A question....I would like very much to hear what any of you British, or (persons who have studied the history of Britain) your opionions on a question from a Yank, who, when all is said and done, has no "true" concept of the feelings of a monarch brings out in their people...good, or bad.....Elizabeth I...in my opinion, haviing read and studied history all of my life (ancient history is the subject that interests me the most greece/rome especially, but I have read and studied as much of the world's history as I have been able to...and continue to do so) ranks as a shining example of what a monarch could, and should be for her people...she loved her people, and they returned her love..."good Queen Bess"...She was competent, intelligent, decisive, firm, yet compassionate, always put the needs of her people foremost, avoided war as much as was possible, fighting only when war was forced upon her, was frugal with the treasury, yet spent where spending would do the most good for all....reigned for  over three decades...taking the throne after the mecurical reign of her father henry VIII, the short reign of her brother edward, and the five years of "Bloody Mary" who spent more time having people burnt at the stake for heresy, than she did on government...England was a nation of three or four million people, second rate power in europe, rather backwards compared to spain, france, and germany in many ways at the time...when she died, and james took the throne England was well on her way....becoming a power to be reckoned with in europe, with ships all over the oceans, travelling on voyages of discovery, and commerce, England was laying the foundations the soon to be world dominating British Empire.   My question....why isn't this outsanding person remembered as Elizabeth  the Great?  I know that the only King surnamed the Great in English history, is Alfred...and having held on to that last third of England for the English, and holding the Danes back from totally conquering the island, and allowing the anglo-saxons to regroup, retake, and evolve into the English people is fundemental...certainly there would have been no Elizabeth had he failed....yet, there also would have been no Elizabeth had Harold, not been beaten at hastings by William....so I think that comparing the "greatness" of Alfred, who after all ruled over a very very small kingdom, and spent more time fighting for it's existence, than he had any chance of governing a nation as Elizabeth did.   Louis XVI the "Sun King" did not have the strength of character, to put the love of his people before his love of himself....Peter I the Great of Russia certainly had the good of his nation and people foremost in his mind, and was tireless in his determination to see that the future of Russia would be greater than her past, but he was also harsh and brutal in his actions.  hundreds of thousands of his people died carrying out his programs, not to mention the thousands he had executed, (the streltzy e.g.)....there isn't a "great" monarch within 500 years of Elizabeth, who had the vision, the ambition, and the love, to have given so much of herself for the good of her people.Where Peter led with the knout and the stick, and Louis partied at Versaillewhile his people starved, exhausting his enormous treasury in pointless wars, that gained nothing...Elizabeth worked with a parliment with all the give and take that comes with not having her hands on the purse strings...and tapped into the industry, toughness, and courage of her  people, noble and common alike...and under her watchful eye made it possible for her nation to grow from a backwater island of farmers, and tradesmen, to on ocean ruling power who could boast that the sun never set on their empire.....

 

 

Who does one have to speak with to have Elizabeth cognomenated "the Great"....and why hasn't anyone submitted the paperwork?...lol...