Hello again. Different video today with some opinions on my part. I do not intend on doing many (if any) more videos like this, but I figured it would be a good way to wrap up the English Monarch series. Let me know what you agree or disagree with and happy 4th of July to all of my fellow Americans. Cheers
I agree with your assessment of Henry VIII. The worst people can say about him is that he was execution happy, which for a king isn't whole negative if used properly (not that he did but, he did use it in a way that didn't hinder his kingship)
Hey man. Love your content. But uhhh, seeing alot of really racist/great replacement comments in this comment section. In need of some hygiene and a quick scrub. Don't want stinky folk smelling up the place.
@@Tohma_EdHe did that by seizing wealth already in the country, by and large - most of the tariff related reforms were in the reign of Edward IV. Henry VII's largest accumulation of wealth was just the result of taking it from his nobles.
@@braytechexoscience2790Ik😈 (hehe) he was the monkey maker not only that when there were revolts Henry VII didn’t execute the rioting mobs but he made them compensation when France invaded Brittany Henry VII send an army to support Brittany for Henry VII have a debt to pay(not money wise but in honor) for Brittany sheltered him during the War of the roses so when Henry send an army to help Brittany instead of fighting France paid Henry to withdraw and the sum doubled the crowns treasury. Henry VII by the end of his reign was the richest man in all of Europe the money maker champion now question is that ethical? No ofc not but is it impressive and a strong King with a mind of stability and moneymaking? Absolutely Yes Let’s just say Henry VII is Tywin Lannister but not that brutal
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.
She's also stood idly by at the ethic displacement of her people. Her reign has nothing but compromises with utterly disastrous results for the people she was sworn to protect. Not all can be put on her, naturally. But, she's an architect for something sinister down the line for royal authority. Nothing more than a figurehead with a sweet smile.
Elizabeth II should be D or F Britain declined significantly during her reign and well much of that can be laid on Parliament it still reflects on her. The monarchy under her was reduced to a tourist attraction and a gossip mill for women. All real power is gone and the ethnic makeup of England has potentially been irreversibly changed. Britain is not only a significantly weaker country now but it is also significantly less British then at the beginning of her reign.
@@avecaesar8519While this is a true point, I think it’s unfair for you to say it reflects on her as the monarch. In truth, Her Late Majesty had little control over such affairs, this specifically fell under the jurisdiction of the government and Parliament. Otherwise, the Queen was a formidable monarch, she ensured the survival and continuation of the empire into the commonwealth while it was inevitably collapsing. It was her leadership and grace that made the commonwealth countries so loyal to her and the UK. Additionally, she was also one of our greatest diplomats and a resilient leader who served her country until the very end.
She can’t really be credited with either the positives or negatives of British history during her reign because she didn’t have any power and had no influence on these matters.
It’s honestly amusing that some people here think decolonization could have been prevented. There was no way that an exhausted post-WWII Britain was going to hang on to so many subjects against their will. It’s remarkable that the process was as peaceful as it was.
Worse, he actually chose to at first and then it was after the second time that he had to do it. Edward IV the "first time around" was pretty evenhanded. Perhaps to his detriment.
@@PatrickTower-ln7oi In hindsight, absolutely. However, he didn't really comprehend that they'd keep fighting after an utter defeat. It wasn't until people started being executed that sadly the violence ended. Henry VII ended many lives to continue his peace for example. Other than Lambert Simnal, I don't think many of this offenders were given a second chance to prove their loyalty.
Henry VIIi in C tier while Victoria in D tier just baffles me. I understand that Henry did more things, but his overall effect on England was a destabilizing effect, while Victoria’s was a time of prosperity and stability. I think that makes her the better monarch.
Absolutely not. B at best, definitely NOT an A, though. Richard III was a B or a C king. He reinvented and modernised the judicial system. Those who put him in a D dier are the Shakesperian haters who confuse a historical play with reality.
Queen Victoria should be higher. She had an era named after her for goodness sake. Like Elizabeth I, she was fortunate that the realm prospered under her reign and the British Empire became a global superpower when she was queen/empress.
