Agree with both of those, and would add Kate Sheppard.
Nope. Your suggestion was that she was only as good a monarch as she was because she had to temper her behaviour because she was a woman, which just seems a bizarre argument. There have been plenty bad queens and plenty good kings.
No the suggestion was that she was great because she couldn’t afford to rest on her laurels like Fat Henry did.
My nominee for UK villain remains, and shall do so for the foreseeable future, Piers Morgan.
Canada: people have already mentioned Terry Fox and Tommy Douglas as heroes, though I think Terry Fox is closer to the surface of the national consciousness. One possible politician, both hero and villain depending on where you stand, would be Pierre Trudeau.
I’m not sure we have any heroes or villains at the instantly-recognizable “you are a <insert name here>” level, though.
Henry VIII is one of those larger than life figures I think is unfairly maligned because he’s so famous. Because he’s so famous 500 years later, all of his misdeeds are well known. In truth, most of his worst excesses were not really anything other monarchs of his time and before him did. He was the son of a guy who took the crown by killing the reigning monarch in battle, a usurper. There were several powerful nobles at the beginning of Henry’s reign who had indisputably more powerful claims to the throne than Henry himself.
A man in such a position in 16th century England was going to kill his fair share of people or he was going to lose his crown and probably his life. It’s not dissimilar from the fictionalized version of Henry II in The Lion in Winter, who said, “I’ve snapped and plotted all my life. There’s no other way to be alive, king, and fifty all at once.” I think it is fair to say that is an accurate depiction of what being an Angevin King during Henry II’s reign was like, and was still accurate several hundred years later during Henry VIII’s reign.
Some of the things Henry did were for the long term benefit of England. Breaking away from the Papacy gave the English Church independence, the dissolution of the monasteries broke up a pretty corrupt set of organizations that were basically parasitic in how they took advantage of society as a whole. Henry also started the building of the English Navy in a big way, and while he doesn’t get credit for the Navy that built the Empire or anything he did spend a lot of money building his fleet and it was very important during Elizabeth’s reign that he had done so.
Of course, everything Henry did was for his own self-interest. Breaking away from the Papacy was to satisfy his desire to marry someone else to produce an heir. The dissolution of the monasteries made Henry fabulous amounts of money. Like most late middle age Kings and Renaissance Kings, the King’s primary goal was to accrue more wealth and power so he could stay King and then on some theoretical level if the King was strong so was the country. It was still awhile before powerful monarchs had adopted the concept (although often fictional) that they had an obligation to be “enlightened Princes” governing with wisdom and for the good of all.
If the internet is any indicator:
Barack Obama…for both questions.
Not to mention that English and French Canada have their own sets of heroes and villains. For instance, I don’t have anything against James Wolfe, but I suspect some folks in Quebec are still not too keen on him.
Not sure if you’re being serious.. I was (obviously) mentioning Beckham with my tongue firmly in my cheek. My reply to your previous post was also meant in good humor.
For Australia, in both categories, I nominate Ned Kelly. Lionised as a revolutionary hero who stood up to The Man by some, reviled in equal measure as a cop-killing villain by others. His spectacular choices in DIY body armour have made him iconic.
In English Canada, his great adversary Montcalm isn’t considered a villain. I suspect that death in battle allows both to be viewed as heroes, even if the result of the battle was disasterous for French hopes in North America.
Agree. And I like the choice of Booth.
I don’t see how you can make this distinction. He was trying to sell the plans showing the defenses for West Point.
For native Americans, how about Christopher Columbus for villain? Heck, he’s almost our national hero AND villain.
In the Carolinas, at least, Banastre Tarleton is considered such a villain my grandmother spat whenever saying his name. His reputation is still sufficiently lodged in American cultural memory that a caricature of Tarleton served as the main villain in the movie The Patriot.
And for both his countries too.
I also agree that Booth is a good choice even if I’m sticking with Arnold.
Well duh, that’s because we won! 