[eddie2003]

The Most Important:
1. Elizabeth I
2. Henry VIII
3. Henry II
4. Edward I
5. Victoria

The Most Overrated:
1. Henry V
2. Richard the Lionheart
3. George III

The Most Underrated:
1. Henry II
2. Henry VII
3. Edward III

[wakeyboy]

Most important (to me):

1. Alfred the Great
2. Edward I
3. Elizabeth I
4. Mary I
5. Edward III

Most overrated (in my mind):

1. Henry VIII
2. George VI
3. Richard I
4. Elizabeth II
5. Harold

[eddie2003]

I agree with you on Harold and Richard I.... I didn't include anyone pre-Normans or post-1900...are you including Mary because of the Catholic thing Wakey?

[wakeyboy]

After that obese tyrant trampled all over the true church just so he could get divorced, the last real hope for catholicism as the state religion of England rested on Mary. Unfortunately she became ill and died.

Even though Elizabeth I was a devout protestant she had a great sense of duty and of protecting the interests of England.

As for the armada, I guess I'd rather be English and live in a protestant country than live in a catholic country under Spanish rule.

[thundertaker]

How is George III over-rated? If anything he is underated. The common perception is that of 'Mad King George' forgetting that in the early years of his reign he was quite sane, a patron of the arts and science. He also had high moral values. Unlike many monarchs of the time he refused to take a mistress and waited until he was married.
Unfortunately, his high moral principles often came at the expense of political expediancy. He refused to support a Catholic empancipation bill in 1800 on the grounds that he could not break his coronation oath to uphold the protestant church in England, which would lead to trouble in Ireland later, when the Irish had abolished their parliament in favour of full Union with Great Britain on the promise of the repeal of laws banning Catholics from voting in general elections.

Victoria was merely famous for being Queen during a period of dramatic social and technological change. Nothing particulary special about her apart from this and her longevity.

Henry II did much to reform England's laws and provide the basis for the legal system that we know today. In America as well as England, because the American justice system was founded on English law. Unfortunately, he is best known for allegedly having the Archbishop of Canterbury, St Thomas A Becket, Murdered in his Cathedral.

Edward I kicked ass and introduced the longbow as an integral part of English warfare with which to kick aformentioned ass...

Henry V was one of the first post-conquest English kings to use the English language in an official capacity.

Richard the Lionheart was a penis. He couldn't even speak English and he saw England merely as a source of money and men to fund his wars in France (which he considered his true homeland) and in the crusades, where he merely managed to prolong the crusades for a hundred years or so for what was then a doomed enterprise.

Henry VII was a tight-fisted miser who hoarded tax money so that he died one of the richest princes in Europe. (I suppose he got rid of that murdering bastard Richard III)

Henry VIII did his best to blow his father's legacy on wars with France, then he severed all ties with the Pope so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Bolyne. Accidently founding the anglican church (he himself considered himself to be a Catholic until his death). Unpleasant man to be honest.

Edward III Under-rated? How? He won the battle of Crecy! And he reigned for over 50 years, he also jettisoned St. Edward the Confessor as patron saint of England in favour of the more war-like St.George....

Elizabeth I provided the vanguard in the battle against the the counter-reformation. Thus helping to ensure the survival of protestantism as a political force. She also helped instigate the delcline of Spain as an Imperial power by provoking the Spanish Armada and then destroying it, thus degrading Spain's naval power , and alos by sponsoring privateers to go and loot spanish ships bringing gold and silver from the New World.

I think that's all of them, in no particular order........

[diamond lil]

I can't believe none of you mentioned Charles II..he knocks the others to flinders.

[thundertaker]

After that obese tyrant trampled all over the true church just so he could get divorced, the last real hope for catholicism as the state religion of England rested on Mary. Unfortunately she became ill and died.

