| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Celtic Indian
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Dùn Tòchair
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: Queen Elizabeth II ? |
 |
|
I didn't really know where to put this,but the history forum kind of seem the right place.
Now,our Queen,Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.Is this the correct title ?
My understanding is that the Queen Elizabeth I was Queen England till 1603.Therefore she was called Queen Elizabeth I of England.The Kingdom of England ! The Kingdom of England came to an end along with the Kingdom of Scotland when they were unified in 1707 to create The United Kingdom of Great Britain.We all know that.
So ! Shouldn't Queen Elizabeth II of United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI therefore actually be called Queen Elizabeth I of UK etc. ? As she is the first monarch to be called Elizabeth to head the United Kingdom as from 1707.
_________________
A Progressive Nationalist who want to banish Insular Nationalism and is humbled to be Scottish ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't expect logic or consistency.
The King of England who invaded Scotland in 1297 was called Edward I, even though there had been three Kings of England called Edward before the Norman Conquest.
The first King of the UK called Edward took the title Edward VII. Scotland had never had a King Edward and England had had nine Kings called Edward before him but he was still called Edward VII.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it is actually the correct title. when the current monarch became queen it was suggested in parliament that, rather than have different titles for each home nation, the number would be whichever was the higher of England and Scotland.
So althought the current monarch is only the first elizabeth of Britain, she becomes the second as there was a QE1 in England. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now what if they'd had that rule for King James VI and I?
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | when the current monarch became queen it was suggested in parliament that, rather than have different titles for each home nation, the number would be whichever was the higher of England and Scotland |
"suggested"? Do you mean it didn't actually become a law which would be binding on future monarchs? | Hazel wrote: | | what if they'd had that rule for King James VI and I? |
Then he would just have been James VI. But they had no such rule. The main "rule" where British monarchs are concerned is that they make up the rules as they go along. Albert, Duke of York, known to one and all as Bertie, was not expected to become king. But his brother Edward at first seemed mainly interested in boys, and then got mixed up with an American divorcee of scandalous reputation. So the possibility of a King Bertie arose. So the spare king just changed his name and became George VI. As for his daughter, I remember the coronation of the present monarch well. Sir Edmund Hilary had just climbed Mount Everest, and there was loads of stuff on the radio and in the newspapers about a "New Elizabethan Age". It was going to be a time of glory for Britain, like when the original Gloriana was on the throne. How inconvenient THAT Elizabeth never actually ruled Scotland. The only purpose of inventing this "rule" was so that Lizzie could be Elizabeth the Second. But having made the "rule" for Liz's benefit, the names of Liz's children and grandchildren were then carefully chosen to ensure the embarrassment of having a future monarch using the Scottish numbering wouldn't arise. Prince Charles - only "British" monarchs have been called Charles. Princess Anne - Queen Anne ruled the UK at the time of the Union of the Parliaments. Prince Andrew - sounds Scottish, but there has never been a Scottish king of that name. Prince Edward, English. Prince William - there has only been one king of Scotland of that name, so the English numbering would be used. Prince Henry - Henry the Ninth. So ensuring that the possibility of the "rule" leading to the Scottish numbering wouldn't arise. Mind you, the royals can be remarkably flexible where the interests of "the family firm" are concerned. Bearing in mind that Liz's dad was crowned as George instead of Albert, if it seemed in the interests of continuing the "business" of the "family firm", there would be nothing to prevent Liz's son or grandson from invoking his famous ancestor Robert Bruce, and calling himself Robert IV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote][quote="Dave Coull"] | Quote: | | The main "rule" where British monarchs are concerned is that they make up the rules as they go along. |
Isn't this an international trait? 
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celtic Indian
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Dùn Tòchair
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | it is actually the correct title. when the current monarch became queen it was suggested in parliament that, rather than have different titles for each home nation, the number would be whichever was the higher of England and Scotland.
So althought the current monarch is only the first elizabeth of Britain, she becomes the second as there was a QE1 in England. |
But surely the point being is that the different nations in the UK are no longer seperate Kingdoms but are now constituent countries of a united kingdom,therefore any monarch wouldn't be,say,Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth II of England,but Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom.The current kingdom ! Not the old kingdoms of Scotland and England.
To me this is just another example of the English asserting their control over the Scottish psyche so to make Scots feel inferior and dependent on a conquering,larger neighbour ! Which,of course,we all know that Scotland isn't !
_________________
A Progressive Nationalist who want to banish Insular Nationalism and is humbled to be Scottish ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celtic Indian
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Dùn Tòchair
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hazel wrote: | | Now what if they'd had that rule for King James VI and I? |
But when King James ruled,the kingdoms hadn't been fully united yet.So King James VI and I was the correct terminology !
_________________
A Progressive Nationalist who want to banish Insular Nationalism and is humbled to be Scottish ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can't make a Scot feel inferior! No one ever has and no one ever will. 
Scots do not knuckle to anybody!
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celtic Indian
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Dùn Tòchair
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hazel wrote: | You can't make a Scot feel inferior! No one ever has and no one ever will.
