Hello again. Different video today with some opinions on my part. I do not intend on doing many (if any) more videos like this, but I figured it would be a good way to wrap up the English Monarch series. Let me know what you agree or disagree with and happy 4th of July to all of my fellow Americans. Cheers
I agree with your assessment of Henry VIII. The worst people can say about him is that he was execution happy, which for a king isn't whole negative if used properly (not that he did but, he did use it in a way that didn't hinder his kingship)
Hey man. Love your content. But uhhh, seeing alot of really racist/great replacement comments in this comment section. In need of some hygiene and a quick scrub. Don't want stinky folk smelling up the place.
Henry VIIi in C tier while Victoria in D tier just baffles me. I understand that Henry did more things, but his overall effect on England was a destabilizing effect, while Victoria’s was a time of prosperity and stability. I think that makes her the better monarch.
They’re not really comparable, they had different jobs. It probably should be two different lists for when Parliament became more powerful than the monarchy. I think Henry VIII was a pretty horrible tyrant but he isn’t without his influence (independent from Rome, Royal Navy).
not sure how you can think that. Victoria reigned over probably the worst time to be a brit. The industrial revolution was almost hell on earth for your average person.
@@Tohma_EdHe did that by seizing wealth already in the country, by and large - most of the tariff related reforms were in the reign of Edward IV. Henry VII's largest accumulation of wealth was just the result of taking it from his nobles.
@@braytechexoscience2790Ik😈 (hehe) he was the monkey maker not only that when there were revolts Henry VII didn’t execute the rioting mobs but he made them compensation when France invaded Brittany Henry VII send an army to support Brittany for Henry VII have a debt to pay(not money wise but in honor) for Brittany sheltered him during the War of the roses so when Henry send an army to help Brittany instead of fighting France paid Henry to withdraw and the sum doubled the crowns treasury. Henry VII by the end of his reign was the richest man in all of Europe the money maker champion now question is that ethical? No ofc not but is it impressive and a strong King with a mind of stability and moneymaking? Absolutely Yes Let’s just say Henry VII is Tywin Lannister but not that brutal
I'd have to disagree somewhat with Elizabeth II's placement, she led the UK through one of the most transformative periods of it's history, going from a world empire to just another country with decolonization, and then leading the UK through the troubles, the Falklands, Covid etc. Throughout all that she gave the nation a sense of stability and continuity. I think she also did a lot to sustain the popularity of the monarchy. While Charles has had his scandals, I think she raised a good, kind, and sympathetic King, whose reign I think will be remembered well.
She's also stood idly by at the ethic displacement of her people. Her reign has nothing but compromises with utterly disastrous results for the people she was sworn to protect. Not all can be put on her, naturally. But, she's an architect for something sinister down the line for royal authority. Nothing more than a figurehead with a sweet smile.
@@avecaesar8519While this is a true point, I think it’s unfair for you to say it reflects on her as the monarch. In truth, Her Late Majesty had little control over such affairs, this specifically fell under the jurisdiction of the government and Parliament. Otherwise, the Queen was a formidable monarch, she ensured the survival and continuation of the empire into the commonwealth while it was inevitably collapsing. It was her leadership and grace that made the commonwealth countries so loyal to her and the UK. Additionally, she was also one of our greatest diplomats and a resilient leader who served her country until the very end.
She can’t really be credited with either the positives or negatives of British history during her reign because she didn’t have any power and had no influence on these matters.
It’s honestly amusing that some people here think decolonization could have been prevented. There was no way that an exhausted post-WWII Britain was going to hang on to so many subjects against their will. It’s remarkable that the process was as peaceful as it was.
But she wasn't an active participant these werent things handked by her. These were all issues handled by cabinet, I'm sorry, but monarchs without agency don't have the creditations of their parliament and people.
Worse, he actually chose to at first and then it was after the second time that he had to do it. Edward IV the "first time around" was pretty evenhanded. Perhaps to his detriment.
@@PatrickTower-ln7oi In hindsight, absolutely. However, he didn't really comprehend that they'd keep fighting after an utter defeat. It wasn't until people started being executed that sadly the violence ended. Henry VII ended many lives to continue his peace for example. Other than Lambert Simnal, I don't think many of this offenders were given a second chance to prove their loyalty.
Haha when you said Queen Victoria was known for being haughty, with your accent, I heard "a hotty" and nearly spat out my tea haha. I quickly realised what you meant cos in England we pronounce haughty as "horty". Great video though dude!
I was visiting Osborne House and got talking to a guy who was a doctor and said You can see from her colouring that that woman was very highly sexed’. He thought she wore Albert out!
Why from Alfred, that's a scarce two centuries before the start of this playlist. There are many other noteworthy Kings in the centuries prior, such as Ethelbert, Edwin, Oswald, Raedwald, Penda, Offa, Ecghbert, etc.
@@veila0924You could only get so far in Anglo-Saxon history before the sources for what they did and how they lived become very scarce and if you could know if they were trustworthy or not, as there were very few anglo saxon chroniclers at the time and the ones that were there could only go so far with the knowledge they had. The lack of sources also stem from the Viking invasions destroying monasteries where these early kings and their stories had been laid to rest.Bede, though, was a great example of an early english chronicler, but even he didn’t go that far in to the depths of the early Anglo-Saxon monarchies. And also, many of the Kings you mentioned came from their own respective genealogical lineages. Alfred, earlier Ecgbert, come from the same lineage that now leads down to the present British monarchy, so if it was about the “royal family” as a whole then Alfred would be a great start to that.
Queen Victoria should be higher. She had an era named after her for goodness sake. Like Elizabeth I, she was fortunate that the realm prospered under her reign and the British Empire became a global superpower when she was queen/empress.
@@Jack10016 Same logic of Elizabeth II going into B tier Though of the small roles they did have left, morale boosting was one of the more tangible and clear responsibilities. Victoria gets deducted points where Elizabeth doesn't as Victoria really made no effort at all in this aspect and if anything actively took actions to lower morale. Her self seclusion, considering others lesser and obviously not taking steps to hide her own depression from the masses. Plus her treatment of her own family internally is hard to be ignored. That and when you consider how long she reigned for and the advancements of technology that she had little to no hand in being the key reason she gets her own Era and is remembered to begin with it does feel like she's scammed history and is remembered as far more impactful and strong than she ever was.
He was a sensible grown-up (in comparative terms). Which England needed. His son not being a grown-up was because Arthur died unexpectedly. I do think Henry VIII should have also been educated and nurtured in the ways of kingship too, as an insurance policy, but Henry VII decided against that.
This video is so incredibly impressive and I've loved watching your series on all the different monarchs! It's been so interesting to see your opinions on them all- I think personally I would've rated Henry VII significantly higher due to his financial successes and ability to secure his throne by the end of his reign, facing ten years of (relative) peace and security - allowing for the Tudor period to exist. Plus his foreign policy was relatively successful (in comparison to other monarchs of the time) and the fact that he brought about an end to civil war would make him A tier to me so it's interesting to see why your opinion is so different. Once again, great video- can't wait for the next series
Great Video, but have to disagree on Henry VII. There has to be, in my opinion, a seperation of circumstance and individual. Henry's claim is weak sure, but there was nothing he could do about it, the fact he survived therefore as King is even more impressive. The fact he survived was equally not down to luck, but because of his own diplomatic moves that ensured the end of support for rebels by foreign courts. Equally, his domestic policy which you touched on was predicated on preventing any domestic rebellion. Given that there were no major rebellions against him as you noted, he can in this regard be seen as a sucsessful king. Secondarily, in terms of achieving his other goals, this was entirely based around improving crown finances. The Wars of the Roses had destroyed the treasury and Henry did a remarkably job in reparing this, so much of what his son, the famous Henry VIII did, was only possible because of the extensive incomes his father built. I agree that he became too dictatorial towards the end, but its worth noting rebellion was borderline impossible by that point. Henry only became such because he was anxious after Arthur died and he only had one remaining male heir, he was generally far more forgiving and a better king earlier on. End of the day, his primary goal was securing the throne, ending the threat of a reoccurance of the Wars of the Roses, and rebuilding Crown finances, all of which he did. Equally, he suffered no major defeats. Personally, I'd place him at A, but I can see B being fair.
Well said. Thank you for this fair and balanced response. I can see where you are coming from and although I could certainly see a world where I move Henry up to C tier, I feel I would have a difficult time going any higher than that. Nevertheless, you make a compelling argument. Thanks again and Cheers to you.
The fact that Henry Tudor ended The Wars of the Roses and made sure they wouldn't start up again makes it to where he was much better than any of the kings in D or C. Ending constant bloodshed and civil war in your country and creating peace was something England really needed after all the wars against France, like the Hundreds Years War and the already mentioned Wars of the Roses. All of that should place him much higher than what he was placed.
@@DarthDread-oh2ne I never said that The Hundred Years War happened during Henry Tudor's reign, what I meant is that wars like The Hundred Years War and The Wars of the Roses caused death and economic instability in England, and Henry Tudor making peace was something England really needed at the time, they needed a break from wars.
I have to put Elizabeth II in the "S" group. She was in so many ways the most devoted of all the Monaches. Her powers were watered down but she had always proved herself able when given the moment to do so. She reigned with her hands tied behind her back.
The monarch has quite a lot of power but the queen refused to exercise it so everyone thinks the monarch has no power. QE2 was great for her devotion and diplomacy but not great as a monarch.
