Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:32 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,842
Another example of a "nitpick" which could cause a political mess: Is it incorrect to say that Acosta was banned from the White House for being disruptive?

More to the point:

Is it nitpicking to question the premise of a question if that premise is a political position?

Is it a political position if it's factually incorrect?

Does anyone still believe it's possible to keep politics out of GQ?
  #52  
Old 11-19-2018, 02:55 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Does anyone still believe it's possible to keep politics out of GQ?
I don't think it's possible to keep people from driving drunk and killing innocents. And yet I'm quite happy that there's a law forbidding such activity and that punishments are applied to those who offend.
  #53  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:07 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Commonly, perhaps, but not correctly.


Yes, because she is in fact the Queen of Canada, Australia etc. But she is not the Queen of England; England has no Queen.


No, because she is "Elizabeth", and she is "Elizabeth II" but she is not Queen of England. There are zero and exactly zero Queens of England.
So, then who is Queen over that section of the UK? ER2. True, that's not one of her Titles but Elizabeth is Queen of the UK, which includes England.
  #54  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:16 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Wow. I had completely forgotten about that thread. So imagine my surprise when I clicked here and and began to read.
Iíll ignore the merits of the mod note, just to say that this post....

.....is completely, utterly wrong. Elizabeth II has many titles and has had many more. One which she has never had, is Queen of England. The comparison with Canada and Australia is misplaced. Those are nation-states. England is a sub-national entity. It has no monarchy of its own, anymore than Manitoba or New South Wales do.

England was once a nation state. Nowadays itís a constituent of a nation state. Just because it once was, does not make it one today. The President of Italy, is not also the President of the Two Sicilies and Florence, Piedmont and Venice. The President of Tanzania is not also President of Zanzibar*.
*The President of Zanzibar is the title given to the Head of Government of the federating unit, though.
Actually to go ahead and launch the pedant nuclear weapons: under no mainstream international relations or political science school of thought are Canada or Australia "nation-states." A nation state is a concept that refers to legal states which are closely interwoven with one specific ethnic nation. The term arose in the era of early nationalism, when the various "ethnic nations" of Europe that had little representation in any legal state started to rise up. Czechia (yes it's a real place) is a nation state, associated with the Czech people. Croatia is a nation state associated with the Croatian people. A nation state obviously can have persons in it who are not members of that nation, and how that's dealt with varies considerably.

In France (a nation-state for the French) there's a concept that "anyone can become French", meaning you can be a black man from Africa who moves to France and you can become French, but that the government of France is for French people. That actually creates complex situations and arguably problems, notably there is an expectation that to be a proper part of the French nation state you must, in fact, become French. Other nations don't have this concept, and tend to be more...racially strict, to try to put it as neutrally as possible. For example you simply can never become Japanese (Japan is a nation-state), you can get Japanese citizenship--it's one of the hardest citizenship processes in the world, but you will never be Japanese unless you were born Japanese.

Most "New World" countries (which I include Australia/NZ in this), like America and Canada don't have this concept. Each state was made up of immigrants from many nations arriving at many different times. There is no American ethnic nation, there is no Canadian ethnic nation. There are ethnic nations within both countries, but the countries are simple legal states that are not tightly associated with any one specific ethnic nation.

England did used to be a separate Kingdom, although even that is debatable. The Kingdom of England merged its monarchy and most of its political system (but not, interestingly, its legal system) with the Kingdom of Scotland, for about 200 years prior to that the two Kingdoms had been in "personal union" (same monarch, different countries.) But the concept of "states" sometimes is pretty restrictive. The Kingdom of England was overwhelmingly populated by English person, but at the time of its merge with the Kingdom of Scotland the concept of "nation-state" didn't really exist. If England was one, it'd be one we sort of retroactively classified as such.
  #55  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:28 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, then who is Queen over that section of the UK? ER2. True, that's not one of her Titles but Elizabeth is Queen of the UK, which includes England.
Heh. This penny-ante pedantry is amusing. If you wanted to be pedantic, you'd insist upon The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not including the Britons (it is, after all, an English institution, hein?), the Manx, or the Channel Islanders, and including the Bretons, across the Channel. Of course, then you'd be out-pedanted for trying to split the Britons and the Bretons, not to mention mixing the Cornish in with the English like a common pleb.
  #56  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:35 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
ER2
EIIR
  #57  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:55 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,169
FWIW I'm an anglophile and well read/greatly interested in the Britain and its constituent antecedent Kingdoms' royal histories. I've frequently been the one doing the "there is no Queen of England" correction, but I kind of backed off of it over the past few years for basically the reason that I don't think it matters enough to correct. I'm well aware of the culturally sensitive issues with the term, but I also can find usage (misusage) of the term "Queen of England" in British news, television, and film regularly enough that if that's happening so commonly in the country in question it's almost just a bridge too far to continually correct my fellow Americans who use the term.

