I assume England will be in Civ V, but we don't know who the leader will be yet. Who do you think it should be?

I think Victoria. Under Victoria, Britain was one of the largest and most powerful empires ever, and she also symbolized late nineteenth century culture outside of just England. England was stronger under her than it was under Elizabeth or Churchill.

Agree with Victoria, though Elizabeth would be fine as well. Since there is only 1 leader Churchill is decidedly out in my opinion.

I definitly would want winston churchill.

if we only have one leader per civ it has to be Victoria out of those 3.

Eh. Elizabeth was an incredibly important monarch with a great deal of personal power and influence, struggling against titanic enemies.

Victorian Britain was a super-power, but not really because of Victoria, but because of excellent Prime Ministers and generally good government (and free trade) and industrial success. I don't really give Victoria much personal credit for it.

Eh. Elizabeth was an incredibly important monarch with a great deal of personal power and influence, struggling against titanic enemies.

Victorian Britain was a super-power, but not really because of Victoria, but because of excellent Prime Ministers and generally good government (and free trade) and industrial success. I don't really give Victoria much personal credit for it.

But the Victorian Age was the height of the British Empire. I still think she's the best choice.

But the Victorian Age was the height of the British Empire. I still think she's the best choice.

The counter-argument here is that other leaders don't necessarily represent their civilizations' golden ages per se. For example Washington is from the very beginning of American history, not when it ruled the world.

However, I do think Victoria regardless would be the best choice. The British power in the world in the 19th century is quite remarkable... Also I have something of a liking to the Victorian era, so, yeah.

Whereas I have a liking for the time of the Sea-Dogs and all that jazz. So Elizabeth gets my vote.

Also, if the civilization is named the English, then to a certain level, I would prefer a leader from prior to England becoming Great Britain.

according to the PC Jeux article, the leader is Elizabeth

Other: Henry VIII

Edward III is the man for the job

Elizabeth or Victoria, I could care less which made the cut as long as it's not Churchill.

Victorian Britain was a super-power, but not really because of Victoria, but because of excellent Prime Ministers and generally good government (and free trade) and industrial success. I don't really give Victoria much personal credit for it.Ah, but she represents the Era in which modern Britain was made, in which Britain became a great civilization. And also, I find that Elizabethan England does not have enough connection to Modern Britain. Victoria and the Era she represents are Britain in a general sense, it is historical and yet determined Modern Britain.

One thing that annoyed me about Civ IV England was the order of the cities after London, the standing of our cities was largely made in the Victorian age and I found it annoying that it seemed to be determined in Civ IV largely by the well known ancient cities like Coventry and York (yes I know I can rename but the default order still reflects on the Civ that has been implemented). The first cities after London should be Birmingham and Manchester. The Civ IV quasi-medieval ordering of the cities also clashed with the Redcoats and Stock Exchange as England's UU and UB, which were Victorian.

Elizabeth will be in. According to French magazine PC Jeux:
The Brittish queen, Elizabeth, will be more prone to exert her dominion over the seas.
Note Cesar, Washington, Bismark, Napoleon are also in.

Other; Cromwell

and having victoria as the leader is really stupid, shw was just a figurehead monarch. If you wanted Victorian England you should have Gladstone, Disraeli or Peel. Having Victoria running England is only slightly less ridiculous then having uncle Sam as the American leader.

I definitly would want winston churchill.

Same.

10chr

Ah, but she represents the Era in which modern Britain was made, in which Britain became a great civilization. And also, I find that Elizabethan England does not have enough connection to Modern Britain. Victoria and the Era she represents are Britain in a general sense, it is historical and yet determined Modern Britain.

One thing that annoyed me about Civ IV England was the order of the cities after London, the standing of our cities was largely made in the Victorian age and I found it annoying that it seemed to be determined in Civ IV largely by the well known ancient cities like Coventry and York (yes I know I can rename but the default order still reflects on the Civ that has been implemented). The first cities after London should be Birmingham and Manchester. The Civ IV quasi-medieval ordering of the cities also clashed with the Redcoats and Stock Exchange as England's UU and UB, which were Victorian.

Thats all pretty trivial bro.

