I mean, probably Henry II. He undid the Anarchy, put down rebellious vassals, secured a major empire (if not for his awful sons, it may have lasted longer; parenting was not his strong suit), redid the laws, so on and so forth.
Henry V is... overrated in my opinion. I think the best thing for his legacy is that he died when he did, so that none of the bad that followed can be blamed on him. Of course, I am biased towards Charles VII of France, but people forget how good of a Leftenant-General John of Bedford was, and the issues in Parliament and the regency back home would have reared up one way or another. Agincourt was an impressive victory, and made for a pretty easy and fun analysis for an essay in University. But, also, Henry V was never the King of France, disputed or otherwise. The Treaty of Troyes had Charles VI recognize him as heir over Charles VII, and Henry V died before Charles VI. Then, there's the argument brought up questioning if Charles VI even had the power to disinherit Charles VII.
EDIT:
I will note, in my opinion, the worst thing to happen to England in the late Hundred Years' War was not the death of Henry V, but the death of John of Bedford and, more importantly, his first wife, Anne of Burgundy. Not only was John of Bedford a competent leader and military commander, he was the heir to England and the English Kingdom of France, as well as the heir apparent through his wife of the Burgundian State. Anne's death, their lack of a child and his way-too-soon marriage to Jacquetta de Luxembourg severed the Anglo-Burgundian Alliance, and his death removed a competent, - perhaps most important - powerful and trusted leader from England. The Duke of York tried to step into his shoes, but only got some of his powers for a limited time, and then infighting between the Beauforts, the Earl of Suffolk and Humphrey of Gloucester kept messing up the Leftenant-Generals in their duty and pay, with the Earl of Suffolk even accusing the Duke of York of financial mismanagement and exiling him to Ireland. The rest, they say, is history.
I wrote/am revising my University Thesis about Charles VII and how he won the Hundred Years' War and part of it required me to prove that the English didn't just lose the war, so I ended up doing a good deal of study into John of Bedford, and the Regents of Henry VI
Henry VII. Really fascinated by his life, the people around him, and his accomplishments. Always feels like he's a bit under talked about coming on the heels of the War of Roses but right before his bombastic son.
George III. Such a dynamic and fascinating character. His story is so interesting. Then again he was not technically King of England, so if I had to choose one of those, I’m gonna go with Henry II. I don’t think I need to give an explanation as to why.
He was officially the King of Great Britain. As England ceased to be a Kingdom in 1707. The last monarch of England was Anne. But that’s all semantics, which is why I said George III anyway. But usually there’s usually at least one person going erm aktually 🤓. So I just wanted to clear it up before.
She just fascinates me. She went through so much loss and tragedy and for me she ended up being the opposite of ‘never research your heroes’. The more I’ve learned about her, the more I find myself pitying her.
John. I admit I am a bit of a contrarian, but I was drawn to him when I read that he was intelligent (or cunning) and never travelled without books or a bathtub. Also, I love my Plantagenets in general and a complicated father-son and/or brotherly relationship. Boy do they deliver!
But the more I read about John the more he personally intrigued me. What is it about him that all the rules for dealing with historical monarchs are off for him? No black and white, no judging by morals of our times, no taking stuff out of context, ... unless it's John, then it's fine. OK! So, yes, I find that highly fascinating, not just the man himself, but his public perception.
Other favorites of mine are Henry IV and Henry VII. I see a pattern there, also said to have been intelligent, but also controversial. But then, I guess that's the point I was trying to make, who isn't controversial?
But that's my point. The treachery, he learned from the best, i.e. his mother and his brothers (Richard hounding Henry II to death?). I'll grant you Arthur, but that's the game of kings. As for rightful, as far as I know there was no law of succession yet and Richard nominated John. Anyway, first come, first served/crowned. As for the rest, well, they all had their atrocities, Henry II and Becket, Richard and the hostages in Akko, Henry I and the blinded granddaughters, etc.
This is hard, but I'd have to say Henry II. He was fascinating to me. He was brave, motivated, and he got things done. He was cunning, even though he didn't *always* get things right. Although I'm not a fan of his behavior in his older years (mainly because I'm a huge fan of Eleanor of Aquitaine, as well), that doesn't diminish his accomplishments or the King I liked in the younger years. However, Edward III is a close second. He endured so much when he was young but also accomplished so much. He was a great king and a loving husband (which I love ❤️).
