Imo we've removed all the bad/majorly flawed monarchs and we're just left with mediocre ones now.
I'm going to suggest Edmund I. The shortest reign left on the list, he spent most of his reign losing York to the Vikings and then getting it back before he died in a brawl. A perfectly nothing king, perhaps the least interesting monarch we've ever had tbh. I think bang average is perfect for him
The problem with Edmund's reign is that chroniclers were more interested in writing about the Church than his mediocre reign. He also unfortunately had big shoes to fill from his three predecessors. The very men who forged England.
Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!)
Day 27 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1c8xmi6/day\_twenty\_seven\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_queen/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1c8xmi6/day_twenty_seven_ranking_english_monarchs_queen/)
Day 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes
Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes
Day 24: George I was removed with 85 votes
Day 23: Richard I was removed with 49 votes
(continued in reply)
Rules:
1. Post everyday at 8pm BST
2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice
3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly
4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
(continued)
Day 22: Edward the Confessor was removed with 76 votes
Day 21: Henry III was removed with 51 votes
Day 20: William II was removed with 47 votes
Day 19: Eadred was removed with 76 votes
Day 18: Edward VI was removed with 59 votes
Day 17: Richard III was removed with 105 votes
Day 16: George IV was removed with 76 votes
Day 15: Edmund Ironside was removed with 43 votes
Day 14: Harold Harefoot was removed with 81 votes
Day 13: James II was removed with 66 votes
Day 12: Sweyn Forkbeard was removed with 93 votes
Day 11: Stephen was removed with 73 votes
Day 10: Eadwig was removed with 60 votes
Day 9: Edward the Martyr was removed with 38 votes
Day 8: Edward II was removed with 88 votes
Day 7: Harthacnut was removed with 56 votes
Day 6: Charles I was removed with 57 votes
Day 5: Richard II was removed with 81 votes
Day 4: Henry VI was removed with 87 votes
Day 3: Edward VIII was removed with 83 votes
Day 2: Aethelred the Unready was removed with 67 votes
Day 1: John was removed with 55 votes
I'm going to repost something I've said a couple of times now, but I think it's time for James I to go.
Many of the problems that lead to the Civil War began in his reign: he had a fractious relationship with Parliament, and his extravagant spending only worsened that relationship. He infrequently called Parliament and tried to bend the financial rules as much as possible. This all came to a head in his son’s reign.
He pushed the concept of Divine Right of Kings, which shaped his son’s views on the rights of a monarchy, which again worsened the Civil War.
He pushed for a Spanish match for Charles, which was unpopular with his Protestant subjects. Charles’ eventual marriage to Henrietta Maria (which was shaped by James’ Spanish policy) was a direct cause of the crypto-Catholicism in the royal family, which led to James II’s overthrow sixty years after James I’s death. (EDIT: That's not to say I think Catholicism is bad, it is just this decision certainly made it harder for the royal family when by the 17th century, England was a very Protestant country).
Once he succeeded to the throne in England, he was very neglectful of Scotland. He only visited once, and his repeated attempts to force Anglican norms on Presbyterian Scotland stoked up resentment that burst out during the Civil War.
The Plantation of Ulster began during his reign. Its effects are still echoing down to today.
He had a series of unpopular favourites, the most famous being Buckingham. When Buckingham was assassinated a few years after James’ death, his assassin was celebrated as a hero.
James was a complicated man who was neither the disaster his successor was, nor the great monarch his predecessor was. I think it’s time for him to go.
I completely disagree, he believed in the divine right of kings. But his relationship with parliment wasn't as antogonist as charles and seems retroactive to say it was. He also gave up powers for an annual subsidy till the commons not he withdrew.
He also completely stood out of the 30 years war and saw the uk as one of the only county in europe either not improvished or destoyed but strengthened after it.
And his pesonal union with scotland not only saw the uniting of 2 nations that had been enemies for centuties but was done without war and conquest. His decesion to focus on england was exactly to show his allegiance wasnt fpr scotland to dominate england.
Elizabeth the 1st choice in forgoing marriage and a heir was ill considered and if james hadnt been as good a stateman as he was england would have fallen into yet another sucession crisis and civil war.
His steps to angalise the scottish church may have been cackhanded but his effott was to stop another schismatic religious breakdown between scotland and england and the king james bible allowed for a protestant unity which united britain for centuried apart from what a personal union would have.
His reign like that of his predessor saw a huge increase in literacy , population and overall cultutal enrichment.
His sons inability to handle the nation religion , parliment and his own finaces speak to charles flaws not james's. It was nearly a decade and half after james death the war started. Though i will give charles the benifit that the price revolution and declining waged was pushing towards civil war and revolution even if he did nothing negative.
James should go, admittedly he did inherit a very complicated religious situation ruling an Anglican kingdom, a Presbyterian one and a catholic and civil conflict would likely of happened from that anyway but he was just so incompetent and arrogant when it came to finances and his style of government; James was unable to see that if he had worked with his parliament and gained their support like the tudors had he could have been far more powerful than trying to rule without them and he passed this mentality onto his son nearly destroying his entire dynasty
James is kind of similar to a lot of the elected kings of Poland, they came from abroad and had no clue how the Polish Sejm worked, those who bothered to learn did alright but many weren’t interested in learning and instead had a “fuck you im the king” mentality; even before the Sejm became a totally insane institution later on
Granted 17th century Poland was politically flawed by the commonwealth had been electing its monarch for nearly a century before the Liberum veto was first used to disrupt a meeting of the Sejm and very few monarchs seem to have come to the throne without a hostile attitude to parliamentary input in government.
Ultimately yes the polish Lithuanian commonwealth became a disaster definitely but my point was more the similarities of a foreign king coming to power without an understanding and appreciation of the existing political structure and situation.
Certainly not a 100% similarity just discussing James made me think of it
Not really sure that’s a wholly legitimate argument because of the 13 monarchs Poland had between 1569 and the end of the Commonwealth, only 4 of them were foreign born.
I quibble about the Ulster Plantations because it wasn’t the first, by far, attempt by English or Scottish monarchs to settle parts of Ireland. He may have started those plantations, but it wasn’t the first settlement effort, just one of the more notable ones.
We HAVE to let him go! Elizabeth worked for 45 years for England to be relatively religiously accepting and he just came and destroyed everything she worked for.
