Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

Quotes from Pro are italicized and underlined.Rebuttals to Pro's Round 2 arguments Queen Victoria was a fantastically popular monarch for most of her reign. Unlike Queen Elizabeth I, who had a number of attempted rebellions... Queen Victoria was never at any real risk of being deposed via a rebellion. Queen Victoria did have rebellions in her hands, most notable of which is the sepoy rebellion of 1857[1]. While Pro is right that this Indian rebellion would not have overthrown her, this still means that Queen Victoria was unpopular in India which at the time was easily the majority of her Empire.When she [Queen Victoria] was crowned, especially, she rode on a wave of popularity larger than that of any other monarch at the start of their rule.This does not help the Pro case, this only shows that Queen victoria was popular due to prior circumstance and not her deeds. Besides, India (the majority of her subjects) resented her.Queen Victoria was incredibly fertile. She had nine children This only means that Queen Victoria was a succesful mother and not a queen. The sucess of a leader should be determined on how well they lead their country and not by how much they reproduce. Queen Victoria saw the takeover of India by England from the East India Company. She also conquered Canada and Egypt, she expanded the borders of the British Empire significantly more than any other QueenAs I said in round 1, Queen Victoria had very little power over the country and was certainly not the mastermind of British take over of India and much of Africa. If the credit must go to one person, it would be the Prime minister and not the Queen of Britain. the magnitude of change of British life between the start and end of Queen Victoria's reign was greater than that of any other Queen, England essentially went from a farming community to an industrial power.Once again, Queen Victoria is not the inventor of the steam engine, nor was she the one who set Britain's policy of industrialization and modernization. It would be a mistake to credit her for something that she did not do. In any case, I could easily say that Queen Elizabeth II (today's queen) saw a bigger magnitude of change than Victoria in terms of british people's lives due to the birth of the internet and the information revolution. Not to mention modern medicine and the increased length of life that came during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. Oh and of course...Nuclear weapons. Rebuttals to Pro's Round 3 argumentsI understand next to nothing from Pro's first large Paragraph. What does it mean to have politically important positions in her household? I ask Pro to clarify, perhaps rephrase, his paragraph as I am sure it is very significant to this debate (also, give sources).William IV, the predecessor to Queen Victoria, actually dismissed a government, which shows that, at least at the beginning of her reign, Queen Victoria did have enough power to be said to make a differenceWording is key here, Pro says that at least in the beginning of Victoria's reign, she had power. This implies that Victoria progressively lost power over time (which would not be far from the truth). A good ruler does not lose power progressively over time. Her first ministers listened to her advice and did take it on board as she was very close with many of them, most notably Lord Melbourne,Seriously? The ability to give advice is nothing compared to what Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Mary had, which was the ability to make and break laws as they pleased which is a whole another league of power to giving advice. I should not have to compare Queen Victoria's power to Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary's power. Having said all of that, con has yet to mention, or give any reason, as to why other Queen's have been more successful than Queen Victoria.Last time I checked, my round 2 was not blank. I clearly argued that Queen Victoria was unsuccessful due to her not having power (which literally defines a monarch) as opposed to her more powerful predecessors of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I.Conclusions:The advancement of the British Empire during Victoria's reign have nothing to do with Queen Victoria's leadership. Victoria was not the policy maker who modernized Britain nor was she the military strategist who won Britain its wars. Queen Victoria was unpopular among most of her subjects, paticularly the Indian subjects who were getting increasingly nationalist (I imagine Kenyans and Zimbabweans did not like Victoria either).Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Mary had far more power over their country than Queen Victoria and therfore Victoria cannot be called sucessful queen if she was not even a real ruler.Sources:[1]http://history1800s.about.com...;