Talk:100 Greatest Britons

Complete list

There seems to be a complete list while this article only lists the first ten. Any reasons for not including the full list? --Glamourqueen (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where it went. It was there before. I have reinstated it. Phantomsnake (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Escape_Orbit removed it for copyright reasons. The BBC themselves released the list in alphabetical order in a press release. That would make it public domain wouldn't it? Do people think the list could be included in that form, at least? Phantomsnake (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Publishing something does not mean relinquishing copyright on it and the contents of the list is copyright just as much as the order of it. Indeed, the unsorted list page has a copyright at the foot it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

We should delete all this arguing about the list

This page is full of people arguing about who should and shouldn't be on the list. The list was done and dusted 7 years ago. If you have complaints then complain to the BBC. This is an article about the list they produced in 2002. I think all the ridiculous debates about there being too many English people or how Princess Diana didn't deserve to be on there are all irrelevant and should be deleted so we can discuss the article.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Æscing (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please please yes. 92.9.154.79 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 01/05/1707 - 31/12/1800

There are a number of weird arbitrary things in this article, which I'm going to change:

"Oliver Cromwell who created a republican Britain"

Oliver Cromwell created a republican England. There was no Britain in his lifetime.

"Furthermore, both Alfred the Great and Boudica were from an era in which Britishness was a concept of the future."

Why single out these two? Many other people on the list lived before 01/05/1707.

"None were from Northern Ireland."

Of course none were from Northern Ireland. This list was the 100 greatest Britons. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. It is not, nor has it ever been part of Britain. Æscing (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ... the term "Briton" can be applied to the people of Ireland (northern or otherwise), as Ireland is part of the British Isles. All people living within the British Isles may be considered "Britons". Use of the term in this way avoids historical errors concerning political boundaries and issues of sovereignty. So, while "Northern Ireland" is not part of Britain, it is part of the British Isles. As such, the list is valid. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Guardian style guide, "Britain" is a contraction of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not just of "Great Britain". 92.9.154.79 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Newton was a Mathematician!

Newton considered himself a mathematician, and is generally considered one. I'm not sure if some Wikipedia-editor decided he was a physicist, or if it was the BBC. If it was the first, can someone change it?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.86.151 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

- A physicist is a mathemtician who applies his skills usefully!-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.57.138 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In Newton's day, there were no such thing as "physicists". Science itself was just beginning to be distinguished from philosophy. But Newton was really the first physicist in the modern sense, so it is hardly surprising that he considered himself a mathematician. He was both a physicist (gravity, laws of motion, optics) and a mathematician (co-inventor of calculus) in the current meaning of the words. And a physicist is not a mathmatician who applies his skills usefully. Physicists use mathematics, but have very different motives, subject matter, and criteria of validity than (pure) mathematicians.

Wording

To me "reported" sounds as though this is a fact rather than the results of an opinion poll. I'm not sure "chosen" is the right word either, any other ideas? -- sannse

Unknown

I thought "Unknown Soldier" was the American one and the "Unknown Warrior" was the British one, in Westminster Abbey?

He's in the Cenotaph in Whitehall, actually. Deb 22:42 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, apparently there is a grave in Westminster Abbey. It's a bit strange, though. I've only ever heard him referred to as the "Unknown Soldier" in practice. I think the term "warrior" must be used to avoid differentiating between the three armed services. Deb 22:49 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

OK, given that the original version had "Warrior", I'll change it back to that, since that's who people "voted" for, apparently.

Fair enough. I just found out the answer. Apparently, there's no question that it was a soldier who was buried in the Abbey, but they put "warrior" on the memorial for the reason I said above. I think most people in the UK actually say "soldier" (and I've no doubt that 9 out of 10 voters wrote "soldier"), but you're right, we should use the proper title. Deb 23:01 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, nobody is in the Cenotaph. It means "empty tomb". The Unknown Warrior is in the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained format of list

Unless Sir Winston Churchill was also known as Mo Mowlam (which seems unlikely, given their different birth years and sexes, among other things), there is something odd about this list's format. Why do the top ten entries have two apparently-unrelated names?

At second glance, I thought perhaps these double names suggested ties for the position, but this also seems unlikely. All but one of the first names in the top ten is well-known either internationally or historically (most both), and all nine of these are better known than any of the second names. Besides, if there were ties, then this would be a list of the 110 greatest Britons.

