NationStates Jolt Archive

thoughout history both kings and queens have been succesful in ruling thier countries but who have been more succesful

I don't think a monarch's sexual orientation has anything to do with his performance.

Well take a look at Elizabeth 1 and Victoria......

I think it depends on the Monarch whether they are good or bad - not just their sex!

I mean...would ANYONE really want the Princess Royal to rule?

Anne does a heck of a lot for charity and she speaks her mind which I admire though Charles is very eco concious and aware of social problems today.

As a general rule it would be difficult to compare the 2 sexes as rulers a s there have been many more male rulers athn female. It wouldnt be a fair comparison

thoughout history both kings and queens have been succesful in ruling thier countries but who have been more succesful

Kings and Queens of Great Britain:

Number of times the monarch was deposed and a republic instituted under a king: 1

Number of times the monarch was deposed and a republic instituted under a queen: 0

I think that is fairly conclusive as far as Great British monarch goes, no?


As to whether the rule of King or Queen is a good thing in itself, that is a separate matter.

SOmeone can be a King and a queen. Like King Edward. (the second?).

I have no idea why kings and queens wouldn't be equal as rulers.

http://www.2dtv.co.uk/picture/nakedroyals.jpg

I think that says it all

Queen Elizabeth was the best British monarch

Though Bloody Mary sucked. Hard.

"Can a queen rule as well as a king ?"

I see no reason why not.

Elizabeth I was one of the most overrated Monarch in European history. Having said that, she was still one of the best. I reckon that Queens have generally given us far fewer disasters and far more wisdom, but as the greatest Monarch in British history was the unfairly-maligned Henry II, we shouldn't write Kings off altogether.

Through history it seems the best and the worst have both been kings, whereas the in-betweens have been queens...

Obviously that's a generalization, there are examples of so-so kings and of great or really bad queens....

But most of the time.

Through history it seems the best and the worst have both been kings, whereas the in-betweens have been queens...

Obviously that's a generalization, there are examples of so-so kings and of great or really bad queens....

But most of the time.

Would this have something to do with the fact that there appear to have been more klings than queens in history? A large sample of kings will probably statistically provide a greater deviation from the norm than a small sample of queens.

Queens Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, and Cleopatra of Egypt.

Queen Isabella of Spain.

Catherine the Great of Russia.

Elizabeth I and Victoria of England/Britain.

Empress Wu Chao of China.

A group of queens who knew how to handle themselves, wouldn't you agree?

(of course all royalty should be line up against a wall before a firing squad)

Look, I'm sick of this gender bullshit.

Everyone is stupid. Some less than others. That's about it. Now go apply to everything else.

I think Elisabeth II has done an outstanding job in keeping as much of the old Empire together as possible in the form of the Common Wealth considering the political changes that have swept the world and the parliamentary limitations on her powers. The old Empire has devolved into a trading block and in that sense Elisabeth II was one step ahead of America and the EU.

Monarchs are bad.

Monarchs are bad.

Monarchs are not always bad, even in modern Great Britain the monarchy provides an essential practical role, (even if it is not clear on paper), in ensuring that a dictator does not come to power. With no written constitution and a monarch, Britain continues to have human rights comparable with, and better than most, other 'written constition' counterparts. The recent decision by the House of Lords to release 'prisoners' held in the UK without conviction, (relating to terrorism), is testament to this. I can think of one good example of a country which does not offer such basic freedoms//human rights... ;), ps. they don't have a monarchy.

What other legal system do you know of that could thoretically make smoking illegal in Paris, Berlin and Moscow (albeit out of our jurisdiction), but the same laws would be ineffective in Canada or Australia! God Bless the Statute of Westminster 1931 and all the complex webbings that make up our scrambled common law system.

Don't think sexual orientation got to do with anything.

I mean...would ANYONE really want the Princess Royal to rule?

Yes, but nowadays the English Royal Family is their just for ceremonial purposes, they don't really rule anything.

They're equally as good/bad as each other. Just going by English/British monarchs, anyone could see that.
Good English/British Queens: Elizabeth I, Victoria.
Average: Elizabeth II, Anne.
Bad: Mary, Matilda (12th Century. Very bad idea. No respect, yadda yadda).
Good English/British Kings: Edward I, Henry VII
Average: Most of the rest.
Bad: George I, George II, George III, Edward II.

Actually...having thought about it - good queens are no better than good kings, but bad queens are generally better than bad kings.

Don't think sexual orientation got to do with anything.
I made that very same point. Nobody here seems to get it.

What's gender got to do with it?

Monarchs like Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers and other heads of state come in all sorts of varieties.

Well, Elizabeth 1 and Victoria were two of the most successful monarchs in British history.

So what? The question should really be:
"who makes the best leader for a country Men or Women?"
Which is a load of rubbish as it has alot to do with your personality and they way you think.