And sorry, but ranking Henry II purely based on the murder of his archbishop seems a bit shallow. It ignores so many of his accomplishments--both the good and bad.
Yep, agreed, should have been High Tier. Nobody should be defined by a rhetorical question asked in anger. Heck, we own the bones of our legal system to him. (Then again, it was all started by Henry I, who knew his legal stuff - maybe Henry I should be High Tier too?)
Henry II's administrative reforms are so important, his reign is often considered the beginning of English common law with the publication of a text known as Granville (also introduced juries, improved taxation) - Richard would not have been able to go on crusade or war so successfully against Philip Augustus. You simply cannot put him that low in the list - he is the most successful, wealthy, and important monarchs of the Anglo-Norman period.
Thanks for your comment mate. At some point in the future i'm going to revisit different parts of the list. The reason I made this was to provoke debate between people. Thanks for your input :)
@@luciferhk2624 Hmm that's a great question. Erm in terms of legacy and what they bring to the UK still I'd have to say Henry VIII. Even though he's been and gone almost 500 years, his story still brings millions of people to the country every year to visit. I think Elizabeth I is my favourite monarch and she's right up there, the age of exploration and seeing off the Spanish. There's some great history out there, Richard III fascinates me with his discovery.
TheUntoldPast Thanks, I am studying in Leicester. Richard III is a legendary king who make people discuss about the Princes in the Tower and Wars of the Rose. Also, Shakespeare made his image ugly, adding a lot of mystery to this history. Welcome to the Richard III visitor center in Leicester, that museum is amazing! My favorite monarch is Richard the lionheart.
He was never really king. It's not fair he was a child locked in the tower and brutally murdered by either his uncle Richard III or brother in law Henry VII or his first cousin the Duke of Buckingham or his godmother Margaret Beaufort.
Henry's cause of death is kind of a mystery. Contemporary sources say that he died after after eating lamprey (this weird, leech-like eel fish), which doesn't exactly explain how he died. His remains are still unaccounted for, along with many of the other early royals, due to Henry VIII's crusade against Catholicism. Most of the Abbeys that contained the remains were destroyed.
@@robertburns1220 I agree Henry I's death is mysterious. Although not as mysterious as William II's death. The hunting "accident" looks a lot like a assassination carried out for Henry I.
I do think that Queen Victoria should've been ranked higher than this, she definitely was one of the greatest monarchs in British History... King George VI also deserves to be in Crowning Glory Tier because of all the efforts, the Blitz and all the other messed up things happening in WW2
Hi, thanks for the comment - I'll be looking at the list in more detail at some point when I can and re-evaluating some of these choices. I enjoyed making this video because it's provoked debate. Thanks for the comment again :)
Thanks for your comment! I’m going to be looking at this list in more detail at some point, reflecting on the different dynastic houses/families and seeing where they would rank. The best bit about making this kind of video is the fact it helps people to debate! I’ve made another one on Henry VIII’s wives which will be online this weekend!
@Brian Yes, I found that totally confusing! Also, important/good for the country during their reign, or now? Important/good for the country for things they did themselves &/or were actively involved in, or for things that merely happened during their reign, & had nothing to do with them? How important is popularity with their subjects? And how well-known they are now did seem to come into it... Confusing!
@Brian Exactly! Rather than averaging them out: Henry VIII crowning glory for historical impact, & dungeon for benevolence. And you could still debate endlessly about where to place each monarch for that specific criterion.
Honourary glory: Eleanor of Aquitaine. Never officially Queen, but with Richard always away on Crusade she oversaw a lot of the governance of England during this time, thwarting attempts by John to usurp. Plus, she is the archetype for the High Queen
She was the Queen Consort as opposed to Queen regnant. She had also been Queen of France during her first marriage and she was the Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right.
Henry II should be way higher. I would put him in the crowning glory tier. He was probably Europe's most powerful monarch at the time and he was the first (and probably the most successful) Plantagenet king. A dynasty that ruled for centuries. Richard I should be lower. He hardly spent any time in England and basically used the English to maintain his lands in France and to fund his crusades. Elizabeth II might be popular but that is purely down to good PR. She hasn't really done much to put her in the top tier. Of course, all of this is very subjective. Other than that, great video and I enjoyed watching it.
I dunno. Richard the Lionheart being as a Top tier king seems like an absolute perfect fit for him. So far into the movie as I am I would have put him right there. The ranking system he is using looks to be based off historical importance, reign and reputation. His historical importance and reputation are likely going to be completely maxed out. The fact that he wasn't in England much was what would specifically kick him off being the highest Crowned tier. Elizabeth II being top tier seems very wrong. The mid tier which I'd say is base line is probably the best spot for her.
@@crazyand2099 As King he became one of the most famous generals in history and was one of the key leaders in the 3rd crusade. That was as King. His kingdom was bankrupt after his death to pay for his reign but is along the lines of "historical importance, reputation and reign". For historical important Richard the Lionheart is pretty maxed out on that spot as I mentioned. As one of the key leaders of the 3rd crusade (Quite frankly you can call him the leader of the 3rd after Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had died and King Philippe II had returned to France) he led one of the 3 most successful crusades of the Holy Lands beside the 1st and the Barons Crusade. I'd wager of the 5 most known monarchs of Britain, he's 1 of them right beside William the Conqueror, Edward Longshanks, Henry VIII and Queen Victoria. For Reputation also pretty maxed out as can point to that last bit as well. One of the most well known and remembered for chivalry and piety. In part also expanded thanks to the Robin Hood legend as well and as a great military general. His Reign is the weak spot which is why he doesn't deserve that highest of tiers. So lets try diving this up and scoring him via points and seeing where he would end up at okay? 1-5 points each category then add up to score. Easily a 4-5 on both Historical Importance and Reputation. His Reign a 1-2. 9-12 score for him. I personally would consider a 3-4 in Dungeon, 5-7 Low, 8-10 Mid, 11-13 High and 14-15 Crowning Glory. With that score of 9 (lowest end) to 12 (highest end). That on average puts him straddling the mid point between the Mid and High Tier.
@@crazyand2099 If that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard you've been living under a rock buried beneath a hill. It had nothing to do with England... And? So what? Nobody said it had to do with nor does it even remotely need to do with England in the slightest. There is huge historical importance, and he just happened to be king. Nobody is denying that. Nowhere is there some magic requirement that to be a historically important king do you have to have been a great ruler. Reputation actually can be quite important. It's only partially based off of the fame of your reign at the time you were living as well. You could be very unpopular but still end up with a great reputation vis a vis William the Conqueror. You can be a poor king but still have a very great reputation such as Richard the Lionheart. You are actually preaching something completely and totally irrelevant. It actually has absolutely nothing to do with being good nor with being famous. It is entirely and exclusively how history views it. Who says he had to be one of the top 10 generals of all time to be a great general? Who says he had to have never lost a battle? Actually you're dead wrong, he was a great general. Yes he lost some wars. The Crusade he led wasn't the most or 2nd most successful. He didn't retake Jerusalem. So what? Many of the greatest generals in history lost. Hannibal Barca never conquered Rome. Alexander the Great's conquest ended. Bonaparte had Waterloo. Greatness in generals isn't based on just one success or defeat. It's based on the entirety of their time leading armies. You can lose a war and still be considered a great general. Richard the Lionheart lost at the Crusade to another truly top tier great general in Saladin. And I would also agree that his father was alsone of the best kings in England. You should also be aware. I'm not the person that designed this ranked tier list. I am just telling you the reasoning why they put King Richard the Lionheart where he was on the list.
@@crazyand2099 Actually what I said made perfect sense and I was quite clear with defining and explaining everything. Yes, this is a tiered list about English monarchs. It also does matter how they affected England. That's why one of the criteria for where they are placed is how their (reign) was. The person that created the video clearly states the criteria why they made the choice for every placement. The process for placement THEY chose is listed as (HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE, REPUTATION, REIGN). Those are the 3 criteria working in conjunction for why the uploader put each person where he did. Your entire pointless argument here is that you think only reign should determine placement. I'm pretty much done trying to explain to you what made the original video uploader make his placement choices. I wasn't the one that selected the criteria for why he put everybody where he did. I just explained to you how with using his criteria that is where Richard the Lionheart belongs where he placed him. You also have never needed to be good to be either relevant or to be important. John does have a high historical importance actually. Try scrolling through the rest of the comments on this video and you will see that 7 months ago I even rated John out how I would place him on a tier system using that same 1-5 scoring for reign/reputation/historical importance and listed by saying "His reputation was trash yes. His reign was subpar. His historical important was off the charts astronomically great though." Giving him a 1-1-5 score (7 overall). AGAIN you push this ridiculous concept that you must win a war to be considered a great general. You have also given absolutely 0 evidence and have only stated your opinion he wasn't that good with his actions in the Crusade. Evidence would be stating out things like the Battle of Arsuf when with only 11000 troops (mostly infantry) he defeated Saladin's 25000 cavalry. The conquest of Cyprus of course as you mentioned being another. Countless skirmishes and battles as well as multiple rebellions and insurrections that were put down. But apparently the only time a battle can be fought and counted is when it's not a rebellion. His Crusade was of huge importance. Alexander the great never lost a battle. That is true. He died though and his conquest ended. Possibly through assassination or possibly through a bacteria and illness that took him. Your example of generals is quite... Interesting and very modern. All of them within the last 200 years. How would you rank Frederick Barbarossa as a general? Almost exclusively his entire battle record was fighting rebellions. Where would I place Henry II. Using the videos criteria lets see... Historical importance would be huge most likely in the 4-5 range. As he was basically the origin of the Angevin Empire. Was a great general on top of that. His reign also would be fairly mid terms I think. Likely about a 3-4 as many of his choices had long lasting effects. I disagree with the original videos choices on that the death of Thomas Becket should drop him into the lower. For his reputation that's going to be the hardest to put.. A subjectiveness would make me put him at at a lower half end and say a 2-3 on the scale. So to tally that up with low and high ends a 9-12 score using the criteria. That means I agree with you and I would place Henry II in the high tier as well actually.
I respectfully disagree with a lot of this list. Apparently it's not about how well a king could rule his nation, establish leadership, reign over important legal and philosophical changes, securing the legacy of monarchy or how well life trickled down from the top. It appears to be 100 percent on positive and negative publicity. Richard the lionheart barely set foot in his own country and couldn't secure the throne to his nephew his rightful heir. In the end John usurped the throne right after his death and Richard had even lost the support of his mother. The peasants constantly revolted against royal authority. He was a good crusader but he lost and was captured on his way home. He was a terrible king. Edward the first on the other hand was a great king. Yes he was brutal in dealing with the Scots but that is because by those medieval standard the English king felt they held supremacy over the Island the Scottish king was his vassal. He considered them to be greedy noblemen in revolt. I know braveheart puts him in a very negative light he might in fact be the carbon copy of William the conqueror.