Third glance suggested that maybe there were two lists that were combined, the second of which was rather more regional or time-sensitive (which wouldn't explain how Winston Churchill et al. would have fallen off the second list completely). However, that's just conjecture. And there may be a better explanation still.

In any case, there's plenty of opportunity for misinterpretation. The real reason for multiple names at each level should be given in the article. Also, the article makes a statement that begs to be explained, about the "nature" of the poll that produced dubious statistics. Can anyone correct these omissions? — Jeff Q 01:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The second name is the person who narrated a documentary about the first name urging the public to vote for "their man". E.g. Mo Mowlam narrated the documentary about Churchill. These ten narrators or advocates also took part in a debate, each playing advocate for their candidate. Pcb21| Pete 11:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we should get rid of those second names immediately. They are ridiculously misleading, of no relevance to the original list, and still unexplained in the article. <KF> 11:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation for those names. I have pulled them out of the list and created a separate Great Britons series section to provide that information. That way, the series information is still available, but the main list itself contains only the selected Britons. — Jeff Q 14:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great. <KF> 21:54, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nominated by a Wikipedian who insisted vigorously that a large article about a spaceship-type in the Star Wars movies should not be deleted......go figure. -- 86.17.211.191 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'd disagree with the "BBC's" being added to this article's title. It wasn't part of the show's name, there are no other notable '100 Greatest Britons' lists to my knowledge, and 'BBC' is the fourth word in the article, so people aren't exactly going to come across this page and wonder which channel it's from. Also, we have numerous other 100 Greatest lists (100 Greatest Kids' TV shows and 100 Greatest Cartoons from Channel 4, to name two) which don't have the channel name in the title, and have been getting along nicely without it. BillyH 05:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some ill-considered renaming in order to work around some even more ill-considered arguments on the vFd for this page. We should rename it back. Obviously the first line of the article will continue to make clear the nature of the list. Pcb21| Pete 12:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, then, I'll move it back tomorrow. BillyH 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes in two of the names

At the very beginning of the article, I did change Boy George and Robbie Williams to Johnny Rotten and King Richard the Third, mostly because those two names might have a stronger ring of "inappropriateness" with regards to a "Greatest Britons" list.Pat Payne 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Series?

why isn't it categorized as a series? Kakun 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Les Dawson

If there are no objections I will remove 'Les Dawson' from the list of notable exclusions. I can't see why he should be listed while scores of other comedians aren't...Although the same could also be said for Thom Yorke - there are plenty of singer/songwriters who didn't make the list. Gringotsgoblin 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)gringotsgoblin

Adam Smith should be in the top 5

David Beckham number 1????

Shouldn't number 1 be Winston Churchill? I'll change it. AlexOUK 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The flags beside the nominees

Should the following flags be fixed:

1. 15 - the Duke of Wellington came from Dublin, Ireland (pre-partition - definately British)
2. 18 - Queen Victoria - not remotely English! German, yes...
3. 35 - Boudica - from Norfolk, but surely not English in the modern sense? Celtic, not anglo-saxon.

Trenwith 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

shouldnt Wellington have the Irish and English flags next to him, he was Anglo-Irish and thought of himself as more English (the famous quote "just because one is born in a stable doesnt make one a horse" BritBoy 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it's my fault. I thought the falg were a good idea, and still do, but I just typed in the Egland flag icon for Churchill and copyed and pasted all the way down and chaging where needed, I probably missed a few so change if you think they are wrong. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My advice - delete the flags. They are confusing and inaccurate because the list covers so great a period that the boudries, and even existance, of the nations in question have changed beyond recognition. Henry II was certainly born in the modern geographical area of France, bu he would not have considered himself a 'frenchman', and even if we are to think of him as such, the flag should certainly not be the post-1793 tricolour - if anything he was either a Norman or Angevin. Boudicea, while born in geographical England, was of the Iceni Tribe, not an 'englishwoman'. Furthermore, most of the royals have so mixed an ancestry, to list all the nations of their heritage would be impractical. Also, if we are talking from a 'blood perspective', Wellington's ancestry was almost exclusively English.

Seconded. Also not sure why republic of ireland flag is in use. Passingtramp 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because some Irish people made the list eg Bono. Jimmmmmmmmm 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but for instance Wellington, Shackleton and Victoria have it. If we're going to be accurate those living pre 1922 ought to have the St. Patrick's cross or the Irish harp or something. Extreme pedantry I know! Passingtramp 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the flags sit alongside some thing like country of birth, they should be deleted. Greenshed 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you use for the Welsh flag for Glendower?