The reality is there is no Kingdom of England so there is no monarchical title associated with England.

However, in a legal sense there is still a country called England, even if there is no longer a Kingdom called England. England is one of the constituent countries of the Kingdom of Great Britain--which technically still exists, albeit that specific nomenclature is infrequently used that way. Since there is an England, and there is a Queen who reigns over it, while it's not a correct legal interpretation to call her the Queen of England, she is in a practical sense exactly that.

It'd be akin to calling Donald Trump the President of West Virginia. He is not the President of West Virginia, but West Virginians are governed by a President, and that President is Donald Trump. There is no reason anyone would call Trump that, because West Virginia doesn't have a thousand year history of being a separate independent Kingdom before being folded into the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, then who is Queen over that section of the UK? ER2. True, that's not one of her Titles but Elizabeth is Queen of the UK, which includes England.
It was actually simpler before the term United Kingdom came into usage. Pre-1707, the Parliament in Westminster was the center of government for a country that covered all of the British Isles (including all of Ireland.) The constitutionally limited monarch through hereditary inheritance was properly the monarch of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. This person also controlled Ireland and Wales.

Wales was almost never viewed as a "proper Kingdom" by the English. At one point long ago the celtic rulers of Wales had a title that roughly was translated as "King of the Britons" (the Britons being a celtic peoples who used to inhabit most of the modern day areas of Wales + England South of Scotland--which was inhabited by Pictish people, however these Britons were driven out of their lands through conquest, intermarriage and other complex things over many hundreds of years by the Germanic Anglo-Saxon peoples); in some of the final periods of resistance to English rule the Welsh had a few crowned "Kings of Wales" but they generally held limited power and were eventually permanently vanquished by the English. By 1300 the English had taken to utilizing the title "Prince of Wales" both to represent the subordinate nature of Wales to England, and to represent the English King's sovereignty over Wales, and also to use as a title for the King of England's principal heir.

Ireland was dominated by the English to varying degrees for some 500 years during which this overlordship was usually recognized by use of the title "Lord of Ireland." This again, was because the English didn't view Ireland as a Kingdom, and created an inferior-tier title to represent their overlordship of Ireland.

At the end of Henry VIII's reign, continuous Irish political pressure caused the King to approve creation of a new title--King of Ireland, and recognition of Ireland as a full "Kingdom." It certainly didn't bring with it Irish rights being on par with English rights, but in its time, it was seen as a step forward for the Irish people. Henry VIII's immediate heirs all ended up dying without issue, and his crowns fell to the King of Scotland after the death of Elizabeth I.

From that point, there was essentially a triple monarchy that was always held by the same person, that person was monarch of England, Scotland, and Ireland separately. Each country also had its own peerage (nobles) and parliament. These were pre-modern Kingdoms. So the relationship between them was less formalized than we're used to in the 21st century, but the "de facto" reality was that the Kings/Queens of England, ruling from London, were rulers of all three countries. These persons were to a one vastly more interested in England than their other Kingdoms, and those other Kingdoms were subjected to de facto continuous subordinate status culturally, politically etc. Interestingly this started almost from the moment the James I/VI (or VI/I!) inherited the English crown. You might expect having been born and raised in Scotland, and having first been King of Scotland, he would have a special place in his heart for Scottish interests. This ended up not being true, the reality was England was by far the biggest prize, James moved to London and to my knowledge never set foot in Scotland again. He had actually promised to visit Edinburgh once every three years, a promise he immediately broke, while it's possible he may have visited Scotland occasionally if he did I'm not familiar with the specific recording of it. In any case, James was actually in awe of England, the reality is England of the time was an massively richer, more powerful country. James realized very quickly he had been King of a petty Kingdom and was now the King of a great one, and his interests in the two Kingdoms followed that line of thinking.