Henry VII is super underrated, glad you placed him at the top. He stabilized England and put in on the path to glory. Might be England’s best king tbh.
I couldn't get past Henry II being in low tier... THEN you put Richard I above him and Henry the III as equal and I had to stop =P You should read The Plantagenets by Dan Jones! It has a lot of amazing info. I think I would have listed similar to you before reading more about the Plantagenets, but honestly (as even you noted) Richard hardly was ever in England, and his crusading led him into some scandals that got him in so much trouble England had to pay massive fines to get him back (and honestly Eleanor of Aquitaine was probably the true 'ruler' of England during most of his time as king) and Henry III was one of the most boring kings in the Plantagenet era -- I would have normally thought this made him maybe a good person but then he went on full anti-Semitic mode making him boring but still evil. Henry II did some amazing stuff and controlled a massive area, I admit he was a bit of a jerk (especially to his family) but in terms of being a monarch he was solid
Agreed- Richard I was rubbish as a king of England! Great warrior (mostly), decent Duke of Aquitaine... barely set foot in England, got himself captured & sent England broke paying his ransom, & got himself killed cos he didn't put on full armour when he did a reccy of a castle X'D Eleanor tho? Ruling in his name for most of his 10-year-reign, & doing a fairly decent job, other than paying her idiot son's ransom. And yeah- solid's a good verdict on Henry II. He got stuff done, & sorta got England back on track after the Anarchy- the agreement that he would succeed Stephen was pretty significant in itself. I sorta think Henry III's boring just cos I have a massive blank spot in my knowledge there- I haven't read about him, or even heard much about him incidentally- but could that be cos he _was_ boring?... And I'd not heard of him going all anti-Semitic, just his son expelling the Jews, but yeah, that's not endearing. I've seen Dan Jones' Platagenet docos, which were really interesting, but a book referring to sources etc would be good, & I don't have one just on the Plantagenets, just one about Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Yeah I thought he would be either in the high tier or crowning glory. I would also have put Henry VIII in either mid or low tier. For somebody who got lucky in the sense that he inherited a full treasury from his father Henry VII and then got the largest windfall ever when he got all the church lands and sold them at a discount price to his leading nobles (which guaranteed him their support) he accomplished very little. When he died England still was a second rate power in Europe and while the creation of a national church was huge, he didn't have a lot of other successful internal reforms like say a Henry II. Henry I as a mid tier seems too low also. He helped build up the administration of the state and scared the nobles keeping the peace well.
The main accomplishments of Henry (if you ignore any religious arguments which are very subjective eg; that England did better cause it wasn’t subservient to the Catholic church) Are; 1. Massive centralisation and reduction of noble power, thereby increasing the power of the central government and Parliament, giving England an edge over most of the European powers. 2. Commission of the Royal Navy 3. Further expansion of education and “New men:” essentially, bureaucrats and councillors of state from the burgher or poor classes and not from the nobility. Achievement Number 1 is pretty big! But is alleviated by the hugely bloody way Henry did it, and the financial blunders Henry continually made.
So happy you put Henry V in the top, he is my favourite King of England and as a leader of men his will was pure steel and he was said to have been a very pious Christian too, him and Edward III are my top kings in my opinion alongside William I, I was surprised that you put Edward I in mid but we all have different opinions on things in life of course and respect yours mate, anyway fantastic video, had to sub you buddy! 👍😉
@@sampletext8229Edward VIII was not crowned but he was still the king for some time. Actually the UK is nowadays the only European monarchy where the monarch is crowned.
I don’t think Richard I deserves high tier. He does have a great legacy but he was a negligent and foolhardy ruler who doesn’t deserve anything higher than mid tier. I also think you were a bit harsh on Henry II. Henry was a quite important and good king even though he isn’t very remembered, however the deserves at least mid tier.
Thanks for your comment :) i’ll be revisiting the different royal families in seperate tier videos soon so i’ll be reviewing the list. One of the reasons I made this video is for debate, so I’m glad you’ve been able to watch it and offer different opinions. Thanks for your comment again :)
Richard was a warrior king, and to stabilise his kingdom he established an efficient government to govern over his kingdom while he was gone, he reconquered lost land in Normandy and handed Saladin his ass, multiple times. Despite often not being there to govern his kingdom, he made sure that his absence wouldn’t see it crumble through his care when choosing governors.
Richard the Lionheart is arguably the most legendary king in English history. A good argument could be made that he’s S tier based on his prestige alone.
@@doesnotexist305 but he is not even English ,don’t leave on England don’t speak others languages than French and Oc and tried to sell England/London many times
I know Richard 1 ( lionhearted) is both famous and popular, but he was hardly ever in England, and also spent a fortune fighting his bloody wars, leaving his country broke. I don’t think he should be rated so high!
Thanks for your comment :) He’s a crusading king which is pretty cool. Remember this is an opinion video and at some point i’ll be revisiting this to look in depth at the different dynasties, e.g Tudor, Stuarts etc. Thanks for your comment, I like making these because it inspires debate :)
@@jennifermcdonald5432 No problem, thank you for taking your time to watch my videos! :) Have a lovely day and once again thank you so much for the comment!
William I (1066-1087) William II (1087-1100) Henry I (1100-1135) Stephen (1135-1154) Henry II (1154-1189) Richard I (1189-1199) John (1199-1216 Louis (1216-1217 Henry III (1217-1272) Edward I (1272-1307) Edward II (1307-1327) Edward III (1327-1377) Richard II (1377-1399) Henry IV (1399-1413) Henry V (1413-1422) Henry VI (1422-1461) Edward IV (1461-1470) Henry VI (1470-1471) Edward IV (1471-1483 Edward V (1483) Richard III (1483-1485) Henry VII (1485-1509) Henry VIII (1509-1547) Edward VI (1547-1553) Mary I (1553-1558) Elizabeth I (1558-1603) James I (1603-1625) Charles I (1625-1649) Interregnum (1649-1660) Charles II (1660-1685) James II (1685-1688 Mary II (1688-1694) William III (1688-1702) Anne (1702-1714) George I (1714-1727) George II (1727-1760 George III (1760-1820) George IV (1820-1830) William IV (1830-1837) Victoria (1837-1901) Edward VII (1901-1910) George V (1910-1936) Edward VIII (1936) George VI (1936-1952) Elizabeth II (1952-
Richard "The Lionheart" has become a seemingly polarizing figure in recent years. I would even say perhaps UNDERrated. I DEFINITELY agree with you in putting him near the top. What he did to hold his nation together - and not just during the Third Crusade but for crown and country - has been undervalued by the critisisms regarding his long absences from London. He's always been a fascinatingly robust leader to me who put literally the lives of his people FAR ahead of his personal own.
Henry VIII wasted lots of money on French wars and luxuries, and nearly bankrupted the country even after stealing from the monasteries. He was a terrible king. However, it's impossible to deny his legacy, as he's one of the most famous monarchs of all time.
His life is such a car crash of court drama, casual beheadings , and emotional abuse which helped shape his daughter into Bloody Mary, it’s impossible to turn away! Plus he’s a great place to get kids interested in history
I think James 1 shouldn’t be in high tier, whilst he did gain a reputation as Rex pacificus his extravagance was a major flaw - At the time England was suffering from bad inflation due to Elizabeth meaning subsidy values were decreasing. Despite this James and his courtiers would lavish themselves in the ‘land of honey’. As well as this James was infamous for giving his favourites many gifts which threatened the economy which really left the situation Charles 1 inherited to be quite dire
On reflection I possibly was harsh on Edward. Over the next few weeks I’m going to start a series when I look at these kings and queens in detail. Each video will be in detail about one king or queen. Stay tuned and thanks for the comment!
I Think Edward Long-Shanks Deserves High Tier Because I Think He’s Important To History So I Also Think Charles I Maybe Mid Tier/Low Tier Cause People On The 30th Of January Remember His Death And Also He’s Important Also Edward The VIII Should Be Low Tier Also George The IV Shouldn’t Be In Dungeon That’s My Opinion Yea I Might Explain Little More
@@errorobbies8907 Edward VIII conspired with the Nazis to depose his brother George VI--with the understanding that Wallis would be named Queen. There is NOTHING lower than that!!!!
My understanding is Henry 2 reformed came about because of the Baron's War. Simon de monfort forced his hand (literally) to bring about this change. His son Edward kept the reforms forced on his father in exchange for the Baron's support in defeating de Monfort.
@@stevenleslie8557 you are confusing Henry II and III. Henry II started reforms of the judiciary and how taxes were charged/collected. Henry III was who you were referring to.
Thanks so much for the nice comment! I’m working on more of these lists at the moment. Hoping to get one on World War 2 Tanks this week! Thanks again :)
Richard III was actually a rather good king despite only being on the throne for two years. He was also rather popular with the people particularly those in the North. He was not even accused of the murders until after his death at Bosworth. Loyalute me lie
Hi mate, thanks for your nice comments! Regarding the Scottish monarchs it is something i’d definitely be looking at! Would be very interesting to do! I’ll also be revisiting parts of this list in detail at some point. Thanks again :)
@@TheUntoldPast true, i've put my crowning glory kings/queens based on conquest/war etc whereas you've mixed that with religon, culture etc. depends on what you see as important really
I think Queen Bess should get in there. Oversaw the age of exploration, put out all the fires she’d inherited from her sister and father,defeated the Spanish Armada, and launched a sneaky campaign against him by sending pirates to steal all his gold. Anyone whose war strategy includes ‘send the pirates’ is definitely a glory
@@aikikaname6508 I'd agree with you here! Elizabeth I certainly in my opinion was a great monarch. If not just for overseeing the age of exploration, and the foundations of the Empire which started in her reign! Thanks for your comment mate :)
Hi! Thanks for this comment, it has made my day :) I'm currently writing another type of tierlist, they take ages to research and write and so on. It should be up next week :) Thanks again!
Maybe you should so one like this, but instead of historical importance, it’s based on how good the king was for the country at the time, so like how benevolent they are, etc.
I’ll be relooking at this list mate to look at more specific parts in time, e.g Tudor era. I’ll be re-ranking them based on what you suggested. Thanks for the comment mate.
Doing it from 1066 in my opinion is a rash decision. I think the best monarchs come from the Anglo- Saxons such as Alfred the great, Edward the elder and Athelstan who are the kings who made England one
Great video! I loved watching it, it was very well thought through. One thing though George II wasn’t George III’s father. Prince Frederick was but he died, George II was his grandfather.
It’s just the fact that she was executed before she had a coronation and I know that happened to Edward V, but it was only 9 days and was never declared Queen Jane I
I think Henry II should have been much higher, he built and maintained the Angevin kingdom at its peak, controlling over half of France for much of his reign.
