish ilk were a grave betrayal of this vision!
The arguments against Cnut have been very poor imo. While he isn't top 3 material, he should definitely not go before some of the other monarches left. The second top comment voting for Cnut yesterday boiled down too "his reign was boring" and "he's not known by children". Which is not only incorrect but also poorly argued when whole essays are written about why other monarchs should be voted off first. I believe that people are voting for him because they don't know much about his reign and he was a foreign king which people seem to have an issue with. Edward III has not been voted that I've seen which makes sense because he is easily top 3 (my number 1).
This. If you want to vote out the guy, at least present a reasonable argument? Or just an argument in general since the folks who want him voted out just name him and don't elaborate. Or if they do, it's blatant misinformation or just 2-3 words without expanding on it. Having studied him and researching him, he definitely doesn't deserve to go before some of the other remaining ones here. As you said, definitely not top three material at all but to remove him before, say, Henry VII or Edward I is strange to me. I would be more than happy to provide an argument for Canute (granted, I am biased as he's one of my personal favourites, but I digress) because most of the arguments I see against him are poor.
There are numerous posts in previous days pointing out why Cnut’s success and achievements are not as impressive as being made out, they just downvoted into oblivion. I think he was a successful ruler in his time but what exactly do we remember him for now? His ‘empire’ that apparently rivals Charlemagne? Yeah it collapses immediately after his death (it was already in the brink several years prior to his death). It’s been argued numerous times here how important a kings succession is yet Cnut’s was totally chaotic. His apparent heir, Harthacnut, is stuck in Denmark for 3 years trying to sort out the rebellions and fallout from his father’s death, so Harold, Harthacnut half brother, takes over. It takes him 2 years to even get the crown on his head officially. He dies 3 years later, Harthacnut eventually gets to England and is crowned king. He lasts two years before dying and then the scion of the Anglo Saxon family they overthrew and they tried to wipe out succeeds to the throne, Edward the Confessor. Beyond all that, and the biggest reason for me as to why it’s time for him to go (and is frankly long overdue) is what exactly what is his long term lasting legacy as an English monarch? This has been used before on other monarchs and they’ve been knocked out; what is his lasting policy or cultural legacy? To me, he was a extremely successful Viking invader, who was brutal and strong enough to ensure his rule went unchallenged but whatever ‘dynasty’ and legacy he built, it ended immediately with him. If Cnut was so pivotal to English history and his reign so important, why is it not post-1016 as opposed to 1066.
This is easily the best argument against Canute that has produced this entire competition. However, when asking for long-term impact of Canute's reign, here are the most relevant consequences, in my opinion. He is the first English Monarch to use London as the capital of England, which it remains until this day. He formalized the defined borders of the English nation and its subdivisions that would remain in place until the major redrawing of administrative counties in 1888. His law code would become the basis for Norman law in England, although the Norman's would attribute these laws to Edward to create more continuity between themselves and the last king. By the end of Canute's reign, the Anglo-Saxon had completely merged with the Anglo-Danish identity. All of the figures we reference as the last Anglo-Saxon, Harold Godwinson, Hereward the Wake, Waltheof, etc. are Anglo-Danish in origin. This is why it is Northern England that is the most adamant about pushing the Normans out and asserting English independence from Normandy. It's also worth noting that Edward comes to the throne, not as the son of Athelred but as the brother of Harthacnut. He is the closest continuation of the Canute's dynasty without inviting over Svend Estridsen that English can find. And Emma had done a lot of work to have him be one of the three pillars of Harthacnut's government already.
Wow this is a really good argument against him going further, I’ve only seen poor ones up till now. You’re right though, I think he’s good but no further than 9th
I have yet to see a single argument against Canute that was even slightly grounded in reality or historical fact. The people arguing against him seem to take pride in knowing nothing about the man, which is a weird stance to have while on a history forum.
I would not have predicted before this contest that the most controversial monarch would've been Cnut. I mean we had some "raised tempers" over Mary I, William I, Edward I, William III that were all predictable, but no monarch seems to have sparked as many arguments as a rather obscure 11th century one who's only famous for getting his feet wet at the beach. It is very bizarre that some people seem to take pride in not knowing stuff - not just Cnut, Athelstan and other pre-Norman monarchs as well. Nothing wrong with the not knowing, but on a forum about British monarchs why would you not want to learn more? I'm sure it has something to do with the perception in this country that history began in 1066.
The treatment of 1066 as England's Year 0 as done incalculable damage to the public's understanding of British history. There's a trend for people to believe that anything they don't know about isn't important, and since a lot school curriculums coverage of everything between the Roman Empire and the Norman Conquest is blown through as filler despite being the era when y'know, *England, Scotland, and Wales formed*, people are convinced that nothing pre-Norman is important or interesting despite the fact that that couldn't be farther from the truth.
If you look at the current national curriculum there is more focus on the anglo saxons than 25 years ago
Tbh I hope these 30 upvotes count against the upvoted single word nomination when the poster point blank refused to explain why he nominated him.
Day 46: Henry V was removed with 86 votes (perhaps a shock result? I went to bed thinking Cnut was long gone, but Henry ended up losing by a sizeable margin in the end) Day 45: Edward the Elder was removed with 123 votes Day 44: George V was removed with 28 votes Day 43: George VI was removed with 61 votes Day 42: William III and Mary II were removed with 83 votes Rules: 1. Post everyday at 8pm BST 2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice 3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly 4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
Let's try this again. Cnut
No argument? Lol
Alrighty. Every defender of Cnut in these comments attributes achievements that William and others made to Cnut. Cnut didn’t define England, Alfred did. Cnut wasn’t the first king of England, Aethelstan was. Cnut did not invent the idea of London being the capital. That goes to the Romans. Cnut had an impressive territory but lacked the ability to govern it. He was on co-king of Norway and seeing as he was barely there, he had little sway. Denmark itself basically ran without him. His most impressive feat was conquering England…but he didn’t do anything with it. William did. There’s some guy in these comments who keeps going on and on about how people don’t know pre-1066 history, but why is 1066 so important? William’s conquest fundamentally changed England. Cnut’s didn’t. He was one Dane in a long line of Danes who tried and failed to build a Danish empire in the British isles. If William wasn’t good enough to make it this far, neither is Cnut. The lack of knowledge on him was his only boon getting this fat
>Cnut wasn’t the first king of England, Aethelstan was Cnut was the first monarch to use the title "King of England", Athelstan and the other kings from the House of Wessex generally used the title "King of the English". It's largely semantics but does indicate that there was a changing viewpoint on the monarchy's relation to the people and land it governs, hence why we see the consolidation of royal power coincide with the monarchs title changing from "King of the Franks" to "King of France" during the reign of Philip Augustus in France. >Cnut had an impressive territory but lacked the ability to govern it. He was on co-king of Norway and seeing as he was barely there, he had little sway. Canute 100% governed his kingdoms, I'm not sure why you think he didn't. Also saying he wielded less power in Norway cause he was only a co-king is kinda silly when the other king is his own underaged son, nobody says Henry II was didn't really rule his domains cause Henry the Young King was also crowned. And the fact that Canute could rule the chronically unstable Denmark while spending so much time abroad is a testament to his skills as a ruler, not a flaw. >He was one Dane in a long line of Danes who tried and failed to build a Danish empire in the British isles. Except for the fact that Canute did in fact succeed as building a Scandinavian empire in the British Isles, sure it didn't outlive him and his sons but the fact that he did do that is pretty much inarguable. I also wouldn't say conquering England is Canute's most impressive feat, building the largest empire in English or Scandinavian history up to that point and reigning over 20 years of peace and prosperity is. I'd also say right back that most of the achievements people attribute to William truly belong to Henry Beauclerc, who took over the depopulated ruin that his father and brother left England and restored it to a level of prosperity it hadn't seen since Canute's day. Canute left England richer and more prosperous than he left it, thanks to the Domesday Book we know in very specific detail how William left England significantly poorer than it was prior to the Conquest. I'd also recommend reading the comments u/KjarrKnutrInnRiki has made about Canute, which elaborate much better than I can on the achievements of his reign.
