Ruler of England

[Scytale]

I vote for Henry VIII too!

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Historicaly, Arthur was most probably Roman anyway, @Rifleman, I know its a common myth that Arthur was British. However the term "British" is a relatively modern one that was attributed to the Island chain for a particular population (the Bretonic tribes) living there. At the time historical Arthur would have been around, the Bretons didn't really exist anymore as such yet had already been absorbed by Celtic tribes having made their way Northwards through Ireland, crossed over to Scotland, and back south through what today would be "England".

Even if we follow the myth and allow him to be regionaly attributed to Britain, Arthur would have been Welsh, not English. England didn't even exist in those days and the "English" did not live in England Plotinus is very right in saying that the - err - lets call them Arthurian peoples of legend fought the Angles, Jutes and Saxons (amongst plenty of others) which were to become the so called Anglo-Saxons only after the already non-native population of this region was diluted or driven from its lands (aka. 'Angle Land' ---> 'Engla Land' ---> 'England'). Anyways...

Victoria (Half German = nono)
Boudica (Non-English = nono)
New Elizabeth (number I or number II? - number II i'd say no, for the royal family being German, not English...)
George III (... already from this guy's days onwards)
Churchill (a bit overused)


Someone Else (post it)

Oh- it has to be a real person?

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

hope this helps- everything before William the Conqueror should be most pure a King of the English

Who better than Alfred the Great, defender of the lands of Angles and Saxons against the Danes and first Saxon King to dub himself "King of the 'Anglo-Saxons'", becoming the only English King to be awarded the epithet 'the Great'.

 

[Plotinus]

John Bull? Nice idea!

I don't really see that having German forebears should rule out Victoria or any Elizabeth - after all, everyone in England has got foreign forebears somewhere along the line. I'd say that, after Anglo-Saxon times, if you're born in England, you're English. After all, Churchill was half American, but no-one seems to think that makes him any less English.

I believe that the first Anglo-Saxon king to claim overlordship of all the Anglo-Saxons was actually Raedwald of East Anglia, supposedly the first Bretwalda. I can't say he's interesting enough to be the leader of the English though, really.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Not entirely true- if you are born in England you get a "British" Passport, not an 'English' one, since being a British subject (for in Britain one isn't a citizen, yet subject to the crown) and being English are two different things... that and there not existing an English passport.

Similarly being American isn't a nationality, yet merely a citizenship. I was amazed how Arnie Schwarzenegger, Gov. of California held his 2nd term inauguration speach and called California a "Nation State" since, he argued, there were people of all nationalities from all over the world living in California... Whereas a "Nation State" is actualy the exact opposite: It is a political and geopolitical entity that encomprises a nation, a cultural and/or ethnic entity. This would be true for States like Germany and England as such (if England were a state, that is), yet be untrue in the case of Britain, as the latter encomprises several nations apart from the English. And then... California... hmm, play it again, Arnie - play 'as time goes by'...

Victoria has more of a British Empire nimbus. Remember she was Empress of India and all that title-mania, rather than being a good representation for England itself. IMO, Elizabeth I would definitly be more English in terms of representativeness, and Elizabeth II is well- nothing really but a status symbol these days- many English would agree she rather represents the Monarchy than England in particular. Not a particular example of great deeds either

Raedwald.. hmm, could be- no idea really- am a bit rusty on my Anglo-Saxon kings of old

 

[Plotinus]

Not entirely true- if you are born in England you get a "British" Passport, not an 'English' one, since being a British subject (for in Britain one isn't a citizen, yet subject to the crown) and being English are two different things... that and there not existing an English passport.

Right, there's no such thing as an English passport. So if you are born in England you are English and also British and you have a British passport; if you are born in Wales you are Welsh and also British and you have a British passport; if you are born in Scotland you are Scottish and also British and you have a British passport; and if you are born in Northern Ireland you are Northern Irish and also British and you have a British passport. Plus various complicated arrangements with the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, and other liminal cases. Where your ancestors came from has got nothing to do with any of this. Whether the queen's great-great-great-whatevers were German or not, she's from England and therefore English. Similarly, if I were to find out today that my grandparents were German, that wouldn't make me any less English, and if I were to find out that they were English, that wouldn't make me any more English either. If you take the line that you inherit your nationality from your ancestors then everyone's Ethiopian.

If you define a "nation state" as "a political and geopolitical entity that encomprises a nation, a cultural and/or ethnic entity" then I doubt that any such thing even exists in the real world.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Nope- thats just what Im trying to tell you- if you are Indian and happend to be born in England you are British (by law)- but you will never be English- cuz your Indian. Edit: It has indeed all to do with ones ethnicity, cultural background and historical roots.

On the Nation-State: It is not me that defines it- its the dictionaries that do. Now if everybody was to interpret established terms in the way the want to that would render communication obsolete as we would start to say things like "tree" when we mean "plant" (edit: i.e. every tree is a plant but not every plant is a tree). Schwarzenegger would, given one would project his speach to this example, have said "animal" when talking about plants...

Btw. with Germany there is already quite good an Example to Nation-State given. Also interesting would be simpler ones, such as Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, The Basque Country, etc..... Anyways- Shiro knows what I mean

- Edit2: We could never be Ethiopians, we do not live in Ethiopia, i.e. don't live together in the same geopolitical entity as they do, similarly we do not share their culture or history and do not... mix ethnicaly with them in that particular xxxual way but have been isolated from them for many thousands of years and developed separately in other ways Last but now least, we do not share the same national identity with them- or would you truely define yourself as an Ethiopian? Certainly not, since I presume u were mocking at me

 

[Virote_Considon]

If you take the line that you inherit your nationality from your ancestors then everyone's Ethiopian.

Or Chinese, depending on your source

 

[god_money]

Richard I, if voting is still open.

 

[Azmorg]

What about Caractacus?
Or Edward II
Or Sir Topham Hat?

 

[zulu9812]

Queen Victoria was a the monarch of the British Empire, and Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. You should really use leaders who only lead England - to do otherwise is kind of offensive to Scots. Elizabeth I is good, but what about Henry V or VIII?

 

[Gen. Rommel]

Elizabeth I is good, but what about Henry...VIII?

What a good choice...I believe that counts as another vote for Henry VIII!

But presumably, Shiro won't consider anymore votes that occurred after the 20th. Or is that deadline meant for the 20th of May?!

 

[rifleman]

Come on now, what's all this talk about British versus English? We're talking about leaders that live for up to 6 thousand years in a game.

I agree that William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great, Elizabeth I, and Richard were all great leaders of the English. But seriously, William - a Norman bastard with a tenuous claim to the throne, Alfred - one of the great kings of the Saxons of Wessex, Richard - an Angevin who hardly set foot in Brittania, and Elizabeth - whose entire Tudor line was more of a usurpation than a legitimate royal house.

If we choose to act more like lawyers here, instead of players who really enjoy this game, we could find a reason why no ruler has a claim to any people over those 6 thousand years.

William, Alfred, Elizabeth, and Richard while being more recent, are no better leaders for England than Arthur, Vortigern, Boudicca, and Cassivellaunus. Limiting ourselves to people who lived in the last handful of centuries isn't what we do for other leaders, and it's not what we should do here.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

@Rifleman, English are Anglo-Saxons; the region "England" is named after them (Angl Land), not the other way around- I perfectly agree with some of the points you make about William the Conqueror (yet calling William "great leader of the English" is like calling Adolf Hitler a Great Leader of the French; France conquered 1940). Why shouldn't Alfred the Great, being 'the' King of the Anglo-Saxons (ergo. English) not be suitable, while Arthur is a mythical figure said to actualy have fought Angles and Saxons rather than being himself one, Boudicca wasn't even Germanic, but celtic... and so on?

Besides- Alfred lived from c. 849 – 26 October 899, i.e. 1158 years ago, I wouldn't say that this limits one to "the last handful of centuries"... before that, btw. the 'English' as such didn not exist- so having a King of other people like the Celts from times before there were any English is a bit... well...

This thread has nothing lawyeresque about it. The resaon Shiro has made it is so as to find out which Leaderhead he should make according to accuracy and genuine historic relevance.

 

[Plotinus]

The English aren't identical with the Anglo-Saxons, though - that's like saying the French are Franks. The Anglo-Saxons are just one of a large number of peoples who go to make up the English. The only difference is that the English today are based in the same geographical location as the Anglo-Saxons, which makes the continuity between them more obvious than that between other peoples and the modern English.

 

[rifleman]

I just think we're being needlessly specific here.

In the original leaderheads, Mao is shown as a steppe warrior and later as a Manchu, and Elizabeth is shown as some sort of Greco-Roman Matron. In other LHs, Saladin is shown as a Pharoah, Ashurbanipal as a Baathist and Roosevelt as a Roman.

There are so many ways to say that these portrayals are wrong, but they're just being playfully imaginative with about how these leaders would change from millinnia to millennia. I don't see anything wrong with this.

As Alfred goes, why would 1100 years ago be fine, but 1500 be unacceptable? I just think it's rather arbitrary to say "before this date, no one fits, but after it - no matter what objection there may be - everyone's fine."

Everyone who's been mentioned has as much a claim to what today people call England. Even though many, including Alfred, never called it that.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

The English aren't identical with the Anglo-Saxons, though - that's like saying the French are Franks. The Anglo-Saxons are just one of a large number of peoples who go to make up the English. The only difference is that the English today are based in the same geographical location as the Anglo-Saxons, which makes the continuity between them more obvious than that between other peoples and the modern English.

Well the Celts are even less English The Anglo-Saxon civilization has developed to the modern English- certainly not without influence from within and from outside- yet it is a continuity.
About the French - you wouldn't believe how many people I have seen thinking the French are Gauls :|

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

I just think we're being needlessly specific here.

In the original leaderheads, Mao is shown as a steppe warrior and later as a Manchu, and Elizabeth is shown as some sort of Greco-Roman Matron. In other LHs, Saladin is shown as a Pharoah, Ashurbanipal as a Baathist and Roosevelt as a Roman.

There are so many ways to say that these portrayals are wrong, but they're just being playfully imaginative with about how these leaders would change from millinnia to millennia. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Certainly imaginative, I agree. I don't really mind what the people wear, as long as its the correct people. That's certainly two different things.

As Alfred goes, why would 1100 years ago be fine, but 1500 be unacceptable? I just think it's rather arbitrary to say "before this date, no one fits, but after it - no matter what objection there may be - everyone's fine."

Mate- it has nothing to do with the time (you brought up time with your limited-by-last-few-centuries-claim and I responded to it). It has to do with the fact that Boudicea has nothing- but nothing at all to do with the English or the Anglo-Saxons. You could similarly have suggested Julius Caesar for English Leader.

Everyone who's been mentioned has as much a claim to what today people call England. Even though many, including Alfred, never called it that.

It is a civilization, and as such the civilization of the Angles and Saxons having settled, persisted and developed in this particular area of the British Isles, took way since the days that the Anglish and Saxon Kingdoms were united- until today, btw.

"Originally, England (or Angleland) was a geographical term to describe the territory of Britain which was occupied by the Anglo-Saxons, rather than a name of an individual nation state.

The Kingdom of England was not founded until the separate petty kingdoms were unified under Alfred the Great King of Wessex, who later proclaimed himself King of the English after liberating London from the Danes in 886."

Since 866, the English Monarchy persists. So while the actual people are not identical, in which Plotinus is absolutely right, their civilization persists in actual continuity. Whatever the Saxons and Angles were before, having settled in Southern Britain already from 5th and 6th century onwards is not really important, nor any non-English or Anglo-Saxon rulers. Excluded would therefor be William the conqueror comming from outside of the English civilization and Boudicea, not having anything at all to do with the "English". Btw. Richard the First it is and polls closed 3 days ago! No point bringing in strange new stuff now.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

well the polls are closed. Henry VIII only have 5 votes. I dont have the exact numbers because I am on my gf's comp.
I should have been more careful with the thread's name. In Japanese England and Great Britian have the same name. Also I think I already said that this will be for a British civ ealier in the thread.

 

[rifleman]

Again, I disagree. We are being "lawyeresque" here, or maybe nit-picky is a better term.

No, I wouldn't say Hitler is appropriate for France, or JC for England. But Richard - who I think is just fine - was a King that the "English" didn't like much at all. He came to the throne by decending from invaders who dispossessed English and British alike, spent most of his time either in his extensive lands on the continent or at war abroad, and imposed harsh taxes on the people. By these qualifications, any number of Roman Emperors would have qualified.

On the contrary, Boudicca, while queen of a relatively small (by our modern standards) slice of eastern England, defended the land courageously from the Romans, and Arthur (who may or may not have been real) defended the land from the Saxons et al. This puts them in the hearts of many English - who may even call themselves British.

I should have been more careful with the thread's name. In Japanese England and Great Britian have the same name. Also I think I already said that this will be for a British civ ealier in the thread.

Thanks for clarifying Shiro, but I don't think you did anything wrong. I look forward to your next work.