Good question though, OP. I'm almost convinced enough to change my vote to Elizabeth.

I'm content with Elizabeth. She reigned when the English monarchy was still fairly strong, her rule brought glory and strength to England, and she was unquestioningly a good reason for her Kingdom's success.

Other: Charles II (The Merry Monarch). The restored king. Prob best as a Cre/Phi leader. A moderate, who successfully stared down a parliament stacked with religious biggots (at a time when only the aristocracy could vote) and maintained rule without requiring the French army.

His reign was fairly divisive and England didn't accomplish as much compared to other reigns.

Elizabeth, I think is best, since she was there at the beginning of England's ascent etc. Victoria, is a very close second place though and imho we should able to select her as an alternative to Elizabeth.
:king:

Victoria, although I choose her with the hope that she's not as ugly in CiV as her Civ IV leaderhead.

Seriously other, other has 10 out of like 30 votes? I mean Elizabeth and Victory isn't good enough? I'm just kind of flabbergasted, finding strong female leaders is hard, but in these instances you're not even manipulating anything, they deserve outright to be on the civ leader list, but who outside of either of them would make sense to even make the British Leader? I mean even disregarding the fact you have a strong female leader, like who could possibly be better for England? I mean I can understand disputing between the two, since we can only have one, but who else, and especially since it's so hard to find a strong female leader, and these two stand up on their own without affirmative action, and I can't think of a better British leader to use period.

Thats all pretty trivial bro.I'll admit the second paragraph was OT, but I don't see how any of it's trivial, seems pretty fundamental to me.and having victoria as the leader is really stupid, shw was just a figurehead monarch. If you wanted Victorian England you should have Gladstone, Disraeli or Peel. Having Victoria running England is only slightly less ridiculous then having uncle Sam as the American leader."leaders" in Civ is a broad cateogory, it isn't limited to strong political leaders.

Richard I. When I think of /England/, I think of him. If we get /Britain/, then Tony Blair Churchill.

Elizabeth I... Victoria or Churchill would the choice for a British leader.

Seriously other, other has 10 out of like 30 votes? I mean Elizabeth and Victory isn't good enough? I'm just kind of flabbergasted, finding strong female leaders is hard, but in these instances you're not even manipulating anything, they deserve outright to be on the civ leader list, but who outside of either of them would make sense to even make the British Leader? I mean even disregarding the fact you have a strong female leader, like who could possibly be better for England? I mean I can understand disputing between the two, since we can only have one, but who else, and especially since it's so hard to find a strong female leader, and these two stand up on their own without affirmative action, and I can't think of a better British leader to use period.

I agree with this. As I said, I'd prefer Victoria since she reigned over Britain when it was at its peak, but Elizabeth is also a good choice, and I wouldn't be upset if she made it. For the people who said Victoria was just a figurehead, and wasn't responsible for the massive British empire, I think that's irrelevant. She was still the head of state, whether or not she was responsible for its policies, and she was the public figure of Britain at the time.

Anyway, Churchill I only included in the poll because he's been in previous editions of Civ, but I think it'd be a joke if he was the sole representative of England. I also don't understand how people would vote for Other over Elizabeth or Victoria; they're not token women in the game at all, they were actually extremely significant women rulers for their country.

I think it should be Elizabeth. She was queen at a critical time, was quite important in charting the current course for England (including Anglican Christianity). She did expand English power and set the stage for later English success. She was a figurehead for English cultural history, such as Shakespeare.

It's true that Victoria was the figurehead when England was at it's height. However, if we want a leader from that time, either Gladstone or Disraeli would be a better choice (admittedly not female). They had more influence on England at that time than did Victoria.

I do agree that it shouldn't be other. Churchill wasn't that great a leader, except for his resistance to the Nazis. A number of his military decisions were highly doubtful and he didn't make a very good domestic leader.

It's amazing how many people use England/Britain and English/British interchangeably in this thread.