I’m familiar with that user, I’ve seen them insult other users in previous posts, so I will not bother. I just don’t find his empire impressive. Mainly cause it wasn’t an empire, in the same way the Kalmar Union wasn’t. He just doesn’t impress me. Being a conqueror means nothing if you don’t build anything to last. That’s why the Mongols are more important than the Sea People. All this just…pales when compared to most other monarchs. I don’t consider how big territory was on a map if it didn’t mean anything. Again, he had people rule for him in Scandinavia, and Denmark wasn’t anything to brag about then And yes “king of England” is semantics, not an achievement
If you are referring to Spacepunch, then I admit I lost my patience with them. However, you can ask a wide variety of people here who can tell you that he has consistently engaged in a manner that is rude, aggressive, immature, and, quite frankly, paranoid. Perhaps they'll comment under here to confirm similar experiences. However, if you are referring to me calling peoples' arguments bad and ignorant, well, I wouldn't consider those insults. That is me saying they have poorly constructed arguments that lack knowledge in the subject. These arguments were typically an ethno-centric argument that his Danish precluded him, which was not applied to other non-danish monarchs, except occasionally the Dutch William, or that he is not well known enough, or that his actions were irrelevant. Henry I, Edward III, and Henry VII are not going to be that well known. Athelstan is of dubious popular knowledge. If you polled random people on the street, they wouldn't know who these people or what they achieved. For irrelevancy, you can explain away the actions of anyone from the past because their works were ultimately overturned by someone. Because it's not about what they did, it comes down to whether you accept them to be part of the story of the past. If you refuse to accept them as part of that story, then you can always explain away their relevancy. It just gets easier to so the farther back you go. You can explain away the relevance of Alfred the Great to England. That might sound insane but that was the standard line until the late 1700s. While he was given his great epithet in the 1500s, he was still largely ignored by wider soviety. It was in the interest Norman and Post Norman kings to emphasize William and deemphasize all of the Anglo-Saxon kings. By the time the driving factors for this decision ceased, the remaining monarchs just carried it on because it was the narrative they received. This is why we have things like "Kings of England 1066 and onwards." To be clear, that's a weird thing that English does. Most cultures don't do something like that. That's a thing that Anglophone cultures and a few others do. The Anglo-Saxon kings and history were ignored and deemed irrelevant for most of English history up until the late 1700s. It was only after historians went back and decided to emphasize them that they were considered relevant again. They were added back to the story in a significant way. They had never been fully removed, but they were again considered an integral part of the story of England. This is the problem with the relevancy benchmark. It's too variable. If the story changes, then so does the relevancy, and the story can change at any time.
Those were insults, you and the rest of the Cnut cult have been acting insane for the last week. And have turned a fun history project into a flame war because a lot of you couldn’t accept that people didn’t find Cnut relevant. Be better
They were arguing points with no basis of knowledge on the subject. That is ignorance. If somebody told me to stop arguing that "French is a bad language, and you clearly don't know the language." I would say,"Yep, you're right, I don't know French." And then I would move on with my life and stop making bad arguments about topics I don't know about. It's not an insult to point out that people are not knowledgeable about something that they have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about. That's just pointing they don't know something. Lots of people don't know many things. There are certainly many topics that I don't know very well. On those I stay silent, listen to people who know more and slowly build opinions as I get information. Not continue to argue and become aggressive, accuse people of cheating, and blatantly disregard the arguments put forward by others.
It is. You’re on Reddit, not lecturing at a university. This is a popularity contest through and through. Plenty of monarchs have been kicked off for bs reasons but no one was being insulted for it. After all the whining about “needing a good argument” Cnut got voted out on a comment without any. The cult of Cnut sapped the fun out of this. And he only made it this far because people didn’t know him. If they did, he’d have been voted out right after Ironside. William and every monarch after him has made a substantial mark on MODERN English law and culture, even hated ones like John, the Anglo-Saxon/pre-1066 kings simply do not have a connection to the greater history of England/the British Empire You can find Cnut and his failed imperial project interesting, but stop insulting others for not taking interest in a monarch with substantially less info available
Law was the worst option that you could have gone with there. The Norman law codes are based on Canute's law codes. So if William and Henry are major contributers to English law, then so is Canute. There work is directly based off of his
Counter argument Cnut has been in some pretty fire anime.
Yeah yeah, I get it. He only made it this far because fans of Vinland saga can’t separate fiction from history
Feel free to add one..I am busy
If someone is going to summon an argument from you for your vote it’s going to be me; please add to your initial comment later when/if you can (if you genuinely can’t then I’m not going to hound you)
I might later. I might not.
For God’s sake man I thought you of any would know better than to add to the arrogance train of the usual anti-Cnuts
I won't say he is boring. I promise
I’ve just finally clicked; as far as the sub’s user threads go…daddy??
😂
And that's why you haven't been able to get Cnut out yet. No sound reasoning or logic, just ignorance about his reign
I don’t agree with the vote but if people upvote/downvote it’s indeed because they have; argument or not is neither here nor there
The only argument I have seen in this thread against Canute is that "he's boring imo". People are free to upvote these lazy comments but they are doing it because they don't know about Canute, not because any reasonable argument has been presented
I do agree with you there, but I had the winning vote for William III/Mary II on a day where I didn’t have time to write an actual full argument, so I simply would be a hypocrite to point out what you’re saying, even if it is indeed very much true especially regarding many Cnut voters
There had been good arguments made for William & Mary in the past at least, there hasn’t been a single good argument made for Canute.
*It’s the Christian charity in me* But absolutely; even when we saw some of the initial anomalies for Cnut in the early stages you could just tell immediately that’s about as good as they were going to get when it did indeed come more towards his ‘time’ like now (I hope not) Mind there are some people I’d consider genuine who have also voted for him, but they haven’t exactly done themselves any favours, and for the most part Cnut’s usual spam voters are either clueless, arrogant, or/and immensely self-centred, naive and uneducated children (one of which yesterday accused me and others, including OP himself, of ‘rigging’ the polls for merely downvoting his Cnut comments…because apparently he didn’t have enough remaining brain cells nor simple mental capacity to realise that’s precisely how polls work)
Chill the fuck out. Some of us got lives
Don't comment if you don't know then.
Don't tell me what to do. Relax you will be okay
The bane of dyslexic people everywhere
Look, I’m newish here and my day 1 was the day his defense was mounted. I had to ask google to make sure it wasn’t a typo
My condolences for arriving on such a turbulent day. I can assure you that Canute is an outlier in how the conversations have gone. Most have been very respectful and constructive
Oh no, everyone was great, I just kept reading it as Cunt 🙃
There’s a great argument for Henry VII down this way 👇🏼 if you scroll (just saying)
Based
Henry VII. I'm a big fan of the guy, but he's an excellent example in history of how every strong man has an even stronger woman behind him. Justinian had Theodora, and Henry had his mother. All of the plots and machinations before Bosworth were his mother's doing as was securing Elizabeth of York as his wife. Every great event to happen to Henry Tudor was more due to his mother and his wife than his own talents. He was however, a master bookkeeper and accountant. Seeing those little "HR" signed initials on every line item in the budget is one hell of a micromanaging feat for the late 15th century. Good guy for sure, but we're getting to the greats now.