@@Jack10016 Same logic of Elizabeth II going into B tier Though of the small roles they did have left, morale boosting was one of the more tangible and clear responsibilities. Victoria gets deducted points where Elizabeth doesn't as Victoria really made no effort at all in this aspect and if anything actively took actions to lower morale. Her self seclusion, considering others lesser and obviously not taking steps to hide her own depression from the masses. Plus her treatment of her own family internally is hard to be ignored. That and when you consider how long she reigned for and the advancements of technology that she had little to no hand in being the key reason she gets her own Era and is remembered to begin with it does feel like she's scammed history and is remembered as far more impactful and strong than she ever was.
Why from Alfred, that's a scarce two centuries before the start of this playlist. There are many other noteworthy Kings in the centuries prior, such as Ethelbert, Edwin, Oswald, Raedwald, Penda, Offa, Ecghbert, etc.
@@hardlo7146You could only get so far in Anglo-Saxon history before the sources for what they did and how they lived become very scarce and if you could know if they were trustworthy or not, as there were very few anglo saxon chroniclers at the time and the ones that were there could only go so far with the knowledge they had. The lack of sources also stem from the Viking invasions destroying monasteries where these early kings and their stories had been laid to rest.Bede, though, was a great example of an early english chronicler, but even he didn’t go that far in to the depths of the early Anglo-Saxon monarchies. And also, many of the Kings you mentioned came from their own respective genealogical lineages. Alfred, earlier Ecgbert, come from the same lineage that now leads down to the present British monarchy, so if it was about the “royal family” as a whole then Alfred would be a great start to that.
Great Video, but have to disagree on Henry VII. There has to be, in my opinion, a seperation of circumstance and individual. Henry's claim is weak sure, but there was nothing he could do about it, the fact he survived therefore as King is even more impressive. The fact he survived was equally not down to luck, but because of his own diplomatic moves that ensured the end of support for rebels by foreign courts. Equally, his domestic policy which you touched on was predicated on preventing any domestic rebellion. Given that there were no major rebellions against him as you noted, he can in this regard be seen as a sucsessful king. Secondarily, in terms of achieving his other goals, this was entirely based around improving crown finances. The Wars of the Roses had destroyed the treasury and Henry did a remarkably job in reparing this, so much of what his son, the famous Henry VIII did, was only possible because of the extensive incomes his father built. I agree that he became too dictatorial towards the end, but its worth noting rebellion was borderline impossible by that point. Henry only became such because he was anxious after Arthur died and he only had one remaining male heir, he was generally far more forgiving and a better king earlier on. End of the day, his primary goal was securing the throne, ending the threat of a reoccurance of the Wars of the Roses, and rebuilding Crown finances, all of which he did. Equally, he suffered no major defeats. Personally, I'd place him at A, but I can see B being fair.
Well said. Thank you for this fair and balanced response. I can see where you are coming from and although I could certainly see a world where I move Henry up to C tier, I feel I would have a difficult time going any higher than that. Nevertheless, you make a compelling argument. Thanks again and Cheers to you.
The fact that Henry Tudor ended The Wars of the Roses and made sure they wouldn't start up again makes it to where he was much better than any of the kings in D or C. Ending constant bloodshed and civil war in your country and creating peace was something England really needed after all the wars against France, like the Hundreds Years War and the already mentioned Wars of the Roses. All of that should place him much higher than what he was placed.
@@DarthDread-oh2ne I never said that The Hundred Years War happened during Henry Tudor's reign, what I meant is that wars like The Hundred Years War and The Wars of the Roses caused death and economic instability in England, and Henry Tudor making peace was something England really needed at the time, they needed a break from wars.
How can George iii be anything other than an A? The British empire came into its own while he was on the throne. He lost the American colonies but won everywhere else around the globe when France. Spain, and the Netherlands decided to try and take on the British while they were distracted by the American revolution. Not to mention the 7 years war was won during his reign and then napoleon was defeated during his reign.
For the seven years war, GB had the upper hand since 1758 while Georges started to rule in 1760. For the napoleonian wars, there was a regency since 1810.