Rampant Grafitti

This page will have to be monitored periodically, looks like - idiots like to come and redo the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bottre73 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

shouldn't #6 be Isaac Newton? it looks like someone has tampered with it... 76.167.213.9 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Maxwell was long dead by then. 195.92.40.49 11:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the list to hand - but Clive Sinclair is not on the BBC website linked to please can someone correct this list Kev 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking, why isn't Athelstan on the list? HE MADE BRITAIN ONE COUNTRY, FOR WODEN'S SAKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.30.86 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Æþelstan made ENGLAND one country. ENGLAND ENGLAND ENGLAND. He did NOT make BRITAIN one country.Æscing (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Er...

Why are people discussing the nationality or worthiness of people on the list?

That doesn't matter - whether the list itself is correct doesnt matter, the page is about the list as an event. The order was decided and this page is about the end result from 2002, not an extention of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.99.156 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"commentary" edited out

The text:

The poll resulted in some unlikely candidates including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up Parliament; King Richard III, chiefly remembered for murdering his nephews; and James Connolly, an Irish nationalist who was executed by the Crown in 1916.

was changed to

The poll resulted in candidates including Guy Fawkes, who was executed for trying to blow up Parliament; King Richard III and James Connolly, an Irish nationalist who was executed by the Crown in 1916.

which doesn't read well, with the edit comment rem commentary. I think it's fair to assert without bias that those who are generally remembered as villains or anti-British can be regarded as unlikely candidates for the Greatest Briton, and undoubtedly Richard III is chiefly remembered for the deaths of his nephews in suspicious circumstances and Shakespeare's take on his character. Jooler 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Suspiciously high placing

How about reports in some newspapers (one of them The Sun, I know I know) that students from Brunel University in London worked out a method for placing many votes for Isambard Brunel? His high placing in comparison with better known/more popular figures would be explained. 88.103.10.113 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how about. Ahead of Darwin and Shakespeare? This result almost certainly was the result of a prank or manipulation, but it would be helpful to know more about the exact nature of the prank before including a description of it in Wikipedia. 141.155.58.206 (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Brunel's auspicious positioning in the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony (as played by Sir Kenneth Branagh) would seem to confirm his impact. He was portrayed as initiating a series of events that transformed Britain from an agrarian society to an industrial and global powerhouse. K8 fan (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement that his placing "was due largely" to students from Brunel University seems questionable and is not supported by the source cited, which merely states that the campaign was "really strong." It surely seems likely that Jeremy Clarkson's campaign, which included a documentary broadcast on the BBC during polling was at least equally influential.

BBC Link re: Great Britons

Taking into consideration how the most recent link in the wayback machine has very little content (just the top 10) I replaced that link with the press release which seems to contain much more information. Although many of the links stemming from the press release are also broken, removing the link entirely is a consideration. Ijustam (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that John Cleese and Clive Sinclair weren't in the original list. They weren't here when I last looked at the article, anyway. Ben davison (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history reveals an IP last July(!) removed the two Irish citizens, Bono and Bob Geldof, and added Cleese and Sinclair at the end, meaning the whole list from 75-100 has been incorrect for the last eight months. I've just changed it back. BillyH 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Eight months?! Ah, how this article has missed my vigilance! Ben davison (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some guy's ethnic rant

I never normally make such big edits, but really, who wrote this junk? "The Anglo-skewed results call into question the whole point of such a vote, and indeed the entire concept of Britishness" ... "Leaders such as Robert the Bruce and Owen Glendower were unarguably greater than Churchill, while Margaret Thatcher is hated to this day in the North and "Celtic" areas." A severe case of 'citation needed', 'citation needed', 'citation needed', and 'may contain original research' I think. If no-one (mature) has any objections, I'm reverting it to the earlier version without this guy's so-called "Ethnological context". The preceding version already mentioned the fact that 19 of the top 20 were English. No need to spoil the article with an ungrammatical rant.

