Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

English Monarchs.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: English Monarchs.
    Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 04:53
 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

[QUOTE=capcartoonist] However, neither of them founded the UK. That arose from the pure chance that Elizabeth I died childless and the nearest heir was already King of Scotland - which united the kingdoms into one country. 
The fact that James VI of Scotland became James I of England only resulted in a personal union, not a political union; political union did not come about until the reign of Queen Anne when Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1707.
 
Depends very much what you mean by 'political' union. The 1707 Act merged the two Parliaments into one: Ireland wouldn't be included until a century later, and part of Ireland dropped out in the 20th century. So if you're going by parliamentary union, the present UK was only created in 1922 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became what it is now: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
However, if you count the union of the crowns, that happened when Elizabeth died. From that time on, in international relations anyway, Scotland and England were a single power.
 
There is a similar difficulty in defining when Spain became a single country.
 
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
  Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 10:46
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by mcclane

There are no great British Monarchs, only less evil ones. 

Originally posted by mcclane

There are no great British Monarchs, only less evil ones. 

 

Cromwell was the best monarch Britain ever had. He wasn't corrupt. he was poorer after ten year in power than he was when he took power, he believed in equality and he turned down the kingship when he was offered it. 

 
Many Irish Catholics would beg to differ. I found him to be a fundemtal god botherer who caused misery death and war but his impact on England stopped further revolution down the line (ie the French Revolution etc coming over to Brit)
 
Studying Cromwell did my head in the guy was a hypocrite and bully imo. He caused brother to turn against brother and father against son, I hate the civil war...it stank of men with ideals unable to live by them. Too much death for too little change...again in my opinion.
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478
  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 22:44
Strange for an American but I have some liking for George III. He was as incompetent as anyone you could come by but practically out of all from the Norman Conquest to the Present he was one of three or four who remained faithful to his wife, eh!
Opium is the religion of the masses.

From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.
Back to Top
heikstheo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 01-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote heikstheo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 21:06
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

[QUOTE=capcartoonist] However, neither of them founded the UK. That arose from the pure chance that Elizabeth I died childless and the nearest heir was already King of Scotland - which united the kingdoms into one country. 
The fact that James VI of Scotland became James I of England only resulted in a personal union, not a political union; political union did not come about until the reign of Queen Anne when Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1707.
 
Depends very much what you mean by 'political' union. The 1707 Act merged the two Parliaments into one: Ireland wouldn't be included until a century later, and part of Ireland dropped out in the 20th century. So if you're going by parliamentary union, the present UK was only created in 1922 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became what it is now: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
However, if you count the union of the crowns, that happened when Elizabeth died. From that time on, in international relations anyway, Scotland and England were a single power.
 
There is a similar difficulty in defining when Spain became a single country.
 
The union of two crowns under one monarch is a personal union; the union of two parliaments is a political union.
Ted Heiks
BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2007 at 08:40
Originally posted by Timotheus

Strange for an American but I have some liking for George III. He was as incompetent as anyone you could come by but practically out of all from the Norman Conquest to the Present he was one of three or four who remained faithful to his wife, eh!
Well, we know he was crazy....
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Apr-2007 at 09:31
 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

[QUOTE=capcartoonist] However, neither of them founded the UK. That arose from the pure chance that Elizabeth I died childless and the nearest heir was already King of Scotland - which united the kingdoms into one country. 
The fact that James VI of Scotland became James I of England only resulted in a personal union, not a political union; political union did not come about until the reign of Queen Anne when Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1707.
 
Depends very much what you mean by 'political' union. The 1707 Act merged the two Parliaments into one: Ireland wouldn't be included until a century later, and part of Ireland dropped out in the 20th century. So if you're going by parliamentary union, the present UK was only created in 1922 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became what it is now: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
However, if you count the union of the crowns, that happened when Elizabeth died. From that time on, in international relations anyway, Scotland and England were a single power.
 
There is a similar difficulty in defining when Spain became a single country.
 
The union of two crowns under one monarch is a personal union; the union of two parliaments is a political union.
 
Well, as I pointed out, the present parliamentary union only dates from 1922.
 
But I find it very odd to assert that you must have parliaments for a political union.
 
Was the Roman Empire not a political union? Nor the Moghul Empire? Spain under Charles V? Austro-Hungary after the Ausgleich?
 
 
Back to Top
ChickenShoes View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
  Quote ChickenShoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 09:50
Originally posted by mcclane

There are no great British Monarchs, only less evil ones. 
 
 
I would expect as much from an IrishmanWink
 
 
just kidding, I agree with you, but William the Conqueror was a fantastic leader.
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
Back to Top
Frederick Roger View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2005
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 658
  Quote Frederick Roger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 10:40
One of my favorite historical figures of Medieval England is a man I much admire, and who I believe could have easily become King of England (and a good King, too), but whose blind devotion for his brother and his bloodline kept him from doing so: John of Gaunt.
 
