Brief History was created with the intention of delivering to the point, informational, educational and hopefully enjoyable content in relation to historical people and places while simultaneously attempting to avoid "over production" sometimes seen in the mainstream which utilize production elements such as dramatic re-enactments or overly animated historical experts to attract viewers who would otherwise not be interested in such content. I am not a historian. I am simply someone who enjoys history and who has had a difficult time finding it presented in a straightforward manner. I hope you find my videos interesting and thank you for stopping by the channel. Cheers.
Placements I disagree with: William I: He was cruel even for his time, he killed as much as 3/4s of the population in some areas of the north of England. Also very little good happened during his reign. C Tier Henry II: I don't know how you can't put him at S. Fixed England after the Anarchy, layed the groundwork for English Common Law, created the Angevin Empire through conquests and smart marriages, completely rebounded and came out better after Thomas Becket which would have been the end for lesser kings, won the Great Revolt against his sons and all his neighbors. There is really not much bad to say about him. S tier Richard I: Easily a bottom 5 king of England. Squandered everything his father built, sold all the crownland, repealed the Treaty of Falaise which gave England suzerainty and full control over Scotland, spent 5 of his 10 years as king not in his kingdom, and died with no heir leading to a succession crisis, literally nothing good to say about him. F tier John: Not as bad as a lot claim, got dealt the worst hand possible yet was still able to stay somewhat afloat for 17 years, actually cared about ruling unlike Richard, was very smart (if tyrannical) at raising money, was a solid general (contrary to you claim, as he had 3 successful military campaigns), was a victim of bad luck and disloyalty as much as he made mistakes. D tier Edward I: Created parliament, conquered Scotland (had it not been for Edward II), conquered Wales, bailed out his father in the Second Baron's War, won a war in France. The only gripe I have of him is his persecution of Jewish people (But that was caused by his father who started that and raised him to believe in that). S tier but below Henry II. Henry IV: Was good but certainly not good enough for A tier. B tier Henry V: Destroyed France so bad it took a decade after his death for France to start winning the war again, convinced the Holy Roman Emperor to recognize his claim, forced Charles VI to accept him as his heir. A tier but only because he died young. Henry VII: Arguably the most competent Tudor, built up a massive treasury, united Lancaster and York, and enacted laws that weakened the nobility. Being disliked doesn't mean he was bad, Henry I and Edward I were also widely disliked by their subjects yet you put him in A tier. A tier. Henry VIII: Founded the Royal Navy and gave England independence from Rome, held back by his tyranny. B tier Elizabeth I: Extremely overrated, kicked the can down the road for a lot of her problems, left a massive debt, let the victorious sailors that defeated the Armada die by disease because she was too cheap to look after them, sent the English Armada which failed and was a massive waste of manpower and money, sent money and men to help protestant Henry IV just for him to convert to Catholicism and make all her work pointless, backed out when Robert Dudley was about to annex Netherlands, played favourites. B tier.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with Elizabeth II's placement, she led the UK through one of the most transformative periods of it's history, going from a world empire to just another country with decolonization, and then leading the UK through the troubles, the Falklands, Covid etc. Throughout all that she gave the nation a sense of stability and continuity. I think she also did a lot to sustain the popularity of the monarchy. While Charles has had his scandals, I think she raised a good, kind, and sympathetic King, whose reign I think will be remembered well.
I'm a huge history nerd, especially the history of the uk. You do an amazing job at presenting facts while being entertaining and not leaning into the conjecture that too many other historical content creators inevitably end up lening into. I've been binge watching since youtube recommended your Chanel. Keep up the great work my friend.
I know Alfred was saxon, and technically was not king of England..But here in England we sort of see him as the pre curser, the man who made it all happen..Where wouod you place him on this list, and what about Athelstan, where wouod you place him..Again im fully aware this is from afterr 1066..But just wondering where you'd olace those giants from the saxon era..For me Alfred has to be S teir, and Athelstan at least A teir..
