Greatest British Monarch?

[joycem10]

When the first printing presses came to England they came from the Continent where they didn't use þ in their alphabet so it wasn't amongst the type blocks. Y was used instead of þ because they already looked similiar in the written script of the time I believe (could have been the late medieval style lettering?)

Any explanation for the wierd f shape instead of an "s"?

 

[Kafka2]

What the hell is John doing on that list? He was crap. A murderous rapist who got forced into giving up a lot of power at the point of a sword.

And Richard "the Lionheart" didn't defend his lands. In fact, he was hardly ever within 1000 miles of them and couldn't even speak English.

 

[Hotpoint]

Any explanation for the wierd f shape instead of an "s"?

It's just a long s and should really be ſ not f (although even when it was still used lots of people did it wrong and wrote it like the letter f).

As to why there were two different letters which meant the same thing I'm damned if I know (although ſ was ſuppoſed to be uſed within a word and s at the end for ſome inexplicable reaſon )

 

[Verbose]

and i still think Henry should have had Becket Hung, Drawn and Quartered, with his parts sent all over England as a lesson in humility to the church.
maybe saying it like that made him lose it

That might have been exactly what Becket wanted.

Maybe your prof. has read the anthropologist Victor Turner's interpretation of this?
According to Turner Becket had several choices how to respond in his conflict with Henry, but he chose the role of martyr.
Consequently Becket wasn't innocent. He actively wanted Henry to kill him. At which point Henry of course would have lost his argument with the church, so Henry pretty much went out of his way not to respond to Becket's provocation. And then someone forced his hand, sort of...

That was the real beef between church and state in the MA; if the pope appoints the temporal rulers or not.
John Lackland had to hand over his whole kingdom to Innocent III, and get it back from the pope as a vassal of the Mother Church BTW.

 

[DAv2003]

And Richard "the Lionheart" didn't defend his lands. In fact, he was hardly ever within 1000 miles of them and couldn't even speak English.

True about the language but until Edward the 1st, none of them did. Also Richard died defending his lands in France, though they weren't in England he died defending what was his.

 

[Verbose]

True about the language but until Edward the 1st, none of them did. Also Richard died defending his lands in France, though they weren't in England he died defending what was his.

Right. Aquitania. He was king of that place a damn sight longer than he was king of England.
Come to think of it he prolly spoke Occitan a better than French. He certainly wrote his poems in that language.

 

[Kafka2]

True about the language but until Edward the 1st, none of them did. Also Richard died defending his lands in France, though they weren't in England he died defending what was his.

He also disliked England intensely. His coronation was spiced up by widespread persecution of England's Jews. He delegated his power to idiots who provoked near-rebellion in his absence. His raging arrogance and foul temper wrecked relations with Duke Leopold of Austria. He let wars and uprising fester in Britain because he basically didn't give a stuff.

A good general, but a disastrous king.

 

[privatehudson]

It doesn't particularly matter to the thread if Richard was more French than English, the thread is about who was the best king for/of Britain. He may have died defending his lands in France, but as far as England is concerned all he is and was good for was legend, myth and song.

 

[sydhe]

Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination

Oh for Christ's sake. Has my posting on this site taught you lot nothing?

The greatest British king (ie- a king from the Isles of Britain, Rambuchan) was Athelstan. He united England! Where do you think that large bit neighbouring Scotland and Wales came from?

He was probably the most powerful of the Saxon kings (Canute being Danish), and was one of the best. I think he tends to get over looked because Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder did so much to establish the kingdom before Athelstan completed the conquest.

Was Robert the Bruce the best of the kings from Scotland or Ireland?

 

[DAv2003]

He was from Scotland and he was a bit of a bugger as well.

 

[Kafka2]

Robert the Bruce was one of the greatest Scottish kings, but is run very close by a few others.

William the Lion (reigned 1165- 1214) was Scotland's equivalent of Alfred the Great. He had major setbacks early on, but fought back hard and emerged stronger than he started and had a long and successful reign.

Somerled (King of the Isles until his death in 1164) is a bit of a shadowy character, but he clearly had stunning military successes against the Vikings and carved out an impressive kingdom.

Macbeth, believe it or not, was actually a hugely impressive king and should be a hero for Scottish nationalists.

I'm by no stretch of the imagination any sort of authority about Ireland, but the names Olaf Guthfrithson, Brian Boru and Cormac Mac Art spring to mind.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Elizabeth I. Definitely there is no better monarch than her, because she got the British empire as a small and unimportant empire and turned it into a great power. Although the seeds of the British glory already date back from Henry I times, only she could make them grow and the British empire to prosper. She built the famous British navy, and her legacy we can see still in the United States, a former colony of Great Britain.

 

[Plotinus]

George III was an extremely popular king who cared about the people and worked very hard to try to make the country prosper. I'd say those are the sorts of qualities that make a good monarch rather than all that running about with swords and stuff. Plus, of course, his wee was blue, which I think should be mandatory for monarchs.

 

[Rambuchan]

His wee was blue! Quite true!

Problem is Plot, as much as I agree, people and history simply do not remember the 'nice' kings and queens. It's a real problem with our popular and mainstream recordings of history. I believe this can only get worse as we depend increasingly on news archives for our historical records. If we continue with such a death cult news media these days, God knows what kind of impression we shall leave! Of course these are the popular and mainstream records I'm referring to.

 

[DAv2003]

George III was an extremely popular king who cared about the people and worked very hard to try to make the country prosper.

And refused to alow Catholic Emancipation.

 

[Kafka2]

Aye. "Farmer George" was a sectarian bigot above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Ack! Hit Henry 8 instead of Liz.

Ed 3 is pretty good too, in spite of his relatively short reign.

 

[Nyvin]

Kind of funny how none of them before Liz 1st had enough of an impact on the world to matter the least bit.

 

[Plotinus]

And refused to alow Catholic Emancipation.

Imagine if he had! Gordon Riots, anyone?

You can only judge people by the standards of their day. And in the eighteenth century, the English were incredibly bigoted and xenophobic, and intransigently intolerant.

Of course, they've changed *enormously* since then... apparently!

 

[sydhe]

It's worth noting that William Pitt the Younger was well ahead of George III on the matter.

I think overall George III didn't do that badly. He lost the 13 colonies, to be sure, but he also supported James Cook, which brought him Australia and New Zealand, kept Canada, and had the amazing good sense to appoint William Pitt the Younger as his Prime Minister, which did an amazing amount of good during the wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon. He also gets a gold star in my opinion for standing up for John Harrison when Parliament was trying to cheat him for solving the longitude problem.

My overall impression is that George III was supportive of science and technology, which did a great deal to make Britain more powerful in the nineteenth century. He certainly has his negatives (the American Revolution, opposing Catholic Emancipation, going mad), but he was the best of the four Georges, and I think overall did more good than harm.