Talk:100 Greatest Britons

message: There seems to be a complete list while this article only lists the first ten. Any reasons for not including the full list? --Glamourqueen (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete list

message: This page is full of people arguing about who should and shouldn't be on the list. The list was done and dusted 7 years ago. If you have complaints then complain to the BBC. This is an article about the list they produced in 2002. I think all the ridiculous debates about there being too many English people or how Princess Diana didn't deserve to be on there are all irrelevant and should be deleted so we can discuss the article.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Æscing (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please please yes. 92.9.154.79 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: We should delete all this arguing about the list

message: There are a number of weird arbitrary things in this article, which I'm going to change:
"Oliver Cromwell who created a republican Britain"
Oliver Cromwell created a republican England. There was no Britain in his lifetime. 
"Furthermore, both Alfred the Great and Boudica were from an era in which Britishness was a concept of the future."
Why single out these two? Many other people on the list lived before 01/05/1707. 
"None were from Northern Ireland."
Of course none were from Northern Ireland. This list was the 100 greatest Britons. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. It is not, nor has it ever been part of Britain. Æscing (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Guardian style guide, "Britain" is a contraction of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not just of "Great Britain". 92.9.154.79 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 01/05/1707 - 31/12/1800

message: Bertrand Russell wasn't on the list. C'mon people, what the hell is wrong with you?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.111.166 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bertrand Russell

message: Newton considered himself a mathematician, and is generally considered one. I'm not sure if some Wikipedia-editor decided he was a physicist, or if it was the BBC. If it was the first, can someone change it?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.86.151 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newton was a Mathematician!

message: I thought "Unknown Soldier" was the American one and the "Unknown Warrior" was the British one, in Westminster Abbey?
:He's in the Cenotaph in Whitehall, actually. Deb 22:42 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
::Sorry, you're right, apparently there is a grave in Westminster Abbey.  It's a bit strange, though.  I've only ever heard him referred to as the "Unknown Soldier" in practice.  I think the term "warrior" must be used to avoid differentiating between the three armed services. Deb 22:49 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
:::OK, given that the original version had "Warrior", I'll change it back to that, since that's who people "voted" for, apparently.
::Fair enough.  I just found out the answer.  Apparently, there's no question that it was a soldier who was buried in the Abbey, but they put "warrior" on the memorial for the reason I said above.  I think most people in the UK actually say "soldier" (and I've no doubt that 9 out of 10 voters wrote "soldier"), but you're right, we should use the proper title. Deb 23:01 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
:::Actually, nobody is in the Cenotaph. It means "empty tomb". The Unknown Warrior is in the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated by a Wikipedian who insisted vigorously that a large article about a spaceship-type in the Star Wars movies should not be deleted......go figure. -- 86.17.211.191 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: I'd disagree with the "BBC's" being added to this article's title. It wasn't part of the show's name, there are no other notable '100 Greatest Britons' lists to my knowledge, and 'BBC' is the fourth word in the article, so people aren't exactly going to come across this page and wonder which channel it's from. Also, we have numerous other 100 Greatest lists (100 Greatest Kids' TV shows and 100 Greatest Cartoons from Channel 4, to name two) which don't have the channel name in the title, and have been getting along nicely without it. BillyH 05:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there was some ill-considered renaming in order to work around some even more ill-considered arguments on the vFd for this page. We should rename it back. Obviously the first line of the article will continue to make clear the nature of the list. Pcb21| Pete 12:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are any objections, then, I'll move it back tomorrow. BillyH 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Robbie Williams and J.K. Rowling?  Are these guys drunk? Diana better than Shakespeare? Buahahahahahah.. Robbie Williams. I can't even get over that. But he's better than Monty AND Tolkien. Obviously. Henry II, way down there. Hmmm, he only merely invented the english system of laws and ruled an empire from Scotland all the way to Spain, including 1/2 of France. But I suppose that doens't come close to how good J.K. Rowling's 4th book was. What in the hell are the criteria? Typical British. And I'd know. What's cool now has always been cool, always will be....until next year when something else cooler comes along !!192.197.71.189 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of which "person" do you speak?  It was the result of a massive public vote - did you even read the article or know on what article you are commenting? -- 86.17.211.191 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: British as Bono?  You mean the man with a mother born in the UK?  Anyway, just because you are born in Ireland it doesn't mean you are not British.  Firstly, Ireland use to be as part of the UK as California is the US; secondly, people like the Duke of Wellington were born in Ireland to British parents.  If it works for the Irish in the UK, US etc it should work for the British in Ireland. What's good for the goose... -- 86.17.211.191 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly Useless List 

message: At the very beginning of the article, I did change Boy George and Robbie Williams to Johnny Rotten and King Richard the Third, mostly because those two names might have a stronger ring of "inappropriateness" with regards to a "Greatest Britons" list.Pat Payne 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in two of the names 

message: why isn't it categorized as a series? Kakun 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series?

