Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
RBK

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

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.
RBK

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

Leathlaobhair wrote:
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.


Greece France Yugoslavia too.....I'm thinkin there must be some wee difference there. Whether it means anything. Probably take a lawyer to tell us.
azzuri

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.
Aventinian

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

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

RBK wrote:
Leathlaobhair wrote:
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.


Greece France Yugoslavia too.....I'm thinkin there must be some wee difference there. Whether it means anything. Probably take a lawyer to tell us.


Someone used to be King of the French, I know that much. And for a small period between World War 1 and 2, the Yugoslavia had a King of Croats, Bosnians, and Serbs.
RBK

Leathlaobhair wrote:
RBK wrote:
Leathlaobhair wrote:
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.


Greece France Yugoslavia too.....I'm thinkin there must be some wee difference there. Whether it means anything. Probably take a lawyer to tell us.


Someone used to be King of the French, I know that much. And for a small period between World War 1 and 2, the Yugoslavia had a King of Croats, Bosnians, and Serbs.


Am thinkin that may have left folk in a wee bit of a quandry. I mean those who would maybe be in a foreign country.

Say Scotland at war with some country,and Scots people were living in that country. Their loyalty would be to their King then....not that country,put them in a dodgy situation I think.

But I suppose it would happen anyway,as the Germans and Japanease came under suspicion in America during the 2nd W.W.


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

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
sandmountainslim

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

Exactly the meaning! The Bruces and Old Stewarts were Kings of a people not a bunch of land and trees. Also true Scottish monarchs never used the term "His Majesty" it was "His Grace" until the time of James VI I believe.
Deo Vindice
WP
Aventinian

sandmountainslim wrote:
Also true Scottish monarchs never used the term "His Majesty" it was "His Grace" until the time of James VI I believe.


True. There is some variation across countries on this matter. This manner of address is retained in some ways - for example, in the Houses of Parliament, the Queen will be referred to as The Gracious One.
Blackadder

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

Quote:
The Gracious One.


This would prob IMO be a throw back the idea of the divine right of kings, which was popular around the time of JAmes and earlier with Charles, and Louis XIV of France
Rinty

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

Yes ... the people on this board surely do get up to semantics. I have been known to myself!
SLG

Laughing That's actually pretty good Blackadder.
Blackadder

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.
Babygael

Gettin over yer sel are ye?
Blackadder

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
scottishstuart

Quote:
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 am quite young - and you may feel my opion here does not count - but in my research it has been stated that the Head-of-state in the kingdom of scotland had the style and titles of His/Her Grace, Name, #, King/Queen of Scots, High King/Queen of Scotland. Whether both titles were used at the same time his unsure, but is possible. As for the style of His/Her Grace (HG) in the days of the Scottish Kingdom, before the Union, while the King/Queen of England and other soveriegn states used His/Her Majesty (HM) HG was either equal to or greater than Majesty, meaning the King/Queen of Scots was infact More Powerful and respected than other such Kings/Queens - I bring this up because within the UK the style HG is reserved for non-royal Dukes/Duchesses, which demotes the style from it's once powerful state. Even the King Henry VIII used the style HG (aswellas HM).

This is only my opion and understanding by my research - The Monarch was ruler of the people as King/Queen of Scots - the term High King/Queen of Scotland may only have been used when Scotland had a divided Kingdom.
Wolf of Badenoch

PDT_Aliboronz_14 Aff wi thaur heids,ra hale shootin match ae em. PDT_Aliboronz_14
mairead

As one aristocrat to another Blackadder, I think I should receive an honourary membership.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum