Print

Print


Ray Brown wrote:

> 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?
>

That's not what I meant.  I suppose I should have made a clarification -
what I meant is, she is not Queen of England and Scotland seperately.
Then I wouldn't have made a bit of a fool out of myself.

> What is your evidence that what I said is untrue?
>
> I KNOW SHE IS THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM!!!! If you actually read my
> 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!
>

They're not kingdoms.  They *were* kingdoms.  But now they are one kingdom.

> 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?
>

Yes, but only inasmuch as she is also Queen of, say, Oxfordshire.

> 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?
>

I have, actually.  I don't know.  It seems a tad stupid to me.  The most
sensible styling would simply be 'Elizabeth of the United Kingdom', as
opposed to 'Elizabeth of England'.  But who knows?

> 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?


Well, that's a good question.  I'd guess it was around the time of
William IV(Who should strictly have been William III in Scotland).