message: I just totally, totally agree that Diana was the third greatest Briton ever. I'm sure glad people were smart enough to see that she should rank ahead of Alfred, Wellington, Isaac Newton, and Shakespeare. Is this article anything but nonsensical cruft? Herostratus 00:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay, the Irish do love their mass-killers too. By the way, he also did some terrible things in England, but that's okay isn't it.  Fawkes is in there - Catholic genocidal maniac who tried to kill a King and destroy a state that he was.  Any objections? -- 86.17.211.191 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does it matter what he did? 
1) he's on the list from 2 thousand and bloody 2. Get over it. 2) As someone has said above, the Irish themselves have a history of slaughtering people so excuse me if i don't feel too bad about events so long ago. I'd say the factual Cromwell deserves his place - I'd recommend you read into him more before spewing out the lazy boy version of history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.99.156 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snurk. 

message: I can't believe that Brian Johnston didn't feature.  Probably too many people from the yoof market that the beeb loves than real people.  Media people seem to forget that there are millions of Britons over the age of 40.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.205.18 (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay.  Americans regard genocidal criminals such as Kissinger most highly.  Who would you rather see on such a list?  A gay pop star or a man who ordered the killings of a million citizens in SE Asia, had members of other governments murdered on a regular basis, and backed numerous right wing and/or military coups in Asia and South America. Then there's the Irish with their lauded terrorists and fathers of nationalism in the early 20th century who were also rapists and paedophiles - long since forgiven of course, because they killed lots of Brits! Now how about Gandhi: used to invite naked, pre-pubescent schoolgirls into his bed - he used to rub against them "for warmth" and often gave them enemas "to make sure they were clean" (clean for what, one may ask?).  Mother Teresa?  Forced people to convert to Catholicism before they could die in agony in one of her dank, dark "hospitals" where very little medicine was ever dispensed, expected the poor to "suffer for Jesus" on behalf of the rich (she actually said that on film) and was best friends with dictators and mass-murderers (Duvalier) and fraudsters from whom she took millions while the Vatican still to this day cannot prove where most of the money went.  Mandela?  Wow, how brave and heroic to plant bombs which killed more blacks than whites then sit in prison reading books while your less-famed and publicised brothers such as Tambo, Biko and TuTu bravely stood on the streets and took the beatings from the riot police. The list of so-called "great" people who were nothing of the sort is long and well-funded by popstars, churches and common-folk. 86.17.211.191 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnners 

message: If there are no objections I will remove 'Les Dawson' from the list of notable exclusions. I can't see why he should be listed while scores of other comedians aren't...Although the same could also be said for Thom Yorke - there are plenty of singer/songwriters who didn't make the list. Gringotsgoblin 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Les Dawson

message: Shouldn't number 1 be Winston Churchill?  I'll change it. AlexOUK 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Beckham number 1???? 

message: Should the following flags be fixed:
#15 - the Duke of Wellington came from Dublin, Ireland (pre-partition - definately British)
#18 - Queen Victoria - not remotely English!  German, yes...
#35 - Boudica - from Norfolk, but surely not English in the modern sense?  Celtic, not anglo-saxon.
Trenwith 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: shouldnt Wellington have the Irish and English flags next to him, he was Anglo-Irish and thought of himself as more English (the famous quote "just because one is born in a stable doesnt make one a horse" BritBoy 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it's my fault. I thought the falg were a good idea, and still do, but I just typed in the Egland flag icon for Churchill and copyed and pasted all the way down and chaging where needed, I probably missed a few so change if you think they are wrong. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Also not sure why republic of ireland flag is in use. Passingtramp 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some Irish people made the list eg Bono. Jimmmmmmmmm 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but for instance Wellington, Shackleton and Victoria have it. If we're going to be accurate those living pre 1922 ought to have the St. Patrick's cross or the Irish harp or something. Extreme pedantry I know! Passingtramp 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the flags sit alongside some thing like country of birth, they should be deleted. Greenshed 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The flags beside the nominees