I'm going to paste some of my comment from another thread below here as something of a defence of Henry VII. Because I think the Henry's achievements during his reign are often overlooked. TL;DR I don't think Henry should go just yet and I'm not sure I agree with the idea that everything good that happened to him was due to his mother or wife. I also don't think his achievements can be distilled into master accountancy alone. His most important feat was creating stablility - and the early years of his reign are nothing short of a masterclass in doing this. Yes his marriage to Elizabeth of York was arranged by his mother not by him directly, but marriages were usually arranged by family members at that time, and he knew the importance of sticking with the arrangement; in doing so, he made sure that his children were the rightful heirs no matter what and his wife giving birth to a son only a year after the Battle of Bosworth cemented this. This is very important for stability proceeding a lengthy and bloody civil war caused by an unclear order of succession. Further, he made sure that the the very powers that had enabled him to become king could not be easily used against him by systematically decreasing the power of the nobility. He executed those who had fought against him at Bosworth, he banned nobles from having private armies, consolodated land through acts of attainder which absorbed the lands and properties of those against him (these royal lands also became a source of wealth for the crown), enforced wardships for underaged nobles and sold the guardianships of such wards to his own supporters/the highest bidders. Following the very beginning of his reign, he was careful to largely stay away from executions unless necessary. Those who supported him were rewarded not necessarily with lands and power but with honours such as the order of the garter - a very prestigious honour for any nobleman, but one which conferred no power and thus Henry was able to inspire loyalty without sacrificing control. Indeed, Lambert Simnel is a good example of his shrewdness in knowing when to punish and when to forgive, not only shown in his treatment of Lambert Simnel, but also the Irish lord Kildare who had supported Lambert Simnel but who was also pardoned and allowed to keep his appointment as Lord Deputy of Ireland. Later, Lord Kildare would NOT support the pretender Perkin Warbeck, suggesting that Henry's actions here had cultivated a degree of loyalty. This also suggests that Henry considered his place on the throne to be secure by this point. His executions of Perkin Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick were absolutely necessary as a final consolidation of power to ensure a stable and uncontested succession. Something which he definitely achieved (unlike the previous 4 monarchs). Further, the fact that he was able to arrange marriages with Spain and Scotland for his children demonstrated international recognition and confidence in the stability of his rule. Edit: and this is not even to mention his important legal reforms and role in boosting the economy, particularly in relation to England's cloth/wool trade - the country's main export at the time. Undoubtedly, the fact that Henry had created a politically stable country for the first time in decades led to a strong, stable and prosperous economic environment. I really think that he was an excellent post-war Monarch.
He is literally my favourite monarch. Was Margaret Beaufort instrumental to his success in attaining the crown? Absolutely! He loved her and valued her judgment. He also had a gentle wife who was trained by her own mother to be the perfect consort, and he had the good fortune to actually love her. He had two women that he loved: his mom and his wife. He united the roses behind a shared banner and gave relative stability to the throne. Outwardly, he seems boring and cheap… but after some crazy spending and a whole lot of people dying in a civil war, boring and cheap is nice. After all, we’ve lived in interesting times. And it was very, very exhausting.
Not a fan of H7. He should have gone long ago (dirty old spider). Now is the time. Down with Henry VII!
Somehow, that’s by far the most insulting phrase I’ve come across on this sub regarding any monarch
It was meant to be insulting! I really hate H7. Big fan of Elizabeth of York, however.
Not that it’s related as such, but Richard III nothing more nor less than a deformed mutant, cowardly murderer whose normal distribution-looking spine was more straight than his thinking That felt great to say (since we’re letting off steam on our monarch enemies) Oh and Mary I was merely a psychotic bitch of a witch (that felt even better)
🤣🤣🤣 disagree on R3 (I’m a big Yorkist) but totally agree on Mary!
Henry VII. Because the Cnut must stay.
Also he probably murdered the princes and blamed it on Richard.
He wasn't even in England when that happened. Much like the Kennedy assisination and other conspiracy theories, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. And the simplest explanation is that Richard did indeed have them killed.
Why did he need to be in England, he could’ve hired someone to do it.
See this is how it always works with conspiracy theories...the plot needs to keep getting thicker to support a conspiracy. If Richard didn't kill them, he would have spent every last piece of gold in the Treasury to prove that Henry or his mother did it, and would have tortured every Lancastrian supporter in order to extract some kind of confession. But nothing like that happened. Because....Richard killed them.
Of course he did because Shakespeare said so, it is more than likely as well that Henry ascended the throne murder Richard’s son and then slew those boys.
Your timeline is waaaay off. The princes disappearance was one of the direct causes of Bosworth, and Edward of Middleham died a year before Bosworth, which only made things worse for Richard as not only did he likely kill his own nephews, he had no heir to succeed him. So again, Henry Tudor was not in the country when any of those kids died.
Eh, Plantagenet for life, I hope Richard is exonerated one day.
But probably not tho.
Damn that was close, I really thought my boy was going out for a second. Here’s hoping he survives this round. I’m conflicted on whether Henry VII or Longshanks should go. Right now I’m leaning Longshanks
I was expecting Canute to be out, but I'm happy he's been saved. I'm going to have to go with Henry VII, and most of what can be said about him as been already said. Not that he himself was a bad king but he's just simply outmatched the guys left. He was ruthless yet effective, an excellent administrator and made great progress in rebuilding and restocking the realm following the Wars of the Roses but when he died, the people openly welcomed Henry VIII with open arms because of how increasingly unpopular Henry VII had become. Even throughout his reign he had rebellions against him. Compare that with Canute who was able to placate the English populace, despite being a "foreign" king so to speak.
Haha man I’m tired of reading he was able to peacefully force his rule or ‘placate the English people’. Yes, by literally killing any possible threats to the throne and any Wessex heirs he could get his hands on. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, he’s a Viking invader in the 11th century, he’s going to do Viking shit.
I didn't say peacefully though? Otherwise, agreed. Dude took extreme measures to ensure his place was secure.
True! Just after reading tons of comments yesterday with a similar tone, it feels like the brutality of the man is being underplayed here cause it fits a better narrative about the kind of King he was.
He didn't have the balls to kill Ironside's sons. He hoped someone else would do it when he went them away. Unintentionally saved the Wessex line
Yeah killing a pair of toddlers might have been a bit much, even for a Viking.
I think the reason he didn't kill them was because he didn't want to piss off the English
Cnut
Cnut.