Now we end up in a situation where one person is a King thrice over. In 1707, after years of political lead up, the political unions of England and Scotland. Most importantly at the time--this was a Union of Parliaments, 1707 Parliament was the real power, not the crown. The union of the crowns was the symbolic part of the more politically relevant/important union of the parliaments.

What specifically happened with the Act of Union, is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England ceased to be. Wales was never seen as a Kingdom in the first place, but under the Act of Union it was now formally part of a new Kingdom along with England and Scotland: the Kingdom of Great Britain.

So from a technical perspective, this very long answer is to simply say "who is Queen of that Part of the UK", is Elizabeth II--but even more importantly, while that region may exist in some sense as the "country of England", there is absolutely no Kingdom of England or Scotland any longer, they were combined into the Kingdom of Great Britain.

In a sense this was a simpler situation at first, the monarch was the King/Queen of Great Britain, and also the King/Queen of Ireland. Then in 1800 the Irish merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the royal title King/Queen of Ireland was dissolved. At that point and forever since, it's been very "troublesome" as to what to call the British monarch. "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" isn't very fun to type or to say. "King of the United Kingdom" has a weird sound to it, almost a redundancy since the 'King' part implies it's a Kingdom, for example saying "King of the Kingdom of England" would not be a comfortable phrase to use. But since legally after 1801 there existed a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (not separate Kingdoms), saying "King of Great Britain" inferred a subordinate stance for the Irish. In fact that was primarily the sense felt by most Irish at the time, that they were unfair juniors in the Kingdom (in fact they were--this lead to a lot of problems.)

The reality is the term "King/Queen of England" continued to be used for a long time, as others have noted. King/Queen of Great Britain, which was "polite terminology" for almost 100 years, never had really caught on, despite being legally correct. In a lot of writing the issue is just sidestepped by using different terminology whenever possible: "British monarch", "the sovereign", "the King/Queen", etc. Unless you're backed into a corner you almost never have to use the term "King of" or "Queen of." When that situation occurs, obviously the most correct and most succinct approach is to use the terms "King of the United Kingdom" or "Queen of the United Kingdom", but the issue remains that at least in English this isn't a very easy or "natural" sounding title. Nothing like say, the King of England was in its time.
  #58  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:01 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,288
I was really dismayed to see this post from a moderator on this message board. It feels like ignorance has finally triumphed. The SDMB is now officially a place where people who think "England, Britain, the UK, who cares, it's all the same" can feel right at home, and anyone who does care about the differences can just keep their opinions to themselves.
  #59  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:03 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Heh. This penny-ante pedantry is amusing. If you wanted to be pedantic, you'd insist upon The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not including the Britons (it is, after all, an English institution, hein?), the Manx, or the Channel Islanders, and including the Bretons, across the Channel. Of course, then you'd be out-pedanted for trying to split the Britons and the Bretons, not to mention mixing the Cornish in with the English like a common pleb.
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not actually part of the United Kingdom at all, so don't need to be considered per se in the discussion. They are both in "personal fief" to Elizabeth Windsor the person, who happens to also be the United Kingdom's monarch. She rules over the Isle of Man by right of holding the title Lord of Mann (she is the Lord of Mann btw, not the Lady of Mann.)

Because of the fact the British monarchs have been constitutional monarchs for ages, the reality is Parliament manages her dependencies like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but they quite technically are not part of the United Kingdom. This has meaningful implications and has had meaningful implications for a number of things. Like Manx people actually don't enjoy quite the same freedom of movement in the EU, the Isle of Man is not actually part of the EU. Manx living in the Isle of Man were not in fact eligible to vote in the Brexit referendum--because they aren't part of the EU. They did enjoy tariff free movement of capital and trade, but that was basically a special corollary to the EU's agreements made basically as a favor for the UK and because dealing with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands is/was really complex because their relationship with the United Kingdom basically is out of sync with modern norms. There is no separate citizenship for Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, but British citizens with "Manx status" which means persons born in the Isle of Man or other British citizens who are resident there long enough, can receive a British Passport - Isle of Man", these persons are not entitled to the free movement of labor in the EU area that the rest of the United Kingdom's citizens enjoy. But if they establish residency in the United Kingdom proper after a number of years they do automatically get such benefit.