I have no favorite English Monarch, although I currently have a slight fondness for Charles II.


Edited by Frederick Roger - 20-Apr-2007 at 10:40
Back to Top
Belisarius57 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Belisarius57 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 12:53
Originally posted by J.M.Finegold

Originally posted by Infidel

What about Edward, the longshanks?


Which Edwards was this?  I thought he was Edwards III.


Edward I, called "longshanks"
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 05:15
Originally posted by New User

 
Studying Cromwell did my head in the guy was a hypocrite and bully imo. He caused brother to turn against brother and father against son, I hate the civil war...
 
Cromwell had nothing to do with starting the civil war whatsoever. He was a minor MP and country gentleman at the start and a 2nd in command of the New Model Army at the finish.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Belisarius57 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Belisarius57 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 14:48
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by heikstheo

Originally posted by gcle2003

[QUOTE=capcartoonist] However, neither of them founded the UK. That arose from the pure chance that Elizabeth I died childless and the nearest heir was already King of Scotland - which united the kingdoms into one country. 
The fact that James VI of Scotland became James I of England only resulted in a personal union, not a political union; political union did not come about until the reign of Queen Anne when Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1707.
 
Depends very much what you mean by 'political' union. The 1707 Act merged the two Parliaments into one: Ireland wouldn't be included until a century later, and part of Ireland dropped out in the 20th century. So if you're going by parliamentary union, the present UK was only created in 1922 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became what it is now: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
However, if you count the union of the crowns, that happened when Elizabeth died. From that time on, in international relations anyway, Scotland and England were a single power.
 
There is a similar difficulty in defining when Spain became a single country.
 
The union of two crowns under one monarch is a personal union; the union of two parliaments is a political union.
 
Well, as I pointed out, the present parliamentary union only dates from 1922.
 
But I find it very odd to assert that you must have parliaments for a political union.
 
Was the Roman Empire not a political union? Nor the Moghul Empire? Spain under Charles V? Austro-Hungary after the Ausgleich?
 
 


When James became King of England, he was King of both England and Scotland, two separate and independent kingdoms. At that time, Scotland could constitutionally have pursued completely different policies to England. James united Scotland and England in his person as King, a Personal Union.

In 1707 the situation was completely different in that the Parliaments of both countries agreed to dissolve themselves to form a unitary political body of government at Westminster in England, effectively Scotland and England became one country, called for convenience, the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Ireland was effectively a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain until 1922.

Hope that helps. It's a bit like explaining the rules of cricket to a foreigner, but more complex. Big%20smile



 
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
  Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 10:36
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by New User

 
Studying Cromwell did my head in the guy was a hypocrite and bully imo. He caused brother to turn against brother and father against son, I hate the civil war...
 
Cromwell had nothing to do with starting the civil war whatsoever. He was a minor MP and country gentleman at the start and a 2nd in command of the New Model Army at the finish.
 
 
hehe yeah he had nothing to do with the civil war but fight a couple of battles..is that what you are saying? Wink
 
First off...I didn't say he started the civil war just that he turned bro against brother. He was a minor MP but  very visible and very vocal in his activism in raising troops. He recruited his own troop and led them in the first battle of the civil war.
 
Being Lord General of the troops was a major role in Scotland and Ireland in which many things were done that perhaps should be forgotten by now but aren't. I think Cromwell's role in the Irish Civil War is well documented so I will not delve further!
 
The second civil war saw Cromwell as the prime mover and shaker in all things. He was one of the people to sign the King's death warrant. As Lord General he used his power to dissolve parliament in 1653 and set up his own version the Barebones Parliment and his title Lord Protector was all but a Monarchy in the powers he could weild.
 
I think he might not have single handedly started the war but he was more active than your  statement makes out. The 1658 Humble Petition and Advice shows just how much power he actually held at his death rather than just his title.
 
Augustus was never named Emperor but one would say he was one in all but name, I reckon the same goes for Cromwell.
 
 


Edited by New User - 28-Apr-2007 at 09:16
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 04:29
Originally posted by Belisarius57

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Well, as I pointed out, the present parliamentary union only dates from 1922.
 
But I find it very odd to assert that you must have parliaments for a political union.
 
Was the Roman Empire not a political union? Nor the Moghul Empire? Spain under Charles V? Austro-Hungary after the Ausgleich?
 
 


When James became King of England, he was King of both England and Scotland, two separate and independent kingdoms. At that time, Scotland could constitutionally have pursued completely different policies to England. James united Scotland and England in his person as King, a Personal Union.

In 1707 the situation was completely different in that the Parliaments of both countries agreed to dissolve themselves to form a unitary political body of government at Westminster in England, effectively Scotland and England became one country, called for convenience, the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Ireland was effectively a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain until 1922.