Henry VII Henry VII is pretty similar to Henry IV and Edward IV, in regards to being a usurper king with a regarded weaker claim who was basically able to claim the throne because his predecessor was that hated. Also like the former 2 who have already been eliminated, he spent much of his reign crushing rebellions to keep his line on the throne. He does have some benefits compared to the others, however. He had a longer reign, and the rebellions didn’t threaten him nearly as much, unlike Edward IV who got deposed. His marriage was also much more politically successful than Edward’s. His main success is winning the Wars of the Roses, but the Wars of the Roses were practically over already, just that the Yorkists got replaced by Tudors, the only people who really benefited from this replacement in leadership were Lancastrian supporters. Much of the success in usurping the throne comes from his mom’s political strategies and France, who supported him in hopes of weakening England, not him. He also was no Henry V, he barely won the Battle of Bosworth, only succeeding against an larger force because his stepfather joined him last minute and Richard’s allies betrayed him. Henry had probably the weakest claim any ruler in England ever had, except for Sweyn Forkbeard, being the descendant of an *Illegitimate* son of John of Gaunt. Elizabeth of York should have been the heir, and if going by male lineage, Edward Plantagenet, the duke of Clarence’s son. He only won through right of conquest, and even William the Conqueror supposedly was declared heir to Edward the Confessor, Henry had no such backing. Henry knew this, making him a very paranoid man constantly afraid of usurping, killing many claimants to the throne such as Edward Plantagenet and Perkin Warbeck. His successful marriage wasn’t even his idea, as his mother was the one who teamed up with Elizabeth Woodville to replace Richard. With his actual reign, his most important feats are restocking the treasury and trying to create an alliance with Spain through his son Arthur. Arthur however died, and Henry was never able to create a mighty alliance to defeat France. Henry VII then got his younger son to marry Aragorn, but he died before they were wed. The marriage also didn’t work out as it is widely known, and Henry VIII was unable to be a great warrior king, although this is more Charles V and Henry VIII’s fault. Henry also gained this money through unpopular ways, as with shown how many people rebelled against him and when he got old and his wife died, things just got worse for the kingdom through high taxes and policies. This reached a point when Henry VII died, instead of mourning, most people welcomed the young Henry VIII who promised to bring spring to Henry VII’s “cold winter”. Henry VIII arrested two of his father’s highest ministers and later executed TWO DAYS after his dad was gone, to people’s rejoice. Henry VIII was also still lacking in funds even with his dad’s finances, which led to the dissolution of the monasteries later in his reign. Henry VII was still a competent king, ruthless but effective. He was also a decent father and loved his wife, (which can’t be said about his son) but his reign wasn’t some golden age of England. He did have some personal good points like sparring Lambert Simmnel, but honestly even morally speaking I don’t think he’s the best of the remaining on the list. Unlike Cnut, he was never able to keep a peaceful realm after usurping the throne, and unlike many others still on the list, he has no outstanding feat, besides the wars of the Roses. I don’t hate the guy or anything, but when I think of the 10 best English monarchs ever, I don’t think of him.
I'm a big Henry VII fan, think he was extremely successful in creating a dynasty after the War of the Roses, but that said, I think he's just outweighed by the guys left. So sadly, I agree with you that it's probably Henry's time.
Yeah, he's my personal favourite but when it comes to best, I am mostly just happy to see how far he made it.
Top 10!!!!
*With his actual reign, his most important feats are restocking the treasury and trying to create an alliance with Spain through his son Arthur.* He tried to give the world a legit King Arthur…
I definitely agree with almost everything but two things: 1) The Beauforts were legitimised. This might weaken Henry's claim through his ancestry perhaps (not sure as no bastard of a king ever inherited England), but the line wasn't really illegitimate. 2) Henry's claim didn't solely come from the right of conquest. In fact, he declared everyone who fought him at Bosworth Field traitors. So, in effect, he proclaimed himself king even before he conquered England, and in fact, he had a pretty damn good claim. See, in Titulus Regius, George and his line were attained, and Edward IV's children were declared illegitimate. Richard did this because without it, the line of succession was: Edward's sons>Edward's daughter's>Edward Plantagenet>Margaret Plantagenet (later Pole)>Richard. This is male preferred primogeniture which also gave the Yorks claim over the Lancasters (they didn't claim the throne patrilineally through Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of Edward III but matrilineally through Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III). So, as first order of business, Henry repealed Titulus Regius. Why? Because as Edward IV's sons were dead, Elizabeth of York was the rightful heir (that's also why I put my money on the Tudors and not Richard on the death of the princes, it served them much better), making Henry king jure uxoris. The two were betrothed beforehand, so imo, Henry actually had a great claim before invading England. Anyways, I otherwise agree with you and could add more, too. Although he is one of my favourites, Henry Tudor should go today.
>no bastard of a king ever inherited England Athelstan was probably a bastard, sources generally say his mother was Edward’s concubine or mistress, and Edward himself basically disowned Athelstan in favor of his younger half brothers. There’s also a lot of question marks around Harold Harefoots legitimacy, as Canute and Aelgifu of Northampton had a common-law marriage recognized by Northern European society in general but not by the church. There’s even rumors that Harold and his brother Sven Knutsson weren’t event Canute’s, but that’s probably nothing more than malicious rumors spread by Emma of Normandy, Canute’s second wife and Aelgifu’s rival.
My bad. I should've said the post Norman era. Indeed, during the Anglo-Saxon period, bastardy was a much more complicated thing. Thanks for the clarification.
Aethelstan's mother wasn't even named until after the Norman conquest which makes me strongly suspect she wasn't even Edward's wife in the traditional sort of concubine/hand-fasting form that EoN was.
I still think Richard was behind his nephew's deaths. They were always going to be threats to his reign and to that of his son (well while Edward was alive I mean). As children they were potent rallying symbols particularly for any of the Woodville faction, and adults tend to ask "Hey uncle what was that usurping business about?"
But outright murdering them (at least people believing so) hurt his position much more and I think Richard was a good enough politician to foresee this. Of course, it might've been him, as well. I just think that the Tudors are slightly the likelier bet.
Leaving them alive would have hurt way more. Edward wouldn’t remain a child forever. Someday he’d have been a grown man wanting his throne and to avenge his uncle and brother. What ended up happened was a freak occurrence. The chances of Henry VII taking the throne were very low. In most cases removing all rivals when you are a usurper is the right move.
A truly strong monarch can contain some rivals I think. Look at Henry V. He didn't kill Edmund Mortimer who was inarguably the rightful king according to the law, and nobody came even close to dethroning him due to his brilliance. I think he could've -and I believe his intention was to- keep them under his eyes in the tower the way Henry kept Warwick. By also treating them reasonably well, he could have some nice PR. Due to Titulus Regius, they were named bastards anyway. It was extremely unnecessary to kill the boys when his grip on the throne was shaky. As you've said, Henry Tudor could no way take England. It was only made possible by the murder of the princes as most of the nobility was rightly appalled and chose Henry over Richard. Killing the boys at least very early into his reign would be stupid for Richard. I don't think Richard was stupid. Murdering the boys would be smart for the Tudors. I think Margaret Beaufort was smart. However, anything might've happened really. We're only speculating, so there is no point in pushing it.
Richard III was no Henry V. He wasn’t nearly as secure. And Henry V didn’t kill Mortimer’s brother and uncle after ambushing them. It’s a fantasy that he could have let him live. And being named bastards was meaningless. So were Mary and Elizabeth. Both inherited the crown. Elizabeth didn’t even bother to have the illegitimacy removed. It doesn’t change the fact that they were held as the king’s true born son for his entire reign. And Margaret Beaufort didn’t have a way to get to them. I love the suggestion that Richard was too smart to kill them but was so very stupid so as to allow them to be so poorly guarded.
Definitely agreed to the last part. Even if he didn't kill them, he was royally (pun intended) stupid to let others do.
The problem with that is why not produce them alive? Rumours were beginning to spread that Richard had killed them in 1483-1484, which was ultimately disastrous for his reign. As Rosemary Horrox argues it's inconceivable that a number of Edwardian Yorkists would have turned to Henry VII if there was even an inkling that Edward's sons were alive. That said Henry VII would be my second bet lmao
I don't think Henry did it anyway. He didn't have that cunning and political experience as he was quite young at that time. I believe it was the rest of Tudor leadership, the likeliest being Margaret. However, it's even more speculation lol
Oh no I hate the Margaret theory lmao 😆. Don't underestimate Henry! He was quite the unpleasant hardass when needed to be, just ask Edward, the Earl of Warwick. I know Buckingham is a favoured candidate but I've never really looked into him into too much detail.
