Rate the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor Monarchs

Which Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windor monarchs were the best? Which were the worst?

  • Total voters
    80
Stolengood

Stolengood

Banned
...again, really, a fairly self-explanatory exercise. :p

(Oh, and you must explain WHY you chose as such in posts below. Multiple choice is for the fun of it.)
 
Last edited:

Alternate History

Banned
Edward VIII was the best, because he abdicated quickly (an excellent example that every monarch should follow). Elizabeth II is the worst because she's the only one who hasn't stopped being a monarch yet.:p
 

Scotty

KGVI for the best, cos you know the war and stuff and the fact that he died young, which garners extra points for sympathy
 
Uhura's Mazda

Uhura's Mazda

Banned
Alternate History said:
Edward VIII was the best, because he abdicated quickly (an excellent example that every monarch should follow). Elizabeth II is the worst because she's the only one who hasn't stopped being a monarch yet.:p
Click to expand...

So you're one of the people who rates Bath and Waldegrave as the best PMs and that Atchison guy as best President of the USA? I never thought I'd meet one of you in the wild!
 

The Knight

George VI overcame personal shyness etc to be king then led the country through ww2.

Elizabeth II is one of the most highly respected people on Earth today. She had a tough act to follow and she did it well.
 

Just a Rube

Uhura's Mazda said:
So you're one of the people who rates Bath and Waldegrave as the best PMs and that Atchison guy as best President of the USA? I never thought I'd meet one of you in the wild!
Click to expand...
I think his point is that by this point, the monarchs have ceased having any purpose or power, and are reduced to useless figureheads. Thus rating them in any way is fairly meaningless (since the only role they serve is to provide employment for tabloid "journalists").

So the monarchy is a pointless anachronism. At this point the greatest achievement any monarch can hope for is to manage to discredit the institution of monarchy to the extent that it is abolished peacefully in his or her country. Edward VII did his best, while Elizabeth II is still running around. That said, I have high hopes for Prince Charles.
 

Welshroyalhistory

George V is probably the most important and influential British monarch of the last 200-300 years.

The monarchy exists today because of him, so he has my vote.
 
Hashoosh

Hashoosh

From a global perspective, Edward VII isn't great because of his influence in setting the table for conflict with Germany and the world wars. Obviously, it's not his fault that it happened, but without him the Entente may never come about and we face a radically different (if even there is one) Great War.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Hashoosh said:
From a global perspective, Edward VII isn't great because of his influence in setting the table for conflict with Germany and the world wars. Obviously, it's not his fault that it happened, but without him the Entente may never come about and we face a radically different (if even there is one) Great War.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Even if you take the Entente out of the equation, the alliance between France and Russia against Germany and Austria had been decades in the making beforehand. Germany would have continued its military and economic development and irked France and Russia in the process so all the seeds are still sown.

The British were pragmatists, if they hadn't seen an advantage in intervening in 1914 on the French/Russian side, they would have ditched or ignored the treaty that Edward oversaw.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Stolengood said:
...you know, you can voice your opinions on who's the worst, folks. ;)
Click to expand...

Well its kinda stating the obvious surely?:):)

The only one who really qualifies as a bad monarch is Edward VIII, the others range from perfectly adequate like Edward VII to truly historically significant monarchs like George V.

Actually I quite like the anecdote that Patricia Mountbatten once gave, she said how she told Queen Elizabeth II that there really should be a statue put up to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. This naturally caused the royal eyebrow to arch in surprise, Countess Mountbatten then pointed out that without the abdication, we wouldn't have had George VI and the Queen herself, well not at least in her current form, so we should be grateful to Edward and Wallis. They did us a service.

Sycophantic but very true.
 
Hashoosh

Hashoosh

Welshroyalhistory said:
Not really.

Even if you take the Entente out of the equation, the alliance between France and Russia against Germany and Austria had been decades in the making beforehand. Germany would have continued its military and economic development and irked France and Russia in the process so all the seeds are still sown.

The British were pragmatists, if they hadn't seen an advantage in intervening in 1914 on the French/Russian side, they would have ditched or ignored the treaty that Edward oversaw.
Click to expand...

The atmosphere would be totally different, though. France and Britain might remain rivals for longer, and French public opinion would remain anti-British. British support for France in Morocco might not exist and there's the possibility of another Fashoda happening to sour relations further (something in the Far East rather than Africa, I'd think).

But the important thing is that without the treaty then Britain no longer feels obliged to come to France's aid; while they actually weren't OTL the French were operating under the assumption that the treaty was far more binding than it was. Colder relations with France means that the Germans might get the message about Belgium, or that they'll wait to defeat France while turning on Russia.

The July days and war might not even happen without the Entente, either. What advantage did Britain see in fighting the Germans? It wasn't pragmatic, that's for sure. It was emotional, combined with a sense of guilt over leaving the French without an Atlantic Fleet and being part of their plans as well as the invasion of Belgium.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Hashoosh said:
What advantage did Britain see in fighting the Germans? It wasn't pragmatic, that's for sure. It was emotional, combined with a sense of guilt over leaving the French without an Atlantic Fleet and being part of their plans as well as the invasion of Belgium.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

You really think British involvement was emotional and guilt based?
 

Jurgen Wullenwever

If we consider external developments, George VI was the worst since he lost India and made Britain subordinate to the US, and Elizabeth II was the second worst since she lost the rest of the Empire.

That is, if we judge them as ancient monarchs would have been judged - conquered this, lost that, and so on.

They were also bad monarchs since they let their ministers and advisors make all the decisions and take all responsibility instead of taking the power into their own hands.
 

Welshroyalhistory

Jurgen Wullenwever said:
If we consider external developments, George VI was the worst since he lost India and made Britain subordinate to the US, and Elizabeth II was the second worst since she lost the rest of the Empire.

That is, if we judge them as ancient monarchs would have been judged - conquered this, lost that, and so on.

They were also bad monarchs since they let their ministers and advisors make all the decisions and take all responsibility instead of taking the power into their own hands.
Click to expand...

Well that is judging them by a criteria that no sensible person would.

Why even draw some lame comparison to ancient monarchs? They are constitutional monarchs. Judge them by that standard, not by an impossible standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top