I know their powers over the country were much different, but I still think Elizabeth I was a smarter, more vigorous and interesting personality. Also, I do not think that Elizabeth II would have retained her throne very long if she ruled at the time and in the manor of Elizabeth R. What do you think?
2006-12-26 14:08:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Elizabeth I was a lot more like her father (Henry VIII) and was called upon to protect her throne and her country. She proved that she was as strong as any male monarch. Elizabeth II couldn't protect a pudding.
2006-12-26 14:20:05 · answer #1 · answered by art_tchr_phx 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
JZ,
Total agreement. Elizabeth II has just been a figurehead. When she came to the throne in 1952 the British monarcy had no power.
Elizabeth I, who ruled England from 1558 to 1603 was a highly capable ruler. She ably managed a Protestant compromise; following Queen Mary, the Catholic. Elizabeth avoided war as much as possible, and then outwitted and defeated Philip II, who unsuccessfully invaded England with the Spanish Armada in 1588. She effectively managed Britian's finances (Henry VIII squandered a lot of money for example), and a long and effective rule. Elizabeth had a highly capable advisor William Cecil. She was the last of England's Tudor rulers, and maybe the best.
2006-12-27 01:04:12 · answer #2 · answered by Rev. Dr. Glen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you; Elizabeth I was a real queen & Elizabeth II is only a figure head. Elizabeth I had real power the second has very little, if any real power. Also, Elizabeth I was a true English woman whereas II is of German ancestory.
2006-12-26 22:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since her reign is called the Elizabethian Era (because of all the great writers, like Shakespeare, and the increases in English power and worldwide influence), I have to vote for Elizabeth I.
Elizabeth II's existence basically keeps an outmoded political system alive...she is kind of like the ear lobe of politics. It doesn't really serve that much of a purpose, but you can hang pretty things on them, and many would miss it if it were suddenly gone.
2006-12-26 22:23:00 · answer #4 · answered by ♫ giD∑■η ♫ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
King George III and Queen Victoria had more influence in government than Elizabeth II.
My vote is Elizabeth I
2006-12-26 23:18:53 · answer #5 · answered by travis_a_duncan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the 16th century the monarch led the country. in the 21st century the Monarch is the greatest tourist attraction in the country. It's a completely different world. If QE2's father had been like Henry VIII then maybe she would rule with more Gusto. If QE1's father was more like George VI then maybe the world we live in would be completely different. It's hard to say But I believe QE2 does the job she has to perfectly well. I don't know If QE1 would do it any better if she'd been alive today.
Liz 1 was, in my opinion, the better Queen.
2006-12-26 22:22:48 · answer #6 · answered by swiftgfc 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Elizabeth II, who protis only indirectly from the Opium War of 1840-1851
2006-12-27 03:31:02 · answer #7 · answered by tobabill 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Elizabeth I was a powerful monarch. Elizabeth II is a figurehead. There's no comparison.
2006-12-26 22:18:27 · answer #8 · answered by balderarrow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
while I agree with the above posters that QE2 is a figurehead, she certainly does fulfill that role with conviction and class, her biggest drawback being her children and their behaviour.
I have a feeling she could have been capable of much more, if that was what was required of a monarch in the present day, and would be hesitant to dismiss her as less intelligent than QE1.
2006-12-27 01:16:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect you are right
2006-12-26 22:22:40 · answer #10 · answered by . 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