@@HerrKendys_Kulturkanal Charles 6 of France who was also mad was popular in his lifetime while also being one of the worst medieval king ever. For the modern british monarchy, the kings of england already lost most of their power after the cromwell revolution and the glorious revolution (the bill of rights from William 3 as example). George 3 ruled when when GB became the strongest nation on earth (basically after the 7 years war) but this situation came from the process started after the glorious revolution which culminated with the 7 years war and George 3 seems more like someone who ruled along this process rather than someone who actively participated for this process. Giving a B, A or S tier for a hanover or windsor monarch is hard because they were all more or less figureheads while the medieval monarchs (and also the tudors and maybe the stuarts monarchs) had still enough power to really play an active rôle for england. Another reason for "dismiss" the hanover/windsor monarchs is htat because the title of the video is about monarchs of england which was replaced in 1707 by GB, then any monarch after 1707 shouldn't be ranked.
There are 4 monarch where I majorly disagree with your opinion (meaning at least 2 tiers difference). Firstly there is Victoria who was, in my opinion, one of the most successful British monarchs. While she didn't get involved in politics much, especially later on, she oversaw the peak of the British power and influence in which she herself had a not insignificant part. I would have put her in A or B tier. The other 3 are the "usurpers". I agree that Henry IV was an honorable person and a good duke, he was not a very effective king. The fact that he deposed Richard II ate at his legitimacy, which was the main cause for the instability of his reign. He dealt with the rebellions competently bit I would still have put him in C. Next is Richard III, who has some similarities with Henry IV with regard to him being an effective duke and his brother's most ardent supporter. His usurpation (and possibly murder) of his nephews destabilized the kingdom so much that multiple rebellions broke out within his short reign, the last of which got him killed. In my opinion that and F tier. The last one here in Henry VII, who, just like the other two had to battle with his low legimacy. As you have pointed out yourself, it was even more difficult for him because his claim was so obscure. The way he handled the rebellions and pretenders and his diplomatic skill enabled him to leave his son a stable and financially secure realm. Despite the oppressive treatment of his nobles later in his reign, this is B tier for me.
The one I most disagree with is Anne, she deserves at least A tier. She set Great Britain on its course to Empire. She regularly attended privy council/cabinet meetings and participated in government.
I'm kind of in between you both and would say B tier for Anne. From an emotional standpoint I would certainly put her at A tier because she had a very sad and tragic life and I really do feel bad for her in a lot of ways, but looking at the whole picture including her leadership I think B tier is probably the most accurate assessment of her.
Putting Richard II in the same tier as John is wrong, just wrong. Especially when one of the justifications is the Peasant's Revolt, which not only happened when Richard was 14 and so wasn't even actively ruling at the time, but was also defused almost single-handedly by Richard himself. He also actively sought peace with France (which might have kept Aquitaine in English hands long-term).
Great video! I went along with you and said what I think before you selected and I largely agree. However... S tier: Edward III, Henry V (Agincourt for goodness sake! Had he lived longer, we would have ruled France), Elizabeth I, Victoria (peak of British power), Elizabeth II (extremely popular and kept the monarchy going despite overseeing decolonisation). I'm very surprised at Victoria being D tier and how on earth can George VI be considered higher than Elizabeth II? Charles I should be F tier... not a great king if you lose your head and are replaced by a blood thirsty tirant in my opinion. For me Henry VII has to be A or B, yes he had a weak claim but he stabilised much of the country and ushered in an incredibly successful dynasty after hundreds of years of war. I would also probably rank Anne higher than C simply because of the Act of Union which was so important. French Kings next pleeease
He was a sensible grown-up (in comparative terms). Which England needed. His son not being a grown-up was because Arthur died unexpectedly. I do think Henry VIII should have also been educated and nurtured in the ways of kingship too, as an insurance policy, but Henry VII decided against that.
Yes Henry VII should be an A or B. Even at his most tyrannical he tend to punish people financially rather than torture and death. That has to be a plus. He brought stability and prosperity to England through good management and by largely avoiding wars. His achievements are largely ignored because he was not so charismatic or brutal as his son or predecessor.
