Great Kings

[Tudor chick]

I am just reading a biography on King George V1 which has a quote
"If the greatness of a king can be measured by the extent to which his qualities corresponded to the needs of a nation at a given moment in history, then George V1 was a great king, and perhaps a very great king" Massigli, French Ambassador, 1952
What do people think - what does make a great King / Queen and would you agree with the above quote?

[Nikd]

What makes great a leader?
I will say first of all his/her people, 2nd his partners (chancellors, ministers), his generosity, the ability to pardon, his ruthlessness and decisivenes when the time comes to protect his/her country, the open mind to listen to the right people, the stubbornness not to listen to people when he/her judge it. And finally what really remains in history is the result of that decisions .
With that in mind i will agree to your statement.

[PADDYBOY]

Take Elizabeth 1, add some facial hair, a liberal portion of body-odour, some dangly bits, a rich treasury, a load of peasants who are prepared to die for you,a load of nobles who are afraid to die from you, a massive army,a huge ego, a lot of libido, a fertile Queen and whalla! You've got a great King :D

[Lucius]

I think the question of how great a particular king is is best answered by his own subjects at the time. If I'm not mistaken, George VI was well-loved by Britain. He married a commoner, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. During the war, the Royal Family went on rations like everybody else, and he very nearly bled to death before they could stabilize the wound he received to his leg while he and the Queen were inspecting bomb damage in London (the wound was caused by an unexploded bomb - I think that's how it happened). He walked with a limp for the rest of his life. Tudor chick, does your George VI biography clarify this point?

He's OK in my book too. It's a bit unfair to compare constitutional kings to hereditary overlords. Of the second type, I like Louis VI of France. He led from the front. Here's a quote from -

http://www.nndb.com/people/167/000093885/

"In all his wars -- those mentioned are but a part of them -- Louis fought in person. Proud of his strength, reckless in the charge as on the march, plunging into swollen rivers, entering blazing castles, he gained the reputation of a national hero, the protector of the poor, the church, the peasants and the towns."

(Interesting - the above website is copyrighted 2007 by Soylent Communications, but the text is word for word from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps Soylent bought Britannica?)

The original entry was written for Britannica by James Thomson Shotwell, PhD, Columbia University, New York City. He himself later achieved additional fame -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Shotwell

[Dr Realism]

Sejong The Great was one of the best rulers ever.
He ruled over Korea's Joseon Dynasty from 1418-1450.

During his rule he created the world's easiest alphabet(a smart person can learn it within an hour), composed of 28 letters, which probably made Korea, the world's most literate population. In the past they had used Chinese Characters which only a few upperclassman could understand.

He found out that one of his palace guards was very intelligent and made him a royal inventor with the authority to invent anything. The nobles weren't very happy about having a commoner as a member of court. The guy came up with a lot of inventions.

Sejong also created The Farmer's Handbook which had lots of information for farmers, telling them different methods of farming. He also introduced a tax system which was based on the amount of land you had.

He also established a rather liberal legal system in which you couldn't give cruel punishment to criminals and you had to have 3 trials before final judgement could be passed.

As a military leader, Sejong was able to stop the nomads living in Manchuria from harassing the country and was able to stop the Japanese pirates from raiding the South.(much like the vikings used to do in Europe).

[Tudor chick]

[quote=Lucius;17386]I think the question of how great a particular king is is best answered by his own subjects at the time. If I'm not mistaken, George VI was well-loved by Britain. He married a commoner, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. During the war, the Royal Family went on rations like everybody else, and he very nearly bled to death before they could stabilize the wound he received to his leg while he and the Queen were inspecting bomb damage in London (the wound was caused by an unexploded bomb - I think that's how it happened). He walked with a limp for the rest of his life. Tudor chick, does your George VI biography clarify this point?

He's OK in my book too. It's a bit unfair to compare constitutional kings to hereditary overlords. Of the second type, I like Louis VI of France. He led from the front. Here's a quote from -

http://www.nndb.com/people/167/000093885/

"In all his wars -- those mentioned are but a part of them -- Louis fought in person. Proud of his strength, reckless in the charge as on the march, plunging into swollen rivers, entering blazing castles, he gained the reputation of a national hero, the protector of the poor, the church, the peasants and the towns."

(Interesting - the above website is copyrighted 2007 by Soylent Communications, but the text is word for word from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Perhaps Soylent bought Britannica?)