message: How is ther Irish people in this list does anybody know. Should it not be Britons and Irish or somethingRisteard B 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some people in the UK are a little daft and think the likes of Bono are British, because U2 are popular in Britain. I heard of an American one that voted Jesus top, so you see what I mean. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmmmmmmmm: What, just like the Irish claim The Edge, Adam Clayton, Muhammed Ali, Bill Clinton and every other President in US history, Eddie Murphy (yes, see the edit war - the clue is in the name) and just about anyone else in the world who has ever achieved something with either a most tenuous link three hundred years ago or Oirish-sounding name (including according to one Wikipedian, "Smith"!!!), red hair, green eyes or penchant for Guinness.  Selective memories here on O'Wikipedia.  Just look at the list of Irish-Americans and then the list of English-Americans. Senator John Kerry used to call himself Irish-American (name again, nothing to do with actual heritage or residency) until he found out his Eastern-European Jewish antecedants had chosen an Irish name at Ellis Island so they'd fit in (another clue there about the reliability of claims to Irish ancestry): yet still some people on this resource insist that he IS Irish. 195.92.40.49 11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Risteard, he is not joking at all.  Unfortunately however he is talking rubbish even if he is serious. His statement is what's called "anecdotal" and is not a view based in any discernable fact. Indeed, it's thought by the programme makers that Irish citizens in the UK were responsible for the three Irish listees.  By the way, as our verbose friend above points out, Jim has a serious case of "pot calling kettle black" on this one anyway.  (O'Wiki - ain't that the truth!). -- 86.17.211.191 09:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not Irish by the way, whats with all this "pot kettle black stuff"? JimmyMac82 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a comment on the fact that it's ironic (and downright hypocritical) to complain/allege that British people claim foreigners as their own because they are popular, given that many Irish and Irish-Americans try to claim everybody who is popular or who has ever achieved anything (as being Irish or of Irish heritage) - even against the will or statements of those individuals (Andy Rooney and John Kerry being two good examples). 86.17.211.191 11:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another good example of O'Wikipedia:  Mischa Barton has one British and one Irish parent.  She was born in Britain.  A while ago some Wikipedians insisted that she must be recorded as "Irish-American" but instantly deleted "English-American" whenever someone else tried to add it.  Fortunately sense prevailed - eventually - but it's a fantastic illustration of my point.  Again, the John Kerry point made above is a fine example of the silliness that goes on on this resource.  86.17.211.191 12:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not complaining or alleging, it's a fact. I'm English and I'm well aware that people in the UK just don't realise what nationality of some famous people. I'm not commenting on the Irish grasping at any small connection to Ireland, the UK thing is more ignorance than anything else, at least the Irish are doing their homework. Some British people believe Toni Collette from "About a Boy" to be British because she played a English woman in that film , when she actually Australian. It's not a case of checking if she had British parents it just seeing her in a show putting on a British accent and they believe them to be British. You try telling some English people David Tennants Scottish! "Noway he sounds so English in Doctor Who!"  JimmyMac82 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was reported at the time that the likelihood was that Irish people in the UK (of which there are very many) were responsible for the appearance of two Irishmen in the list. 195.92.40.49 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish 

message: This page will have to be monitored periodically, looks like - idiots like to come and redo the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bottre73 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Maxwell was long dead by then. 195.92.40.49 11:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Grafitti 

message: Why are people discussing the nationality or worthiness of people on the list?
That doesn't matter - whether the list itself is correct doesnt matter, the page is about the list as an event. The order was decided and this page is about the end result from 2002, not an extention of the debate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.99.156 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er... 

message: I hope that the BBC will give Ringo another chance to get on this dubious distinction list...I am certain the Sir William Wallace would vacate since he would not want to be a Briton!
Rkm3612 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC's List of the Year 

message: The text:
:The poll resulted in some unlikely candidates including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up Parliament; King Richard III, chiefly remembered for murdering his nephews; and James Connolly, an Irish nationalist who was executed by the Crown in 1916.
was changed to
:The poll resulted in candidates including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up Parliament; King Richard III and James Connolly, an Irish nationalist who was executed by the Crown in 1916. 
which doesn't read well, with the edit comment rem commentary. I think it's fair to assert without bias that those who are generally remembered as villains or anti-British can be regarded as unlikely candidates for the Greatest Briton, and undoubtedly Richard III is chiefly remembered for the deaths of his nephews in suspicious circumstances and Shakespeare's take on his character. Jooler 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "commentary" edited out

