Who is the greatest Briton alive?

[Dorcus]

Well you're right that historical significance and greatness aren't the same thing, and there are different applications to the word "great", but when we talk of great men we usually define that in terms of the longevity of their fame,( or infamy) and the lasting effect of their lives upon the course of history.
In fact you choose a poor example in Fred West because no one except perhaps particularly learned criminologists will have heard of him in 50 years - any more than we remember Victorian murderers. Fred West killed some people, but didn't effect history.

Napoleon was regarded in his time and for a while afterwards as badly as Hitler is today - a cruel genocidal maniac who wanted to invade and subdue half the world, yet at this point he is generally regarded as a great man because the rights and wrongs of his actions and the opinions of those who liked and disliked him have passed into the mists of time and been forgotten.

I'm afraid to tell you that the same will happen with Hitler too. Future generations will look at what he did and didn't do, and pass very quickly over his inhumanity, which will not seem tangible to them. As I said earlier, History is neutral you see.

By the way, I hope you don't mind me asking, but didn't you used to post as Viscount Jackie Pallow on the Norfolk Widfowlers Message Board ?

Yes, well spotted Sir Jim, Jackie here. History is never neutral: chronology is. You may be wrong about Fred in 50 years; many people will recall the exploits of Jack the Ripper without being contemporaries. I would argue that Fred West certainly affected the personal history of some unfortunate families in the Gloucester area.

[Heathblue]

This is a damn good question!!.

[az city]

I'm afraid to tell you that the same will happen with Hitler too. Future generations will look at what he did and didn't do, and pass very quickly over his inhumanity, which will not seem tangible to them. As I said earlier, History is neutral you see.

I was right in my first ever response to you. I have been wasting my time.

You are clearly a WUM with crumble for brains. It's idiots like you that propagate BS without even having the mental acuity to realize you're doing it. Hitler was, is and always will be reviled by any sane human. End of.

BTW I'm blocking you. You're a twerp.

[RonnieBird]

I was right in my first ever response to you. I have been wasting my time.

You are clearly a WUM with crumble for brains. It's idiots like you that propagate BS without even having the mental acuity to realize you're doing it. Hitler was, is and always will be reviled by any sane human. End of.

BTW I'm blocking you. You're a twerp.

Remarkable

[jeepster]

Remarkable

But correct

[BLUETIT]

My Mrs

[RonnieBird]

Yes, well spotted Sir Jim, Jackie here. History is never neutral: chronology is. You may be wrong about Fred in 50 years; many people will recall the exploits of Jack the Ripper without being contemporaries. I would argue that Fred West certainly affected the personal history of some unfortunate families in the Gloucester area.

Jack the Ripper is a bit unusual , probably because it was never solved and because it's been fictionalised so many times. As a matter of fact I've got my own theories on it, but it's certainly not history, and I'm sure there were plenty of Fred West equivalents we've never heard of.
Similarly , the effect upon someone's personal or family history isn't really history in the wider sense.

I don't mean you, but I don't think some people here actually understand what History is. They don't seem to be able to separate it from morality or opinion.

None of it matters , of course, but I'm keeping the discussion going because it's interesting and it's drawing one or two people into a nice rational dialogue .

[jon1959]

Well of course you may dispute it, and you may disagree . You might very well be right because only time will tell.
As I said to the previous poster, History is neutral so it takes no political or personal view, and it's often somewhat selective.

William Wilberforce didn't single handedly abolish slavery but he's the one that's remembered for it because he was the figurehead of the movement.

I'ts only a bit of fun, and I'm merely responding to the OP by suggesting a present day character who ticks all the boxes to be recorded in History as a great man. As it happens I'd probably disagree with you about his merits or otherwise , but that's entirely beside the point.

You mention Bill Cash, but you answer your own question by saying that no one talks about him in the present day, and most of the members of this particular board wouldn't have even heard of him.

I mentioned Oliver Cromwell ,and half the country felt so negative toward him that they went to war over it, yet I doubt that many here haven't heard of him all these centuries later.


I don't know why we're finding it so hard to separate the question of someone's significance in history , ( which is as near as we can get to defining greatness), from whether or not we like them .

When was this?

[RonnieBird]

When was what - the civil war ?
What are you going to do, start pointing out various causes of the Civil War which weren't about Cromwell or trotting out your understanding of the conflict . I wouldn't bother because I didn't say that the war was caused by people disliking Cromwell .

I mean , I'll discuss history with you if you like but you shouldn't try and go there.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you going to say that you think Oliver Cromwell and Edward Longshanks were the same person or something ?

[az city]

RonnieBird:

I feel the need to explain why I think you have crumble for brains. Follow closely, it's logical.