Thank you for all your work. Some of the best history related content covering the English monarchy on UA-cam. I think doing a similar series covering the french monarchy would be another great arch.
I would say Queen Victoria deserves a higher ranking as the British Empire was at its peak during her reign. Queen Elizabeth II also deserves an A due to the formation of the commonwealth and salvage the remaining British influence after the collapse of the British Empire.
This was so fun! It's so interesting how people view different monarchs. What's an important attribute or accomplishment for someone is different than the opinion of the next person. Love your channel! Thanks so much ❤
Loved this video! Really well made and exceptional information provided! Can't believe Edward VII was put at D tier tho! My favourite King! 😅 But otherwise excellent video and thank you so much for all the amazing videos you have made of the English monarchs, I have loved this journey so much and cannot wait for the next! ❤
Great video! I went along with you and said what I think before you selected and I largely agree. However... S tier: Edward III, Henry V (Agincourt for goodness sake! Had he lived longer, we would have ruled France), Elizabeth I, Victoria (peak of British power), Elizabeth II (extremely popular and kept the monarchy going despite overseeing decolonisation). I'm very surprised at Victoria being D tier and how on earth can George VI be considered higher than Elizabeth II? Charles I should be F tier... not a great king if you lose your head and are replaced by a blood thirsty tirant in my opinion. For me Henry VII has to be A or B, yes he had a weak claim but he stabilised much of the country and ushered in an incredibly successful dynasty after hundreds of years of war. I would also probably rank Anne higher than C simply because of the Act of Union which was so important. French Kings next pleeease
There are 4 monarch where I majorly disagree with your opinion (meaning at least 2 tiers difference). Firstly there is Victoria who was, in my opinion, one of the most successful British monarchs. While she didn't get involved in politics much, especially later on, she oversaw the peak of the British power and influence in which she herself had a not insignificant part. I would have put her in A or B tier. The other 3 are the "usurpers". I agree that Henry IV was an honorable person and a good duke, he was not a very effective king. The fact that he deposed Richard II ate at his legitimacy, which was the main cause for the instability of his reign. He dealt with the rebellions competently bit I would still have put him in C. Next is Richard III, who has some similarities with Henry IV with regard to him being an effective duke and his brother's most ardent supporter. His usurpation (and possibly murder) of his nephews destabilized the kingdom so much that multiple rebellions broke out within his short reign, the last of which got him killed. In my opinion that and F tier. The last one here in Henry VII, who, just like the other two had to battle with his low legimacy. As you have pointed out yourself, it was even more difficult for him because his claim was so obscure. The way he handled the rebellions and pretenders and his diplomatic skill enabled him to leave his son a stable and financially secure realm. Despite the oppressive treatment of his nobles later in his reign, this is B tier for me.
Victoria was just a public face she didn't do much of anything soley attributable to her it just feels disrespectful to the other Kings in B Tier to put somebody who did nothing she didn't conquer England like William or Conquer France like Henry C Tier at best its always hard with the face of the government monarchs but C Tier.
The disrespect on Henry VII is shocking! But someone here wrote a long post to defend him so I'll do another. I have to strongly disagree on Edward III being S-Tier when the guys on A-tier accomplished so much more. Halidon hill, sluys and crecy were nice wins but the long term effects were minimal and he beggared the kingdom with the Hundred years' war. The black death should have helped the lives of the common folk but he planted the seeds which led to the peasant's revolt. When in English history has a rabble come so close to killing a king (2 if you include henry IV) until 1381? The incident also turned Richard II into the man he was.
How can George iii be anything other than an A? The British empire came into its own while he was on the throne. He lost the American colonies but won everywhere else around the globe when France. Spain, and the Netherlands decided to try and take on the British while they were distracted by the American revolution. Not to mention the 7 years war was won during his reign and then napoleon was defeated during his reign.
For the seven years war, GB had the upper hand since 1758 while Georges started to rule in 1760. For the napoleonian wars, there was a regency since 1810.
@@HerrKendys_Kulturkanal Charles 6 of France who was also mad was popular in his lifetime while also being one of the worst medieval king ever. For the modern british monarchy, the kings of england already lost most of their power after the cromwell revolution and the glorious revolution (the bill of rights from William 3 as example). George 3 ruled when when GB became the strongest nation on earth (basically after the 7 years war) but this situation came from the process started after the glorious revolution which culminated with the 7 years war and George 3 seems more like someone who ruled along this process rather than someone who actively participated for this process. Giving a B, A or S tier for a hanover or windsor monarch is hard because they were all more or less figureheads while the medieval monarchs (and also the tudors and maybe the stuarts monarchs) had still enough power to really play an active rôle for england. Another reason for "dismiss" the hanover/windsor monarchs is htat because the title of the video is about monarchs of england which was replaced in 1707 by GB, then any monarch after 1707 shouldn't be ranked.
Yes Henry VII should be an A or B. Even at his most tyrannical he tend to punish people financially rather than torture and death. That has to be a plus. He brought stability and prosperity to England through good management and by largely avoiding wars. His achievements are largely ignored because he was not so charismatic or brutal as his son or predecessor.
Henry was a great banker king, but he was also quite a ruthless man too. Also his propaganda was crazy, he even tried to have it stated he was crowned the day before Bosworth but was forced to back down. Overall I prefer Richard III to Henry VII, but Henry Tudor was an intelligent man.
@@archivesoffantasy5560 I think Richard has been over romanticised. He may not have been the villain of Shakespeare, but he was even more ruthless than Henry. Lord Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had committed not crimes, but Richard had them beheaded.
@@brontewcat I’m judging more on accomplishment than morality, all the monarchs pre 1688 murdered people, usually because they were already a threat, or could potentially become one. HVIII was so paranoid he had an 80 year old York woman murdered, which is despicable, but HVIII still has two important accomplishments and id fake those into consideration when ranking him. Same thing for Richard, in just a two year reign he made many reforms to better the lives of his people. He was one of the greatest law givers in the history of England and subsequently you could say the world because of the influence of the British Empire. I think Richard was a great king, but the actions he took to become king can certainly be scrutinised as morally corrupt. As the video said though, he was in a tough position, there would be people trying to influence Edward V to eventually remove Richard from power.
@@brontewcat Looks like my comment didn’t stay up. I basically said how I rate Richard as a great king for all the reforms he instituted to help better the lives of the people of England. I wouldn’t put it past him to have taken some very immoral choices to have become king though, but it was a very kill or be killed world. He probably thought he was pre-emptively removing future threats.
Thank you, this was great, very interesting, I didn’t always agree with your positions, but that’s fine. Very happy with the lack of demonising of George III.
To be fair here, Richard III didn't destroy the dynasty, Henry VII did, credit where credit is due, this was Tudor's first battle and he managed to hold his own against a seasoned battle commander and veteran of the Cousins' War. I don't know that he personally crossed blades with Richard, but allegedly, his standard-bearer (the father of Charles Brandon future Duke of Suffolk and Henry VIII's brother-in-law) was killed by Richard himself so they might have. Still, Richard was responsible for upholding the Plantagenets, executing Hastings, Richard Grey, and Anthony Woodville without trials was a complete boneheaded move. And offering no explanation for what happened to his nephews was a damning blow to himself, if Henry VII was saying he'd marry Elizabeth of York producing, the boys would have severely weakened Henry's chances, but in not doing so even Yorkists flocked to Henry's banner.
@@juliancain3872 Yorkist were divided as you rightfully point Richard murdering Lord Haesting and others. I just don't see it happening under a unified Yorkist England under Edward V. Possibly with Richard as Lord Protector ironically enough.
Don't completely agree with the rankings but want to thank you for all the great content you've put up over the last few years. I feel like I have a fairly good grasp of the history of the English/British monarch, but your videos were instructive and peppered with details I hadn't been aware of. Much appreciated sir
The one I most disagree with is Anne, she deserves at least A tier. She set Great Britain on its course to Empire. She regularly attended privy council/cabinet meetings and participated in government.
I'm kind of in between you both and would say B tier for Anne. From an emotional standpoint I would certainly put her at A tier because she had a very sad and tragic life and I really do feel bad for her in a lot of ways, but looking at the whole picture including her leadership I think B tier is probably the most accurate assessment of her.
How is Henry 7th so low?? He was solely responsible for ending a 30-year full-on civil war (I know people won't refer to it as a civil war but that's what it was). He secured the country both domestically and internationally by making alliances with historical enemies as he understood it was peace we needed not war and conquering. He showed Europe that you can become one of the grandest and most powerful countries without war and raiding other countries... Sure Spain, France, and the HRE were ahead of us in military might and they had more money but if you take into consideration the fact we had a 100-year war with France and then a 30-year civil war, Henry had us in the best position we could possibly be in and the fact we were still a major player in Europe at that time is a great testament to Henry and his reign as king. Lets us also not forget the fact he was actually a loving husband and father, who only wanted the best for his family and he achieved that by cementing the foundations for a dynasty that would rule England for 118 years! His son Henry 8th inherited a Kingdom that was in a strong position both politically and financially without any opposition thanks only to his father as Henry 7th eliminated all enemies and made political reforms that centralized the power and put money in the crown's coffers. I for one have always had Henry as my favourite and best monarch in English history as he quite literally had it all... Won a battle for his crown, stabilised the country, made key political and economic reforms, centralised power, made quick work of any opposition, put the country over his own vanity and made alliances with countries rather than warring with them and built the structure that would allow his descendants to pass the crown to one another in peace and without opposition for over 100 years. He may have gotten a bit crazy with old age but I think thats common for most kings of England so you cant just judge him on that. Oh and he didn't just secure the country by killing and going to battle with all those who opposed him, he united both sides peacefully by marriage to his wife and avoided actual conflict and death with his opposers unless it was 100% necessary and his only course of action... Henry 7th - S TIER!!
