Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

I must start with a thank you, con, for you have provided me with great amusement.Please note Pro's subtle condescending tone. ..nuclear weapons, which were used to end WWII in 1945 in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, came about in the rule of Queen Elizabeth II, who came to the throne in 1952 and was crowned in 1953...I'm afraid you may have to go and pick up a History book, con.Note that it was the US who did the bombing of the 2 japanese cities. The UK only developed nuclear weapons in 1952 (The year Queen elizabeth II came to the throne).However this is irrelevant. My point in Round 3 was that because the country advanced technologically does not mean that it should be attributed to the ruler of the country unless the ruler was directly involved with the institution of pro-research and pro-modernization agenda, this is not the case with Victoria. I mentioned Elizabeth II because it was worth mentioning that her time has seen (and will see) far greater advancement of 'British civilization' than in Victoria's time.On another note, this debate has swerved vastly off topic into the realms of power, when the debate is not about the power of the monarchy, but the success of the individual in their role as a Queen.If a Queen does not have power, then how would she be succesful in her role as a leader of a country? A cook cannot be succesful without preparing a meal, a military strategist cannot be sucessful without making a battle strategy, a ruler cannot be succesful without ruling a country.Here con illustrates his lack of Historical knowledge, again. The sepoy rebellion of 1857 occurred before India was actually a part of the British empire, which didn't happen until 1858. Therefore the Indian's were not rebelling against the English monarch, Queen Victoria, but were rebelling against their treatment at the hands of the East India Company. Before 1858 India was not under the control of the crown. Yes, because India suddenly bowed their heads and stopped wanting independence after 1858. It is not unreasonable to say that the majority of indians (and indeed a majority of the British Empire) resented Queen Victoria whether before or after 1858. number of people Queen Victoria had executed over the entirety of her reign, that is to say, noneThis is becuase Queen Victoria does not have the power to execute people in the entirety of her reign. I mean with the bill of rights, age of enlightenment and monarchy losing power it is obvious that Queen Victoria did not execute anyone (because she could not). It was important for a Queen to have children in order so that, if they should die, there will be a clear heir to the throne.Its really a matter of perspective here and we can argue this for hours, the Con perspective (me) is that a Queen is the leader of a country first and that how well that leader rules a coutnry is more important than leaving a country with an heir. The main difference is that, under Queen Elizabeth, the borders of England did not expand, whereas under Queen Victoria, they did.And we must take into account the circumstance for both Queens. In Pro's example Queen Elizabeth was fighting the Spanish - A vastly superior foe with a world spanning empire. England dwarfed in comparison to Spain back in Elizabeth's rule.By the time Victoria came to power England/Britain was a near uncontested superpower, making it relatively easy to conquer India (crush the rebellion and take the country from the East India company) and use their influence to take more land in the scramble for africa.A great leader is recognized as great when put into dire circumstances and yet acheive victory. This is the case with Elizabeth.Victoria was lucky to have the great start position she did to conquer the world (although it was not her, it was the elected government but that is a seperate argument).Kudos to Pro for clarifying what I asked him to clarify. Yes, I now agree that Victoria had some power over the government, we must not forget that key word 'some'. It is really no dispute that Elizabeth I and Mary had more power over their country compared to Victoria. Victoria still has no power to dictate policy (domestic or foreign) and no power to make laws.There is an interesting contradiction when Pro tries to show that Victoria was a popular figure amongst her people. [4] 'Popular respect for the Crown was at low point at her coronation [5] 'At the start of her reign Victoria was popular.' Just something worth noting.Victoria's popularity grew with the increasing imperial sentiment from the 1870s onwards....the modest and straightforward young Queen [Victoria] won the hearts of her subjects....her Golden and Diamond Jubilees were times of public celebration. How does Pro explain the founding of the Indian national congress in 1885[1] to try and secede from the rule of Queen Victoria. Surely the fact that hundreds of millions of people are attempting secession (independence) from the country makes the Government, and therfore its head of state - Queen Victoria, unpopular. The Indian subjects are just as much part of the Empire as British subjects (with Victoria being the Empress of India and all), which Pro himself made apparent by mentioning the full integration of India into the empire in 1858. The topic of this debate is not about power but about successfulness.A Queen must, by defention, have a reasonable amount of power in the country to be, you know, an actual Monarch. Therfore if you do not run your country with dictatorial or near dictatorial powers then you are a pretty unsucessful monarch/queen (I am talking to you 'Queen' Victoria).the main reason that I believe Queen Victoria was more successful than Queen Elizabeth I is that Queen Victoria and Queen Albert were such incredible role-models for the British people. This I will not deny Victoria. She was a great role model for 'British people' (as long as colonies are not involved, they show a completely different side which I have already addressed). But that's all she is, simply a popular figurehead.Queen Victoria made learning and great achievements fashionable, which started a chain reaction, leading us into modern times!This is a huge assertion to make with huge implications. Pro is saying that Victoria made great acheivements fashionable. Were pre-Victorian era great acheivements were looked down as useless? No they were not. Education was rising in Europe anyway, which would have happened in Britain no matter who the figurehead was. Queen Victoria did not commission building schools, universities or research labs. Queen Victoria was as good as uninvolved with the main decision making process of setting a domestic policy of promoting education.She was merely a figurehead. Which is why she was not the most successful queen of England. Sources:[1]http://www.infoplease.com...;