Which English Kings are generally considered "the best."

[civver_764]

I have found a recent interest in English history, and have been reading up on it(mostly through wikipedia right now.) I was wondering, mainly amongst the British population, who the greatest Kings are generally said to be? Kind of like how in America we all love George Washington and Abraham Lincoln(well not "all", but generally they are pretty high up there).

The only I think of as obvious are Queen Victoria and Elizabeth, just because of the hype surrounding them. I also heard Alfred the Great is the only one to be called "the Great" so I'm guessing he's up there as well. Edward III I think earns some respect. Who else is there?

 

[Cynovolans]

I think they made a list of something like this, and King Arthur was on the list but Athelstan the Glorious wasn't.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Ælfred, Eadward the Elder and Æthelstan were all critical to the formation of England (as I suppose was Eadred who, technically, unified England for the first time). They also established England as a wealthy autocratic tax-machine that made it so rich later, though the Danegeld contributed to that too.

After, Henry I and Henry II made the English law and institutions that survived so long. These kings did so much, that, essentially, no later king really matters. Henry VIII transferred wealth away from the church to himself and the nobility, and cut off England from Catholicism, making England a more divided society for a time, but in the long scale no one matters like Henry I and Henry II. No-one except Edward I made more permanent territorial gains either. Elizabeth of course began English exploration and colonization, but she personally had little to do with it. It would have happened anyway.

 

[LightSpectra]

Henry VIII was a rather poor king overall. Not even counting the long-term ramifications of the Acts of Supremacy and the dissolution of the monasteries, he destroyed the fiscal surplus that Henry VII painstakingly established by fruitless wars against France. I wouldn't rank him amongst the worst, but he'd certainly be in the lower tiers.

Alfred of Wessex, Henry I, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V, Henry VII, Elizabeth I and James I are typically considered to have been the most successful English monarchs.

 

[Pangur Bán]

You missed Henry II, who probably is the most important.

 

[LightSpectra]

You missed Henry II, who probably is the most important.

Important, certainly. Among the best... I'm not so sure.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Important, certainly. Among the best... I'm not so sure.

"Best" issues ... at this stage ... are a waste of time. Situations and challenges differed, but Henry II is undoubtedly one of the most influential.

 

[BCLG100]

I think there can be quite a convincing case made for William III and the signing of the Bill of Rights which laid the foundations for rights a priveledges which are enjoyed by both the public and the judiciary today and was quite different to anywhere on the continent (might be wrong on this point).

Correct me if i am wrong but Alfred of Wessex was never actually 'king of England' so he cannot be included right off.

edit- i'd agree with Lightspectras list with probably Edward III being considered the best in my book but this is largely based on his military exploits.

 

[BananaLee]

I shan't talk about proper history, but in the Commonwealth mind, the "awesome kings" were (not in any particular order)

Alfred the Great
Richard the Lion-Hearted
Charles II
William III
George IV
the two Elizabeths (the second probably only because of the allure of the "present")
Victoria

 

[Plotinus]

I don't really understand why an argument about Cromwell belongs in a thread about great monarchs. If it carries on I'll split it off. But I must say it's odd seeing someone declare himself to be "freedom-loving" and yet praise Cromwell, a dictator who suppressed parliament completely and ruled by brutal fiat. Merely replacing one despot with another does not, in itself, much help the cause of "freedom".

Anyway, surely the OP was asking not for debate about who the greatest monarchs were, but about which ones are popularly perceived to have been great, in a similar way to the popular view of Washington and Lincoln in the US. The simple answer is that there are no comparable English monarchs, because people in England are not brought up with such a strong sense of their history and leaders as Americans are. While Americans may be taught about Washington and Lincoln at school, British children won't learn so much about kings and queens of the past - maybe a bit about the Tudors, but that would probably be it. The teaching of British history tends to focus on more recent stuff such as the nineteenth century and WWII, when monarchs were irrelevant.

I should think that the British monarchs who loom largest in the popular imagination would be Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Victoria. But I doubt most people in England could tell you much about them. They are remembered at the popular level really for their personalities rather than what they actually did. Certainly the average Briton wouldn't have a clue about Edward I, Henry II, William III, or Alfred the Great or what any of them did. Alfred, incidentally, only acquired the epithet "the Great" in the nineteenth century, when historians were busily romanticising the Middle Ages.

 

[Traitorfish]

Alfred the Great is about the only non-controversially "good" king, although Cnut seems to have gone done well, if for no other reason than we want a share of his reflect glory.

Correct me if i am wrong but Alfred of Wessex was never actually 'king of England' so he cannot be included right off.

Well, he was declared "King of the English", which, while a largely ceremonially style, is not inaccurate; Alfred's Wessex essentially represented "Free England", which is the later absorption of the Danelaw into it's rule is traditionally seen as liberation, rather than conquest.