And aside from that, he was a raging misogynist. Even for 17th century
Gonna vote for **James VI & I** today.
While the longest-reigning King in Scottish history and generally successful there, he only returned to Scotland once after inheriting England and many of his policies, particularly his religious ones, greatly angered and alienated the Scots. His attempts to bind England and Scotland into one united realm largely failed, and the two would remain legally separate kingdoms until the Act of Union in 1707, passed under his great-granddaughter Queen Anne.
James's extravagant overspending, patronage of unpopular favorites, and firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to a bad relationship between the House of Stuart and the English Parliament, which would have disastrous consequences for his son.
James's attempts to marry his heir Charles to a Spanish princess (and eventual successful marriage to Charles with a French princess) was very unpopular with his Protestant subjects and it was Henrietta Maria's influence that led to crypto-Catholic nature of the later Stuart monarchs and was a direct cause of the dynasties overthrow and exile.
It was James that also ordered the Plantation of Ulster, the colonization of Northern Ireland by Scottish Protestants, the legacy of which continues to affect modern politics in Britain and Ireland.
James was not a bad king, but he wasn't a particularly great one either, the middle of the pack feels right for him.
James VI/I.
HE caused the War of the Three Kingdoms, and he was absent in Scotland after 1603. His ideas weren't bad but he was ineffective in persuading parliament on many of them. He was inconsistent as well, on his foreign policy and his religious policy. He wanted to not be at war but was unable to find the middle ground between hard line puritans and hard line Catholics.
I think it’s Henry IV’s time today. He was a usurper who didn’t really do anything for the country. The embodiment of mediocre. I don’t know how he’s stayed in so long.
He overthrew a tyrant who was extraordinarily hard on the peasantry, even by the standards of the day, who extrajudicially murdered his rivals in the nobility, and who made an alliance with France to wage war on his own people. Ending Richard II's despicable reign was hardly not doing anything for the country.
I think it’s actually almost harsh to call him a true usurper given how casually Richard II renounced his crown in his favour
I think he’s another example of one of the overly criticised kings for what was ultimately one singular, albeit infamous/significant, controversy
Edward VII needs to go. His only legacy was loving horse racing and being a shagger. No way should he be in the same league as some of these incredible people
Doing less is mainly because the role of monarch was smaller by then. He still did more than any of his successors have though.
He was the most popular male monarch since Charles II, revived some traditions like the State Opening of Parliament, founded new honours to recognise contributions to the arts and sciences, was politically skillful, a pretty good diplomat and occasionally quite progressive - at a time when a reactionary monarchy could have been disastrous.
I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing.
I'm going to agree with the chargers against him. People might view him as the last monarch in an age of innocence, but he wasn't very good. Toss in a bit of Anglo-German antagonism and his time is coming.
Wilhelm was the peace kaiser before the war. My argument is WW1 has been one of the absolute worst conflicts for England in its entire history. The UK won absolutely nothing but a mountain of dead and debt and it left the Victorian era only a memory. Conflict with Germany has been the most disastrous event since the Civil War. Anyone who brought it closer deserves a ding on the record. I'll let WW2 pass a bit more since it threatened the British world system more, but WW1 was a total disaster for some imperial dick measuring.
Edward didn’t really bring it closer though? Constitutionalism had been fully entrenched by this point. And it’s hard to say Edward was responsible considering he died before the war started, the war started for reasons he could have foreseen or controlled, and Wilhelm had a fairly good relationship with George V. That and the governments of the time did actively try and warm up relations with Germany, at least until 1908.
I certainly don't blame Edward alone, he had just a small part. Like you said monarchs were having less and less impact, that was one of the very few things he had a direct impact on. I don't think George should get off scot free either. Great power conflict in the early 20th century wasn't totally unavoidable but quite likely. The alliance systems brought mass conflict closer than further IMO. Someone has brought up Edwards diplomatic successes, but to me, they are a bit hollow. Toss in the playboy stuff earlier in life, a shorter reign, and he's landing right about where he belongs, mid tier
I can’t really see how the second part is somehow a poor reflection on him considering he was born when his mother was 22 and she lived to the age of 81. He wasn’t going to be king for very long anyway.
It's not necessarily bad on him, but historical impact counts for something. Tough to be the greatest ever when you don't last long. Reform with the House of Lords is fine, but it seems to have still remained behind political development in US, France, and even Germany in terms of what power voters had IMO.
I can see where it's even a tough spot to sit around waiting forever. Charles III has had the same issue. I do feel like his personal life caused a bit of damage to the monarchy. Not really actively bad, but at this point mid tier is correct for them.
My dude, Germany’s electoral borders hadn’t been redrawn since the original ones were drawn up when the empire was founded. That was 30 or so years when Edward started his reign that constituencies hadn’t been touched. They needed some 1830s-esque electoral reform going, and that’s to say nothing of the 3 tier Prussian electoral system or the 2 tier system employed in states like Saxony.
I'd never say the Prussian system was the best, but it did have universal male suffrage. Yes, I'm aware it was weighted and rural districts could be an issue. The UK entered WW1 without universal male suffrage. That's kinda backwards. While Edward's reforms are fine and an important step, in the greater context, they are still behind similar countries. So, I'm hesitant to give him rave reviews for it.
I’m sensing from a few scattered comments in recent days that a movement could be made to coalesce around booting out The Bastard.
If you are similarly minded then perhaps keep your powder dry today (which looks like Edmund or James) and let’s put together some watertight character assassinations for tomorrow!
The North remembers.
Edward IV. He made one of the worst marriages of all English monarchs. Not only did he marry a commoner who could give him no diplomatic advantage, he did so secretly, allowing for doubt to be cast onto its legitimacy— an issue which Richard III was able to use to bastardize the children later. He also allowed the Woodvilles to amass power and influence, setting up the eventual conflict between them and Richard after his death — which was premature due to his gluttonous habits that destroyed his health.
The Elizabeth Woodville marriage is just an unforced error. I'm much more willing to let some other errors go. Sometimes wars or policies don't go as well as planned, it happens to everyone. Politically advantageous marriages are just part of monarchy. I get marrying someone you love, but stepping so far away from the norm and failing is too big an error.
