Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RBK · Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: King Of Scots

Why the above title?. I have just read that the last three monarchs of Scotland took the title King/Queen of Scotland. Not Scots.

I take it King Of Scots means no matter where Scots are.... Bruce or whoever, would be their King. A bit like the Pope and Catholics. Whatever country Catholics may be in the Pope is their spiritual leader.

Is there a more subtle difference that Iam missing. Or is it just a matter of choice, by whoever is on the throne at the time.

I'm wondering too,as it might have some bearing on something that I read about ancient Ulster history and the Kings of Ulster.

ENGLISH ASCENDANCY AND IRISH CHAUVINISM HAVE COMBINED TO SUPPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF ULSTER AND ULSTER'S HISTORY

Leathlaobhair · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:36 am Post subject:

It is not an uncommon title for royalty. For example Albert II is King of the Belgians, and prior to its abolishment the monarch of Greece was King of the Hellenes. They used to have it in France & Yugoslavia too I think.
_________________
Those must have all been important to me once. What I am now grew from that. A former self is a fool, an insufferable ass, but he's still human, you'd no more turn him out than you'd turn out any kind of cripple, would you?
-Thomas Pynchon

RBK · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:18 am Post subject:

No I was just curious. I have heard people say Bruce was'nt King Of Scotland,but King of Scots.

Aye, and yer right about the Belgians I had forgot about that one.

RBK · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:22 am Post subject:

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3792

maybe something to do with his rule being over the land but not over the people?

Bruce was known to want to serve rather than be served by Scotland.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject:

I imagine Bruce didn't give it a second thought as it had been established practice at the time.

Perhaps it relates back to the pre-unified Scotland where borders were not set in any meaningful way and the kingdom was basically where the people who spoke the same language as you went without being quickly evicted. I imagine back then borders were far less significant.

Internationally I think it's just a matter of preference. I imagine in Greece it was 'King of the Hellenes' as only citizens who are members of the Orthodox Church can call themselves Greek Citizens...

RBK · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject:

This is the reason I was asking. Its from a book I picked up in the library called 'Aspects Of Ulster' Sounds a wee bit like what Aventian was getting at........

''All those men and women are part of Ulster. They are Ulster,for Ulster is a people more than it is a place. Once when agonizing over the old problem of whether Northern Ireland with its six Counties was claiming to much in taking on the more popular title; ''Ulster'' I consulted my life-long friend Jim Carney,Celtic Scholar and Senior Professor at the prestigious Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. He answered me in some such words as; ''Ulster always meant the people. They expanded and contracted over the centuries,sometimes over the old the whole northern part of Ireland,sometimes over only the north-east corner,Antrim and Down - like a bellows [that, I remember was the word he chose]. But Ulster was essentially a people. Far from claiming too much with the title Ulster,you could well be selling yourself short!'' In that sense I look on Ulster as embracing all her sons and daughters,all her friends and sympathisers,wherever they may be living and working. It was always so to my mind.''

Leathlaobhair · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:

RBK · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject:

mairead · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject:

To my recollection, no purely Scottish Monarch has claimed to be other than the Monarch of the Scots since the days of Bruce. Even Mary was known as Queen of Scots. The Scottish Monarchs were rulers of the people, not the land.
The title 'Of Scotland' has been placed on Monarchs of Scotland by outside agencies not by the Monarchs themselves.
It is said that no Scot, King or otherwise ever truly owns any part of Scotland other than the six feet he is buried in.
Nor has the land of Scotland ever been owned by any Monarch
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:38 am Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject:

Blackadder · Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject:

The notion that the Scots monarch was the caretaker of the people goes all the way back to the beginnings of the small Kingdom of DalnRiata ... and beyond that. It was tied up with the origins of the Sacred Stone (of Destiny) that was brought with the Scots from their origins far back in antiquity beyond our knowledge. The King (or Queen) of Scots was the Shepherd of the flock (to use an analogy) and held his position by the will of the people ... therefore "... of Scots".
The Monarch held the land in trust for the people. He did not own it. The clan was the true power and he was King only by their will ... from there grew the concept of the Celtic High Kingship.
The Monarch was "Your Grace" NOT "Your Majesty" ... that was an English affectation. James I was the first (obviously) to adopt English custom, style and usage, much to the annoyance of the Scouts Court (till he sold them English titles) and the Clans ... ruined by the German Geordies and ultimately the Highland Clearances.
Therafter, the uniquely Celtic notions of kingship fell into disuse.

Morph · Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:20 am Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: r

So RBK, the people in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal who consider themselves "ulstermen" are correct as Ulster is the people?

I dont agree with cairney anyway, Ulster, like all territories, has had a fluctuating and changing border (just like Scotland) but there is a definite modern boundary for Ulster and I dont see any reason for changing it. Just like Euskadi exists in both France and Spain, Ulster is in both NI and the Republic.

I used to think that the "queen of scots" signified that the monarch ruled over the people rather than the land but I have been corrected by people with more royal knowledge than me and it seems it just semantics and means very little.

I dont think it has any connection to Ulster or any direct connotation to Bruce other than he took the title as it was.

Blackadder · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject:

Yes ... the people on this board surely do get up to semantics. I have been known to myself!
_________________
Laird of Treverlen

SLG · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject:

That's actually pretty good Blackadder.

Blackadder · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject:

Yes. I'm having a fan-club organised soon for those who respect my aristocratic wit. Baldrick offered to be Treasurer, but I soon disabused him of that. After all, three pennies do NOT make Two Pounds Seven Shilling and Sixpence. Which, by the way is the fee for joining.

That's £25 in modern terms, thank you.
_________________
Laird of Treverlen

Babygael · Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:49 am Post subject:

Gettin over yer sel are ye?
_________________
Pict Quine.

Here is where I come to water my roots.

Blackadder · Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:27 am Post subject:

Dear me, what's this?? A bit iffy with the rejoinder, Babygaelporter. And not a clever retort either. Come on, the board expects better of you! Buck up and be at it! Smile

_________________
Laird of Treverlen