The disrespect on Henry VII is shocking! But someone here wrote a long post to defend him so I'll do another. I have to strongly disagree on Edward III being S-Tier when the guys on A-tier accomplished so much more. Halidon hill, sluys and crecy were nice wins but the long term effects were minimal and he beggared the kingdom with the Hundred years' war. The black death should have helped the lives of the common folk but he planted the seeds which led to the peasant's revolt. When in English history has a rabble come so close to killing a king (2 if you include henry IV) until 1381? The incident also turned Richard II into the man he was.
Henry VII shone been slap in the middle at high C or low B, his reign was characterised by stability, strong consolidation, diplomatic cunning and military skill to remedy any mistakes he made or circumstances against him
I would say Queen Victoria deserves a higher ranking as the British Empire was at its peak during her reign. Queen Elizabeth II also deserves an A due to the formation of the commonwealth and salvage the remaining British influence after the collapse of the British Empire.
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.
The monarch has quite a lot of power but the queen refused to exercise it so everyone thinks the monarch has no power. QE2 was great for her devotion and diplomacy but not great as a monarch.
Henry VIII is easily F tier. Not only did he execute 70k mostly innocent people during his reign, but he also executed a lot of his closest political advisors. Not to mention he lost battles and wars left and right which almost fully bankrupted England. And btw during Mary I's reign not even 300 people were executed so I don't know where you got info from.
The house of Hanover rise seems to be when the monarchs became little more than figurehead but it could be trace back when Charles 1 was deposed and executed.
The monarch has quite a lot of power. QE2 has given us the opinion that they have little because she never exercised it. But there are too many laws which we shouldn't have, which she and KC3 chould have blocked. Too many wars which we shouldn't have entered. And Boris Johnson should have been sacked when he tried to prorogue parliament but the queen did nothing. It's not that the monarchs have little power, it's just that our monarchs haven't been strong enough.
Apologies for a late reply here, I've always felt that in the modern day the Royals at least in the UK on paper still technically wield power over parliament, in actuality though once they utilise this power they make themselves a threat to parliament and realistically don't win out given that the UK is run through democracy and the popular vote isn't going to be in favour of the party that at first glance seems to horde extreme wealth and luxury and shy away from state issues. Their job in modern day is primarily to be impartial to any politics to avoid sparking protest either against them for their views or against parliament with their word as a weapon. That and practically they provide a huge amount of tourism value for the UK as they are arguably the most famous still-existing monarchy so bring a lot of wealth through that aspect. You could also consider the morale and value they provide here as their visits and speeches often provide a boost in that aspect. Even on a smaller scale, recently my Dad retired after working 50+ years in the public sector and was invited to the royal garden party for doing so, small things like this go a long way for patriotism.
Thank you for all your work. Some of the best history related content covering the English monarchy on RU-vid. I think doing a similar series covering the french monarchy would be another great arch.
To be fair here, Richard III didn't destroy the dynasty, Henry VII did, credit where credit is due, this was Tudor's first battle and he managed to hold his own against a seasoned battle commander and veteran of the Cousins' War. I don't know that he personally crossed blades with Richard, but allegedly, his standard-bearer (the father of Charles Brandon future Duke of Suffolk and Henry VIII's brother-in-law) was killed by Richard himself so they might have. Still, Richard was responsible for upholding the Plantagenets, executing Hastings, Richard Grey, and Anthony Woodville without trials was a complete boneheaded move. And offering no explanation for what happened to his nephews was a damning blow to himself, if Henry VII was saying he'd marry Elizabeth of York producing, the boys would have severely weakened Henry's chances, but in not doing so even Yorkists flocked to Henry's banner.
@@juliancain3872 Yorkist were divided as you rightfully point Richard murdering Lord Haesting and others. I just don't see it happening under a unified Yorkist England under Edward V. Possibly with Richard as Lord Protector ironically enough.
Haha when you said Queen Victoria was known for being haughty, with your accent, I heard "a hotty" and nearly spat out my tea haha. I quickly realised what you meant cos in England we pronounce haughty as "horty". Great video though dude!