User: D. C. Brescia 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this was written some time ago, but I absolutely agree with you. People can't just change articles because they disagree with them or feel that their view carries more weight than others. This was part of a poll and should not be altered just because someone disliked. the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.166.23 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A vote to keep

This article has merit not merely for its content but for the fact it reflects the attitudes and perceptions of society at the time of its broadcast. It may be an ephemeral statement of the whims of general British society at the time, but in future it may be of interest as a basis of comparison. I would vote to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.90.34 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Men/Women

I saw this on the night it was transmitted and there was a separate analysis as to men and women's votes. The men's votes were not far off as it appears here (Churchill, Brunel etc), but the women's votes had an overwhelming majority of Princess Diana at No.1! Probably the reason why she's a at No,3 overall. This says more to me about women than anything I've ever known. Non-signficant to the article? maybe - but probably the most important lesson you'll learn today.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This list must be kept

Possible the only list of those people, notable and revered, EVER constructed by the modern human race that includes and recognises the achievements of scientists, inventors and engineers as 18% of those included. You'll never see it again! Caseykcole (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Queen Elizabeth II

Small point. It makes no sense to refer to Queen Elizabeth the 1st of England then Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of Britain. It should really be Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of England and 1st of Britain. You could just put Queen Elizabeth the 2nd on its own ( missing out the 'of England' bit) as she's usually just referred to as Queen Elizabeth the 2nd.

It makes perfect sense to use the number taken by the monarch themselves. Monarchical numbering usually carries forward - see Victor Emmanuel II of Italy and Philip II of Spain for other examples.

And the current Queen is not "Queen Elizabeth II of England" - there has been no English monarch or English throne for over three centuries. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How many countries have a list?

Does this article include all the other Greatest lists from around the world? I noticed a few surprising exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.92.155 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

no active ref or link to original BBC numbered list

I tried all of the external links and none of them went to the "original" BBC numbered list. Apparently the Beeb have redone their website. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Robert Burns? Why did he not get a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragtagsnagatag (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy is unmentioned

There was considerable controversy about this list. They are all white, no one asian, no one black. The discussion page mentions a bias towards the English, but it goes further than that. Consider Mohandas Gandhi, a British citizen and father of nonviolent resistance, who routinely makes Top-100-Greatest-Person-Ever lists. His original point was that he was a citizen denied his civil rights, discriminated against for not being a white Briton. Accusations of Bias probably do not belong in the article, but facts regarding the controversy does. -- 22:51, 9 March 2011 174.3.2.176

Gandhi was a U.K. colonial subject in India, and for a time in South Africa. In what sense was he a Briton? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not controversial at all, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a leftist agitator. The "Reaction of Black Britons" section should be removed. It's not relevant in any way. -- 22:07, 12 December 2020 82.5.60.40

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.npg.org.uk/live/greatbritop100.asp
  • In 100 Greatest Britons on 2011-05-23 01:57:52, 404 Not Found
  • In 100 Greatest Britons on 2011-05-31 21:19:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Plea for further comments about this talk page

Can I please point out that the place to have discussed who should / should not have been on the list was the BBC website in 2002? I strongly urge that further talk here is about the article per se. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of this article

FYI —-- the background for the tagging of this article (which has since been reverted) can be found in the discussion regarding the media poll as to the greatest Israelis, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. That conversation includes discussion as to whether lists of this sort should be on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Prevention of edits by non autoconfirmed users for six months

Since the start of the year the majority of edits to this page have been vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. I have just fixed some vandalism which appears to have been left in the article because vandalism upon vandalism had not been spotted with a previous fix.

To give this article a rest from vandalism by IP addresses, I have protected the page from editing by non autoconfirmed users for six months. If anyone objects to this protection please leave a message on my talk page as I do not watch this page.

If after six months the high levels of vandalism starts to occur again, then please place a request at WP:ANI for a new period of protection. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Article is out of date

The article states that "The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th". Unless Margaret Thatcher has found away to come back to life (someone should write a horror book about that), it should be changed. 86.11.163.10 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article states (as do you) "was". No correction needed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I misread the sentence. 86.11.163.10 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria and format

There have been a lot of assumptions on this page about how the list was compiled; perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can add a section. As I recall, early in 2002 the BBC asked people to phone in with their one nomination for 'Greatest Briton'. This could be anyone who lived and worked in the British Isles, including the Republic of Ireland; it was pointed out that Karl Marx would be eligible as he had done a lot of significant work in Britain. Incidentally, of all the 'ineligible' people mentioned above there was no reference to the fictional King Arthur.