Yeah, but that Beckett thing was pretty serious plus he made a mess of the succession by not giving his sons any power to rule. He was very much a man possessed by control.
@@stevenleslie8557 ??? He gave his sons plenty of titles to keep them pacified. Their discontentment was the result of deliberate attempts on the part of Philip Augustus & Eleanor of Aquitaine to turn them against their father. Henry couldn't give them any more power than he already gave them & expect to keep his head. Plus, Henry wasn't technically *responsible* for the Thomas Beckett thing, & he showed remorse (genuine or politically contrived) for his involvement in it afterwards. Henry II was not perfect, but he's head-&-shoulders above Richard the Lionheart (Mr. 'lemme go murder 2,700 Saracen prisoners'), John Lackland (his list of non-accomplishments are quite well-known), Henry III (who was so terrible at ruling they had to invent Parliament to do it for him), Edward Longshanks (who exiled the Jews from England, brutally conquered Wales, & attempted to do the same to Scotland), etc. Compare the worst thing Henry II ever did to his successors & he comes out w/ a sterling reputation.
@@stevenleslie8557 First of all, Henry II did not order Beckett to be killed and secondly, he gave his ungrateful sons more than enough responsibility.
I believe some deserve a bit higher (eg: Henry II, George II, George III, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, Edward VIII, George V and George VI), as they had a bigger impact on history and culture, but that’s just my opinion. It’s a great list though.
Hi! Thanks for your great comment. The reason I made this video was to create debate and I'm glad you have different opinions mate :) I'll be relooking at the list in more detail at times looking at different periods of rule, such as the Tudor or Georgians and re-ranking them. Thanks again :)
TheUntoldPast no, thank you, I have massive appreciation for your videos and you yourself for replying to comments on old videos, thank you for making these history videos.
Sorry guys accidentally deleted my post. Btw I think the tier idea is a great idea to list the top best. With my last post I wanted to put five monarchs in No:1 spot. In my opinion the top best English/British monarchs in tier form is; 1:Edward III, Henry II, Edward I, Ethelstan, Henry I, Edgar the Peaceable, Elizabeth I. 2: Henry V, William the Conqueror, William II, Richard I, George V, George VI, Cnut the Great, Edmund I. 3: Victoria, Henry VIII, George III, Charles II, Anne, Edward IV, Edward VII, Elizabeth II, Stephen, Edmund Ironside, Eadred, Mary II 4: Indifferent tier; William III, George I, George II, Henry VII, William IV, Henry IV ( I meant indifferent, as in did not care for the country or how they ruled or reigned) 5; Weak tier Edward the Martyr, Svein Forkbeard, Harold Harefoot, Edward the Confessor, Henry III, Edward II, Henry VI, Edward V, Edward VI, Jane, Empress Maud, James I, George IV, Edward VIII. ( When I mean weak, I meant in terms of, how much support they had, or illness or being a minor and just plain useless) 6: Tyrant tier; Eadwig, Ethelred Unready, Harthacnut, John, Richard II, Richard III, Mary I, Charles I, James II (This could also apply to William the Conqueror and Henry VIII)
@@TheUntoldPast Thanks. Obviously it is my personal opinion, opened to interpretation and debate. I inherited a book collection on English/Monarchs and read all of them front to back, so knowledge is vast.
Hi! I’m currently working on a few more tierlist videos on different monarchies and presidents/emperors and rulers. Can I ask a question, how did you come across this video? Over the pst few days the viewcount has gone up a lot so was intrigued on where it’s being shown :) thanks mate, there should be a new one of these up in the next few weeks!
TheUntoldPast well I happened to look up ranking English monarchs. This video came up and was by far the most in depth. There are lots of tier list videos out there but none like yours. I have since subscribed and am not a fan!
I agree with putting William I in the crowning glory tier. I would also mention that his occupation of England was cemented by massive brutality, (The Harrowing of the North for example.). Further he didn't just have a "tendency" towards nepotism. He massively engaged in it. He apparently dispossessed more than 95%, maybe 99% of the high English nobility driving the great majority into poverty or exile. He replaced them with French speaking Aristocrats. Also most of the minor nobility was similarly replaced. Before the conquest Latin and English were the languages of government. After the Conquest French replaced English. English in fact virtually disappeared as a written language for over two centuries. Much of the new ruling nobility, especially the higher Nobility could not be bothered to learn English for quite sometime. The first King of England since the conquest to know English, was of all people, the infamous King John. The assimilation of the new Nobility into England, as shown by the adoption of English has their first language took centuries. In fact the the First ruler of England since the conquest whose first language was not French was likely Richard II in the late 14th century. I'm sure being ruled by a new Nobility, different in speech and culture was quite alienating for many of the "native" English. William I fits virtually all the boxes for being a Great King, a good administrator, war leader, conqueror etc., etc. He also fills many of the boxes for being a terrible person.
I think including lasting fame as one of your judging criteria was a mistake. It throws off the ranking of all the other criteria and makes the final standings feel really weird and random (Richard III as the clearest example, being a totally ineffectual ruler placed at the top just for his infamy).
I suppose it depends really, as history's gone on the influence of the monarchy has decreased massively. So it depends really on what you can expect. There's been longevity to her reign, in the fact she's the longest reigning monarch.
@@TheUntoldPast the length of the reign does not make a good nor bad monarch. I wouldn't even have been so generous with 'high' tier either. The best thing she's done so far in my view, is keeping Charles off the throne for as long as she has.
Henry II was an empire builder par excellence. The English Common Law system and the civil service MO of meritocracy were founded by him. This coupled with his the sheer scale of his dominion, from Scotland to the Pyrenees, gained and conquered by skill and force of personality. He deserves S tier. No less. To add credence to this I cite a poll conducted amongst respected British historians in 2015 who were asked to name the greatest monarch of all time. Henry II came third behind Alexander the Great and Elizabeth I. To fault him the becket controversy is simplistic and deluded moralizing at best. Becket was not someone any modern person would find appealing and Henry's position is exactly the position held by the Western World today, namely that the clergy should be held accountable by secular law. Think about the Catholic Church child abuse scandals and the Church sweeping them under the rug. Do you agree that the Church must be liable to the law of the land as any other is? Well, you are in Henry's camp. Every single foreign and domestic policy in England for the next four hundred years from the 12th century can be traced to Henry's reign and his dynamism. And to have Richard the Lionheart in A tier?! A king who only spent just a few months in England in his entire life and reign?! Madness! Not to mention adding the grotesque man-child Henry VIII in the 'crowning glory' tier! What a list. Rather a record of incorrectness I think. However, I mean no offense whatsoever by my comments. You are of course entitled to your opinions. Several of them are just incorrect, alas.
@@marufez_4457 It would be nice to have an actual historian rank English monarchs. In the case of Henry II I have never found, read, nor heard any historian who would dispute that he was one of the greatest kings in human history, much less English history.
I think Henry II should be high tier or crowning glory; I don't think it's entirely fair to put William the Conqueror in crowning glory despite his brutality but exclude Henry II from being even mid-tier because of one murder that he didn't really ask for and even went into humiliating repentance to show the people that he didn't like the murder. Henry II is also pretty famous and historically significant. Also, I think Victoria should be in crowning glory; she's way more famous and influential than some of the other monarchs you put in the high tier.
I think you gave Queen Elizabeth II a "gentleman's A" there is no way she ranks with the original Elizabeth or any of the others in the top level who were actual rulers. She's a nice figure head but even on that basis she shouldn't be ahead of Queen Victoria
Don't listen to this baffoon queen victoria is the reason all thoese kids died because of slavery she didn't even abolish it u know the queen gave independence to all the countries
I would have put Henry II in the high tier due to the way he was able to secure his place as Stephen’s heir after being the victor in the anarchy. Equally, I find the fact that he was able to win back the support of his people by paying the penance of 300 lashings from the monks a wise move, since it helped him secure authority over his rebelling sons. He was able to somewhat secure a legacy for his family, even if his children were very poor rulers. Thomas Beckett’s death was not something he intended, and thus I see his reign to be overall successful, albeit highly flawed.
I definitely think George III should’ve been ranked higher, He funded and payed for the Royal Academy of Arts, Was the first king to study science as part of his education (even had a collection of scientific instruments in his observatory on display) And was a devoted family man who never took a mistress *unlike his predecessor and successor* Even if he did lose the American War of Independence, he was still one of the coolest monarchs of the 18th century.
I liked this tier list better than the others on YT. And the reason for it is that the others who rate these kings and queens have a pro Catholic bias and as a result put Henry VIII way too low. I am glad to see that someone had the good sense to disregard his marital problems and his treatment of Catholic power (land holdings of the Church). He was a great king.
Your ranking system is horrid, the fact that you put some of the best kings in lower tiers based on singular " negatives" , some of which had nothing to do with their efforts to forward England is pathetic. Putting Henry II Low Tier because of Thomas Becket , Edward the First only Mid because of his expulsion of the Jews , and the fact that Edward III is not Crowning Glory when he ended Englands homage to France makes my eyes bleed. What kind of nonsense is this ?
I find it annoying how this is a rank based of how popular the monarchs are now not how good of a monarch they actually were. Also, Stephen beating Matilda was not a success. I can't believe people always refer to her as a trouble maker trying to take the thrown from the true heir when the invader was Stephen and Matilda was fighting for what was rightfully hers. This is a key tale on the oppression of women and yet she seems to have vanished from history. She was the first Queen. She ruled for 4 years. I'm sorry it just really irritates me how this civil war is just almost completely erased from the history books, when for me this is the most interesting and important part of history. Richard 1 doesn't deserve his praise. Henry 7th is underated.
I would argue your placing John Lackland in the dungeon. His reputation was trash yes. His reign was subpar. His historical important was off the charts astronomically great though. His being forced to sign one of the absolute most important documents in world history.. The Magna Carta, should put him far higher on the list. If we are going off of a "5-star ranking system" and averaging the scores... 1 for reign, 1 for reputation, 5 for historical importance. Averaging out to a 2-3 or more concise as a mid tier ruler.
Queen Elizabeth II may still have been Queen as her uncle never had kids... Thus she was the oldest child of his next sibling so possibly still his heiress (well after her Dad)...
33:01 That should be 'his grandfather and great-grandfather, because George II was his grandfather, while his father was prince Fredrick, the son of George II
Henry ii in low tier? You completely disregarded his long and prosperous reign and zoned in on the murder of Thomas beckett. Henry ii was undoubtedly one of the best medieval kings of his Era.
