Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

I must start with a thank you, con, for you have provided me with great amusement. Con asserts: '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.' There are a number of problems with this statement, the most grievous of which would be the suggestion that 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. Unless she travelled back in time, I'm afraid you may have to go and pick up a History book, con. 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. So we shall get back on topic shortly, but first - rebuttals. "Queen Victoria did have rebellions in her hands, most notable of which is the sepoy rebellion of 1857. 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." 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. If we do wish to talk of rebellions, however, we should return to the aforementioned 'rising of the north' in 1569[1]. A rebellion which saw the entirety of the north of England (yes, England, not a different country that wasn't actually part of her empire) form a rebellion against the Queen, Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth was at a real risk of being dethroned and, very likely, beheaded. The pope also declared the Queen excommunicated in support for the rebellion. Safe to say, Queen Elizabeth was not a particularly popular Queen. After the rebellion was quelled, she had 600 people executed. If you compare this to the number of people Queen Victoria had executed over the entirety of her reign, that is to say, none, it must be assumed that Queen Victoria was more popular than Queen Elizabeth at the time of their respective reigns. Con asserts: '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. ' Whilst, in an ideal world, con would be correct here, unfortunately he is 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. In the example of Queen Elizabeth, whom was once ill with smallpox near the start of her reign, if she had not recovered there may have been a civil war, as wikipedia helpfully states, the succession question 'became a heated issue in Parliament. They urged the queen to marry or nominate an heir, to prevent a civil war upon her death. She refused to do either.' [2] Con asserts: "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." It is true that Queen Victoria did not personally rally her armies and lead them into battle on an armoured horse, but the same can be said of all Queens. Queen Elizabeth, at the defeat of the Spanish armada, was not halfway up the rigging of one of the British ships firing arrows at the Spanish boats. However, both Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria were successful in the way that they inspired their country to fight for them. The main difference is that, under Queen Elizabeth, the borders of England did not expand, whereas under Queen Victoria, they did. Con asserts: 'I understand next to nothing from Pro's first large Paragraph. What does it mean to have politically important positions in her household?' I see, well con, do not fear, I shall educate you. There were three main positions in the monarchs household that the monarch could dispense to whomever she wished. These were Master of the Horse, Lord Steward, and Lord Chamberlain. The Queen was also able to elect her own ladies-in-waiting. All of these positions, but especially the first three, held a significant amount of political influence. Therefore, the Queen's having elected only Whigs in all of these positions meant that it was impossible for Robert Peel to create a Tory government as they would be too unpopular due to not having the support of the Queen. This shows the Queen wielding some real power over the government, and therefore the country. As for the assertion that con makes that Queen Victoria was not the real ruler of her country, and was, in fact, 'unpopular among most of her subjects,' that is absurd. Here are a few sources I'd like to throw your way. [3] 'Victoria's popularity grew with the increasing imperial sentiment from the 1870s onwards. Despite this decline in the Sovereign's power, Victoria showed that a monarch who had a high level of prestige and who was prepared to master the details of political life could exert an important influence.' [4] 'Popular respect for the Crown was at low point at her coronation, but the modest and straightforward young Queen won the hearts of her subjects.' [5] 'At the start of her reign Victoria was popular.' And, ' her Golden and Diamond Jubilees were times of public celebration.' I don't think I need any more proof that Queen Victoria was, for the vast majority of the time, very popular with her people, and was never under any real threat of a rebellion against her rule. Unlike 'Bloody Mary', who was very fond of burning protestants alive, and Queen Elizabeth I, who had to contend with dangerous rebellions that actually threatened her position as Queen. I would now like to revert back to the question at hand. The topic of this debate is not about power but about successfulness. Was Queen Victoria more successful at fulfilling her role as Queen than any other English Queen in History? Well con has put forth two candidates whom he thinks was more successful, those being Queen Mary I and her sister, Queen Elizabeth I. In order to gauge the success of these monarchs comparatively to Queen Victoria, it is necessary to compare their achievements with Queen Victoria. Queen Mary I: Married Prince Philip of Spain, an incredibly unpopular marriage which saw a rebellion against the Queen. The rebellion failed, but she was forced to arrest her sister, the later Queen Elizabeth I, who had secretly conspired against her. Later, Queen Elizabeth I was placed under house arrest due to a lack of evidence. Attempted to stop the protestant faith from being practised. Burned hundreds of protestants alive, making martyrs of them and strengthening the protestant cause by doing so. Had two phantom pregnancies whilst trying to get pregnant and produce an heir. She died shortly after these. I realise I'm being rather unfair about Mary, she must have done some good things. The only thing I could find on actual accomplishments was this list: [6] Mary preserved the Tudor succession, both in her coming and going. She strengthened the position of Parliament by using it for her religious settlement. She established the 'gender-free' authority of the Crown. She restored and strengthened the administrative structure of the Church. She maintained the Navy and reformed the militia. So one of the best things that Mary did for her country, according to this list, was die. I think it's time to move on to a more hopeful candidate for success. Queen Elizabeth I (Gloriana): Queen Elizabeth I was a great monarch and I will not deny that for it would be a pointless endeavour. She achieved many great things, including the defeat of the great Spanish Armada. However, 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 is exemplified by the Great Exhibition in 1851 of British achievements, which was essentially a portfolio of great British achievements. I would like to draw your attention to this paragraph: [7] Six million people"equivalent to a third of the entire population of Britain at the time"visited the Great Exhibition. The average daily attendance was 42,831 with a peak attendance of 109,915 on 7 October. The event made a surplus of "186,000 ("17,770,000 in 2014), which was used to found the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum. They were all built in the area to the south of the exhibition, nicknamed Albertopolis, alongside the Imperial Institute. The remaining surplus was used to set up an educational trust to provide grants and scholarships for industrial research; it continues to do so today. Queen Victoria made learning and great achievements fashionable, which started a chain reaction, leading us into modern times! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.royal.gov.uk... [4] http://www.britannia.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] https://answers.yahoo.com... [7]http://en.wikipedia.org...