Ranking Every English Monarch from Worst to Best - Spectrum Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- See the original - • Ranking Every English ...
My Monarch Ranking Live Stream from 3 years ago - www.youtube.co...
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
My other channels:
Stories of the Great War - / @storiesofthegreatwar
Stories of the Civil War - / @storiesofthecivilwar
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
Follow me on instagram - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook - www.facebook.c...
#history #reaction
All I remember from this video was thinking I should've put Henry VII (like A, borderline S) quite a bit higher, but by then I was already in pretty deep into the editing part of it.
Also, I legitimately had no idea you tiered the English monarchs. Hell of a coincidence for both tiers to be so similar.
In hindsight I feel like I would have as well. Probably put George VI in S because I just like him. Kinda how you did with ironside. Great work!
@@VloggingThroughHistory Well, George VI was kind of difficul to rank, because by then the king was for the most part a figurehead whose main job is, as far as I can describe, representing "the spirit of the nation", which to be fair he did spectacularly. But really, most of his reign was in other people's hands, so I don't think it would be fair to rank him as S. Same thing with Elizabeth II, who would also be more or less in the same ballpark (low A-high B)
I have to agree with Henry VII should have been higher. If he did not stabilize the kingdom the way he did I'm sure the church would have found a way to create a civil war there after Henry VIII decided to split or Henry VIII would not have pulled off half of what he did.
Great minds think alike 😉
It fun to think how close Henry VII came to not being King. In all senses he should not have won the Battle of Bosworth. But Richie over here rides his horse down hill and he falls off it. Decapated then found in a carpark 550ish years later.
But I agree. I think Henry VII minus his paranoia (fully justified btw) did alot good in stabalising and saving up cash for his son.
Hey Chris,
I'm a student at the University of Notre Dame and am involved in student government. Recently, I was appointed Notre Dame's first ever Student Union Historian.
Before I took this role, I had to be confirmed by the Student Senate. At the Senate meeting, I was only asked one question: "who is your favorite historian".
Without missing a beat, I answered "Vlogging Through History". The guy responded by saying, "yep, you have my vote". They didn't ask anymore questions and I was confirmed by the Student Senate to serve in the role.
I undoubtedly have to give you some of the credit for this; thank you!
That's awesome! Appreciate you sharing that. And congratulations on the role!
just searched it up, wow thats awesome keep it up!
can you be impeached by student house of representatives?
@@Frank-gk4mu there isn't a House of Representatives for ND, but impeachment are handled by a group known as the Ethics Commission. They recommend impeachment, then the Senate votes on it.
@@ElijahJonesND OK, what's the threshold for conviction?
Henry VII had that “yeah I just won that war, what are you gonna do about it?” Smugness in his portrait.
also heavily suspicious over ppl towards the end, but a 'usurper' has to feel that.
@@swymaj02Yeah your not paranoid if it people are actually after you.
YES! I love Spectrum! He has lots of incredible videos, you should react to more
"The Unready" doesn't mean he wasn't ready. He was unwisely advised.
and it's pun on his given name which means "nobly advised"
In french he is called "Le malavisé" which litteraly means the unwisely advised
@@KhraazSo does Unraed in old English
But a good monarch is supposed to make the final decisions him/herself (and give bad advisors the boot)!
RIP Columbus Blue Jacket Johnny Hockey and his brother
NHL legend. Super popular here in Columbus
@@yvtvdehvyvyde I’m a huge Carolina Hurricanes and his last goal and win was against us… didn’t think watching at that time that would be his last game ever
Seriously. That was Columbus' biggest free agent signing ever. He chose to be there. Shocking news.
Isn't this just the most horrible thing. God bless them and their families.❤
Rest in peace Johnny and Matthew, gone too soon.
I find it funny that Henry VIII was so obsessed with having a son and it ended up being his daughter who left a huge mark on history
Exactly!
The other twist of the knife for him was the end of the Tudor line with her
Part of the forging on Elizabeth i's character was the mess that Henry VIII left in the succession and the fanaticism of both Edward VI and Mary 1.
@@anthonyml7That's interesting. There's a scene in the show "The Crown" where elderly Elizabeth has a fictional conversation with her younger self. The older woman tells the younger that, for all intents and purposes, she stopped being Elizabeth Windsor the moment she put on the crown, and that the Kingdom comes before everything, including her needs as a woman, a wife and/or a mother. I think Elizabeth I took that sentiment to the extreme.