message: Taking into consideration how the most recent link in the wayback machine has very little content (just the top 10) I replaced that link with the press release which seems to contain much more information. Although many of the links stemming from the press release are also broken, removing the link entirely is a consideration. Ijustam (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history reveals an IP last July(!) removed the two Irish citizens, Bono and Bob Geldof, and added Cleese and Sinclair at the end, meaning the whole list from 75-100 has been incorrect for the last eight months. I've just changed it back. BillyH 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Link re: Great Britons 

message: Are you people serious. Your not even going to put the most important British monarch on the list. Edward III did so much for England, and your not even going to give him the position of 100, on the list. I think it's time I find a new radio station  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.45.49 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happed to Edward III 

message: Why the heck is Guy Fawkes on the list? He tried to blow up the Palace of Westminster when James I was living in luxury there! Tharnton345 13:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: Why's Edward I on here? He pretty much destroyed the English economy.--81.157.5.144 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I never normally make such big edits, but really, who wrote this junk? 
"The Anglo-skewed results call into question the whole point of such a vote, and indeed the entire concept of Britishness" ... "Leaders such as Robert the Bruce and Owen Glendower were unarguably greater than Churchill, while Margaret Thatcher is hated to this day in the North and "Celtic" areas."
A severe case of 'citation needed', 'citation needed', 'citation needed', and 'may contain original research' I think.
If no-one (mature) has any objections, I'm reverting it to the earlier version without this guy's so-called "Ethnological context". The preceding version already mentioned the fact that 19 of the top 20 were English. No need to spoil the article with an ungrammatical rant.
User: D. C. Brescia 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some guy's ethnic rant 

message: Can Winston Churchill really be considered the greatest Briton since it is a well known fact that his mother was American? So in effect, Churchill was only half British since his parents were from two different countries. --74.47.102.193 (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Winston Churchill

message: This list should've included Sir Edmund Hilary! I know he was born in New Zealand But so was i, and we all share the same head of state, and most kiwis would consider themselves british  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.137.253 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Sir Ed? 

message: Please ensure that when discussing and finalising your list of 100 Greatest Britons that you include other Nationalities other than Englishmen i.e., Welsh, Irish and Scottish. 
Where does Adam Smith; Thomas Telford, Robert Adam; John Logie Baird; Alexander Graham Bell; Alexander Fleming; Robert Burns; Walter Scott; Robert Louis Stevenson and James Watt appear within this list of Britons.
This list is hugely bias and overlooks many magnificent contributions made by those who are not English. 
Anon
86.156.55.103 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Greatest Englishmen 

message: This article has merit not merely for its content but for the fact it reflects the attitudes and perceptions of society at the time of its broadcast. It may be an ephemeral statement of the whims of general British society at the time, but in future it may be of interest as a basis of comparison. I would vote to keep it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.90.34 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vote to keep 

message: I saw this on the night it was transmitted and there was a separate analysis as to men and women's votes. The men's votes were not far off as it appears here (Churchill, Brunel etc), but the women's votes had an overwhelming majority of Princess Diana at No.1! Probably the reason why she's a at No,3 overall. This says more to me about women than anything I've ever known. Non-signficant to the article? maybe - but probably the most important lesson you'll learn today.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men/Women 

message: Possible the only list of those people, notable and revered, EVER constructed by the modern human race that includes and recognises the achievements of scientists, inventors and engineers as 18% of those included.  You'll never see it again! Caseykcole (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This list must be kept

message: Small point.  It makes no sense to refer to Queen Elizabeth the 1st of England then Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of Britain.
It should really be Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of England and 1st of Britain. 
You could just put Queen Elizabeth the 2nd on its own ( missing out the 'of England' bit) as she's usually just referred to as Queen Elizabeth the 2nd.
:It makes perfect sense to use the number taken by the monarch themselves. Monarchical numbering usually carries forward - see Victor Emmanuel II of Italy and Philip II of Spain for other examples.
:And the current Queen is not "Queen Elizabeth II of England" - there has been no English monarch or English throne for over three centuries. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Queen Elizabeth II

message: alan turing only number 21??
who writes this list?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.249.20 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: alan turing

message: Does this article include all the other Greatest lists from around the world? I noticed a few surprising exceptions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.92.155 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How many countries have a list?