Im super shocked with your decision of Queen Elizabeth? I mean who says she didnt have amazing things happening? She couldnt! During her reign things were finally cooling down in the world and there really wasnt much. I am from the US and she was probably the most beloved Monarch not only in England but to most pelple the most beloved in the world. You cant judge someone for not doing enough when they didnt have enough to work with. And once things heated back up with the war in Ukraine she once more stsrted doing absokutely incredible things once more. She just had a lot of peace during her time as monarch, a lot of world peace. And im just talking about major global changes, the cold war didnt lead to many of those except getting rid of colonies and territory in china mostly. So yeh i think your judgement of her, not that it was wrong necessarily, i just think it was unfair. Yoy have your opinion and an opinion cant be wrong but the way you form it can be unfair
One thing you missed about an already S-tier king (Edward III) is that he was the king who essentially established the now fundamental constitutional convention that Parliament (and the House of Commons in particular) has the ultimate "power of the purse". Edward III went out of his way to ensure that both Commons and Lords (merchants and landowners at the time, basically) had a financial stake in any action (especially wars) that required a lot of taxes to be raised. It enabled the English (and British) to punch WAY above their demographic weight in European and then world affairs. No other English/British monarch did anything more momentous for the future history of the world...
Any Monarch after 1603 is Not a Monarch of England or Scotland but Monarch of Britain The Kingdoms of both England and Scotland ceased to exist So your video is wrong
Hello. Thanks for the comment. So, a couple things here. To start, I would like to point out that the kingdoms of England and Scotland did exist post 1603, contrary to your statement. James I/VI inherited the crown that year yes, but that only combined the crowns of England and Scotland in a personal union. In fact the Kingdom of Great Britain did not officially form until 1707 during the reign of Queen Anne with the passing of the Acts of Union of England and Scotland, which officially merged the parliaments of the two kingdoms into one political union. Secondly, I think its clear that I am very aware of the differences between the kingdoms of England/Great Britain/The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. You are welcome to reference my James I, Queen Anne and George III videos where I discuss these things at length. Lastly, I would like to point out that although the monarchs' titles changed after the acts of union of 1707/1800, this did not mean that the country of England ceased to exist. So in fact, all of the the monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain/The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland were still also monarchs of England, its just that they also had other realms that went along with their newer titles by that point. Thus, all of the British monarchs/monarchs of the United Kingdom were monarchs of England, but all monarchs of England prior to 1707 were not monarchs of Great Britain/The United Kingdom. Therefore, noting them as "Kings and Queens of England" was the only title that could encompass all of them. I could have, of course, tried to make a distinction between these titles with some awkward, cumbersome video title, but I figured that I would take my chances with the couple nitpicky comments that would inevitably arise instead. Cheers.
I have to put Elizabeth II in the "S" group. She was in so many ways the most devoted of all the Monaches. Her powers were watered down but she had always proved herself able when given the moment to do so. She reigned with her hands tied behind her back.
Charles I and James II have to be F tier.. despite anything else they may have done to lose the throne to your own acts of sheer stupidity has to rank you a failure. I would also argue Henry II has to be A tier as the founder of the Angevin Empire
Regarding William the Conqueror, I know medieval monarchs and justice were pretty brutal in general but was the genocide of over 100k people by forced starvation really a normal level of brutality for the time?
Such an interesting topic. Esp for being a sorta niche subject. Medieval castles. The history behind these castles is fascinating. I will never be able to learn enough about history to be truly satisfied
Fun fact, after just 500 years, you will only have a genetic connection to your Y ancestors, and if you are female, you will have no relation whatsoever to your ancestors of 500 years ago, none of these modern royals have unbroken lineage
I'm a Richard III fan and I think Henry VII should be A or S tier. He literally did everything right uniting England and bringing it out of feudalism. The fact that he was able to do it all despite sketchy credentials should be a boon, not a bane. He was accepted despite them and that's very telling. He was wicked smart too. Also, unless it's for literally no reason, usurping shouldn't be held against them. It's usually because the country needs better or more trustworthy leadership. His claim was dogsh*t but historians are uncovering that the clause banning them from the throne was not properly added as someone unknown just wrote it in on the margins instead of with parliamentary approval. So however weak, it was still wasn't a completely fraudulent claim.
I disagreed with a few here. I think you copped out on Henry V and Henry VII should definitely be higher rated than he was, but then you put Bess in S tier so I liked and subscribed.
Kings and Queens of England stop in 1707 they become Kings of Great Britain then Kings and Queens of the UK. A nice video which makes a silly error calling them Kings and Queens of England after 1707.