Hey there Brief History! 👋💖 Wow, this is a fantastic video. I really enjoyed it and you put a lot of thought and time into creating this video. So a huge thank you for your channel content! I hope you and our American friends to the south (and north and west 😊) had an awesome Fourth of July! 🇺🇲🎆🇨🇦🎆
I'm a Richard III fan and I think Henry VII should be A or S tier. He literally did everything right uniting England and bringing it out of feudalism. The fact that he was able to do it all despite sketchy credentials should be a boon, not a bane. He was accepted despite them and that's very telling. He was wicked smart too. Also, unless it's for literally no reason, usurping shouldn't be held against them. It's usually because the country needs better or more trustworthy leadership. His claim was dogsh*t but historians are uncovering that the clause banning them from the throne was not properly added as someone unknown just wrote it in on the margins instead of with parliamentary approval. So however weak, it was still wasn't a completely fraudulent claim.
Really great list, and I do like how you didn't just go for what would be the pop culture ratings like putting Victoria as an S tier. Good recognizing the flaws of those who are often overrated as well as not being completely dismissive of the good achievements of monarchs who ultimately fell short such as Charles I and James II. Really great video over all and well worth the watch.
Putting a king into A tier who butchered the Irish and Scottish left and right and then conned the English into believing they'd never been conquered... Well, at least you're consistent with your decision-making. Still a very fun video to watch and a good idea, entertaining means of getting an overview of them all once again. Thanks :)
Absolutely not. B at best, definitely NOT an A, though. Richard III was a B or a C king. He reinvented and modernised the judicial system. Those who put him in a D dier are the Shakesperian haters who confuse a historical play with reality.
From your video on him I definitely expected you'd have a lot to say about Henry IV. Before watching it he was kind of just known for being Henry V's father, whereas your video on him definitely added a lot more insight on his character and made me have a lot more perspective. Easily some of your best work imo, keep up the good content.
My take on the English and Danelaw kings: Aethelstan - A Edmund I - C Edred - C Edwry - F Edgar - B Edward the martyr - D Ethelred the unready - F Edmund Ironside - F Cnute - A Harold Harefoot - D Harthacnut -C Edward the Confessor - A Harold Godwin - F
@@STJukes and logically you either start at the beginning or don’t bother? William the conqueror conquered england, so logically England had to exist before he arrived - choosing to start with him is like comparing American presidents and starting with Lincoln
@@STJukes As far as we know it was Aethelstan who was the first king to call the all the Anglo Saxon kingdoms England, but his father Edward the elder may have been king of all the Anglo Saxons too without calling it England. It’s a bit of a ‘soft launch’ however there is more than 100 years between Aethelstan and William the conqueror 🤷🏻🤷🏻
Aethelstan was the first king of all England, though Edward was the first king of all Saxons and East Anglia Danelaw. Edward the Confessor was a great king. I agree, he should have started with the English kings of England.
Ranking Henry IV above Henry V is kinda weird but I agree with the other placements. With the exception of Henry VII as I think he should be higher ending the wars of the roses and centralizing royal authority.
Lady Jane Grey was one of the most tragic. A brilliant mind and a brave pure heart. She didn't even want the throne, but took it out of duty. She was then executed shortly after. She would have been a great Queen or great just left alone in Bradgate Park Leicestershire. I wish I could have been her advisor and sworn sword 😂❤
Putting Richard II in the same tier as John is wrong, just wrong. Especially when one of the justifications is the Peasant's Revolt, which not only happened when Richard was 14 and so wasn't even actively ruling at the time, but was also defused almost single-handedly by Richard himself. He also actively sought peace with France (which might have kept Aquitaine in English hands long-term).
Also people gloss over the fact that Richard II’s close advisors/friends etc were removed/murdered first, which led to him having the vendetta he did. Overall he’s still quite a bad king though, but I think he can perhaps be a bit over-hated.
no anglo-saxon kings? a unified kingdom of england existed for 150 years before the norman conquest! sad! glad to see edward iii made it to s tier though :)
Only in the Saxon dynasty will you find 3 S tier kings in a row. Alfred Edward and Athelstan.Granted only 1 of them ruled over " England " but 3 legends in a row for sure..
Henry VII shone been slap in the middle at high C or low B, his reign was characterised by stability, strong consolidation, diplomatic cunning and military skill to remedy any mistakes he made or circumstances against him
Henry VII military skill? He hid behind his guard at Bosworth. He was a great banker king and good at foreign relations (though getting the English monarchy married into the Habsburgs was arguably actually a bad idea) but my point is he wasn’t a warrior.
The house of Hanover rise seems to be when the monarchs became little more than figurehead but it could be trace back when Charles 1 was deposed and executed.
The monarch has quite a lot of power. QE2 has given us the opinion that they have little because she never exercised it. But there are too many laws which we shouldn't have, which she and KC3 chould have blocked. Too many wars which we shouldn't have entered. And Boris Johnson should have been sacked when he tried to prorogue parliament but the queen did nothing. It's not that the monarchs have little power, it's just that our monarchs haven't been strong enough.
Apologies for a late reply here, I've always felt that in the modern day the Royals at least in the UK on paper still technically wield power over parliament, in actuality though once they utilise this power they make themselves a threat to parliament and realistically don't win out given that the UK is run through democracy and the popular vote isn't going to be in favour of the party that at first glance seems to horde extreme wealth and luxury and shy away from state issues. Their job in modern day is primarily to be impartial to any politics to avoid sparking protest either against them for their views or against parliament with their word as a weapon. That and practically they provide a huge amount of tourism value for the UK as they are arguably the most famous still-existing monarchy so bring a lot of wealth through that aspect. You could also consider the morale and value they provide here as their visits and speeches often provide a boost in that aspect. Even on a smaller scale, recently my Dad retired after working 50+ years in the public sector and was invited to the royal garden party for doing so, small things like this go a long way for patriotism.
I could be persuaded to agree with most of your ratings. The only ones I completely disagree with are Henry VII (A or B), Victoria (S), and Edward VII (B), who are three of my personal favorites. It was nice to see you rated Charles II where you did, though. I love the dutiful queens but have a soft spot for the kings that knew how to party with style. 🙂
I definitely don't think Victoria deserves S tier, LOL. Certainly not D tier either like Brief History gave, but I think calling her one of the greatest monarchs of Britain of all time is a bit of a stretch. She was fine for the most part but still spent much of her reign alone and sad and didn't really do anything historically significant compared to many monarchs before her. I think B tier is by far the most reasonable ranking for her, maybe even a high C.
Henry V is the ultimate definition of a king, an absolute warrior who fought at agincourt and killed many men whilst fighting alongside his men,he even had his crown cut off in half.
I thought your comment on William IV regarding his relationship to Queen Victoria's mother was interesting. You seem to deduct points for this. I think that his issues with the Duchess of Kent were due to the fact that he was trying to make sure that Victoria was prepared to rule on her own, and not become a puppet for mommy and John Conroy. That seems like a positive to me.
The only one I think you got wrong was Edward VI - he was a reigning monarch, and his zealotry, I believe, can't be attributed to his handlers alone. He at least belongs in D with his sister Mary - they essentially canceled one another out.
I do really like how, even though you did make this based on your opinions of each monarch, you still use historical context and seem to at least try to not be super biased. It makes for a much more interesting ranking, imo
I dont agree with Elizabeth II at B she is an S she has made the monarchy last if it wasnt for her we probably wouldnt have a monarchy today. She fixed all the problems of the monarchy like the patriarchy and she gave everyone hope. She helped set up the Commonwealth and single handily helped keep our relations strong as everyone loved her from Biden to Kim Jon Un
Wonderful synopsis of all the British monarchs. I was expecting that I would have big disagreements with some of your rankings, but surprisingly, except for 1 or 2 minor quibbles, I agreed with most all of them!
One thing you missed about an already S-tier king (Edward III) is that he was the king who essentially established the now fundamental constitutional convention that Parliament (and the House of Commons in particular) has the ultimate "power of the purse". Edward III went out of his way to ensure that both Commons and Lords (merchants and landowners at the time, basically) had a financial stake in any action (especially wars) that required a lot of taxes to be raised. It enabled the English (and British) to punch WAY above their demographic weight in European and then world affairs. No other English/British monarch did anything more momentous for the future history of the world...
So, I wonder why you didn't include the Anglo Saxon Kings in your series? I can imagine that there's not much information on some of them like Edward the Martyr and such but would still like to know your reasoning.
Henry VIII is easily F tier. Not only did he execute 70k mostly innocent people during his reign, but he also executed a lot of his closest political advisors. Not to mention he lost battles and wars left and right which almost fully bankrupted England. And btw during Mary I's reign not even 300 people were executed so I don't know where you got info from.
Good video. Don't agree with a few choices, but that's the beauty of everyone being allowed their own opinion depending on their perspective and interpretation. But I find it it interesting that you spent the longest time on Richard III, the king who reigned the least (apart from Edward V, who didn't rule although he was given a number)
Well Richard III is one of the most fascinating characters out of all of history so it makes sense. For me he’s among the best kings (S or A) but I’m glad the video at least had a nuanced view instead of just putting him in F (although obviously people are within their right to put him in the tier they want).