'Bloody' Mary was also a tyrant, she murdered protestants who refused to recant and go back to the 'true faith' and she subverted England's interests to those of Her husband Phillip, the king of Spain. She lost Calais by going to war with France (and losing) on Phillip's behalf.
You also have to remember that protestantism didn't just spring up in England at the behest of Henry VIII (who as I've already mentioned, considered himself a devout catholic). It came about as a result of people, partly as result of reformist theologens like Martin Luther, being sick and tired of the corruption and hypocracy of the the Catholic religion at that time and the papist hierarchy, (not to mention the fact that they resented a foreigner such as the pope having influence over English affairs). Henry VIII only broke away from the Pope because he felt that the religious backlash wouldn't be serious enough to threaten his reign.

[eddie2003]

Lil, just because you think Charles II was hot doesn't make him important. Charles is bookended by Cromwell and the failure known as James II. He had sex with lots of women, but so did a lot of Kings.

[BlueEmperor]

The Most Important:

Well, it largely depends on what we consider 'important'. It is difficult, but I decided to limit myself to five 'important' monarchs and I have selected King John "Lackland" as my first choice for the simple reason that he signed the Magna Carta. Although a testament to King John's complete failure as a monarch, it was the forerunner of modern constitutions and King John's reign deserves it's place even if the King himself was a waste of space. My second choice is King Henry VIII. I was very much torn between the reigns of King Henry and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth I. I think both are hugely important reigns - the Reformation, of course, being a prime feature. In third place was King Charles I. His martyrdom, the subsequent Interregnum, and the consequent manner of his son's restoration, had a profound effect on governance in Britain (so, for the benefit of Lil, we could include King Charles II in that). My fourth selection is King James II/VII because of the Glorious Revolution. King James' removal - to be supplanted by King William III of Orange and Queen Mary II. This, of course, led to the Act of Settlement and a complete change in the style of monarchy under the Hanoverians. And my fifth and final selection is King Edward VII. I think King Edward's reign marked both a culmination and a beginning - the culmination of the Hanoverian style and the beginning of the kind of constitutional monarchy we know today.


Edward VII

Most Overrated:

For these last two categories I have limited myselt to three. I have selected, first of all, Queen Victoria as an overrated monarch for pretty much the same reasons already outlined by Thundertaker - she lived a long time and was an able monarch but apart from her longevity there was nothing remarkable about her as a person. My final choices are both prior to the Norman Conquest but they feature on my list of overrated precisely for that reason - their reigns are so far in the past that their legend is all that really survives and their legends are, to say the least, highly embellished. My first choice is that of King Edward the Confessor, the penultimate Anglo-Saxon king, whose clumsy handling of his own succession led to the fall of the House of Wessex. My final choice will annoy dear Thunders intensely, but I have selected King Alfred the Great. I accept his successes but I have always felt that, as so many of them were undone by his successors (particularly the awful Ethelred II), that they have lost much of their significance.

Victoria

Most Underrated:

I regard our most recent monarchs as our most underrated so my three most underrated monarchs are King George V, who led the country through the First World War, King George VI, who led the country through the Second and Queen Elizabeth II, who has served this country faithfully now for over 50 years. I am, I must say, suprised to see both The Queen and Her late father in Wakey's list of 'overrated' monarchs. They strike me as very odd choices.


George V


George VI


Elizabeth II

B.E.

[wakeyboy]

Queen Elizabeth II could be described as over rated because she is no more remarkable than Queen Victoria. Victoria being slightly more interesting because she reigned during a time of great technological and social change.

Elizabeth II has done nothing remarkable with her life, the people that support her are just union flag touting 'patriots'.

[wakeyboy]

hmmm 3 times

[BlueEmperor]

Yes, we're having major technical problems with the site at the mo and, very sadly, Ru is in no position at present to deal with them. It comes up 'Debug' but your posts still appear, so no need to keep doing it. Don't seem able to start new topics, however, so all you history buffs will have to wait a while for my thread on the Battle of the Nile.

Okay, taking your point about our present Queen, which I don't necessarily agree with, how can you describe Her father as "overrated"? You ask anyone my nan's age and they'll tell you, the old King and the role he played in WWII is woefully underrated. Sure, the late Queen Mother gets quite a bit of credit but I think that popular historical memory rather gives King George VI a backseat but, as a king, he was truly exemplary.

B.E.

