100 Greatest Britons

C. S. Lewis

Irish.

I think Princess Diana was too high up the list, but don't really consider myself British. I'd also think twice about Shakespeare after the hatchet-job he did on MacBeth. The fact that his patron, James VI, was a descendant of royal by-blow, traitor and double regicide Malcolm III Canmore is no excuse (the play doesn't mention Malcolm's illegitimacy, or the murder of Lulach the Fool, MacBeth's successor, but does mention the English army he led into Scotland. Malcolm must've been remarkably precocious at 7 to hold such a discussion with his 2-year-old brother on the night of their father's death).
 
Technically. But equally British. Not English though.
Born in U.K., lived most of his life on the mainland.

Irish and British is complicated in a way for people living in any part of the Island of Ireland. I lived for six years near the house where C.S. Lewis grew up.

Princess Diana was too high up the list
Absolutely.

think twice about Shakespeare
Also on Richard. That was Tudor propaganda.

Shakespeare took even stories that have non-tragic ending in some versions and spiced up the tragedy. e.g. King Lear.

Shakespeare:
  • Was conscious he lived in a paranoid Police State (Elizabeth I invented the idea).
  • Liked Tragedies
  • Painted any potential enemies of the Regime blacker.
  • Still, a literary genius, esp not to end up executed.
 
I don't understand why the hell Diana was even on the list at all. Even No 100 would be ludicrous. The readers of a certain newspaper must have packed hell of a punch in the voting. It's a totally messed up and oddly balanced list though. Oliver Cromwell, a greatest Briton? A religious nutcase who butchered his way around Ireland? Any list that puts John Lennon a druggie song writer and Diana who's main claim to fame was bagging a Prince, and then cheating on him, including bearing another mans child, clearly has issues lol I like Lennon, I like a lot of his music, though prefer Solo to the beatles crap. (not a fan) but top 10?

Duke of Wellington should be top 10. He faced off and defeated a threat to the British Isles almost as severe as the one Churchill faced in 1939. Imagine Wellyboots failed in 1812/13, the British Army of the Peninsular has been comprehensively smashed, Wellyboots is either dead or a prisoner, as are the subordinate Generals that he trusted, the likes of Picton his military allies in equal disaray.

This means that the British Army has effectively ceased to exist in a Europe/Britain context, apart from troops deployed into Ireland, and new recruits undergoing training in barracks, the mainland United Kingdom is mostly defended by local Militia. It could take months to get troops back from Colonial interests and wars abroad, India, North America, Australasia. It has lost its best Generals, in a European context again at least. Remember before Sir Arthur was sent to Portugal, the AOP and the War against Boney was near enough a total disaster. What Britain faces after such a defeat cannot have much potential for good.

Aye, Boney has recently been spanked in Russia, but he has now destroyed the greatest threat to his ambitions. The Emperor will shortly once more control all of Spain and Portugal, he has iirc part of Italy, and most of the provinces of Belgium and the Netherlands, and big swathes of Germany are under his control, or soon will be once more.

As soon as he can get his hands on enough ships he could mount an invasion of the UK, though thankfully the Royal Navy is very much a force to be reckoned with still. The Parallels with WW2 just seem really close - again in 1940/1 the only thing that prevented an attempted invasion of the UK by Germany was the might of the Royal Navy vs a Kriegsmarine with much less bite. It is why Horatio N deserves to be top 10 since Trafalgar created the position where the French Navy was no threat.

Owain Glyndwr is on the list, which makes some people raise eyebrows, but why not. Of course, as a Welshman, who's hometown flies his familial royal standard, the Banner of Aberffraw as frequently as the Red Dragon (despite not being in Gwynedd) I am happy for him to be on the list, but we Brits also love the underdog!

And come on what an underdog!! He turns an argument with a neighbour into a full scale rebellion, liberates huge chunks of Wales and destroys iirc 3 entire English Armies, relying heavily on peasants with War Bows. If I remember my history, had the last battle failed for England, and especially if the Hotspur's had revolted from the North in time, the King would have been completely bankrupt. Not bad going for an underdog! :LOL:

It is one of those things that bring out my awe at how history balances on the strangest moments. Knowing he had a War in France to fight, the King, once hostilities in Wales were over, straight away began pardoning any Welshman skilled with a War Bow who would sign up to fight in France for him, and of course, not long after, English and Welsh Peasants near exterminated and universally embarressed the Nobility of France at a small place called Azincourt.

