Greatest English Monarch? [Archive]

lionking

6th March 2009, 12:32 AM

I've nearly finished reading a biography of Edward III, and the author makes a very good case for him being at or near the top of English monarchs.

I'm not sure I want to get into a debate about the definition of "greatness", but I would think that Elizabeth I and perhaps Victoria would be right up there.

What are other views and why?

Elizabeth I

6th March 2009, 07:36 AM

Elizabeth I, for obvious reasons. :p

geni

6th March 2009, 07:44 AM

George V broke the power of the house of lords.

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 07:54 AM

Henry II, founder of our legal system. It was under him that practices such as trial by ordeal and trial by combat were replaced by early jury trials.

Darat

6th March 2009, 07:55 AM

James I ....

plumjam

6th March 2009, 08:29 AM

Henry VIII, by a few heads.

MarkCorrigan

6th March 2009, 08:42 AM

Foolmewunz

6th March 2009, 09:03 AM

None of the ones in the last fifty years, that's for sure.

Lothian

6th March 2009, 09:27 AM

They are all cnuts, well at least two are.

malbui

6th March 2009, 09:31 AM

Alfred? Only one to get the title "The Great" and from what I've read seems deserving of it: a good military leader, expert politician, and a man who encouraged learning.

Fiona

6th March 2009, 09:47 AM

English monarch? Narrows the field a tad, does it not ? :P

Giz

6th March 2009, 10:52 AM

Charles 1st.

Oh yeah, he was a terrible leader and caused a civil war, but his actions led to the creation of a truely strong parliament.

So go him for being a self centred jackass and bringing on the revolution that reulted in a true government for the people (eventually).

Hah! Despite thinking that on a lot of political questions we'd be on opposite sides, on this I agree completely!

Yep, Charles' intransigence led to a very graphic example being made of where supreme power lay in the UK.

(Now if we were talking about monarchs who had been effective/responsible rulers then Alfred or Elizabeth I would spring to mind...)

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 11:53 AM

Madalch

6th March 2009, 12:05 PM

I would think that Elizabeth I and perhaps Victoria would be right up there.

You might not want to debate the definition of greatness, but you might have to debate the definition of English. Victoria wasn't the Queen of England; she was the Queen of the United Kingdom (and Australia, and of Canada, and Empress of India, etc.).

Elizabeth I was Queen of England, which is why the Scots still hate the idea that the current Elizabeth is styled "the Second", since they never had any previous ones.

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 12:26 PM

Elizabeth I was Queen of England, which is why the Scots still hate the idea that the current Elizabeth is styled "the Second", since they never had any previous ones.

The Scots should stop moaning. Under current protocols, a when a new UK monarch shares his or her forename with an unequal number of Scottish and English predecessors, s/he takes the higher number. If there ever was to be another King James, he would be James VII, despite the England never having a James III through VI.

Giz

6th March 2009, 12:27 PM

But the English Civil War didn't give us a parliamentary democracy, it gave us an effective military dictatorship. If we're to salute this period in our history as an important step in the road to elective government, the person who deserves the credit is Oliver Cromwell's son and heir Richard, who was so ineffective that parliament recalled the king from exile, breaking what would've been the Cromwell dynasty's stranglehold on our government.

Better still, plumb for William III. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is a much stronger milestone in the ongoing power swing from the Crown to Parliament.

While it ended with a dictatorship, it started with a clash between King and Parliament. Which Parliament won. And the King was executed for acting against the people and their liberties. The dictatorship followed as Parliament fell out with the instrument of their victory (the New Model Army).

I would definitely place The English Civil War (or the Wars of the Three Kingdoms as I hear it is called now) as the moment where it was decided that English monarchs would never again try for absolute power.

That England had a short lived one-off Military despotism seems far less important than the bounds set upon the power of the monarchy (understood and unchallenged by the monarchy from that time to this)

FWIW IMHO, the Glorious Revolution saw parliament do what would have been unthinkable a century earlier - which had become thinkable because of the impact of the Civil War.

