Greatest Monarchs Of All Time


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Kings of Spain, Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos I, are my favourites. They brought democracy back to their country and almost all the time do a great job. I just hope, that the Crown Princes will choose similar way in the future.
 
LaChicaMadrilena said:
Kings of Spain, Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos I, are my favourites. They brought democracy back to their country and almost all the time do a great job. I just hope, that the Crown Princes will choose similar way in the future.

I agree with except for one part: I don't think they just "almost" do a great job. I think they do a great job all the time.

King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia are two very hard working individuals who represent their countries with great dignity and respect and diligience.

I think there is no fear that the Prince and Princess of Asturias will not carry on the same high standards set forth by the present King and Queen as they already represent Spain with as much dignity, respect, dilligence and enthusiasm.
 
My ideal queen is Queen Sofia of Spain: educated, intelligent, discreet, hard-working, classy and beautiful!
 
Reina said:
This was absolutely necessary. Mary was trying to impose catholicism on an anglican england and other areas (sorry I need to brush up on my history:eek:) and trying to kill elizabeth. ELizabeth agonized over this and she did it at the last minute. :)

Yes, you do need to brush up on your history. During her reign Mary never once tried to impose Catholicism on the Presbyterian parts of Scotland. She only asked that she, and those living in the Catholic parts of Scotland, be given the right to worship as they pleased. There was never any plan to impose Catholicism on England.
 
Last edited:
lashinka2002 said:
Oh my, what a comment!
Just remember that Elizabeth only took Mary's life to spare her own as there were attempts made by Mary to overthrow her & inevitably murder her. I'm not excusing the behaviour but there's always a reason for one's actions.

At no point did Mary ever plot to kill Elizabeth. As for any plan to remove her from the English throne, Mary was used by English plotters who promised her freedom. If you had been held captive for years by a foreign power you would have done the same thing.
 
The answer to the question of the thread is still Elizabeth Tudor. She inherited the kingdoms that were in a fine mess, and by the end of her reign England was one of the powerful European states, if not the most powerful.

Iain said:
At no point did Mary ever plot to kill Elizabeth. As for any plan to remove her from the English throne, Mary was used by English plotters who promised her freedom. If you had been held captive for years by a foreign power you would have done the same thing.
In those times taking part, however minor it was, in a plot that entailed the assassination or deposition of Elizabeth was sufficient to get a sentence of death. Mary Queen of Scots did not receive a fair trial; but who did, in a political case in 1586? No one, I'm afraid...
 
King/Stadholder Willem III of Great-Britain/ The United Provinces and Empress Catherine II of Russia.
 
King Olav V of Norway.. He was just great! And if his wife Crown Princess Märtha had become a Queen she had be may favorite!
 
Queen Elizabeth II for she has all the great English qualities. For future monarchs i would say Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden.
 
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Queen Elizabeth of the UK.
 
Is there really such thing as an ideal King or Queen? What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another. Each moment in history and each country has a specific need and Kings and Queens and Tsars either have or have not lived up to the moment.
 
Queen's

Queen Elizabeth I of England
Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Queen Sofia of Spain
Queen Catherine of France
Queen Isabella I of Spain

Kings

Alexander the Great
King Henry VIII of England
King George III of Great Britain and Ireland
King George V of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India
King George VI of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India
King Henry V of England
King Charles II of England and Scotland
 
Wasn't Isabel I of Spain a mass-murderer? There were some complaints in the dutch press when Maxima accepted the order of Isabel the Catholic from the spanish king as that queen ordered so many murders, dispite (or due to?) her catholisism.
 
Queen Mother (Queen Elizabeth I)
Queen Juliana of the Netherlands
King Boudioun of the Belgians
Queen Margarethe of Denmark
 
Marengo said:
Wasn't Isabel I of Spain a mass-murderer? There were some complaints in the dutch press when Maxima accepted the order of Isabel the Catholic from the spanish king as that queen ordered so many murders, dispite (or due to?) her catholisism.
What do you mean, that Isabella of Castile authorised a lot of executions?
 