[wakeyboy]

What did George VI do that was so special apart from have some empathy for victims of the blitz. When part of buckingham palace was bombed he wasn't even inside.

[BlueEmperor]

Well, for a start, that last comment isn't true at all. Buckingham Palace was bombed on several occasions and on at least one of those, he and his Private Secretary were only a few feet away. Of course, it goes so much beyond empathy. King George and Queen Elizabeth played a vital role in keeping up morale. It something that seems to be scoffed at nowadays but visiting bombed out towns, going down to the air raid shelters, and the King's refusal to leave the capital had a very real effect - The King Is Still In London being a very popular song of the time.




I also do not think that it is fully realised - and still isn't now - the role played by the monarch. It's not just smiling, waving, and cutting ribbons, especially during wartime. The King was as active a head of state as you could hope to find. He and Winston Churchill met regularly - they would have supper together down in the palace shelter - and were in touch constantly. The Prime Minister, of course a staunch monarchist, took the King fully into his confidence - the King would have been one of the few people privy to just about as much information as the PM himself. The role of the monarch is to to be consulted, to advise and to warn. King George VI fulfilled this role dilligently, at the cost of his own health, allowing his Prime Minister to disburden himself and talk things through with the one person any Prime Minister knows, 100 per cent, that they can trust - their Sovereign.



The stresses and strains of this awesome responsibility took it's toll on the King and almost certainly contributed to his early death. King George VI may not have been on the front line during the Second World War but it's as true to say that King George gave his life for his country in that titanic struggle, as it is of any man who fell on the field of battle.



B.E.

[diamond lil]

people were very fond of the King, they held him in great affection, but it was his wife he has to thank for that..she was amazing.

there is far more to Charles II than just having sex with a lot of women...he came to the throne at very difficult time in the history of our country...it's thanks to him that the Monarchy once again became established after the republic it was under Oliver Cromwell....a lesser man would not have been so magnanimous to his enenmies...there's a distinct possibility that had he lived longer, religious freedom would have become , if not entrenched..then on the way to becoming so...it's a great pity he left no legitimate heir.

[thundertaker]

[quote]My final choice will annoy dear Thunders intensely, but I have selected King Alfred the Great[/quote}

Why would I be annoyed at you thinking he was over-rated? Didn't I argue a few months ago that his great grandson, Edgar, was the one who finished the job of united England and became king of all England when he was crowned at Bath in AD 971. As I remember, you were the one defending the importance of Alfred the Great to the hilt. Are you telling me now that you were merely being Devil's advocate?

Since you mentioned King John, the useless king who nevertheless led to the signing of Magna Carta, shouldn't James I/VII also be mentioned purely for the fact that he became the legitamate king of both England and Scotland, thus uniting the two kingdoms to eventually lead to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707?

[BlueEmperor]

people were very fond of the King, they held him in great affection, but it was his wife he has to thank for that..she was amazing.

Oh, I agree entirely. Queen Elizabeth was a great help - vital in fact to the success of King George VI as a monarch. People should remember that King George was very much a reluctant monarch. Like his father before him, he was never supposed to become king. He was the Duke of York and had an elder brother. Then, in 1936, you had the awful 'Year of Three Kings', also known as the Abdication Crisis. When King Edward VIII abdicated it shattered Prince Albert's world. But though a king by accident, he was a success by design. He had an amazing sense of duty and an indomitable character. With the love and support of his queen, he became, in my view, one of the most beloved monarchs this country has ever had.


George V (centre) with (left) the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) and (right) the Duke of York (later George VI)

...there is far more to Charles II than just having sex with a lot of women...he came to the throne at very difficult time in the history of our country...it's thanks to him that the Monarchy once again became established after the republic it was under Oliver Cromwell....a lesser man would not have been so magnanimous to his enenmies...there's a distinct possibility that had he lived longer, religious freedom would have become , if not entrenched..then on the way to becoming so...it's a great pity he left no legitimate heir.

