Goebbels

FDR.

Fredrick II

Clement Attlee

Greatest King:

I honestly done't have the best basis here, being that America has been king-free since nutty George III gave way to a George who refused to become "George I" (though counting him, another George in office, and then the third one...well, maybe the third ruler named George in each nation is just a bit off, eh?) ;)

Louis XIV souns interesting, and Henry IV or V makes for a couple good plays by Shakespeare (technically both, can't remember who Prince Hal is, IV or V, I think it's V but don't hold me to that) but honestly...

Henry VIII just sounds like a badass--six wives, tells the Catholic Church to just go to hell, he'll make his own, eats all day and wants sex all night...at some point you just have to laugh at that and see the awesome ass-ness there and go "DAMN!" (Unless you're one of the two lovely ladies who got beheaded, then maybe not.)

Best Queen:

I'll say Queen Elizabeth for allowing for Shakespeare again via patronage, seeing the Spanish Armada beaten. and because she's the only Queen I know of besides a couple Marys and the current one.

Best Emperor:

Marcus Aurelius. It HAS to be a Roman here, I think, and while Augustus--the other choice I'd ponder here--was great, I feel I need to split the "founded the Roman Empire" credit somewhat between he and old Julius Caesar (ALSO in a Shakespeare play...does anyone else see a running theme here...or maybe just a bad running gag?) Marcus Aurelius was actually a pretty benevolent emperor, was a strong one, and wrote philosophy on top of it all, his "Meditations" are still read today, and he's still seen as maybe one of the closer examples of a philosopher king (so there you are, folks who say things would go to pot if any of these philosophers ever DID achieve the aims they wanted or had power...M.A. was awesome.)

Best President:

As far as I'm concerned that title can go to about five different men--Washington, Lincoln, and then first Theodore and then Franklin Roosevelt--and I'd say really there are Seven Presidents MOST would agree on as being The Magnificent Seven--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, and then JFK for the Democrats and Ronald Reagan for the GOP, as often one party deifies one of those figures and vilifies the otehr, and vice versa, but from the Cuban Missile Crisis to taking down the USSR without a "Hot" War both men did great things, from "Ich bin ein Berlinner" to "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" both men made great speeches, and from the Bay of Pigs to the Iran Contra both made a pretty glaring mistake...still, great leaders, both of them, and generally they round out the Seven.

But who would I want here?

Out of all of them, I think the president who'd be my pick as one I'd LOVE to live under and someone who'd really represent America the best oversees would have to be Theodore Roosevelt...he didn't take ANY flak, stopped a war, in fact, just because he thought it might damage AMERICA'S standing, he was a man of the people, very progressive...Sarah Palin and John McCain can bang on forever about being "mavericks," TR actually WAS ONE, a Republican I as a Democrat would've voted for ten times over, a conservationist, built up the military and sent a message to Europe without following the Reagan/Bush example of over-building or pissing Europe off totally...JFK's a good choice for just relations be he's a bit young and inexperienced, whereas TR's also rather young and yet being a war hero, governor, assemblyman, police commisioner, Vice President, and finally the President he had a TON of experience. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln all are wonderful, but I'm not sure if they could work as well in our era, it's jsut so different--just like TR or JFK, especially, might have some trouble in their times--and FDR is a good choice, but I'd like a bit more of that Bull Moose tenacity.

Theodore Roosevelt--THE American Cowboy King, er, President!

I always dislike these types of "what ifs" for two reasons:

1) You have to assume that the person you chose would be able to process all of the events that have happened since their death.

2) You have to assume that just because they were good in one instance/time period, they are just as good in every time period.

These are two huge assumptions that I feel are never addressed.

For instance, obi, do you *really* want Marcus Aurelius ruling your modern empire?

And yep, can someone in England explain to me why we not only need to hear about a royal wedding, but about a wedding that won't happen for a while AND isn't even for the damn Kingship?

If I have my Princes straight, Charles is first--he's like 60 or something, isn't he...say he is, or Eric Didle lied to me in his adaptation of "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life"--and then William, and finnay, Wild Harry, right?