I shan't talk about proper history, but in the Commonwealth mind, the "awesome kings" were (not in any particular order)

Alfred the Great
Richard the Lion-Hearted
Charles II
William III
George IV
the two Elizabeths (the second probably only because of the allure of the "present")
Victoria

Richard's an odd one; he is indeed remember as a generally "good" king, but largely because he was prone to glorious adventure rather than because he was in any way a competent monarch. It probably helps that he has was succeeded by John, who's reputation hardly needs elaborate upon.
Charles II is remember more for presiding over the Restoration than being a particularly great monarch in himself; he gets a thumbs up, but he's hardly an A-lister.
George IV, on the other hand, is generally remember as a fat, blustering nitwit who was of no use to anyone. If the English want a national hero from that time, they will inevitably select Wellington.

Certainly the average Briton wouldn't have a clue about Edward I, Henry II, William III, or Alfred the Great or what any of them did.

In all fairness, I think most people could tell you that Alfred "beat the Vikings", or something similar, and a lot of Scots are likely to be at least vaguely aware of William's role in the Williamite Wars (given our history of sectarianism), or Edward's conflict with Wallace; hardly a full picture in any case, but it's at least something.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Cromwell bickering split off.

 

[BCLG100]

Accepting a constitution was a prerequisite to becoming king. I wouldn't say that this is a point in favor of William III. Couldn't tell you much more about Billy, except that he was unsuccessful in his wars against France.

It was but he didn't have to accept it. Could have stayed where he was. Perhaps not the best but undoubtedly one of the biggest impacts on the modern day.

@Traitorfish, yeah that was the circumstance i was aware of but it was still only a ceremonial title, i can't call myself king of England in the hope that one day my descendants actually preside over the country

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish, yeah that was the circumstance i was aware of but it was still only a ceremonial title, i can't call myself king of England in the hope that one day my descendants actually preside over the country

I suppose that's a fair point; in many ways, the title seemed to be as much a proclamation of regional overlordship as it was about formal rule, perhaps comparable to other Early Medieval titles such as "Emperor of Spain" and "High King of Ireland", or the earlier Anglo-Saxon title of "Bretwalda". Perhaps Plotinus, well versed in this period as he is, could help shed some light?

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, I think that was basically it. He was, at least, king of the English who weren't ruled by Danes; I suppose how ceremonially you interpret the title really depends on whether you think that the Danelaw counted as part of England or not.

 

[BananaLee]

Richard's an odd one; he is indeed remember as a generally "good" king, but largely because he was prone to glorious adventure rather than because he was in any way a competent monarch. It probably helps that he has was succeeded by John, who's reputation hardly needs elaborate upon.
Charles II is remember more for presiding over the Restoration than being a particularly great monarch in himself; he gets a thumbs up, but he's hardly an A-lister.
George IV, on the other hand, is generally remember as a fat, blustering nitwit who was of no use to anyone. If the English want a national hero from that time, they will inevitably select Wellington.

Well, like I said. I wasn't thinking about history but merely the modern Commonwealth-man's psyche.

I grew up worshipping Alfred and Richard, simply because of the tales told of him (Whiggish history still stuck in the old Empire).

With Charles, we were taught that he saved England from Puritan eeeeeeevillll. Which is why he's in that list.

Regarding George IV, I was thinking more of Regency, and less of his final days when he was a fat, blustering nitwit.

Again, it's not about history as the question is "which kings were *considered* the best". Thus, I looked more at collective psyche and conscience rather than any *actual* contributions they may have done.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I tend to think Robert I was a neat guy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, like I said. I wasn't thinking about history but merely the modern Commonwealth-man's psyche.

...

Again, it's not about history as the question is "which kings were *considered* the best". Thus, I looked more at collective psyche and conscience rather than any *actual* contributions they may have done.

Well, so did I. I was just putting forward the general view as I understood it. That's why I kept saying "remembered" and not just "was".

Regarding George IV, I was thinking more of Regency, and less of his final days when he was a fat, blustering nitwit.

This one confuses me slightly, though; I wasn't aware that George's fat, blustering period was particularly associated with his later life. If anything, he's typically depicted as a fat, blustering Regent, given that all the interesting stuff happened in that period.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'd like to give an honourable mention to William IV.

 

[privatehudson]

I read somewhere that George IV was woken one morning in May 1821 to be informed by a royal aide that "Sire, your greatest enemy is dead", to which he replied "Is she by god!"

George had been talking about his estranged wife Caroline who he'd devoted much of the previous 5 months either trying to divorce her, annul the marriage or have her stripped of her title of Queen, even going so far as to conduct what was in effect a public trial by Parliament.

The aide however was talking about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Whether the story is true or not it does rather sum up how self centred the man could be.