My take on the English and Danelaw kings: Aethelstan - A Edmund I - C Edred - C Edwry - F Edgar - B Edward the martyr - D Ethelred the unready - F Edmund Ironside - F Cnute - A Harold Harefoot - D Harthacnut -C Edward the Confessor - A Harold Godwin - F
Lady Jane Grey was one of the most tragic. A brilliant mind and a brave pure heart. She didn't even want the throne, but took it out of duty. She was then executed shortly after. She would have been a great Queen or great just left alone in Bradgate Park Leicestershire. I wish I could have been her advisor and sworn sword 😂❤
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
The only one I think you got wrong was Edward VI - he was a reigning monarch, and his zealotry, I believe, can't be attributed to his handlers alone. He at least belongs in D with his sister Mary - they essentially canceled one another out.
Richard III also did a lot in his 2 years on the throne. You didn't mention all of those 🤷♀️ he introduced a fair justice system into England, he got rid of benevolence tax, he introduced fair trade, he promoted the English language writing laws in English instead of latin so others could acess them. He also introduced the bail and jury system. I feel he could have done a lot of great for England if he won at Bosworth. Henry the 7th was the monster as him and his mother were the ones who killed them boys in the tower. Don't forget Henry 7th also killed off poor Edward earl of Warwick after he had him locked away in the tower for years!! He was the monster 😤
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
So people who unsuccessfully tried to correct their country from going down the toilet should be F tier, but the people who perpetrated or gave consent to its ruin (like Henry 8, Elizabeth, William III) should be higher?
@@Consume_Crash Charles the 1st was so much in tune with his Fathers opinion of the “Devine Right of Kings” he could not see there was a deal to be made with Parliamentarians which would have kept him on the throne but not with Absolute Power.. he turned his back on it and lost. his throne and his head. James the 2nd was even more blinkered , Engalnd was overwhelmingly Protestant at that time, if he had not gone around moving Catholics into positions of Power and if he had agreed that his Protestant daughter from his first marriage would take the throne upon his death rather than his Catholic son form his 2nd marriage then he too could have lived out his days in quiet contentment as king.. he chose not to read the room.
@@NPA1001 The Charles I war and his attempts at peace with all sides is subsequent to the fact that the civil war would not have happened had it not been for radical Protestantism. I'm not saying Charles is A tier, but the "divine right of kings" is not specific enough to explain in and of itself why someone is bad. "Divine right" is just what Christian kingship was conceived as across the board, no? Your characterization of James II makes it sound like in order to be a good king he should've just not had any standards lol, kind of like how some people described Charles II. Why should he have just let the kingdom fall into the hands of people who wanted to destroy it (which they basically did after the Glorious Revolution). The other thing is just about consistency. As is typical on these tierlists, James II gets knocked for something like "putting Catholics into positions of power", yet Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth don't get docked for perpetuating dramatic religious (and thus cultural and political) change in a country that wasn't asking for it and was in many cases resistant?
no anglo-saxon kings? a unified kingdom of england existed for 150 years before the norman conquest! sad! glad to see edward iii made it to s tier though :)
Only in the Saxon dynasty will you find 3 S tier kings in a row. Alfred Edward and Athelstan.Granted only 1 of them ruled over " England " but 3 legends in a row for sure..
Ranking Henry IV above Henry V is kinda weird but I agree with the other placements. With the exception of Henry VII as I think he should be higher ending the wars of the roses and centralizing royal authority.
This was so fun! It's so interesting how people view different monarchs. What's an important attribute or accomplishment for someone is different than the opinion of the next person. Love your channel! Thanks so much ❤
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.
@@STJukes and logically you either start at the beginning or don’t bother? William the conqueror conquered england, so logically England had to exist before he arrived - choosing to start with him is like comparing American presidents and starting with Lincoln
@@STJukes As far as we know it was Aethelstan who was the first king to call the all the Anglo Saxon kingdoms England, but his father Edward the elder may have been king of all the Anglo Saxons too without calling it England. It’s a bit of a ‘soft launch’ however there is more than 100 years between Aethelstan and William the conqueror 🤷🏻🤷🏻
Aethelstan was the first king of all England, though Edward was the first king of all Saxons and East Anglia Danelaw. Edward the Confessor was a great king. I agree, he should have started with the English kings of England.
