Never mind would they, could they? Inspired by a thread a while back on the possibility of Scotland becoming independent via referendum. I would think that English independence would have more complications than that, though (not having its own separate parliament, its capital being the UK’s capital, etc…) Would this necessarily mean dissolving the UK, or could there theoretically be an independent England sandwiched between a United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
Well, there isn’t an English parliament or other assembly to authorise or organise such a referendum. It would have to be the UK parliament which conducted the referendum, and decided what the consequences of a vote for English independence would be.
I suppose it’s theoretically possible that England might secede, leaving a rump UK consisting of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But there’s no way that’s ever going to happen.
Austria essentially did this in 1918. At the end of World War I, the various ethnic minorities in the Habsburg Empire were seceding from the Empire one after another. When even Hungary seceded, the Austrians realized the Empire was collapsing so they also seceded.
The problem is that England does not really exist as a separate political entity. There is no head of state, no English government. I suppose the UK Parliament has the power to make any change it likes to the make-up of the UK, but for “England” to secede, it would first have to be created as a political entity.
This. Aside from there being no desire amongst the people or organised movement for such a thing, there isn’t a mechanism for it.
Well, actually there is a head of state. Elizabeth II is Queen of England, a title wholly separate from her title of Queen of Scotland. The United Kingdom name itself originally had reference to the combining of the kingdoms of England and Scotland under the same monarch, who holds both titles simultaneously. If England were to secede from the political entity of the UK Elizabeth would still be the Queen of England, unless Parliament decided otherwise.
No, this is false. There is no title of Queen of England and hasn’t been since 1707. There is one crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (That’s what makes it a united kingdom.) You’re confusing the situation of the constituent countries of the UK with that of the Commonwealth Realms, or possibly with the situation of personal union that existed before 1707.
I don’t think this is right. Her Maj is *Elizabeth II, 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 * so she is Queen of Great Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc) not Queeen of England, Queen of Scotland etc.
Beaten by matt_mcl
Incorrect. When James VI of Scots became James I of England in 1603, he did hold two distinct thrones, of Scotland and England, and his fondness for using “King of Great Britain” to describe his two united realms led to its formal adoption a century later. But in 1707, the English and Scottish parliaments voted to unite the two kingdoms into one United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Anne was the last Queen of England (and also the last Queen of Scots). When devolution brought about the Scottish Assembly, following the precedent set by the Commonwealth Realms of distinct Crowns united on one royal head, the title of Queen of Scotland was resurrected to describe E2R in her capacity vis-à-vis the Scottish Assembly and Ministries. This was however not done for England, and she is Queen of England in precisely the same sense that she is Queen of Québéc or Queen of Queensland.
And to be clear, even to the extent that the title Queen of Scotland (actually, the quotation I saw in this regard used the title Queen of Scots) may be used from time to time in the modern day, this doesn’t change the fact that the United Kingdom is a single throne, and that the title doesn’t have the same existence that, say, the office of Queen of Canada does.
Ignorance fought. Thanks, guys!
Even less than that. At least in Québec and Queensland she has a parliament (or “National Assembly”) and an executive government headed by a (Lieutenant)Governor and a Premier. There is no English parliament, no sovereign or vice-roy of England, and no Prime Minister or Premier of England. If Canada or Australia became republics, it’s at least theoretically possible that Québéc or Queensland could continue to be a monarchy (though politically unlikely), since they each belong to a federation. If the U.K. became a republic, there could be no monarchy in England unless the U.K. Parliament so enacted.