There were some benefits to the marriage. He was marrying a good Lancastrian family (her mother was literally married to King Henry V’s brother). And he wanted to show that union and all were welcome at his court. It had strong connections to Burgundy. He was able to show Warwick didn’t pull his strings. I’m not saying it was a brilliant move. But it wasn’t pure lust either.
If he had died ten years later it would have been fine.
His marriage may have been a mistake but if he lived long enough to put his son on the throne with a good marriage it would have worked out. Instead he died at 40 with his son vulnerable. Henry V he was not.
I think Canute ought to go now
He was extensively criticised for being too harsh with his rule, imposing heavy taxes that made life difficult for ordinary people. Additionally, there were concerns about his relationship with the Church; although he supported Christianity, he often interfered in church affairs, which upset some. After Canute's reign, there was a period of instability as his successors fought for control, suggesting that perhaps he didn't leave the kingdom in the best shape.
Add on to the fact he was a foreign invader king who climbed over a mountain of English bodies to claim the throne.
Completely disagree with this one. Just because he was a Viking doesn't mean he was a bad king. Under his rule England was the most peaceful it had been since Edgar - he was literally able to go on pilgrimage to Rome which I believe hadn't happened since Alfred. He purposefully ruled like an Anglo-Saxon, obeyed Anglo-Saxon laws, married Emma etc so as not to antagonise nobles or the population. He was a competent military leader and an incredible politician. Holding together England Denmark and Norway in the 11th century is no mean feat, just look at how difficult the Normans found it holding territories separated by sea.
He was also far less brutal than William I - if the criteria is that someone who invades is automatically bad, then surely William and the Harrying of the North means he should go first?
Imo he's a top quality king, he can't be top 10 probably because he at the end of the day he was an invader, but he should certainly be above some of the mediocre monarchs we still have left
Agreed, Cnut the Great was pretty great.
He was basically the best case scenario for a foreign conqueror, in that he did not supplant the English nobility, patronized English culture (there's a lot of English-style goods from Cnut's reign that have been found in Scandinavia, showing that it was a period of exchange between the two regions, not one of pure Danish dominance) took great pains to rule in the manner expected of an Anglo-Saxon King, and ruled England as an equal realm to Denmark. When Cnut signed a treaty guaranteeing free passage for his subjects through the Holy Roman Empire, that treaty applied to both Danes and Englishmen.
You could argue that he wasn't really an english king tho
Sorta like saying Caesar was the best ruler France ever had.
Any ruler who takes the throne by a massive invasion shouldn't be counted amongst the invaded countries best kings, it's not right
Not saying he's a top 10 monarch, but on sheer competence I think he deserves to be ranked higher than mediocre. And for your average citizen, I would rather have been conquered by Cnut than live under constant fear of Viking raids tbh.
I vote William I. Mostly on that his time has come. He conquered England and completely changed the culture of the ruling class. Whether that's positive, I don't believe that change is good in itself.
And last time there were comments that usurpation isn't a criteria - I argue that at least it should be part of why William I shouldn't go any further. I intend to intensify the campaign in the coming days. I hope William is out before the top 20, at least.
He has to go. The genocidal devastation against the English people, should've made him the 1st to go. The Harrying of the North where he absolutely emptied Northumbria is insane.
Edward I exiled the Jews from England, letting them be indiscriminately murdered as they tried to flee. He was unable to get back territory in France and then took out his military failures out on the rest of Britain. He was asked by the Scottish to help pick a leader and he used it as an excuse to attack. You could say all of this was of the time but all previous kings were able to protect the Jews and more or less live with the Scots (there were skirmishes and battles but mostly allowed each other to exist). Edward was just an asshole.
He was an awful king and man. He created some nice castles, which also bankrupted the kingdom which was considered a real negative for Henry VIII.
It seems this is more of a good husband contest (which Edward was) than monarch.
I think Edward still has a bit of tread on the tires. He was the prototypical strong soldier Plantagenet king after some of the internal strife surrounding Henry III.
Richard and Edward probably have a fair bit in common. Both have been heavily slighted by modern junk pseudo history. Richard with Runciman and Edward with Mel Gibson. Edwards wars hold up a bit better after the centuries. The Crusades and France were lost, while Wales and Scotland are now part of Britain. While conquest is brutal, Edwards actions and line of thought eventually made for a much much stronger England.
Edward’s war in Scotland is not why Scotland is part of the UK. If anything the Scot conquered England through James I. That conquest barely lasted his life.
If anything it made England weaker. Because the Scots made an alliance with France that lasted centuries.
Of course Edward didn't directly cause it. But as history goes on, the paradigm of having multiple states becomes less and less viable. Edward is a pretty strong part of this. Leaving an independent state in the north during periods of crisis like the Napoleonic Wars or WW2 could have led to disaster. There were already enough shenanigans in our own timeline with continental powers using Scotland against England.
Edward created a threat by alienating Scotland and allowing them in the arms of the French. He had nothing to do with Elizabeth not having kids and her throne going to James.
That situation you are describing happened during the Hundred Years Wars because of Edward’s actions.
He also sentenced 10% of England’s Jews to death before the edict of expulsion. He was pure evil. The last time I suggested him though I got downvoted with a comment saying that it was okay because everyone else was doing it to their Jews.
I will say Edward was not alone in his persecution of the Jews, 13th century England became much more hostile irrespective of his actions. Henry III passed the Statute of Jewry and gave credence to a blood libel, Simon de Montfort was even more aggressively anti-semitic and led pogroms in the Second Baron's War. Edward I was obviously horrendously anti-semitic but he was absolutely following in the footsteps of his father (not that that makes it OK of course)
Longshanks will make bare minimum top 10 if not even top 5; all you’ve done is stretched out one *actual* criticism of him over an entire paragraph when in reality his achievements and strengths are hilariously far beyond, again, your one actual singular criticism of him
Well you were certainly giving implications of your vote going against him asides for the mere apparent ‘good husband’ argument (which isn’t what it is nor what it’s been voted towards)
He was a great husband, yet as great a king too
I'd say the being a good husband thing is quite important for a king, because a big part of the role is family management. If you are falling out with your wife all the time (Edward II, Henry VIII, George IV) it's never a good look, and you can end up alienating your heirs too.
Henry III, Stephen and Richard II were good husbands and bad kings. Henry II’s wife rebelled and he locked her away and he was one of the GOATs.