You should base your rulers on how competent they ruled England, not their darkest hour... I absolutely LOVE your channels, but Richard the lionheart did more damage to England by getting captured and ransomed then Henry the ii did by killing that ungrateful bishop lol
Here is my own tier list upto Charles II Crowning Glory - William the Conqueror , Edward III ( his reign marks the most glorious days of England in the Hundred years war. He delivered continuous victory throughout his long reign. He completely dominated the French and even the Scots. Also Geoffrey Chaucer , the father of English Literature, lived during his reign.) Henry V ( Re-emergence of England as a superpower in the Hundred years war) Elizabeth I High tier - Edward Longshanks (defeated Simon de Montfort, a powerful Baron. Brought power back to the crown) Richard the Lionheart Henry II (Created the Angevin Empire via a combination of marriage and conquest (parts of France belonged to England). Also his wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine , who herself was a great Queen) Edward IV (Yorkist rise in the War of the roses. Great warrior) Henry VII ( Ended the war of the roses, Started the tudor dynasty. Patient, shrewd, cunning) Mid tier (Didn't make any huge mistakes, but didn't do anything amazing either) Wlliam Rufus Henry I Henry IV James I Mary I Other Mid tier (Don't deserve to be in low tier) Richard III ( though he lost in the end, he fought courageously in the battle of Bosworth. The last King to have died in Battle. Plotted against Edward IV to become KIng of England. Courageous, cunning etc) Stephen (Bad politician, but a good warrior. Fought well against Empress Matilda, though he lost in the end. I find this period called the Anarchy to be one of the most tensed and violent periods in English history ) Low tier Henry VIII (killed off many of his wives, egotistical, not exactly talented in politics or war. ) Henry III Edward V Edward VI Dungeon - Richard II King John Edward II Henry VI Charles II
I have done another video where I focussed on Anglo Saxon Kings. I decided to go from 1066 onwards beginning at what is sometimes perceived to be the end of the Dark Ages. Cheers for the comment mate.
@@stevenleslie8557 actually not really. That’s a big misnomer. Life for the average citizen (ceorl) didn’t really change. In fact Old English was still being spoken as late as the late 1200s. Also a lot of English customs were started by the Anglo Saxons. The Normans mostly added to it. Then so on and so on. Lastly, the country was still England. The Land of the Anglo Saxons. The Norman conquest didn’t change that. Too me it’s more appropriate to start at the major kings of the English heptarchy like Penda, Ecgfrith, Oswiu, Raedwald, Aethelberht, Offa; then jump to the Ecgbert line of the Cercingas house starting with Ecgbert and Aethelwulf. Then from there go to Alfred the Great to Aethelstan and onward. Then you can go to the Norman kings.
Before watching the video, here is mine up to 1485...: T1: *NONE* T2: William I, Henry I, Henry II, Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV T3: William II, Stephen, Henry III, Henry IV, Henry V T4: Richard I, Edward II, Richard II, Richard III T5: John, Henry VI N/A: Matilda, Henry the Young King, Louis, Edward V, as well as the non-royal de-facto rulers (i.e. Simon De Montfort, Roger Mortimer, etc.) and regents. Note: The order within each group is chronological, but I would indeed put Henry VI dead last.
I’m surprised Henry VI isn’t in the dungeon as he was useless. Easily manipulated and when he went catatonic for a year after a nervous breakdown he couldn’t run a country at all. He did even respond to his newborn child.
Interesting post! I would move Henry II and Edward I from Low Tier to High Tier, Richard I in the opposite direction. Edward VI should move up to Mid Tier due to his moving the country firmly to Protestantism.
Agreed, Edward the first was maybe the greatest king. Richard I was low. Edward IV would have been the perfect king to restore the rightful rule to the descendants of Edward I's true line to the second son Lionel of Antwerp (York through Anne De Mortimer) over that of third son John of Gaunt. His only failing was he failed to secure his son's reign. But that was due to him dying while his son was young.
Henry II, Edward I, Edward III deserve higher than where you but them. They were powerful effective kings and successful warriors and Henry and Edward were excellent administrators and advocates of law. Henry VII and Henry VII were significant kings adapt in survival but I think them too high. Richard III is one of my favorite kings, but i think you place him too high. I argue apart from his famous or infamous reputation his council of the North and reforms in parliament put him in the mid tier. I would place Anne at about the same level you place William and Mary. George II and III belong in mid tier. Put Queen Victoria in the highest and Edward VII was a great diplomat in so short a reign deserves high tier. I would put the current queen in high tier as well. 🇬🇧 👑
completely 100% agree except Richard the third, I think he should stay high...he's one of my favourite figures in History not just as a king, his controversy and the battle of Bosworth (one of the most famous battles in English history) but his role throughout the entire wars of the roses...the inspiration behind Game of Thrones and one of the most thrilling and popular civil wars not just in English history but European and world history. Look how popular this video is ua-cam.com/video/Do7XBxUVJsE/v-deo.html The wars of the Roses was also the bridge between the 100 years war and the classical era...which saw England begin to continue to rise in power, see much more internal stability and issue important reforms. I think Richard having such a key role in this civil war historical and being so famous in infamy in literature and art as a villain means he deserves the second from highest spot.
I’ve read that king Richard 1 said he would have sold England if he could find a buyer, and that, figuratively speaking, his heart was in France where he lived. He also mostly spoke French and only spoke broken English as it was a “common folks” language. If that’s true, wouldn’t that play a role in his ranking?
If you put Henry II in the low their for the murder of his Archbishop, Henry VIII should be lower since he killed so many people including 2 of his wives.
Wait, you said Henry was left in debt to two wives after divorcing them, but A) he didn’t divorce them, he annulled the marriages, and B) what do you mean by he was in debt to them? Financial debt? It’s not like he had to pay alimony. He did give Anne of Cleves a hefty settlement when she agreed to the annulment, but Catherine of Aragon didn’t get anything from him as far as I know. In emotional/theoretical debt? I mean, again maybe with Anne just ‘cause she agreed to the annulment and made everything a lot smoother for Henry, and maybe to Catherine for her years serving as Queen and her political support, but he certainly didn’t act like he felt he owed her anything. :P
I just found this and couldn't get past you saying that Henry I died in a shipwreck. No, he didn't. His son and heir did. Henry reigned for another 15 years. After his death was the period known as The Anarchy. I almost quit after ranking William the Bastard as 'crowning glory'.
Interesting video…. Though how you can rate Edward I as mid tier is beyond me! George II was a fine delegator …. Britain became a super power under his reign and the public had nothing to do with Edward VIII abdicating… it was the Aristocracy and Parliament who pushed it.
And sorry, but ranking Henry II purely based on the murder of his archbishop seems a bit shallow. It ignores so many of his accomplishments--both the good and bad.
Facts. Henry was one of England’s most active and energetic kings and definitely shouldn’t be defined by the murder of Becket.
Yep, agreed, should have been High Tier. Nobody should be defined by a rhetorical question asked in anger. Heck, we own the bones of our legal system to him. (Then again, it was all started by Henry I, who knew his legal stuff - maybe Henry I should be High Tier too?)
This is some major disrespect, Henry II was a chad of the highest degree
Yeah, Henry II in low tier makes no sense.
Henry II in low tier:l; the same fucking tier as Henry VI whereas Richard I is in high tier totally delegitimates this video
Henry II's administrative reforms are so important, his reign is often considered the beginning of English common law with the publication of a text known as Granville (also introduced juries, improved taxation) - Richard would not have been able to go on crusade or war so successfully against Philip Augustus. You simply cannot put him that low in the list - he is the most successful, wealthy, and important monarchs of the Anglo-Norman period.
Thanks for your comment mate. At some point in the future i'm going to revisit different parts of the list. The reason I made this was to provoke debate between people. Thanks for your input :)
I think Queen Victoria could be the glory. You know, that is a golden age.
Certainly, the British Empire was at its height when she was on the throne!
TheUntoldPast Who do you think is the most important monarch in England and even the UK. In my opinion, It must be Queen Elizabeth I.
@@luciferhk2624 Hmm that's a great question. Erm in terms of legacy and what they bring to the UK still I'd have to say Henry VIII. Even though he's been and gone almost 500 years, his story still brings millions of people to the country every year to visit. I think Elizabeth I is my favourite monarch and she's right up there, the age of exploration and seeing off the Spanish. There's some great history out there, Richard III fascinates me with his discovery.
TheUntoldPast Thanks, I am studying in Leicester. Richard III is a legendary king who make people discuss about the Princes in the Tower and Wars of the Rose. Also, Shakespeare made his image ugly, adding a lot of mystery to this history. Welcome to the Richard III visitor center in Leicester, that museum is amazing! My favorite monarch is Richard the lionheart.
But was it because of her the country was at its peak? Or that she just ruled for a dang long time which happened to be at the peak?
These ranking are based on popularity rather than quality of the reign. A ranking video of the French Kings would be great.
I think queen Elizabeth II reign was very successful
'It seems cruel to put Edward V in the dungeon'. You wouldn't be the first to.
Oh my, this did make me laugh more than i’d like to admit! Thanks for the comment mate.
It’s fine though. Goosebumps told me he escaped and lived a happy life in the future!
That is true
He was never really king. It's not fair he was a child locked in the tower and brutally murdered by either his uncle Richard III or brother in law Henry VII or his first cousin the Duke of Buckingham or his godmother Margaret Beaufort.
Correction--Henry I did not die in a shipwreck. It was his would-be-successor William who died in the White Ship Disaster.
Henry's cause of death is kind of a mystery. Contemporary sources say that he died after after eating lamprey (this weird, leech-like eel fish), which doesn't exactly explain how he died. His remains are still unaccounted for, along with many of the other early royals, due to Henry VIII's crusade against Catholicism. Most of the Abbeys that contained the remains were destroyed.
@@robertburns1220 I agree Henry I's death is mysterious. Although not as mysterious as William II's death. The hunting "accident" looks a lot like a assassination carried out for Henry I.
I do think that Queen Victoria should've been ranked higher than this, she definitely was one of the greatest monarchs in British History... King George VI also deserves to be in Crowning Glory Tier because of all the efforts, the Blitz and all the other messed up things happening in WW2
Hi, thanks for the comment - I'll be looking at the list in more detail at some point when I can and re-evaluating some of these choices. I enjoyed making this video because it's provoked debate. Thanks for the comment again :)
She brutally killed millons
UK lost half of his empire during George VI reign, so no.
During the Irish Potato famine Victoria told people not to sent help to the Irish and a boat with food for the Irish was turned away by Victoria
I think she should be lower 😂
I think George III deserves better than the Low Tier, but everyone has its own opinion.
Thanks for your comment! I’m going to be looking at this list in more detail at some point, reflecting on the different dynastic houses/families and seeing where they would rank. The best bit about making this kind of video is the fact it helps people to debate! I’ve made another one on Henry VIII’s wives which will be online this weekend!
@Brian Yes, I found that totally confusing! Also, important/good for the country during their reign, or now? Important/good for the country for things they did themselves &/or were actively involved in, or for things that merely happened during their reign, & had nothing to do with them? How important is popularity with their subjects? And how well-known they are now did seem to come into it... Confusing!