To be fair to Henry, though, I think his concern for having a male heir was valid, because there was the sad example of Empress Matilda, who should have been queen but was rejected by the Capital, and leaving the throne to a woman (in that time) could cause a constitutional crisis. Also, the War of the Roses had only just ended with his father’s reign and he definitely didn’t want an heir that could be considered unfit and that could cause rebellion and civil war again.
Clearly, a Queen regnant needed to marry to continue the line of succession, but then who would be appropriate for her to marry and who of the couple would be the ruler? And having a child in those days was very risky. Many women died from giving birth, and women were expected to remove themselves from public life completely during the weeks before and after the birth, so who would rule during those times? If she died in childbirth, who would rule after her? Her days old child (if it lived), her husband or some distant relative… or would it be so unclear that another civil war would start up?
If a war broke out, a woman wouldn’t really be able to lead her troops into battle. So there were real concerns with having a female ruler, and both Mary and Elizabeth dealt with these challenges in different ways, and neither one of them were fully able to fulfill their duties as a Queen regnant, a wife and a mother of future heirs. Considering all these challenges, the fact that Elizabeth did such an incredible job as a monarch (even though her family’s line ended with her) makes her achievements even that more impressive. Henry couldn’t have predicted Elizabeth doing so well, but she had two incredibly intelligent parents and was fortunate to get such an excellent education. She also ‘benefited’ from having such a perilous road to the throne, which made her cautious and patient, and risk averse which for the most part was good for the country.
Edmund Irosinde was a good leader despite his short tragic reign. He earned the name Ironside because of how great of a fighter he was. He won a lot of battles against the Vikings lead by Cnut the great and was about to win the war and save England, however in the battle of Assundun as he was about to finish Cnut's army he was betrayed by the Ealderman of Mercia Edric Streona which caused his defeat. However he was not fully defeated by that battle which lead to an agreement with Cnut to split the kingdoms until one of them died. He was sadly assassinated and Cnut became king of all of England. If Edmund had not been betrayed in the middle of the battle he probably would have been near the top as one of England's saviors.
Actually, at 26:28, that is Nicholas II. In that picture, you see Queen Victoria, Nicholas II, his wife Empress Alexandra, their daughter Grand Duchess Olga as a baby, and Edward VII.
There was a voice in the back of my head telling me that looked more like Nicholas. I should have listened.
@@VloggingThroughHistoryWhat do you mean? They’re secretly the same person, it’s why they both had sick-ass dragon tattoos.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Don't feel too bad! These two maternal cousins (via Danish princesses) looked SO much alike, that on at least one occasion, Nicholas II had the future George V sub for him for some public event c.1894 in Great Britain because he was SO shy and hated crowds!
I've often wondered if George V's mother the Queen Mother Alexandra ever learned of George V's personal refusal to grant refuge to Nicholas and his family in 1917- and did she ever confront her 'Georgie-Boy' over that after the news of the family's assassination became widespread after 1918 since she had adored her nephew and his family!
26:44 i disagree seeing Edward VII merely as a figurehead. He played an important role in forging the alliance with France and he made the monarchy popular and visible again after the long period Victoria was invisible for the public eye.
@@wardarcade7452 He literally put his country before his family regarding the Nicholas II situation.
Yeah, Spectrum reactions, that's neat. You should do a reactions to all of his monarchs rankings, they're all good.
Remember: Henry VIII wrote a response to Luther's "95 Theses" titled "Assertio Septem Sacramentorum" (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) and dedicated/sent a copy to Pope Leo X. Pope Leo X the named him Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith). There is a theory that Henry VIII started to go bad after receiving what was probably a concussion in a jousting tournament in 1524. But basically the best of Henry VIII was Catholic, and the worst wasn't.
He covered that already during Oversimplified's video on it
a spectrum reaction?
Count me in :D
I appreciate your channel existing! It really is a great honour to be here! This is my thanks to you challenging my opinion on Mary I. Reality is, I have been watching you for ?? years now. Unlike most other react channels I used to watch, your input has taught me so much new. My favourite thing is to share what I know, whether its right or wrong to others in the exploration of Knowledge! Your insightful knowledge into areas of History, the Civil War, Great War, WW2, American History, British & European History. Too many times have I seen you been compared to other react channels. Or being a passed over as a "dude who puts himself in the corner than chats". The amount of history I now know thanks to you brings those comments to the door of shame!
Maybe a bit much to some people, or cringy (maybe it is idk), but I just love history. My second year of my History course that I am doing will feature some more challenges that I will look forward too. In particular my coursework, for which I am doing Jan Ziska, a one eyed (later life no eyed) Czech general who lead his armies to victories against adversaries who usually outnumbered him, out eyed him and were still beaten by this brilliant guy.