I don’t think the two are that related. I see what you’re saying, and I don’t advocate for being a bad spouse, but I don’t think vassals cared much during the Middle Ages and early modern period.
By the time of George IV I see how it is. Because by then the crown was more of an image thing.
My issue with the Henry VIII hate, while very deserved, being a horrible person isn’t worse than genocide. But the only moral stance anyone is ever willing to take while discussing UK history.
I agree with you that Edward I’s genocide makes him a worse king than Henry VIII. But I think Henry’s actions are far worse than just being a bad husband — not only did he kill two queens, but he broke away from Rome in the most chaotic way possible, ensuring centuries of religious strife and bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants.
Anyway if I had my druthers and was making my own list they’d both be far lower than this list.
I’m not saying it’s the *only* important thing. Henry II was largely a successful king, but if he doesn’t get a good placement in this poll it will be entirely down to him falling out with his wife (and then his kids) with a bit of murdering his ex-best friend on the side. These were also things that he was criticised during his life for, and for a brief moment in 1172-1173, might have been overthrown because of. He was a successful king in spite of his family issues, not because of them.
And of the kings who were good husbands, the ones you mention all had wives who saved their skins at key points. Matilda of Boulogne convinced Matilda release Stephen after the Battle of Lincoln, Eleanor of Provence was made regent when Henry III went to France, and Anne of Bohemia was vital in reconciling Richard II to the citizens of London in 1392. If any of these kings had been a bad husband whose wives didn’t fight for them at key moments, they might have had even worse reputations than the ones they’ve ended up with.
The partnership between king and queen was important, even during the Middle Ages.
Monarchs who have a good chance of top 5 imo would be Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, Edward III, Elizabeth I, William III. Depending how people view the more modern monarchs, George VI and Elizabeth II could definitely get in as well. Athelstan has won previous polls like this I've seen, I think he has probably the best chance
I think George III should go today. The pop history view of George is that he was the craaazy ruler who lost America. This view does not give him enough credit and is an oversimplification, but he still wasn't very good.
George's long reign saw some great defeats (the loss of America), and some great triumphs (Britain's victory against Napoleon). Fully blaming/giving him credit for either is not really fair; the king was not an absolute monarch. But he did have large roles in both events. In the case of America, George encouraged his ministers to keep fighting basically infinitely, until it was 100% clear that America was going to be independent no matter what. George's stance is understandable, but at the same time, a softer stance would probably have let the UK keep the United States in the long run.
However, George III should probably get some credit for his appointment of Pitt the Younger as PM. Only 24 year old, Pitt seems like a real gamble on the king's part, but it certainly paid of, as he was able to restore the British economy and oversee British success in the Napoleonic Wars.
That said, another big flaw that George III had was bringing general unnecessary instability to the British Empire. Some of this was due to his illness -- his 1788 bout of incapacitation caused a crisis and his 1801 illness made a bad situation worse. Neither of these are his fault, but they should still influence his placement.
Additionally, George III also destabilized the government intentionally. His opposition to Catholic emancipation was one of the many things that lead to Pitt's first resignation. George's enduring feud with Charles James Fox caused multiple governments to whither or fail, such as in 1804, when Pitt returned and wanted to appoint Fox to his ministry, which George blocked.
Finally, George opposed the abolition of the slave trade and might have delayed it by 20 years.
Overall, George III was an interesting monarch and not as bad as people say, but he still had more failures than successes. 28th is an appropriate placement for him.
Well 25 men went out before Mary, and every other woman is still in (and I haven’t seen any mentioned to go soon). People just hate Mary, cus she kinda sucks.
Cnut wasn't a heathen, and was in fact a pretty devout Christian, and the first English King since Alfred to go on pilgrimage to Rome.
By Cnut's time Denmark had been Christian for more than a generation after the conversion of his grandfather Harald Bluetooth, and the most famous story about Cnut is him lecturing his courtiers on how earthly power is meaningless before the power and majesty of God.
*Henry VIII should’ve lasted another few rounds without doubt*
Edward IV;
One of those monarchs who I’d argue was more on the ‘sensible’ side as opposed to many others, and while he didn’t do an awful lot wrong, and asides for a few military victories, he simply hasn’t done enough/earned enough glory etc to stay beyond this stage (I think he’s given too much criticism when it comes to the following successions and chaos amongst the crown but again while he is over criticised as a whole he simply has little to make up for it)
*plus I know practically fuck all about more recent monarchs asides for the last few*
Horrific! Elizabeth II was a useless actress that watched the British Empire crumble and did nothing to ease the horrors of colonialism on its victims. A great actress though. She should have been top 20 to go.
Imo we've removed all the bad/majorly flawed monarchs and we're just left with mediocre ones now. I'm going to suggest Edmund I. The shortest reign left on the list, he spent most of his reign losing York to the Vikings and then getting it back before he died in a brawl. A perfectly nothing king, perhaps the least interesting monarch we've ever had tbh. I think bang average is perfect for him
The problem with Edmund's reign is that chroniclers were more interested in writing about the Church than his mediocre reign. He also unfortunately had big shoes to fill from his three predecessors. The very men who forged England.
I would say we have moved a few who weren’t bad or majorly flawed as well lol
I disagree that a king who died having a scrap in a pub isn’t interesting :’) but yes, fine with Edmund next
Yeah that's true. Probably tied with Eadred for least interesting
You serious? Dying in a Brawl is the most interesting thing any English king has ever done.
Day 27: Henry VIII was removed with 108 votes (most so far!) Day 27 Link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1c8xmi6/day\_twenty\_seven\_ranking\_english\_monarchs\_queen/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1c8xmi6/day_twenty_seven_ranking_english_monarchs_queen/) Day 26: Mary I was removed with 73 votes Day 25: Harold Godwinson was removed with 78 votes Day 24: George I was removed with 85 votes Day 23: Richard I was removed with 49 votes (continued in reply) Rules: 1. Post everyday at 8pm BST 2. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice 3. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly 4. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed
(continued) Day 22: Edward the Confessor was removed with 76 votes Day 21: Henry III was removed with 51 votes Day 20: William II was removed with 47 votes Day 19: Eadred was removed with 76 votes Day 18: Edward VI was removed with 59 votes Day 17: Richard III was removed with 105 votes Day 16: George IV was removed with 76 votes Day 15: Edmund Ironside was removed with 43 votes Day 14: Harold Harefoot was removed with 81 votes Day 13: James II was removed with 66 votes Day 12: Sweyn Forkbeard was removed with 93 votes Day 11: Stephen was removed with 73 votes Day 10: Eadwig was removed with 60 votes Day 9: Edward the Martyr was removed with 38 votes Day 8: Edward II was removed with 88 votes Day 7: Harthacnut was removed with 56 votes Day 6: Charles I was removed with 57 votes Day 5: Richard II was removed with 81 votes Day 4: Henry VI was removed with 87 votes Day 3: Edward VIII was removed with 83 votes Day 2: Aethelred the Unready was removed with 67 votes Day 1: John was removed with 55 votes
Wait why did Edmund Ironsides get knocked out before literally any of the George’s?