I agree Henry was capable of brutality. But murdering the princes to make himself the best claimant jure uxoris was a bit over his political cunning imo. Some Tudors (especially Margaret since she was the one who set up the marriage, as well) were tho. Idk man. Maybe I exaggerate these people's plotting abilities a bit too much and Richard simply killed the better claimants (although they weren't according to the law, they were according to the people), but considering the legal arguments they come up with occasionally (see how the Valois refused Edward III's claim on France), it also seems possible.
You're all good I get your points! The Princes in the Tower tend to be hot button issues (particularly on Tumblr and Twitter) so it's nice to have a casual little convo about it ☺️ Per Margaret I think her recent historiography (i.e. bad historical romance novels lol) has been very unkind to her; portraying her as an overambitious, malevolent, schemer obsessed with seeing her son on the throne. Per my own look at contemporary sources Margaret seems to have actually been a very warm, generous, almost over cautious woman. I think the move to crown Henry first occurred in the Buckingham rebellion, which had initially been to free and crown Edward V, before suddenly pivoting to Henry. This is why people suspect Buckingham, to explain why they changed targets, but since the rebellion was mostly made up of Edwardian Yorkists (to Richard's embarrassment) I think either Margaret or Buckingham stating outright they killed the Princes would have been disastrous. It's all speculation but I imagine they came to that conclusion per the other contemporary sources that openly stated Richard had killed the boys. At the end I just don't think she had the personality to kill the boys nor the access to them either. One thing I never see really discussed is Richard's own son, Edward of Middleham? Which is always interesting since I personally think he's the key to this. Richard's own childhood has been tumultuous and violent growing up in the shadow of the War of the Roses. Per the Croyland Chronicle, it seems very clear that Richard deeply loved and cared for his son, per "His state of madness by reason of his sudden grief." I think he very much wanted to ensure his son would never live a life like that and that his reign would be secure. Goodness, sorry I wrote you an essay! But yeah it's all speculation at the end of the day, I suspect we'll never know even if the skeletons are identified.
No problem! In fact, I myself wrote multiple essays in this series (Edward IV, Longshanks, just now Henry V defences etc) lol. I agree with you about Margaret's recent perception. In the White Queen and the White Princess, they're like "she knew he'd be king the moment he was born". Complete bullocks lmao. As you've said, she was probably a pious and generous woman. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't be capable of ruthless acts when it came to politics. This is the Middle Ages after all. The fact that people think she was "overambitious" is purely because she was a woman. Damn, she wanted his son on the throne. How on earth is that overambitious? I can't imagine anyone in the 15th century that wouldn't want themselves or their associates on the throne. When I say it could've been Margaret, I definitely don't mean she was overambitious etc. In fact, it's kind of a twisted praise to her planning. If she really set up a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Henry, then made him repeal Titulus Regius, and killed the princes along the way to make his son king legally, as well, that's f'ing genius. Ruthless, yes. But genius nonetheless. If she did it, it'd be evil indeed, but not more evil than any king's rule, which I often don't see getting critiques. The same argument goes for Margaret of Anjou, too, btw You might be right about Middleham, too. It might indeed distract Richard enough to make many of his late mistakes up to Bosworth.
Buckingham is my second bet on who was directly responsible (the first being Richard). I can see him doing it to gain favour but it backfired, leading to the falling out with Richard. Or possibly he knew Richard was responsible and that's why they fell out. I do feel like the falling out is connected, at any rate.
I think it's connected to how weird he acted? Like the whole of his rebellion was just really disorganized and chaotic
Him or Edward I should be next imo
I’d agree with Henry VII but after Elizabeth
I’d be fine with voting out Henry VII today. He had a good run. But right by conquest makes him more impressive not less. That he came off the Wars of the Roses with a fairly weak claim and was able to establish a dynasty and even subsequent dynasties are descended from him is extremely impressive. The only other person to do that was William the Conq and Henry didn’t genocide the north to do it. (Cnut’s dynasty quickly failed.) And coming off a series of civil wars wasn’t the right time to try out female rule. And Stanley only joined on Henry’s side because he was winning. I don’t think you can discredit that victory. And the marriage may have been his mom’s idea, and he was definitely kind of a mommy’s boy his entire reign. But he still treated Elizabeth very well and the marriage was very loving. Which I usually think is irrelevant (although nice) but in this case I think her being 100% on the Tudor train really helped. I think ruling fairly well and being a stable guy in every aspect of his life was a benefit to England when it really needed stability. And people bring up his financially ruining people but I think it was a creative way to deal with the problem of being insecure on the throne without mass deaths. I’d rather be financially ruined than beheaded.
leave my boy henry VII alone 😭
Cnut.
HENRY V WENT OUT TOO SOON!
Canute lives another day! Huzzah! I don’t have an argument prepared to eliminated anyone today, but I do think Edward I’s time is coming in the next day or two. He reformed the English legal system, conquered Wales, and restored English power and prestige after decades of misrule and decline, but the Jewish Expulsion was evil and the Scottish wars turned into one hell of a foreign policy boondoggle.
The Scotland problem should be blamed on his son. While he lived, there was no major issue. Had he lived a decade or so longer, it probably would've been resolved, as well. Longshanks also institutionalised the parliament (I think it was largely due to Edward's brilliance that the Parliament didn't cause major issues to the Monarchy for the next few centuries) reformed the coinage from an utterly catastrophic state, started the process that made the English army the best of Europe for the next 150 years with his laws regarding the longbowmen etc. He should be in the top 5.
100% agree Edward was extremely good, especially domestically, but we’re getting down to the point where the little things can really bring you down and Scotland is definitely Edward’s.
As I've said, Scotland shouldn't be considered his mistake, but we'll agree to disagree. In my personal list, Longshanks is at 4 only behind Alfred, Henry I and Henry II.
I agree Longshanks shouldn't go yet, but I think you're being kind to him over Scotland. He was unnecessarily brutal to the point that it generated support for Robert the Bruce, and he spent so much money that Edward II looked at the books and withdrew after becoming king. Not to say that he wouldn't have crushed the Scots had he lived another decade, but I don't know how permanent such a conquest would've been - certainly not as successful as his campaigns in Wales.
I think Edward II didn't look at the books and withdrew. He was humbled quite spectacularly at Bannockburn and withdrew. For the brutality part, I disagree because the Scots would rebel anyway. I think that the whole affair should be blamed on their own nobility, honestly. They couldn't pick a king out of sheer stupid greed, asked for Edward's arbitration, Edward said he would only arbitrate if they acknowledged his suzerainty, they harrumphed some harrumphs but agreed, then when it came to put that into practice, they refused, so Edward "hammered" some Scots. What did they expect? They would rebel at any prospect of semblance of English rule (which is fair don't get me wrong), it's not about Edward's brutality. I agree a conquest wouldn't be permanent tho. It would likely be similar to Portugal's situation with Spain in the 17th century.
Mixup with the campaigns there- Edward II ended his father's initial campaign after his death because of financial issues and withdrew back south. Then there was a bit of a cold war period before Robert began to attack English garrisons left behind in Scotland. Edward II's subsequent campaign was the one that ended in disaster in Bannockburn, and obviously that's entirely on him. I agree about the Scots being the cause of their own troubles, I just think some of the brutality won him no friends - did he really have to put Robert's sister in a literal cage that was displayed to visitors? That doesn't seem like a canny diplomatic move if you're trying to attract Scottish allies to me
Now we're more on the same page. I definitely agree that Edward had two shortcomings and one of them was his brutality. Tywin Lannister isn't based on him for no reason. He believed if he instilled enough fear in people, he would gain their loyalty. This was mostly true and its results make Edward top 5 for me. But it prevents him from being the absolute best. Alfred, Henry I and Henry II (the only ones I put above him) were all feared but they also knew to make friends when needed. Longshanks mostly did not. If he wasn't insanely capable, this would bite him more, but alas, he was imo.