Anyway, I hope you'll be doing what you do for a while longer, because the entertainment and education value is priceless. Thanks for what you do!
Who knows what Shakespeare really thought? He had little choice but to make Richard III a villain. If he didn't shill for the Tudors, it would have been problematic for him, to say the least.
Bro Macbeth was literally Stuart propaganda and he somehow made it arguably his best play like what a guy
While I agree that Shakespeare went OTT and literally demonized Richard III and made him an outright monster so that it was clear to the audience that Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond had overthrown a tyrant and usurper (and therefore restored the 'rightful' order and had done God's [literal] Will).
However, I seriously doubt that Mr. Shakespeare had had any liking or sympathies towards Richard III from the time he first was told of the fallen monarch's existence as an Elizabethan schoolboy . IOW, no one had to twist Shakespeare's arm to have had him write his play depicting Richard III in a negative light.
@@a_little_flame589 Not surprising since the Stewarts/Stuarts were supposedly direct descedents of Banquo!
@@wardarcade7452 yeah that's part of the reason banquo is in there. Shakespeare kind of did a vergil so the whole reason why banquo will have many of his descendants be kings even though that's not how it ends is cause he knew making kings descended from really cool people in fiction makes them seem cooler (remember Shakespeare was also appealing to the less educated folk of society he could revise history and his largest audience would then for years of their life believe that as actual history and that's how we have people believing that Caesar's last words were "e tu brute" (which doesn't even make sense for latin))
Since Shakespeare had studied history as an Elizabethan schoolboy from his 1564 birth onward, I seriously doubt that he had anything but contempt for Richard III. Granted, Shakespeare needlessly made him an OTT usurping tyrant so monstrous that audiences were expected to cheer Henry Tudor the Earl of Richmond overthrowing him despite the latter having a much weaker claim to the throne (via his still living mother Lady Margaret Beaufort). However, I think Shakespeare not only gave his patroness Elizabeth I what she wanted but was happy to pile on the villainy!
you should do more spectrum videos, his channel is awesome!
Actually Chris that is Tsar Nicholas II that is standing next to Edward VII. He was visiting England with his wife Tsarina Alexandria and their daughter Princess Olga.
Me watching this video “We know only the king of the North who’s name is Stark”
There is no way that isn’t Czar Nicholas ll at 26:32
It is him! I think Chris just misspoke.
No it is, Tsar Nicholas and George V looked very similar (they were cousins) they even had the same mustache
@@Counterfactualy_no I think it is the Tsar, it's the eyes. George V had eyes like his father.
I’d love to see VTH do a reaction to the video ‘know your allies: Britain’. It’s an informational video made by the war department to educate their troops on who they’re fighting with and against and it’s a really interesting insight into how 40’s America viewed Britain and in some ways how little Britain has changed and how much Britain has changed in other ways.
33:55 James I & VI was so good that the English Golden Age is often considered to have continued under him, even after the Elizabethian Era ended.
Love the channel Christopher esp the American Civil War!I'm a 70 year old Brit and one of my few regrets is I never studied history at school,but I've tried to put that right!I pretty much agree with the rankings on this video,though I'd rank William the Conqueror a little lower due to his campaign The Harrying of the North!Other than that,spot on.Look forward to more!
created the North South divide, you could say
It always intrigues me when non Americans are interested in our Civil War.
What makes you interested in it?
I remember in 1965 the centenary of the ending of the American Civil War and a bubblegum company brought out a collectible series of Civil War cards depicting battles,generals etc and I was hooked.We also learnt,correct me if I,m wrong,'Marching Through Georgia' in our music lessons.
"Hey can I copy your homework?"
"Sure, just change it up a bit"
I know nobody copied nobody but I'd like to imagine this is what happened between these two youtubers :)))
Love that you noticed the portrait of Charles II behind the number only at ranking number 38 😂
I can still remember where I was and what I was doing on September 8th 2022
Same.
I saw on twitter that something was going on in the UK, so I went online and watched a BBC News stream all morning.
Chris next time you are in the Black Country you are on part of the dividing line between Alfred and the vikings in the Danelaw.
Also if you want a beautiful church I recommend Saint Mary’s in Kingswinford. It has a christening font that dates to around 1600 (I was christened there 😊) and some gorgeous stained windows and history.
Great video as always 👍
It's a shame you didn't consider monarchs such as Alfred the Great and Canute. They both had an enormous effect on England, Alfred beat the Vikings and was the first to see England as one country and Canute united not just England but also Denmark and Norway as the Northern Empire. Perhaps in another episode?
I was there for the original live stream.
I will be there for when you hit 10 million subs!
Keep up the great work!
