Have the queens of England accomplished more for England than its kings have? (Roman, greatest)

[nightlysparrow]

The recent celebration of Queen Elizabeth II as England's longest reigning monarch got me thinking of this question about her forebears. It seems the queens of England really stand out historically more than the kings. True?

[Qtpie1968]

I think part of the reason is that the three best known English queens who were the Monarchs in their own right were crowned very young and lived long lives. Queen Anne and her sister, queen Mary are to most Americans proably forgettable. Queen Mary Tudor was unforgettable, but not a successful queen.

[j_k_k]

That's the thing about the British monarchy. If they crown a king, don't get too comfortable; most of them aren't around that long. If they crown a queen, settle in. If it happens when you're five, when you start collecting Social Security, she'll be celebrating some form of jubilee and showing no signs of fading.

[TheWiseWino]

I would say no because the only Queens that actually ruled England were Henry VIII to daughters, Mary, and Elizabeth I and when it comes to Elizabeth Regina few kings or queen stand as here equal. It would not be until the reign of Victoria who spend a great part of her reign in seclusion following the death of her husband Prince Albert. So if you weigh their historical importance against the reigns of William I otherwise know as William the Conquer, Edward III, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, James I, William III, Edward VII, and George V. Her Majesties come up a bit short.

[harry chickpea]

I would suggest that for all his flaws, Henry VIII had the greatest single contribution by effectively stopping the undisputed rule of the Holy Roman Empire. Martin Luther aimed for reform, but it took a king in a kingdom not easily invaded to allow any real alternatives.

The Victorian age was not really the doing of Victoria, but more of a convenient handle to place that period of development in history.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

That's the thing about the British monarchy. If they crown a king, don't get too comfortable; most of them aren't around that long. If they crown a queen, settle in. If it happens when you're five, when you start collecting Social Security, she'll be celebrating some form of jubilee and showing no signs of fading.

First on average women live longer than men, even back through the years.

You also notice neither of the major English Queens (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II) did not have children. That allowed them to escape the one thing which carried off more women high and low back then; childbed fever.

Between her Hanoverian and Bowes-Lyon blood the current Queen comes from some long lived stock. Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother both lived long lives.

[TheWiseWino]

Have the queens of England accomplished more for England than its kings have? (historical, ally)

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

The recent celebration of Queen Elizabeth II as England's longest reigning monarch got me thinking of this question about her forebears. It seems the queens of England really stand out historically more than the kings. True?

You know these are two different parameters, who has accomplished more and who stands out more.

When it comes to accomplishments Elizabeth I stands heads and shoulders above all but a few Kings and all of the seceding queens. After her, I would have to say Queen Mary based upon her bloody attempt to reinstate Catholicism in England.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Victoria and Elizabeth II were and are the first reigning Queens of Great Britain and unlike their predecessors were more confined by Britain's Parliament, so their ability to shape history was far more circumspect.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

Between her Hanoverian and Bowes-Lyon blood the current Queen comes from some long lived stock. Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother both lived long lives.

Actually out of the 15 most recent female ancestors, almost all of them lived for relatively long time considering that in the 19th century people often died much earlier. Exceptions under the age of 70 were "Fat Mary" who died at aged 63. Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde was trampled by horses at age 29. Countess Claudine was famous as she was descended from Dracula by bloodlines passing through 3 of her 4 grandparents. Only two other women failed to live beyond age 80.

Prince Phillip (age 94) AFAIK has outlived every single one of his male ancestors

Generation 2
3. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (aged 101) Died: March 30, 2002

Generation 3
5. Princess Mary of Teck (mother of 2) (aged 85) Died: March 24, 1953
7. Cecilia Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne (mother of 3) (aged 75) Died: 23 June 1938

Generation 4

9. Princess Alexandra of Denmark (mother of 4) (aged 80)
11. Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (mother of 5) (aged 63)
13. Frances Dora Smith (mother of 6)
 (aged 89)
15. Caroline Louisa Burnaby (mother of 7)(aged 85)

Generation 5

17. Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom (mother of 8)
(aged 81)
19. Louise of Hesse-Kassel (mother of 9)(aged 81)

21. Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde (mother of 10)(aged 29)

23. Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (mother of 11) (aged 91)
25. Charlotte Grimstead (mother of 12)
(aged 84)

27. Henrietta Mildred Hodgson (mother of 13)(aged 86)
29. Anne Wellesley, former Lady Abdy (mother of 14)
(aged 87)

31. Anne Caroline Salisbury (mother of 15)(aged 76)

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by TheWiseWino

You know these are two different parameters, who has accomplished more and who stands out more.

When it comes to accomplishments Elizabeth I stands heads and shoulders above all but a few Kings and all of the seceding queens. After her, I would have to say Queen Mary based upon her bloody attempt to reinstate Catholicism in England.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Victoria and Elizabeth II were and are the first reigning Queens of Great Britain and unlike their predecessors were more confined by Britain's Parliament, so their ability to shape history was far more circumspect.

Queen Victoria almost from the start of her reign interfered in government far outside the bounds of GB's unwritten constitution. Parliament often had no choice or lacked the backbone to fight back and thus gave in.

First out the to box as the famous "Ladies of the Bedchamber" affair where Victoria essentially forced a change in government by refusing duly elected PM. The result was the newly formed government fell and Victoria like the stubborn child she was got what she wanted, the former PM returned.

Though much of her rein Victoria kept true to form; behaved like a spoilt child and would not sign bills or otherwise interfered in government in ways a constitutional monarch shouldn't.

The famous anti-homosexual acts laws of Victorian period were altered to remove any reference to lesbianism. Victoria refused to believe women could engage in such behavior and refused to grant her assent until such references were removed. These things are important since by the terms of GB's *unwritten* constitution the monarch must assent to all bills duly passed by Parliament. Indeed the current queen or anyone else would be required to sign their own death warrant if presented.

This is why when Elizabeth II spoke of marriage equality in her speech to Parliament and the bill was subsequently passed anyone who knew how things worked also knew it was in the bag. Those that didn't fretted about "what if the Queen won't sign.....". That was utter rubbish to the rest of us and we all knew she would.

[ukrkoz]

It doesn't really matter, if it were king or queen. It was either a great queen or, behind every great king, there always was a great female. Either way female involvement was overwhelming.