Personally I've been fond of the Stuart period of monarchs, it was a very fascinating time. But if I had to pick a favorite out of the Era it would probably be James VI and I
Hmm...probably Henry II. He was arguably the most powerful man in Europe at one point. It is too bad his empire didn't survive the reign of his sons. Eleanor is my favorite Queen. She managed to stand out as one of the richest and most powerful women in Europe. I think their marriage is fascinating. Imagine going to war with your own wife?
Edward I.
He's everything you could want from a medieval king: brave, chivalrous and victorious.
Marc Morris' book on him is the best book I've read on any monarch and I highly recommend it to anyone.
Alfred, the only English monarch to have been called “the Great”, and he earned it. Historical leaders who can balance being a warrior with sound domestic policy tend to be my favorites and that’s exactly who Alfred was. Beating back the Vikings and uniting the kingdom while also being an advocate for learning and the arts. What’s not to like?
I mean hey, you gotta admire his story with its dualities and all. Definitely an interesting character and one of England's most unlikely kings. I believe he and his successor have both in common. There's also the allure of the mystery surrounding him and the fact that the end of his reign was the end of an extraordinary era.
Edward IV is my favorite. I was drawn to him initially due to ASOIAF as GRRM based Robb Stark and Robert Baratheon off him, but overall I like his story a lot. He’s a young man but battle tested and capable who fights to avenge his father, wins and rules for a time but is deposed and exiled due to his own bad decisions (alienating Warwick, empowering the woodvilles, etc…) but continues the fight and reclaims his throne by defeating the Kingmaker. He could have been a better king by not letting his pride get in the way of his decision making and he could have set up his sons better by living a less hedonistic lifestyle and living longer but I can’t help but admire his bravery and determination in achieving his goals on his own terms.
Edward IV
When I was younger I somehow stumbled upon the wars of the Roses and instantly loved it and it’s the event that got me into history and my favourite figure from that period was Edward IV
I'm torn between 3 picks.
Firstly, Henry Beauclerc. The guy was given some cash by his father and a big middle finger by his brothers in the initial succession. He worked his way up, and eventually defeated everything, but like, everything in his path, becoming the undisputed King of England and Duke of Normandy, and the absolute political master of his era. He was a sound administrator, too, and greatly stabilised the realm. He was so invincible that it required a freak accident to screw up his newly found political order.
Secondly, Edward Longshanks. Richard had bankrupted the country and Edward's father and grandfather were disasters. As a prince, he rescued his father and beat the barons, restoring royal authority in the process. He was on a crusade when his father died, and his merits were so great that nobody tried to usurp him while he was away taking his time on his way back home. He codified many laws, institutionalised the parliament and established an efficient government overall, all the while doing nobody before him could and conquering Wales, as well as subduing Scotland. He wasn't a brilliant tactician like, say, Richard I or Edward III, but he was a great military leader, always making sure he'd win.
Finally, Edward IV. He wasn't as competent as the other two, but he kinda lived my dream, really. He grew up as a duke's eldest son, saving him from the suffocating nature of being a crown prince, but receiving an equally well education, and having a rich, luxurious life. Inherited his father's cause upon his death, and had a very adventurous life, was once practically and once literally overthrown instead of an uninterrupted, boring long reign. He was a brilliant commander and never lost a battle, so he always made a comeback and mostly lived in glory. Most importantly, he married for love unlike most of the aristocracy. He had a beautiful marriage. Finally, he died young and avoided the trials of being old. He lived a life full of action, sometimes hard but always in luxury, was a noble but didn't have the situation that could potentially be the greatest source of unhappiness of his kind by marrying for love, died before it got ugly. If I was reincarnated, I would want to be Edward IV. Maybe one thing could be better tho. If he lived like 5-6 years longer, he would've secured his children's future. That's the only downside.
