Should Elizabeth II lead England in Civ 7?

[Rurudyne]

Uncle Paul ...

Hey, just because Elizabeth 1 didn't have the internet, TV and radio that doesn't mean she didn't do a lot with what she had. And, arguably largely controlled her image in far more lasting ways that any modern leader could. With 1 we still largely have the monarch she wanted us to know about even to this day because controlling the message is nothing new, and she was really good at it.

Just as some interesting game mechanics could be justified with 2 ... I tried to suggest one earlier ... with 1 she could possibly have some sort of a culture and trade related boost specific to her being there at a time when England really started breaking out of previous limits ... I just have no ideas at the moment. I came up with the free them as new city states thing for 2 while taking my handicapped sister to lunch, so no telling when or if any idea might appear.

I would sure love to read any ideas y'all might come up with.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Uncle Paul ...

Hey, just because Elizabeth 1 didn't have the internet, TV and radio that doesn't mean she didn't do a lot with what she had. And, arguably largely controlled her image in far more lasting ways that any modern leader could. With 1 we still largely have the monarch she wanted us to know about even to this day because controlling the message is nothing new, and she was really good at it.

Just as some interesting game mechanics could be justified with 2 ... I tried to suggest one earlier ... with 1 she could possibly have some sort of a culture and trade related boost specific to her being there at a time when England really started breaking out of previous limits ... I just have no ideas at the moment. I came up with the free them as new city states thing for 2 while taking my handicapped sister to lunch, so no telling when or if any idea might appear.

I would sure love to read any ideas y'all might come up with.

HM the Queen (Elizabeth II), it's hard to believe she's gone, but she was an icon and an inspiration to us all...whenever someone talks about the British Queen, she's the one people mean.

If I said "I really admire what the Queen did", no one would think I meant Elizabeth I.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

HM the Queen (Elizabeth II), it's hard to believe she's gone, but she was an icon and an inspiration to us all...whenever someone talks about the British Queen, she's the one people mean.

If I said "I really admire what the Queen did", no one would think I meant Elizabeth I.

Well considering Elizabeth I was never called a British Queen, but just Queen of England (and Ireland) I agree.

That's another point towards Elizabeth I though considering I'd much rather them focus more on the English history in their design.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Well considering Elizabeth I was never called a British Queen, but just Queen of England (and Ireland) I agree.

That's another point towards Elizabeth I though considering I'd much rather them focus more on the English history in their design.

I've heard Elizabeth II be called "Queen of England", mostly by Americans.

 

[Patine]

I've heard Elizabeth II be called "Queen of England", mostly by Americans.

Self-explanatory reference.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I wish Anglo-Saxon leaders were possibilities. They were the first "Kings of England" as a united English concept, even before the Normans. Why start English kinghood with them, even?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wish Anglo-Saxon leaders were possibilities. They were the first "Kings of England" as a united English concept, even before the Normans. Why start English kinghood with them, even?

Some people think that the Anglo-Saxons should be their own civ, instead of under England. However, I myself wouldn't mind Alfred the Great leading England.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Some people think that the Anglo-Saxons should be their own civ, instead of under England. However, I myself wouldn't mind Alfred the Great leading England.

They aren't unique enough. Anglo-Saxons are the bedrock of the "English." The Anglo-Saxon kings for generations were even first to be called "Kings of England." Glad you can see it.

 

[Patine]

The Anglo-Saxon kings for generations were even first to be called "Kings of England." Glad you can see it.

"Kings of Wessex and All the English," was the proper title, actually. William the Conqueror changed it to, "King of England," (as well as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Main, and, even before securing control of the whole island, remotely so, Lord of Ireland, in his own day, and that of his immediate successors).

 

[Plains-Cow]

"Kings of Wessex and All the English," was the proper title, actually. William the Conqueror changed it to, "King of England," (as well as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Main, and, even before securing control of the whole island, remotely so, Lord of Ireland, in his own day, and that of his immediate successors).

Æthelstan was the first to claim title of King of Britain/Emperor of Britannia. See: Charter of King Æthelstan for Wulfgar, his thegn (British Library, Cotton Ch VIII 16, f. 1r)

British Library

www.bl.uk

So the Anglo-Saxon kings did the same, right down to the claims of lands they haven't yet conquered.

I get that some prefer hardline to see the Normans as the first "Kings of England," but it will always be the Anglo-Saxons in my eyes who were the the first kings of a united English people and rallied them not only in conquest but then on the opposite end of the spectrum as the frequent defenders of their conquered terriorites from subsequent invasions, establishing a shared sense of "Englishness" rather than just Anglo-Saxon-Jute localism of the various Germanic kindoms (akin to the mainland Germanic kingdoms, interestingly enough).

 

[Patine]

Æthelstan was the first to claim title of King of Britain/Emperor of Britannia. See: Charter of King Æthelstan for Wulfgar, his thegn (British Library, Cotton Ch VIII 16, f. 1r)

British Library

www.bl.uk

So the Anglo-Saxon kings did the same, right down to the claims of lands they haven't yet conquered.

I get that some prefer hardline to see the Normans as the first "Kings of England," but it will always be the Anglo-Saxons in my eyes who were the the first kings of a united English people and rallied them not only in conquest but then on the opposite end of the spectrum as the frequent defenders of their conquered terriorites from subsequent invasions, establishing a shared sense of "Englishness" rather than just Anglo-Saxon-Jute localism of the various Germanic kindoms (akin to the mainland Germanic kingdoms, interestingly enough).

To be fair, I was referring to the wording of the specific title rather than a broader concept, and that the Normans altered it because, to them, England was just one of several feudal dominions they held, not a mandate in a proto-nationalist sense like the Anglo-Saxons. Many Norman and Plantagenet Kings were not even born in England, and spent large periods of their reign outside its borders (infamously like Richard I, who regarded England as little more than a resource base for his Crusades and wars in France). The public address by Edward IV in front of Whitehall Palace (when the PALACE still existed), after returning from signing the Treaty of Agincourt, which was regarded as a speech to put a postive spin on just losing a long, bitter war (and was comparable only to Charles de Galle's speech in the mid-1950's after wrapping up the Algeria War and beginning the Fifth Republic in the history of such speeches, though Nixon, Biden, and the leaders Carnation Revolution TRIED), is marked as beginning the start of an English identity separate from, "the Continent," that has been long prevalent and is view as what even recently tipped the Brexit vote, and can clearly be seen in British media, literature, and humour, for one important factor - it was made in Middle English, not Norman or Occitan French or Latin, like all other public Royal speeches, addresses, decrees, and proclamations from the Norman Conquest to that point. Although there were certainly analogous terms of various types and views, as far as I know, the term, "Englishness," and its view as used today, is a product of the post-colonial power era, and, quite likely, a reaction to decolonization.

 

[Plains-Cow]

To be fair, I was referring to the wording of the specific title rather than a broader concept, and that the Normans altered it because, to them, England was just one of several feudal dominions they held, not a mandate in a proto-nationalist sense like the Anglo-Saxons. Many Norman and Plantagenet Kings were not even born in England, and spent large periods of their reign outside its borders (infamously like Richard I, who regarded England as little more than a resource base for his Crusades and wars in France). The public address by Edward IV in front of Whitehall Palace (when the PALACE still existed), after returning from signing the Treaty of Agincourt, which was regarded as a speech to put a postive spin on just losing a long, bitter war (and was comparable only to Charles de Galle's speech in the mid-1950's after wrapping up the Algeria War and beginning the Fifth Republic in the history of such speeches, though Nixon, Biden, and the leaders Carnation Revolution TRIED), is marked as beginning the start of an English identity separate from, "the Continent," that has been long prevalent and is view as what even recently tipped the Brexit vote, and can clearly be seen in British media, literature, and humour, for one important factor - it was made in Middle English, not Norman or Occitan French or Latin, like all other public Royal speeches, addresses, decrees, and proclamations from the Norman Conquest to that point. Although there were certainly analogous terms of various types and views, as far as I know, the term, "Englishness," and its view as used today, is a product of the post-colonial power era, and, quite likely, a reaction to decolonization.

Probably as a result of increased localization of government and revival of local identity in the UK overall. Would have been very interesting to see how the concept of "Englishness" would have evolved if England was never conquered by the Normans. I have seen some arguments from YouTube figures that the Anglo-Saxons and Normans weren't that different, but I wonder if they're just heading the bubbling, theoretical question off at the pass that "when was the last time the English had an English monarch?" as if that's somehow going to cause an Anglo uprising against Westminster lol

 

[reddishrecue]

I voted for Elizabeth II. However, I noticed that there were more votes against it.

 

[Chekko]

Too recent and gender does not matter.

 

[reddishrecue]

Too recent and gender does not matter.

Who were you suggesting?

 

[Chekko]

Who were you suggesting?

OP suggestion

 

[reddishrecue]

OP suggestion

Same here, it seems like the majority didn't want the OP suggestion.