You finally reacted to spectrum nice.
Can you react to spectrums ww2 performance tier list?
Even if your knowledge isn't quite as deep as it is for the English Monarchs, imo you know enough, and spectrum is humurous enough to listen to, that watching his other "..X.. ranked" videos would be worth it. Especially the ones on ranking the Roman emperors and ranking the French kings.
In Richard the Lionheart defence:
He wasn’t the only King who spent little time in England during the Middle Ages. Since 1066, Kings of England (for the most part) were also Dukes of Normandie. Richard’s father, Henry II, was also Count of Anjou and Duke of Aquitaine, and with these titles, came more responsibility. Richard inherited these titles (along with many others). During Richard’s reign, England was one of the more stable parts of the Angevin world. There wasn’t much unrest, and England itself was a very well governed and centralized kingdom (by medieval standards). In addition to this, the King had royal servants who was very influential in governing the Kingdom on behalf of the King. One of these royal servants was the Justiciar (Hubert Walter) who did a very good job in managing the Kingdom while Richard was absent. Collecting taxes, sending troops, being a judge, etc. Due to these conditions in England, there weren’t much need for a King to be there at all, really.
Another point is that Richard had a huge threat to his position. On his doorstep, on the Norman Frontier, the Capetian King Philip II August always tried to find a way to gain the upper hand. Philip was a very capable King and has slowly become more powerful throughout his reign. This threat as well as the constant unrest in Aquitaine, meant that Richard being in England was not logical. If Richard had been absent from the wars on the Continent, I don’t think he would have been able to keep his continental territories.
I also think many modern people tend to view Richard unfavourably due to all the wars he fought, like the Crusade, and the wars with the Capetian King. For modern people, war seems like an unnecessary concept, and being a warmongering king is therefore also often viewed as a negative thing. I think its important to see this through the eyes of the contemporaries. Many of the writers of the time are very fond of Richard. He fulfilled an ideal of that time. Not only because he was one of the more capable military-leaders of that time, he also was a crusader. That was one of the most holy and prestigious things you could do. Therefore, we could say that Richard way of being a King, was a way the contemporaries viewed as good, hence its understandable that Richard ruled the way he did.
Personally, my favorite country’s monarchs I like to study are the kings and queens of Spain, (Castilla , Leon and Aragon and eventually, Las Gran Españas). Curious how much you know and would love to see some reaction videos about that if they exist 😃 Especially if the Habsburg and Trastámara dynasties
Nice,mine are the ottomans and English
I would be very tempted to rank Henry 7th in A or S tier. He ended a horrendous civil war put down rebellions relatively fairly, was not overly harsh, financially stabilised the kingdom, seemed to have a decent relationship with a wife who was both politically convenient and actually brought stability. His story of his rise to power from his birth is amazing with the added bonus that he was born in Wales and has a decent amount of Welsh heritage.
The picture of the monarch that he shows when he gives the name of the next monarch on his list is of Charles II.
literally tuned in just to see how he ranked George III
He didn’t seem to hold a grudge against the US after everything even saying…
“If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world!" - George III to Benjamin West after learning George Washington was going to resign his commission.
Hey VTH. When you mentioned George III, I was thinking of the scene from the musical Hamilton with the song “You’ll Be Back” I know all the lyrics to that song. It’s one of my favorites
Lots of Love *heart emoji*- George III
"When you're gone, I'll go mad, So don't throw away this thing we had" - George III (Jonathan Groff)
Spectrum does great work. It's a perfect example of how simple and straightforward content can still be engaging and meaningful.
Love your videos about monarchs!
I think Queen Elizabeth II should be on the list. She did very well when her world was crumbling around her.
Can't rank her while the book is still open
When was her world "crumbling around her"? A couple of her kids got divorced and her house caught on fire( but didn't burn down completely- and she was loaded enough to fix it herself!) Most families have it alot worse !
@@rebeccablackburn9487I mean the empire legit collapsed under her reign like that’s not a standard day for most families
@@a_little_flame589 What empire? She was queen in the modern era- she was head of a commonwealth, not an absolute monarch in the 1400s!! Am I the only one who gets my history from actual books vs. RUclips these days?!
@@a_little_flame589 Breaking up the empire goes in the "pro" column.
Edward VI showed signs of being a petty fanatic. I do not think things would have gone well if he had lived into adulthood.
Though, interestingly enough, he actually declared his elder half-sister Lady Mary to have been his FAVORITE sister in a letter to her while also warning against her practicing the Catholic faith! Of course, that may be because his own tragic mother Lady Jane Seymour had done all she could to encourage Henry in her brief time as queen consort to be merciful to Lady Mary (and Lady Jane Seymour HAD been one of Queen Catherine [of Aragon]'s ladies in waiting who she remained loyal to the memory of). Hence, Lady Mary never forgot Queen Jane's kindness and doted as much as she could on her motherless baby brother (and , yes I know she knew that Edward was the heir apparent who'd be the next king after Henry).
After you mentioned a couple of times the similarity with your list, I tried to pull up a couple of wiki articles as I was going along with the list.
Listen 26:51 Wiki reads:" failed as a ruler because of his naivety and inability to produce realistic plans for reform"
27:11 Wiki reads:"Henry spent much of his reign defending himself against plots, rebellions, and assassination attempts".
Yeah he probably used Wiki as a guide to fill in gaps he was unsure about. And the similarities are probably mostly coincidental bc besides Lionheart, there’s not really any hot takes
9:55 ok counterpoint, if Richard didn't murder the princes in the tower, would he have so pointedly promised Elizabeth Woodville that she and her daughters will not be thrown into "the tower of London or any other prisons" if they break the terms of the peace agreement between them as an explicit threat? Food for thought.
Loved the video, even if I don't agree with everything I find your reasonings very well made, I think you would really enjoy Old Brittania's videos on the Napoleonic Wars (with the exception of the one in the peace of amiens as that one feels a bit biased, but his videos of Tilsit and Europe in 1809 to 1812 are really great) or if on another topic the 2 videos he has on the Habsburg empire are extremely good and informative, and would love to hear your perspective.
I’d put Alfred higher because he truly was a great king, defended his kingdom against the Vikings, and reformed the military. All while being sickly. He also had a long reign and it was Alfred that set up the foundation for the modern country of England, as well as the fact that every monarch of England can trace their lineage back to Alfred. Uniting England was his dream, though the Vikings got in his way.
Because of your channel, this topic, the history of the English/British monarchy, is one of my favorite topics as well. Thanks for that, because this is fascinating history with very interesting figures to learn about.
Not the best, but Henry V is my favorite English monarch. I find it interesting when talking about Henry VIII, they tried to make him as much like Henry V as possible.
Not really...re Elizabeth 1.....a lot of Catholic priests and Catholic leaning nobles lost their lives under her reign.....including the Duke of Norfolk I believe.....their heads adorned London Bridge......Protestant England was Elizabeth's doing rather more than her father's. She was just as bloody as Henry 8 or Mary Tudor......
George VI was a special monarch. Never wanted power but when he got it he used it to better the lives of his people. Brilliant king and deserves reverence
A distant relative of mine....John Davenport was in charge of a company of archers at Agincourt.....they took shelter in a small wood at the side of the plain....when the French Knights rode past that glade, his archers stepped out and enfiladed the French....killing many and unhorsing many more. Davenport was knighted on the field by Henry 5th....and was awarded a Sheriff's position on the Scottish border.
I so appreciate how you show respect to others on these vids. When you disagree or need to correct, you never do it in a way that is condescending. You seem to have no need to present yourself as smarter or better informed. And where people get it right, you compliment them, even seem to delight in them and their insight. Love your spirit and how you do these.
Glad spectrum responded. You need to have him on a live show some day.
Spectrum makes great videos, you should what the ranking of roman emperors next :)
Hope you been doing well - enjoy ur vids n ur input man - almost like having a buddy I can relate to or hear a diff perspective in regards of history
Hello, very good video. I do respectfully disagree w/two of your rankings though. The first is Queen Victoria, I've always thought she was overrated. What did she accomplish or do that was noteworthy other than sit on the throne for an ungodly amount of time? The "Victorian Age" is so named because of the length of her reign, not because she did anything of note. If you include Alfred the Great on the list as Spectrum did, you have to rank him higher, like second. The other ranking I disagree with is William the Conqueror. As King of England he was a disaster for Anglo-Saxon England. He all but destroyed the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Due to his heavy hand in dispossessing and suppressing the AS nobility he faced a rebellion in the north of England and committed the 'Harrowing' of the north (I think that's the term used) which all but depopulated and destroyed the north of England. As you yourself stated (or was it Spectrum?), he viewed Normandy as the more important part of his realm, so how he can he be considered "A" tier for England?
The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed during Queen Anne's reign.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed in 1801.
I'm assuming that's the bone of contention the narrator is referring to at 31:37
Never been this early to a vid!! Cheers from Hazard, KY Chris!
Woooo i love me some english monarchy history!! Elizabeth the first is definitely my number one choice too.
The.trial of Richard III that you mentioned was very compelling, highly recommended.
A couple of things: William and Mary were both great-grandchildren of James I and VI, true enough. William of Orange was not the senior “heir-male” in Britain’s line of succession, and neither was he the senior “male-heir”. He was the senior 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 male-heir after the exclusion of his brother-in-law James Stuart, the titular Prince of Wales in exile and later styled James III and VII, the “Old Pretender” of the Jacobite line of Stuart pretenders that exists down to the present day (currently resting with the Princess Consort of Liechtenstein). William’s cousin, wife and co-monarch Mary II was the daughter of James II and VII, who succeeded his brother the childless Charles II, both being sons of Charles I, beheaded by Parliament in 1649. As James, Duke of York he had been married secretly to an English lady, Anglican, by whom he had two legitimate daughters, Mary and Anne. As king, he re-married Mary of Modena, a Catholic, and had his son baptized as a Catholic before formally converting to Catholicism himself, which caused the people to depose him and his son and offered the throne instead to James’ daughter and her husband. Neither was the others consort, they were both monarchs regnant in their own right until death. Mary died first and William reigned alone until his death, whereupon he was succeeded by his wife’s sister Anne, Princess George of Denmark. Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch to sit on the throne of Great Britain. Having survived all sixteen of her children, she was succeeded by an even more distant descendant, of James I and VI, George, Elector of Hanover.
Also, in that photo of Edward VII and his son the future George V who looked so much like his cousin Nicholas II of Russia in the photo - there’s a good reason for that - that 𝘪𝘴 Nicholas II wearing a British Blues & Rifles uniform. I don’t know if this photo is genuine or doctored to include Edward VII, but there is a companion photo showing George V, then Prince of Wales, standing where Edward stands, and wearing Nicholas’s uniform from a Russian guards unit, perhaps Preobrazhensky or a similar elite regiment.
To be clear, Henry’s jousting accident happened in 1536, the same year Katherine of Aragon died after being ‘annulled’ for three years and the same year he beheaded Anne Boleyn. The jousting accident didn’t cause the ‘Great Matter’, it happened after. While it’s hard to say how much of an impact it had on his tyrannical nature in the later part of his reign, it definitely would have put him in a foul temper due to chronic pain, humiliation that he was physically ill after being known as a paragon of masculine strength and beauty, and it would have reinforced his own morality, and the desperation that he needed a male heir. Unfortunately for Anne, she miscarried her last child days after this accident, which left her vulnerable to Henry and her political enemies. Beheading Anne, when he knew she must have been innocent, is one of his first acts of true cruelty, though his treatment of Wolsey, More and Katherine weren’t fair, either. His weight gain happened after Jane Seymour died. He was depressed between this period of her death and his marriage to Anne of Cleves. From then on, his reign was a mess, with different religious and political factions influencing him one way or the other like a pendulum swinging back and forth, and leaving carnage in his wake.
You and him put William II in different tiers too, it flew under your radar
Handel's Dettingen Te Deum was written to commemorate George 2nds Victory in that battle....and amazing choral work.....give it a listen!
46:52 Henry's sons did revolt against him tho. he even put his wife in prison
Nice to see a video about Spectrum's video - been a subscriber to him for a while :)
In your F tier.....both Charles 1st and Edward VIII were some of the finest dressed monarchs England ever had! They were very fastidious in their respective dress....in fact in an exhaustive book on men's fashion.....Edward shows up in nearly every chapter! His suits were impeccable! He was stupid...but boy did he look good!
King Æthelstan is very underrated, unified England, defeated a coalition of Irish and Scots, his heir had an unchallenged succession
51:50 I can think of one more example: Casimir the Great, King of Poland, last of the Piast dynasty on the Polish throne. We even say about him: "A wooden Poland he met, a Poland of brick he left."
He took up a freshly-reuinified country after about 200 years of territorial split, and his reign is usually considered the beginning of Poland's Golden Age.
I think Alfred should be first. I realize he had his moments but for what he went through to piece everything together it just amazes me. Almost every person on this list benefited from what was there he did not.
Spectrum is amazing! Thanks For this ❤❤❤❤
I'm William the CONQUERER, my enemies stood no chance/they call me the first English monarch though I come from France!
I love Spectrum's rankings. You should do a reaction to his Roman Emperor ramkings.
And YES, William the Conquerer ESTABLISHED the monarchy.
This was so much fun! I loved how you and the guy in the video both kept having the same answers. Though I have to agree with you with the fact that I also think you had a bit of emotion behind your pick for George VI in S tier (though still a solid position if he ends up there in the lower S ranks). I would've also put George VI in high A tier rather than S tier personally.