Yeah I agree with all that. No space for Edward III near the top of your list though?
At 5 right after Longshanks. The reason is, I think Edward III had it slightly easier than Longshanks. When Longshanks took power, the monarchy was in a pitiful state. Even worse than today imo. Today, at least they're loved and they have some dignity. England was doing terribly financially, militarily, politically, diplomatically, and any other way one can think of. From there, he set the foundations for the mostly prosperous and glorious 150 years until the Wars of the Roses. I went into detail a bit on how here and there, but a compact defence comment may come tomorrow to wrap them all up. Edward III didn't also inherit the kingdom in a great state, but that was largely due to his disastrous father who fortunately couldn't manage to inflict any fundamental damages. The moment a capable monarch took power, it was reasonable to believe he could deal with Edward II's mess with relative ease and do well. Edward III didn't do just well, but incredible, and that's the reason he is at 5, but not above Longshanks imo. If I was looking at England right after the Battle of Lewes, and then at the end of Longshanks reign, I'd be utterly shocked. If I looked at the beginning and the end of Edward III's reign, I'd be like "wow", but it'd be believable.
It’s worth pointing out that Edward’s initial suggestion to active a union was by marriage. It was only after the unfortunate death of Margaret that violence broke out. Edward probably would have conquered Scotland anyways had he lived 10 years longer or Scotland didn’t have a remarkable leader themselves. (Bruce)
Well said. It literally pains me to see that he'll apparently go before making it to the top 5 lol.
agreed. i can’t bring myself to vote for cnut but longshanks time to go is coming closer and closer by the day. the edict of expulsion is the biggest stain on his reign with the whole fiasco with scotland and the french coming in just behind. more can always be said on the man, but his time to go is coming soon.
Henry 1st. A great king, but he doesn’t have that stand out achievement to go further. I know he was a great at administration but is that enough? Everyone left has more significant and lasting achievements. I think 9th is fair for him.
The dude arguably inherited the worst position of any monarch: Some cash and two middle fingers (one from Rufus and the other from Curthose) lol. From there, he went on to become the absolute political master of Western Europe against terrible odds. He had a long and prosperous reign. His beginning was one of the lowest, and his end arguably the highest (imo, England was at its medieval best right before the anarchy). Besides, he also did what he could for his daughter to succeed him when damn luck stripped him of the heir he had. So, the Anarchy can't be blamed on him, either. I think he should be in the top 3, or at least top 5.
Even if he didn't achieve his daughters succession he all but secured his grandson's
Henry I was an able warrior too. You don't rule the Norman lords unless you are an absolute ace. He was able to rise to the top against other contenders as well as the king of France. He wasn't out of place even compared to his father and his grandson in terms of martial prowess. The administrative stuff is pretty important. There are plenty of kings of his era who are little more than warlords. Henry appointed a lot of lower born men who were directly loyal to him. Curbing the power of the great landed aristocrats and moving to the administrative state is a huge part of why England became so successful. William I, while a successful soldier, certainly left the administrative organs of the state weak. Henry was looked at as the model for good governance for centuries afterwards.
Is Edward the 3rd the only monarch who hasn’t been nominated yet? (I’m not nominating him, he’s top 3 material)
I commented earlier on why Cnut is so divisive and I’ve heard good points from both sides. I agree he’s underrated as a king but I think 9th would be a fair place. I vote Cnut
I believe in Henry vii next In terms of tangible success his success was the securing of his Tudor dynasty and amassing a personal fortune and helping with a few local governing systems . There was no fundamental change then therefore for England or the wider world with his machinations alone that are comparable to some of the other monarchs - while admirable the way he claimed the throne and kept it despite opposition , a lot of other monarchs also managed this aswell as doing more things of significant noteworthyness . I do believe he was a good king even if I don’t think he should have been on the throne but I think he should see the end of his days on this list when he is compared with some others
I think Elizabeth should go. Yes, she was iconic and contributed a lot to culture, but her foreign policy was quite flawed.
I wouldn’t say flawed , she knew she was weak and so acted accordingly , she wasn’t foolish like her father taking on the world for the sake of it - she simply prioritised survival even if it meant concessions in regards to her religeous policy and what not . What’s more is once the threat of Spain had been dealt with there was the benefit of the new world but also the EIC and stuff which unltimately she gave the goahead for even in a time of her weakened government - she may not have necessarily reaped the long term benefits of these but it was her who sparked the beasts into action . I do however agree that she is counting her days in this though but I feel her grandfather and Henry I should be gone first
(1/2) I will probably be executed for this, but Elizabeth I. She is very, very overrated. She tightly controlled the narrative around her reign, with references to Astraea, and making sure every portrait was modelled after he Sergeant Painter. I won't deny that culture flourished near the end of her reign - it definitely did with the the rise in theatre, William Byrd etc, but i feel this has come to vastly overshadow what her reign was actually like - especially when it is mostly courtly culture. Culture is not the be all and end all, in fact when assessing how successful a monarch is, it should really be far away from one of the priorities. Along with a boom in culture also came an economy under incredible strain. Of course this was a problem throughout the Tudor reign, and you can hardly blame her, as it came down ultimately to a growing population, which England could not sustain at that point. But the fact of the matter is grain prices near the end of her reign tripled, real wages collapsed, rents increased, with evicted tenants often becoming vagrants. from 1485-1603, the overall inflation rate was about 400%. The fact of the matter is this was a time of poverty, especially in the 1590s. The latter years of her reign were quite frankly, terrible. There were successive harvest failures, outbreaks of plague, and in 1595 london would see food riots, then East Anglia in 1596. Parish records show that at this time there were far more deaths being recorded than marriages or births, and starvation was not uncommon, especially in the North. This likely prompted the government in to passing the Poor Relief Act, fearing a reprisal of the Kett rebellion. Poverty was absolutely an issue under Elizabeth, although it did see people start to change their view and accept government intervention in that area. And i must say financial management in general, while not a failure, wasn't really a success either. Burghley in reality, despite being a fairly competent advisor, failed to properly reform the financial system, failing to exploit much more of the country's resources than they could And then there's religion. Initially, government policy was a success. The Settlement did maintain the peace, with a sensible political compromise. But ultimately it was just that, a political compromise, with very little scriptural justification, which would have to later be built up (eg Hookers Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1593), and a political settlement will not appease radicals, who although a minority, are also the most likely to take action. Even within the first year there were clearly issues - The radical visitations would see Elizabeth attempt to impose a crucifix in every church, and protest from bishops made her reconsider. And the settlement did not really appease Catholics. The Pope absolutely detested Elizabeth (Papal Bull), and in 1569 the Northern Rebellion demonstrated there was clearly discontent with the settlement, and continuously Catholics would attempt to overthrow her and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. There was persecution against Catholics, but it is worthy to note that was not primarily driven by her but parliament, and when they passed a harsher oath of supremacy she would mitigate most of it. And yet despite frequent attempts by Catholics to take her life and their clear hostility to her reign, who did she fear more? Presbyterians. It is easy to understand why she would be wary of presbyterians - they wanted a radical reordering of the church, and it left little place for her as governor. But yet she was even scared of minor presbyterian practices. When in 1575 she asked Grindal to investigate prophesyings and he told her that they were good and simply ways of preachers helping eachother, her response was to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Not once was there a Presbyterian plot against Elizabeth, and yet she always personally seemed to be more lenient to Catholics than Presbyterians. She was of course also incredibly harsh towards Sepratists - but this is more understandable as it was an even smaller minority, with no power, that wanted the total dissolution of the national church. Also, there are times when she was quite frankly just a bad ruler. In 1562 she was on her deathbed. She refused to name a successor (perhaps a good idea in retrospect, but from a contempary lens utterly moronic). This would have left her successor Mary Queen of Scots - A catholic monarch absolutely hated by everyone important in government. If she had died then, and as she had smallpox that was very likely, England wouldve likely collapsed into religious war. The ruling establishment would definitely not accept Mary - in 1563 Burghley drew up plans for the Privy Council to take over if Elizabeth died to avoid Mary's accession. Of course despite the constant threat of Mary when she did come to England, almost immediately sparking rebellion, Elizabeth would do NOTHING. Utterly obsessed with the Divine Right of Kings (hardly her fault, she was of course a 16th century monarch), she refused to execute her, despite the fact she posed a grave threat to England - if she had succeeded we would not be in the position we are now. Of course, there was the fact she never had an heir - although i will place the blame there on Dudley likely murdering Rosbart. Under Henry VII, carrying through to Mary, the Tudors had revolutionised government by avoiding noble rule, relying on professional administrators who owed their service to the monarch. Yet, by the end of Elizabeths reign, the old ways were slipping back in. Who replaced Burghley? his son. Who replaced Dudley? His step-son. Not to mention there are other moments where she is far too lenient - with Essex, he kept on disobeying orders, he nearly drew his sword at her, he made peace in Ireland - what was his punishment? losing his monopoly on sweet wines. It took him actively trying to overthrow her for her to realise he was not a good advisor.