@Brian Exactly! Rather than averaging them out: Henry VIII crowning glory for historical impact, & dungeon for benevolence. And you could still debate endlessly about where to place each monarch for that specific criterion.
I agree, since his moral character was better than his grandfather and great-grandfather
Honourary glory: Eleanor of Aquitaine. Never officially Queen, but with Richard always away on Crusade she oversaw a lot of the governance of England during this time, thwarting attempts by John to usurp. Plus, she is the archetype for the High Queen
Thanks for the comment mate! I'm going to do some research on her and might have to make a video! :)
She was French/Occitan not English so can’t be considered English queen like her son
@@luxhistoriae1172half of English kings are literally French
Number 1 reason why the Angevins got destroyed: Eleanor
She was the Queen Consort as opposed to Queen regnant. She had also been Queen of France during her first marriage and she was the Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right.
Henry II should be way higher. I would put him in the crowning glory tier. He was probably Europe's most powerful monarch at the time and he was the first (and probably the most successful) Plantagenet king. A dynasty that ruled for centuries.
Richard I should be lower. He hardly spent any time in England and basically used the English to maintain his lands in France and to fund his crusades.
Elizabeth II might be popular but that is purely down to good PR. She hasn't really done much to put her in the top tier.
Of course, all of this is very subjective.
Other than that, great video and I enjoyed watching it.
Agreed!
I dunno. Richard the Lionheart being as a Top tier king seems like an absolute perfect fit for him. So far into the movie as I am I would have put him right there. The ranking system he is using looks to be based off historical importance, reign and reputation. His historical importance and reputation are likely going to be completely maxed out. The fact that he wasn't in England much was what would specifically kick him off being the highest Crowned tier.
Elizabeth II being top tier seems very wrong. The mid tier which I'd say is base line is probably the best spot for her.
@@crazyand2099 As King he became one of the most famous generals in history and was one of the key leaders in the 3rd crusade. That was as King. His kingdom was bankrupt after his death to pay for his reign but is along the lines of "historical importance, reputation and reign".
For historical important Richard the Lionheart is pretty maxed out on that spot as I mentioned. As one of the key leaders of the 3rd crusade (Quite frankly you can call him the leader of the 3rd after Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had died and King Philippe II had returned to France) he led one of the 3 most successful crusades of the Holy Lands beside the 1st and the Barons Crusade. I'd wager of the 5 most known monarchs of Britain, he's 1 of them right beside William the Conqueror, Edward Longshanks, Henry VIII and Queen Victoria.
For Reputation also pretty maxed out as can point to that last bit as well. One of the most well known and remembered for chivalry and piety. In part also expanded thanks to the Robin Hood legend as well and as a great military general.
His Reign is the weak spot which is why he doesn't deserve that highest of tiers.
So lets try diving this up and scoring him via points and seeing where he would end up at okay? 1-5 points each category then add up to score. Easily a 4-5 on both Historical Importance and Reputation. His Reign a 1-2.
9-12 score for him. I personally would consider a 3-4 in Dungeon, 5-7 Low, 8-10 Mid, 11-13 High and 14-15 Crowning Glory. With that score of 9 (lowest end) to 12 (highest end). That on average puts him straddling the mid point between the Mid and High Tier.
@@crazyand2099 If that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard you've been living under a rock buried beneath a hill. It had nothing to do with England... And? So what? Nobody said it had to do with nor does it even remotely need to do with England in the slightest. There is huge historical importance, and he just happened to be king. Nobody is denying that. Nowhere is there some magic requirement that to be a historically important king do you have to have been a great ruler.
Reputation actually can be quite important. It's only partially based off of the fame of your reign at the time you were living as well. You could be very unpopular but still end up with a great reputation vis a vis William the Conqueror. You can be a poor king but still have a very great reputation such as Richard the Lionheart. You are actually preaching something completely and totally irrelevant. It actually has absolutely nothing to do with being good nor with being famous. It is entirely and exclusively how history views it.
Who says he had to be one of the top 10 generals of all time to be a great general? Who says he had to have never lost a battle? Actually you're dead wrong, he was a great general. Yes he lost some wars. The Crusade he led wasn't the most or 2nd most successful. He didn't retake Jerusalem. So what? Many of the greatest generals in history lost. Hannibal Barca never conquered Rome. Alexander the Great's conquest ended. Bonaparte had Waterloo. Greatness in generals isn't based on just one success or defeat. It's based on the entirety of their time leading armies. You can lose a war and still be considered a great general. Richard the Lionheart lost at the Crusade to another truly top tier great general in Saladin.
And I would also agree that his father was alsone of the best kings in England.
You should also be aware. I'm not the person that designed this ranked tier list. I am just telling you the reasoning why they put King Richard the Lionheart where he was on the list.
@@crazyand2099 Actually what I said made perfect sense and I was quite clear with defining and explaining everything. Yes, this is a tiered list about English monarchs. It also does matter how they affected England. That's why one of the criteria for where they are placed is how their (reign) was. The person that created the video clearly states the criteria why they made the choice for every placement. The process for placement THEY chose is listed as (HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE, REPUTATION, REIGN). Those are the 3 criteria working in conjunction for why the uploader put each person where he did. Your entire pointless argument here is that you think only reign should determine placement. I'm pretty much done trying to explain to you what made the original video uploader make his placement choices. I wasn't the one that selected the criteria for why he put everybody where he did. I just explained to you how with using his criteria that is where Richard the Lionheart belongs where he placed him.
You also have never needed to be good to be either relevant or to be important. John does have a high historical importance actually. Try scrolling through the rest of the comments on this video and you will see that 7 months ago I even rated John out how I would place him on a tier system using that same 1-5 scoring for reign/reputation/historical importance and listed by saying "His reputation was trash yes. His reign was subpar. His historical important was off the charts astronomically great though." Giving him a 1-1-5 score (7 overall).
AGAIN you push this ridiculous concept that you must win a war to be considered a great general. You have also given absolutely 0 evidence and have only stated your opinion he wasn't that good with his actions in the Crusade. Evidence would be stating out things like the Battle of Arsuf when with only 11000 troops (mostly infantry) he defeated Saladin's 25000 cavalry. The conquest of Cyprus of course as you mentioned being another. Countless skirmishes and battles as well as multiple rebellions and insurrections that were put down. But apparently the only time a battle can be fought and counted is when it's not a rebellion. His Crusade was of huge importance. Alexander the great never lost a battle. That is true. He died though and his conquest ended. Possibly through assassination or possibly through a bacteria and illness that took him. Your example of generals is quite... Interesting and very modern. All of them within the last 200 years. How would you rank Frederick Barbarossa as a general? Almost exclusively his entire battle record was fighting rebellions.
Where would I place Henry II. Using the videos criteria lets see... Historical importance would be huge most likely in the 4-5 range. As he was basically the origin of the Angevin Empire. Was a great general on top of that. His reign also would be fairly mid terms I think. Likely about a 3-4 as many of his choices had long lasting effects. I disagree with the original videos choices on that the death of Thomas Becket should drop him into the lower. For his reputation that's going to be the hardest to put.. A subjectiveness would make me put him at at a lower half end and say a 2-3 on the scale. So to tally that up with low and high ends a 9-12 score using the criteria. That means I agree with you and I would place Henry II in the high tier as well actually.
Henry VIII by establishing the Church of England changed history in such a significant way that it’s hard to see what comes close.
For me George VI would be top tier. Winning WW2 and making Britain back to back world war champions in tough circumstances was quite an achievement.
And he accomplished it despite his personal troubles, a highly admirable feet.
Indeed
I agree
He was a very respected and popular monarch. Also the queen mother was a badass “the most dangerous person in Europe”
I respectfully disagree with a lot of this list. Apparently it's not about how well a king could rule his nation, establish leadership, reign over important legal and philosophical changes, securing the legacy of monarchy or how well life trickled down from the top. It appears to be 100 percent on positive and negative publicity. Richard the lionheart barely set foot in his own country and couldn't secure the throne to his nephew his rightful heir. In the end John usurped the throne right after his death and Richard had even lost the support of his mother. The peasants constantly revolted against royal authority. He was a good crusader but he lost and was captured on his way home. He was a terrible king. Edward the first on the other hand was a great king. Yes he was brutal in dealing with the Scots but that is because by those medieval standard the English king felt they held supremacy over the Island the Scottish king was his vassal. He considered them to be greedy noblemen in revolt. I know braveheart puts him in a very negative light he might in fact be the carbon copy of William the conqueror.
I totally agree with you... Now his anti-semitism upsets me... As for going to war against the Scots, I agree that's what medieval rulers did...
@@jamellfoster6029 Anti Semitic attitudes from 1000 years ago upsets you? Lmfao.
@@solaurelian7638 They upset me.
Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t descended from Queen Victoria. His wife was her granddaughter though.
Also his mother’s sister was the wife of Edward VII
Henry VII is super underrated, glad you placed him at the top. He stabilized England and put in on the path to glory. Might be England’s best king tbh.
I couldn't get past Henry II being in low tier... THEN you put Richard I above him and Henry the III as equal and I had to stop =P You should read The Plantagenets by Dan Jones! It has a lot of amazing info. I think I would have listed similar to you before reading more about the Plantagenets, but honestly (as even you noted) Richard hardly was ever in England, and his crusading led him into some scandals that got him in so much trouble England had to pay massive fines to get him back (and honestly Eleanor of Aquitaine was probably the true 'ruler' of England during most of his time as king) and Henry III was one of the most boring kings in the Plantagenet era -- I would have normally thought this made him maybe a good person but then he went on full anti-Semitic mode making him boring but still evil. Henry II did some amazing stuff and controlled a massive area, I admit he was a bit of a jerk (especially to his family) but in terms of being a monarch he was solid
Agreed- Richard I was rubbish as a king of England! Great warrior (mostly), decent Duke of Aquitaine... barely set foot in England, got himself captured & sent England broke paying his ransom, & got himself killed cos he didn't put on full armour when he did a reccy of a castle X'D Eleanor tho? Ruling in his name for most of his 10-year-reign, & doing a fairly decent job, other than paying her idiot son's ransom. And yeah- solid's a good verdict on Henry II. He got stuff done, & sorta got England back on track after the Anarchy- the agreement that he would succeed Stephen was pretty significant in itself.
