Greatest King Of England

[Incongruous]

Who do you think was the greatest king of England.

I personally think that Alfred the Great is.

[Krusader]

Perhaps Alfred.

Isn't he the only English King ever to be called the Great?

[edyzmedieval]

The greatest king of england has to be:

King Edward I Longshanks

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

King Edward the III for me.

[caesar44]

A big question...well...elisabeth II (I know she is a queen)

[King Henry V]

Me!

[Red Peasant]

IMHO, Alfred was the greatest English king, but he was never 'King of England'.

[PROMETHEUS]

Richard Lionheart.....

[Marcellus]

Henry V

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Henry VIII

On a more serious note, probably William the Bastard in my opinion.

[Craterus]

Edward VIII!

[Duke of Gloucester]

Can't be Richard I. He was hardly ever in the country and just used it as a cash cow to finance religous wars. Edward III and Henry V were great warriors, but took part in a war that was, eventually, lost. (Edward III had too many children and, therefore, caused the wars of the roses )

To be great, I think the king would have to leave the country significantly different from the one he inherited, larger, stronger, more united, safer, richer, more secure, more influential, that sort of thing. Therefore Edward Longshanks and Henry VIII could be considered great, as could Henry VII, Elizabeth I and William I. I am not sure I could decide which was the greatest.

[scaddenp]

Can't be Richard I. He was hardly ever in the country and just used it as a cash cow to finance religous wars. Edward III and Henry V were great warriors, but took part in a war that was, eventually, lost. (Edward III had too many children and, therefore, caused the wars of the roses )

To be great, I think the king would have to leave the country significantly different from the one he inherited, larger, stronger, more united, safer, richer, more secure, more influential, that sort of thing. Therefore Edward Longshanks and Henry VIII could be considered great, as could Henry VII, Elizabeth I and William I. I am not sure I could decide which was the greatest.

These are good points. Edward III as stateman leaves a lot to be desired. The greatest man among the kings to me would be Alfred - would there be
"English" without him? - and certainly wins many of your criteria though not perhaps the greatest king. Henry VII? Could you make your case? Edward Longshanks and William I certainly have the major claim.

[King Henry V]

William the Usurper, the greatest King of England? *spit*. Never! Athelstan, the first King of all England was one of the greatest rulers during the Dark Ages. Henry II was also a great statesman, founding the basis of the modern legal system.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Edward the 1st was a great king but his personality and will allowed him to get away with his draconian measures during his reign. We can see a weaker man with Edward powerbase can easily throw it away such as his son, Edward the second.

I'm going on Edward the III on his military ability and the total and unwavering loyalty he had from some of the best military leaders and war captains medieval England had ever seen..
Yes Edward was not a great statesman and his mind near the end of his reign was almost senile. Yet he developed England a high and respected status throughout Europe and his army was withdoubt the most professional and feared since the Roman legions in Western Europe and with victories on the field had turned the English from simple tenants in French eyes to equal, longterm adversaries.

Edward the third had left England more respected in Europe than Edward the 1st did due to his victories against the most powerful nation in Europe to that point.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Yes, but the kingdom was not secure - his heir was deposed, and later, this led to the Wars of the Roses. Henry VII inherited this mess, was able to improve the financial strength of the country and his grandson and two of his grandaughters were able to ascend to the throne without being deposed even though two of them were women and the other a boy. Add to that the religious divisions rife in the country, fueled by his son forcing a schism with the Catholic church, this is a remarkable legacy.

Not that I think Henry Tudor was the greatest English king, but I would rank him above Edward III. I would say that Alfred was the greatest English king as he was a king and he was English. However as RP points out the thread is titled "Greatest King of England". For me. it is a close call between Athelstan and Henry II (both of whom I left out of my original list, so I may change my mind if someone else reminds me of kings I have forgotten)

I would also like to put in a word for my namesake, who, although far from great was, at least, the last king of England to be English!

[InsaneApache]

Elizabeth I ..... better than any mere King.

[Kraxis]

Cnut the Great!

No doubt... Well of course I'm biased.

Anyway, on the serious note. He reformed the English kingdom and made it mroe stable and more secure (ended viking raiding in any serious manner). He also used his strength to make the kingdom more influential, which it became, and he reformed the army so that it was stronger it seems. Also the kingdom he ruled over was the largest European kingdom an English king has ever ruled over. And he had gotten that by warfare.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I don't think England's instability at that can be rested on Edward the thirds shoulders. His fourth son John of Gaunt survived but Richard, son of Edward Woodstock took his place.

I believe John of Gaunt would have been a much stronger King than Richard was, who has had much bad press against him of disloyalty and treason ( which most probably are not true) and had put down much angst and turmoil at home for Richard II and established a peace settlement with France.

I'm sorry but Henry " I robbed a throne" Tudor being a better king than Edward the Third? I just can't have that. But we are all entitiled to are opinions i suppose

Yet the War of the Roses was started due to many other factors particularly that of the loss of Normandy and Gascony and an increasingly lunatic King, my fav king cannot take the blame for that

[ShadesWolf]

Queen Victoria

When the 18 year old Victoria came to the thrown in 1837, the monarchy was viewed with a mixture of indifference and hostility. Its central place in the life of the nation was not in doubt, but it could hardly claim to be popular. Yet by Victoria's death in 1901, after a 64 year reign that remains the longest of any British monarch, the change in position of the throne was undeniable. Its popularity was absolute, and its status unchallenged.

Edward III

If we are talking about an all action ruler then I will also go for Edward III as the most important ruler. The war of the roses was not an outcome of the end of the hundred years war, but a combination of a number of circumstances. The failure in the hundred years war was due to the age/ weakness of a later ruler and the reliance of a French faction who turned its back on England and sided with the enemy.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Good man Shades, those damn burgundians let us down big time!

[ShadesWolf]

I blame Henry V for the loss of the hundred years war. He died to early, which allowed his 9 month old son to the thrown. Not only did Henry VI lose all of France, but he caused the war of the roses by having a bout of madness.

All was well during Henry V rule, the rebellions of the early 1400's were far in the distance and England was one, but his untimely death opened up the old wounds of the usurper and caused chaos.

Edward III was not only a wonderful military leader but also a wonderful diplomat, if it had not been for the black death who knows what the outcome of the war would have been. On a side line I have order today from my book club 'War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century' it was half price at £25.00

Little is known about the soldiers who fought in the Hundred Years War, though much about tactics and weapons. Adrian Bell's book redresses the balance: he explores the 'military community' through focusing on the records of the two royal expeditions led by Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, in 1387 and 1388, where the extensive surviving evidence makes it possible to identify those who served on these expeditions, and to follow their careers. These campaigns are not only interesting for the wealth and concentration of materials surviving on military organisation, but also because of the political background against which the expeditions were undertaken, which included the attack upon the favourites of the King in Parliament by the Lords Appellant and the possible temporary deposition of Richard II. Advances made in historical computing techniques have made possible for the first time such detailed analysis of the personnel of a royal army. ADRIAN R. BELL lectures in history at the University of Reading.

It looks quite a good book

[Duke of Gloucester]

I'm sorry but Henry " I robbed a throne" Tudor being a better king than Edward the Third? I just can't have that. But we are all entitiled to are opinions i suppose

Better man - no, I think we can agree on that, but better King, well I say yes for the reasons I gave in my two previous posts.

[thelzdking]

Alfred the Great, or Elizabeth Tudor.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

The Tudor monarchs, definitely, hardly a duff one amongst the bunch.

Then again they were direct descendants of a particularily cunning and important Welsh noble family.

[King Edward]

I thought Alfred the great was the first king of all England (well at least the Kingdoms of Saxon, Mercia and Northumbria)

Edward Longshanks was what only could be described in modern times as a brutal dictator.

Richard the Lion Heart (cour de lion) was Fron Anjou and hardly ever set foot in England!

Henry V was a fine Millitary leader but was not the best administrator.

This is starting to turn into a depressing read for us guys, if you look down the history if British Monarchs you would have to say the top 3 most sucessful would Have to Be Victoria Elisabeth I and Elisabeth II

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Yeah Edward the First was brutal but it had a purpose i feel, as he saw England weaken under his Father Henry III who often bent to the will of the barons and others figures, especially after the battle of Lewes. He loved his father deeply but knew he had to be more of a harsh and determined ruler than Henry was in order for England to prosper and strengthen. England simply needed a ruler like that of the period in question after years of near anarchy.

Edward gave his opponents a chance to sucumb to his will but if this was thrown back in his face he was as unforgiving as they come as his horrendous temper often getting the better of him, with events like the sack of Berwick often staining his great reign

[Spartakus]

Richard the Lionheart was just that, a lionheart, and such people can rarely sit on their own asses long enough to be good governors. Still, they make inspirational leaders, their exploits outshine their flaws, and in the end they're remembered forever as heroes despite all shortcomings. Perhaps Richard too knew that few would remember a good governor, while all would remember a great warrior. In any case it's true.

Don't be too harsh on Edward I, though I know it might be difficult after watching Braveheart or reading Sharon Penman's books. He was one of those guys who were great kings for their own people, but a terror to their neighbours.

And why haven't anyone mentioned Richard III? The guy even has his own society, that has got to count for something!

http://www.r3.org/intro.html

The Society is an attempt at redeeming Richard III, who's had bad press.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Richard the Third was a good king but was character assassinated by a Stratford Upon Avon playwright

[King Edward]

I guess you have to judge kings by the standards of their day. I fully agree that England needed a king like longshanks at the time, but by todays standards he would put Mugabe to shame........

EDIT: PS congrats on the History award BKB