The original entry was written for Britannica by James Thomson Shotwell, PhD, Columbia University, New York City. He himself later achieved additional fame -

http://en.


I have not finished the book yet, but will keep a look out for the point you mentioned about the unexploded bomb and get back to you. The other things you mentioned would be right.
I think the fact that the royal family did not leave London really did endear them to the general populous. From what I have read so far George V1 was not able to participate in the 1st WW because of illness, even though he was in the navy, and was not allowed to in the 2WW. Much to his displeasure, the same type of thing, I would think Prince Harry is going through now, not being able to go to Iraq.
The late Queen mother was a strong support to George V1 and was noted as stating during the war " The King will not leave London, and therefore I will not leave the King and the princesses will leave without me" or something along those lines. When they did go through the blitz she was noted as saying “at least I can look the west end in the eye now" From what I have read about her she was a pretty amazing woman for her time.
George V also applied food and power restrictions to the royal family during the 1st WW so I would think George V1 growing up with this would have done the same thing in the 2WW.
George V1 was not treated very well by his father, and this accounted for his stutter, and George V was not treated well by his father Edward V11, and he was not treated well by his mother Queen Victoria. So this insight is very interesting when we look at the relationship with the current Queen and her children. I wonder if this coldness with their children has come down through the generations of monachs?
If I come across anything really interesting I shall come back to this subject

[Tudor chick]

Sejong The Great was one of the best rulers ever.
He ruled over Korea's Joseon Dynasty from 1418-1450.

During his rule he created the world's easiest alphabet(a smart person can learn it within an hour), composed of 28 letters, which probably made Korea, the world's most literate population. In the past they had used Chinese Characters which only a few upperclassman could understand.

He found out that one of his palace guards was very intelligent and made him a royal inventor with the authority to invent anything. The nobles weren't very happy about having a commoner as a member of court. The guy came up with a lot of inventions.

Sejong also created The Farmer's Handbook which had lots of information for farmers, telling them different methods of farming. He also introduced a tax system which was based on the amount of land you had.

He also established a rather liberal legal system in which you couldn't give cruel punishment to criminals and you had to have 3 trials before final judgement could be passed.

As a military leader, Sejong was able to stop the nomads living in Manchuria from harassing the country and was able to stop the Japanese pirates from raiding the South.(much like the vikings used to do in Europe).

I have never heard of him, but sounds like some one that did make a very positive difference. Was he well regarded by the people he ruled?

[Dr Realism]

Yes he was. Today he is highly regarded in Korea.

[heikstheo]

From what I have read so far George V1 was not able to participate in the 1st WW because of illness, even though he was in the navy, and was not allowed to in the 2WW. Much to his displeasure, the same type of thing, I would think Prince Harry is going through now, not being able to go to Iraq.For starters, the Royals never let their kids fight in wars. The future Edward VIII wanted to fight in World War I, but the Prime Minister refused to let him. The Prime Minister remained adamant in his refusal, even after the then-Prince of Wales pointed out that he had four younger brothers.

[PADDYBOY]

Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands war :)

[Dr Realism]

This is particularly for you Lobster Backs.
I understand that the royal family is a part of British tradition and culture, but do you think the royals should still be allowed to live in such luxury?
Also, what do you think the future holds for royalty in Britain. Will they stay in the limelight or do you think they are gradually being pushed to the periphery of society?

[Nikd]

^ Normal as you say they must live like all people giving the good example, BUT the Royal Family in all countries and all time periods was part of the show, the people like to see his King/Queen in greatness, he likes to gossip for them, he feels that nothing is impossible, and his country is great and strong.
So it's more a symbol.

[PADDYBOY]

I don't regard myself as a royalist, but on the other hand, I don't see the harm in it ?
As for their luxurious life-style, what the hell, it's not as though I'm going to be any better off if they abolish the monarchy, is it? and if they replace the Queen with a president, who's it going to be? Tony Blair perhaps :confused:

As for the future of the royal family? I suppose it depends on how well they present themselves. Not sure if Charles will be up for the job or not, but if he makes a mess of it, saying silly things and sticking his neb in issues that are nothing to do with him, well I think it will be the slippery slope for the monarchy. We'll just have to wait and see
I hope I haven't offended anyone here, just my opinion :)

[PADDYBOY]

This is particularly for you Lobster Backs.
I understand that the royal family is a part of British tradition and culture, but do you think the royals should still be allowed to live in such luxury?
Also, what do you think the future holds for royalty in Britain. Will they stay in the limelight or do you think they are gradually being pushed to the periphery of society?



