Most Historically Important Royal

[HerrKaiser]

Who do you think was the SINGLE most important royal in terms of affect on modern history?

My vote...Nickolas II. He had to power to steer Russia toward more inclusive, semi-parlimentarian government and restrain his generals from mobilizing in August 1913. Had both situations been different, the rise to power of the Bolsheviks may likely been avoided. A different 20th century would have emerged.

[bluetoria]

What an interesting question, HerrKaiser!   Thank you for posting it!

My immediate reaction was Queen Victoria because the era to which she gave her name was the one which changed the face of Britain forever. On second thoughts, though, these changes would have taken place whoever was king or queen. As far as the monarchy goes, she changed the whole concept of it - previously it had been distant from the people and her recent forebears had been seen as wasteful and decadent. During her reign it became viewed entirely differently.

One of the most influential monarchs ever might have been Fritz...if only his reign hadn't been so brief. Military expansionism etc. might have been avoided and WWI (then consequently WWII) might never have happened...But that is only a 'might-have-been.'  It will be really interesting to see what other people write here!

[Prince_Lieven]

Yes, great thread!

I would say Kaiser Wilhelm II or Henry VIII.

Wilhelm because he dismissed Bismarck - IMHO, Bismarck could have avoided WWI.

Henry because he brought about the English split with Rome. Imagine, if he hadn't England would still be Catholic!

[TampaBay]

John, King of England

He signed the Magna Carta!  Begining of Parlimant with power and forerunner to Constitutional Monarchy!

This is when & where modern day "Western" Democracy began.

TampaBay

[Prince_Lieven]

A good point TB.

In the same vein - King James II. His attempts to drag England kicking and screaming back to Rome caused his deposition and the accession of William and Mary, which settled once and for all that the Succession was the gift of Parliament, not of God, and not a matter of hereditary succession.

[TampaBay]

A good point TB.

In the same vein - King James II. His attempts to drag England kicking and screaming back to Rome caused his deposition and the accession of William and Mary, which settled once and for all that the Succession was the gift of Parliament, not of God, and not a matter of hereditary succession.

Wrong Prince!!!

Succession is a gift of the people expressed through and by their elected represenatives-Parliament in the Case of the UK!

TampaBay

[HerrKaiser]

Yes, good points on John and James. Had Nickolas followed any part of their lead, the last 100 years would have been quite different. To me, comparing such acts as affecting shifts in culture and history to the earthquake scale, I'd say the Magna Carta is about an 8.0 and the WWI and Bolshviks about a 9.0.

Another one would be George III. His actions led to the American Revolution which is square one for violent overthrough of a government.

Agree whole heartedly that Fritz MIGHT have been the most important, Bluetoria!

[Prince_Lieven]

Wrong Prince!!!

Succession is a gift of the people expressed through and by their elected represenatives-Parliament in the Case of the UK!

TampaBay

I mean that in those days Succession was established by Parliament.

[TampaBay]

Another one would be George III. His actions led to the American Revolution which is square one for violent overthrough of a government.

HK,

You are 100% correct.  Reveloution is what happens when the King or Tsar and Parliament do not listen to the people.

THe USA was lucky in that George Washington was committed to democracy unlike Lenin and George Washigton was a stong leader and very capable "head of state" unlike Kerensky!

TampaBay

[Prince_Lieven]

What about Louis XIV of France? He made France replace Spain as the Europeans Superpower, a position it held until the post Napoleon years . . .

[jackie3]

Kaiser Wilhem II. His ambitions for Germany indirectly led to both the scourges of the 20th Century, Nazism and Communism as well as the fall of most of the dynasties of Europe.

[Prince_Christopher]

Another vote for George III.

What would the world be today without an independent United States of America?

[Prince_Lieven]

To be fair, the American War of Independence was not entirely George's doing . . . he is generally seen as the symbol of the evil Britain against which the Americans were fighting . . .

[Prince_Christopher]

You're right, Prince.  The newly born American spirit would have crushed any monarch sitting on that throne!

[Prince_Lieven]

Yes, exactly, Christopher. Had it been George IV, QV, anyone - they always would have been a 'villain' to the Americans, who wanted freedom (quite rightfully so).

Strangely enough, here in Ireland, the two monarchs we most seriously rebelled against (George III in 1798 and George V in 1916 and 1921-1922) have never been seen as ogres . . .