Eventually there were about 1.6 million votes for about 800 different nominees, but only the top 100 were ever revealed, being listed alphabetically in the media in August. Late in the year came a series of TV shows, beginning with one based on the then-popular '100 Best Things' format where each clip is followed by one or more celebrity or expert talking heads. The nominees were counted down from 100 to 11 according to number of votes, though I don't know if the numbers were ever revealed. The original top ten ranking was also hidden; instead the phone lines were opened again and ten one-hour documentaries were shown, each with an expert or celebrity discussing the life and work of the subject and arguing for their nomination. After each show was an update of the nominee's ranking according to the second round of voting.

Finally nine of the ten advocates, plus a replacement for the tenth, took part in a live studio debate. The lines were closed and the final ranking announced. The 'prize' for the winner was to have a statue erected in London; perhaps because there were already several statues of Churchill, he instead got an abstract sculpture by Paul de Monchaux referencing his speech composition and installed in a BBC building. In contrast to the American version, tucked away on Discovery Channel and hijacked by Reagan fans, the poll had a high profile in the UK media, and for years afterwards, it seemed, Churchill was referred to as 'our greatest Briton'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.10.128 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Improving phraseology

In the third paragraph of this article, we are told that "a late surge of voting in the final week of the polls put Churchill over the top". Is anyone going to share my opinion that "on top of the list" would be better phraseology than "over the top", as the phrase "over the top" is ambiguous. Vorbee (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

William Tyndale

This article says that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English. Did Tyndale translate all of the Bible into English, or just the New Testament?Vorbee (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

He translated (part of) the Old Testament too. Regardless, his notability as a 'Bible translator' is independent of whether he translated all of it or not, if that's what you're driving at.Phantomsnake (talk)

Notes from original Final broadcast

I just happened on my VHS of the original broadcast of the Final in late autumn 2002. It was a 2-hour programme containing contributions and debate between 10 high-profile champions for the finalists, before a studio audience of academics, experts, descendants, celebrities and the general public. Throughout the programme Peter Snow gave "election night"-style updates over how the vote was going, with lots of breakdowns according of voting patterns between men/women, under 25s/over 25s, etc. how people ranked each finalists personal qualities and so on. From memory 'Great Britons' alongwith 'Restoration' was the first high profile British series to integrate red button and online platform content.

Starting at 9pm, there was a cutoff at 10:40pm when the ranking was frozen plus places 3-10 dropped out. At that point the ranking and share of vote was: 10 - Cromwell (2.9%); 9 - Nelson (3.2%); 8 - Lennon (4.4%); 7 - Elizabeth I (4.5%); 6- Newton (5.2%); 5 - Shakespeare (6.7%); 4 - Darwin (6.9%); 3 - Diana (14.3%); 2 - Brunel (24.0%); 1 - Churchill (27.8%). Over the course of the programme the only movement in placing had been Elizabeth I overtaking Lennon. At the cutoff the top 3s current totals were: Diana - 211,395; Brunel - 354,773; Churchill - 409,896.

Then at 10pm the final totals were announced being Diana - 222,055; Brunel - 391,262; Churchill - 447,423. Voting was done by telephone, via BBC website, and interactive TV (cable/satellite). Museums etc. also had ballot boxes - and possibly you could also vote by post though this was not referred to in the programme. Most voting was by telephone. In total over 1,500,000 got cast with over 160,000 placed on Final night.

Some contemporary aspects noted in the broadcast are the profound impact Jeremy Clarkson's programme about Brunel had on the general public; controversy over Diana making top 10; and how wildly the ranking had varied in the first weeks of the 'top 10' programmes that began October 20th.

It was also noted that none of the top 100 - announced on August 21st - were artists or painters which was ironic as the programme partnered with the National Portrait Gallery!

Last point of interest was favourable reviews given to Michael Portillo's programme on Elizabeth I - an early venture of his into presenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.119.75 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Top-10 list portrait display error on mobile

I encountered a display error with the list, whereupon on mobile (Android 14, Chrome 119) when scrolling down to the last entry (Cromwell), the portraits of the entrants get deprecated from the entire list, and it is in fact, impossible to view Cromwell's portrait within the list itself. (Other than getting the filename from Edit and heading there directly.) Other portraits are restored with a page refresh, but the software bug remains. I attempted to fix this by removing the seemingly erronous symbol (°) at the end of Horatio's description, but that did not resolve the error. (Apologies for the lack of edit description; thought I'd get the chance to fill it in after the review view, but it was not the case.) Zaelot (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)