Missed some HUGE details on George III. Oversaw the abolishment of slavery and encouraged Britain to fight against napoleon. Although he never saw the conclusion of that war from isolation, Britain wouldn’t have won without his initial influence. Both of these factors are astronomically more significant than the colonies.
I get why these types of videos always start with the Norman invasion, but I kinda wish they would start with the Anglo Saxon and Danish kings who held the title prior. It’s always just felt strange to me how like 180-140 years, depending on wether you count Alfred or Æthelstan as the first King of England, is just so often ignored.
Charles I and James II have to be F tier.. despite anything else they may have done to lose the throne to your own acts of sheer stupidity has to rank you a failure. I would also argue Henry II has to be A tier as the founder of the Angevin Empire
So people who unsuccessfully tried to correct their country from going down the toilet should be F tier, but the people who perpetrated or gave consent to its ruin (like Henry 8, Elizabeth, William III) should be higher?
@@Consume_Crash Charles the 1st was so much in tune with his Fathers opinion of the “Devine Right of Kings” he could not see there was a deal to be made with Parliamentarians which would have kept him on the throne but not with Absolute Power.. he turned his back on it and lost. his throne and his head. James the 2nd was even more blinkered , Engalnd was overwhelmingly Protestant at that time, if he had not gone around moving Catholics into positions of Power and if he had agreed that his Protestant daughter from his first marriage would take the throne upon his death rather than his Catholic son form his 2nd marriage then he too could have lived out his days in quiet contentment as king.. he chose not to read the room.
@@NPA1001 The Charles I war and his attempts at peace with all sides is subsequent to the fact that the civil war would not have happened had it not been for radical Protestantism. I'm not saying Charles is A tier, but the "divine right of kings" is not specific enough to explain in and of itself why someone is bad. "Divine right" is just what Christian kingship was conceived as across the board, no? Your characterization of James II makes it sound like in order to be a good king he should've just not had any standards lol, kind of like how some people described Charles II. Why should he have just let the kingdom fall into the hands of people who wanted to destroy it (which they basically did after the Glorious Revolution). The other thing is just about consistency. As is typical on these tierlists, James II gets knocked for something like "putting Catholics into positions of power", yet Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth don't get docked for perpetuating dramatic religious (and thus cultural and political) change in a country that wasn't asking for it and was in many cases resistant?
It's always interesting how different these are depending on the person. Perhaps because it's hard comparing medieval absolute monarchs to modern constitutional monarchs. I think Edward VI deserves more than NA, his passion for Protestantism is still felt today. Without him between Henry VIII and Mary I, I think Catholicism would have crept further back in under Mary but her task proved almost impossible due to his radical reforms. But it's hard judging a child/teenager. Henry VIII might have broken from Rome but had little interest in Protestantism. Although without Henry VIII, I genuinely think there wouldn't be a monarchy today. He took England out of the hands of the Pope, who was becoming more corrupt and was in the pocket of the Roman Emperor. I don't see a Catholic absolute monarch surviving to the present day.
Breaking from Rome and codifying the separation it led to the civil war and nonsense theology/philosophy which has also helped contribute to America being as weird as it is.
You need to read Alison Weir’s A Tudor Queen and her World. It vindicates Henry VII as a good king and a good husband (using well reasoned arguments). Also, Henry’s main argument to the throne was basically: “I won the battle and killed the usurper”. He only married Elizabeth of York to pacify the Yorkists (though Weir makes a good argument that they did fall in love after their marriage).
Regarding William the Conqueror, I know medieval monarchs and justice were pretty brutal in general but was the genocide of over 100k people by forced starvation really a normal level of brutality for the time?
You don't mention Henry VIII debasing the currency. He deserves to be D tier at the very highest. He was a terrible person and monarch. Also, anyone else feel like "played favorites" is code for "was gay"? 🤨
Honestly, I think Charles is going to end up as one of history's less remembered monarchs. He came to the throne very late in life, and probably won't have to chance to do very much, especially as it looks doubtful that anything of particular note is going to happen during his reign. Both of his predecessors in the position of coming to the throne late in life after a long-lived parent, George IV and Edward VII, are better known for their time as Princes of Wales than as kings and Charles as Prince of Wales was a lot less scandalous. The best he can probably hope for at this point is to be remembered as one of the less controversial kings.
This is an interesting list. You seem to really value military success. I might give a little more weight to lawgiving, diplomacy, building, stability, etc. In that light, I might move Edward III down a notch (he saddled England with a ton of debt, and all of his conquests in France were lost and England entered a really weak period in the HYW, which most of the English today conveniently forget). For opposing reasons, I might move Henry I or Edward I up a bit. I also think you're underrating both Henry V and Edward IV as politicians and diplomats. Ditto for Henry VII, who did a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances and ultimately stabilized the monarchy that set the stage for England's Renaissance apogee under Elizabeth I. You seem to ding Edward IV for being a usurper, which is not something you ding Henry IV, and I think it is inarguable that he had a better claim than Lancastrians (the English fought the HYW ostensibly because they thought that you could inherit through the female line) Also weird to rate the Hanovarians (incld Victoria) so low. This is the height of the British Empire, surely they should be given some credit for that. Okay, sure the monarchy wasn't as powerful, but in my mind that's a good thing and these monarchs shouldn't be dinged for their country peacefully evolving while still remaining incredibly strong internationally. Victoria is the D tier is criminal imo
Hello again. Different video today with some opinions on my part. I do not intend on doing many (if any) more videos like this, but I figured it would be a good way to wrap up the English Monarch series. Let me know what you agree or disagree with and happy 4th of July to all of my fellow Americans. Cheers
The irony that you posted this on the USA’s Independence Day! Poor old King George III just turned in his grave 😂
Why didnt you include charles iii was it not on the tierlist app?
@@kvskang3561 I think he said in the video that it was bevause King Charles III’s reign has not yet ended. He does explain in the video though.
I agree with your assessment of Henry VIII. The worst people can say about him is that he was execution happy, which for a king isn't whole negative if used properly (not that he did but, he did use it in a way that didn't hinder his kingship)
Hey man. Love your content. But uhhh, seeing alot of really racist/great replacement comments in this comment section. In need of some hygiene and a quick scrub. Don't want stinky folk smelling up the place.
Don’t forget that King John also lost the Crown Jewels while fleeing his enemies. Total git.
that can be taken literal and figurative
And he considered converting to Islam as well. History could have been a lot different
@@AceEagle9898 I see he's TwoTierKier of that era
@@AceEagle9898 Well King John I would have had to be circumcised after converting to Islam. 🕌🕋
@@kashfiaislam9995 Maybe the reason he didn't. Either way, a totally useless monarch
Henry VIIi in C tier while Victoria in D tier just baffles me. I understand that Henry did more things, but his overall effect on England was a destabilizing effect, while Victoria’s was a time of prosperity and stability. I think that makes her the better monarch.
I like that he is more critical of Victoria but yeah, she should be C tier the same as Henry VIII.
They’re not really comparable, they had different jobs. It probably should be two different lists for when Parliament became more powerful than the monarchy. I think Henry VIII was a pretty horrible tyrant but he isn’t without his influence (independent from Rome, Royal Navy).
not sure how you can think that. Victoria reigned over probably the worst time to be a brit. The industrial revolution was almost hell on earth for your average person.
Ok here’s my disagreement: Henry VII should get more credit for securing his dynasty. It was everything but inevitable in 1485
Agreed, the biggest gripe I have with the tier list is Henry VII.
Yeah I agree as well in fact he deserve A he not only build up a broken nation but he made it one of the wealthiest nation in Europe
@@Tohma_Ed, agreed - the fact Henry VII did very well on the financial front is the main reason I'd put him as A or B.
@@Tohma_EdHe did that by seizing wealth already in the country, by and large - most of the tariff related reforms were in the reign of Edward IV. Henry VII's largest accumulation of wealth was just the result of taking it from his nobles.
@@braytechexoscience2790Ik😈 (hehe) he was the monkey maker not only that when there were revolts Henry VII didn’t execute the rioting mobs but he made them compensation when France invaded Brittany Henry VII send an army to support Brittany for Henry VII have a debt to pay(not money wise but in honor) for Brittany sheltered him during the War of the roses so when Henry send an army to help Brittany instead of fighting France paid Henry to withdraw and the sum doubled the crowns treasury.
Henry VII by the end of his reign was the richest man in all of Europe the money maker champion now question is that ethical? No ofc not but is it impressive and a strong King with a mind of stability and moneymaking? Absolutely Yes
Let’s just say Henry VII is Tywin Lannister but not that brutal
I'd have to disagree somewhat with Elizabeth II's placement, she led the UK through one of the most transformative periods of it's history, going from a world empire to just another country with decolonization, and then leading the UK through the troubles, the Falklands, Covid etc. Throughout all that she gave the nation a sense of stability and continuity. I think she also did a lot to sustain the popularity of the monarchy. While Charles has had his scandals, I think she raised a good, kind, and sympathetic King, whose reign I think will be remembered well.
She's also stood idly by at the ethic displacement of her people. Her reign has nothing but compromises with utterly disastrous results for the people she was sworn to protect. Not all can be put on her, naturally. But, she's an architect for something sinister down the line for royal authority. Nothing more than a figurehead with a sweet smile.