Indeed, his reign was never going to be an easy one. Like you say, however, King Charles II was extraordinarily tolerant of those who had condemned his father to death (only nine were executed). He was also tolerant in religious matters. King Charles wasn't an idiotic 'merry monarch' as he's sometimes made out to be. He possessed a keen political intellect, which was very important because his reign marked some ferocious battles with Parliament. His reign really did represent a turning point for English political history, as the royal prerogative (the soul of the Tudor monarchy) all but vanished, replaced by a powerful Parliament and the emergence of political parties, formed from the ashes of the Cavaliers (Tories) and the Roundheads (Whigs).

As I remember, you were the one defending the importance of Alfred the Great to the hilt. Are you telling me now that you were merely being Devil's advocate?

To a degree. I do think his reign was important but I think King Alfred is overrated as a monarch. For my own part, I cannot understand why you attatch such weight to the reign of King Edgar. I think that King Alfred is the better monarch but I could hardly describe King Edgar as 'overrated' - how many people have even ever heard of him?

Since you mentioned King John, the useless king who nevertheless led to the signing of Magna Carta, shouldn't James I/VII also be mentioned purely for the fact that he became the legitamate king of both England and Scotland, thus uniting the two kingdoms to eventually lead to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707?

I can't say I'm terribly struck by King James VI (not VII) as a monarch. Of course, English-Scottish inherent mistrust (indeed, virtual hatred), bred by centuries of rivalry for superiority on the island since the first emigration of the Anglo-Saxon races, combined with Catholic-Protestant and Episcopal-Puritan tensions, severely limited King James' prospects of a truly successful reign. His personality also caused massive problems. King James was witty and well-read and fiercely believed in the divine right of kings and his own importance. He saw little use for Parliament and his extravagant spending and nonchalant ignoring of the English nobility meant that he and Parliament were almost constantly at odds. Following in the footsteps of Queen Elizabeth II he came to the throne at the zenith of monarchical power but never really grasped that power.


James I/VI

B.E.

[wakeyboy]

How could James I/VI follow in the footsteps of Elizabeth II?

Do you mean Elizabeth I?

[diamond lil]

I should think so, wakeyboy..he was a very unpleasant man with some nasty personal habits..however..he was the grandfather of Charles II, so he couldn't have been all bad...it's been supposed that some of his defects were due to his mother having a difficult pregnancy..how someone as beautiful as Mary and as good looking as Darnley could have such an ugly mug for a child is one of those strange quirks of nature.

[BlueEmperor]

Yes, I apologise. Of course I mean Queen Elizabeth I.

B.E.

[wakeyboy]

King James I/VI was also one of our many gay monarchs.

Or should that be Queen James?

[BlueEmperor]

Indeed, his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham was, to use a modern phrase, "dead suss".

B.E.

[wakeyboy]

Who else was gay?

Edward II was definately gay, I also heard that Queen Anne was rumoured to be bisexual.

[BlueEmperor]

King Edward II definately was. King Edward's preference for surrounding himself with unpopular favourites such as Piers Gaveston and Hugh Dispenser were a major contributory factor in his infamous downfall (and both were almost certainly his homsexual lovers).

I don't know of any others, for sure. I've certainly never heard any such rumours about Queen Anne.

You know, given the sheer scope of the British monarchy, a better question might have been dynasties rather than individual monarchs. I generally place them in the following 10 categories:

1. The House of Cerdic (aka Wessex): Egbert (802-39); Ethelwulf (839-58 ); Ethelbald (858-60); Ethelbert (860-66); Ethelred I (866-71); Alfred the Great (871-900); Edward the Elder (900-24); Athelstan (924-40); Edmund the Magnificent (940-46); Eadred (946-55); Edwy the Fair (955-59); Edgar the Peaceable (959-75); Edward the Martyr (975-78 ); Ethelred the Unready (978-1013 - deposed; restored 1014-1016); Edmund "Ironside" (1016); Edward the Confessor (1042-66); and Harold II (1066)*1

NB: Edgar the Atheling was also elected to succeed Harold II by the Witan Council, though he was never crowned

2. The House of Denmark: Sweyn "Forkbeard" (1013-1014); Canute (1016-1035); Harald "Harefoot" (1035-40); and Hardicanute (1040-1042)