Madalch

6th March 2009, 12:52 PM

The Scots should stop moaning. Under current protocols, a when a new UK monarch shares his or her forename with an unequal number of Scottish and English predecessors, s/he takes the higher number. If there ever was to be another King James, he would be James VII, despite the England never having a James III through VI.

Which is why she's also QEII in Canada as well, despite QEI never having heard of the place.

Many Scots see this as a mere excuse to ignore their opinions on the matter. Now, if Charles is clever (no comments from the peanut gallery, please, we all know that he believes in homeopathy, but he can at least run a chain of farms), he'll reign under a name that hasn't been used before in any of his dominions. No Robert, James, William, Charles, Malcolm, Richard, Henry, Harold, John or Alexander.....hmmmm...he could be King Stacey. King Reginald. King Victor. King Herman. King Glen. King Gary. King Glen-Gary. King Ottawa. King Brad. King Michael. King Leonard. King Leonard-James-Aka'ar.

big-E

6th March 2009, 12:59 PM

Better still, plumb for William III. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is a much stronger milestone in the ongoing power swing from the Crown to Parliament.

Stretching the definition of English though, wouldn't you say?

Maybe it should be called the Glorious Invasion... ;)

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 01:03 PM

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 01:05 PM

Stretching the definition of English though, wouldn't you say?

Maybe it should be called the Glorious Invasion... ;)

Fair point, but I took the OP to be asking for the greatest holder of the English crown rather than the greatest monarch who was born here. After all, I nominated a Frenchman a few posts up the thread... :D

ZirconBlue

6th March 2009, 01:05 PM

Alfred? Only one to get the title "The Great" and from what I've read seems deserving of it: a good military leader, expert politician, and a man who encouraged learning.

Wow. Even Bruce Wayne's Butler had a secret identity!

Madalch

6th March 2009, 01:11 PM

Madalch: He's not the Pope, y'know...

Kings do get to choose the names they'll use when they are crowned. George VI went by Albert until his coronation (he was "Prince Bertie" most of the time). True, George was one of his middle names, but Charles could get creative. But I think it would be beyond the pale to call himself Benedict.

Elizabeth I

6th March 2009, 01:16 PM

Kings do get to choose the names they'll use when they are crowned. George VI went by Albert until his coronation (he was "Prince Bertie" most of the time). True, George was one of his middle names, but Charles could get creative. But I think it would be beyond the pale to call himself Benedict.

Wasn't Edward VII "Bertie" as well until his coronation?

Giz

6th March 2009, 01:17 PM

@ Giz: I don't dispute the importance of the Civil War in the history of our nation, but with respect, I think you're taking too much advantage of hindsight. It's only because Richard Cromwell was such an idiot that we didn't get an ongoing military dictatorship, which would've ultimately manifested itself in a new monarchy, with absolute power. Besides, giving Charles I credit as the 'greatest English monarch' because of his failures is a little weak anyway. I agree that the Glorious Revolution probably wouldn't have happened without the Civil War, but until then, it was perfectly possible for the monarchy to have regained its previous power. James II did his level best to prove it.

@Madalch: He's not the Pope, y'know... :D

Ah, well… I didn't realize it had to be "the greatest monarch as viewed by their contempories". (which might be interesting!).

I guess that I think that it doesn't matter that the English Civil War looks rosiest when looked at from the very short term (i.e. Parliament deciding to fight) and the long term (i.e. well after the demise of the Lord Protector and his regime, and the ensuing centuries of limited/constitutional monarchy and parliamentary supremacy.)

20/20 hindsight FTW!

lionking

6th March 2009, 01:38 PM

No votes for Edward III then?

Giz

6th March 2009, 01:52 PM

No votes for Edward III then?

Actually, I think I've been foolishly looking at this this all wrong.

