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.
|
Celtic Indian
|
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.
|
Holebender
|
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.
|
Rinty
|
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.
|
Hazel
|
Now what if they'd had that rule for King James VI and I?
|
Dave Coull
|
| 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.
|
Hazel
|
[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? 
|
Celtic Indian
|
| 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 !
|
Celtic Indian
|
| 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 !
|
Hazel
|
You can't make a Scot feel inferior! No one ever has and no one ever will. 
Scots do not knuckle to anybody!
|
Celtic Indian
|
| 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 !! 
|
Hazel
|
I said you can't make them feel inferior. I didn't say how many have tried.
|
Holebender
|
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.
|
Hazel
|
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!!!
|
Holebender
|
| 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".
|
Hazel
|
| 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?" 
|
Rinty
|
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.
|
Celtic Indian
|
| 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 !
|
Holebender
|
You can be sure the people living in Buckingham Palace will not choose names like Malcolm or Robert for their sons.
|
Rinty
|
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
|
Aventinian
|
| 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.
|
Corby Boy
|
The key for me is not about numbering but whether Queen Liz is considered rightful Queen of Scots or not.
The Stewarts were usurped off the throne (as well as English) against the wishes of a great many Scots. So, I for one do not recognise her right. But that is a personal, thing and I guess I am carrying on the Jacobite tradition of my ancestors.
Actually, I couldnt give a hoot about any kind of monarchy. I don't think an independent Scotland necessarily needs one. But some say its good for tourism.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Corby Boy wrote: | | The Stewarts were usurped off the throne |
There were dozens and dozens of usurpations in Scottish history, long before the Stewarts got their jotters. The Stewarts were themselves the heirs of multiple usurpations. To take just one example out of countless, what about when Macbeth was displaced, that was a usurpation, which happened, against the wishes of a great many Scots, with the help of a Northumbrian army. Macbeth had ruled peacefully for seventeen years (a long time in those days) and had even gone on a pilgrimage to Rome, which lasted about six months, leaving the country in the hands of his stepson and his pals, and had been welcomed back, as still king, with no problem. Of course usurpers generally try to make out they were the "rightful" monarchs. That crawler Shakespeare wrote that pack of lies, his play called "Macbeth", to flatter James the Sixth. Now, in reality, at the time of Macbeth, the Stewarts' ancestors were still in France. But some other crawler up in Aberdeenshire had written a pamphlet claiming the Stewarts were descended from some character called "Banquo" (he made the name up) and this rubbish was treated seriously because it gave the king a long lineage which didn't go back to one of William the Conqueror's less important hangers-on. So Shakespeare took this rubbish, and put "Banquo" in his play, or rather, Banquo's ghost, speaking important prophecies which would of course ultimately be fulfilled by James the Sixth (what a coincidence!).
Mind you, if we are honest about it, there had already been dozens of usurpations BEFORE Macbeth. In fact, the FIRST usurpation happened the very first time somebody said "I'm making myself king and you have to do what I tell you".
I'm no supporter of that bunch of frauds the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, or Windsor, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, but it seems ridiculous to me that folk can still seriously suggest that other bunch of frauds, the Stewarts, had/have some magical "right to rule".
|
Pytheas
|
Can't we have a Lulach II or Giric II, that would be good for a laugh.
|
Stevie
|
I'm not very sure what I'd call members of the royal family.
As people, I've nothing much to say but as royals, I have a whole list of appropriate names with which to label them.
|
magister ludi
|
| Pytheas wrote: | | Can't we have a Lulach II or Giric II, . |
fine......but no need for an "Ale X"
a great FM........ but a poor REX
|
magister ludi
|
| Bravehand wrote: | | I'm not very sure what I'd call members of the royal family. |
Don't you worry your pretty little head about it Bravehand.....they have a chap who keeps you right on matters of protocol...........(should the need ever arise......ARISE, ARISE SIR BRAVEHAND!!!)
|
Stevie
|
A friend said he saw a comedian at the Edinburgh Festival (Frankie Connoly I think) commenting on a recent visit to the US by Charles and Camilla :
I can just see some Americans seeing them and saying,
'My, that Diana sure hasn't aged well'.
Viva la republicą!
|
|
|
|