England/Britain has such a wide selection of iconic rulers, including women rulers, already available that merely being uncontroversial (which is debatable) would 't be enough to justify using such a recent leader.
The Queen was a great leader and a great person who had a great sense of humor. My people fought several wars against the UK, but I have nothing but respect for Her Majesty and her legacy.
I'd prefer the original Elizabeth to return, personally. From a gameplay perspective how do you see her being portrayed, and do you think she could do it better than other English rulers? I'm not so sure.
The original Elizabeth is far less iconic than the Queen (RIP) was.
She reigned, but never ruled or governed. I would prefer leaders across the board who actually made decisions, governed, and led on a national and political level. And, yes, this would mean that Victoria, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and others of that sort should also not see a future in Civ games.
But Gandhi is the only Indian leader who is well known in the West, and he's a Civ staple. What would the real benefit be of replacing a well-known figurehead who was an iconic representative of their nation with a virtually unknown figure simply because they actually governed? FDR didn't do much actual ruling, either (ill, incapacitated, US Presidents don't have that much power anyway, most power is with the Supreme Court or the Congress/Senate).
You could replace Wilhelmina with William of Orange (also somewhat of a Civ staple, and he had a cool beard), and Victoria/Elizabeth with Churchill (All the other British leaders with actual power are too recent [i.e. Boris], too obscure [i.e. Wilson], too controversial [i.e Thatcher], too infamous [i.e. Chamberlain], too foreign [i.e. William the Bastard], or too mythological [i.e. Arthur]).
So you would have essentially replaced two female leaders with male leaders, at a time when it seems Civ wants more female leaders, which would inevitably lead to relatively obscure female leaders being chosen (like the Portuguese Queen in Civ V)
So I don't really want to replace beloved, iconic female monarchs with lesser known males who had actual power if it means that other civs have a more iconic/important male leader replaced with a lesser known female leader for gender equality.
TLDR: please keep Elizabeth/Victoria as the British leader
Britain was already losing its Empire when she was being crowned. And as much as we can argue British decolonization was a success and a good thing for the world, it significantly reduced British influence nonetheless. In a game like Civilization, we rather expect characters who've either been decisive in growing their Empire or were ruling at its climax as the leaderhead.
Moctezuma II was indeed the last Aztec Emperor, but he was also ruling at the peak of Aztec influence, so it still makes sense to have him. On the other hand, Gandhi may have never ruled India, but he lead his country to independence, making of him the founding father of the modern Republic of India.
Personally I never really liked Louis XIV as being the ruler of France, because I believe his reign lead the country to a certain decline. Yet arguably it's under his reign that France has been the most influential, so it still makes sense to have him. Even though Henri IV would be a more popular figure in France, as he pacified relationship between catholics and protestants, leading the country to a long period of prosperity.
British decolonization was also
trauma conga line from the perspective of Britons, a massive loss of power and prestige for an empire that once ruled the waves. And I say this as someone whose country fought against the British Empire several times. Ideally the British would have gotten to keep most of their Victorian-era empire, only losing some small areas like South Africa and Ireland (both of which became Commonwealth realms with the British monarchy intact instead of becoming completely independent). Essentially the Empire should have stayed the way it was in ca 1930.
Also Moctezuma II last appeared in a main series game sixteen years ago (IV).
It's been Moctezuma I in all main series games since.
It's Montezuma in Civ, not "Moctezuma", which is just the Spanish rendering of his name. He called himself Motēuczōmah, and in English he's called Montezuma, just like how Paul Kruger is called "KROO-ger" in English, even though he pronounced his name "KRÜ-yer" in Afrikaans.
Even if you're going for a, "Commonwealth," Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, or Harold Macmillan would be better, as I think leaders who were symbols and/or never GOVERNED and/or RULED whether legally or strictly de facto, should disappear in Civ7 and beyond - like Victoria, Joan of Arc, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and a couple of others.
Attlee, Eden, and Macmillan are not nearly famous enough.