I sorta think Henry III's boring just cos I have a massive blank spot in my knowledge there- I haven't read about him, or even heard much about him incidentally- but could that be cos he _was_ boring?... And I'd not heard of him going all anti-Semitic, just his son expelling the Jews, but yeah, that's not endearing. I've seen Dan Jones' Platagenet docos, which were really interesting, but a book referring to sources etc would be good, & I don't have one just on the Plantagenets, just one about Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Yeah I thought he would be either in the high tier or crowning glory. I would also have put Henry VIII in either mid or low tier. For somebody who got lucky in the sense that he inherited a full treasury from his father Henry VII and then got the largest windfall ever when he got all the church lands and sold them at a discount price to his leading nobles (which guaranteed him their support) he accomplished very little. When he died England still was a second rate power in Europe and while the creation of a national church was huge, he didn't have a lot of other successful internal reforms like say a Henry II. Henry I as a mid tier seems too low also. He helped build up the administration of the state and scared the nobles keeping the peace well.
The main accomplishments of Henry (if you ignore any religious arguments which are very subjective eg; that England did better cause it wasn’t subservient to the Catholic church)
Are;
1. Massive centralisation and reduction of noble power, thereby increasing the power of the central government and Parliament, giving England an edge over most of the European powers.
2. Commission of the Royal Navy
3. Further expansion of education and “New men:” essentially, bureaucrats and councillors of state from the burgher or poor classes and not from the nobility.
Achievement Number 1 is pretty big! But is alleviated by the hugely bloody way Henry did it, and the financial blunders Henry continually made.
So happy you put Henry V in the top, he is my favourite King of England and as a leader of men his will was pure steel and he was said to have been a very pious Christian too, him and Edward III are my top kings in my opinion alongside William I, I was surprised that you put Edward I in mid but we all have different opinions on things in life of course and respect yours mate, anyway fantastic video, had to sub you buddy! 👍😉
im pressed that Queen Jane was excluded from the list.. no coronation but still reigned for 9 days
Me too, she'd end up in the dungeon anyway lol.
In my opinion, if they don’t have a coronation, then There not King/Queen.
What other kings/ queen, didn’t get a coronation, I don’t know much
@@sampletext8229 Queen Jane and her nine day reign disapprove of this message
@@sampletext8229Edward VIII was not crowned but he was still the king for some time. Actually the UK is nowadays the only European monarchy where the monarch is crowned.
@@feministfascist She was an usurper
George II Was George III’s grandfather not his father, George II’s son was Prince Frederick however he died before his father did. Great video tho!!
Agrees
I don’t think Richard I deserves high tier. He does have a great legacy but he was a negligent and foolhardy ruler who doesn’t deserve anything higher than mid tier. I also think you were a bit harsh on Henry II. Henry was a quite important and good king even though he isn’t very remembered, however the deserves at least mid tier.
Thanks for your comment :) i’ll be revisiting the different royal families in seperate tier videos soon so i’ll be reviewing the list. One of the reasons I made this video is for debate, so I’m glad you’ve been able to watch it and offer different opinions. Thanks for your comment again :)
👌
Richard was a warrior king, and to stabilise his kingdom he established an efficient government to govern over his kingdom while he was gone, he reconquered lost land in Normandy and handed Saladin his ass, multiple times. Despite often not being there to govern his kingdom, he made sure that his absence wouldn’t see it crumble through his care when choosing governors.
Richard the Lionheart is arguably the most legendary king in English history. A good argument could be made that he’s S tier based on his prestige alone.
@@doesnotexist305 but he is not even English ,don’t leave on England don’t speak others languages than French and Oc and tried to sell England/London many times
I know Richard 1 ( lionhearted) is both famous and popular, but he was hardly ever in England, and also spent a fortune fighting his bloody wars, leaving his country broke. I don’t think he should be rated so high!
Thanks for your comment :) He’s a crusading king which is pretty cool. Remember this is an opinion video and at some point i’ll be revisiting this to look in depth at the different dynasties, e.g Tudor, Stuarts etc. Thanks for your comment, I like making these because it inspires debate :)
TheUntoldPast yeah, love the debates these vids spark! Thanks heaps for all the work you do to both make and upload these!
@@jennifermcdonald5432 No problem, thank you for taking your time to watch my videos! :) Have a lovely day and once again thank you so much for the comment!
Being a crusading king kind of puts him up there with Alexander and Napoleon.
William I (1066-1087)
William II (1087-1100)
Henry I (1100-1135)
Stephen (1135-1154)
Henry II (1154-1189)
Richard I (1189-1199)
John (1199-1216
Louis (1216-1217
Henry III (1217-1272)
Edward I (1272-1307)
Edward II (1307-1327)
Edward III (1327-1377)
Richard II (1377-1399)
Henry IV (1399-1413)
Henry V (1413-1422)
Henry VI (1422-1461)
Edward IV (1461-1470)
Henry VI (1470-1471)
Edward IV (1471-1483
Edward V (1483)
Richard III (1483-1485)
Henry VII (1485-1509)
Henry VIII (1509-1547)
Edward VI (1547-1553)
Mary I (1553-1558)
Elizabeth I (1558-1603)
James I (1603-1625)
Charles I (1625-1649)
Interregnum (1649-1660)
Charles II (1660-1685)
James II (1685-1688
Mary II (1688-1694)
William III (1688-1702)
Anne (1702-1714)
George I (1714-1727)
George II (1727-1760
George III (1760-1820)
George IV (1820-1830)
William IV (1830-1837)
Victoria (1837-1901)
Edward VII (1901-1910)
George V (1910-1936)
Edward VIII (1936)
George VI (1936-1952)
Elizabeth II (1952-
Elizabeth II (1952-2022)
Charles III (2022-Present)
Richard "The Lionheart" has become a seemingly polarizing figure in recent years. I would even say perhaps UNDERrated. I DEFINITELY agree with you in putting him near the top. What he did to hold his nation together - and not just during the Third Crusade but for crown and country - has been undervalued by the critisisms regarding his long absences from London. He's always been a fascinatingly robust leader to me who put literally the lives of his people FAR ahead of his personal own.
Henry VIII wasted lots of money on French wars and luxuries, and nearly bankrupted the country even after stealing from the monasteries. He was a terrible king. However, it's impossible to deny his legacy, as he's one of the most famous monarchs of all time.
His life is such a car crash of court drama, casual beheadings , and emotional abuse which helped shape his daughter into Bloody Mary, it’s impossible to turn away!
Plus he’s a great place to get kids interested in history
I think James 1 shouldn’t be in high tier, whilst he did gain a reputation as Rex pacificus his extravagance was a major flaw - At the time England was suffering from bad inflation due to Elizabeth meaning subsidy values were decreasing. Despite this James and his courtiers would lavish themselves in the ‘land of honey’. As well as this James was infamous for giving his favourites many gifts which threatened the economy which really left the situation Charles 1 inherited to be quite dire
Really interesting video, you deserve more views
Thanks for your kind words! :) I’ve got a new video coming this weekend similar to this, where I rank the Anglo Saxon Kings.
Edward 1 deserves S tier
On reflection I possibly was harsh on Edward. Over the next few weeks I’m going to start a series when I look at these kings and queens in detail. Each video will be in detail about one king or queen. Stay tuned and thanks for the comment!
Deionized Apple Juice Edward “Longshanks” knighted one of m6 ancestors. Random thought of the day!
I Think Edward Long-Shanks Deserves High Tier Because I Think He’s Important To History So I Also Think Charles I
Maybe Mid Tier/Low Tier Cause People On The 30th Of January Remember His Death And Also He’s Important Also Edward The VIII Should Be Low Tier Also George The IV Shouldn’t Be In Dungeon
That’s My Opinion Yea I Might Explain Little More
@@errorobbies8907 Edward VIII conspired with the Nazis to depose his brother George VI--with the understanding that Wallis would be named Queen. There is NOTHING lower than that!!!!
Henry II's judicial and legal reforms alone make him high tier.
My understanding is Henry 2 reformed came about because of the Baron's War. Simon de monfort forced his hand (literally) to bring about this change. His son Edward kept the reforms forced on his father in exchange for the Baron's support in defeating de Monfort.
@@stevenleslie8557 you are confusing Henry II and III. Henry II started reforms of the judiciary and how taxes were charged/collected. Henry III was who you were referring to.
Nice video man! Exactly what I was hoping to find
Thanks so much for the nice comment! I’m working on more of these lists at the moment. Hoping to get one on World War 2 Tanks this week! Thanks again :)
Richard III was actually a rather good king despite only being on the throne for two years. He was also rather popular with the people particularly those in the North. He was not even accused of the murders until after his death at Bosworth. Loyalute me lie
I probably would not have started with William the Conqueror. But with Aethelstan about a century before.
This is one of the very few ranking videos that is actually accurate with the facts *cough cough* WatchMojo
Honestly I can’t believe how incorrect WatchMojo can be in the history videos. Great job TheUntoldPast
Hi mate, thanks for your nice comments! Regarding the Scottish monarchs it is something i’d definitely be looking at! Would be very interesting to do! I’ll also be revisiting parts of this list in detail at some point. Thanks again :)
Long live based Longshanks!
Crowning Glory: William the Conqueror, Edward Longshanks, Henry V, Edward IV, Queen Victoria
One of the reasons I enjoy making these style videos is the debate you can have around it! Thanks for the comment! :)
@@TheUntoldPast true, i've put my crowning glory kings/queens based on conquest/war etc whereas you've mixed that with religon, culture etc. depends on what you see as important really
I think Queen Bess should get in there. Oversaw the age of exploration, put out all the fires she’d inherited from her sister and father,defeated the Spanish Armada, and launched a sneaky campaign against him by sending pirates to steal all his gold. Anyone whose war strategy includes ‘send the pirates’ is definitely a glory
@@aikikaname6508 I'd agree with you here! Elizabeth I certainly in my opinion was a great monarch. If not just for overseeing the age of exploration, and the foundations of the Empire which started in her reign! Thanks for your comment mate :)
And Edward iii
i just found this channel, you're very underrated and i hope you continue this type of content :)
Hi! Thanks for this comment, it has made my day :) I'm currently writing another type of tierlist, they take ages to research and write and so on. It should be up next week :) Thanks again!
Maybe you should so one like this, but instead of historical importance, it’s based on how good the king was for the country at the time, so like how benevolent they are, etc.
I’ll be relooking at this list mate to look at more specific parts in time, e.g Tudor era. I’ll be re-ranking them based on what you suggested. Thanks for the comment mate.
As far as benevolent is concerned, henry 6 takes that award. Unfortunately in the Middle Ages being a King who is too nice could get you killed.
Doing it from 1066 in my opinion is a rash decision. I think the best monarchs come from the Anglo- Saxons such as Alfred the great, Edward the elder and Athelstan who are the kings who made England one
Alfred the great wasn't king of England though he was king of Wessex since England wasn't united and different countries then.
Great video! I loved watching it, it was very well thought through. One thing though George II wasn’t George III’s father. Prince Frederick was but he died, George II was his grandfather.
Great video 👍 new subscriber! You also deserve more subscribers.