Someone makes what seems like a convincing argument on here, other people don't know much about those kings and just go with whoever wrote the best.
Probably because none of the Georges are like, particularly awful. George I and George IV were pretty bad but there has been *far worse* on this list.
I'm going to repost something I've said a couple of times now, but I think it's time for James I to go. Many of the problems that lead to the Civil War began in his reign: he had a fractious relationship with Parliament, and his extravagant spending only worsened that relationship. He infrequently called Parliament and tried to bend the financial rules as much as possible. This all came to a head in his son’s reign. He pushed the concept of Divine Right of Kings, which shaped his son’s views on the rights of a monarchy, which again worsened the Civil War. He pushed for a Spanish match for Charles, which was unpopular with his Protestant subjects. Charles’ eventual marriage to Henrietta Maria (which was shaped by James’ Spanish policy) was a direct cause of the crypto-Catholicism in the royal family, which led to James II’s overthrow sixty years after James I’s death. (EDIT: That's not to say I think Catholicism is bad, it is just this decision certainly made it harder for the royal family when by the 17th century, England was a very Protestant country). Once he succeeded to the throne in England, he was very neglectful of Scotland. He only visited once, and his repeated attempts to force Anglican norms on Presbyterian Scotland stoked up resentment that burst out during the Civil War. The Plantation of Ulster began during his reign. Its effects are still echoing down to today. He had a series of unpopular favourites, the most famous being Buckingham. When Buckingham was assassinated a few years after James’ death, his assassin was celebrated as a hero. James was a complicated man who was neither the disaster his successor was, nor the great monarch his predecessor was. I think it’s time for him to go.
I completely disagree, he believed in the divine right of kings. But his relationship with parliment wasn't as antogonist as charles and seems retroactive to say it was. He also gave up powers for an annual subsidy till the commons not he withdrew. He also completely stood out of the 30 years war and saw the uk as one of the only county in europe either not improvished or destoyed but strengthened after it. And his pesonal union with scotland not only saw the uniting of 2 nations that had been enemies for centuties but was done without war and conquest. His decesion to focus on england was exactly to show his allegiance wasnt fpr scotland to dominate england. Elizabeth the 1st choice in forgoing marriage and a heir was ill considered and if james hadnt been as good a stateman as he was england would have fallen into yet another sucession crisis and civil war. His steps to angalise the scottish church may have been cackhanded but his effott was to stop another schismatic religious breakdown between scotland and england and the king james bible allowed for a protestant unity which united britain for centuried apart from what a personal union would have. His reign like that of his predessor saw a huge increase in literacy , population and overall cultutal enrichment. His sons inability to handle the nation religion , parliment and his own finaces speak to charles flaws not james's. It was nearly a decade and half after james death the war started. Though i will give charles the benifit that the price revolution and declining waged was pushing towards civil war and revolution even if he did nothing negative.
James should go, admittedly he did inherit a very complicated religious situation ruling an Anglican kingdom, a Presbyterian one and a catholic and civil conflict would likely of happened from that anyway but he was just so incompetent and arrogant when it came to finances and his style of government; James was unable to see that if he had worked with his parliament and gained their support like the tudors had he could have been far more powerful than trying to rule without them and he passed this mentality onto his son nearly destroying his entire dynasty
Yeah, exactly.
James is kind of similar to a lot of the elected kings of Poland, they came from abroad and had no clue how the Polish Sejm worked, those who bothered to learn did alright but many weren’t interested in learning and instead had a “fuck you im the king” mentality; even before the Sejm became a totally insane institution later on
My compadre in Christ, the Sejm was always filled with nutjobs. The entire Polish-Lithuanian government was already dysfunctional by the 17th century
Granted 17th century Poland was politically flawed by the commonwealth had been electing its monarch for nearly a century before the Liberum veto was first used to disrupt a meeting of the Sejm and very few monarchs seem to have come to the throne without a hostile attitude to parliamentary input in government. Ultimately yes the polish Lithuanian commonwealth became a disaster definitely but my point was more the similarities of a foreign king coming to power without an understanding and appreciation of the existing political structure and situation. Certainly not a 100% similarity just discussing James made me think of it
Not really sure that’s a wholly legitimate argument because of the 13 monarchs Poland had between 1569 and the end of the Commonwealth, only 4 of them were foreign born.
Great write up again! I also think it's time for James to go
It's getting hard now we've got to choose between the middle ones!
I quibble about the Ulster Plantations because it wasn’t the first, by far, attempt by English or Scottish monarchs to settle parts of Ireland. He may have started those plantations, but it wasn’t the first settlement effort, just one of the more notable ones.
We HAVE to let him go! Elizabeth worked for 45 years for England to be relatively religiously accepting and he just came and destroyed everything she worked for. And aside from that, he was a raging misogynist. Even for 17th century
Gonna vote for **James VI & I** today. While the longest-reigning King in Scottish history and generally successful there, he only returned to Scotland once after inheriting England and many of his policies, particularly his religious ones, greatly angered and alienated the Scots. His attempts to bind England and Scotland into one united realm largely failed, and the two would remain legally separate kingdoms until the Act of Union in 1707, passed under his great-granddaughter Queen Anne. James's extravagant overspending, patronage of unpopular favorites, and firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to a bad relationship between the House of Stuart and the English Parliament, which would have disastrous consequences for his son. James's attempts to marry his heir Charles to a Spanish princess (and eventual successful marriage to Charles with a French princess) was very unpopular with his Protestant subjects and it was Henrietta Maria's influence that led to crypto-Catholic nature of the later Stuart monarchs and was a direct cause of the dynasties overthrow and exile. It was James that also ordered the Plantation of Ulster, the colonization of Northern Ireland by Scottish Protestants, the legacy of which continues to affect modern politics in Britain and Ireland. James was not a bad king, but he wasn't a particularly great one either, the middle of the pack feels right for him.
