Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

Round 4 messed up for some wierd reason, please refer to this link for my round 4 arguments. http://www.debate.org... I feel that most of con's argument last round was simply repeated from his previous rounds, where he asserts that as Queen Victoria has 'no power'It is something worth repeating due to the fact that the power she had was very very limited. now [Con] asserts that [Queen Victoria] actually did have 'some' power over her country. But that some is very insignificant and hardly worth mentioning. Pro has only proven that Victoria is able to give advice to ministers. despite having more power, Mary did not achieve a tenth of what Queen Victoria did, and Queen Elizabeth did not broaden England's horizons to the same extent that Queen Victoria did either. This makes no sense, if Victoria had little to no power to influence the course of events of her country then why should England's successes be attributed to her. Victoria achieved not only the maintenance of the vast majority of her peoples happiness (excluding colonies),Colonies were just as much part of Victoria's realm as England was and even Pro agrees that they were not happy. but also the survival of the monarchy in an era which could easily have seen the end of the monarchyThe monarchy may have survived but they really were not monarchs since they surrendered 99.99% of their power to the elected government. [Victoria's] tactfulness and use of royal public appearances kept the public happyOnce again shows that Victoria's primary purpose is to be a figurehead to her citizens, which she failed to do throughout the Empire with the exclusion of the citizens living in England itself (a small % of people in 'her' realm). However, the nuclear weapons program started in 1940 in the UK, thus was not really anything to do with Queen Elizabeth II. That was not even my primary argument, I simply argued that to show that Elizabeth II saw a greater advancement of quality of life and technological progress compared to Victoria. But the bigger point is that Queen Elizabeth II or King George VI were not the nuclear physicists who helped developed the Nuclear Warhead. Neither was Queen Victoria the one who discovered Automobiles. I have repeated this time and time again but Pro continues to argue against this, Victoria did not set up a modernization policy (she did not have the power to) to make Britain an industrial superpower. Contrast this to Elizabeth and Mary who established/maintained/grew the English Navy to defeat the global superpower of Spain. Conclusion:- Victoria is not a succesful queen since she barely has any control over her country, you cannot be a painter without painting something. - Since Victoria had insignificant control of events in her country, means that the success of 19th Century Britain cannot and should not be attributed to her. - Victoria was just as hated as Queen Elizabeth I, if not more so. Victoria, being the figurehead, would be the person that colonial subjects resented. -Queen Elizabeth I, actually had near total control of her nation and was not just a figurehead. Therefore it is reasonable to attribute the defeat of the Spanish to her. The defeat of a globe spanning empire with just the navy of a small island nation. Surely this is a far greater acomplishment compared to Victoria (who literally had 0 accomplishments that were genuinly hers)The resolution is negated.