Greatest Leader?

[Emancipation 2]

Not too many women rise to top positions in the country (Ie. PM's/ Presidency).. That and her length of term as PM is quite staggaring.. Those were some of the reasons I put her down.. Not really to do with policy, but obviously she did SOMETHING right.. the old girl.. to last that long in such an important position. One can be a great leader and pass bad policy.. IMO. Leadership has to do with the act and capacity to lead.. not necessarily with their political stance on an issue. Just my opinion of course

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

History 101: King John was the one responsible for the Magna Carta (English constitution).

I'm well aware of English history. And especially the history of this particular family.

King John is NOT considered by most to have been a "great leader," despite his being forced to sign the Magna Carta. You will notice that English monarchs have *not* given his name to prospective heirs -- this is due to his poor reputation. In fact, many historians consider his reign to be one of the most disasterous in England -- he was selected by the BBC History Magazine as the 13th century's worst Briton.

[Mags 112]

History 101: King John was the one responsible for the Magna Carta (English constitution).

I'm well aware of English history. And especially the history of this particular family.

King John is NOT considered by most to have been a "great leader," despite his being forced to sign the Magna Carta. You will notice that English monarchs have *not* given his name to prospective heirs -- this is due to his poor reputation. In fact, many historians consider his reign to be one of the most disasterous in England -- he was selected by the BBC History Magazine as the 13th century's worst Briton.

Exactly. I am surprised that he has been mentioned in this thread at all.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

History 101: King John was the one responsible for the Magna Carta (English constitution).

I'm well aware of English history. And especially the history of this particular family.

King John is NOT considered by most to have been a "great leader," despite his being forced to sign the Magna Carta. You will notice that English monarchs have *not* given his name to prospective heirs -- this is due to his poor reputation. In fact, many historians consider his reign to be one of the most disasterous in England -- he was selected by the BBC History Magazine as the 13th century's worst Briton.

I guess Richard escaped by virtue of NOT HAVING SEEN the 13^th century (I seem to remember he got England INTO the Crusades). The fact that John bucked the common approach of medieval absolute monarchs does make him worthy of the list (and the fact that this non-Anglophile would even bother to add an English monarch should speak volumes).

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm actually surprised FDR hasn't been mentioned yet. I don't agree with all of his policies and decisions, but he rallied the U.S. during wartime and was the only U.S. president elected to office more than twice. Granted, the latter was partly because there was no provision stating that presidents can only serve two four year terms at the time, but before that, they had only served that many out of habit. However, he had to have the support to get elected more than twice, and that's pretty good for a man stricken with polio and in a wheelchair.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I guess Richard escaped by virtue of NOT HAVING SEEN the 13^th century (I seem to remember he got England INTO the Crusades). The fact that John bucked the common approach of medieval absolute monarchs does make him worthy of the list (and the fact that this non-Anglophile would even bother to add an English monarch should speak volumes).

Richard the Lionheart ? Red herring. Nor did he make the BBC's cut as "worst Briton of the 12th century", either (that "honor" went to Thomas Becket.)

"Bucked the common approach of medieval absolute monarchs" ?????? Sorry, but LMAO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

History 101: King John was the one responsible for the Magna Carta (English constitution).

I'm well aware of English history. And especially the history of this particular family.

King John is NOT considered by most to have been a "great leader," despite his being forced to sign the Magna Carta. You will notice that English monarchs have *not* given his name to prospective heirs -- this is due to his poor reputation. In fact, many historians consider his reign to be one of the most disasterous in England -- he was selected by the BBC History Magazine as the 13th century's worst Briton.

I was going to say I thought he was forced to sign it, and had no intention of honouring it in the first place. Yet he is credited with it because his signature was required to ratify it. In fact, I believe the original proposal had more to do with the church than it did with King John.

Apart from that, his reign as far as I am aware was characterised by civil war between his barons. In fact, at the end of his rule, the Angevin empire established by his father (Henry II) had been run into the ground. Of course Richard didn't do too much for the country either, getting himself captured and held to ransom - which effectively bankrupted the country (though John didn't help there by embezzling some of the money).

As far as British rulers go - Henry II would be on my list, along with Alfred the Great and Elizabeth I.

Edited March 5, 2007 by erekose

[derekkj 0]

History 101: King John was the one responsible for the Magna Carta (English constitution).

Sorry Cherry, have to side with Mags and WOM on this one.

History 201: King John definitely believed in absolute monarchy and was FORCED to sign the Magna Carta by his barons. Moreover, he had no intentions of ever complying with it and as soon as Pope Innocent III released John from the oath, stipulating that John had signed under duress, John renounced the document. As a consequence, England entered a civil war called the First Barons' War with the barons trying to uphold the Magna Carta and John refusing. John died during the war and his 9 year old son Henry III was crowned. Henry III was another no-so-great king, did not believe in the limitations placed on the monarchy by the Magna Carta and fought it for all of his reign - without much success since he was forced to call the first "parliament" in in 1264.

Now, go watch "The Lion in Winter" with Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepurn to see one of the most famous disfunctional families in history!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now, go watch "The Lion in Winter" with Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepurn to see one of the most famous disfunctional families in history!

Its a great movie but not really historically accurate. As far as the relationships went - there was certainly no love lost between Henry and Eleanor, and their children.

Richard apparently did have some sort of 'relationship' with Philip of France.

[derekkj 0]

Its a great movie but not really historically accurate. As far as the relationships went - there was certainly no love lost between Henry and Eleanor, and their children.

Richard apparently did have some sort of 'relationship' with Philip of France.

Fair 'nuff about not being historically accurate, but it does give a sense of the power struggle going on within the family and the country. In short, great movie, great dialog, and great actors - O'Toole, Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins - what more can you ask for?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently Henry II died alone and forgotten - cursing his "evil" children.

[SteveLaura 0]

Pedant's Corner:

The Magna Carta was sealed, not signed. (Happened in my old home town, Egham. I attended Magna Carta school, so I know of which I type )

Carry on.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Pedant's Corner:

The Magna Carta was sealed, not signed. (Happened in my old home town, Egham. I attended Magna Carta school, so I know of which I type )

Carry on.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Main Entry: sign

Function: transitive verb

1 : to affix a signature to : ratify or attest by hand or seal <sign a bill into law>; specifically : to write or mark something (as a signature) on (a document) as an acknowledgment of one's intention to be bound by it

2 : to assign or convey formally <signed the property over to his brother> —sign·er noun

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Pedants rule !

[SteveLaura 0]

I am publicly shamed...

Anyway, Erekose mentioned 'signature', and, well, there isn't one on the Magna Carta. So there!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am publicly shamed...

Anyway, Erekose mentioned 'signature', and, well, there isn't one on the Magna Carta. So there!

Well more or less the same thing - symbolically speaking

That said, the writing system in the middle-ages was a bit of a step back from roman times for instance, where people wrote on reusable wax tablets.

Always found it interesting that so much roman technology was lost after the collapse of the empire proper that it wasn't until Napoleonic times that battlefield hospitals, for example, were up to the standard of the roman ones.