Print

Print


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."