Putting a king into A tier who butchered the Irish and Scottish left and right and then conned the English into believing they'd never been conquered... Well, at least you're consistent with your decision-making. Still a very fun video to watch and a good idea, entertaining means of getting an overview of them all once again. Thanks :)
Loved this video! Really well made and exceptional information provided! Can't believe Edward VII was put at D tier tho! My favourite King! 😅 But otherwise excellent video and thank you so much for all the amazing videos you have made of the English monarchs, I have loved this journey so much and cannot wait for the next! ❤
You don't mention Henry VIII debasing the currency. He deserves to be D tier at the very highest. He was a terrible person and monarch. Also, anyone else feel like "played favorites" is code for "was gay"? 🤨
From your video on him I definitely expected you'd have a lot to say about Henry IV. Before watching it he was kind of just known for being Henry V's father, whereas your video on him definitely added a lot more insight on his character and made me have a lot more perspective. Easily some of your best work imo, keep up the good content.
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 definitely don't think Victoria deserves S tier, LOL. Certainly not D tier either like Brief History gave, but I think calling her one of the greatest monarchs of Britain of all time is a bit of a stretch. She was fine for the most part but still spent much of her reign alone and sad and didn't really do anything historically significant compared to many monarchs before her. I think B tier is by far the most reasonable ranking for her, maybe even a high C.
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?
Thank you, this was great, very interesting, I didn’t always agree with your positions, but that’s fine. Very happy with the lack of demonising of George III.
Henry V is the ultimate definition of a king, an absolute warrior who fought at agincourt and killed many men whilst fighting alongside his men,he even had his crown cut off in half.
Hey there Brief History! 👋💖 Wow, this is a fantastic video. I really enjoyed it and you put a lot of thought and time into creating this video. So a huge thank you for your channel content! I hope you and our American friends to the south (and north and west 😊) had an awesome Fourth of July! 🇺🇲🎆🇨🇦🎆
Why would you start this series with William the Bastard? England did not begin in 1066... Arguably the greatest English King ever was Athelstan, who you omit.
Athelstan in my opinion is nowhere near one of the greatest kings. Sure he united the kingdoms into England and was good at diplomacy. But he finished off the work is father and grandfather had started.. Edward the 3rd and Henry 5th were much better military leaders.
@@Tren365Rage Athelstan faced a coalition that would have broken England thoroughly had he not achieved victory. There would be no England without him. Not only that, but he essentially moved like an Emperor, and was looked upon as one. He was also responsible for restoring a Breton, a Norse, and a French ruler to power.
@@hardlo7146 He tried and failed to extend his realm to the entire island, and no doubt expected his successors to keep on until that was done. And his conquest of Northumbria was really not very secure. It reasserted its independence as soon as he was off the scene - reconquered for the last time around 20 years later, but retained a rather distinct political/national identity until William the Conqueror
I get why these types of videos always start with the Norman invasion, but I kinda wish they would start with the Anglo Saxon and Danish kings who held the title prior. It’s always just felt strange to me how like 180-140 years, depending on wether you count Alfred or Æthelstan as the first King of England, is just so often ignored.
I guess you could make the argument that the true unification of England started with William as king. Before that it was different Anglo Saxon and Danish warlords claiming different parts of the country.
Don't completely agree with the rankings but want to thank you for all the great content you've put up over the last few years. I feel like I have a fairly good grasp of the history of the English/British monarch, but your videos were instructive and peppered with details I hadn't been aware of. Much appreciated sir
How is Henry 7th so low?? He was solely responsible for ending a 30-year full-on civil war (I know people won't refer to it as a civil war but that's what it was). He secured the country both domestically and internationally by making alliances with historical enemies as he understood it was peace we needed not war and conquering. He showed Europe that you can become one of the grandest and most powerful countries without war and raiding other countries... Sure Spain, France, and the HRE were ahead of us in military might and they had more money but if you take into consideration the fact we had a 100-year war with France and then a 30-year civil war, Henry had us in the best position we could possibly be in and the fact we were still a major player in Europe at that time is a great testament to Henry and his reign as king. Lets us also not forget the fact he was actually a loving husband and father, who only wanted the best for his family and he achieved that by cementing the foundations for a dynasty that would rule England for 118 years! His son Henry 8th inherited a Kingdom that was in a strong position both politically and financially without any opposition thanks only to his father as Henry 7th eliminated all enemies and made political reforms that centralized the power and put money in the crown's coffers. I for one have always had Henry as my favourite and best monarch in English history as he quite literally had it all... Won a battle for his crown, stabilised the country, made key political and economic reforms, centralised power, made quick work of any opposition, put the country over his own vanity and made alliances with countries rather than warring with them and built the structure that would allow his descendants to pass the crown to one another in peace and without opposition for over 100 years. He may have gotten a bit crazy with old age but I think thats common for most kings of England so you cant just judge him on that. Oh and he didn't just secure the country by killing and going to battle with all those who opposed him, he united both sides peacefully by marriage to his wife and avoided actual conflict and death with his opposers unless it was 100% necessary and his only course of action... Henry 7th - S TIER!!