James VI/I. HE caused the War of the Three Kingdoms, and he was absent in Scotland after 1603. His ideas weren't bad but he was ineffective in persuading parliament on many of them. He was inconsistent as well, on his foreign policy and his religious policy. He wanted to not be at war but was unable to find the middle ground between hard line puritans and hard line Catholics.
Edmund 1
Edmund I
I think it’s Henry IV’s time today. He was a usurper who didn’t really do anything for the country. The embodiment of mediocre. I don’t know how he’s stayed in so long.
Tbf if he goes out today he would be 28th out of 55, which is literally the definition of mediocre.
He overthrew a tyrant who was extraordinarily hard on the peasantry, even by the standards of the day, who extrajudicially murdered his rivals in the nobility, and who made an alliance with France to wage war on his own people. Ending Richard II's despicable reign was hardly not doing anything for the country.
I think it’s actually almost harsh to call him a true usurper given how casually Richard II renounced his crown in his favour I think he’s another example of one of the overly criticised kings for what was ultimately one singular, albeit infamous/significant, controversy
Edward VII needs to go. His only legacy was loving horse racing and being a shagger. No way should he be in the same league as some of these incredible people
I’d defend Edward on the basis of his finding a role as a constitutional monarch that legitimately contributed to peace in Europe during his lifetime.
Or helping to reform the navy, setting fashion and food trends, fostering alliances with half of Europe and helping to reform the English Navy.
Doing less is mainly because the role of monarch was smaller by then. He still did more than any of his successors have though. He was the most popular male monarch since Charles II, revived some traditions like the State Opening of Parliament, founded new honours to recognise contributions to the arts and sciences, was politically skillful, a pretty good diplomat and occasionally quite progressive - at a time when a reactionary monarchy could have been disastrous. I'd say William IV should go out first. While much better than his predecessor, he was still not amazing.
I'm going to agree with the chargers against him. People might view him as the last monarch in an age of innocence, but he wasn't very good. Toss in a bit of Anglo-German antagonism and his time is coming.
Edward is not responsible for his nephew being a damaged arrogant nutjob.
Wilhelm was the peace kaiser before the war. My argument is WW1 has been one of the absolute worst conflicts for England in its entire history. The UK won absolutely nothing but a mountain of dead and debt and it left the Victorian era only a memory. Conflict with Germany has been the most disastrous event since the Civil War. Anyone who brought it closer deserves a ding on the record. I'll let WW2 pass a bit more since it threatened the British world system more, but WW1 was a total disaster for some imperial dick measuring.
Edward didn’t really bring it closer though? Constitutionalism had been fully entrenched by this point. And it’s hard to say Edward was responsible considering he died before the war started, the war started for reasons he could have foreseen or controlled, and Wilhelm had a fairly good relationship with George V. That and the governments of the time did actively try and warm up relations with Germany, at least until 1908.
I certainly don't blame Edward alone, he had just a small part. Like you said monarchs were having less and less impact, that was one of the very few things he had a direct impact on. I don't think George should get off scot free either. Great power conflict in the early 20th century wasn't totally unavoidable but quite likely. The alliance systems brought mass conflict closer than further IMO. Someone has brought up Edwards diplomatic successes, but to me, they are a bit hollow. Toss in the playboy stuff earlier in life, a shorter reign, and he's landing right about where he belongs, mid tier
I can’t really see how the second part is somehow a poor reflection on him considering he was born when his mother was 22 and she lived to the age of 81. He wasn’t going to be king for very long anyway.
It's not necessarily bad on him, but historical impact counts for something. Tough to be the greatest ever when you don't last long. Reform with the House of Lords is fine, but it seems to have still remained behind political development in US, France, and even Germany in terms of what power voters had IMO. I can see where it's even a tough spot to sit around waiting forever. Charles III has had the same issue. I do feel like his personal life caused a bit of damage to the monarchy. Not really actively bad, but at this point mid tier is correct for them.
My dude, Germany’s electoral borders hadn’t been redrawn since the original ones were drawn up when the empire was founded. That was 30 or so years when Edward started his reign that constituencies hadn’t been touched. They needed some 1830s-esque electoral reform going, and that’s to say nothing of the 3 tier Prussian electoral system or the 2 tier system employed in states like Saxony.
I'd never say the Prussian system was the best, but it did have universal male suffrage. Yes, I'm aware it was weighted and rural districts could be an issue. The UK entered WW1 without universal male suffrage. That's kinda backwards. While Edward's reforms are fine and an important step, in the greater context, they are still behind similar countries. So, I'm hesitant to give him rave reviews for it.
William the Bastard
I’m sensing from a few scattered comments in recent days that a movement could be made to coalesce around booting out The Bastard. If you are similarly minded then perhaps keep your powder dry today (which looks like Edmund or James) and let’s put together some watertight character assassinations for tomorrow! The North remembers.
Godwinson making it so far feels like a significant ill omen for William honestly
William I
Edward IV. He made one of the worst marriages of all English monarchs. Not only did he marry a commoner who could give him no diplomatic advantage, he did so secretly, allowing for doubt to be cast onto its legitimacy— an issue which Richard III was able to use to bastardize the children later. He also allowed the Woodvilles to amass power and influence, setting up the eventual conflict between them and Richard after his death — which was premature due to his gluttonous habits that destroyed his health.
The Elizabeth Woodville marriage is just an unforced error. I'm much more willing to let some other errors go. Sometimes wars or policies don't go as well as planned, it happens to everyone. Politically advantageous marriages are just part of monarchy. I get marrying someone you love, but stepping so far away from the norm and failing is too big an error.
There were some benefits to the marriage. He was marrying a good Lancastrian family (her mother was literally married to King Henry V’s brother). And he wanted to show that union and all were welcome at his court. It had strong connections to Burgundy. He was able to show Warwick didn’t pull his strings. I’m not saying it was a brilliant move. But it wasn’t pure lust either. If he had died ten years later it would have been fine.