Thanks for your kind words and your support! I’ll get there with more subs one day! :)
You forgot queen Jane the queen for nine days
That is a good point
It’s just the fact that she was executed before she had a coronation and I know that happened to Edward V, but it was only 9 days and was never declared Queen Jane I
Queen Jane didn't even want to be Queen Jane.
She was Queen for 9 days. She didn’t do any achievement which is why she’s not in the list
I think Henry II should have been much higher, he built and maintained the Angevin kingdom at its peak, controlling over half of France for much of his reign.
Yeah, but that Beckett thing was pretty serious plus he made a mess of the succession by not giving his sons any power to rule. He was very much a man possessed by control.
@@stevenleslie8557 ??? He gave his sons plenty of titles to keep them pacified. Their discontentment was the result of deliberate attempts on the part of Philip Augustus & Eleanor of Aquitaine to turn them against their father. Henry couldn't give them any more power than he already gave them & expect to keep his head.
Plus, Henry wasn't technically *responsible* for the Thomas Beckett thing, & he showed remorse (genuine or politically contrived) for his involvement in it afterwards.
Henry II was not perfect, but he's head-&-shoulders above Richard the Lionheart (Mr. 'lemme go murder 2,700 Saracen prisoners'), John Lackland (his list of non-accomplishments are quite well-known), Henry III (who was so terrible at ruling they had to invent Parliament to do it for him), Edward Longshanks (who exiled the Jews from England, brutally conquered Wales, & attempted to do the same to Scotland), etc.
Compare the worst thing Henry II ever did to his successors & he comes out w/ a sterling reputation.
@@jeandehuit5385 Agreed!
@@stevenleslie8557 First of all, Henry II did not order Beckett to be killed and secondly, he gave his ungrateful sons more than enough responsibility.
@@Thin_Mercury I agree with you. Did you think otherwise?
You should make a follow up by ranking the Scottish Monarchs up to Mary Queen of Scots
William II should be on Low Tier. His reign did not leave any legacy and he is often overshadowed by his brother Henry I
I'm surprised that the 2 Elizabeths are the only queens in the Crowning Glory.
I believe some deserve a bit higher (eg: Henry II, George II, George III, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, Edward VIII, George V and George VI), as they had a bigger impact on history and culture, but that’s just my opinion. It’s a great list though.
Hi! Thanks for your great comment. The reason I made this video was to create debate and I'm glad you have different opinions mate :) I'll be relooking at the list in more detail at times looking at different periods of rule, such as the Tudor or Georgians and re-ranking them. Thanks again :)
TheUntoldPast no, thank you, I have massive appreciation for your videos and you yourself for replying to comments on old videos, thank you for making these history videos.
No problem mate, I enjoy interacting with the comments. Thanks again for your kind words!
Ohh I really enjoyed this video thanks sooo much!!!
Sorry guys accidentally deleted my post.
Btw I think the tier idea is a great idea to list the top best. With my last post I wanted to put five monarchs in No:1 spot.
In my opinion the top best English/British monarchs in tier form is;
1:Edward III, Henry II, Edward I, Ethelstan, Henry I, Edgar the Peaceable, Elizabeth I.
2: Henry V, William the Conqueror, William II, Richard I, George V, George VI, Cnut the Great, Edmund I.
3: Victoria, Henry VIII, George III, Charles II, Anne, Edward IV, Edward VII, Elizabeth II, Stephen, Edmund Ironside, Eadred, Mary II
4: Indifferent tier;
William III, George I, George II, Henry VII, William IV, Henry IV ( I meant indifferent, as in did not care for the country or how they ruled or reigned)
5; Weak tier
Edward the Martyr, Svein Forkbeard, Harold Harefoot, Edward the Confessor, Henry III, Edward II, Henry VI, Edward V, Edward VI, Jane, Empress Maud, James I, George IV, Edward VIII. ( When I mean weak, I meant in terms of, how much support they had, or illness or being a minor and just plain useless)
6: Tyrant tier;
Eadwig, Ethelred Unready, Harthacnut, John, Richard II, Richard III, Mary I, Charles I, James II (This could also apply to William the Conqueror and Henry VIII)
Thanks for this man, a really interesting comment! I like the idea of the tyrant tier! That’s a really cool idea!
@@TheUntoldPast Thanks. Obviously it is my personal opinion, opened to interpretation and debate. I inherited a book collection on English/Monarchs and read all of them front to back, so knowledge is vast.
Did you forget about Alfred the great? he should be at number 1
Tyrant?
Awesome list!
I don't quite understand the criteria for ranking. it seems to be contradictory
Great video subbed
Thanks so much! :)
TheUntoldPast can you maybe rank French, Japanese, or Chinese monarchs/imperials next?
@@thisismychannel4535 Yeah sure! If you give me a few weeks to research then I'm more than happy too! :) Any more suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Might you do other monarchies in the future? I can’t find anyone else do this like you do. Learned a lot from your videos. Would love to see more
Hi! I’m currently working on a few more tierlist videos on different monarchies and presidents/emperors and rulers. Can I ask a question, how did you come across this video? Over the pst few days the viewcount has gone up a lot so was intrigued on where it’s being shown :) thanks mate, there should be a new one of these up in the next few weeks!
TheUntoldPast well I happened to look up ranking English monarchs. This video came up and was by far the most in depth. There are lots of tier list videos out there but none like yours. I have since subscribed and am not a fan!
@@TheUntoldPast I looked up "French King tier list" lol
This vid is so interesting and good
I agree with putting William I in the crowning glory tier. I would also mention that his occupation of England was cemented by massive brutality, (The Harrowing of the North for example.). Further he didn't just have a "tendency" towards nepotism. He massively engaged in it. He apparently dispossessed more than 95%, maybe 99% of the high English nobility driving the great majority into poverty or exile. He replaced them with French speaking Aristocrats. Also most of the minor nobility was similarly replaced. Before the conquest Latin and English were the languages of government. After the Conquest French replaced English. English in fact virtually disappeared as a written language for over two centuries. Much of the new ruling nobility, especially the higher Nobility could not be bothered to learn English for quite sometime. The first King of England since the conquest to know English, was of all people, the infamous King John.
The assimilation of the new Nobility into England, as shown by the adoption of English has their first language took centuries. In fact the the First ruler of England since the conquest whose first language was not French was likely Richard II in the late 14th century.
I'm sure being ruled by a new Nobility, different in speech and culture was quite alienating for many of the "native" English.
William I fits virtually all the boxes for being a Great King, a good administrator, war leader, conqueror etc., etc. He also fills many of the boxes for being a terrible person.
If Edward the III being mislead by his mistress (at the end of his life) is the worse thing you can say about him, then he should be crowning glory
I agree
36:05 Tsar Nicholas II didn't actually descend from Victoria. his wife did. he was first cousins to George V through Christian IX tho.
This channel is really underated great vids and very interesting. #ilovehistory
Thank you :) comments like this make my day! Thanks for taking time out of your day to watch!
I think including lasting fame as one of your judging criteria was a mistake. It throws off the ranking of all the other criteria and makes the final standings feel really weird and random (Richard III as the clearest example, being a totally ineffectual ruler placed at the top just for his infamy).
Vicki needs to be at the top!
I can't believe Edward the first is not in the high tier
I think the current queen should be high tier, because she has been very un- influential purely by herself.
I suppose it depends really, as history's gone on the influence of the monarchy has decreased massively. So it depends really on what you can expect. There's been longevity to her reign, in the fact she's the longest reigning monarch.
@@TheUntoldPast the length of the reign does not make a good nor bad monarch.
I wouldn't even have been so generous with 'high' tier either. The best thing she's done so far in my view, is keeping Charles off the throne for as long as she has.
Shes the greatest monarch
The middle tier would be the best. I agree. Length is not equal to quality and in fact, it is lesser than that.
Henry II was an empire builder par excellence. The English Common Law system and the civil service MO of meritocracy were founded by him. This coupled with his the sheer scale of his dominion, from Scotland to the Pyrenees, gained and conquered by skill and force of personality. He deserves S tier. No less. To add credence to this I cite a poll conducted amongst respected British historians in 2015 who were asked to name the greatest monarch of all time. Henry II came third behind Alexander the Great and Elizabeth I. To fault him the becket controversy is simplistic and deluded moralizing at best. Becket was not someone any modern person would find appealing and Henry's position is exactly the position held by the Western World today, namely that the clergy should be held accountable by secular law. Think about the Catholic Church child abuse scandals and the Church sweeping them under the rug. Do you agree that the Church must be liable to the law of the land as any other is? Well, you are in Henry's camp. Every single foreign and domestic policy in England for the next four hundred years from the 12th century can be traced to Henry's reign and his dynamism. And to have Richard the Lionheart in A tier?! A king who only spent just a few months in England in his entire life and reign?! Madness! Not to mention adding the grotesque man-child Henry VIII in the 'crowning glory' tier! What a list. Rather a record of incorrectness I think. However, I mean no offense whatsoever by my comments. You are of course entitled to your opinions. Several of them are just incorrect, alas.
Agreed!
Yeah it seems he placed the monarchs based on popularity (good and bad) over actual individual merit and significance.
@@marufez_4457 It would be nice to have an actual historian rank English monarchs. In the case of Henry II I have never found, read, nor heard any historian who would dispute that he was one of the greatest kings in human history, much less English history.
George 3rd with his grandfather and Father. George 2nd was George 3rds grand father and George 1st was George 3rd’s great grandfather.
I think Henry II should be high tier or crowning glory; I don't think it's entirely fair to put William the Conqueror in crowning glory despite his brutality but exclude Henry II from being even mid-tier because of one murder that he didn't really ask for and even went into humiliating repentance to show the people that he didn't like the murder. Henry II is also pretty famous and historically significant.
Also, I think Victoria should be in crowning glory; she's way more famous and influential than some of the other monarchs you put in the high tier.
richard the 1st's reigning years are incorrect on the documentary incase you never noticed :) v.good documentary :)
Apologies! Thanks for the nice comment man :)
I THINK THAT HENRY II SHOULD BE IN THE MED TIER
“Edward II deserves to go into the dungeon” As if he didn’t already do that irl💀
Would be interested to see a tier list of Scottish Monsrchs
I think you gave Queen Elizabeth II a "gentleman's A" there is no way she ranks with the original Elizabeth or any of the others in the top level who were actual rulers. She's a nice figure head but even on that basis she shouldn't be ahead of Queen Victoria
Would have to side with you hear! Wouldn’t want to be arrested for treason haha!
Don't listen to this baffoon queen victoria is the reason all thoese kids died because of slavery she didn't even abolish it u know the queen gave independence to all the countries
Do tier list on Portuguese monarchy
Hi! I’ll have a research and see what I can do! Stay tuned!
Can you name a Portuguese monarch? I can't.
