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).