Royally snubbed... king who deserves his place in the pantheon of greats

Edward III’s 50-year reign, a masterpiece of political reform and decisive military action, transformed England into a formidable European power. So why have generations of historians dismissed him as a war-mongering imperialist?

- Caroline Burt and Richard Partington

ASK the man or woman in the street who was England's greatest monarch and the names Henry V, Elizabeth I, Alfred the Great and (rightly) Elizabeth II are likely to recur. Henry VIII and Queen Victoria might also be mentioned - though more for Henry's multiple marriages and Victoria's longevity than their ability as rulers. In the case of Alfred and Henry V, their greatness is hard to dispute.

Alfred's defeat of the invading Danes and provision of laws were critical to the formation of England as a country in the ninth century. Henry V's financial reforms, drive for internal order, defeat of the French at Agincourt (1415), re-conquest of Normandy and establishment of himself and his successors as rightful heirs to the French throne impressed his contemporaries.

They also attracted the attention of Shakespeare, whose play cemented Henry foremost in our minds as the model medieval king. And the presence of Elizabeth I or II among the pantheon of greats needs little further explanation.

But for folk in the late 14th century, the paragon of English kings was Edward III, who ruled England for 50 years between 1327 and 1377.

Yet Edward's myriad political achievements have escaped latter-day popular consciousness because generations of historians dismissed his record.

The Victorians, followed by liberal and Marxist-leaning historians in the 20th century, perceived his foreign policy, in which he fought first the Scots and then the French in the Second Scottish War of Independence and the Hundred Years' War, as war-mongering and imperialistic.