3. House of Normandy: William the Conqueror (1066-1087); William "Rufus" the Red (1087-1100); Henry "Beauclerk" (1100-1135); and Stephen (1135-54)*2

NB: throne contested during Stephen’s reign by Empress Matilda (Queen Maud)

4. House of Anjou (aka Plantagenet): Henry “Curtmantle” (1154-1189); Richard the Lionheart (1189-99); John “Lackland” (1199-1216); Henry III (1216-72); Edward "Longshanks” (1272-1307); Edward II (1307-27); Edward III (1327-77); and Richard II (1377-99)

5. House of Lancaster (aka Plantagenet): Henry IV (1399-1413); Henry V (1413-1422); and Henry VI (1422-61 - deposed; restored 1470-71 - murdered)

6. House of York (aka Plantagenet): Edward IV (1461-70 - deposed; restored 1471-83); Edward V (1483); and Richard III (1483-5)

7. House of Tudor: Henry VII (1485-1509); Henry VIII (1509-47); Edward VI (1547-1553); Mary I (1553-58 ); and Elizabeth I (1558-1603)

NB: Lady Jane Grey was briefly crowned following death of Edward VI but was subsequently executed by Mary I

8. House of Stuart: James VI (1603-25); Charles I (1625-49); Interregnum; Charles II (restored 1660-85); James VII (1685-88 ); William III*3 and Mary II (1689-1702); and Anne (1702-14)

9. House of Hanover (aka Guelph): George I (1714-27); George II (1727-60); George III (1760-1820); George IV (1820-30); William IV (1830-37); and Victoria (1837-1901)

10. House of Saxony (aka Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, aka Wettin, later Windsor): Edward VII (1901-10); George V (1910- later changed dynastic name to ‘Windsor’; 1910-36); Edward VIII (1936); George VI (1936-52); Elizabeth II (1952- )

I vote for #8 - the Stuarts.

B.E.

*1 - Harold II is technically of the 'House of Godwinsson', as Harold II was the son of the then Earl of Wessex

*2 - Stephen is technically of the 'House of Blois', as Stephne was the son of the Count of Blois

*3 - William III is technically of the 'House of Orange' but William III ruled jointly with his wife, Mary II, who was of the House of Stuart. When William III died the throne passed to his sister-in-law, Anne (also a Stuart)

[BlueEmperor]

In the interests of harmony, I should also include the pre-Union Scottish dynasties:

1. House of Alpin: Kenneth MacAlpin (843-58 ); Donald I (858-62); Constantine I (862-77); Aed (877-8 ); Giric (878-89); Donald II (889-900); Constantine II (900-43); Malcolm I (943-54); Indulf (954-62); Duff (962-6); Culen (966-71); Kenneth II (971-95); Constantine III (995-7); Kenneth III (997-1005); Malcolm II (1005-34); Macbeth (1040-57); and Lulach (1057-8 )

2. House of Atholl: Duncan I (1034-40); Malcolm III "Canmore" (1058-93); Donald III "Bane" (1093- May 1094; Nov 1094-1097); Duncan II (May-Nov 1094); Edgar (1097-1107); Alexander I (1107-24); David the Saint (1124-53); Malcolm IV the Maiden (1153-65); William the Lion (1165-1214); Alexander II (1214-49); Alexander III (1249-86); Margaret the Maid of Norway (1286-90); The Competitors (during which Edward I of England is acknowledged as 'Lord Paramount')

3. House of Balliol: John Balliol (1292-6); Guardianship (under Sir William Wallace); and Edward Balliol (Aug-Dec 1332; periods during 1333-56)

4. House of Bruce: Robert the Bruce (1306-29); and David II (1329-71)

5. House of Stewart (later Stuart): Robert II (1371-90); Robert III (1390-1406); James I (1406-37); James II (1437-60); James III (1460-88 ); James IV (1488-1513); James V (1513-42); Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-67); James VI (1567-1625); Charles I (1625-49); Interregnum; Charles II (1660-85); James VII (1685-9); William III and Mary II (1689-1702); and Anne (1702-14)

B.E.