Reading "Greatest English Monarch" again, it quite clearly insinuates "who gave the French a damn good licking".

So let's see Edward III:
Crecy, check!
Poitiers, check!
Bonus award, coolest name for son & heir: The Black Prince, check!

Edward 3rd in 1st!

Ian Osborne

6th March 2009, 01:55 PM

And a special mention for Henry V!

Foolmewunz

6th March 2009, 06:43 PM

Which is why she's also QEII in Canada as well, despite QEI never having heard of the place.

Many Scots see this as a mere excuse to ignore their opinions on the matter. Now, if Charles is clever (no comments from the peanut gallery, please, we all know that he believes in homeopathy, but he can at least run a chain of farms), he'll reign under a name that hasn't been used before in any of his dominions. No Robert, James, William, Charles, Malcolm, Richard, Henry, Harold, John or Alexander.....hmmmm...he could be King Stacey. King Reginald. King Victor. King Herman. King Glen. King Gary. King Glen-Gary. King Ottawa. King Brad. King Michael. King Leonard. King Leonard-James-Aka'ar.

What's wrong with Chancey? Percy?

Aside: When Di was having her first kid I was on a drive in the midwestern USA and a radio station in Cincinnati was doing a call-in poll as to what the new prince (and future king) should be named. The hands down winner: Bubba. :spjimlad::spjimlad:

Elizabeth I

6th March 2009, 06:58 PM

What's wrong with Chancey? Percy?

Aside: When Di was having her first kid I was on a drive in the midwestern USA and a radio station in Cincinnati was doing a call-in poll as to what the new prince (and future king) should be named. The hands down winner: Bubba. :spjimlad::spjimlad:

Bubba I does have a certain je ne sais quois...

Madalch

7th March 2009, 12:37 AM

Bubba I does have a certain je ne sais quois...

I don't know about that.....

gumboot

7th March 2009, 06:10 AM

And a special mention for Henry V!

He definitely gave the best speeches.

Damien Evans

7th March 2009, 06:19 AM

James I ....

and VI.

arthwollipot

7th March 2009, 06:22 AM

Arguably, William I ("The Conquerer") had the greatest influence on England's future than any other.

Deus Normandi!

Damien Evans

7th March 2009, 06:23 AM

Winston Churchill

hgc

7th March 2009, 06:39 AM

Edward I Longshanks, because he's got the coolest nickname. Sorry, Scots.

Henry II, because he snatched his very rich wife away from the King of France. Also because he had 3 different sons reign in his wake.

Edward VIII, because he had the good taste to quit early on.

MG1962

7th March 2009, 12:16 PM

Richard III - A case study in media beat ups. No one realised they didn't like him till something like a 100 years after his death

Edward Longshanks - Kinda did it all. Had a civil war, beat on the Welsh, Scots, and Jews. Got time to do a crusade. Invented law, airplane and internet ;)

On the downside, he was responsible for being the inspiration to arguably the second worst historical movie of all time

Nogbad

7th March 2009, 02:27 PM

MG1962

7th March 2009, 03:17 PM

Edward I has to be one of the worst. He ruptured relations between England and the other nations in the British Isles laying the seeds for generations of conflict and bitterness. Was responsible for crimes against civilians that were considered shocking even in his day and he was a first rate persecutor of the Jews.

All in a bad egg.

How about one of the ones that didn't do much. Charles II?

Well the general idea was who is the greatest, that does not exclusively mean the best. In all seriousness I would vote Queen Elizabeth. She built on her fathers rather eratic legacy and went a long way to helping define what England was to become over the next 400 years

tomwaits

7th March 2009, 03:22 PM

On the downside, he was responsible for being the inspiration to arguably the second worst historical movie of all time

"Worst", as in it wasn't very historical. Regardless, I love Braveheart, even if it is almost entirely fiction. I think it's safer to say that it's a movie based on Blind Harry's epic poem, which was loosely based on history.