While Alfred was never King of England, the political connections and decisions he made among the various English kingdoms (like Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia) did help set up his successors to build a united England 🏴. So that is why Alfred was “crowned” King of the Anglo-Saxons and is/was seen as a ruler or more father-of-sorts of England. Also, it would be interesting to actually see Chris dive a little into Alfred’s history and give his thoughts on Alfred’s portrayals in shows like The Last Kingdom.
You should react his videos more he has a video about roman emperoe please watch that to
I thought King George VI deserved a better ranking, and I think he often gets criminally shortchanged in a lot of rankings of British monarchs and world leaders. He probably could care less, he cared more that he actually WAS a good leader more than that people thought he was, but he definitely deserves better, especially since he didn't want the job at all. Definitely "S" tier. A genuinely good person as well as a good leader, which is an exceedingly rare combination. I put him in my top ten list of all-time world leaders. For that list, current favorites are Queen Elizabeth I, FDR, King George VI, Churchill, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria, Truman, Eisenhower (C-tier president, though), Margaret Thatcher (D-tier PM), and Gorbachev, in order. The caveat is that the era Queen Elizabeth I lived in was the first time period in recorded known history that someone might be considered to truly be on the world stage......
The thing with the modern monarchs is that they don’t really do much of anything though, so they naturally get looked over more
@@sebe2255 True, though in theory, they still have considerable power. They also still have considerable soft power. King George VI was still very much in the thick of things running the country, and played as vital a role as Churchill did.
@@RMSTitanicWSL As much as Churchil? Pray tell what he did that can be considered the same as someone who was actually making hard choices and decisions and would ultimately contribute greatly to winning the war. You know, someone who was actually leading the country. What did George do?
@@sebe2255 Quite a bit. He also helped rally the British and served as a valuable figurehead and representative of all that was good about the British Empire and the importance of standing up to Nazi Germany. Churchill routinely consulted with him on those hard decisions. You also forget that the PM still serves at the reigning monarch's will, even to this day. It was suggested that he and the royal family leave for Canada. His refusal to leave persuaded the British that their leadership was in the trenches with them, so to speak. The British monarch is still very much the head of state of the UK. Realistically, Queen Victoria was the last monarch to actively exercise political power. Even by the time of her rule, British monarchs had been held in check by Parliament for a couple hundred years, though this was an amorphous process. Even now, there are a few constitutional gray areas where the reigning monarch might directly exercise political power if s/he chose. Winning a war is a team effort, and George VI was very much a team player. Churchill may have done a lot of the legwork, but Churchill still had to have his backing--overt or tacit--to remain an effective prime minister.
@@RMSTitanicWSL Being a figurehead and leading the war are two very different jobs though. And ultimately he was doing the easy half of the job, Churchill was doing the hard part. While you can say he did well by not fleeing the country, it also doesn’t require tremendous sacrifice and I would go so far as to say is the bare minimum of what is expected of a figurehead king. The fact that the PM technically serves at the King’s will is irrelevant though, as it is just a technicality, and you can’t attribute any PM’s actions to the king just because he happens to serve at the will of the king.
Ultimately people overlook Georgie because he didn’t do much beyond smile and wave, he wasn’t responsible for the decisions of the government during the war, and he wasn’t taking them. All he had to do was not literally abandon everyone, and smile and wave
In the documentary series "WW2 in Color" it said that George VI wrote in his journal. 'Personally, I feel happier that we no longer have allies to be polite to or pamper.' Seems he did not want to play politics in the middle of a war and I don't blame him.
They desperately needed their allies though
@sebe2255 The quote comes from between the time the France surrendered and the American lend lease began. After reading about the interwar years and early days of WW2 regarding the French army, navy, and political structure. I can see why he would quote that line in his personal journal.
Little unfair to King Edward VII, he was well-liked by his subjects and world leaders and made for a great ambassador of the UK. Just Fine for a figurehead Monarch.
This guy is brilliant! I'd love to see more Spectrum reactions! Can't recommend his Hapsburg series, or any of his Byzantium-related videos enough
Alfred was ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons’. So he claimed all the PEOPLE, but couldn’t claim all the land.
Loving the longer length reactions recently mate. Get to watch them during lunch and dinner lol
I thought you were going with "John was so bad they named the toilets johns"
Those Brits sure liked to kill each other to get the throne 😂
Hardly unique to the Brits. It's pretty much standard with monarchies throughout history. Heck, look at the Roman Emperors.
I would have Henry VII in B tier. Brought much needed stability to England after the Wars of the Roses.