So if it's taking forever for CHARLES to become King, WHY do we need to hear about someone who's lower down on the depth chart at this point, so to speak, ESPECIALLY if this wedding isn't going to happen for a few years (and that itself seems like an excessively, obnoxiously-long wait, a few months or a year I understand, even not being first in line it's important Royal matters...I guess, they don't rule, but why not, we'll say it's important...WHY does this need to take years? And WHY must I hear about it, no matter what stupid channel or Internet news page I go to?) :p

And yet, not a single person had mentioned it in this Forum until you brought it up : )

And I don't know...why SHOULDN'T I take Marc here to rule my modern day empire, abgemacht?

Aside from the time difference (lol, I made a big deal about not taking WASHINGTON because of a few centuries time difference, but hey, a couple millenia, no big deal, right? Humans still have four fingers and a thumb...right...oh, right, Mile Long Island and Chernobyl...)

;)

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

^
Who.../

And looking at names son far...doofman, what the hell?

GOEBBELS?

Why?

A bastard AND he lost the war and ruined the nation...you'd want HIM?

Chancellor/Prime Minister - Otto von Bismarck (Prussia/Germany)
King - Alexander III of Macedon; Tigranes the Great (Armenia); Hieron II (Syracuse)
Queen/Empress - Maria Theresa (Austria); Catherine II (Russia)
President - Vladimir Putin (Russia); Abraham Lincoln (USA)
Emperor - Constantine (Rome); Alexander II (Russia); Kangxi (China); Stefan Dusan (Serbia)

@ Obi - i hope you realise my remark was tongue in cheek...
surely we would want Vincent Lingiari as our world leader

@obi: wilfred laurier was the canadan prime minister at the turn of the 20th century. a legit beauty, face on the five styll.

Trajan. One of the few rulers whose reputation has survived to this day.

How would Prince William qualify as a world leader?

Actually Obiwanobiwan, assuming the marriage happens, and lasts, and assuming that nothing happens to Prince William, he will actually become King. Granted it will take some time, but his father Prince Charles (and there is some speculation that he will abdicate in favour of his son) is next in line to the throne (and will be Charles III). As Charles' eldest son, William will inherit the throne when his father dies (becoming William V). So Kate Middleton is the

And if you're going to compare TR and FDR, you can't just go on who has the wilder personality? What about accomplishments? FDR served 3 terms (and a bit) compared with Teddy's 1 and a bit. FDR led America out of the great depression, creating the modern welfare state in the process. And then saw America through most of WWII. I just don't think you can argue with that.

TR on the other hand helped create banana republics. I also hear he is well loved in Spain and the Philippines.

@doofman: I hoped so, can never tell on these forums... ;)

@
afialligator: I know that hee will, in all likelihood, EVENTUALLY become King, and she Queen, I just don't understand 1. Why her potential for being a Queen should be spotlighted now when she and William are, for lack of a better phrase, lower on the depth chart (I'd think whoever Charles' wife is would be a bit miffed) 2. Why we need to hear about a wedding that won't happen for years 3. Why that wedding WON'T happen for years (again, I get it's important, but wht about this Royal English Wedding takes years to plan or make?) and 4. Why here in AMERICA we need to have this on all the news stations and all the news pages on the Internet...I mean, come on, no offense, I LOVE England--and if all goes well I'm hoping I might get to study English abroad there for a semester in a couple of years--and the culture...but with all due respect, if we wanted 24/7 Crown Coverage we probably wouldn't have had that Convention in 1776...

;)

And as far as TR and FDR go, again, I'd be VERY happy with either one, and you could argue it's a matter of taste...4 terms against 2...so FDR serves longer but I suppose TR supporters could argue he did work jsut as important and did so in less time (AND he likely would have had a third term if Taft hadn't run in 1912, and to be honest that really might have made a huge difference in world affairs, as TR would NOT have let WWI go on from 1912-1916 and have kept out of it, ESPECIALLY with Germany's agression and the Lusitania...he'd either have entered the US into the war sooner on the Allies side or, if eh could, knocked a few heads together at the negotiation table as he did to end the Russo-Japanese War and maybe aided things, and of course if WWI turns out differently, WWI is different, if it comes at all, and so you can see, as much as I respect Wilson, with TR in 1912 the world could today be a VERY different place.) So really either Roosevelt works, I personally would just prefer, as my own personal tiebreaker, a bit more of the fire TR had, as much as I love FDR.