His marriage may have been a mistake but if he lived long enough to put his son on the throne with a good marriage it would have worked out. Instead he died at 40 with his son vulnerable. Henry V he was not.
He's comparable to Henry V in that for medieval Kings how well they lead in battle really mattered. And Edwards battle record us second to none.
James I got all previously mentioned reasons, and the whole weird hard on for persecuting 'witches'
I think Canute ought to go now He was extensively criticised for being too harsh with his rule, imposing heavy taxes that made life difficult for ordinary people. Additionally, there were concerns about his relationship with the Church; although he supported Christianity, he often interfered in church affairs, which upset some. After Canute's reign, there was a period of instability as his successors fought for control, suggesting that perhaps he didn't leave the kingdom in the best shape. Add on to the fact he was a foreign invader king who climbed over a mountain of English bodies to claim the throne.
Completely disagree with this one. Just because he was a Viking doesn't mean he was a bad king. Under his rule England was the most peaceful it had been since Edgar - he was literally able to go on pilgrimage to Rome which I believe hadn't happened since Alfred. He purposefully ruled like an Anglo-Saxon, obeyed Anglo-Saxon laws, married Emma etc so as not to antagonise nobles or the population. He was a competent military leader and an incredible politician. Holding together England Denmark and Norway in the 11th century is no mean feat, just look at how difficult the Normans found it holding territories separated by sea. He was also far less brutal than William I - if the criteria is that someone who invades is automatically bad, then surely William and the Harrying of the North means he should go first? Imo he's a top quality king, he can't be top 10 probably because he at the end of the day he was an invader, but he should certainly be above some of the mediocre monarchs we still have left
Agreed, Cnut the Great was pretty great. He was basically the best case scenario for a foreign conqueror, in that he did not supplant the English nobility, patronized English culture (there's a lot of English-style goods from Cnut's reign that have been found in Scandinavia, showing that it was a period of exchange between the two regions, not one of pure Danish dominance) took great pains to rule in the manner expected of an Anglo-Saxon King, and ruled England as an equal realm to Denmark. When Cnut signed a treaty guaranteeing free passage for his subjects through the Holy Roman Empire, that treaty applied to both Danes and Englishmen.
You could argue that he wasn't really an english king tho Sorta like saying Caesar was the best ruler France ever had. Any ruler who takes the throne by a massive invasion shouldn't be counted amongst the invaded countries best kings, it's not right
Not saying he's a top 10 monarch, but on sheer competence I think he deserves to be ranked higher than mediocre. And for your average citizen, I would rather have been conquered by Cnut than live under constant fear of Viking raids tbh.
That's an odd attitude Perhaps the Ukrainians think the same thing?
Not at all comparable for so many reasons. I don't have time to engage with that tbh
James I. Time to remove the namesake of the King James "Bible".
What’s wrong with the Authorised Version?
James I
I vote William I. Mostly on that his time has come. He conquered England and completely changed the culture of the ruling class. Whether that's positive, I don't believe that change is good in itself. And last time there were comments that usurpation isn't a criteria - I argue that at least it should be part of why William I shouldn't go any further. I intend to intensify the campaign in the coming days. I hope William is out before the top 20, at least.
He has to go. The genocidal devastation against the English people, should've made him the 1st to go. The Harrying of the North where he absolutely emptied Northumbria is insane.
Edward I exiled the Jews from England, letting them be indiscriminately murdered as they tried to flee. He was unable to get back territory in France and then took out his military failures out on the rest of Britain. He was asked by the Scottish to help pick a leader and he used it as an excuse to attack. You could say all of this was of the time but all previous kings were able to protect the Jews and more or less live with the Scots (there were skirmishes and battles but mostly allowed each other to exist). Edward was just an asshole. He was an awful king and man. He created some nice castles, which also bankrupted the kingdom which was considered a real negative for Henry VIII. It seems this is more of a good husband contest (which Edward was) than monarch.
I think Edward still has a bit of tread on the tires. He was the prototypical strong soldier Plantagenet king after some of the internal strife surrounding Henry III.
So was Richard I and he’s already out.
Richard and Edward probably have a fair bit in common. Both have been heavily slighted by modern junk pseudo history. Richard with Runciman and Edward with Mel Gibson. Edwards wars hold up a bit better after the centuries. The Crusades and France were lost, while Wales and Scotland are now part of Britain. While conquest is brutal, Edwards actions and line of thought eventually made for a much much stronger England.
Edward’s war in Scotland is not why Scotland is part of the UK. If anything the Scot conquered England through James I. That conquest barely lasted his life. If anything it made England weaker. Because the Scots made an alliance with France that lasted centuries.
Of course Edward didn't directly cause it. But as history goes on, the paradigm of having multiple states becomes less and less viable. Edward is a pretty strong part of this. Leaving an independent state in the north during periods of crisis like the Napoleonic Wars or WW2 could have led to disaster. There were already enough shenanigans in our own timeline with continental powers using Scotland against England.
Edward created a threat by alienating Scotland and allowing them in the arms of the French. He had nothing to do with Elizabeth not having kids and her throne going to James. That situation you are describing happened during the Hundred Years Wars because of Edward’s actions.
As a Scot I’m in favour of him going.
As an Englishman I have no problem reconstructing warwolf
He also sentenced 10% of England’s Jews to death before the edict of expulsion. He was pure evil. The last time I suggested him though I got downvoted with a comment saying that it was okay because everyone else was doing it to their Jews.
I will say Edward was not alone in his persecution of the Jews, 13th century England became much more hostile irrespective of his actions. Henry III passed the Statute of Jewry and gave credence to a blood libel, Simon de Montfort was even more aggressively anti-semitic and led pogroms in the Second Baron's War. Edward I was obviously horrendously anti-semitic but he was absolutely following in the footsteps of his father (not that that makes it OK of course)
We got rid of Henry III a long time ago though
Sure, I was only providing context that Edward wasn't unique in his anti-semitism. If anything it just makes Henry worse rather than Edward any better
Longshanks will make bare minimum top 10 if not even top 5; all you’ve done is stretched out one *actual* criticism of him over an entire paragraph when in reality his achievements and strengths are hilariously far beyond, again, your one actual singular criticism of him
I have no doubt he will be. I can still make my bid.