1. The OP asked who was the "greatest Briton alive"?

2. Let's define "great". I think even you know what "Briton" and "alive" mean.
From no particular online dictionary: "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average" or "of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average" or "used to indicate that someone or something particularly deserves a specified description".
I think the middle one is most relevant. The synonyms for it are "...prominent, eminent, preeminent, important, distinguished, august, illustrious, noble etc".

3. What the question was about is identifying individuals who fit those characteristics.

4. Farage, Hitler, Jack the Ripper do not possess any of the desired characteristics ergo they are not great and so cannot be "the greatest".

5. QED

If I might help you in your study of history: you have confused the original question with the so-called "great man theory of history". Thomas Carlyle proffered this in the early C19th but (I'm afraid for you) it fell out of favour in the mid-C20th and is now only trotted out by the lunatic fringe (like attempts to explain Nazi ideology). Reading for you: "Hitler" by Ian Kershaw.

Let us know what GCSE grade you get.

[az city]

"...I didn't say that the war was caused by people disliking Cromwell ."

"I mentioned Oliver Cromwell ,and half the country felt so negative toward him that they went to war over it,"

Oops. Are you related to James (not very) Cleverley?

[Rjk]

Lol @ the farage suggestion.

Has anyone tried and failed to get elected to the house of commons as many times as him?
Lord Such possibly.

[RonnieBird]

RonnieBird:

I feel the need to explain why I think you have crumble for brains. Follow closely, it's logical.

1. The OP asked who was the "greatest Briton alive"?

2. Let's define "great". I think even you know what "Briton" and "alive" mean.
From no particular online dictionary: "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average" or "of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average" or "used to indicate that someone or something particularly deserves a specified description".
I think the middle one is most relevant. The synonyms for it are "...prominent, eminent, preeminent, important, distinguished, august, illustrious, noble etc".

3. What the question was about is identifying individuals who fit those characteristics.

4. Farage, Hitler, Jack the Ripper do not possess any of the desired characteristics ergo they are not great and so cannot be "the greatest".

5. QED

If I might help you in your study of history: you have confused the original question with the so-called "great man theory of history". Thomas Carlyle proffered this in the early C19th but (I'm afraid for you) it fell out of favour in the mid-C20th and is now only trotted out by the lunatic fringe (like attempts to explain Nazi ideology). Reading for you: "Hitler" by Ian Kershaw.

Let us know what GCSE grade you get.

Well, GCSE's hadn't been invented when I was at that age, but I did quite well in my matriculation thank you . In fact I progressed a bit from there ,but thank you for your advice.

I'm not going to get involved in your half arsed name calling, but I will say that it's both pathetic and uncalled for.

I nominated a name on what's supposed to be a general discussion board, that's all. We don't get to choose here who will be remembered by history or which definition of "Great" must apply to the question really.

Okay, you disagree with my suggestion. That's okay, but you go on to launch some big personal attack on the writer and chuck in a few things you've googled to try and seem like a great authority on history. Don't bother, please, because I'm neither impressed nor particularly concerned about your opinion of me, and I hope that your opinion of yourself is very high, which it clearly is.

Let's just accept that you don't like Nigel Farage and move on.

[jon1959]

When was what - the civil war ?
What are you going to do, start pointing out various causes of the Civil War which weren't about Cromwell or trotting out your understanding of the conflict . I wouldn't bother because I didn't say that the war was caused by people disliking Cromwell .

I mean , I'll discuss history with you if you like but you shouldn't try and go there.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you going to say that you think Oliver Cromwell and Edward Longshanks were the same person or something ?

No I was going to say that you are talking bollocks again.

I highlghted exactly what you said - and then you brazenly deny it. You are not doing very well with history, use of English (admiration for Rees-Mogg not helping?) or philosophy. Maybe time to give up gracefully?

And what has Edward I got to do with anything?

[RonnieBird]

As I said to the other chap, fortunately I did the education stuff a long long time ago, and so I don't need any tips at this stage. I doubt that Jacob Rees Mogg has got much to learn from you either actually.
If you think I'm talking bollocks that's okay - we all have our opinions and you're welcome to yours. It gets very tiresome when you and your little mates try to tag team anyone who's not in your gang of dunces though, and it's not achieving anything.

[delmbox]

As I said to the other chap, fortunately I did the education stuff a long long time ago, and so I don't need any tips at this stage. I doubt that Jacob Rees Mogg has got much to learn from you either actually.
If you think I'm talking bollocks that's okay - we all have our opinions and you're welcome to yours. It gets very tiresome when you and your little mates try to tag team anyone who's not in your gang of dunces though, and it's not achieving anything.

At least his little mates are different people to him