And you've forgetting: Duchess of Normandy a.k.a. The Channel Islands which aren't part of the United Kingdom, since Normandy isn't part of Britain. Ditto the Isle of Man / Manx, which is also under a specific agreement with the English Crown - precisely what IDK. ;) Wesley Parish On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:04, John Cowan wrote: > Ray Brown scripsit: > > 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. > > Here are Elizabeth's styles: > > In the U.K.: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United > Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and > Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. > > In Canada: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United > Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the > Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. > > In New Zealand: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New > Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, > Defender of the Faith. > > In Jamaica: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Jamaica and > of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth. > > In Australia, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the > Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, > Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Christopher and Nevis: Elizabeth > the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of <name of country> and Her > other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. > > In the U.S.: Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor. :-) > > > 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? > > To clarify: at the time of Elizabeth's accession, that is. But if > applied retroactively, no monarchs since 1707 would change numbers. > The Scottish monarchs had a lot more different names, so their numbers > tend to be lower. > > > Nah - the UK is a unique institution, with much of its > > constitution unwritten, designed to mystify all furriners ;) > > Not just foreigners, but natives too, I think. > > > So presumably he would be the third Charlie both north & > > > > >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. > > I doubt it too. I was of course thinking of the Young Pretender, > Charles II's great-nephew. > > > But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! > > So it is: Charles Philip Arthur George, no less. > > > 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). > > Perhaps he didn't feel he could live up to being King Arthur. > > -- > Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes. -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."