@@avecaesar8519While this is a true point, I think it’s unfair for you to say it reflects on her as the monarch. In truth, Her Late Majesty had little control over such affairs, this specifically fell under the jurisdiction of the government and Parliament. Otherwise, the Queen was a formidable monarch, she ensured the survival and continuation of the empire into the commonwealth while it was inevitably collapsing. It was her leadership and grace that made the commonwealth countries so loyal to her and the UK. Additionally, she was also one of our greatest diplomats and a resilient leader who served her country until the very end.
She can’t really be credited with either the positives or negatives of British history during her reign because she didn’t have any power and had no influence on these matters.
It’s honestly amusing that some people here think decolonization could have been prevented. There was no way that an exhausted post-WWII Britain was going to hang on to so many subjects against their will. It’s remarkable that the process was as peaceful as it was.
But she wasn't an active participant these werent things handked by her. These were all issues handled by cabinet, I'm sorry, but monarchs without agency don't have the creditations of their parliament and people.
My jaw almost dropped when you put Victoria in the D tier
RIGHT! ME TOO and Elizabeth II should be an S.
I agree.
No human being in History, has overseen more far-reaching influence, than Victoria.
Bar none!
@@dr.johnathancrane5822 Nah B tier is decent enough for Elizabeth. Victoria should have been a bit higher tho.
I gotta say it, these ancient kings had a great taste in fashion.
They aren’t considered to be ancient yet but your point remains 👍
Henry V definitely deserves to be atleast the same rank as his Dad
Definitely. He was a great king.
I mean William 'the Conqueror' isn't exactly bad company to be with.
Crazy to think he would’ve been king of France if he live 2 more months
Hey, man. I respect your opinion but in Edward the fourth time ; you cannot keep a rival claimant to your throne alive.
Worse, he actually chose to at first and then it was after the second time that he had to do it. Edward IV the "first time around" was pretty evenhanded. Perhaps to his detriment.
@@ジ金What he should have done is have Henry VI executed after Towton and then gone after Margaret Of Anjou and Prince Edward of Lancaster
@@PatrickTower-ln7oi In hindsight, absolutely. However, he didn't really comprehend that they'd keep fighting after an utter defeat. It wasn't until people started being executed that sadly the violence ended. Henry VII ended many lives to continue his peace for example. Other than Lambert Simnal, I don't think many of this offenders were given a second chance to prove their loyalty.
Thanks for the explanation, Edward the fourth
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍👍
Haha when you said Queen Victoria was known for being haughty, with your accent, I heard "a hotty" and nearly spat out my tea haha.
I quickly realised what you meant cos in England we pronounce haughty as "horty".
Great video though dude!
As an American myself he has a regional accent that is different from mine, so I also heard "hotty". Hell, so did the captions.
I was visiting Osborne House and got talking to a guy who was a doctor and said You can see from her colouring that that woman was very highly sexed’. He thought she wore Albert out!
Henry VII is an underrated King.
And remains so here. Fear not, real historians do not underrate him.
Putting things back together after the war of the roses was no small feat!
Yeah D Tier for Henry VII is crazy and I say that as someone who prefers Richard III.
Love this content. Could you do a series on the Saxon kings of England from at least Alfred the Great?
Why from Alfred, that's a scarce two centuries before the start of this playlist. There are many other noteworthy Kings in the centuries prior, such as Ethelbert, Edwin, Oswald, Raedwald, Penda, Offa, Ecghbert, etc.
@@veila0924You could only get so far in Anglo-Saxon history before the sources for what they did and how they lived become very scarce and if you could know if they were trustworthy or not, as there were very few anglo saxon chroniclers at the time and the ones that were there could only go so far with the knowledge they had. The lack of sources also stem from the Viking invasions destroying monasteries where these early kings and their stories had been laid to rest.Bede, though, was a great example of an early english chronicler, but even he didn’t go that far in to the depths of the early Anglo-Saxon monarchies.
And also, many of the Kings you mentioned came from their own respective genealogical lineages. Alfred, earlier Ecgbert, come from the same lineage that now leads down to the present British monarchy, so if it was about the “royal family” as a whole then Alfred would be a great start to that.
Queen Victoria should be higher. She had an era named after her for goodness sake. Like Elizabeth I, she was fortunate that the realm prospered under her reign and the British Empire became a global superpower when she was queen/empress.
Queen Victoria belongs in B category
She never did anything tho, she just sat sat in her castles being sad
@@SpikeArmadayou can say that about every monarch after George III though.
@@Jack10016 I don't deny that, although I think George VI did some stuff during ww2. Mostly keeping morale up
@@Jack10016 Same logic of Elizabeth II going into B tier
Though of the small roles they did have left, morale boosting was one of the more tangible and clear responsibilities. Victoria gets deducted points where Elizabeth doesn't as Victoria really made no effort at all in this aspect and if anything actively took actions to lower morale. Her self seclusion, considering others lesser and obviously not taking steps to hide her own depression from the masses. Plus her treatment of her own family internally is hard to be ignored.
That and when you consider how long she reigned for and the advancements of technology that she had little to no hand in being the key reason she gets her own Era and is remembered to begin with it does feel like she's scammed history and is remembered as far more impactful and strong than she ever was.
I disagree completely with Henry VII, he was far from flashy but he was pragmatic and turned England into a great and powerful nation.
He was a sensible grown-up (in comparative terms). Which England needed. His son not being a grown-up was because Arthur died unexpectedly. I do think Henry VIII should have also been educated and nurtured in the ways of kingship too, as an insurance policy, but Henry VII decided against that.
100%. Absolutely outrageous to put him in D tier, definitely at least B if not A
This video is so incredibly impressive and I've loved watching your series on all the different monarchs! It's been so interesting to see your opinions on them all- I think personally I would've rated Henry VII significantly higher due to his financial successes and ability to secure his throne by the end of his reign, facing ten years of (relative) peace and security - allowing for the Tudor period to exist. Plus his foreign policy was relatively successful (in comparison to other monarchs of the time) and the fact that he brought about an end to civil war would make him A tier to me so it's interesting to see why your opinion is so different. Once again, great video- can't wait for the next series
Great Video, but have to disagree on Henry VII.
There has to be, in my opinion, a seperation of circumstance and individual. Henry's claim is weak sure, but there was nothing he could do about it, the fact he survived therefore as King is even more impressive. The fact he survived was equally not down to luck, but because of his own diplomatic moves that ensured the end of support for rebels by foreign courts. Equally, his domestic policy which you touched on was predicated on preventing any domestic rebellion. Given that there were no major rebellions against him as you noted, he can in this regard be seen as a sucsessful king.
Secondarily, in terms of achieving his other goals, this was entirely based around improving crown finances. The Wars of the Roses had destroyed the treasury and Henry did a remarkably job in reparing this, so much of what his son, the famous Henry VIII did, was only possible because of the extensive incomes his father built.
I agree that he became too dictatorial towards the end, but its worth noting rebellion was borderline impossible by that point. Henry only became such because he was anxious after Arthur died and he only had one remaining male heir, he was generally far more forgiving and a better king earlier on.
End of the day, his primary goal was securing the throne, ending the threat of a reoccurance of the Wars of the Roses, and rebuilding Crown finances, all of which he did. Equally, he suffered no major defeats.
Personally, I'd place him at A, but I can see B being fair.
Well said. Thank you for this fair and balanced response. I can see where you are coming from and although I could certainly see a world where I move Henry up to C tier, I feel I would have a difficult time going any higher than that. Nevertheless, you make a compelling argument. Thanks again and Cheers to you.
The fact that Henry Tudor ended The Wars of the Roses and made sure they wouldn't start up again makes it to where he was much better than any of the kings in D or C.
Ending constant bloodshed and civil war in your country and creating peace was something England really needed after all the wars against France, like the Hundreds Years War and the already mentioned Wars of the Roses.
All of that should place him much higher than what he was placed.
It was because of Henry the six incompetent that England lost the Hundred Years’ War.
@@DarthDread-oh2ne We are talking about Henry 7th
@@DarthDread-oh2ne I never said that The Hundred Years War happened during Henry Tudor's reign, what I meant is that wars like The Hundred Years War and The Wars of the Roses caused death and economic instability in England, and Henry Tudor making peace was something England really needed at the time, they needed a break from wars.
I have to put Elizabeth II in the "S" group. She was in so many ways the most devoted of all the Monaches. Her powers were watered down but she had always proved herself able when given the moment to do so. She reigned with her hands tied behind her back.
How did she reign when she didn't do anything?
The monarch has quite a lot of power but the queen refused to exercise it so everyone thinks the monarch has no power. QE2 was great for her devotion and diplomacy but not great as a monarch.
@@buni1934 hey now she put a lot of effort into protecting the family nonce from the law!
Elizabeth II is F. Lost everything in her reign. Never token resistance. Arguably a traitor.
@@buni1934 you are confusing reign with rule
Everything you make is great thank you so much
Keep up the good work
Despite my earlier post, I respect the work that must have gone into making this video and I agree with almost all of your grading.
Thank you for all your work. Some of the best history related content covering the English monarchy on UA-cam. I think doing a similar series covering the french monarchy would be another great arch.
I would say Queen Victoria deserves a higher ranking as the British Empire was at its peak during her reign. Queen Elizabeth II also deserves an A due to the formation of the commonwealth and salvage the remaining British influence after the collapse of the British Empire.
What does that have to do with Victoria personally though?
This was so fun! It's so interesting how people view different monarchs. What's an important attribute or accomplishment for someone is different than the opinion of the next person. Love your channel! Thanks so much ❤
Loved this video! Really well made and exceptional information provided! Can't believe Edward VII was put at D tier tho! My favourite King! 😅 But otherwise excellent video and thank you so much for all the amazing videos you have made of the English monarchs, I have loved this journey so much and cannot wait for the next! ❤
This is an excellent variance! Please do more of these types of videos 🙏
Great video! I went along with you and said what I think before you selected and I largely agree.
However... S tier: Edward III, Henry V (Agincourt for goodness sake! Had he lived longer, we would have ruled France), Elizabeth I, Victoria (peak of British power), Elizabeth II (extremely popular and kept the monarchy going despite overseeing decolonisation). I'm very surprised at Victoria being D tier and how on earth can George VI be considered higher than Elizabeth II?
Charles I should be F tier... not a great king if you lose your head and are replaced by a blood thirsty tirant in my opinion. For me Henry VII has to be A or B, yes he had a weak claim but he stabilised much of the country and ushered in an incredibly successful dynasty after hundreds of years of war. I would also probably rank Anne higher than C simply because of the Act of Union which was so important. French Kings next pleeease
There are 4 monarch where I majorly disagree with your opinion (meaning at least 2 tiers difference). Firstly there is Victoria who was, in my opinion, one of the most successful British monarchs. While she didn't get involved in politics much, especially later on, she oversaw the peak of the British power and influence in which she herself had a not insignificant part. I would have put her in A or B tier.
The other 3 are the "usurpers". I agree that Henry IV was an honorable person and a good duke, he was not a very effective king. The fact that he deposed Richard II ate at his legitimacy, which was the main cause for the instability of his reign. He dealt with the rebellions competently bit I would still have put him in C. Next is Richard III, who has some similarities with Henry IV with regard to him being an effective duke and his brother's most ardent supporter. His usurpation (and possibly murder) of his nephews destabilized the kingdom so much that multiple rebellions broke out within his short reign, the last of which got him killed. In my opinion that and F tier. The last one here in Henry VII, who, just like the other two had to battle with his low legimacy. As you have pointed out yourself, it was even more difficult for him because his claim was so obscure. The way he handled the rebellions and pretenders and his diplomatic skill enabled him to leave his son a stable and financially secure realm. Despite the oppressive treatment of his nobles later in his reign, this is B tier for me.
Victoria was just a public face she didn't do much of anything soley attributable to her it just feels disrespectful to the other Kings in B Tier to put somebody who did nothing she didn't conquer England like William or Conquer France like Henry C Tier at best its always hard with the face of the government monarchs but C Tier.
The disrespect on Henry VII is shocking! But someone here wrote a long post to defend him so I'll do another. I have to strongly disagree on Edward III being S-Tier when the guys on A-tier accomplished so much more. Halidon hill, sluys and crecy were nice wins but the long term effects were minimal and he beggared the kingdom with the Hundred years' war. The black death should have helped the lives of the common folk but he planted the seeds which led to the peasant's revolt. When in English history has a rabble come so close to killing a king (2 if you include henry IV) until 1381? The incident also turned Richard II into the man he was.
Henry Bolingbroke actually did have Richard II killed that’s how he was able to usurp the throne and become Henry IV
Thanks For this! Love tier lists! Please next conside covering the Habsburgs
Welcome back! Love your content ❤❤❤❤
How can George iii be anything other than an A? The British empire came into its own while he was on the throne. He lost the American colonies but won everywhere else around the globe when France. Spain, and the Netherlands decided to try and take on the British while they were distracted by the American revolution. Not to mention the 7 years war was won during his reign and then napoleon was defeated during his reign.
For the seven years war, GB had the upper hand since 1758 while Georges started to rule in 1760.
For the napoleonian wars, there was a regency since 1810.
@@robert-surcouf He wa still an extremely popular King and played a major role in forming the modern British monarchy that we know today
@@HerrKendys_Kulturkanal Charles 6 of France who was also mad was popular in his lifetime while also being one of the worst medieval king ever.
For the modern british monarchy, the kings of england already lost most of their power after the cromwell revolution and the glorious revolution (the bill of rights from William 3 as example).
George 3 ruled when when GB became the strongest nation on earth (basically after the 7 years war) but this situation came from the process started after the glorious revolution which culminated with the 7 years war and George 3 seems more like someone who ruled along this process rather than someone who actively participated for this process.
Giving a B, A or S tier for a hanover or windsor monarch is hard because they were all more or less figureheads while the medieval monarchs (and also the tudors and maybe the stuarts monarchs) had still enough power to really play an active rôle for england.
Another reason for "dismiss" the hanover/windsor monarchs is htat because the title of the video is about monarchs of england which was replaced in 1707 by GB, then any monarch after 1707 shouldn't be ranked.
@@robert-surcouf I agree it should be two separate lists, one before 1688 and one after.
Yes Henry VII should be an A or B.
Even at his most tyrannical he tend to punish people financially rather than torture and death. That has to be a plus.
He brought stability and prosperity to England through good management and by largely avoiding wars.
His achievements are largely ignored because he was not so charismatic or brutal as his son or predecessor.
Henry was a great banker king, but he was also quite a ruthless man too. Also his propaganda was crazy, he even tried to have it stated he was crowned the day before Bosworth but was forced to back down. Overall I prefer Richard III to Henry VII, but Henry Tudor was an intelligent man.
@@archivesoffantasy5560 I think Richard has been over romanticised. He may not have been the villain of Shakespeare, but he was even more ruthless than Henry. Lord Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had committed not crimes, but Richard had them beheaded.
@@brontewcat
I’m judging more on accomplishment than morality, all the monarchs pre 1688 murdered people, usually because they were already a threat, or could potentially become one. HVIII was so paranoid he had an 80 year old York woman murdered, which is despicable, but HVIII still has two important accomplishments and id fake those into consideration when ranking him. Same thing for Richard, in just a two year reign he made many reforms to better the lives of his people. He was one of the greatest law givers in the history of England and subsequently you could say the world because of the influence of the British Empire. I think Richard was a great king, but the actions he took to become king can certainly be scrutinised as morally corrupt. As the video said though, he was in a tough position, there would be people trying to influence Edward V to eventually remove Richard from power.
@@brontewcat I do agree with you though that Henry VII probably deserves somewhere around a low A.
@@brontewcat Looks like my comment didn’t stay up. I basically said how I rate Richard as a great king for all the reforms he instituted to help better the lives of the people of England. I wouldn’t put it past him to have taken some very immoral choices to have become king though, but it was a very kill or be killed world. He probably thought he was pre-emptively removing future threats.
Thank you for this. I love it!!! Keep doing this kind of content. I can watch this over and over.
I cant believe it been 3 years. Im excited to see where you take us next, there are a lot of good suggestions in the comments.
Thank you, this was great, very interesting, I didn’t always agree with your positions, but that’s fine. Very happy with the lack of demonising of George III.
Indeed. Although I would have put him higher
Finally Edward IV finally getting the respect he deserve. God i hate Richard destroyed a 400 year old dynasty.
To be fair here, Richard III didn't destroy the dynasty, Henry VII did, credit where credit is due, this was Tudor's first battle and he managed to hold his own against a seasoned battle commander and veteran of the Cousins' War. I don't know that he personally crossed blades with Richard, but allegedly, his standard-bearer (the father of Charles Brandon future Duke of Suffolk and Henry VIII's brother-in-law) was killed by Richard himself so they might have. Still, Richard was responsible for upholding the Plantagenets, executing Hastings, Richard Grey, and Anthony Woodville without trials was a complete boneheaded move. And offering no explanation for what happened to his nephews was a damning blow to himself, if Henry VII was saying he'd marry Elizabeth of York producing, the boys would have severely weakened Henry's chances, but in not doing so even Yorkists flocked to Henry's banner.
@@juliancain3872 Yorkist were divided as you rightfully point Richard murdering Lord Haesting and others. I just don't see it happening under a unified Yorkist England under Edward V.
Possibly with Richard as Lord Protector ironically enough.
@fratta21 Yeah, if there was an afterlife, I'm pretty sure Edward was waiting for him with a steele chair.
Don't completely agree with the rankings but want to thank you for all the great content you've put up over the last few years. I feel like I have a fairly good grasp of the history of the English/British monarch, but your videos were instructive and peppered with details I hadn't been aware of. Much appreciated sir
The one I most disagree with is Anne, she deserves at least A tier. She set Great Britain on its course to Empire. She regularly attended privy council/cabinet meetings and participated in government.
I'm kind of in between you both and would say B tier for Anne. From an emotional standpoint I would certainly put her at A tier because she had a very sad and tragic life and I really do feel bad for her in a lot of ways, but looking at the whole picture including her leadership I think B tier is probably the most accurate assessment of her.
Lmao, William of Orange set Britain on that course. Anne did little to add anything to his reforms
@@TrompetterJanKlaassenincorrect she did which was commendable considering her abysmal health
How is Henry 7th so low??
He was solely responsible for ending a 30-year full-on civil war (I know people won't refer to it as a civil war but that's what it was).
He secured the country both domestically and internationally by making alliances with historical enemies as he understood it was peace we needed not war and conquering.
He showed Europe that you can become one of the grandest and most powerful countries without war and raiding other countries... Sure Spain, France, and the HRE were ahead of us in military might and they had more money but if you take into consideration the fact we had a 100-year war with France and then a 30-year civil war, Henry had us in the best position we could possibly be in and the fact we were still a major player in Europe at that time is a great testament to Henry and his reign as king.