Hope that helps. It's a bit like explaining the rules of cricket to a foreigner, but more complex. Big%20smile

 

There's nothing particularly British about the situation. Much the same applies in Spain (Aragon/Castile/...), which historically was frequently referred to as 'the Spains', with a number of monarchs claiming to be 'King of all the Spains'. In fact there was recently a similar thread to this discussing when 'Spain' came into existence as a nation-state.
 
The situation in Scandinavia has also sometimes been similar: cf the Act of Union between Sweden and Norway in 1840.
 
The original question as I remember was when the present United Kingdom came into existence. If you mean as a 'political union' in which the same laws applied everwhere, then it never has existed, because they still don't. If you just mean a 'parliamentary union' in which Parliament had its current jurisdiction, the answer is 1922[1]. If you mean when did the crown's sovereignty have its current extent, I'm not sure. It must have been later than 1922.
 
If you mean when was the king of England also king of another country, then it may be 1431, when Henry VI of England was crowned King of France in Paris leading English kings and queens to be officially (according to the titles they claimed) sovereigns of France until 1801 or thereabouts.
 
Offhand I can't remember when the King of England also became King of Ireland: that may have been earlier than 1431.
 
If you simply mean when did the undisputed King of Scotland also become the undisputed king of England and Ireland as well, uniting the three crowns, the answer is 1603. But neither that nor 1707 has any particular claim to be called the beginning of the current United Kingdom.
 
From a parliamentary point of view, in 1707 there was as yet no Parliamentary representation of Ireland at Westminster, the Irish Parliament remaining separate until 1800.
 
[1] Excluding the 'territories overseas', i.e. the colonies.
 
Back to Top
Belisarius57 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Belisarius57 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2007 at 13:12
I thought the original question was "who was the greatest British Monarch?" Big%20smile

Edited by Belisarius57 - 30-Apr-2007 at 13:13
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2007 at 11:05
And the original questioner suggested, inter alia, Henry VIII and his six knives (sic).
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 10:29
Originally posted by New User

 
I think he might not have single handedly started the war but he was more active than your  statement makes out. The 1658 Humble Petition and Advice shows just how much power he actually held at his death rather than just his title.
 
Augustus was never named Emperor but one would say he was one in all but name, I reckon the same goes for Cromwell.
 
 
 
I'm sorry but Cromwell had practically nothing to do with the start of the Civil War, as said he was simply a minor MP. His rise to prominance was more to do with the death of those with greater responsibility such as Pym or taking sides that lacked support with the army or Parliament. Whilst he made some pretty astute grabs for power later blaming him for even a tiny part of starting the Civil War is simply wrong.
 
As for greatest monarch I'd say Victoria. Given the poor run of Kings before she did a damn good job in restoring confidence in the monarchy.
Back to Top
heikstheo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 01-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote heikstheo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 19:14
Originally posted by gcle2003

Offhand I can't remember when the King of England also became King of Ireland: that may have been earlier than 1431. 
Some time during the 1100's. The Pope, using the "authority" of the "Donation" of Constantine "sold" Ireland to the kings of England. I forget whether the King of England who "bought" Ireland from the Pope was Henry I (1100-1135) or his grandson Henry II (1154-1189).
Ted Heiks
BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
  Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 12:56
I'm sorry but Cromwell had practically nothing to do with the start of the Civil War, as said he was simply a minor MP. His rise to prominance was more to do with the death of those with greater responsibility such as Pym or taking sides that lacked support with the army or Parliament. Whilst he made some pretty astute grabs for power later blaming him for even a tiny part of starting the Civil War is simply wrong.
 
 I didnt blame him for "even a tiny part of starting the Civil War" I didnt say he started it just that he was active part in the beginning however small. (ie leading his troops into first battle) I know he did not start it....reasons were too long term for that anyway.
 
My fav English Monarch would have to be lil the first...
 
 


Edited by New User - 01-Jun-2007 at 12:57
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 17:32
Has to be Henry VIII his acheivment were considerable i.e. played the balance between france spain and HRE briliantly to maintain egland's security moroever changing england foreover with the reformation

He was also one of the most leanid monarchs ever

however mor than this it is his less noble action that we renember him by i.e. 6 wives this has been an icon of british history which we study many times as children throughout are academic carears, how many other monarch are deemed interesting enough for that kind of exposure and I am sure i you aksed many great historians what sparked there interest in Hisotry Henry VIII would be the answer.

Along with the impact he has made on many ordinary people making them want to study history as a hobby (myself included) through the programs such as Henry VIII and his six wives sugest the he is the cornerstone for producing historians of the future, this is something i can attribute to no other monarch

So for me his contribution from beyond the grave (prehapas on Elizabeth I has done something similar) combined which the massive changes he made to the country in life are what make him the greatest even British monarch
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 18:19
Originally posted by 02bburco

, how many other monarch are deemed interesting enough for that kind of exposure
Augustus the Strong.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.