For me a lot depends on whether we are looking for a British Leader or an English Leader.
I would pick:
English: Elizabeth I or Richard I
British: Victoria
My impression is that it is is the English Civ we are looking for, having Victoria lead the English just feels a little strange to me, nobody would suggest her as a leader for the Scots or the Welsh, so why for the English???
(It would help if she was of proper English descent, but she, like the five monarchs before her, was a descendant of the German house of Hanover. She married another German, Albert of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, hence founding the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as it was known in Britain. It wasn't until 1917, during World War I, that George V changed this to Windsor )

King Æthelred is the only monarch fit to take the English throne, anyone else should stand aside.

I'm having trouble deciding between Lord Palmerston and Pitt the Elder.

;)

Elizabeth.

It would be nice to have Cate Blanchett film some live action sequences for CivV.

And, of course, there are other reasons to favor Elizabeth.

Elizabeth I for England.
Victoria for Great Britain.

So I guess Elizabeth as they always go with England.

So there's basically two major arguments in this thread:

1. Victoria - Britain was one of the largest empires in world history under her (but some critics say it wasn't due to her policies, which I think is irrelevant -- she was still the head of state at the time).

2. Elizabeth - If the Civ is going to be called England, Elizabeth should be the leader since England reached its peak under her before Britain came to be.

Then there's some arguing for Churchill or Other for random reasons.

I respect both of the two major arguments, but I still think England represents Britain in the game, so I have no problem with them putting a British leader in for the English civ, especially since Britain was so powerful under her that it seems silly to ignore her. But I'm also partial to the Victorian era so I find her more interesting as well.

It's amazing how many people use England/Britain and English/British interchangeably in this thread.

For me a lot depends on whether we are looking for a British Leader or an English Leader.
I would pick:
English: Elizabeth I or Richard I
British: Victoria
My impression is that it is is the English Civ we are looking for, having Victoria lead the English just feels a little strange to me, nobody would suggest her as a leader for the Scots or the Welsh, so why for the English???
(It would help if she was of proper English descent, but she, like the five monarchs before her, was a descendant of the German house of Hanover. She married another German, Albert of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, hence founding the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as it was known in Britain. It wasn't until 1917, during World War I, that George V changed this to Windsor )Stalin in Civ IV was leader of Russia, and yet he was actually the leader of the Soviet Union and was born and grew up in Georgia, but Russia formed the foundation of the Soviet Union, and it was realised that the Soviet Union was basically a communist Russian Empire in all but name. And, actually, Victoria was queen of England - as a constituent country of Britain. England always dominated British politics, the new Great British parliament formed in 1707 was a continuation of the English parliament with the addition of some Scottish MPs and Peers. In the Victorian age itself Victoria was actually often referred to as queen of England, without anyone batting an eyelash (and back then Wales was a part of England). Even British wars are still referred to as Anglo-otherguy wars. I'd much rather Firaxis choose one to represent both than we actually have both - that would be the Holy Roman Empire and Germany situation all over again. Anyway, if you really want to be pedantic about it Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. i.e. she was equally not just queen of England as she was not just queen of Britain.

Stalin in Civ IV was leader of Russia, and yet he was actually the leader of the Soviet Union and was born and grew up in Georgia, but Russia formed the foundation of the Soviet Union, and it was realised that the Soviet Union was basically a communist Russian Empire in all but name. And, actually, Victoria was queen of England - as a constituent country of Britain. England always dominated British politics, the new Great British parliament formed in 1707 was a continuation of the English parliament with the addition of some Scottish MPs and Peers. In the Victorian age itself Victoria was actually often referred to as queen of England, without anyone batting an eyelash (and back then Wales was a part of England). Even British wars are still referred to as Anglo-otherguy wars. I'd much rather Firaxis choose one to represent both than we actually have both - that would be the Holy Roman Empire and Germany situation all over again. Anyway, if you really want to be pedantic about it Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. i.e. she was equally not just queen of England as she was not just queen of Britain.

