Off the top of my head, Alfred, Henry II and Elizabeth I were all English Monarchs who were almost universally admired by the English.
Elizabeth I killed more English Catholics than her sister "bloody" Mary killed English Protestants. Both Queens were HUGELY popular with the people on their own side of the sectarian divide, but "universally admired" is utter bunk.
The problem with any study of English history prior to the 19th Century is that the vast majority of the material was butchered by the Victorians, who had a powerful agenda, and a blatant disregard for facts.
Elizabeth I is
said to have been universally popular because she was a Queen who established an empire, and made England powerful on the world stage - just like Victoria.
Similarly, we "know" that Cromwell's protectorate was hugely unpopular, despite the few independent contemporary sources that survive (eg Pepys) suggesting that in London at least, he was considered a massive improvement on the Kings who preceded him. But as a regicide, it was obvious to the Victorians that he must have been unpopular, so they memory-holed whatever sources suggested otherwise.
Victorians sit as a roadblock astride English history, obscuring most of what went before, and filtering the remainder through their hugely biased worldview. Anything written by, and most of what was written since, the Victorian era should be taken with a massive grain of salt. This includes almost everything that's taught in English schools, and hence pretty much all of popular understanding of English history.