Lets us also not forget the fact he was actually a loving husband and father, who only wanted the best for his family and he achieved that by cementing the foundations for a dynasty that would rule England for 118 years!
His son Henry 8th inherited a Kingdom that was in a strong position both politically and financially without any opposition thanks only to his father as Henry 7th eliminated all enemies and made political reforms that centralized the power and put money in the crown's coffers.
I for one have always had Henry as my favourite and best monarch in English history as he quite literally had it all... Won a battle for his crown, stabilised the country, made key political and economic reforms, centralised power, made quick work of any opposition, put the country over his own vanity and made alliances with countries rather than warring with them and built the structure that would allow his descendants to pass the crown to one another in peace and without opposition for over 100 years.
He may have gotten a bit crazy with old age but I think thats common for most kings of England so you cant just judge him on that.
Oh and he didn't just secure the country by killing and going to battle with all those who opposed him, he united both sides peacefully by marriage to his wife and avoided actual conflict and death with his opposers unless it was 100% necessary and his only course of action...
Henry 7th - S TIER!!
Hey there Brief History! 👋💖 Wow, this is a fantastic video. I really enjoyed it and you put a lot of thought and time into creating this video. So a huge thank you for your channel content! I hope you and our American friends to the south (and north and west 😊) had an awesome Fourth of July! 🇺🇲🎆🇨🇦🎆
Always love a good historical leader tierlist
Enjoying all your podcasts , I’ve watched and listened to all , keep ‘em coming 👍
Elizabeth I will always be my favourite monarch 👍
I'm a Richard III fan and I think Henry VII should be A or S tier. He literally did everything right uniting England and bringing it out of feudalism. The fact that he was able to do it all despite sketchy credentials should be a boon, not a bane. He was accepted despite them and that's very telling. He was wicked smart too.
Also, unless it's for literally no reason, usurping shouldn't be held against them. It's usually because the country needs better or more trustworthy leadership.
His claim was dogsh*t but historians are uncovering that the clause banning them from the throne was not properly added as someone unknown just wrote it in on the margins instead of with parliamentary approval. So however weak, it was still wasn't a completely fraudulent claim.
I’d put Mary 1 in c tier because she tried to correct her father’s mistake.
Really great list, and I do like how you didn't just go for what would be the pop culture ratings like putting Victoria as an S tier. Good recognizing the flaws of those who are often overrated as well as not being completely dismissive of the good achievements of monarchs who ultimately fell short such as Charles I and James II. Really great video over all and well worth the watch.
Very inconsistent metrics undermine this presentation.
Putting a king into A tier who butchered the Irish and Scottish left and right and then conned the English into believing they'd never been conquered... Well, at least you're consistent with your decision-making.
Still a very fun video to watch and a good idea, entertaining means of getting an overview of them all once again. Thanks :)
Henry VII in D tier? What the hell? He was my immediate thought for S tier personally... arguably the best monarch we ever had...
"arguably" is a bit much no?
@@christopher2487 Everything is arguable. No?
I would put him in c highest shouldn't be any where near s
He was a literally king he neglected his children a pervert and wasn’t that good of a king and made England bankrupt he should be at least F tier
Absolutely not. B at best, definitely NOT an A, though. Richard III was a B or a C king. He reinvented and modernised the judicial system. Those who put him in a D dier are the Shakesperian haters who confuse a historical play with reality.
Jolly good to see this video. Excellent.
From your video on him I definitely expected you'd have a lot to say about Henry IV. Before watching it he was kind of just known for being Henry V's father, whereas your video on him definitely added a lot more insight on his character and made me have a lot more perspective. Easily some of your best work imo, keep up the good content.
My take on the English and Danelaw kings:
Aethelstan - A
Edmund I - C
Edred - C
Edwry - F
Edgar - B
Edward the martyr - D
Ethelred the unready - F
Edmund Ironside - F
Cnute - A
Harold Harefoot - D
Harthacnut -C
Edward the Confessor - A
Harold Godwin - F
Im sorry but starting the list with William the Conqueror is insulting - Aethelstan was the first king of England, or even Edward the Elder!
Gotta start somewhere.
@@STJukes and logically you either start at the beginning or don’t bother? William the conqueror conquered england, so logically England had to exist before he arrived - choosing to start with him is like comparing American presidents and starting with Lincoln
@@thomassbowmann Was there a first King of England? I assumed it was just something that gradually became a thing.
@@STJukes As far as we know it was Aethelstan who was the first king to call the all the Anglo Saxon kingdoms England, but his father Edward the elder may have been king of all the Anglo Saxons too without calling it England. It’s a bit of a ‘soft launch’ however there is more than 100 years between Aethelstan and William the conqueror 🤷🏻🤷🏻
Aethelstan was the first king of all England, though Edward was the first king of all Saxons and East Anglia Danelaw. Edward the Confessor was a great king.
I agree, he should have started with the English kings of England.
Lost all credibility by putting Elizabeth II in B tier.
I agree, far too high
@@Foxygrandpa1912 no,no,no far to low.
Far too low. At least A, but I’d argue for S
Really liked your whole series on the monarchs, great job, you should do one on the French monarchs starting with Clovis if possible!
Ranking Henry IV above Henry V is kinda weird but I agree with the other placements. With the exception of Henry VII as I think he should be higher ending the wars of the roses and centralizing royal authority.
Lady Jane Grey was one of the most tragic. A brilliant mind and a brave pure heart. She didn't even want the throne, but took it out of duty. She was then executed shortly after. She would have been a great Queen or great just left alone in Bradgate Park Leicestershire. I wish I could have been her advisor and sworn sword 😂❤
Putting Richard II in the same tier as John is wrong, just wrong. Especially when one of the justifications is the Peasant's Revolt, which not only happened when Richard was 14 and so wasn't even actively ruling at the time, but was also defused almost single-handedly by Richard himself. He also actively sought peace with France (which might have kept Aquitaine in English hands long-term).
Also people gloss over the fact that Richard II’s close advisors/friends etc were removed/murdered first, which led to him having the vendetta he did. Overall he’s still quite a bad king though, but I think he can perhaps be a bit over-hated.
no anglo-saxon kings? a unified kingdom of england existed for 150 years before the norman conquest! sad! glad to see edward iii made it to s tier though :)
Sadly many people either don't care or don't even know England was a thing prior to 1066.
Only in the Saxon dynasty will you find 3 S tier kings in a row. Alfred Edward and Athelstan.Granted only 1 of them ruled over " England " but 3 legends in a row for sure..
Henry VII shone been slap in the middle at high C or low B, his reign was characterised by stability, strong consolidation, diplomatic cunning and military skill to remedy any mistakes he made or circumstances against him
Henry VII military skill? He hid behind his guard at Bosworth. He was a great banker king and good at foreign relations (though getting the English monarchy married into the Habsburgs was arguably actually a bad idea) but my point is he wasn’t a warrior.
I would love a version of this series you’ve done with the English Kings and Queens with the French Monarchs
The later monarchs had little actual power. They shouldn't even be considered.
That’s my biggest problem with this list lol
The house of Hanover rise seems to be when the monarchs became little more than figurehead but it could be trace back when Charles 1 was deposed and executed.
Yeah monarchs had less power after 1215 Magna Carta
The monarch has quite a lot of power. QE2 has given us the opinion that they have little because she never exercised it. But there are too many laws which we shouldn't have, which she and KC3 chould have blocked. Too many wars which we shouldn't have entered. And Boris Johnson should have been sacked when he tried to prorogue parliament but the queen did nothing. It's not that the monarchs have little power, it's just that our monarchs haven't been strong enough.
Apologies for a late reply here,
I've always felt that in the modern day the Royals at least in the UK on paper still technically wield power over parliament, in actuality though once they utilise this power they make themselves a threat to parliament and realistically don't win out given that the UK is run through democracy and the popular vote isn't going to be in favour of the party that at first glance seems to horde extreme wealth and luxury and shy away from state issues.
Their job in modern day is primarily to be impartial to any politics to avoid sparking protest either against them for their views or against parliament with their word as a weapon. That and practically they provide a huge amount of tourism value for the UK as they are arguably the most famous still-existing monarchy so bring a lot of wealth through that aspect.
You could also consider the morale and value they provide here as their visits and speeches often provide a boost in that aspect. Even on a smaller scale, recently my Dad retired after working 50+ years in the public sector and was invited to the royal garden party for doing so, small things like this go a long way for patriotism.
I love this. Could you possibly do one for the consorts of England and the UK?
Some of them were complete badasses.
The portrait of Edward IV looks remarkably like Lord Farquaad from Shrek.
I could be persuaded to agree with most of your ratings. The only ones I completely disagree with are Henry VII (A or B), Victoria (S), and Edward VII (B), who are three of my personal favorites. It was nice to see you rated Charles II where you did, though. I love the dutiful queens but have a soft spot for the kings that knew how to party with style. 🙂
I definitely don't think Victoria deserves S tier, LOL. Certainly not D tier either like Brief History gave, but I think calling her one of the greatest monarchs of Britain of all time is a bit of a stretch. She was fine for the most part but still spent much of her reign alone and sad and didn't really do anything historically significant compared to many monarchs before her. I think B tier is by far the most reasonable ranking for her, maybe even a high C.
Henry V is the ultimate definition of a king, an absolute warrior who fought at agincourt and killed many men whilst fighting alongside his men,he even had his crown cut off in half.
