And the first was such a murderous tyrant that she was called "Bloody", the only monarch in Britain's very bloody history to be named so. But the second ended up killing more people than the first, although only because she ruled for much longer and there genuinely were multiple plots to kill her. Many of the people she had killed might well have been guilty. Probably. But in both cases the driving force behind the killing was religion, not the sex of the monarch. The sex of the monarch is, unsurprisingly, completely irrelevant. Also, not really the same country as the UK didn't exist until ~100 years after the second of those two queens died.
You might possibly count 5, if you include Matilda of Anjou (who called herself an empress, though she wasn't). Who invaded England with an army from her country(*), which was an enemy of England at the time. She was never crowned because the civilians of London revolted and prevented the coronation taking place. But she probably did have a legitimate claim to the throne. The claim that the king named Stephen as his heir before dying is plausible but very far from proven and if he didn't then Matilda was the legitimate heir. Not that legitimacy really mattered - the true basis for claiming a throne in those days was force. If it wasn't, for example, the king of England would have become the king of France ~1300 as he was the legitimate heir to the throne of France.
Or maybe the count is 6, if you count Lady Jane Grey. Who was technically queen of England for, IIRC, 9 days. Before being killed so Bloody Mary could take the throne. Force was what counted.
So yeah, the idea that any male monarch must be bad and any female monarch must be good therefore only female monarchs should be allowed is just sexist drivel with a ludicrous pretence at justification requiring absolute ignorance of history.
* While technically a duchy of France, I think it's reasonable to say that at that point in time Anjou was a de facto country.
www.flightradar24.com