I'll cosign to this. :)

Stalin in Civ IV was leader of Russia, and yet he was actually the leader of the Soviet Union and was born and grew up in Georgia, but Russia formed the foundation of the Soviet Union, and it was realised that the Soviet Union was basically a communist Russian Empire in all but name. And, actually, Victoria was queen of England - as a constituent country of Britain. England always dominated British politics, the new Great British parliament formed in 1707 was a continuation of the English parliament with the addition of some Scottish MPs and Peers. In the Victorian age itself Victoria was actually often referred to as queen of England, without anyone batting an eyelash (and back then Wales was a part of England). Even British wars are still referred to as Anglo-otherguy wars. I'd much rather Firaxis choose one to represent both than we actually have both - that would be the Holy Roman Empire and Germany situation all over again. Anyway, if you really want to be pedantic about it Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. i.e. she was equally not just queen of England as she was not just queen of Britain.

All very interesting and factual. However Elizabeth feels right if England. Victoria feels right if British is the label.

However living in the USA (and a US citizen now) as I do, I understand the why of their name choices,since if I say I'm from Britain the response "is that in England?" is not uncommon.... and naturally enough the assumption is I'm from London. (let the flames ensue, it won't change the truth).

All very interesting and factual. However Elizabeth feels right if England. Victoria feels right if British is the label.

However living in the USA (and a US citizen now) as I do, I understand the why of their name choices,since if I say I'm from Britain the response "is that in England?" is not uncommon.... and naturally enough the assumption is I'm from London. (let the flames ensue, it won't change the truth).Indeed, in the UK nobody would be heard saying "Prime Minister of England". Yet I have heard that exact term from US commentators. I certainly agree Elizabeth sounds better as Queen of England, and Victoria sounds better as Queen of Britain, but I think both England and Britain made their impact as a great civilization in the 19th century in the political form of the British Empire, which is why I think Victoria is (marginally) a better leader than Elizabeth - but I support Elizabeth over, for example, earlier English monarchs some have suggested.

I know that England and Britain aren't exactly the same thing...
but it's pretty much the same, for all intents and purposes.

It's like... (and this may be a bad analogy, but I'm going with it) during the Civil War. You'd still be called an American by foreigners, right? If I'm wrong please correct me :lol:

Anyway, if you really want to be pedantic about it Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. i.e. she was equally not just queen of England as she was not just queen of Britain.
If I were into being pedantic I would point out that she was also Empress of India, but that doesn't mean she should replace Ghandi. (Although to be honest someone should!)
Still I have no axe to grind I'm happy with either it's just that if forced to choose I would pick Elizabeth for the reasons stated earlier.

However living in the USA (and a US citizen now) as I do, I understand the why of their name choices,since if I say I'm from Britain the response "is that in England?" is not uncommon.... and naturally enough the assumption is I'm from London. (let the flames ensue, it won't change the truth).
QFT!
I get this all the time.
Of course when I lived in California everyone would hear my accent and ask me if I were from Australia :sheep:.
To my credit I never hit any of them...just ground my teeth and explained the degree to which they had insulted me. :mischief:
(See I can invite flames too, uh oh...:trouble:)

It should be an ENGLISH leader, not a British one. Maybe Richard II?

Wellington was quite good, if only for his military ability.

It's amazing how many people use England/Britain and English/British interchangeably in this thread.

True. There is a crossover period, though. All monarchs between James VI/I and Anne were styled King/Queen of England and Scotland, but the two were still separate countries until Queen Anne forced full political union. During this period, Britain would be a misnomer, although any of the monarchs could reasonably be used for a Scottish civ. Georg Hanover was the first monarch to commence his reign as King of Great Britain. A couple of people seemed confused about Elizabeth (assuming they were referring to Elizabeth I). Elizabeth was not Queen of Scotland (during her reign, Mary and James VI were the monarchs in Scotland), so Queen of England is correct for Elizabeth.

Henry.

Prime Minister Lloyd George.

Actually, my vote is going for Elizabeth - but not because of the entire "British/Enlish - which is more appropriate" debate going on in here.

Definitely Victoria. She had the longest reign of all British monarchs and during this period (1837-1901), the iconic Victorian Age, the UK was the world's most advanced and powerful nation by far. End of all discussion.

Other; Cromwell

and having victoria as the leader is really stupid, shw was just a figurehead monarch. If you wanted Victorian England you should have Gladstone, Disraeli or Peel. Having Victoria running England is only slightly less ridiculous then having uncle Sam as the American leader.

Agree with you, come with Protector Lord :goodjob:

Go with the Lion and Unicorn :)