Last edited by Martin Hyde; 11-19-2018 at 04:03 PM.
  #60  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:12 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not actually part of the United Kingdom at all, so don't need to be considered per se in the discussion. They are both in "personal fief" to Elizabeth Windsor the person, who happens to also be the United Kingdom's monarch. She rules over the Isle of Man by right of holding the title Lord of Mann (she is the Lord of Mann btw, not the Lady of Mann.)
Quoting myself to highlight how easy it is for pedantry to muddy up discussions around the British Royals--technically I'm well aware Queen Elizabeth does not have a last name, so referring to her as "Elizabeth Windsor" is not technically correct. But it's a somewhat common way to try to refer to Elizabeth "the person" as separate from Elizabeth the Queen (that's very hard to do because the reality is she inhabits a weird position in which her person is 100% tied up with her title); using her full name to try to accomplish the same effect--Elizabeth Alexandra Mary--is difficult, because almost no one uses her other names from when she was christened, and most people are familiar with the fact she was born into the "House of Windsor."
  #61  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:02 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibernicus View Post
I was really dismayed to see this post from a moderator on this message board. It feels like ignorance has finally triumphed. The SDMB is now officially a place where people who think "England, Britain, the UK, who cares, it's all the same" can feel right at home, and anyone who does care about the differences can just keep their opinions to themselves.
Snark is not helpful in GQ. More or less that same pedantic answer has been given dozens of times before. It has turned the thread into a hijack many times. But it has never rcvd a warning before as it wasnt that snarky and unhelpful. Most of the time, it was appended to a actual useful reply that contributed to the thread.
  #62  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:36 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
And here we cross another line: It isn't pedantry to "correct" someone in a way that's controversial.

Or is Jerusalem properly in Palestine, then?
And that's exactly the kind of hornet's nest nobody here wants to poke.






You realize I was joking with the whole "American" thing, right?

Last edited by Alessan; 11-19-2018 at 05:37 PM.
  #63  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:40 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
You realize I was joking with the whole "American" thing, right?
I know you were joking, but I have to say something about the first part of your post:
Quote:
And that's exactly the kind of hornet's nest nobody here wants to poke.
OK, tie this to my second post in this thread, specifically this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Is it nitpicking to question the premise of a question if that premise is a political position?
This question is about smuggling politics into a discussion in such a way that, if someone questions those politics, you can call them out for "nitpicking" or "dodging the question" or both.

In short: You ask a question with a hook in it. If anyone questions the hook, they're the asshole.

That's the kind of trick you can play with an anti-nitpicking stance. Some people call it push polling.
  #64  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Equating the UK with England is a pretty lazy, shitty thing to do. Sanctioned by a mod too!
Next time it happens, just close your eyes and think of the United Kingdom.
  #65  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:12 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 40,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It might be an interesting bit of trivia if this annoying nitpick had not already been made fifty billion times previously.
And yet the error is still made, and needed to be corrected for the fifty billion and first time.
  #66  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:16 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Next time it happens, just close your eyes and think of the United Kingdom.
Devastating. I'm devastated. I live in a pile of rubble now.
  #67  
Old 11-20-2018, 12:50 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 24,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
And yet the error is still made, and needed to be corrected for the fifty billion and first time.
But the error wasn't "corrected", it was only noted.

Quote:
The last Queen of England died in 1714 and had not bend[sic] that title since 1707. So I would guess, no.
Had the poster gone on to point out that the subject of the OP was officially styled 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 - that would have been the kind of pedantic nitpickery so many here are jumping in to defend.

Instead we got snark, followed by a fight over just how snarky the snark was.

And I'd like to point out that in both the original thread and this one, I'm the first person who actually bothered to post the the Queen's official title.