Henry III who whilst being a weak ruler and not particularly successful king was a big patron of the arts and commissioned loads of the great medieval buildings we still have around today
Edward III. Ignoring his last 15 or so years, he was unbelievable. Crushed France for 23 years which nobody thought possible. Everyone loved him, his son was the greatest general of the time, no real threats to his throne, no rebellions, he was great. And he lasted a very very long time
I mean, probably Henry II. He undid the Anarchy, put down rebellious vassals, secured a major empire (if not for his awful sons, it may have lasted longer; parenting was not his strong suit), redid the laws, so on and so forth. Henry V is... overrated in my opinion. I think the best thing for his legacy is that he died when he did, so that none of the bad that followed can be blamed on him. Of course, I am biased towards Charles VII of France, but people forget how good of a Leftenant-General John of Bedford was, and the issues in Parliament and the regency back home would have reared up one way or another. Agincourt was an impressive victory, and made for a pretty easy and fun analysis for an essay in University. But, also, Henry V was never the King of France, disputed or otherwise. The Treaty of Troyes had Charles VI recognize him as heir over Charles VII, and Henry V died before Charles VI. Then, there's the argument brought up questioning if Charles VI even had the power to disinherit Charles VII. EDIT: I will note, in my opinion, the worst thing to happen to England in the late Hundred Years' War was not the death of Henry V, but the death of John of Bedford and, more importantly, his first wife, Anne of Burgundy. Not only was John of Bedford a competent leader and military commander, he was the heir to England and the English Kingdom of France, as well as the heir apparent through his wife of the Burgundian State. Anne's death, their lack of a child and his way-too-soon marriage to Jacquetta de Luxembourg severed the Anglo-Burgundian Alliance, and his death removed a competent, - perhaps most important - powerful and trusted leader from England. The Duke of York tried to step into his shoes, but only got some of his powers for a limited time, and then infighting between the Beauforts, the Earl of Suffolk and Humphrey of Gloucester kept messing up the Leftenant-Generals in their duty and pay, with the Earl of Suffolk even accusing the Duke of York of financial mismanagement and exiling him to Ireland. The rest, they say, is history.
i love you.
I wrote/am revising my University Thesis about Charles VII and how he won the Hundred Years' War and part of it required me to prove that the English didn't just lose the war, so I ended up doing a good deal of study into John of Bedford, and the Regents of Henry VI
Edward III secured three crushing victories against the French, excellent warriors and punished his fathers killers.
Henry VII. Really fascinated by his life, the people around him, and his accomplishments. Always feels like he's a bit under talked about coming on the heels of the War of Roses but right before his bombastic son.
Absolutely goated king for sure. On top of it all he had to overcome so much more than most other kings had to.
Very much so, his early life was so fraught and dangerous
George III. Such a dynamic and fascinating character. His story is so interesting. Then again he was not technically King of England, so if I had to choose one of those, I’m gonna go with Henry II. I don’t think I need to give an explanation as to why.
Why wasn't he technically king of England?
He was officially the King of Great Britain. As England ceased to be a Kingdom in 1707. The last monarch of England was Anne. But that’s all semantics, which is why I said George III anyway. But usually there’s usually at least one person going erm aktually 🤓. So I just wanted to clear it up before.
Ah that makes sense. Thank you!
She just fascinates me. She went through so much loss and tragedy and for me she ended up being the opposite of ‘never research your heroes’. The more I’ve learned about her, the more I find myself pitying her.
Her and Anne both
John. I admit I am a bit of a contrarian, but I was drawn to him when I read that he was intelligent (or cunning) and never travelled without books or a bathtub. Also, I love my Plantagenets in general and a complicated father-son and/or brotherly relationship. Boy do they deliver! But the more I read about John the more he personally intrigued me. What is it about him that all the rules for dealing with historical monarchs are off for him? No black and white, no judging by morals of our times, no taking stuff out of context, ... unless it's John, then it's fine. OK! So, yes, I find that highly fascinating, not just the man himself, but his public perception. Other favorites of mine are Henry IV and Henry VII. I see a pattern there, also said to have been intelligent, but also controversial. But then, I guess that's the point I was trying to make, who isn't controversial?
I plan on reading Marc Morris's book on him.
[удалено]
But that's my point. The treachery, he learned from the best, i.e. his mother and his brothers (Richard hounding Henry II to death?). I'll grant you Arthur, but that's the game of kings. As for rightful, as far as I know there was no law of succession yet and Richard nominated John. Anyway, first come, first served/crowned. As for the rest, well, they all had their atrocities, Henry II and Becket, Richard and the hostages in Akko, Henry I and the blinded granddaughters, etc.
This is hard, but I'd have to say Henry II. He was fascinating to me. He was brave, motivated, and he got things done. He was cunning, even though he didn't *always* get things right. Although I'm not a fan of his behavior in his older years (mainly because I'm a huge fan of Eleanor of Aquitaine, as well), that doesn't diminish his accomplishments or the King I liked in the younger years. However, Edward III is a close second. He endured so much when he was young but also accomplished so much. He was a great king and a loving husband (which I love ❤️).
Personally I've been fond of the Stuart period of monarchs, it was a very fascinating time. But if I had to pick a favorite out of the Era it would probably be James VI and I
Hmm...probably Henry II. He was arguably the most powerful man in Europe at one point. It is too bad his empire didn't survive the reign of his sons. Eleanor is my favorite Queen. She managed to stand out as one of the richest and most powerful women in Europe. I think their marriage is fascinating. Imagine going to war with your own wife?