[diamond lil]

it's doubtful Queen Anne was gay..she did have along and intimate friendship with the famous and beautiful Sarah Jennings, wife of John Churchill..Sarah was most certainly not gay..she and John were mad about each other..it was she that said 'My Lord pleasured me three times with his boots on'..or something similar..she was speaking of when he returned form one of his campaigns..she used to walk up onto the cliff whenever he left and they would look and look at each other until they were both the merest pin prick..I think anne is a much maligned queen..she wasn't too bright and her husband was a perfect dunderhead...but she had 17 pregnancies..they all ended in either miscarriage, still birth or the resulting child died very young..I think she raised one son until he was 4..it was a terrible grief for her.

[thundertaker]

She might have been bisexual.......

[mr dragon]

You wish!

[diamond lil]

she was not bisexual..why should she be?..why do you want her to be?...you're sex mad..it's all you think about.... sex sex sex...hmmmm..see you later....

[mr dragon]

Who me? I never think about sex, ever.

:grin:

Ever.

:razz:

Anyway, back to the topic....

[diamond lil]

you'll go blind.

[BlueEmperor]

I don't know what else we could rate monarchs for. Any idea?

Why don't we do Prime Ministers or something else instead. Keen as I am to delve into the depths of my accumulated monarchist knowledge, I'm sure if only bores the tits off everyone else.

B.E.

[diamond lil]

I've been reading about his life again..the Penderell brothers, Father Huddlestone, Jane Lane from his days on the run after Woodstock...he stands head and shoulders above all the others..both literally and metaphorically.

[BlueEmperor]

Okay, I have an intellectual question for you, Lil...

Who was the sexier version of Charles II?


Sam Neil in Restoration


Rufus Sewell in Charles II: The Power and the Passion


The man himself

[diamond lil]

Rupert Sewell..Charles II was pretty ugly according to many of his portraits..but listen to this..' He is somewhat taller than the middle stature of Englishmen, and so exactly formed, that the most curious eye cannot find one error in his shape. His face is rather grave than severe, which is very much softened wheresoever he speaks. His complexion is somewhat dark, but much enlightened by his eyes, which are quick and sparkling. Until he was near 20 years of age, the figure of his face was very lovely; but he is since grown leaner, and now the majesty of his countenance supplies the lines of his beauty. His hair, which he has in great plenty, is of a shining black, not frizzled, but falling in great rings, that it is a very comely ornament. His motions are easy and graceful, that they do very much commend his person when he either walks, dances plays at pall mall or tennis....' there's more of the same...I don't know who wrote that, but I bet it was a woman.

[diamond lil]

that's enough of that..OK..William Pitt the younger.

[BlueEmperor]

What about him?



Looks like a bit of a rebel doesn't he?

B.E.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

BE....I vote for Sam Neil in Restoration.

[mr dragon]

Looks like a bit of a rebel doesn't he?



True, but his hands look pretty darn weird.

[SilverMiniCooperS]

He has long fingers.....good for playing the piano!

[BlueEmperor]

I must say, I'm rather a fan of Pitt the Younger. At my age (22), he was already Chancellor of the Exchequer. Two years later he became Prime Minister.

B.E.

[diamond lil]

silvermini!..you need new glasses!..Rupert Sewell was an incredibly sexy Charles..I'd say William looks pugnacious in that portrait..he's saying, 'You want some?..come on then!'...he was an incredibly young PM and a very able one, too.

[BlueEmperor]

Oh yes, there's no doubt about that, especially if one consideres the conditions when he came to office, following the dissolution of the Fox-North coalition. As Britain's youngest ever prime minister, many people accused him of trading on his father's reputation. There was a popular ditty which went:

A sight to make all nations stand and stare:
A kingdom trusted to a schoolboy's care.

