The British Mount Rushmore: Who would be on it?

teg · Apr 9, 2011

Let's say someone in Britain decides to create a monument to the four greatest British PMs ever. Who would be on it?

Here are my frontrunners (although not the final choice):

Winston Churchill

William Gladstone

William Pitter the Younger

David Lloyd George

Clement Attlee

Benjamin Disraeli

To stop this thread dissolving into a flamewar, I'm going to ban anyone after 1979 from appearing on it. (eg Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron) They are too recent or too controversial IMO for a rational argument to be formed)

Marky Bunny · Apr 9, 2011

The four greatest in my opinion:

Winston Churchill (speaks for itself)
Benjamin Disraeli (reformer & great wit)
William Pitt (Another war leader)
Clement Attlee (A honest decent public servent, fought in World war 1, a local Councillor, Mayor, MP, Labour Leader, Deputy-Prime Minister, and Prime-Minister for 6 years, winning 2 elections)

Super Parker Brothers · Apr 9, 2011

Can we throw in Cromwell?

Falkenburg · Apr 9, 2011

As an Irish Nationalist I well understand that some might worry about (or object to) the inclusion of Cromwell.

That said, this is for a 'British Rushmore' and it would be a glaring omission not to have the Lord Protector up there.

I'm sure those with a better knowledge of US history could cite as many objections to some of the figures included on the American original.

Falkenburg

Super Parker Brothers · Apr 9, 2011

I've always wondered, besides setting aside that Fifth of Ireland to for his veterans, what did Cromwell do against the Irish that wasnt some sort fo war against certain clans? Im not very well versed here.

Falkenburg · Apr 9, 2011

Personally, I don't think Cromwell did anything that was that far outside the SOP for Commanders of his time.

The difficulty has been that dear old Ollie has become something of a bogey man, embodying the ruthless malice of Perfidious Albion for successive generations of Irish Nationalists and Left-ish sympathisers.

Excluding Cromwell would be similiar to excluding Churchill because of some of his actions and opinions.

Falkenburg

Baconheimer · Apr 9, 2011

Moseley.
Guy Hawkes.
Blackadder?.
Chamberlain, the Prime Minister one.

Turquoise Blue · Apr 9, 2011

Well, if it was really British, we will exclude anybody pre 1700.
So I recommend Churchill and Nelson.
Cromwell, a no-no I think.

Arachnid · Apr 9, 2011

Cromwell was a republican who committed regicide so he's out

Churchill (fought the Germans)
Pitt the Younger (fought the French)
Queen Elizabeth I (female and fought the Spanish)
Disraeli (height of the British Empire so pretty much everyone)

Turquoise Blue · Apr 9, 2011

Aracnid said:
Cromwell was a republican who committed regicide so he's out

Churchill (fought the Germans)
Pitt the Younger (fought the French)
Queen Elizabeth I (female and fought the Spanish)
Disraeli (height of the British Empire so pretty much everyone)

Churchill, Pitt and Disraeli OK, but Liz was English not British and she ordered the execution of a Scottish queen.

SavoyTruffle · Apr 9, 2011

Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Churchill, Pitt, and Disraeli. For bonus points have Disraeli and Gladstone next to each other.

Koenig von Poposia · Apr 9, 2011

Marlborough? Lloyd-George? Nelson? Wellington?

Turquoise Blue · Apr 9, 2011

Koenig von Poposia said:
Marlborough? Lloyd-George? Nelson? Wellington?

Lloyd-George? I'll support him.

Alex Richards · Apr 9, 2011

DrTron said:
Lloyd-George? I'll support him.

Makes a good show of it being 'British' as well, given Lloyd-George was the only PM to have English as a second language.

I think the obvious one is Churchill, he would always be on there. Pitt the Younger is a good choice as well. For the remaining 2, and taking into account it's just PMs, I think it's a choice between Lloyd-George, Disraeli, Gladstone and Walpole. The Iron Duke is technically eligable, but he'd go up for his achievments as a general, and then that would create controversy over the omission of Nelson.

As an aside, for British Monarchs: Elizabeth I, Victoria, Alfred the Great and Henry VIII, while for Military Leaders: Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson and either Montgomery or Kitchener.

Turquoise Blue · Apr 9, 2011

Alex Richards said:
Makes a good show of it being 'British' as well, given Lloyd-George was the only PM to have English as a second language.
He was the first and so far, only Welsh-speaking Prime Minister.

I think the obvious one is Churchill, he would always be on there. Pitt the Younger is a good choice as well. For the remaining 2, and taking into account it's just PMs, I think it's a choice between Lloyd-George, Disraeli, Gladstone and Walpole. The Iron Duke is technically eligable, but he'd go up for his achievments as a general, and then that would create controversy over the omission of Nelson.
Churchill will go up there, Disraeli, Lloyd-George and Gladstone, maybe?

As an aside, for British Monarchs: Elizabeth I, Victoria, Alfred the Great and Henry VIII, while for Military Leaders: Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson and either Montgomery or Kitchener.
Liz, no because she were English and ordered a Scottish queen to be executed.
Victoria, a good choice.
Henry VIII, NO! The Welsh would say no because he merged Wales into England, his father was much better!
Alfred the Great is too Anglo-centric, sorry.