What is a lobster back? :confused:

[Belisarius]

What is a lobster back? :confused:

A name for an 18th century British soldier used by the colonists in America, a Redcoat. Sometimes also known as a Bloodyback.

[Tudor chick]

I don't regard myself as a royalist, but on the other hand, I don't see the harm in it ?
As for their luxurious life-style, what the hell, it's not as though I'm going to be any better off if they abolish the monarchy, is it? and if they replace the Queen with a president, who's it going to be? Tony Blair perhaps :confused:

As for the future of the royal family? I suppose it depends on how well they present themselves. Not sure if Charles will be up for the job or not, but if he makes a mess of it, saying silly things and sticking his neb in issues that are nothing to do with him, well I think it will be the slippery slope for the monarchy. We'll just have to wait and see
I hope I haven't offended anyone here, just my opinion :)

I go along with most of this too.
Not sure how Charles will go as King either.:confused:
From what I am reading popularity with the common folk seems to have a lot to do with how successful a King is. I don't know if Charles is seen as popular in the UK or not. I don't think in Australia, a commonwealth country, he is seen as very relevant or popular.
This situation is very much like Edward V111, if had not given up his crown for Wallis Simpson, he would have been a terrible King according to all accounts. Charles is lucky he was allowed to marry Camilla, or it may have been history repeating itself.
I would not be surprised if the more popular William becomes King quicker than we think;)

[Dr Realism]

What is a lobster back? :confused:
It's You:D . It's basically a redcoat. But in this instance I'm using it as a derogatory term for British Citizens on this board. It was meant to be funny because it's a long outdated term. Sort of like if you were to call me a colonial. Oh well.:o

[PADDYBOY]

I've sometimes thought, it must be a very strange experience to grow up as the first born son in a Royal household?
You go through life being teated as someone very special even though you may not have achieved anything particularly special by merit
As a child you are surrounded by adults much smarter than yourself and they're all tugging the proverbial forelocks (kissing your butt) and treating you as a superior?
Then you grow up and everyone wants to meet you, they feel priviliged in your presence. Many of these people are the most gifted and talented people in your society and they look up to you. I don't want to go down the poor little rich kid road here, but it must be a very strange life to live.
How do you justify your priviliged position whithin society, in your own mind?
Do you convince yourself that you deserve it because you are superior through breeding or whatever, or do you take the view that you deserve it because you are going to use your priviliged position to make the world a better place?
It must be easier for a stupid King to deal with this problem, than a smart King :rolleyes:

[PADDYBOY]

It's You:D . It's basically a redcoat. But in this instance I'm using it as a derogatory term for British Citizens on this board. It was meant to be funny because it's a long outdated term. Sort of like if you were to call me a colonial. Oh well.:o


I would just like to point out to any new members reading this thread, that the Unted States hasn't colonised South Korea. Dr. Realism is in fact, an American citizen living and working in South Korea and not a blue-belly colonist. :D

[Tudor chick]

I've sometimes thought, it must be a very strange experience to grow up as the first born son in a Royal household?
You go through life being teated as someone very special even though you may not have achieved anything particularly special by merit
As a child you are surrounded by adults much smarter than yourself and they're all tugging the proverbial forelocks (kissing your butt) and treating you as a superior?
Then you grow up and everyone wants to meet you, they feel priviliged in your presence. Many of these people are the most gifted and talented people in your society and they look up to you. I don't want to go down the poor little rich kid road here, but it must be a very strange life to live.
How do you justify your priviliged position whithin society, in your own mind?
Do you convince yourself that you deserve it because you are superior through breeding or whatever, or do you take the view that you deserve it because you are going to use your priviliged position to make the world a better place?
It must be easier for a stupid King to deal with this problem, than a smart King :rolleyes:

Yes it would be strange to be in this situation.
I think it would be up to their parents or who ever is doing that job at the time to put them straight.
I just read a story about Queen Elizabeth 11 when she was a young girl at a function saying to her grandmother Queen Mary; we better not keep the people outside waiting too long, as they are waiting for us to wave at them.
Queen Mary then took Elizabeth out a back door away from the crowds. I don't know if this was because it was considered bad manners to do that, or to stop Elizabeth getting full of herself?:rolleyes:
I know there are some the Upper Crust that do use their positions to try make life better for those less off, but then there are those who think they are better than everyone because their wealth.
This will most likely open a can or worms, but is what I believe; we are all equal in the eyes of God.;)
Prince Charles is a patron of 380 organisations and in 2006 he attended over 600 official engagements. It is noted that he does try to make a difference for people in the UK and internationally. That in itself is an honorable trait.
I hope Prince Charles does make a good King, and at the end of the day, if someone can say, that you are remembered as a good person, surely then you have lived your life wisely and would be considered a success?:)

[Lucius]

Amen, Tudor chick.