You're tier list was the first video I saw of yours. 👍
As a suggestion for a sort-of follow-up, considering your "love", as you put it, for George VI, you might consider watching Drachinifel's video on him, detailing his history as it pertains to the Royal Navy, there's some really interesting bits, especially early on!
Awesome! I was just about to start suggesting Spectrums videos! Quality content incoming
Charles I shouldn't be F as he wasn't incompetent like the other F tier monarchs, he was just very very stubborn with parliament.
Except.....Charles 1 literally tried to raise a Scottish-Irish army to attack his own country....which in many peoples' eyes made him a traitor to his subject....
36:22 James the 1st got a whole bunch of good scholars to give us a translation of the Bible that served us well for about 400 years, but we just don't talk that way now. Also we found older manuscripts that give us a more accurate Greek text and occasionally Erasmus use the Latin Vulgate so there are places where there is little and in one case no evidence in the original Greek.
Oh you should watch Spectrum's WW1 Tier list love that video.
I think the point of contention in the Queen Anne section is this. Did Great Britain become the United Kingdom with the accession of King James I & VI and the union of the crowns, or with the Act of Union with the union of the Parliaments? Like, in terms of the name and legalities, it was the latter, but they were already effectively the same country before that (with some hiccups during the Civil War).
Great video, keep up the good work, also the baggies have made a good start mate, fingers crossed we can keep it up
There are arguments to be made regarding seeing Alfred the Great as the first King of England.
1: Yes, he never ruled the entirety of what we now know as England, but he did style himself King of the Anglo-Saxons after retaking London from the Danes in 886, instead of simply King of Wessex. After his death, Edward also styled himself as such. So while neither truly ruled over all of England, they did proclaim themselves to be the king of all English, regardless of whether they lived under the rule of the house of Wessex, or under Danelaw.
2: It is not far fetched to claim that without the groundwork made by Alfred (and Edward), Aethelstan would not have been able to proclaim himself King of England. Alfred left his heirs a powerful medieval state that was financially secure, militarily strong, and at peace with its neighbours after the defeat and conversion of Guthrum. He left Wessex in the perfect condition for it to lead the unification of the English. As such, it's pretty arguable that when speaking of English kings, Alfred has to be included based on the fact that he made such kings a posibility, even if he did not live to claim the title himself.
Louis the XIVth became King at the age of 5 (even though Anne d'Autriche and Mazarin exerciced a regency) and ended one of the greatest Kings in history.
loving the longer vids chris
the thing about harold is he was winning his battle against william, but his troops got overzealous and chance down after a retreating william which allow the calvery to be effective as they no longer had to charge uphill. What happen as an accident lead to william trying again on purpose with the same result weakening harold line to the point they finally collapse
Hype, I love Spectrum and hope you do more of his content
I don't think you can apply legal proof standards to History. I am sure had the princes still been alive after Bosworth, Henry would have done away with them, but at the time people didn't think they were, and it was in Richard's interest to prove he hadn't killed them. That he didn't speaks volumes, he had them killed. Incidentally I have just been at Middleham Castle today, his northern home.
31:41 that's when the Kingdom of Great Britain began. The UK didn't exist until 1801.
As an Irishman I'll keep my rankings and thoughts to myself to uphold the respectful comment section😂
Just don’t pull out the Shillelagh. 😬
You should do a CallmeEzekiel video. He just released a new video about the fall of France and it’s super fun and interesting. Love you VTH!
Phillip was only prince of asturias when he married Mary, but he was king of England jure uxoris for 2 years
No! Actually Phillip's father the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (and King of Castile &Leon and Aragon Charles I) had proclaimed his son and heir to be the King of Jerusalem so he'd technically be a regnant monarch when marrying their cousin Mary I, the Queen Regnant of England so his son wouldn't be outranked by his bride! Of course, that title [King of Jerusalem] had been a somewhat empty title that had been held on to by the Holy Roman Emperors from the time of the Crusades while in actuality, the city of Jerusalem had long since become part of the Ottoman Empire! Regardless of how strained and rocky their union wound up being, Mary herself remained proud to be the [technical] Queen Consort of Jerusalem to the end of her own life!
@@wardarcade7452 he was claimant King of Jerusalem, actual King of Naples, + actual Duke of Milan at point of marriage, but not yet King of Spain
@@andypham1636 Exactly but even the somewhat empty title of 'King of Jerusalem' was enough for Phillip to not be outranked by Mary!
After you finish the Miss England Monarch Beauty Contest can you rank the angels who danced on the head of a pin from Monroeviest to WickedWitchoftheWestest?
Richard III definitely killed the princes. He was king and disinherited them! Henry VIII is F tier. He killed untold thousands of English people.