I do see your point. But Charles' first wife had her day in the sun. Perhaps you've heard of her, Princess Diana?
And when he married his current wife Camilla Parker Bowles, it was a pretty big deal too. But several years after they married, they can't keep reporting news like "Camilla Parker Bowles still exists." It would be kinda pointless.
Second of all at least according to what I read, the wedding will be next year. I understand what you mean that it's non-news in that sense. But then so is a lot of what we read in the news. Did Bill and Hillary Clinton's marital problems really have any bearing on his running the country? No. Well then why was it front page news for so long? Lots of news is BS time wasting. Prince William marrying Kate Middleton is certainly no worse.
And it's funny you mention Wilson. I was going to sarcastically nominate his wife for best president. = P

Also be fair, I hear about it in Canada. And eventually William will be King of Canada, so perhaps it has a little more bearing here.

I would have to go with Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottomans if I had to choose one.

@obi where did you hear the wedding wasn't going ahead until 3 years time? It will take place next year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11765422 i.e. 2011, possibly even in the Spring so 6-9 months timeish - so not much of a wait at all. TBH at a time when the uk's economy is fubar it will be a great boost for the country's tourism.

I thought I heard it wouldn't take place for a couple years, but then again I likely wasn't listening as closely as possible, as, again, I honestly don't care when it won't occur for a while now and, well...it REALLY doesn't effect me, not even as much as it might somewhat affect a Canadian.

And I'll be honest with you--as a future tourist, the first places I'm going to (after the airport, obviously,) is the New Globe Theatre, then the West End, then some great old castle somewhere (maybe its just Romanticizing to think there's a bunch left there, but come on, there has to be at least a couple still standing) as well as the birthplaces of John Locke and David Hume, both of whom I admire greatly, of course, particularly the latter...after that nightclub, see if England has any sports bars that can hold a candle to the awesomeness of Southern California sports bars with huge TVs, tons of drink and food and jsut a ton of guys watching a game and a hell of a lot of shouting and cheering and arguing...ton of fun...then Wembley Stadium, which I only know as the place where the NFL has its one game in England every year, so I'll try and catch that, then the night scene, and then MAYBE after all that I'd care to see a bit of something Royal or the like.

So not that high up on my tourism cares or lsits, really, the Crown...give me the New Globe Theatre any day, that thing looks amazing, and my Shakespeare professor--who's from...somewhere in England, I have no idea where from or even how to tell if I could--has been ans she says it is as well...

The GLOBE...and then the West End, next to Broadway the greatest theatrical area in the West (seriously, if I EVER can afford to, I'm getting homes in NYC and I'll take day planes to London, I don't care if I have to work a crap job, Spinoza was only a lens polisher by day and a writer by night, and I'm not one for dating so I'll have more income to expend...sitting here near LA NYC and London look like the two most incredible places in the world to me right now, or at least where I'd want to go...and if I've learned one thing from other folks I know it's to go where you want to and do what you want BEFORE tying yourself down, or you may forever lose the chance...wait, what am I talking about now, wasn't this originally about the Crown of England...or world leaders, or something, and now I'm onto talking about NYC and theatre at the West End? Well, to just complete that randomness, apparently David Letterman's guest tonight is Jake Gyllenhahl, someone else I don't care about, so the TV I guess is being muted for a while, then...lol...)

"some great old castle" maybe Windsor castle? The oldest and largest inhabited castle in the world. Inhabited by whom you may ask, well the Queen of course :)

@ obiwan "I'll say Queen Elizabeth for allowing for Shakespeare again via patronage, seeing the Spanish Armada beaten. and because she's the only Queen I know of besides a couple Marys and the current one."

Victoria, maybe...?

@ashen_shugar:

Oh yeah...oops, forgot her, lol...

@jwd_001: Maybe...but I'd prefer some really AGES old castle, one where I might suppose Camelot might've been/would've been based on...I know Gawain, my favorite knight, is Welsh in origin, maybe there's some 7th Century castle still standing there, decrepit, all cold and just the stones left...deserted...

Like the English equivalent of the Roman Forum. :)

(Oh--and I'd go somewhere that serves really, REALLY good tea, for as some folks ehre know I LOVE tea, drink it regularly at college and home, hate coffee, but good tea stores here...eh, there are a couple of nice places, but way too expensive.)