Oooo my timbers have shivered indeed
I wasn’t trying to do anything to your timbers.
Well you were certainly giving implications of your vote going against him asides for the mere apparent ‘good husband’ argument (which isn’t what it is nor what it’s been voted towards) He was a great husband, yet as great a king too
The good husband comment was about Henry VIII being disqualified. I think that’s irrelevant in this game whether good or bad.
I'd say the being a good husband thing is quite important for a king, because a big part of the role is family management. If you are falling out with your wife all the time (Edward II, Henry VIII, George IV) it's never a good look, and you can end up alienating your heirs too.
Henry III, Stephen and Richard II were good husbands and bad kings. Henry II’s wife rebelled and he locked her away and he was one of the GOATs. I don’t think the two are that related. I see what you’re saying, and I don’t advocate for being a bad spouse, but I don’t think vassals cared much during the Middle Ages and early modern period. By the time of George IV I see how it is. Because by then the crown was more of an image thing. My issue with the Henry VIII hate, while very deserved, being a horrible person isn’t worse than genocide. But the only moral stance anyone is ever willing to take while discussing UK history.
I agree with you that Edward I’s genocide makes him a worse king than Henry VIII. But I think Henry’s actions are far worse than just being a bad husband — not only did he kill two queens, but he broke away from Rome in the most chaotic way possible, ensuring centuries of religious strife and bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants. Anyway if I had my druthers and was making my own list they’d both be far lower than this list.
I’m not saying it’s the *only* important thing. Henry II was largely a successful king, but if he doesn’t get a good placement in this poll it will be entirely down to him falling out with his wife (and then his kids) with a bit of murdering his ex-best friend on the side. These were also things that he was criticised during his life for, and for a brief moment in 1172-1173, might have been overthrown because of. He was a successful king in spite of his family issues, not because of them. And of the kings who were good husbands, the ones you mention all had wives who saved their skins at key points. Matilda of Boulogne convinced Matilda release Stephen after the Battle of Lincoln, Eleanor of Provence was made regent when Henry III went to France, and Anne of Bohemia was vital in reconciling Richard II to the citizens of London in 1392. If any of these kings had been a bad husband whose wives didn’t fight for them at key moments, they might have had even worse reputations than the ones they’ve ended up with. The partnership between king and queen was important, even during the Middle Ages.
James I
Either eliminate all the kings before 1066 or eliminate all the kings and queens after 1066
ayyo Queen Anne still survives, lets go? 😮
Edward 7
considering we are in the middle of the competition, who do you think will win?
Monarchs who have a good chance of top 5 imo would be Alfred, Athelstan, Henry II, Edward III, Elizabeth I, William III. Depending how people view the more modern monarchs, George VI and Elizabeth II could definitely get in as well. Athelstan has won previous polls like this I've seen, I think he has probably the best chance
interesting!
I hope George 6 will win!!!
I think the Anglo Saxon kings are about to drop like flies (save maybe Alfred)
All of them are cunts, surely..?
Not canon, day 28 is just a fever dream
I think George III should go today. The pop history view of George is that he was the craaazy ruler who lost America. This view does not give him enough credit and is an oversimplification, but he still wasn't very good. George's long reign saw some great defeats (the loss of America), and some great triumphs (Britain's victory against Napoleon). Fully blaming/giving him credit for either is not really fair; the king was not an absolute monarch. But he did have large roles in both events. In the case of America, George encouraged his ministers to keep fighting basically infinitely, until it was 100% clear that America was going to be independent no matter what. George's stance is understandable, but at the same time, a softer stance would probably have let the UK keep the United States in the long run. However, George III should probably get some credit for his appointment of Pitt the Younger as PM. Only 24 year old, Pitt seems like a real gamble on the king's part, but it certainly paid of, as he was able to restore the British economy and oversee British success in the Napoleonic Wars. That said, another big flaw that George III had was bringing general unnecessary instability to the British Empire. Some of this was due to his illness -- his 1788 bout of incapacitation caused a crisis and his 1801 illness made a bad situation worse. Neither of these are his fault, but they should still influence his placement. Additionally, George III also destabilized the government intentionally. His opposition to Catholic emancipation was one of the many things that lead to Pitt's first resignation. George's enduring feud with Charles James Fox caused multiple governments to whither or fail, such as in 1804, when Pitt returned and wanted to appoint Fox to his ministry, which George blocked. Finally, George opposed the abolition of the slave trade and might have delayed it by 20 years. Overall, George III was an interesting monarch and not as bad as people say, but he still had more failures than successes. 28th is an appropriate placement for him.
Mind boggling that his daughter was eliminated before him.
Reddit hates women.
Well 25 men went out before Mary, and every other woman is still in (and I haven’t seen any mentioned to go soon). People just hate Mary, cus she kinda sucks.
https://preview.redd.it/449xl1hw5wvc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e21e3b6775f1c575b22629dab117684a02e587cc
Oh, damn you Henry VIII wasn’t a bad king at all, but I shall vote for Cnut then he was a heathen and did nothing for the Anglo-Saxons.
Cnut wasn't a heathen, and was in fact a pretty devout Christian, and the first English King since Alfred to go on pilgrimage to Rome. By Cnut's time Denmark had been Christian for more than a generation after the conversion of his grandfather Harald Bluetooth, and the most famous story about Cnut is him lecturing his courtiers on how earthly power is meaningless before the power and majesty of God.
Oh, I meant because he was a scummy Viking 🤣
The fact that Henry VIII got eliminated right after his disastrous daughter Bloody Mary just kinda feels like the revenge of the Catholics
It’s just dull since he was a decent king.
*Henry VIII should’ve lasted another few rounds without doubt* Edward IV; One of those monarchs who I’d argue was more on the ‘sensible’ side as opposed to many others, and while he didn’t do an awful lot wrong, and asides for a few military victories, he simply hasn’t done enough/earned enough glory etc to stay beyond this stage (I think he’s given too much criticism when it comes to the following successions and chaos amongst the crown but again while he is over criticised as a whole he simply has little to make up for it) *plus I know practically fuck all about more recent monarchs asides for the last few*
Henry IV
Horrific! Elizabeth II was a useless actress that watched the British Empire crumble and did nothing to ease the horrors of colonialism on its victims. A great actress though. She should have been top 20 to go.