Within our constitution, the monarch still wealds considerable power yet QE2 refused to exercise her power. For example, she should have prevented the UK going to war in the early 2000s and she should have sacked Boris Johnson when he tried to prorogue parliament. Although she was devoted and a great diplomat, as monarch she should be in the C tier at best. Hopefully KC3 will do better at exercising the power he has, though i doubt he will. And i expect William V will see the end of the monarchy altogether.
It's always interesting how different these are depending on the person. Perhaps because it's hard comparing medieval absolute monarchs to modern constitutional monarchs. I think Edward VI deserves more than NA, his passion for Protestantism is still felt today. Without him between Henry VIII and Mary I, I think Catholicism would have crept further back in under Mary but her task proved almost impossible due to his radical reforms. But it's hard judging a child/teenager. Henry VIII might have broken from Rome but had little interest in Protestantism. Although without Henry VIII, I genuinely think there wouldn't be a monarchy today. He took England out of the hands of the Pope, who was becoming more corrupt and was in the pocket of the Roman Emperor. I don't see a Catholic absolute monarch surviving to the present day.
Breaking from Rome and codifying the separation it led to the civil war and nonsense theology/philosophy which has also helped contribute to America being as weird as it is.
I have a question for anyone on here in regards to the Austrian succession. If the daughters of Joseph, the first of the holy Roman emperor had succeeded to throne would the house be: Habsburg-Wetting ?
You are wrong about Elizabeth II and Victoria. And, it is obvious that its a way to get comments (like this one) to move the algorithm. You may fix this by rating Elizabeth II as an A, and Victoria as a B. I suggest you act with a sense of urgency.
Wrong. Elizabeth is C or even D. She ruled over the destruction of England and her empire. she led the family into the medias eye BUT totally failed to give them a good image. She steadily lost royal income and thanks to Blair and other politicians she even lost prestige by allowing anyone to receive a royal title. In every way she was a failure but ofcourse because she was the queen we remember and she was a 'nice' lady many see her as 'great'. For people with clear heads and intelligence she was a disastrous monarch.
So, I wonder why you didn't include the Anglo Saxon Kings in your series? I can imagine that there's not much information on some of them like Edward the Martyr and such but would still like to know your reasoning.
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.
Generic starting point. Our Monarchical numbering system begins after the Norman conquest thanks to the Victorian’s. He should do a separate video doing the Anglo-Saxon Kings, but it would be much more difficult as we know very little about most of them.
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.
Dont get why you put Mary I in the d category for being "bloody," but put Elizabeth I in S. She had WAY more blood in her hands than Mary, including protestant and catholic revolutionaries.
If the “N/A” tier is for disputed monarchs then why isn’t “King Louis” included. At the end of the First Baron’s War…Louis of France was declared King by the Barons. Then after King John’s death…the Barons decided to crown Henry III and Louis gave up his title as King
The only one you forgot is Richard Cromwell, who briefly succeeded Oliver Cromwell, but seeing as he didn't last too long or command enough support I'd have put him in NA tier.
I do really like how, even though you did make this based on your opinions of each monarch, you still use historical context and seem to at least try to not be super biased. It makes for a much more interesting ranking, imo
Good video. Don't agree with a few choices, but that's the beauty of everyone being allowed their own opinion depending on their perspective and interpretation. But I find it it interesting that you spent the longest time on Richard III, the king who reigned the least (apart from Edward V, who didn't rule although he was given a number)