But William Pitt was undoubtedly an extremely able politician. He was shrewd - shrewd enough to try to co-opt his great rival Charles James Fox and his allies into his ministry (unfortunately, his adament refusal to include Lord North frustrated his efforts) - extremely cool and positively bold: From the minute he entered office, his government was on the defensive, being defeated in the House almost immediately. He took the totally unprecedented step of not resigning and remained defiantly in office, gaining some defectors from the coalition. The House was, nonetheless, dissolved but, come the next general election, Pitt was calm as a monk: his government, through the time-honoured tools of royal patronage and electoral fraud, was returned to the House with a reasonable number of supporters and Pitt himself was elected MP for the University of Cambridge.

I think that he was a truly great Prime Minister. During the years of peace until 1793 he nurturned Great Britain's economy in the aftermath of the American Revolution, showing his absolute brilliance in financial matters. After 1793, he came to symbolise British resistance to the French Revolution and to Napoléon and played a huge role in the formation of the three great European coalitions during the Napoleonic Wars (though victory eluded him).

He resigned in 1801 in the face of opposition to Catholic emancipation (from King George III among others) but was returned to office in 1803 following the breakdown of the Treaty of Amiens and renewed war with the French. His new ministry was shaky in the House and under unrelenting pressure from the activities of Napoléon. He put great effort into the forming of the Third Coalition but military defeats at Ulm and Austerlitz led to its collapse. The threat of invasion grew ever closer throughout the year until Lord Nelson secured British control of the seas at the Battle of Trafalgar. But the set-backs has taken their toll on Pitt's health and he made his last public speech in November 1805. He was doing so poorly that MPs were considering forcing him to resign to preserve his life but he died in January 1806 at the age of 47. His last words were, reputedly, "Oh my country, how I love my country" (of course, another account reports that he in fact said "I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies").

As motion was unanimously carried in Parliament to pay his debts (£40,000) and, as with his father, the House of Commons voted for a funeral at public expense and a monument to be erected in Westminster Abbey and he was duly buried next to his father, Pitt the Elder (the Earl of Chatham). He was replaced as Prime Minister by his cousin, Lord Grenville.

B.E.

[DaftDevonian]

I guess it's ok for an American to voice an
opinion on this thread....

Funny this, but my favorites are the Stuart's, too.
Followed by the Tudor's, the Hanoverians and finally
the Windsor's and the Plantagenet's, in no particular
order.

Since this forum is about the only place I know of
to discuss or hear other's opinions on the British
monarchy it's hard for me to say which King or
Queen was/is overrated. One thing, though. I think
the Queen Mother may have been underrated by
some of the post-WWII generation. Hitler called
her "the most dangerous woman in Europe". That
about says it all.

A cousin I managed to track down in the course of
doing my family history, who also happens to be gay,
told me that Queen Anne is much admired by the lesbian
community because apparently they think her relationship
with Sarah Churchill went beyond friendship, although it
was probably unconsummated.

Rufus has it all over Sam. I didn't think Sam Neill made
a particularly convincing Charles II, mostly because he's
so fair and Charles was swarthy. I did like Robert Downey's
performance in Restoration, though, and am a sucker for
costume dramas of almost any period.

[Che]

Does this guy qualify or does he get ignored because of his Norman blood line?



William, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy, spent his first six years with his mother in Falaise and received the duchy of Normandy upon his father's death in 1035. A council consisting of noblemen and William's appointed guardians ruled Normandy but ducal authority waned under the Normans' violent nature and the province was wracked with assassination and revolt for twelve years. In 1047, William reasserted himself in the eastern Norman regions and, with the aid of France's King Henry I, crushed the rebelling barons. He spent the next several years consolidating his strength on the continent through marriage, diplomacy, war and savage intimidation. By 1066, Normandy was in a position of virtual independence from William's feudal lord, Henry I of France and the disputed succession in England offered William an opportunity for invasion.

