On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 08:29 , Joe wrote:

> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>> Our present Queen is Elizabeth II of England & Elizabeth I of
>>> Scotland; there was quite a lot of argument when she came to the
>>> throne as to whether she should be different styled in England &
>>> Scotland and IIRC there were even some acts of violence in Scotland on
>>> post-boxes bearing the royal crest with Elizabeth II on it.
>> Huh.  I had no idea.
> Um...that's because it's not true.  Sorry, Ray, but she is the queen of
> the United Kingdom, not England and Scotland.

It darn well IS true! Were you around at the time of her accession? Are
you really trying to tell me that all the arguments and the occasional
acts of violence did not happen? That they were all made up by the media
to mislead us poor dudes?

What is your evidence that what I said is untrue?

mail properly you will have seen that.
I wrote, among other things:
"In the case of England & Scotland its because they are _kingdoms_ which,
since the Stuarts, have been united under one crown and were in 1709
formally united as the Kingdom of Great Britain." Duh!

Indeed, strictly she is not only Queen of the United Kingdom either; she
is Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and one or other places IIRC.

But, let's do a little bit of logic, shall we?
- The United Kingdom consists of four entities: England, Northern Ireland,
  Scotland, Wales (in alphabetical order);
- Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom.

If she is Queen of the whole UK, does that not mean that she is also Queen
of each of its entities?

As far England & Wales and, arguably, Northern Ireland are concerned, she
is the _second_ queen to bear the name 'Elizabeth' (the Tudors claimed
kingship of Ireland); as far as Scotland is concerned she is the _first_
queen to bear the name 'Elizabeth'.

In fact, as far as I can see it, the logic of your position is that she
should be Elizabeth I, since she is the first queen of that name to be
Queen of the UK. Have you stopped to ask yourself why she is styled
Elizabeth II?

Why, if what I said is untrue, was it agreed at the time that the reigning
monarch of the UK would take the higher number out of the English & Scots
lines of monarchs?

On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 10:19 , Keith Gaughan wrote:

> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:17:27PM +0100, Ray Brown wrote:
>>> Ireland [sic],
> Why the [sic]?

Because in the context it might have been read by those on 'tother side of
the Pond & elsewhere who are ignorant of rugby that I had made an error
and meant Northern Ireland. I wished to make it clear that I made Ireland.

> The IRFU is All-Ireland, and the teams represents the
> whole island.

I should have made that clear also - mea culpa.

> If it's the use of 'nation', if you can have nations
> without a country, surely you can have a nation split between two
> countries?

I am not sure that I would describe the six counties as a country - but I
do not want to get into minefield of Northern Irish politics.

> Hm.  That would make the UK a supernational organization, like the EU or
> the UN . . .


> but it is legally a single nation-state, is it not?

But Scotland has always retained its own legal system and now has its own
parliament; and many laws passed in Westminster specifically exempt
Northern Ireland. Nah - the UK is a unique institution, with much of its
constitution unwritten, designed to mystify all furriners  ;)
On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 09:08 , Paul Bennett wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:12:11 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> Prince Charles has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum
>> (and her Mum lived to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the
>> 7th one both in England & Scotland  :)
> A joke, I assume?  What would the respective numbers be for a King
> Charles?
> The third,

Yes, that appears to be so. I remember at the time of our Queen's
accession and all the not-imagined business about whether she would be QE
II everywhere or just QE I in Scotland, when Churchill's compromise of the
'larger figure' was accepted, one Newspaper had some remark about the next
king being something other than Charles III (I don't recall the number).
But on checking the lists of Scots monarchs I find no Charles before two
Charles Stuarts. So presumably he would be the third Charlie both north &
south of the border. Had I checked my facts first (always wise to do so),
I would not have included the sentence; but he has actually expressed his
intention to be crowned George.

On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 09:18 , John Cowan wrote:

Ray Brown scripsit:
>> Prince Charles
>> has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum (and her Mum lived
>> to be 101), be crowned 'George'
> How sad.  How very sad.

I don't see anything sad about it. I have misled by including 'wisely'.

> What is he worried about?  That if he is crowned as Charles III, he will
> offend the large and powerful :-) Jacobite faction which applies that
> title to Charles II's son?

I doubt it very much - in any case Charles II had no legitimate sons (or
daughters, for that matter), and was succeeded by his brother.

> And it's not even as if all the kings of the Hanover/Windsor dynasty
> are named George:

He's not doing it for that reason. He has expressly said that it is in
honor of his grandfather, George VI. The latter was a widely esteemed and
popular monarch, mainly because of the stance he took during WWII. Even I
with my known republican (not small r!) leanings, have a admiration George


> I greatly admire Elizabeth's courage in taking the throne in her own name.

But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! Many people had been
hoping he would choose one of his other names, 'Arthur' (which BTW, unlike
either Charles or George, is spelled the same in Welsh as in English).

>> Indeed, it is not. The actual Province of Ulster consists of _nine_
>> counties, three of which are in the Republic. But the Loyalists do use
>> the term Ulster quite a lot, seemingly as tho it were coterminous.
> For which informal use, a certain loon attacked me for being in the
> pay of the English

..and many of us English avoid this use - IMO it is best avoided except,
of course, when talking about the actual historical provinces of Ulster,
Munster, Leinster & Connaught.

> --
> There are three kinds of people in the world:   John Cowan
> those who can count,                            http://www.reutershealth.
> com
> and those who can't.                            [log in to unmask]

Yes, and there 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary & those who don't.

[log in to unmask]
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO				September, 2004