Scots do not knuckle to anybody! |
Tell that to the unionists then !! 
_________________
A Progressive Nationalist who want to banish Insular Nationalism and is humbled to be Scottish ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I said you can't make them feel inferior. I didn't say how many have tried.
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Hazel, if only that were true Scotland would have been independent long ago. The term "Scottish cringe" didn't just appear out of thin air.
As I've already pointed out with the example of the Edwards, using the English numbering system for Elizabeth is nothing new. Her uncle and her great grandfather did it long before she did.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How can that come true when we even try it on each other? I know. I come from a line of the most "superior" Scots of all - Douglas!!!
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Albert, Duke of York, known to one and all as Bertie, was not expected to become king. But his brother Edward at first seemed mainly interested in boys, and then got mixed up with an American divorcee of scandalous reputation. So the possibility of a King Bertie arose. So the spare king just changed his name and became George VI. |
This is also common practice. His brother was known as David right up to the time he took the title King Edward VIII. I have heard it said that the present heir to the throne intends to take the title King George VII when his mother dies. Given that George VI was born during Victoria's lifetime I don't think the possibility of taking the title King Albert would have caused any sort of stir among the lieges. If he was prepared to be a Prince Albert, with all the sniggering that would have accompanied the double meaning of that term, I can't see that King Albert was unthinkable.
Royals have a whole string of names, and this allows them to choose the one they like when they achieve power. Edward VIII had both Edward and David on his birth certificate. George VI had both Albert and George on his birth certificate. Cherlie could choose between Charles, Philip, Arthur, or George without having to "change his name".
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hazel
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="Holebender"] | Dave Coull wrote: |
Royals have a whole string of names, and this allows them to choose the one they like when they achieve power. Edward VIII had both Edward and David on his birth certificate. George VI had both Albert and George on his birth certificate. Cherlie could choose between Charles, Philip, Arthur, or George without having to "change his name". |
|
And challenges the rest of us to keep them sorted out! Now, please tell me why they never use their surnames? I am forever having to pull out a book to answer "which line is this?" 
_________________
Hazel
Chan ann air chall a tha gach neach air allaban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dont shoot the messenger FFS!
I am not advocating this as the rule or stating my opinion, just clarifying the norm.
It was suggested in parliament, I believe by Winston Chrurchill, and not made law but generally agreed upon.
If a future monarch was called Malcolm, he would be Malcolm 5th, even though England never had a King malcolm. It works both ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celtic Indian
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Dùn Tòchair
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | dont shoot the messenger FFS!
I am not advocating this as the rule or stating my opinion, just clarifying the norm.
It was suggested in parliament, I believe by Winston Chrurchill, and not made law but generally agreed upon.
If a future monarch was called Malcolm, he would be Malcolm 5th, even though England never had a King malcolm. It works both ways. |
Thats what I'm trying to get at.If a Malcolm did come to the throne then he would be Malcolm 1st,not the 5th,as he would be the 1st person to be called Malcolm to reign over the United Kingdom !
_________________
A Progressive Nationalist who want to banish Insular Nationalism and is humbled to be Scottish ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 2752
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can be sure the people living in Buckingham Palace will not choose names like Malcolm or Robert for their sons.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No, CI, he would be Malcolm the 5th. We all know that he would be the 1st malcolm of the UK just as Elizabeth is the 1st of the UK, but the correct way of doing it, whether we like it or not, would be that he would become Malcom 5th for the same reason as we have QE2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
1 Strike
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 5558
Location: Oh, I get about a bit.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hazel wrote: | | Now what if they'd had that rule for King James VI and I? |
Well, the rule only applies to monarchs of the united kingdom. Those two were monarchs of England and Scotland separately and thus had separate titles in each kingdom.
| Dave Coull wrote: | | "suggested"? Do you mean it didn't actually become a law which would be binding on future monarchs? |
True. The law is clear: the Royal title and name is solely the preserve of the monarch; she could have called herself what she liked.
| Celtic Indian wrote: | | But surely the point being is that the different nations in the UK are no longer seperate Kingdoms but are now constituent countries of a united kingdom,therefore any monarch wouldn't be,say,Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and Queen Elizabeth II of England,but Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom.The current kingdom ! Not the old kingdoms of Scotland and England |
It seems perfectly sensible to me. She is the second Elizabeth to reign in the UK. There being two Elizabeth I would be a far more ridiculous idea. Had we continued this principle, there'd be another change when Ireland was incorporated. Would there have been another change in 1927 when the name of the UK changed to its current one?
| Dave Coull wrote: | | But having made the "rule" for Liz's benefit, the names of Liz's children and grandchildren were then carefully chosen to ensure the embarrassment of having a future monarch using the Scottish numbering wouldn't arise. |
I hardly think that would be particularly embarrassing, nor do I think Elizabeth and Phillip, or later Charles and Diana, gave a single thought to such a minor legal curiosity when naming their children.
| Holebender wrote: | | You can be sure the people living in Buckingham Palace will not choose names like Malcolm or Robert for their sons. |
Yes, I hear they've got a bit of taste.
That said, a Constantine IV would be quite good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
