Shireroth

Alfred the Great, Saviour of the English nation.
Edward I, the Hammer of the Scots and Conqueror of Wales.
Henry V, Respect where it is due for Agincourt, even if the conquests in France ultimately proved unsustainable.
Henry VIII, for breaking England's institutional ties with the Papacy and thus setting the British Isles apart from Continental Europe and therefore free to pursue its interests in the wider world.
Oliver Cromwell, killed a weak king and in effect assumed his powers - conquering Scotland and Ireland and heralding England's rise to the first rank of great powers through victory over the Netherlands in the 1st Anglo-Dutch Naval War and an assault on Spain's Caribbean colonies.
Aside from William of Orange all Monarchs after Lord Protector Cromwell are either useless or dependent on the quality of their ministers.

Of course.
They were supposed to be useless. Parliament took power. All a monarch could do after that was smile and waive (most) or muck things up (George III).

There is a very determined rat on my desk investigating a bowl...

Aside from William of Orange all Monarchs after Lord Protector Cromwell are either useless or dependent on the quality of their ministers.

Except of course, the current monarch correct? Because as I recall, speaking ill of the reigning monarch is still treason. Her potential successors however are as useless as a tit on a bull.

I would never seek to besmirch the fair name of her good Majesty. She clearly has a noble and tolerant soul, however, out of deference to the constitutional settlement, she is dependent on the quality of her ministers - amongst whom stand such luminaries as Gordon Brown, David Milliband, and Ed Balls... who are a bunch of cunts.

I've nothing against a nice lady that did what was expected of her.

But Golly, a Republic (in RL, of course) feels good. We can call the head of state an idiot, when appropriate. And the head of government. Same guy, saves breath.

Actually, I kind of like young George. He got dealt a bizzare hand by fate.

George The Younger is like walking past a car wreck, there is little to say that hasn't already been said.

Ari, you forgot William the Conqueror, as well as Henry II (father of the Common Law) and Elizabeth I!

I also enjoy the freedom to speak of our leaders as we please, without worries of being brought up on charges of disloyalty or worse. That is one of the great benefits of being out from under a ruler. And we even fight for the rights of people to dissent with their elected leaders. Sadly, though, we usually get the leaders we deserve, because many of us don't bother to acquaint ourselves adequately with the issues or the character of the candidates before selecting the ones to lead us.

Braden Indianensis wrote:Ari, you forgot William the Conqueror, as well as Henry II (father of the Common Law) and Elizabeth I!

Ari? Ari's the dolphin with the pre-installed linux. I'm Ardy the turbaned war-mongering weirdo with odd facial hair; do keep up.

William the Conqueror - as fun as being him on M2TW has been he is still the bastard (lit.) who destroyed the Old English nation and while that did in the end take us from been a nation of sloughful mead swilling layabouts and turned us into vicious neurotic globe-trotting pirates and imperialists, he's still a damned pseudo-French Viking warlord who killed the last truly English King and usurped the throne.[/rant]

Henry II - Yes we should be grateful for not being stuck under 'Roman Law' but he is still, as far as I am concerned, one of the 'French' Plantagenet Kings, more concerned about his continental holdings in Normandy, Anjou and Aquitainne (sp). For the Norman and Plantagenet Kings England was little more than a cash-cow to pay for their continental wars and even the Third Crusade.

Elizabeth... she would have merited consideration but she failed to produce a heir, which left us saddled with the Stuarts... and links back to my earlier rant.

I also enjoy the freedom to speak of our leaders as we please,

I'm sorry, Ardy, I am getting feeble in my old age...*cough*...*cough*...OMG BLOOD!


I don't know if I'd say that Elizabeth's not producing a child was a "failure." After all, if she'd been married , she would have had to surrender all of her powers to her husband; most of the leading European princes were devilish, blood-sucking papists, and marrying any of them might have sent England down the drain, as Mary and Philip found out. She couldn't have known the Stewarts would be idiots; James I wasn't a terrible king--he was much better than his son, at any rate, although that wasn't difficult.

Braden Indianensis wrote:I'm sorry, Ardy, I am getting feeble in my old age...*cough*...*cough*...OMG BLOOD!


I don't know if I'd say that Elizabeth's not producing a child was a "failure." After all, if she'd been married , she would have had to surrender all of her powers to her husband; most of the leading European princes were devilish, blood-sucking papists, and marrying any of them might have sent England down the drain, as Mary and Philip found out. She couldn't have known the Stewarts would be idiots; James I wasn't a terrible king--he was much better than his son, at any rate, although that wasn't difficult.

A fair point but I am sure she could have found a way round it by either marrying an English nobleman of the high aristocracy or even a minor german or scandinavian princeling. In any event I am sure it would have been within her wits to have whoever was selected for the purpose of mating designated as a 'prince-consort' rather than King. Hell I'd even have been impressed if she had adopted the preying mantis approach to reproduction.

Who can say? Perhaps she did...

*dun...dunnn.....DUNNNNNNNNN*

Well that would have explained a lot about what happened to the Earl of Essex. Except for the fact she was getting on a bit by that stage.

A theory, based on the lack of fertility of the Tudor dynasty-

Maybe she knew she was sterile, and decided not to disappoint the country by marrying and NOT producing an heir.

?!

Could be...I think, though, that she was mostly influenced in the matter of marriage by:

1. The fear of losing her power and independence.

2. The terrible fate of her mother and some of Henry's other wives (psychological fear of marriage and conjugation.)

....And her sister's marriage was no joy, either.

Well I think her husband only ever visited once, making the undertaking of certain activities associated with the married state somewhat difficult.