I thought your comment on William IV regarding his relationship to Queen Victoria's mother was interesting. You seem to deduct points for this. I think that his issues with the Duchess of Kent were due to the fact that he was trying to make sure that Victoria was prepared to rule on her own, and not become a puppet for mommy and John Conroy. That seems like a positive to me.
Queen Anne should be a B at least and Elizabeth an A, glad you got George VI right
The only one I think you got wrong was Edward VI - he was a reigning monarch, and his zealotry, I believe, can't be attributed to his handlers alone. He at least belongs in D with his sister Mary - they essentially canceled one another out.
You are missing THE TRUE English kings ...
I Barely knew who WIlliam iii was but now hes one of my all time favourate monarchs
Are you going to start on the French Monarch? I think that would be an amazing new series! Love the videos! 💚💚💚💚💚
I do really like how, even though you did make this based on your opinions of each monarch, you still use historical context and seem to at least try to not be super biased. It makes for a much more interesting ranking, imo
Henry VII also was good at handling money and restored the Royal treasury.
And he outlawed private armies.
I dont agree with Elizabeth II at B she is an S she has made the monarchy last if it wasnt for her we probably wouldnt have a monarchy today. She fixed all the problems of the monarchy like the patriarchy and she gave everyone hope. She helped set up the Commonwealth and single handily helped keep our relations strong as everyone loved her from Biden to Kim Jon Un
should've started with Alfred tbf considering his blood still runs in the Windsors to this day
Being British I would have put QEII in S tear but I appreciate your opinion.
Lizzy is in a box
@@van7915we get it already
Wonderful synopsis of all the British monarchs. I was expecting that I would have big disagreements with some of your rankings, but surprisingly, except for 1 or 2 minor quibbles, I agreed with most all of them!
George VI and Elizabeth II were definitely S-tier.
One thing you missed about an already S-tier king (Edward III) is that he was the king who essentially established the now fundamental constitutional convention that Parliament (and the House of Commons in particular) has the ultimate "power of the purse".
Edward III went out of his way to ensure that both Commons and Lords (merchants and landowners at the time, basically) had a financial stake in any action (especially wars) that required a lot of taxes to be raised. It enabled the English (and British) to punch WAY above their demographic weight in European and then world affairs. No other English/British monarch did anything more momentous for the future history of the world...
So, I wonder why you didn't include the Anglo Saxon Kings in your series? I can imagine that there's not much information on some of them like Edward the Martyr and such but would still like to know your reasoning.
This was awesome! I'm gonna watch all your other videos now! Would you be able to do the French Monarchs next?
Thanks BH! This was fun. I mostly agree 😅
Henry VIII is easily F tier. Not only did he execute 70k mostly innocent people during his reign, but he also executed a lot of his closest political advisors. Not to mention he lost battles and wars left and right which almost fully bankrupted England.
And btw during Mary I's reign not even 300 people were executed so I don't know where you got info from.
Good video. Don't agree with a few choices, but that's the beauty of everyone being allowed their own opinion depending on their perspective and interpretation. But I find it it interesting that you spent the longest time on Richard III, the king who reigned the least (apart from Edward V, who didn't rule although he was given a number)
Well Richard III is one of the most fascinating characters out of all of history so it makes sense. For me he’s among the best kings (S or A) but I’m glad the video at least had a nuanced view instead of just putting him in F (although obviously people are within their right to put him in the tier they want).
Personally i would have put Edward VIII in the NA catagory, he never acctually went through a coronation nor did he really perform as a king.
Missed some HUGE details on George III. Oversaw the abolishment of slavery and encouraged Britain to fight against napoleon. Although he never saw the conclusion of that war from isolation, Britain wouldn’t have won without his initial influence. Both of these factors are astronomically more significant than the colonies.
I get why these types of videos always start with the Norman invasion, but I kinda wish they would start with the Anglo Saxon and Danish kings who held the title prior.
It’s always just felt strange to me how like 180-140 years, depending on wether you count Alfred or Æthelstan as the first King of England, is just so often ignored.
@stevvvvveperryfalse. England was a united and unitary kingdom from 927 onwards. what you have said is literally, factually incorrect.
Charles I and James II have to be F tier.. despite anything else they may have done to lose the throne to your own acts of sheer stupidity has to rank you a failure. I would also argue Henry II has to be A tier as the founder of the Angevin Empire
So people who unsuccessfully tried to correct their country from going down the toilet should be F tier, but the people who perpetrated or gave consent to its ruin (like Henry 8, Elizabeth, William III) should be higher?
@@Consume_Crash Charles the 1st was so much in tune with his Fathers opinion of the “Devine Right of Kings” he could not see there was a deal to be made with Parliamentarians which would have kept him on the throne but not with Absolute Power.. he turned his back on it and lost. his throne and his head. James the 2nd was even more blinkered , Engalnd was overwhelmingly Protestant at that time, if he had not gone around moving Catholics into positions of Power and if he had agreed that his Protestant daughter from his first marriage would take the throne upon his death rather than his Catholic son form his 2nd marriage then he too could have lived out his days in quiet contentment as king.. he chose not to read the room.
@@NPA1001 The Charles I war and his attempts at peace with all sides is subsequent to the fact that the civil war would not have happened had it not been for radical Protestantism. I'm not saying Charles is A tier, but the "divine right of kings" is not specific enough to explain in and of itself why someone is bad. "Divine right" is just what Christian kingship was conceived as across the board, no?
Your characterization of James II makes it sound like in order to be a good king he should've just not had any standards lol, kind of like how some people described Charles II. Why should he have just let the kingdom fall into the hands of people who wanted to destroy it (which they basically did after the Glorious Revolution). The other thing is just about consistency. As is typical on these tierlists, James II gets knocked for something like "putting Catholics into positions of power", yet Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth don't get docked for perpetuating dramatic religious (and thus cultural and political) change in a country that wasn't asking for it and was in many cases resistant?
It's always interesting how different these are depending on the person. Perhaps because it's hard comparing medieval absolute monarchs to modern constitutional monarchs.
I think Edward VI deserves more than NA, his passion for Protestantism is still felt today. Without him between Henry VIII and Mary I, I think Catholicism would have crept further back in under Mary but her task proved almost impossible due to his radical reforms. But it's hard judging a child/teenager. Henry VIII might have broken from Rome but had little interest in Protestantism. Although without Henry VIII, I genuinely think there wouldn't be a monarchy today. He took England out of the hands of the Pope, who was becoming more corrupt and was in the pocket of the Roman Emperor. I don't see a Catholic absolute monarch surviving to the present day.
Breaking from Rome and codifying the separation it led to the civil war and nonsense theology/philosophy which has also helped contribute to America being as weird as it is.
QE II deserves A category, imo. But I’ll settle for B+
You need to read Alison Weir’s A Tudor Queen and her World. It vindicates Henry VII as a good king and a good husband (using well reasoned arguments). Also, Henry’s main argument to the throne was basically: “I won the battle and killed the usurper”. He only married Elizabeth of York to pacify the Yorkists (though Weir makes a good argument that they did fall in love after their marriage).
Good video despite a few glaring errors.
Regarding William the Conqueror, I know medieval monarchs and justice were pretty brutal in general but was the genocide of over 100k people by forced starvation really a normal level of brutality for the time?
Very cool and interesting 😎
Shame that the list didn't start 50 years earlier. Then the real S-tier king would have been included.
Ethelred the Unready?
@gunkulator1 Cnut the Great
Would you be interested in doing a series on kings of France?
My thoughts exactly!
Spanish Kings also with Charles V & Philip II are greatest monarchs when Spanish Empires were at golden peak
Thank you for your opinion.
You don't mention Henry VIII debasing the currency. He deserves to be D tier at the very highest. He was a terrible person and monarch.
Also, anyone else feel like "played favorites" is code for "was gay"? 🤨
Honestly, I think Charles is going to end up as one of history's less remembered monarchs. He came to the throne very late in life, and probably won't have to chance to do very much, especially as it looks doubtful that anything of particular note is going to happen during his reign. Both of his predecessors in the position of coming to the throne late in life after a long-lived parent, George IV and Edward VII, are better known for their time as Princes of Wales than as kings and Charles as Prince of Wales was a lot less scandalous. The best he can probably hope for at this point is to be remembered as one of the less controversial kings.
This is an interesting list. You seem to really value military success. I might give a little more weight to lawgiving, diplomacy, building, stability, etc. In that light, I might move Edward III down a notch (he saddled England with a ton of debt, and all of his conquests in France were lost and England entered a really weak period in the HYW, which most of the English today conveniently forget). For opposing reasons, I might move Henry I or Edward I up a bit. I also think you're underrating both Henry V and Edward IV as politicians and diplomats. Ditto for Henry VII, who did a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances and ultimately stabilized the monarchy that set the stage for England's Renaissance apogee under Elizabeth I. You seem to ding Edward IV for being a usurper, which is not something you ding Henry IV, and I think it is inarguable that he had a better claim than Lancastrians (the English fought the HYW ostensibly because they thought that you could inherit through the female line)
Also weird to rate the Hanovarians (incld Victoria) so low. This is the height of the British Empire, surely they should be given some credit for that. Okay, sure the monarchy wasn't as powerful, but in my mind that's a good thing and these monarchs shouldn't be dinged for their country peacefully evolving while still remaining incredibly strong internationally. Victoria is the D tier is criminal imo