Who was the greatest of the Hanoverian Monarchs of Britain?

Who was the greatest of the Hanoverian Monarchs of Britain?

  • George I

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • George II

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • George III

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • George IV

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • William IV

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Victoria

    Votes: 18 56.3%

  • Total voters
    32
I don't really like any of them, because they're the Hanoverians. BUT, of all of them, Victoria brought the United Kingdom through the expansive era of the Industrial Revolution and Colonialism. She pretty much led Britain into real Empirehood, and made the monarchy what it is today.

Though, I also consider the Windsor dynasty to still be Hanoverians, because really nothing changed with her predecessors; it's not like a totally different family took over the crown, like the Hanoverians did from the Stuarts. Of them, I think Elizabeth II has done a good job of keeping Britain's prestige in the international community, and presided over the tumultuous period of decolonization.
 

Thande

Donor
I'm going to go out on a limb and say George III.

Sure, his interference in politics contributed to the ARW and he spent the last years of his life bonkers, but he nonetheless chose the right people (after the Bute fiasco) to run the country and his decision to back Pitt the Younger led to the regeneration of the Royal Navy and the Second British Empire.

Victoria became Queen when the British Empire was already on the up; George, or rather the politicians he backed, managed to pull an even greater empire out of the fall of the first.
 
it's not like a totally different family took over the crown, like the Hanoverians did from the Stuarts

It's a different male line, although the female lineage remained tied to the old dynasty. Which is more or less just the same as the Hannoverians in relation to the Stuarts.

(The Hannoverians didn't take it from the Stuarts anyway - they were more or less given the crown by the consent of the last Stuart monarchs. Remember, Wee Charlie et al only represented one half of the family.)
 
Last edited:
The Hannoverians didn't take it from the Stuarts anyway - they were gifted the crown by the last Stuart monarch.
They inherited it from a usurper, really. Or, rather, the monarch that gifted them the crown inherited it from a usurper. Anne's legal legitimacy is debatable.

Charlie et al only represented one half of the family.
Albeit the side of the family I believe had a right claim to the throne. :p
Although, the Hanoverians were technically the closest living relatives of the Stuarts after the true Jacobite line died out, so in my opinion, the Hanoverians became legitimate, but only in 1807 at the death of Henry Benedict Stuart.
 
Oh, don't get me wrong - by any normnal understanding of inheritance, the Hannoverians didn't really have a leg to stand on; they were voted the ineritance purely on the basis of their religious inclinations. But then again, if the early Stuarts hadn't made such a balls-up of running the country, the issue would never have had to come into being. The Stuarts were entirely the authors of their own misfortune.
 
The Stuarts were entirely the authors of their own misfortune.
I wouldn't say entirely. It's a combination of circumstances, King Charles I attempting absolute rule being one of them. The rise of Puritanism in England, the increased politicization of religious violence, and stubbornness of Parliament as well as that of the royalists, all contributed to the chaotic events of 17th century Britain.

And, James II's overthrow, I attribute more to the religious intolerance of the people, and the political ambitions of Parliament, rather than his own flaws. If anything, he was one of the most religiously tolerant monarchs of his time, supporting relative religious liberty despite populist and Parliamentarian opposition to it.
 
I'd go with George III. He was a firm but fair monarch, he was apparently a good-natured man, and he was the last king to claim the title King of France.
 
Nytram01

Interesting question. The two big figures are George III and Victoria, because of the length of their reign and the impact of events that occurred during them. William IV, although ruling only a short period was significant because of the reforms during that period. I don't think anyone will vote for George IV. I & II are less well know by most people although George II does have a claim to fame as the last British king to lead an army into battle.

I think I would be tempted to agree with Thande. He was too autocratic in his early years, [George not Thande!;)] but his period saw Britain establish itself as the primary power while the Victorian period was more coasting on top. Britain in Victoria's time was very great but could have avoided some of the problems that played such a great part in its decline since.

Steve
 
Top