Iain said:
Robert the Bruce king of Scots

Mary Queen of Scots

Iain, I totally agree with you about Robert the Bruce. His strength in adversity and his ability to unite the feuding Scots together in a common cause to fight off English domination after starting out with the support of only a couple of nobles made Edward II of England look even more like the weakling he was. After being handed over the strongest kingdom of Europe, Edward faced uprisings from his barons, was defeated at Bannockburn by Robert the Bruce's forces that were only a quarter of the size of his own, and later was overthrown by his own wife.

The Declaration of Arbroath signed by all the noblemen of Scotland is one of the most remarkable declarations of freedom against a foreign domination ever written and it formed the basis of America's Declaration of Independence.

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Robert the Bruce created a powerful moment in history which should be well remembered.

I don't agree with you about Mary, Queen of Scots. She appeared to openly covet the English crown and treat her Scottish kingdom as a poor substitute. She didn't come out to support the Highland families that were her strongest allies and let them be decimated by her half-brother, James Stuart.
 
ysbel said:
I don't agree with you about Mary, Queen of Scots. She appeared to openly covet the English crown and treat her Scottish kingdom as a poor substitute. She didn't come out to support the Highland families that were her strongest allies and let them be decimated by her half-brother, James Stuart.

THank you ysbel for agreeing about Robert Bruce. Scotland needs a new Bruce (and Wallace) to lead us once more to independence. And you are so right about the Declaration of Arbroath. Very powerful words and centuries ahead of it's time. I'm sorry you don't agree with me about Mary. I don't think she did covet the English crown (although she had more right to it than the horrid woman who had it) or that she regarded Scotland as a poor substitute. Mary had a very bad press and a lot of lies were spread about her. Try to get hold of Antonia Fraser's book about Mary. She tells the true story. Mary perhaps let her heart rule her head on occasions but she really did care about her people.
 
Iain said:
... I'm sorry you don't agree with me about Mary. I don't think she did covet the English crown (although she had more right to it than the horrid woman who had it) or that she regarded Scotland as a poor substitute. Mary had a very bad press and a lot of lies were spread about her. Try to get hold of Antonia Fraser's book about Mary. She tells the true story. Mary perhaps let her heart rule her head on occasions but she really did care about her people.
With due respect, Mary Queen of Scots was an unskilful statewoman who did nothing to improve the situation in Scotland. It can be argued that it was impossible in the 1560s; nevertheless, her reign saw only squabbles among nobility, rebellions and plots.
 
Try to get hold of Antonia Fraser's book about Mary. She tells the true story. Mary perhaps let her heart rule her head on occasions but she really did care about her people.

Why do you think Antonia Fraser tells a truer story than other historians? Are you saying that her work was more thoroughly researched?
 
I’m sorry to have taken so long to send this but here goes:



So much has been written about Mary over the years and much of that has been based on what John Knox and his ilk wrote about her. They tried to discredit her and make her out to be a loose woman intent on imposing Catholicism on a Protestant nation. But if you are going to blacken somebody’s reputation then you have to make sure that you destroy the evidence. Knox and his crony’s fallowed an old Scots tradition of never throwing anything out in case it came in handy someday. Over the years nearly all documents regarding Mary ended up in the National Archives of Scotland, the oldest National Archives in the world. As the old animosities between Catholics and Protestants disappeared historians came to realise after consulting the Archives that much of what was being taught as Scottish history, especially regarding Mary’s reign, was in fact a figment of Knox’s imagination. As a child at a Protestant school we were taught that before the reformation Scotland was a backward country yet in Scotland sovereignty rested with the people. There was no “divine right” here. The King was the “first among equals” (adopted by America many centuries later) and if he failed to carry out his duties the people could remove him and replace him with another member of the royal family. Married women’s rights were introduced around 400A.D. These are not the marks of a backward nation but of a people centuries ahead of their time. We were also taught that Mary when arrived back in Scotland Catholicism had been wiped out and the nation had embraced Protestantism wholeheartedly. We were told that she received a frosty reception from the populace who didn’t want her back. Documents show that when Mary came home that although Scotland was officially Protestant the majority of the people, especially in the Highlands and Islands, remained firmly within the Catholic fold. The records also show that the people of Edinburgh turned out in force to welcome her back lining the entire route from the Port of Leith to the palace. Some historians believe that John Knox was in the pay of the English government and he and England had much to lose with Mary’s return. Knox’s reformation had not been the great success that he had hoped for, as the country remained predominantly Catholic. To this day, there are parts of Scotland where the reformation never reached and where the population is 100% Catholic. England was a Protestant Country surrounded by seven countries. Of these, three were Protestant, Wales and Cornwall both of whom had lost their independence to England, and Mona (Isle of Man), which was semi-independent. Ireland was Catholic but under English occupation. That left Scotland, France and the Netherlands (which like Scotland was officially Protestant but predominantly Catholic.) The latter two were separated from England by water but Scotland shared a land border and the last thing England wanted was to share an island with a Catholic country. Mary was a Catholic and so was the crown prince James. In order to have a Protestant monarch Mary would have to be gotten rid off and James forcibly converted, and so the wheels were set in motion to blacken Mary’s name and turn the nation against her. It is from the records held in the National Archives that people like Antonia Fraser got their facts and were able to put the record straight. And far from being an “unskilled stateswoman” this is some of what historians now say about Mary:

“Despite the strident enmity of Knox and some of the other reformer preachers, Mary embarked on her personal rule with much energy and common-sense.”


“Mary governed with great circumspection and intelligence.”
 
i dont know who is the most ideal person for this job - but i favour queen noor and as king - i think i would favour prince charles :D
 
Iain said:
... And far from being an “unskilled stateswoman” this is some of what historians now say about Mary:

“Despite the strident enmity of Knox and some of the other reformer preachers, Mary embarked on her personal rule with much energy and common-sense.”


“Mary governed with great circumspection and intelligence.”
Nevertheless, her reign was far from stellar or ideal--Mary of Scotland cannot, IMHO, be viewed as a kind of ideal monarch. The main reason for that? She was unsuccessful.

She could not rein in the nobles, manoeuvring between Moray, Maitland, Darnley, Bothwell, not showing the necessary strenght and skill.

The assassination of her husband Darnley--was she complicit or not? Most likely, yes.

Imprisoned and executed after a show trial--no, not a success.
 
I think Queen Elizabeth's father was a very good king; he ascended the throne under difficult circumstances, and made a great success of it. He and the queen, and the two princesses, were a great example for their people. They were brave people, very good humored, and were much admired by their subjects.
 
Christian X of Denmark, for the unwavering support of his nation during World WarII, he didn't leave the country, and refused to let the Nazis abuse the Danish Nation, recently I read a story which goes like this, Danish members correct me if I am wrong: After the German invasion the Nazi commandant wanted to fly a swatiska on Amelienberg Palace, the king said "if you do so, a Danish soldier will remove it" the commandant said "we will shoot the soldier" the king replied :"no you won't, because the soldier will be ME!" the Naxi flag never flew on the palace" Now thats an admirable king... A danish friend said that he would ride through the streets of coppenhagen on his horse an greet the people as if they were his equals.:eek:
 
From what I read of Christian X in the books on GD Xenia and Empress Maria Feodorovna it seems that the guy was a bit of a bully, but then again, Marie Feodorovna was a tough cookie to handle ;)
The stories about the second world war make him seem a very respectble and bave man indeed.
 
Marengo said:
From what I read of Christian X in the books on GD Xenia and Empress Maria Feodorovna it seems that the guy was a bit of a bully, but then again, Marie Feodorovna was a tough cookie to handle ;)
The stories about the second world war make him seem a very respectble and bave man indeed.
Was king Christian X Marie F's brother or nephew? and how did he bully her ?
 
Queen Emma of the Netherlands: married with the grumpy king Willem 3 who was 40 years older than she was, raised her daughter Wilhelmina to the most regal and strongest queen the Netherlands ever had and made the monarchy popular in the Netherlands almost on her own.
 
ally_cooper said:
Who you consider that was or is the best King or Queen of the History. I belive that is an interesting question. Please, tell why.
HM Queen Elizabeth II is the ideal and best queen for her sacrifices and dedication to her family,her country and to the commonwealth.
 
Back
Top Bottom