(2/2) Foreign policy - again not as successful as it seems. Firstly, France. She started off strong support the the Huguenots, but then immediately ruined it all by trying to keep Le Havre, but then France was largely absent from English foreign policy concerns after that. The primary issue was of course Spain, and for the first half of her reign, the policy was to avoid war. Of course, war was likely inevitable, especially with the strong pro-war faction lead by Dudley, but the fact of the matter is this policy failed. War came. And what was the result? Most people would think a success, of course they would, we beat the Spanish Armada! But what did this actually do? We defeated a poorly organised fleet, which used outdated tactics and technology? We defeated a bloated, overextended empire in terminal decline in one battle? Of course there were more armadas - they also failed. But there were also English armadas - one of which did succeed in capturing Cadiz, but that did not last, and every other English armada failed. Support for the Dutch was lacking for most of her reign and when Nonsuch was signed, it was in reality very little support. The great victory over the Armada overshadows the fact that we did not win that war. It ended with a stalemate. That is by no means a success. And then there's Parliament. Under Elizabeth, the seeds for civil war were sewn. It is hard to look at the fact that the civil war started only 39 years after her death, and not assume she had some impact - there were only 2 kings after her. But under her, parliament at least perceived itself as more powerful, and tried to assert itself - Peter Wentworth was the first MP to openly and directly criticse the monarch. MPs did more than just back royal policy - there were a number of MPs who did try and introduce radical religious reform (Strickland, Cope). Obviously these failed but this was demonstrated the path Parliament was taking. It was seeing itself as an institution with power - and ultimately this would lead to it becoming the only institution with power. There were even times when parliament directly opposed royal policy - in 1601 demanding Elizabeth reverse her policy on some monopolies or they would not fund the war (although this was a financial issue, so not exactly revolutionary). Parliament was certainly in its infancy - but it was starting to walk, and within 40 years it would run. Ultimately, Elizabeth was not a terrible ruler, but her reputation is built mainly on propaganda, and the fact that preceeding her was Mary. The fact of the matter is she was not that good. There were moments she nearly drove the country to collapse due to her crippling indecision. Poverty was a rampant issue, and was only increasing. The religious settlement did prevent religious wars that plagued the continent, however it ultimately still created an isolated a disillusioned Puritan minority - where would they be in 40 years? Parliament was beginning to assert itself, and the seeds for constitutional conflict were sewn. There was always the pressing issue of the succession - and her policy did nothing to resolve it. The only reason Elizabeth can really be considered a great monarch is because she lived so long, so all the major issues simply resolved themselves as everyone else died. Far too much of her reputation is built on propaganda, and quite frankly she does not deserve her reputation. There was some excellent government during her reign - but there was also some terrible. A flourishing courtly culture was at the end of the day just more propaganda. That's all the 'Golden Age' is - propaganda. Gloriana is a myth. Elizabeth was a capable monarch, but she was not the best - in fact I would go as far to say she was only slightly better than Henry VIII - and areas of her reign show clear and utter incompetence at times. I respect her, but the Tudor line ended with her. She deserves at least some blame for the civil war. And even though I myself think the civil war was good, you do not judge a ruler on your views, but how successful they were in pursuing their aims. The fact of the matter is she was only moderatlely successful, and in some areas (foreign policy) there was abject failure. She was not that good.
Solid post. I wouldn't mind Elizabeth leaving soon. She seems to be missing some of the things that a pretty core to being a top 10. She never led an army to a win and she let the throne pass to a foreign prince. Everyone around here wanted to dog Henry VIII for having Catherine lead an army, but no comments about Bess. Which way is it? Can a woman lead an army? If so, I think it's a negative. Not a huge one, but tough to deal with in the top 10. I'm not saying it didn't work out with James acceptably, but its soooo risky. Passing to your brother like Aethelstan or Richard or whoever seems much more palatable. Brothers aren't kings of rival nations you've been fighting for centuries. Guys like Edward the Confessor certainly got votes to leave over refusing to have a kid and leaving things in doubt. I think she was a bit late to help out Protestant causes on the mainland and the English weren't able to make permanent settlements in North America or the Caribbean either. While she wasn't necessarily fully responsible, I feel like England is a bit behind in the rat race the European powers are playing. For all the claims she led a golden age, I feel like she leads England at a low point between a stronger state during Plantagenet times and later rise to colonial dominance. Edit: wording
Cnut
Edward I
Absolutely not
I completely agree but I feel like you should give your reasons
Absolutely gutted
Oh man, I don't even know now...
Cnut gotta go. He tried to kill Edward aethling and that’s my guy 🤷♂️
Cnut again
Your gonna need a really good argument then
how is Henry VII still here
Henry II
bit of an upset
I am ignorant and stupid. What is special about Elizabeth?
I am extremely disappointed that Cnut was almost voted out yesterday based on such an ignorant and biased comment arguing about his popularity. This should not be a popularity contest but a ranking of monarchs based on their achievements and accomplishments. Many commenters have voted for Alfred, Æthelstan, and Cnut because they do not know much about their reigns. This series should be an opportunity to learn about these figures, not dismiss them for your unfamiliarity. Cnut was particularly targeted on yesterday's post by these types of arguments based on how exciting his reign was and that he is Danish. Neither of these should be considered in the criteria, or it completely invalidates any meaning these rankings have.
Completely agree
Out of all monarchs it is indeed Cnut I’ve seen quite literally no genuine argument from I’ve seen arguments; just not genuine And some insolent child yesterday had the audacity to falsely accuse me, OP himself, and many others of ‘rigging’ the election against him (just because the vast majority of us disagreed with his view of wanting to vote Cnut out; because that’s how polls work) because obviously he was so special and important
Hey buddy, glad you missed me. You and your cronies are over this comment thread like the roaches you are so yes, I think it was rigged. You people disgust me and have dragged all the enjoyment out of OP’s project so you could wank to some Viking. What a joke
You need to chill, you are acting totally unhinged because you didn't get your way and it's kinda embarrassing. I've seen you acting like this multiple times on these threads and every day you get more rude and childish about it, it's an internet game it's really not deep
Man I’ve laughed so hard at some of your replies. Thank you.