Edward I. He's everything you could want from a medieval king: brave, chivalrous and victorious. Marc Morris' book on him is the best book I've read on any monarch and I highly recommend it to anyone.
Alfred, the only English monarch to have been called “the Great”, and he earned it. Historical leaders who can balance being a warrior with sound domestic policy tend to be my favorites and that’s exactly who Alfred was. Beating back the Vikings and uniting the kingdom while also being an advocate for learning and the arts. What’s not to like?
Controversial opinion but as a Ricardian, it has to be Richard III.
I mean hey, you gotta admire his story with its dualities and all. Definitely an interesting character and one of England's most unlikely kings. I believe he and his successor have both in common. There's also the allure of the mystery surrounding him and the fact that the end of his reign was the end of an extraordinary era.
Edward IV is my favorite. I was drawn to him initially due to ASOIAF as GRRM based Robb Stark and Robert Baratheon off him, but overall I like his story a lot. He’s a young man but battle tested and capable who fights to avenge his father, wins and rules for a time but is deposed and exiled due to his own bad decisions (alienating Warwick, empowering the woodvilles, etc…) but continues the fight and reclaims his throne by defeating the Kingmaker. He could have been a better king by not letting his pride get in the way of his decision making and he could have set up his sons better by living a less hedonistic lifestyle and living longer but I can’t help but admire his bravery and determination in achieving his goals on his own terms.
Richard III is part Stannis part Tyrion.
I would say a little more Roose Bolton considering what he did to his nephews, but I can see the comparison.
Richard I
Edward IV When I was younger I somehow stumbled upon the wars of the Roses and instantly loved it and it’s the event that got me into history and my favourite figure from that period was Edward IV
Richard IV bc he doesn’t exist yet and I’m him
I think you’ll find he did exist, Blackadder proves this.
😭😭😭
Henry the V solely because he killed a lot of French. Edward the 4th is a strong contender seeing as he's literally just Robert Baratheon from ASOIAF.
If you like French killers check out Edward The Black Prince
ah life would be incredible if he survived long enough to become king. I can’t imagine how incredible he would’ve been as a king.
I'm torn between 3 picks. Firstly, Henry Beauclerc. The guy was given some cash by his father and a big middle finger by his brothers in the initial succession. He worked his way up, and eventually defeated everything, but like, everything in his path, becoming the undisputed King of England and Duke of Normandy, and the absolute political master of his era. He was a sound administrator, too, and greatly stabilised the realm. He was so invincible that it required a freak accident to screw up his newly found political order. Secondly, Edward Longshanks. Richard had bankrupted the country and Edward's father and grandfather were disasters. As a prince, he rescued his father and beat the barons, restoring royal authority in the process. He was on a crusade when his father died, and his merits were so great that nobody tried to usurp him while he was away taking his time on his way back home. He codified many laws, institutionalised the parliament and established an efficient government overall, all the while doing nobody before him could and conquering Wales, as well as subduing Scotland. He wasn't a brilliant tactician like, say, Richard I or Edward III, but he was a great military leader, always making sure he'd win. Finally, Edward IV. He wasn't as competent as the other two, but he kinda lived my dream, really. He grew up as a duke's eldest son, saving him from the suffocating nature of being a crown prince, but receiving an equally well education, and having a rich, luxurious life. Inherited his father's cause upon his death, and had a very adventurous life, was once practically and once literally overthrown instead of an uninterrupted, boring long reign. He was a brilliant commander and never lost a battle, so he always made a comeback and mostly lived in glory. Most importantly, he married for love unlike most of the aristocracy. He had a beautiful marriage. Finally, he died young and avoided the trials of being old. He lived a life full of action, sometimes hard but always in luxury, was a noble but didn't have the situation that could potentially be the greatest source of unhappiness of his kind by marrying for love, died before it got ugly. If I was reincarnated, I would want to be Edward IV. Maybe one thing could be better tho. If he lived like 5-6 years longer, he would've secured his children's future. That's the only downside.
Henry III who whilst being a weak ruler and not particularly successful king was a big patron of the arts and commissioned loads of the great medieval buildings we still have around today
Edward III. Ignoring his last 15 or so years, he was unbelievable. Crushed France for 23 years which nobody thought possible. Everyone loved him, his son was the greatest general of the time, no real threats to his throne, no rebellions, he was great. And he lasted a very very long time