William Pitt the Younger was the British PM, and thus was the de facto leader. I'm pretty sure William Pitt the Elder, though very influencial, was never PM, or a true eminence grease to a PM.
Of course, my viewpoint would include Catherine de Medici, as de facto leader, serving as Regent and running the machinery of Frances political power, but not Joan of Arc (who would make a better Great General anyways). As I said, I have evolved my views beyond holders of, "official letterhead offices," that, "legally," hold power to de facto wielders of power, and am not necessarily beholden to, "nation-states," but, despite me not claiming things to this level of, "formality," in leadership, who firmly respond to me as though I said I had.
Other good name of a prime minister is Margaret Thatcher. She fought the Malvinas wars and give back Hong Kong to China. She is also influential and have all attributes to be a civ leader.If you can name me a prime minister that was more influential, or more well-known than the king or queen they served, I think they would have a shot. The only one that really stands out to me is Churchill, but I'm not dying to see him either. And I don't mean him under Elizabeth II.
And despite what I said about the leader should be de facto ruler of a nation, I would make an exception to Joanna D'arc. I would like to see she in the game, I would like more she then Catherine de Medici.
She's far too recent as a potential option.
Well, that's not quite what I'm aiming for, myself. But I would also say, on that question, that David Lloyd George also overshadowed George V (especially given the dubious aspect in WWI that the latter was close relatives and courtly friends and acquaintaces with many in high Government and Military Command in the Central Powers).