[PADDYBOY]

Good post Tudor Chick
There is no doubt in my mind that Charles is a good person and would make a good King. His problem is, he can't stop himself making political comments from time to time and what ever he says will upset one political party or the other inevitably leading to bad press :o I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just the way it is for a non elected public figure within a democracy, church leaders get the same stick.
Elizabeth II, will be a very hard act to follow whoever takes over ;)

[Tudor chick]

Good post Tudor Chick
There is no doubt in my mind that Charles is a good person and would make a good King. His problem is, he can't stop himself making political comments from time to time and what ever he says will upset one political party or the other inevitably leading to bad press :o I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just the way it is for a non elected public figure within a democracy, church leaders get the same stick.
Elizabeth II, will be a very hard act to follow whoever takes over ;)

I am still going through my George V1 book and have come across some interesting facts.

As George the V was still just clinging on to life he was given high a does of morphine and cocaine to hasten his death, to make it easier, thus a form of euthanasia. :eek:
Edward V111 was threatened by the prime minister of the day Baldwin that if he persisted in wanting to marry Wallis Simspon, parliament would be forced to resign and since the labour party would refuse to come in, Churchill would form a govt that would not survive the House of Commons and dissolution demanded.:eek:
Does anyone know what a "morganatic marriage" is? All the dominion Prime Ministers were against this type of marriage, and it was feared that if it was allowed to go ahead that the empire would disintegrate, causing civil strife. I am not sure but I think this may have been mentioned as a solution to what Camilla's role would be when she and Charles married.:confused:
Edward V111 was totally under Wallis Simpson’s influence and power, which the govt and his family, were very concerned about. When did they stop burning witches at the stake? Luckily for her she was born after that.:D I would have to say this couple will not be remembered as good people or Edward V111 as a good King, and could have been the end of the royal family completely.
Luckily the current royal family has good memories and do not seem to be making the same mistakes with Charles's marriage. But I wonder if Diana was still alive what would have happened? Would Charles been allowed to marry?

[Belisarius]

very simply, a Morganatic marriage is one where the person of lower rank or status does not acquire or inherit the titles, lands, etc of the superior, neither do any children of the marriage. It was mainly a German custom, and I don't think it has any force in English law. I've replied to your PM by the way.

[Tudor chick]

very simply, a Morganatic marriage is one where the person of lower rank or status does not acquire or inherit the titles, lands, etc of the superior, neither do any children of the marriage. It was mainly a German custom, and I don't think it has any force in English law. I've replied to your PM by the way.

The book did not explain this in a simple manner, so thanks for that:o
Good luck with any reponse to our Australian (current) PM. Please pass on to me your corresponsdence or reply of you get one. I would be most interested. Please keep me informed. Good luck with it all.

[es_bih]

Saladin, or Salah ad-Din, as qouted by Stanle Lane Poole in his biography of the great Sultan on his deathbed he gave away almost all of his personal belongings, and wealth. A great deal of his wealth went to the poor, and to the imporvement of the realm. His great mercy shown to the inhabitants of Jersusalem after its surrender is also to be noted, alongside his general mercy in battle, and conquest. He had some bloody moments during the war against Richard the Lionhearted as well. He governed well, and left a sound prosperous state for his sucessors. Those are measures of a great king in my mind. It is the job of the king to improve the lot of the realm in the years after him as well, however, how the sucessor fares is not of his doing.

[Pericles]

Good luck with any reponse to our Australian (current) PM.
Tudor chick,

FYI, I believe Belisarius only meant that he sent you a private message (PM), not that he sent a letter to your Prime Minister (PM), so please check your private messages if you have not done so already.

[Tudor chick]

Tudor chick,

FYI, I believe Belisarius only meant that he sent you a private message (PM), not that he sent a letter to your Prime Minister (PM), so please check your private messages if you have not done so already.