I would have put Henry II in the high tier due to the way he was able to secure his place as Stephen’s heir after being the victor in the anarchy. Equally, I find the fact that he was able to win back the support of his people by paying the penance of 300 lashings from the monks a wise move, since it helped him secure authority over his rebelling sons. He was able to somewhat secure a legacy for his family, even if his children were very poor rulers. Thomas Beckett’s death was not something he intended, and thus I see his reign to be overall successful, albeit highly flawed.
I definitely think George III should’ve been ranked higher, He funded and payed for the Royal Academy of Arts, Was the first king to study science as part of his education (even had a collection of scientific instruments in his observatory on display) And was a devoted family man who never took a mistress *unlike his predecessor and successor*
Even if he did lose the American War of Independence, he was still one of the coolest monarchs of the 18th century.
I liked this tier list better than the others on YT. And the reason for it is that the others who rate these kings and queens have a pro Catholic bias and as a result put Henry VIII way too low. I am glad to see that someone had the good sense to disregard his marital problems and his treatment of Catholic power (land holdings of the Church). He was a great king.
33:40 You are aware George 3rd is the grandson of George 2nd and Great grandson of George 1st right?
Didn't he state that?
@@stevenleslie8557 He said "father."
Anyone that says Henry 7th should be less than glory knows nothing, he has possibly some of the best traits for a ruler
Agreed. He's pretty much the best king in terms of stewardship and family focus. Other honourable mentions: King Canute, Alfred of Wessex
Your ranking system is horrid, the fact that you put some of the best kings in lower tiers based on singular " negatives" , some of which had nothing to do with their efforts to forward England is pathetic.
Putting Henry II Low Tier because of Thomas Becket , Edward the First only Mid because of his expulsion of the Jews , and the fact that Edward III is not Crowning Glory when he ended Englands homage to France makes my eyes bleed. What kind of nonsense is this ?
Henry I didn't die on a shipwreck, that was his son.
I find it annoying how this is a rank based of how popular the monarchs are now not how good of a monarch they actually were.
Also, Stephen beating Matilda was not a success. I can't believe people always refer to her as a trouble maker trying to take the thrown from the true heir when the invader was Stephen and Matilda was fighting for what was rightfully hers. This is a key tale on the oppression of women and yet she seems to have vanished from history. She was the first Queen. She ruled for 4 years. I'm sorry it just really irritates me how this civil war is just almost completely erased from the history books, when for me this is the most interesting and important part of history.
Richard 1 doesn't deserve his praise.
Henry 7th is underated.
I would argue your placing John Lackland in the dungeon. His reputation was trash yes. His reign was subpar. His historical important was off the charts astronomically great though. His being forced to sign one of the absolute most important documents in world history.. The Magna Carta, should put him far higher on the list. If we are going off of a "5-star ranking system" and averaging the scores... 1 for reign, 1 for reputation, 5 for historical importance. Averaging out to a 2-3 or more concise as a mid tier ruler.
Queen Elizabeth II may still have been Queen as her uncle never had kids... Thus she was the oldest child of his next sibling so possibly still his heiress (well after her Dad)...
33:01 That should be 'his grandfather and great-grandfather, because George II was his grandfather, while his father was prince Fredrick, the son of George II
Henry ii in low tier? You completely disregarded his long and prosperous reign and zoned in on the murder of Thomas beckett. Henry ii was undoubtedly one of the best medieval kings of his Era.
Slight correction: Henry Beauclerc (Henry I) didn’t die in a shipwreck, his son and heir did. Henry I died as a result of eating too many lamprey eels
You should base your rulers on how competent they ruled England, not their darkest hour... I absolutely LOVE your channels, but Richard the lionheart did more damage to England by getting captured and ransomed then Henry the ii did by killing that ungrateful bishop lol
You forgot lady Jane grey
I’ll be covering her in a different video coming up soon! Thanks for the comment mate
Here is my own tier list upto Charles II
Crowning Glory -
William the Conqueror ,
Edward III ( his reign marks the most glorious days of England in the Hundred years war. He delivered continuous victory throughout his long reign. He completely dominated the French and even the Scots. Also Geoffrey Chaucer , the father of English Literature, lived during his reign.)
Henry V ( Re-emergence of England as a superpower in the Hundred years war)
Elizabeth I
High tier -
Edward Longshanks (defeated Simon de Montfort, a powerful Baron. Brought power back to the crown)
Richard the Lionheart
Henry II (Created the Angevin Empire via a combination of marriage and conquest (parts of France belonged to England). Also his wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine , who herself was a great Queen)
Edward IV (Yorkist rise in the War of the roses. Great warrior)
Henry VII ( Ended the war of the roses, Started the tudor dynasty. Patient, shrewd, cunning)
Mid tier (Didn't make any huge mistakes, but didn't do anything amazing either)
Wlliam Rufus
Henry I
Henry IV
James I
Mary I
Other Mid tier (Don't deserve to be in low tier)
Richard III ( though he lost in the end, he fought courageously in the battle of Bosworth. The last King to have died in Battle. Plotted against Edward IV to become KIng of England. Courageous, cunning etc)
Stephen (Bad politician, but a good warrior. Fought well against Empress Matilda, though he lost in the end. I find this period called the Anarchy to be one of the most tensed and violent periods in English history )
Low tier
Henry VIII (killed off many of his wives, egotistical, not exactly talented in politics or war. )
Henry III
Edward V
Edward VI
Dungeon -
Richard II
King John
Edward II
Henry VI
Charles II
Why start from William the Conqueror and not from the first king of England?
I have done another video where I focussed on Anglo Saxon Kings. I decided to go from 1066 onwards beginning at what is sometimes perceived to be the end of the Dark Ages. Cheers for the comment mate.
Starting at 1066 was a good choice. So much of England changed. Language, culture, government, etc.
@@stevenleslie8557 actually not really. That’s a big misnomer. Life for the average citizen (ceorl) didn’t really change. In fact Old English was still being spoken as late as the late 1200s. Also a lot of English customs were started by the Anglo Saxons. The Normans mostly added to it. Then so on and so on. Lastly, the country was still England. The Land of the Anglo Saxons. The Norman conquest didn’t change that. Too me it’s more appropriate to start at the major kings of the English heptarchy like Penda, Ecgfrith, Oswiu, Raedwald, Aethelberht, Offa; then jump to the Ecgbert line of the Cercingas house starting with Ecgbert and Aethelwulf. Then from there go to Alfred the Great to Aethelstan and onward. Then you can go to the Norman kings.
Before watching the video, here is mine up to 1485...:
T1: *NONE*
T2: William I, Henry I, Henry II, Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV
T3: William II, Stephen, Henry III, Henry IV, Henry V
T4: Richard I, Edward II, Richard II, Richard III
T5: John, Henry VI
N/A: Matilda, Henry the Young King, Louis, Edward V, as well as the non-royal de-facto rulers (i.e. Simon De Montfort, Roger Mortimer, etc.) and regents.
Note: The order within each group is chronological, but I would indeed put Henry VI dead last.
I’m surprised Henry VI isn’t in the dungeon as he was useless. Easily manipulated and when he went catatonic for a year after a nervous breakdown he couldn’t run a country at all. He did even respond to his newborn child.
Interesting post! I would move Henry II and Edward I from Low Tier to High Tier, Richard I in the opposite direction. Edward VI should move up to Mid Tier due to his moving the country firmly to Protestantism.
Agreed, Edward the first was maybe the greatest king. Richard I was low. Edward IV would have been the perfect king to restore the rightful rule to the descendants of Edward I's true line to the second son Lionel of Antwerp (York through Anne De Mortimer) over that of third son John of Gaunt. His only failing was he failed to secure his son's reign. But that was due to him dying while his son was young.
Henry II, Edward I, Edward III deserve higher than where you but them. They were powerful effective kings and successful warriors and Henry and Edward were excellent administrators and advocates of law. Henry VII and Henry VII were significant kings adapt in survival but I think them too high. Richard III is one of my favorite kings, but i think you place him too high. I argue apart from his famous or infamous reputation his council of the North and reforms in parliament put him in the mid tier. I would place Anne at about the same level you place William and Mary. George II and III belong in mid tier. Put Queen Victoria in the highest and Edward VII was a great diplomat in so short a reign deserves high tier. I would put the current queen in high tier as well. 🇬🇧 👑
completely 100% agree except Richard the third, I think he should stay high...he's one of my favourite figures in History not just as a king, his controversy and the battle of Bosworth (one of the most famous battles in English history) but his role throughout the entire wars of the roses...the inspiration behind Game of Thrones and one of the most thrilling and popular civil wars not just in English history but European and world history.
Look how popular this video is
ua-cam.com/video/Do7XBxUVJsE/v-deo.html
The wars of the Roses was also the bridge between the 100 years war and the classical era...which saw England begin to continue to rise in power, see much more internal stability and issue important reforms. I think Richard having such a key role in this civil war historical and being so famous in infamy in literature and art as a villain means he deserves the second from highest spot.
Edward I deserves better than mid tier. Anti-semitism was common then.
Thanks for your comment! I’ll be revisiting this video in much more detail at some point focussing on different periods of history.
I’ve read that king Richard 1 said he would have sold England if he could find a buyer, and that, figuratively speaking, his heart was in France where he lived. He also mostly spoke French and only spoke broken English as it was a “common folks” language. If that’s true, wouldn’t that play a role in his ranking?
Should have had Sweyn Forkbeard in here as well as an honorary mention.
If you put Henry II in the low their for the murder of his Archbishop, Henry VIII should be lower since he killed so many people including 2 of his wives.
Do separate ratings by category: ethics, success, military, religious piety, intelligence, political skill, expanding empire, etc?
Wait, you said Henry was left in debt to two wives after divorcing them, but A) he didn’t divorce them, he annulled the marriages, and B) what do you mean by he was in debt to them? Financial debt? It’s not like he had to pay alimony. He did give Anne of Cleves a hefty settlement when she agreed to the annulment, but Catherine of Aragon didn’t get anything from him as far as I know. In emotional/theoretical debt? I mean, again maybe with Anne just ‘cause she agreed to the annulment and made everything a lot smoother for Henry, and maybe to Catherine for her years serving as Queen and her political support, but he certainly didn’t act like he felt he owed her anything. :P
I think that William 1 is the coolest looking one on the list
Henry I died of a surfeit of lampreys. It was his son who died in a shipwreck
Why is Edward VIII mentioned even though he wasn't crowned but Jane Grey isn't considered on this list?
I just found this and couldn't get past you saying that Henry I died in a shipwreck.
No, he didn't.
His son and heir did. Henry reigned for another 15 years. After his death was the period known as The Anarchy.
I almost quit after ranking William the Bastard as 'crowning glory'.
Interesting video…. Though how you can rate Edward I as mid tier is beyond me! George II was a fine delegator …. Britain became a super power under his reign and the public had nothing to do with Edward VIII abdicating… it was the Aristocracy and Parliament who pushed it.