Equally Dafydd Gam (Davey Gam) refused to join Owain in his revolt, as he had taken an Oath to the King, and was a man of his word - at Azincourt he took a mortal wound saving the King's life, had he joined Owain, Azincourt could well have turned out different had the King died....
 
Boy George and J K Rowling are eye openers on the list. Like it was a list made by Alan Partridge.

She certainly deserves to be in the top ten rather than William Shakespeare!!

Since 1997, she has been getting kids hooked on reading, and hopefully undoing the damage done by Shakespeare, which is via his works, to stop children from developing an interest in reading! :LOL:
 
I can see the validity of that reason; a lifer bookworm like most on here probably are never needed the push that other kids may have needed. Good point. But surely the age of the kids is different? Shakespeare doesn't happen in their lives at the age they meet young Potter? I've always thought that the teaching of Shakey was where the problem laid. Sitting at a desk is a rubbish, dry way to become accustomed to any play.
 
She certainly deserves to be in the top ten rather than William Shakespeare!!

Since 1997, she has been getting kids hooked on reading, and hopefully undoing the damage done by Shakespeare, which is via his works, to stop children from developing an interest in reading! :LOL:

Can't agree, Caledfwlch. Blame Shakespeare's reputation amongst youngsters on teaching methods and him being exposed to youngsters far too soon.

Shakespeare was a genius. I don't think they'll ever say that about Rowling.

Take the vote again in, say, 20 years and Rowling will have been replaced by the latest fad author but Shakespeare will still be there. In 100 years (probably sooner) Diana and Lennon will have gone as well. On the other hand Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton etc....
 
I can see the validity of that reason; a lifer bookworm like most on here probably are never needed the push that other kids may have needed. Good point. But surely the age of the kids is different? Shakespeare doesn't happen in their lives at the age they meet young Potter? I've always thought that the teaching of Shakey was where the problem laid. Sitting at a desk is a rubbish, dry way to become accustomed to any play.

Maybe thing's have changed now, but in my School, in Wales in the late 80's early 90's, we did Shakespeare in both Primary and Secondary! In fact I think we did more Shakespeare in Primary, as quite often in Secondary English, we did American books like Of Mice and Men and Rumblefish (I think it was called) - it used to baffle me - how are we supposed to learn "proper" English via books from the US which of course had US Spellings etc.

I have known several people who's kids would not touch books until they discovered Harry Potter.
 
Take the vote again in, say, 20 years and Rowling will have been replaced by the latest fad author but Shakespeare will still be there. In 100 years (probably sooner) Diana and Lennon will have gone as well. On the other hand Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton etc....

As exhibit A in support of this proposition: There was a poll in 1999 in the UK to determine the most influential musicians of the millennium. To quote the Guardian newspaper: 'More than 600,000 people judged the musical legacy of Robbie Williams to be more enduring than that of Mozart.'

Which just goes to show you what an awful lot of ignorant twats there are in this country.

(For the younger members of the forum: Robbie Williams was a singer and former member of popular beat combo Take That.)
 
Last edited:
kids would not touch books until they discovered Harry Potter
Media hype. The medja might have picked on Anthony Horowitz instead, who is probably a better writer, who has done more kids books, screen, and grown up books.

we did Shakespeare in both Primary
Daft.
The education system is the problem, not Shakespeare.
 
I didn't do Shakespeare in primary school. Had some difficulty with it at secondary. I recently read (well, re-read) Merchant of Venice, which I did first at school some time ago, and got a lot more out of it.
 
I know one primary school kid who reads Shakespeare for fun - and my 13 year old daughter could do great chunks of Titania's speeches from the Dream from memory (She probably still can). And she adored a one man reworking of Hamlet we saw recently. The way to get into Shakespeare is to to play it or see it being played. They're plays. Written to be seen not read.
 

Back
Top