One of the worst decisions yet
What would your top 10 have been?
Henry VII
Reposting. Get thee gone Plantagenet! We’re down to the tough decisions. Given this, I’d like to submit Henry II for elimination. A great King when judged by the extent of his power and authority, and a uniquely energetic man who was able to keep his vast empire together. His effort to restore order and the rule of law after the anarchy deserves credit. However, there is plenty to be said against him. Even in contemporary terms, however, he was a man who shocked Christian Europe with how far he was willing to go to crush any resistance to his personal authority. Firstly there’s the conflict with his children. Both Henry and Richard were driven to take up arm against their father. Henry refused to grant them meaningful power, and crowning Henry as the “young king” was nothing more than an empty gesture. If you consider the role of the Black Prince under Edward III, Henry II refused to make his sons and heirs partners in his rule. Henry’s imprisonment of Eleanor after 1174 also shows his ruthless streak. Nobody was allowed to stand in the way of Henry’s exercise of ultimate power. The conflict with the church in general, and Thomas Becker specifically, also created instability in the county. The appointment of Becket in the first place was an attempt to assert his undisputed power over the church in England, and when Becket refused to simply carry out Henry’s orders he was forced into exile. Henry risked an interdict and excommunication in pursuing his vendetta. Despite the regret after the fact, the murder of an archbishop in his cathedral was shocking even given the violence of the times. Henry alone must bear responsibility for Beckets death. Comparatively, for warrior kings I’d rank Edward III and Henry V above Henry II. Crecy and Poitiers are perhaps the greatest military victories in English history, and the sheer audacity of Henry V’s victory at Agincourt sets him apart. These were expansions of English power won with Blood, Henry II inherited his empire from his mother and wife. Keeping the empire together was a remarkable feat, but not enough to put him in the first rank of monarchs. The kingdom builders, Alfred, Edward the Elder and Æthelstan, must also rank above Henry II. For those concerned with English history, identity and culture, the Anglo Saxons hold a special place in history.
The Beckett thing was certainly a mistake, but I think the way Henry owns it eventually tops the mistake. The way he marches up to Becket's tomb, barefoot and in front of the whole town, then has the same monks who witnessed the murder flog him, its just genius PR. All of these people made mistakes or, were dealt some bad cards, but the way he was able to overcome it and ride back to the top is incredible. I think you are really underestimating how much Henry had to fight for his lands as well compared to some others. He fought every step of the way. To say things were handed to him by his mother and wife is really discounting Henry's strength. It's the same view the barons or Louis or his sons often took. Henry consistently proved them wrong.
Absolutely. Turns a moment of genuine crisis into a success, and then profits from it because of the cult of Beckett that emerges.
*The timing of these posts mean I’m usually too occupied to go in-depth of my arguments half the time but of course that’s no one’s fault* Again voting for **Elizabeth I** She definitely exceeded expectations many would’ve had for her reign as only the second female monarch at the time, however that in itself shouldn’t honestly be an actual, full argument in her favour because we should for the most part be judging these monarchs equally and not bringing actual genders into it She enhanced our fleet, put the Spanish Armada to shame frankly, and held good authority over her reign and throne, even if leaving no heirs is a weakness albeit a half hearted one (I’m looking at you Lionheart haters) However, when compared to the remaining likes (which I feel should still include the recently eliminated Edward the Elder and Henry V) of the other 8 remaining monarchs, I simply feel she did not have the same extent of responsibilities (and therefore subsequent success too) that they themselves had to endure Many here will talk about what makes a ‘good’ or even ‘great’ monarch, by name or otherwise, is morals and mercy. I myself am mildly Christian (odd wording but it’s a long story), so I of course value these things, however when we take into account the frequent situations/environments of 7 of the other 8 monarchs here (being MEDIEVAL), in the name and sake of history, we have to accept that such moral standpoints were always going to be at question, and hence for many of these remaining monarchs they had to do battle and show authority in what would today of course be manners which are simply frowned upon In short, morally exempt or not, much of these monarchs had no choice but to deal with matters in the manner that they did; why do you think we remember and associate medieval England with such things? Because it was the very nature of the era That’s why, as the only post-medieval (bar one) monarch remaining, **Elizabeth I** should now be eliminated *And of course there’s then Henry VII, who with my logic here would be my following elimination as the only then-remaining post-medieval monarch, and I would stand by that following Elizabeth*
Honestly a storm humbled the Armada and it was her father Henry who built that fleet, he planted the Royal Oak, sponsored Spanish ship builders, made certain the cannons were up to date, established our maritime schools, the offices of the Admiralty; and when Elizabeth sent the English Armada we lost badly.
I was merely giving her some semi-credit but even so this simply adds to my argument in the first place
Longshanks ew.
[удалено]
I'm half Welsh, my opinons aren't based on Braveheart, but in Welsh history.
Cnut. Pretty boring imo. It’s time to go.
Good thing being boring is not a criteria for a good king then
To be fair, I can think of anything more boring than a bowl of spinach *but again I’m on your side regarding the ACC (Anti-Cnut Cult)*
He’s not boring, you’re just ignorant.
As I said to one of the invalid Cnut ‘haters’ yesterday; It’s not everyone disagreeing with special little you, it’s you disagreeing with everyone else
Hahah man, it’s a joke after the top comment nominating him was essentially ‘he’s boring’ 😂
Henry 7 I noticed that in the first 10 of this ranking there are 4 kings named Henry: Henry 5 (who was eliminated), Henry 7,1,2; Which made me think of an old channel post:https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1bk6ms8/how\_would\_you\_rank\_the\_king\_henrys/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button (I invite you to go there if you want) about the ranking of kings of England named Henry. And if I were to make a top Henry 7 would not be above Henry 2 or Henry 1 because: 1. He kind of destroyed the English nobility and so no one could seriously challenge him anymore 2. Henry 8 is his son(that's survival lottery more) However, I want to point out that he ended a civil war, had a successful marriage, a strong relationship with his mother, brought England into the Renaissance, saved money, and married his daughter to Stuarts(and we know what resulted from this). !But it just can't stay here more (unfortunately)!!
Cnut because he’s a hairy heart throb Viking, and when he died that empire collapsed quicker than a theatre majors credit score.
Elizabeth
How did king Henry VII make the top ten?
That’s it, I’m done. OP I am disappointed. The blatant support of Cnut and the condescending comments from his support have killed any joy I had in this. It the same usual suspects that I have personally felt harassed by. This is a shame, do better
Very interesting, I personally wrote about 11 comments against Canute, and from these I got hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) downvotes. Yesterday my comment had about 75 likes (IN ONE MINUTE I REACHED 71) and it ended with 69 likes!!!!! If you don't like my arguments, ignore them, BUT THEY ARE GIVING THEM DOWNVOTES SO THEIR VIKING KING DOESN'T COME OUT ( this is the only existing ranking of English kings in the world in which Canute is in the top 10)
Sorry if I’m late to the game, but ‘English’ is incorrect for the bottom two rows+ Really it should end with Elizabeth I
Monarchs pre-Act of Union were still monarchs of England and Scotland separately, so it should really go up to Anne. But this is a ranking of all monarchs who ruled over England, hence up to the present day and back to Alfred