This video is so incredibly impressive and I've loved watching your series on all the different monarchs! It's been so interesting to see your opinions on them all- I think personally I would've rated Henry VII significantly higher due to his financial successes and ability to secure his throne by the end of his reign, facing ten years of (relative) peace and security - allowing for the Tudor period to exist. Plus his foreign policy was relatively successful (in comparison to other monarchs of the time) and the fact that he brought about an end to civil war would make him A tier to me so it's interesting to see why your opinion is so different. Once again, great video- can't wait for the next series
I thought your comment on William IV regarding his relationship to Queen Victoria's mother was interesting. You seem to deduct points for this. I think that his issues with the Duchess of Kent were due to the fact that he was trying to make sure that Victoria was prepared to rule on her own, and not become a puppet for mommy and John Conroy. That seems like a positive to me.
I could be persuaded to agree with most of your ratings. The only ones I completely disagree with are Henry VII (A or B), Victoria (S), and Edward VII (B), who are three of my personal favorites. It was nice to see you rated Charles II where you did, though. I love the dutiful queens but have a soft spot for the kings that knew how to party with style. 🙂
I agree with most of your appraisals of earlier kings, but in my view you went somewhat off the path in the middle ages around the wars of the roses period. The appraisals I disagree most with are: #1 Henry V Whilst some of the comments you made were valid, his accomplishments in France should not be under-rated. If he had not died so young, he would have become King of France too, and history would have been very different then. Debatable I know, but I would put him in at the very least as A tier, and debatable into the S tier! #2 Richard III. He was most certainly one of the very worst kings England has ever had (I have never undestood the "Ricardian" movement!). His successes when his brother was King are irrelevant - once he became king, he was weak, ineffective and politically duplicitous, the country became more divided, and it ended in his usurpation. If we add in his likely murdering his own nephews, yet failing to have his own heir, and then forcing battle and getting killed, he is clearly F tier, a real failure as king. #3 Henry VII Placing him as D tier is under-rating his achievement in stabilizing a very unruly nation when he first usurped the throne, and creating a stable nation during his long reign. He is more like B tier. #4 Elizabeth I Successful to many degrees, but a very poor long-running war with Spain far beyond the initial armada, and her handling of her family and lack of heir were failings. I would still put her in A tier, but not S tier. Loved your video, sir, thank you. :)
Totally agree about queen victoria, i think she's massively over rated and people don't really appreciate that the innovative and progressive aspects of her reign were actually directed by her husband, not her. She always seemed reclusive and self pitying for much of her reign, she was also incredibly cold to her children .
Sry but Henry the 8th and Elizabeth 2 are both S tier The whole world loved that lady And Henry the 8th was the first to teach us DONT trust these hoes lols
I dont agree with Elizabeth II at B she is an S she has made the monarchy last if it wasnt for her we probably wouldnt have a monarchy today. She fixed all the problems of the monarchy like the patriarchy and she gave everyone hope. She helped set up the Commonwealth and single handily helped keep our relations strong as everyone loved her from Biden to Kim Jon Un
Edward iii S tier... ?!?! Started 2 wars, lost them both. Also you missed most of the best Kings Alfred, Edward, Athelstan way better than any of that shower you list.
I don't think you give Henry IV enough crap for failing to deal with Owain Glyndwr, and I don't think you give him enough praise for his reluctance to rise up against Richard II after numerous grievances, only really hitting the breaking point after a full theft of lands. Even after the usurpation, he didn't have Richard II killed until later, when he was used (unwillingly) as a figurehead of some rebel sentiment. His caution and hesitancy is generally one of his best traits.
Really great list, and I do like how you didn't just go for what would be the pop culture ratings like putting Victoria as an S tier. Good recognizing the flaws of those who are often overrated as well as not being completely dismissive of the good achievements of monarchs who ultimately fell short such as Charles I and James II. Really great video over all and well worth the watch.
I'd contest a fair few of these; Henry IV; C tier. Nothing particularly notable about his actual reign. Did keep control of his kingdom, didn't do anything rash. Put down some minor rebellions. Richard III; D tier. I agree that his reign was short and we don't know how it would have turned out, but the manner in which he seized power was terrible and fractured the kingdom. He was also known to be conniving and callous and coldly executed the Duke (of Buckingham, I think) and had him taken from conversing at the dinner table to the axeman's block. Henry VII should be C. He was disliked later in his reign, but was decisive in defeating Richard and eventually united the houses of York and Lancaster. Henry VIII should be D, bearing all the awful things you mentioned in mind. Mary undoubtedly F tier and I can't really find anything goof to say about her. Charles II F tier too, as although I believe he was a good man, he WAS incompetent, made some terrible allies and causes parliament to rise up against him. Caused the civil war, in short.