MG1962

7th March 2009, 03:58 PM

"Worst", as in it wasn't very historical. Regardless, I love Braveheart, even if it is almost entirely fiction. I think it's safer to say that it's a movie based on Blind Harry's epic poem, which was loosely based on history.

Oh I understand that. I just get frustrated at times. The battle of Stirling Bridge.....no Bridge

The whole side story with Isabella. At times I feel they change stuff for the sake of doing that. The trouble is people see a film like that, and think they are watching reasonably accurate history.

Nogbad

7th March 2009, 04:00 PM

Oh I understand that. I just get frustrated at times. The battle of Stirling Bridge.....no Bridge

The whole side story with Isabella. At times I feel they change stuff for the sake of doing that. The trouble is people see a film like that, and think they are watching reasonably accurate history.

To be fair Sophie is very watchable - I forgave them that bit ;)

Vic Vega

9th March 2009, 01:42 PM

Richard III - A case study in media beat ups. No one realised they didn't like him till something like a 100 years after his death

I think the character assassination of Richard III began almost immediately after his death at Bosworth Field. Henry Tudor saw to that.

Shakespeare based his play on Tudor histories that repeat rumors about his character that were started after Richard's death. They also portray him as having physical deformities which in the play are a withered arm and a hunchback. He was one of Christendom's greatest soldiers and battle commanders. Henry Tudor had no chance of beating him in a fair fight. He was able to do this only because he got the Stanleys to betray Richard during the battle.

Did Richard accomplish all of his battlefield heroics despite a hump in his back and a withered arm? Of course not. He had no deformities.

Cactus Wren

9th March 2009, 06:53 PM

A page devoted to England's greatest queen. (http://www.crisperanto.org/news/index.html)

MG1962

9th March 2009, 07:04 PM

I think the character assassination of Richard III began almost immediately after his death at Bosworth Field. Henry Tudor saw to that.

Shakespeare based his play on Tudor histories that repeat rumors about his character that were started after Richard's death. They also portray him as having physical deformities which in the play are a withered arm and a hunchback. He was one of Christendom's greatest soldiers and battle commanders. Henry Tudor had no chance of beating him in a fair fight. He was able to do this only because he got the Stanleys to betray Richard during the battle.

Did Richard accomplish all of his battlefield heroics despite a hump in his back and a withered arm? Of course not. He had no deformities.

I was watching a program the other day about just this. Stanley didn't make his choice until Richard charged Henry's body guard, and what should have been a glorious victory went pear shapped when he lost his horse.

The other point made was that the Tudors did not dare challenge Richards bravery on the battlefield. It apparently was known at the time, that he'd refused an offer to evacuate him to safety. Prefering to stand his ground until overwhelmed by Henry's forces

applecorped

9th March 2009, 07:20 PM

My vote:

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/saxons_wessex.html#unready

Æthelred II, the Unready (978-1016 AD)

Æthelred succeeded to the throne after the murder of his half-brother, Edward II, the Martyr, at the age of ten. His reign was plagued by poor advice from his personal favorites and suspicions of his complicity in Edward's murder. His was a rather long and ineffective reign, which was notable for little other than the payment of the Danegeld, an attempt to buy off the Viking invaders with money. The relentless invasions by the Danish Vikings, coupled with their ever-escalating demands for more money, forced him to abandon his throne in 1013. He fled to Normandy for safety, but was later recalled to his old throne at the death of Svein Forkbeard in 1014. He died in London in 1016.

Blackadder

9th March 2009, 07:34 PM

There are far too many english monarchs. I am not British and I love BBC quizzes, but the category of questions I always fail is about which King did this or that, and then the possible answers are

Henry the IIIth Henry the IVth and Henry the umpteenth.. How on earth should I know?

At least the Dutch Royalty can be counted on my fingers.

I vote for George the IIIth though because he is mentioned in Blackadder where he wants his son, the Prince Regent to marry a rosebush. Also he was king for 59 years and 96 days, something only queen Victoria exceeded.

JihadJane

9th March 2009, 07:40 PM

Mary, Queen of Scots.

Elizabeth I

9th March 2009, 07:40 PM

My vote:

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/saxons_wessex.html#unready

Æthelred II, the Unready (978-1016 AD) <snip>

How'd you do that diphthong?

lionking

9th March 2009, 08:05 PM

Good nominations, but I still think Edward III is in the top three or four. Even if his only claim to fame was kicking French arse (which it wasn't), that would be good enough for me.;)

MG1962

9th March 2009, 08:17 PM

Good nominations, but I still think Edward III is in the top three or four. Even if his only claim to fame was kicking French arse (which it wasn't), that would be good enough for me.;)

I dont think there is much disagreement he should be at the pointy end of the list. But should he be the greatest, well thats a tough call.

One of the biggest problems with any discussion like this is availability of information. One historical writer can create a very rosey picture, another can create the negative. It is hard for the average armchair historian to really know what information to trust and what not to trust

tomwaits

9th March 2009, 08:40 PM

I heard somewhere that whenever a king is called "_____ the Pious" that means he was a weak ruler.

arthwollipot

10th March 2009, 12:07 AM

Æthelred II, the Unready (978-1016 AD)Another interesting factoid: "The Unready" is actually a mistranslation. His original title, which was not used during his lifetime, was Æthelred Unræd, which more accurately translates to "the badly-advised".

And I think the line about "...the Pious" came from 1066 And All That.

lionking

10th March 2009, 12:19 AM

Couldn't find "the Pious" but did find a few good ones.

Edmund II Ironside
Edgar the Atheling (?)
Harold I Harefoot

Damien Evans

10th March 2009, 12:20 AM

Elizabeth I has to be up there.

lionking

10th March 2009, 12:23 AM

Elizabeth I has to be up there.
She'd be my pick, but she did come after a string of strong monarchs.

One of the reasons for my high rating of Edward III is that he came after one of the more incompetent kings, his father Edward II.

Akhenaten

10th March 2009, 03:06 AM

Boadicea.

Anyone could kick the French around, but Boadicea took on the Legions and did rather well for a bit.

lionking

10th March 2009, 03:13 AM

Boadicea.

Anyone could kick the French around, but Boadicea took on the Legions and did rather well for a bit.

Okay, the Roman colony of Britain is not quite "England" but fair nomination.

Architect

10th March 2009, 03:36 AM

The Scots should stop moaning. Under current protocols, a when a new UK monarch shares his or her forename with an unequal number of Scottish and English predecessors, s/he takes the higher number. If there ever was to be another King James, he would be James VII, despite the England never having a James III through VI.

I think you'll find that the rule was only introduced after the fuss over Elizabeth taking the "II", including quite a high profile court case in Scotland on the matter (the result of which the "II" is still not commonly used this side of the border, for example on post boxes and the like).

As proof of the pudding, you'll find that all your textbooks still refer to James I. This is usually defended (ha!) on the basis that it's before the Union of the Nations in 1707.

But please, feel free to leave your chip on your shoulder.

Ocelot

10th March 2009, 03:56 AM

Okay, the Roman colony of Britain is not quite "England" but fair nomination.

She was Queen of the Iceni

lionking

10th March 2009, 04:11 AM

She was Queen of the Iceni
Yeah I know. I have a copy of 'British Kings and Queens' by Mike Ashley besides me now.

hgc

10th March 2009, 05:24 AM

George the IIIth

How do you pronounce that?

arthwollipot

10th March 2009, 06:03 AM

How do you pronounce that?"George the eyeyeyeth", clearly.

Damien Evans

10th March 2009, 06:05 AM

She'd be my pick, but she did come after a string of strong monarchs.

One of the reasons for my high rating of Edward III is that he came after one of the more incompetent kings, his father Edward II.