message: I tried all of the external links and none of them went to the "original" BBC numbered list.  Apparently the Beeb have redone their website.  --Kenatipo (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no active ref or link to original BBC numbered list 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.npg.org.uk/live/greatbritop100.asp
** In 100 Greatest Britons on 2011-05-23 01:57:52, 404 Not Found
** In 100 Greatest Britons on 2011-05-31 21:19:07, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Can I please point out that the place to have discussed who should / should not have been on the list was the BBC website in 2002? I strongly urge that further talk here is about the article per se. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plea for further comments about this talk page

message: FYI —-- the background for the tagging of this article (which has since been reverted) can be found in the discussion regarding the media poll as to the greatest Israelis, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis.  That conversation includes discussion as to whether lists of this sort should be on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging of this article 

message: Since the start of the year the majority of edits to this page have been vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. I have just fixed some vandalism which appears to have been left in the article because vandalism upon vandalism had not been spotted with a previous fix. 
To give this article a rest from vandalism by IP addresses, I have protected the page from editing by  non autoconfirmed users for six months. If anyone objects to this protection please leave a message on my talk page as I do not watch this page.
If after six months the high levels of vandalism starts to occur again, then please place a request at WP:ANI for a new period of protection. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention of edits by non autoconfirmed users for six months 

message: The article states that "The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th". Unless Margaret Thatcher has found away to come back to life (someone should write a horror book about that), it should be changed. 86.11.163.10 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states (as do you) "was". No correction needed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is out of date 

message: There have been a lot of assumptions on this page about how the list was compiled; perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can add a section.  As I recall, early in 2002 the BBC asked people to phone in with their one nomination for 'Greatest Briton'.  This could be anyone who lived and worked in the British Isles, including the Republic of Ireland; it was pointed out that Karl Marx would be eligible as he had done a lot of significant work in Britain.  Incidentally, of all the 'ineligible' people mentioned above there was no reference to the fictional King Arthur.  
Eventually there were about 1.6 million votes for about 800 different nominees,  but only the top 100 were ever revealed, being listed alphabetically in the media in August.  Late in the year came a series of TV shows,  beginning with one based on the then-popular '100 Best Things' format where each clip is followed by  one or more celebrity or expert talking heads.  The nominees were counted down from 100 to 11 according to number of votes, though I don't know if the numbers were ever revealed.  The original top ten ranking was also hidden; instead the phone lines were opened again and ten one-hour documentaries were shown, each with an expert or celebrity discussing the life and work of the subject and arguing for their nomination.  After each show was an update of the nominee's ranking according to the second round of voting.  
Finally nine of the ten advocates, plus a replacement for the tenth, took part in a live studio debate. The lines were closed and the final ranking announced.   The 'prize' for the winner was to have a statue erected in London; perhaps because there were already several statues of Churchill, he instead got an abstract sculpture by Paul de Monchaux referencing his speech composition and installed in a BBC building.  In contrast to the American version, tucked away on Discovery Channel and hijacked by Reagan fans, the poll had a high profile in the UK media, and for years afterwards, it seemed, Churchill was referred to as 'our greatest Briton'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.10.128 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria and format 

message: Allegations that Oliver Cromwell even intended or attempted 'genocide' in Ireland are hugely controversial, and certainly not a matter of scholarly consensus, as is reflected in the WP article on Cromwell, and its talk page. I shall therefore change the statement that Cromwell's nomination for this list was controversial 'due to his genocide in Ireland' to 'due to allegations of genocide in Ireland'.
James Connolly is described as a 'Resistance Leader', which is pro-Connolly POV and hugely problematic. In the eyes of the state he was a terrorist, and he was executed for treason, so I shall be replacing the description of him with 'Marxist insurgent leader', which is more apt.91.85.208.0 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliver Cromwell and James Connolly 

message: In the third paragraph of this article, we are told that "a late surge of voting in the final week of the polls put Churchill over the top". Is anyone going to share my opinion that "on top of the list" would be better phraseology than "over the top", as the phrase "over the top" is ambiguous. Vorbee (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving phraseology

message: This article says that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English. Did Tyndale translate all of the Bible into English, or just the New Testament?Vorbee (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: William Tyndale