Viva la Response!

Thande · Apr 9, 2011

Nobody, because that kind of thing is un-British.

The other smart alec answer is "the same as the US one", if you have been to the American Adventure theme park in Derbyshire.

Alex Richards · Apr 9, 2011

DrTron said:
Viva la Response!

I'm actually aware of the fact he's Welsh. Currently writing a TL where Lloyd-George's assination by a communist leads to the Liberal party staying strong in Wales rather than Labour taking over.

Elizabeth I: Mary Queen of Scots had been exiled from Scotland, implicated in the murder of her second husband and was actively plotting against Elizabeth to take the throne. The fact that her ministers effectively had to force her to sign the death warrant, quickly carry out the execution before she rescinded it, and that she then sent a letter of apology to the young James VI frankly shows quite how tolerant she was of the whole situation. She's also about the closest you can get to a 16th Century Churchill.

Henry VIII: Anti-Catholic maybe, but the Welsh won't actually make all that much of a fuss as it was merely stating in legal terms what had been a reality since 1287. Edward I would be a problem as he actually conquered Wales. Frankly, if you asked the average Welshman who made Wales part of England, they'll say either Edward I or just won't know rather than Henry VIII. Combine that with the fact that he effectively created the modern English state and you get a strong case. Also, the Tudors were actually Welsh.

Henry VII: Really? Most people just know him as 'the bloke who beat Richard III at Bosworth'. Sure he ended the Wars of the Roses, but he spent the rest of the reign doing nothing but saving money, hardly the stuff of monuments.

Alfed the Great: Alfred effectively symbolises the fight back against the Vikings, something the Welsh and Scots were also doing. Seeing as we can't put 3 people on, and we don't really have a king from Scotland or Wales to serve as an equivelent, utilising Alfred as a symbol of this fight against invasion can be tied into a symbolic fraternity with the early Welsh and Scottish states.

Oh and Thande, that place closed some years ago, and the Mount Rushmore was Indians/Aztecs rather than the presidents anyway.

Turquoise Blue · Apr 9, 2011

Alex Richards said:
I'm actually aware of the fact he's Welsh. Currently writing a TL where Lloyd-George's assination by a communist leads to the Liberal party staying strong in Wales rather than Labour taking over.
I was just stating it.
Elizabeth I: Mary Queen of Scots had been exiled from Scotland, implicated in the murder of her second husband and was actively plotting against Elizabeth to take the throne. The fact that her ministers effectively had to force her to sign the death warrant, quickly carry out the execution before she rescinded it, and that she then sent a letter of apology to the young James VI frankly shows quite how tolerant she was of the whole situation. She's also about the closest you can get to a 16th Century Churchill.
Fair enough.
Henry VIII: Anti-Catholic maybe, but the Welsh won't actually make all that much of a fuss as it was merely stating in legal terms what had been a reality since 1287. Edward I would be a problem as he actually conquered Wales. Frankly, if you asked the average Welshman who made Wales part of England, they'll say either Edward I or just won't know rather than Henry VIII. Combine that with the fact that he effectively created the modern English state and you get a strong case. Also, the Tudors were actually Welsh.
Only Henry VII considered himself Welsh, Henry VIII was English, really.

Henry VII: Really? Most people just know him as 'the bloke who beat Richard III at Bosworth'. Sure he ended the Wars of the Roses, but he spent the rest of the reign doing nothing but saving money, hardly the stuff of monuments.
Yes, but he was a competent king. I understand why he wouldnt be suitable.
Alfed the Great: Alfred effectively symbolises the fight back against the Vikings, something the Welsh and Scots were also doing. Seeing as we can't put 3 people on, and we don't really have a king from Scotland or Wales to serve as an equivelent, utilising Alfred as a symbol of this fight against invasion can be tied into a symbolic fraternity with the early Welsh and Scottish states.
I would prefer someone else really.

Viva la Response!

Fletch · Apr 9, 2011

Eric Morcambe
George Best
Tom Jones
Sean Connery.

Martin23230 · Apr 9, 2011

Churchill certainly. I don't see restricting it to just PMs is that great an idea, personally, so I would also go with Victoria and Nelson. The fourth? Open for debate.

Thande said:
Nobody, because that kind of thing is un-British.

Oh I agree totally. That's why I like to think of the posiblity of this happening, and I would settle on a far-right movement taking over and wanting it for some propaganda wishing-to-glorify-Britain's-past sort of thing. Therefore great military and political leaders would make a good propaganda piece.

To answer the question I asked above, the fourth head would be whoever successfully lead the revolution, or the figurehead. Therefore you have (arguably - in the regime's opinion) Britain's greatest political, royal, military and revolutionary leaders. Sounds about right.

EDIT: The other slightly smaller possibility would be in a strongly nationalist and theocratic state of Britain, where I could imagine a huge carving of images of the four patron saints of Britain and Ireland into some mountain as a nationalist shrine.