Edward II - so unpopular they killed him by shoving a red-hot poker up his arse.

Tolls

10th March 2009, 06:11 AM

I think you'll find that the rule was only introduced after the fuss over Elizabeth taking the "II", including quite a high profile court case in Scotland on the matter (the result of which the "II" is still not commonly used this side of the border, for example on post boxes and the like).

As proof of the pudding, you'll find that all your textbooks still refer to James I. This is usually defended (ha!) on the basis that it's before the Union of the Nations in 1707.

But please, feel free to leave your chip on your shoulder.

Well, no...in any decent text he should (at least initially) be referred to as James I (VI of Scotland) or some similar phrasing, since that's the case. There was no intention on doing a renumbering act pre-Union.

PrincessIneffabelle

10th March 2009, 06:24 AM

Greatest English Monarch?

The one we got America off of, naturally.

:p

Lothian

10th March 2009, 07:26 AM

How do you pronounce that?'Dhat'

Ian Osborne

10th March 2009, 09:09 AM

Well, no...in any decent text he should (at least initially) be referred to as James I (VI of Scotland) or some similar phrasing, since that's the case. There was no intention on doing a renumbering act pre-Union.

You beat me to it. Same person, two hats (or crowns), and no need to renumber at all.

Vic Vega

10th March 2009, 11:34 AM

So let's see Edward III:
Crecy, check!
Poitiers, check!
Bonus award, coolest name for son & heir: The Black Prince, check!

Edward 3rd in 1st!

The nickname of "The Black Prince" used for Edward of Woodstock was most likely not used until after his death. Most historians believe he got the nickname because of black armor he received as a gift from his father after the victory at the Battle of Crecy.

Someone else mentioned that the Edward I nickname of "Longshanks" was cool. I think it only seems cool because of the modern slang meaning for the word "shank" as in an improvised dagger. Shank simply means the lower leg. He was called longshanks because he was tall.

It wouldn't seem so cool if he was called Edward Longlegs instead! :)

Giz

10th March 2009, 02:57 PM

The nickname of "The Black Prince" used for Edward of Woodstock was most likely not used until after his death. Most historians believe he got the nickname because of black armor he received as a gift from his father after the victory at the Battle of Crecy.

Someone else mentioned that the Edward I nickname of "Longshanks" was cool. I think it only seems cool because of the modern slang meaning for the word "shank" as in an improvised dagger. Shank simply means the lower leg. He was called longshanks because he was tall.

It wouldn't seem so cool if he was called Edward Longlegs instead! :)

Yeah, I'd heard that about the Black Prince but surely posthumous nicknames can still be cool?

Re: Edward 1st, I'd assumed that the cool name wasn't "Longshanks" but was (unsaid for fear of provoking a highland charge by the hairy northern barbarians) "Hammer of the Scots". Now let me just say; I don't think it's possible for a guy to have a nickname with "Hammer" in it and not be cool.

Vic Vega

10th March 2009, 03:20 PM

Yeah, I'd heard that about the Black Prince but surely posthumous nicknames can still be cool?

OK. I'll give you this one.

Re: Edward 1st, I'd assumed that the cool name wasn't "Longshanks" but was (unsaid for fear of provoking a highland charge by the hairy northern barbarians) "Hammer of the Scots". Now let me just say; I don't think it's possible for a guy to have a nickname with "Hammer" in it and not be cool.

Hairy northern barbarians? Absolutely uncalled for! :D

I don't know, is MC Hammer cool? Maybe he's the exception that proves the rule... ;)

imjohn

13th March 2009, 12:07 PM

OK. I'll give you this one.

I don't know, is MC Hammer cool? Maybe he's the exception that proves the rule... ;)

Hammer, don't hurt 'em!

ZirconBlue

13th March 2009, 07:25 PM

James I ....

and VI.

Which James had the Giant Peach?

It wouldn't seem so cool if he was called Edward Longlegs instead!

How about Edward Longdrumsticks?

hgc

13th March 2009, 07:29 PM

...
It wouldn't seem so cool if he was called Edward Longlegs instead! :)

Daddy Longlegs would be pretty cool. All hail, King Daddy Longlegs!

Ian Osborne

15th March 2009, 01:20 PM

How about Edward Longdrumsticks?

If I see William the Conqueror on a plane, I'll kill him....

steffanie

16th March 2009, 03:18 AM

Elizabeth was the greatest in my humble opinion. I know these times were harsh anyway but what she went through as Queen was pretty amazing.
Her rule brought about the golden age. She did all this without marrying a man also:D

steffanie

16th March 2009, 03:20 AM

There is a hunter i exercise in my stable yard called Longshanks, it's an apt name because he does behave like a king. Great name i reckon.

lionking

16th March 2009, 03:24 AM

Welcome steffanie. Can't argue with Elizabeth I.

Walrus32

21st March 2009, 03:33 PM

Edward II - so unpopular they killed him by shoving a red-hot poker up his arse.

That's because he was a poof-da.

SimpleIrony

21st March 2009, 09:39 PM

Henry Beauclerc was a really good one that rarely gets mention on the list of greats.

Edward III gave the people what they wanted... lots of dead French bodies, but I'm not sure that really fits my definition of greatness.

Elizabeth I was pretty darned impressive, she was probably the greatest just because she succeeded when so much was stacked against her.

Sunstealer

21st March 2009, 10:31 PM

The simple answer is there isn't one, because English/British/commonwealth/foreigner's and other people's ideas, (I'm sure there is an apostrophe calamity in there somewhere!), politics, knowledge and criteria differ so much. Even more so when you take into account modern history. I'm sure there is a solid case for our present monarch- just depends on what you define as "great".

I think there may be a case that the UK/Britain thrives upon a strong woman being in a position of power. (read into that what ever you want - nanny I want bitty!)

lionking

21st March 2009, 10:31 PM

Certainly have to agree with Elizabeth I, and look forward to reading a bit more about Henry I.

But, while Edward III was a successful and innovative warrior, he also was one of the first monarchs to treat parliament seriously; he stood up to the pope; he was a patron of the arts and architecture, with Windsor Castle a legacy; and he replaced Latin and French with English as the official language of state. Not too shabby.

Ian Osborne

22nd March 2009, 04:47 AM

Henry Beauclerc was a really good one that rarely gets mention on the list of greats.

Well, he would've been in this one had I not mistyped him as 'Henry II' on Page One... :(

rikzilla

22nd March 2009, 04:54 AM

Henry II, founder of our legal system. It was under him that practices such as trial by ordeal and trial by combat were replaced by early jury trials.

But wasn't he the weak King that had the proto-Parliament shoved down his throat by Simon de Montfort??
-z

Ian Osborne

22nd March 2009, 05:00 AM

But wasn't he the weak King that had the proto-Parliament shoved down his throat by Simon de Montfort??
-z

That was Henry III. And I had the right Henry in my first post - it was Henry II who instituted jury trials.

rikzilla

22nd March 2009, 05:00 AM

Ahah...good job man

-z

rikzilla

22nd March 2009, 05:03 AM

...how 'bout John for the Magna Carta?

oh yeah, the was Llewellyn and the Barons what shoved that up his arse!

-z

Vic Vega

22nd March 2009, 05:40 PM

That was Henry III. And I had the right Henry in my first post - it was Henry II who instituted jury trials.

Henry II was an excellent king. He held a vast empire that stretched from the Scottish border to the Mediterranean, he was a fantastic soldier and battle commander. Besides having a great legal mind, he was also extremely well read and well educated, good natured, had a good sense of humor.

His major failing was as a father, it seems. He had four greedy and faithless sons with Eleanor of Aquitaine.