message: This list seems rather ridiculous when you strip it down to the Greatest Living Britons. For instance, we get, in order:
1.	Michael Crawford.
2.	Paul McCartney.
3.	Elizabeth II.
4.	David Beckham.
5.	Steve Redgrave. 
6.	Boy George. 
7.	Cliff Richard.
8.	Julie Andrews.
9.	David Attenborough. 
10.	Tony Blair. 
11.	Bob Geldof. 
12.	Robbie Williams. 
13.	J. K. Rowling. 
14.	Richard Branson. 
15.	Bono.
16.	John Lydon.
17.	Tim Berners-Lee.
I mean, how the heck did Michael Crawford become the Greatest Living Briton? Most of these people are just modern celebrities. If there actually was a vote for Greatest Living Briton, I think people like Attenborough, Rowling and Stephen Fry might get onto it. But because in this case the public was voting for the Greatest Britons, Dead or Alive, these people got mixed into it and got themselves into some kind of bizarre order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest Living Britons 

message: Number 3, but for some very strange reason, despite mesmerising half the world and for example, dramatically changing views on those living with HIV, aside from some detail of her marriage and her place in the nobility, has her place in history summarised in no more than five words.   That is about one tenth of the number of words used to describe those placed below her in the ‘top ten’.   Something more fitting is badly needed. Boscaswell talk 05:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that her placing was highly controversial, can you come up with a list of her achievements? Notable inventions? Works of art? Scholarly academics? What were her accomplishments that made her make the list? Yes, she did some charity work (that's hardly unique) and she had nice hair I suppose, but what did she really do for Britain? "mesmerising half the world" doesn't quite cut it as an accomplishment.Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diana, #3 

message: I just happened on my VHS of the original broadcast of the Final in late autumn 2002. It was a 2-hour programme containing contributions and debate between 10 high-profile champions for the finalists, before a studio audience of academics, experts, descendants, celebrities and the general public. Throughout the programme Peter Snow gave "election night"-style updates over how the vote was going, with lots of breakdowns according of voting patterns between men/women, under 25s/over 25s, etc. how people ranked each finalists personal qualities and so on. From memory 'Great Britons' alongwith 'Restoration' was the first high profile British series to integrate red button and online platform content.
Starting at 9pm, there was a cutoff at 10:40pm when the ranking was frozen plus places 3-10 dropped out. At that point the ranking and share of vote was: 10 - Cromwell (2.9%); 9 - Nelson (3.2%); 8 - Lennon (4.4%); 7 - Elizabeth I (4.5%); 6- Newton (5.2%); 5 - Shakespeare (6.7%); 4 - Darwin (6.9%); 3 - Diana (14.3%); 2 - Brunel (24.0%); 1 - Churchill (27.8%). Over the course of the programme the only movement in placing had been Elizabeth I overtaking Lennon. At the cutoff the top 3s current totals were: Diana - 211,395; Brunel - 354,773; Churchill - 409,896.
Then at 10pm the final totals were announced being Diana - 222,055; Brunel - 391,262; Churchill - 447,423. Voting was done by telephone, via BBC website, and interactive TV (cable/satellite). Museums etc. also had ballot boxes - and possibly you could also vote by post though this was not referred to in the programme. Most voting was by telephone. In total over 1,500,000 got cast with over 160,000 placed on Final night.
Some contemporary aspects noted in the broadcast are the profound impact Jeremy Clarkson's programme about Brunel had on the general public; controversy over Diana making top 10; and how wildly the ranking had varied in the first weeks of the 'top 10' programmes that began October 20th.
It was also noted that none of the top 100 - announced on August 21st - were artists or painters which was ironic as the programme partnered with the National Portrait Gallery!
Last point of interest was favourable reviews given to Michael Portillo's programme on Elizabeth I - an early venture of his into presenting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.119.75 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes from original Final broadcast 

message: Shocked that she was not included! 2604:2D80:B206:D000:29FB:2B0:B94D:730 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth I 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Duke of Wellington was born before act of Union with Ireland.￼ 79.169.31.30 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Wellington wasn't born in uk 

message: I encountered a display error with the list, whereupon on mobile (Android 14, Chrome 119) when scrolling down to the last entry (Cromwell), the portraits of the entrants get deprecated from the entire list, and it is in fact, impossible to view Cromwell's portrait within the list itself. (Other than getting the filename from Edit and heading there directly.) Other portraits are restored with a page refresh, but the software bug remains. I attempted to fix this by removing the seemingly erronous symbol (°) at the end of Horatio's description, but that did not resolve the error.
(Apologies for the lack of edit description; thought I'd get the chance to fill it in after the review view, but it was not the case.) Zaelot (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-10 list portrait display error on mobile