Perhaps we should change our battle cry from "Fighting Ignorance" to "Just Answer the Question."
  #68  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:01 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,711
How about we just call her Liz? Now that Elizabeth Taylor is dead, there shouldn't be much confusion who is being referred to.
  #69  
Old 11-21-2018, 04:50 AM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Just call her Queen Elizabeth II. That's pretty unambiguous, and shouldn't be beyond the smart and hip people here.
Except, of course, it's not technically correct (in the Wikipedia sense of the phrase). That is, she calls herself QE II, as she has a legal right to do, but everybody knows that to the Scots she's only QE I. Which is why, in Scotland, they sensibly refrain from marking government property ERII.
  #70  
Old 11-21-2018, 06:49 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,642
EIIR! Latin, Elisabeth Secunda Regina.....
Philistines, I tell you!
  #71  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:23 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,570
I have been fairly busy the last couple of days and did not have time to respond. Most of what I have to say has already been said.

I do have a few comments, though.

We definitely do not want to discourage fighting ignorance in GQ. As was said upthread, AK84's post wasn't fighting ignorance. It was just snark. If the post had instead said something along the lines of "technically her title is not the Queen of England and some folks in the UK find referring to her as such to be very annoying", that probably would not have been moderated, unless it got to be too much of a hijack.

Wisecracks are indeed a part of the board culture, and we don't mind them in GQ as long as the wisecracks and joking around are done after the OP has been addressed factually. If the post in question was intended as humor though, the humor did not come through.

We don't want to discourage humor in GQ, though. Without it, the forum can be a bit dry.

We also don't want to discourage factual corrections. However, we do want to discourage pointless and annoying pedantry.
  #72  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
However, we do want to discourage pointless and annoying pedantry.
Sounds like something the Queen of England would say.
  #73  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:40 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sounds like something the Queen of England would say.
We are not amused.
  #74  
Old 11-21-2018, 12:57 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
Which is why, in Scotland, they sensibly refrain from marking government property ERII.
Well, apart from all the Royal Mail boxes marked EIIR.
  #75  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:52 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,471
Would it be fair to say the band, Queen, is of England?
  #76  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:15 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Would it be fair to say the band, Queen, is of England?
Freddie Mercury was from somewhere in South Africa, wasn't he?
  #77  
Old 11-22-2018, 12:48 AM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Freddie Mercury was from somewhere in South Africa, wasn't he?
No, Tanzania.

The other three were born in England, birthplace of The Queen.
  #78  
Old 11-22-2018, 02:06 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
No, Tanzania.



The other three were born in England, birthplace of The Queen.


So one could say there are three of Queen of England.
  #79  
Old 11-22-2018, 03:21 AM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Well, apart from all the Royal Mail boxes marked EIIR.
They still have pillerboxes? I guess they've replaced those since I was there. They used to be marked with the Crown of Scotland, to avoid snark about QEII.

Last edited by Melbourne; 11-22-2018 at 03:22 AM.
  #80  
Old 11-22-2018, 07:40 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
No, Tanzania
Well, to be a comPLETE pedant, Freddie was born in Zanzibar. He left before it merged with Tanganyika and became Tanzania.
  #81  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:16 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Well, to be a comPLETE pedant, Freddie was born in Zanzibar. He left before it merged with Tanganyika and became Tanzania.
To up the pedantry yet another notch, Freddy Mercury was not born in Zanzibar. The person who was born in Zanzibar was Farrokh Bulsara. "Freddy Mercury" didn't exist until many years later.
  #82  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:26 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
To up the pedantry yet another notch, Freddy Mercury was not born in Zanzibar. The person who was born in Zanzibar was Farrokh Bulsara. "Freddy Mercury" didn't exist until many years later.


And “Freddie Mercury” was “born” in England in that case. The other Queen of England.
  #83  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:56 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
To up the pedantry yet another notch, Freddy Mercury was not born in Zanzibar. The person who was born in Zanzibar was Farrokh Bulsara. "Freddy Mercury" didn't exist until many years later.
Who is this 'Freddy' person. TECHnically, he's 'Freddie'.
  #84  
Old 11-22-2018, 10:18 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
You guys are setting the record for pedantry here. Time to crown a champion.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Last edited by John Mace; 11-22-2018 at 10:19 AM.
  #85  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:46 PM
glowacks glowacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,989
I think we need Chief Pedant to sort this one out.
  #86  
Old 11-23-2018, 09:15 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You guys are setting the record for pedantry here. Time to crown a champion.
You know who else wears a crown?
  #87  
Old 11-23-2018, 09:23 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
You know who else wears a crown?
Is it Hitler?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017