My mistake, thanks for the message

[Tudor chick]

The book did not explain this in a simple manner, so thanks for that:o
Good luck with any reponse to our Australian (current) PM. Please pass on to me your corresponsdence or reply of you get one. I would be most interested. Please keep me informed. Good luck with it all.

Sorry for this post. I misunderstood what PM meant. I was thinking you may have been writing about the Oil / Iraq issue mentioned on another thread.:o
I have now sent a PM to you. So please read it soon!:)

[PADDYBOY]

THIS IS BLATANT FAVOURITISM ! :mad:

No one sends me any P.M.s :D

[Comet]

THIS IS BLATANT FAVOURITISM ! :mad:

No one sends me any P.M.s :D


lol would you like me to send you a PM Paddy ;).

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this (since I'm too lazy to go back and read all the posts:o), but finding a good book on King Henry V of England that isn't solely based on his military expeditions is hard to find. Granted that is what he is known for, but besides the Gesta Henrici Quinti, there isn't much else about his brief dealings at home. Seward's book Henry V as Warlord is not a bad book if you really like military history.

[Tudor chick]

THIS IS BLATANT FAVOURITISM ! :mad:

No one sends me any P.M.s :D

That's not true - I have sent you one which I might add I did not get a response to - so there:p

[PADDYBOY]

That's not true - I have sent you one which I might add I did not get a response to - so there:p


OOPS! :o :o :o


Thanks ya all ! :)


Yes please Comet ;)

[PADDYBOY]

I definately think Elvis should be considered in this thread :)

[Tudor chick]

lol would you like me to send you a PM Paddy ;).

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this (since I'm too lazy to go back and read all the posts:o), but finding a good book on King Henry V of England that isn't solely based on his military expeditions is hard to find. Granted that is what he is known for, but besides the Gesta Henrici Quinti, there isn't much else about his brief dealings at home. Seward's book Henry V as Warlord is not a bad book if you really like military history.

This is the Warrior King right? I have read that he was a bit of a lad before he married and became King, but then after he became King took kingship a bit more seriously:)
I saw an interesting doco telling about Henry V being speared in the face and the arrow head of the spear being imbedded there. His surgeon invented a medical tool to remove it that was way ahead of this time. Amazing stuff.
His wife Catherine of ..... :o Somewhere in France, was devoted to him and of course was devastated when he died. She went on to marry Owen Tudor, thus starting the Tudor dynasty.
The only thing I find disappointing about this king was he looked nothing like Kenneth Branagh at all, :mad: and sort of looked some medieval monk:eek: hardly a girl’s dream of a dashing Knight!
No wonder Catherine was knocked over by a smooth talking Welshman:cool:

[Tudor chick]

I definately think Elvis should be considered in this thread :)

You are a "dag" Paddyboy - but still a good bloke;)

[PADDYBOY]

Definition of DAG ?

1 An unfashionable person - Guilty

2 Dirty wool around a sheeps bum - :confused:

3 Term of endearment - :)

Guess which one I hope it's not ???

[Comet]

Definition of DAG ?

1 An unfashionable person - Guilty

2 Dirty wool around a sheeps bum - :confused:

3 Term of endearment - :)

Guess which one I hope it's not ???

lol that's funny!!! I'm hoping the same thing for you paddy:)

[Tudor chick]

Definition of DAG ?

1 An unfashionable person - Guilty - Maybe - sounds a bit like it, but not having seen you can't be sure:rolleyes:

2 Dirty wool around a sheeps bum - :confused: No that would just be cruel and hurtful

3 Term of endearment - :) Yes;) Hope you have taken it that way

Guess which one I hope it's not ???

Your are so funny Paddyboy:D

I have just consulted my two teenagers and they say that it is a personality type - a daggy person, but a term of endearment.:)
They went onto say it is better than being a "drop kick" :eek: which a terrible AFL football kick, not worth doing - thus you would say "what a drop kick" when someone has done something or said something not worth much. Not a term of endearment at all

[Melisende]

Re: Great Kings:

Hatshepsut - Pharoah (King) of Egypt - and a woman.

[PADDYBOY]

Billie Jean King
Great tennis player, also a woman :D

[heikstheo]

Billie Jean King
Great tennis player, also a woman :Dand a lesbian, too! :p

[Sir Rich]

New balls please!

[Melisende]

Didn't realise she had any to replace - boom boom!! ;)