1. Icon of the Anglican "St." Charles is shocking and completely inadmissible.
2. St. Edward is a perfectly Orthodox Saint, who constantly knew and used the Filioque.
3. Edward the Confessor is post-Schism, so I don't think it is lawful to hold him forth as an Orthodox Saint.
4. St. Henry II is an Orthodox Saint, whose delightfully pious life was featured in "Living Orthodoxy" years ago. Like St. Edward the Martyr, he knew the Filioque; it is what was used in those days in those lands. But, as Fr. John Romanides clearly pointed out, there is a perfectly Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque theologically, though its addition to the Creed was unlawful.
It seems rather unilateral and personal, for a person to up and decide that St. Edward the Martyr is okay while St. Henry II is not okay. They both used the Filioque, and their life spans overlap from 972 to 979 or 981. They were both very pious and pure of heart.
Someone wrote that England didn't "succumb" to the Papacy at the same time as the rest of Europe. But that is just emotion in search of a history and a theology. England and Norman France were identical as to dogma, identical in all important church practices, and the only major difference between them (as to the Papacy) was that Anglo-Saxon England was much more devoted to the institution of the Papacy than Normandy was.