Blaven Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Elizabeth Windsor has never been the Queen of England. The last person to hold such a position was Queen Anne of England, who on the coming into force by Parliamentary ratification of the Treaty entered into by her and Anne, Queen of Scots, ceased to be either of those and became by the fact of that Treaty, Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Has she never been called the Queen of England? And Charlie and his sprog or his sprog have never, ever been called the future King of England either? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Has she never been called the Queen of England? And Charlie and his sprog or his sprog have never, ever been called the future King of England either? That's exactly what she's called, Tje Queen of England, quick google shows you it so you don't have to listen to Ad Lib havering shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 British Election Survey (BES)? Sounds interesting! Can't wait to see the data from that one.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 She has many titles. The one relevant to us is: "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" Never quite got why it is "Elizabeth the Second" - for Scots/Northern Irish she is Elizabeth the First. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Stereotyping the English. Racist p***k. Did you not just say "They think Jonny foreigner is the Poles" this is you stereotyping. You are therefore a hypocrite and a Racist p***k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Never quite got why it is "Elizabeth the Second" - for Scots/Northern Irish she is Elizabeth the First. They now use whichever is higher in either country. So if there was another James, he would simply be 'James the eighth' everywhere, even though for England it would only be their third. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Never quite got why it is "Elizabeth the Second" - for Scots/Northern Irish she is Elizabeth the First. Also, you can only be the first if there is a second, firsts do not become firsts untl the seconds become seconds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Also, you can only be the first if there is a second, firsts do not become firsts untl the seconds become seconds Liquid lunch? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Never quite got why it is "Elizabeth the Second" - for Scots/Northern Irish she is Elizabeth the First.No she's not. The numbering is not pegged to the historical monarchs of each respective constituent part. The Royal Prerogative permits a monarch to call themselves, names, numbering the lot, whatever they damned well please.There was actually a sad-act Scottish Nationalist who tried to sue the Crown on this, and the Court of Session said "no, the Queen can call herself what she wants". It's better known for the (wrong) immaterial remarks made by Lord Cooper about parliamentary sovereignty in pre-Union Scotland. Elizabeth chose to call herself Elizabeth II, and a naming convention has developed that monarchs will adopt the number that is the highest sequential one. So if we had another James, he would be called James VIII, not James III. Edited July 29, 2014 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Has she never been called the Queen of England? And Charlie and his sprog or his sprog have never, ever been called the future King of England either? Never correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Never correctly. No. Not correctly. Who calls her it though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 No she's not. The numbering is not pegged to the historical monarchs of each respective constituent part. The Royal Prerogative permits a monarch to call themselves, names, numbering the lot, whatever they damned well please. There was actually a sad-act Scottish Nationalist who tried to sue the Crown on this, and the Court of Session said "no, the Queen can call herself what she wants". It's better known for the (wrong) immaterial remarks made by Lord Cooper about parliamentary sovereignty in pre-Union Scotland. Elizabeth chose to call herself Elizabeth II, and a naming convention has developed that monarchs will adopt the number that is the highest sequential one. So if we had another James, he would be called James VIII, not James III. So if the two kingdoms where united to make one kingdom, that kingdom would have to be England or Scotland, otherwise it would be a new kingdom. Then dear auld Queeny should be Queen Elizabeth the first of that new kingdom. Either there are still two kingdoms or one was disolved into the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 In the days leading up to the '97 referendum, two polls with standard sample sizes were conducted by System 3 for the Herald. They showed very similar results, averaging 61% of respondents in favour of a Scottish Parliament (with 23% opposed and 16% don’t-knows), and 46% in favour of that Parliament having tax-raising powers (31% against, 23% don’t-knows). The second poll was conducted the day before the referendum. The actual vote, just 24 hours later, was 74-26 for the Parliament and 64-36 for tax-raising powers – overnight swings of 7% and 9% respectively in favour of the two propositions. (Of the 16% of Don’t Knows on the first question, when it came to the crunch 13% had plumped for Yes compared to just 3% for No. On the tax-raising question, meanwhile, the 23% previously answering as Don’t Knows had divided 17% for Yes, 6% for No.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 In the days leading up to the '97 referendum, two polls with standard sample sizes were conducted by System 3 for the Herald. They showed very similar results, averaging 61% of respondents in favour of a Scottish Parliament (with 23% opposed and 16% don’t-knows), and 46% in favour of that Parliament having tax-raising powers (31% against, 23% don’t-knows). The second poll was conducted the day before the referendum. The actual vote, just 24 hours later, was 74-26 for the Parliament and 64-36 for tax-raising powers – overnight swings of 7% and 9% respectively in favour of the two propositions. (Of the 16% of Don’t Knows on the first question, when it came to the crunch 13% had plumped for Yes compared to just 3% for No. On the tax-raising question, meanwhile, the 23% previously answering as Don’t Knows had divided 17% for Yes, 6% for No.) Your point being? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Your point being? Oh shut the f**k up, child. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Oh shut the f**k up, child. ^^^^ Seething. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 ^^^^ Seething. ^^^ seething fascist found, tbf, imo, tbh, brb bbz x 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 No. Not correctly. Who calls her it though? Wrong people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 So if the two kingdoms where united to make one kingdom, that kingdom would have to be England or Scotland, otherwise it would be a new kingdom. Then dear auld Queeny should be Queen Elizabeth the first of that new kingdom. Either there are still two kingdoms or one was disolved into the other. It was a new Kingdom. The mere fact of being a Kingdom has no bearing on the naming conventions for your monarchs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 British Election Survey (BES)? Sounds interesting! Can't wait to see the data from that one.... It's something like 51% NO - 39% YES with undecideds being more inclined to go YES since last poll they took. It's in the International Business Times (UK). I read it earlier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.