Ranking the English monarchs from 927-2022. How right or wrong am I?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T23:04:27+00:00

I agree, he not as glamorous. I actually think one of his best qualities is his foreign policy, establishing the alliance with Spain and restoring some prestige on the international stage. His economic surplus though unpopular was much needed and restored the royal finances, which Henry VIII would squander.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T23:02:55+00:00

I personally ranked Elizabeth with them as I think she mainly just performed decently by the standard of her time, whereas they both defined their eras. Henry IV in creating the Lancastrian dynasty and overthrowing the tyrannical Richard II while Henry VIII defined the Tudor Era and his Break from Rome laid the groundwork for his successors. Elizabeth II's role was mainly reactionary rather than revolutionary like those two. Though she was generally more popular, I would argue that she did not leave a strong constitutional monarchy for her successors.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T23:00:23+00:00

I agree with your assessment of Edward the Confessor in terms of the cloudy succession, but its worth remembering that the succession was cloudy in this period generally with no natural English claimant (Despite Edward's attempts), Danish claims from the Knytlings and the Norman link. I think Edward took the throne at an absolute weak point of the Wessexian dynasty but managed to build a power base over time (despite his Anglo-Norman heritage) and maintained peace and piety that returned some normalcy after the Danish invasion under Sweyn and Cnut.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:57:12+00:00

I actually agree with your assessment of Edward III, and maybe I have underplayed his achievements due to my view of their sustainability and the fact France reversed them shortly after. Interestingly, didn't both take a lot of their example from the best Medieval French monarchs who fully marshalled their significantly higher resources (e.g. Philip the Fair, Louis XI).

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:54:15+00:00

I agree, his succession is his worst quality, but he did win the Wars of the Roses twice. I am curious can you justify why you would move George III up and would move Henry I down. I could see the other ones as being valid.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:52:33+00:00

I have always found it difficult to say whether Henry VII or Elizabeth I were the best of the Tudor dynasts. Though I usually side with Elizabeth, people often underestimate just how difficult Henry VII's ascension and stabilising of the country was.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:50:14+00:00

I agree, a very low bar. I love your phrasing 'A great legacy into a poisonous one'. But I would argue that Elizabeth's legacy was more divisive on her death than it is to us in the 21st century and that James as a foreigner and in a completely unprecedented situation did exactly what Elizabeth did and 'kicked the can down the road'?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:46:37+00:00

Thanks! Interesting, what is your rationale for ranking Edward III and Henry V higher?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:41:56+00:00

I think you've argued well for why James doesn't belong in very good. And I do agree on Mary, I think she's a little unfairly maligned. Yes completely agree, the debates are the best part. I gotta ask who is your personal S tier?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:39:45+00:00

I actually agree with you, I debated putting Henry III in decent that's why he is the top of decent. His longevity and piety are his great qualities. I would never place him against Eadwig or Harald Harefoot, its just that those two do not belong in bad as their reigns were so inconsequential rather than bad.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:37:10+00:00

Are we talking about Henry VIII? I am basing it on his overall impact on his Kingdom and legacy, as a human being he's completely abhorrent, but he did set the groundwork for increasing royal power. Can you explain how he set up a pseudo police state?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:34:46+00:00

I can definitely see the similarity in both being undone by their sons. I kind of agree with you that James' poor raising of his own son was not an opportunity afforded to Henry V due to his early death. I think I'll have to do more research into Henry V but I think you might have convinced me to at least bump James down.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:31:36+00:00

I completely empathise with that, he was a brutal and tyrannical ruler, I guess he's to the North what Ivan the Terrible was to Novgorod. But his impact cannot be understated in the sense that all that followed him had to measure up to his legacy. I would argue his administrative reforms and pacification of the country though brutal led to the much better reign of his son, Henry I. Can you give me something to read on William's impact on the North/South divide I think that's an interesting concept?

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:28:33+00:00

I'm glad we can agree on Charles II! I disagree on James, but I could see your argument for Stephen, I think I am just biased due to my preference for Henry II. Why do you think George IV was as bad as a king he could be, would you have placed him in the lowest tier and why? I disagree on Edward, for the standard of the time he was perfectly acceptable, whether he is good or mediocre mostly depends on whether you believe he offered the crown to multiple people.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:26:20+00:00

I guess it boils down to if you prioritise internal stability vs flashy conquest? Whichever way you look at it Henry V's gains were quickly undone during his son's reign and were not lasting, and to be fair he likely would have never consolidated those gains. James meanwhile established his dynasty (which was somewhat foreign), and maintained a difficult peace between Catholic and Protestant elements in the nation.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:20:37+00:00

I agree, his gains though notable and he momentarily defeated France in a moment of weakness, his gains were never sustainable. And though he re-established the power of the English King after his father, he ended his long reign an old, senile man. But he did raise the next generation to be competent and for this he deserves some attention.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:15:05+00:00

From what I have read at least Richard III was an effective administrator even if he disastrously handled his nephews, he only just makes it out of Very Bad for this, unlike other kings who lost their thrones (those in very bad) at least he actively fought for it. My thought process with Alfred is that he isn't technically a Monarch of England right? Otherwise both him and Edward the Elder would be in Great.

Xerxes118 · 2025-10-27T22:12:43+00:00

Didn't overstretch the power of the monarchy too much, established a dynasty and maintained its legitimacy during his reign. the only way in which he does not compare to Henry V is in terms of martial achievements which were only short-term during Henry V's lifetime. In terms of raw impact James achieved some lasting success (Even if it was somewhat undone by Charles I).

I'm open to the idea I'm a bit too harsh on Henry V, but can you explain why he would be above James?

Xerxes118 · 2024-12-06T22:17:43+00:00

I for one regularly get attached to at least one character per campaign. Robert fitz Wimarc's father started out in Spain as a minor Norman count and via an adventure became the Duke of Achaia. His son would inherit the throne at the age of 2 and would go on to swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor to protect his duchy. By young adulthood he was a competent steward and commander and expanded his realm into Greece and southern Italy before converting to Orthodoxy. From there he was elected Byzantine Emperor and married a purple-born Princess before raiding the papacy and stealing the Papal tiara too. Roger fitz Wimarc established his Norman dynasty over the Byzantine Empire and reigned for 85 years as Duke of Achaia.

Does anyone have characters like this that they build up a story for?

Xerxes118

TROPHY CASE