Best King of England?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Since comparing monarchs across English and British history can be a case of comparing apples to oranges, we'll be focusing on the period after the Norman Conquest but prior to the Reformation.

 

[phil03]

A close call between Beauclerc and Longshanks but at the end of the day I had to go with Edward I (separating king and politician with human being on this one) because he was the only one who had the clarity of vision and strenght of will to stop using most of England's ressources on continental matters, at best a secondary theater and at worst a ressource sink, and turn them toward the British Isles.

As Napoleon once said, the politics of a nation is in its geography and Edward was the one monarch during this era to truly recognise that fact.

 

[Enigmajones]

I usually consider all royals as nothing to special, but since the Anarchy is during Stephen's reign and thats basically Dance of Dragons without the dragons.

 

[phil03]

I usually consider all royals as nothing to special, but since the Anarchy is during Stephen's reign and thats basically Dance of Dragons without the dragons.

I mean, one can't deny that their personalities influed on the course of history since they where the one at the head of the state.

 

[Old1812]

Screw it, I'm voting for Richard III. He seems to have had some good policies, and I at least want to give him credit for that.

 

[phil03]

Screw it, I'm voting for Richard III. He seems to have had some good policies, and I at least want to give him credit for that.

My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.

That being said, his reign ended after a few years with him dead on the field of Bosworth, a battle he lost because a good chunk of his army defected to Henry Tudor (the Stanleys) and another good chunk simply refused to engage the ennemy forces when it came down to it (the Earl of Northumberland). The Yorkist cause, who had seemed unnassailable at the death of Edward IV had been dealt a grieveous blow and was never to recover.

As such, I feel we can't really see his reign as anything else then a failure, and definitely short of what would make him a contender for a great king.

 

[Nivek]

No Henry VIII...

 

[Old1812]

My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.

That being said, his reign ended after a few years with him dead on the field of Bosworth, a battle he lost because a good chunk of his army defected to Henry Tudor (the Stanleys) and another good chunk simply refused to engage the ennemy forces when it came down to it (the Earl of Northumberland). The Yorkist cause, who had seemed unnassailable at the death of Edward IV had been dealt a grieveous blow and was never to recover.

As such, I feel we can't really see his reign as anything else then a failure, and definitely short of what would make him a contender for a great king.

If I'm being honest, I'd say Edward IV was a much better king overall, so I've changed my vote.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Obviously, Innocent III . Rare humor from me.

 

[Mikestone8]

Probably Henry II. Most of the English legal system as we know it started with him. But Edward I has a good claim since Parliament became a regular feature of the landscape under him.

 

[StevenIronside]

Obviously got to vote for the namesake here...

 

[VVD0D95]

Probably Henry II. Most of the English legal system as we know it started with him. But Edward I has a good claim since Parliament became a regular feature of the landscape under him.

That's the only downside of Edward I for me aha.

 

[Sertorius126]

My overall impression of the guy is that he was competent enough, not the monster of the play but still responsible for having rekindled the War of the Roses by going for the crown so therefore not the paragon of virtue his admirers have described them as either.

That being said, his reign ended after a few years with him dead on the field of Bosworth, a battle he lost because a good chunk of his army defected to Henry Tudor (the Stanleys) and another good chunk simply refused to engage the ennemy forces when it came down to it (the Earl of Northumberland). The Yorkist cause, who had seemed unnassailable at the death of Edward IV had been dealt a grieveous blow and was never to recover.

As such, I feel we can't really see his reign as anything else then a failure, and definitely short of what would make him a contender for a great king.

What other choice did he truly have though? It was either him or the Woodvilles.

Nonetheless, as much as I love him, he sure wasn’t the best king of England, I’d say either Edward I or Henry I deserve such recognition.

 

[mjwebb76]

As everyone knows, England's greatest Kings are Queens .

All kidding aside, I am surprised now one is suggesting Edward III. He is typically viewed as the ideal of a medieval monarch.

 

[High Plains Drifter]

Longshanks. The only one given a nickname in the poll, so clearly the intended choice - to which I whole heartedly agree.

- Learned from his mistakes to help win the 2nd Baron's War (Sure, wasn't King yet. But merely a technicality with ineffectual Henry III around)
- Went on Crusade to earn rule of cool points
- Added Wales
- Quieted (temporarily) Scotland
- Enlarger of Royal Authority
- Codified English Law
- Played by Patrick McGoogan in Braveheart to earn more rule of cool points

In sum, from the English perspective, less to dislike than most other candidates.

 

[Old1812]

Are Medival English II monarchs doomed to be terrible? William II, Edward II, Richard II...Henry II wasn't that bad though

 

[Mikestone8]

Are Medival English II monarchs doomed to be terrible? William II, Edward II, Richard II...Henry II wasn't that bad though

Timing is all. At least the last three of those might have been remembered as reasonably successful had they died a few years sooner.

 

[phil03]

Are Medival English II monarchs doomed to be terrible? William II, Edward II, Richard II...Henry II wasn't that bad though

I mean, I would deem William II pretty average all things considered.

Timing is all. At least the last three of those might have been remembered as reasonably successful had they died a few years sooner.

Maybe that's fair for Richard but Edward II would probably have still ended up being remembered as the man who lost Scotland even if he hadn't personally been defeated at Bannockburn.

 

[Mikestone8]

I mean, I would deem William II pretty average all things considered.
Maybe that's fair for Richard but Edward II would probably have still ended up being remembered as the man who lost Scotland even if he hadn't personally been defeated at Bannockburn.

But had he died not long after his victory at Boroughbridge he might still count as a reasonable success, esp if the Scottish campaign was viewed as unwinnable, so not really his fault.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Longshanks. The only one given a nickname in the poll, so clearly the intended choice

Just for the record - that was to distinguish him from previous “Edwards”, like Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor.