Who was the greatest monarch?

[WebbPA]

I just noticed in my "Today in History" page that Elizabeth I was crowned on January 13, 1559.  I don't know whether that's Julian or Gregorian but I got to thinking - who was England's greatest monarch?  I like Henry VIII but other than starting the Church of England I can't think of much he did to contribute.  My choices are:

Elizabeth I - who inherited a bankrupt little country and created an empire.

Victoria - who extended the empire to its greatest limits.

Of course there were come good ones from other countries - the ancients, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Augustus; Charlemagne, Frederick the Great, Peter ...

[Hagar]

I haven't given this much thought. Henry VIII might have done many great things during his reign (including the formation of the Royal Navy) but the thing he will always be remembered for was having 6 wives & beheading 2 of them to achieve it. This was the only reason the Church of England was formed. This caused great bitterness (some of which still exists today) & the destruction of fine monasteries which were plundered to fund the war chest. These were some of the most violent & cruel times in the history of England.

I think his daughter Elizabeth I is regarded in most quarters as England's greatest monarch, I say England as she was never accepted by the whole of Britain, especially in Scotland & Ireland.

Of the lot I would favour Victoria. Some of the biggest changes in British history took place during her long reign. The Britain I know today is still influenced by what was accomplished in the Victorian age. She was never the same after losing her beloved Albert who was responsible for encouraging much of this. Of course, things were a lot different then & some things that were seen as great achievements would not be seen in the same way now.

[Felix/FFDS]

My vote goes for Victoria, as well.  The Victorian influence goes far beyond the British Empire.  

As a small example, her eldest daughter, Victoria (Vicky), was married to Frederick III (?) of Prussia, who as Crown Prince was quite the liberal, and at odds with his father, Wilhelm, first King of Prussia, then crowned Kaiser of the German federation (headed, of course, by Prussia).

Vicky was a strong willed woman, a liberalizing inflence on her husband, but in the midst of a power struggle between Bismark, Wilhelm, and her son (also Wilhelm).  When Wilhelm the Elder died, Frederick ascended to the throne, for only 99 days, after which Wilhelm - VIcky;s son, became Kaiser.

Note that Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany was then King George's cousin when WW1 erupted.

I agree with Hagar that Victoria, and that era, has influenced the world with effects felt to this day.

[Hagar]

I wonder how things would have turned out if Albert had not died so young. He was obviously a great influence on Victoria & interested in the arts & science as well as social issues. He was not fully trusted by the government due to his German origins & rarely consulted about political issues. It was Albert who masterminded the Great Exhibition of 1851, with a view to celebrating the great advances of the British Industrial Age and the expansion of the empire. Using the profits from this event he commissioned the building of the Royal Albert Hall and established the museum sites in Kensington.

After Albert died Victoria went into full mourning & wore black for the rest of her life. For a few years after his death she lived the life of a virtual recluse at Osbourne House on the Isle of Wight, the country residence that Albert had built for her. She lost interest in her responsibilities & was rarely seen in public. She was obviously lost without him although she reigned for another 40 years.

PS. Strangely enough while researching my facts I found a clue to to my own family history.
http://www.attrill.freeserve.co.uk/iow.htm

[Woodlouse2002]

But yet it was still Victoria who ordered that six Motor Gun Boats of the Royal Navy should be despached to destroy the navy of Bolivia.

[Smoke2much]

Henry V was pretty useful as well.

[WebbPA]

Interesting responses.  Who is greater, the empire creator (compare Julius Caesar) or the empire consolidator (compare Augustus Caesar)?

I will agree that Victoria's influences are felt more today than Elizabeth's.  That would be expected since Victoria died 100 years ago and Elizabeth died 500 years ago.  In the US Abraham Lincoln's presidency has had a greater influence on modern life than George Washington's.

I don't know how much of this we can credit to Elizabeth but during her reign the New World was discovered and the Spanish Armada defeated.

The New World discovery was inevitable.  If Columbus had not done it someone else would have.  And Columbus was Italian sailing under a Spanish flag ...

The defeat of the Spanish Armada was similarly a matter of the right place at the right time.  Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that weather played as important a part as military strategy.

A more important factor was the English colonization of North America.  The weakened state of the Spanish navy made this possible but the Spanish were certainly a major force in South America.  The strange thing I have read about the New World is:

- No one expected it to be there.  Columbus was looking for a western route to China.

- A soon as it was discovered, Europeans began to look for a way around it.  They still wanted to get to China and they thought America was a minor obstacle and they searched for years for the elusive northwest passage.

- Being stuck with a big continent between Europe and China the last thing anyone wanted to do with it was to colonize it.  The Spanish were happy to rape it for gold but beyond that the continent had no real use.

So why would the English want to colonize America?  Just to keep the French and Spanish out?

Now let me admit my prejudices.  I am an American and I appreciate our English heritage (law, literature, etc.).  My formal educational background specialty is Elizabethan literature although I have a great fondness for the works of Charles Dickens.

Torn between two worlds I tend to favor the empire creator (Julius Caesar/Elizabeth).  If the creator failed the consolidator would never have existed.

[Hagar]

[quote]So why would the English want to colonize America?

[WebbPA]

Yes, that's what we celebrate at Thanksgiving.  Again, not being an expert in English history, I understand that there was religious persecution depending on the monarch's persuasion.  I don't know whether the persecution was "official" by 1600.

[Smoke2much]

Religious persecution as I understand it got underway during the reign of Henry VIII with the formation of the C of E.  The acceptance of protestantism alongside the renaissance and the end of fuedal control of the peasantry lead to a rise in the number of protestant sects.  When James I came to the throne and religious repression increased this lead to the migration of the various alternative faiths to the new world.

If it hadn't have been for James I it could be argued that the American Colonies would have been more focused on penal duties and less a centre for religious freedom.  It was the religious freedom that (IMO) lead to a rise in political free thought and therefore ultimately caused the rebellion of the colonies during Hanovarian times.

My basis for this is the American Colonists were there by choice, they had chosen to leave in order to be free from religious persecution.  They had become accustomed to having the rights as laid down in the declaration of independance and when these were eroded they revolted.

From a US standpoint you can say that James I (V of Scotland) was probably one of the Founding Fathers.....

Please note I have an unnecessarily convoluted mind

[Hagar]

Religious intolerance or persection did indeed depend on the religious beliefs of the monarch. This would depend on how strictly these beliefs were observed & some were quite liberal. These problems were caused to a large extent by Henry VIII breaking away from Rome in his own interests (or those of the country as he might have seen it). His whole purpose (to start with at least) was in producing a male heir to succeed him. He finally got the son (Edward) he desperately wished for, losing his (Edward's) mother Jane Seymour in the process as she died in childbirth. Edward VI was never in the best of health & died soon after succeeding his father. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page43.asp
Lady Jane Grey succeeded him by dubious means but only reigned for 9 days & was later executed.

Henry's elder daughter Mary & next in line was the daughter of his first wife Catherine of Aragon & raised as a Catholic. (This was before the split with Rome.) Elizabeth was the daughter of Anne Boleyn & a devout Protestant, her father's new religion of which he was the head. Mary tried to restore the country to Catholicism in a quite ruthless manner. She was known as "Bloody Mary" due to the number of Protestants that were tortured & executed during her short reign. This caused great bitterness & conflict when Elizabeth (seen by Catholics as illegitimate) eventually succeeded her & became monarch.

Elizabeth had originally been prepared to allow all Catholics to practise their religion openly in an attempt to reunite her country but due to the treachery (as she saw it) caused by her half-sister & her supporters her attitude hardened. This almost split the country permanently & affected its history over a long period of time. Some of those old loyalties are still felt strongly today.

This is a complex subject full of tragedy & political intrigue so it's only possible to give a brief outline of the more significant events here. This site give the general background. http://www.great-britain.co.uk/history/tudors.htm
There are many excellent books covering these issues.

PS. This gives a short background to the Pilgrim Fathers. http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/education/geog/swengland/pilg.html