Edward the Confessor attempted to gain Norman support while fighting with his father-in-law, Earl Godwin, by purportedly promising the throne to William in 1051. (This was either a false claim by William or a hollow promise from Edward; at that time, the kingship was not necessarily hereditary but was appointed by the witan, a council of clergy and barons.) Before his death in 1066, however, Edward reconciled with Godwin, and the witan agreed to Godwin's son, Harold, as heir to the crown - after the recent Danish kings, the members of the council were anxious to keep the monarchy in Anglo-Saxon hands. William was enraged and immediately prepared to invade, insisting that Harold had sworn allegiance to him in 1064. Prepared for battle in August 1066, ill winds throughout August and most of September prohibited him crossing the English Channel. This turned out to be advantageous for William, however, as Harold Godwinson awaited William's pending arrival on England's south shores, Harold Hardrada, the King of Norway, invaded England from the north. Harold Godwinson's forces marched north to defeat the Norse at Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066. Two days after the battle, William landed unopposed at Pevensey and spent the next two weeks pillaging the area and strengthening his position on the beachhead. The victorious Harold, in an attempt to solidify his kingship, took the fight south to William and the Normans on October 14, 1066 at Hastings. After hours of holding firm against the Normans, the tired English forces finally succumbed to the onslaught. Harold and his brothers died fighting in the Hastings battle, removing any further organized Anglo-Saxon resistance to the Normans. The earls and bishops of the witan hesitated in supporting William, but soon submitted and crowned him William I on Christmas Day 1066. The kingdom was immediately besieged by minor uprisings, each one individually and ruthlessly crushed by the Normans, until the whole of England was conquered and united in 1072. William punished rebels by confiscating their lands and allocating them to the Normans. Uprisings in the northern counties near York were quelled by an artificial famine brought about by Norman destruction of food caches and farming implements.

The arrival and conquest of William and the Normans radically altered the course of English history. Rather than attempt a wholesale replacement of Anglo-Saxon law, William fused continental practices with native custom. By disenfranchising Anglo-Saxon landowners, he instituted a brand of feudalism in England that strengthened the monarchy. Villages and manors were given a large degree of autonomy in local affairs in return for military service and monetary payments. The Anglo-Saxon office of sheriff was greatly enhanced: sheriffs arbitrated legal cases in the shire courts on behalf of the king, extracted tax payments and were generally responsible for keeping the peace. "The Domesday Book" was commissioned in 1085 as a survey of land ownership to assess property and establish a tax base. Within the regions covered by the Domesday survey, the dominance of the Norman king and his nobility are revealed: only two Anglo-Saxon barons that held lands before 1066 retained those lands twenty years later. All landowners were summoned to pay homage to William in 1086. William imported an Italian, Lanfranc, to take the position of Archbishop of Canterbury; Lanfranc reorganized the English Church, establishing separate Church courts to deal with infractions of Canon law. Although he began the invasion with papal support, William refused to let the church dictate policy within English and Norman borders.

He died as he had lived: an inveterate warrior. He died September 9, 1087 from complications of a wound he received in a siege on the town of Mantes.

"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" gave a favorable review of William's twenty-one year reign, but added, "His anxiety for money is the only thing on which he can deservedly be blamed; . . .he would say and do some things and indeed almost anything . . .where the hope of money allured him." He was certainly cruel by modern standards, and exacted a high toll from his subjects, but he laid the foundation for the economic and political success of England.

[diamond lil]

yes he qualifies, che...it's strange that a man who had such command over his country's economy had none over his own..oops, I'm talking about Mr Pitt the younger, here...do you admire the bastard, che?..can't say I do..he was cold fish...not a bit sexy..funny haircut.

[BlueEmperor]

Oh dear, Che, now you've done it! You'll get Thunders and I into a huge row over "William the Bastard" now.

Due to his Anglo-Saxon sentimentality, Thunders simply cannot accept that William I actually had a stronger claim to the throne than Harold Godwinsson.

King William's claims originated through the hapless Ethelred the Unready, father of Edward the Confessor. King Ethelred's second wife was Emma, daughter of Robert the Fearless, Duke of Normandy. Robert the Fearless was William's great-grandfather. Just as an aside, Emma of Normandy later married King Canute.

William the Conqueror was, therefore, a maternal cousin of the Confessor.

King Harold I, on the other hand, was the son of Godwin, Earl of Wessex and Gytha Thorgilsson, a grand-niece of another Danish usurper, King Sweyn (Canute's father). The Confessor was married to Godwin's daughter, Edith, making Harold his brother-in-law. He had no royal blood whatsoever.

B.E.