# Etiquette for leaving the King of England--walking backwards?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [April 13, 2021, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894 "2021-04-13T05:00:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2021, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/41 "2021-04-15T21:21:21Z")
> [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#):
>
> I think the problem is that some of us outside the UK tend to think of QE2 as the latest in a long, unbroken line of succession back to William the Conqueror. Realms and titles have changed over time, the constant being sovereignty over England. “King/Queen of England” is common usage for anyone in that line. For example, George III holds a particular place in US history and is most frequently referred to as King of England even though his title was King of Great Britain at the time of the revolution.
>
> Not saying that the practice is technically correct, just that it is common.
>
> > I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
> > From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical
This is because in the 18th century the colonists and most people living in Great Britain understood what the country was–it was England the country, ruled by the English monarch who also happened to have a crown that was the unified crowns of England and Scotland, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish were subjects of the English. This was absolutely the reality both perception wise and in common parlance. No one in government in the UK in the 18th century was under any delusions that Scotland was a coequal part of the Union, Wales even less so. There is actually a reason the Scots bitterly opposed the Act of Union (at least a portion of them), and even fought rebellions (partially) over the Act.
It’s a very modern “promotion of domestic tranquility” conception of the earlier 21st century that the ruling elites of the UK attempted to smooth things over and be like “oh the English are above no one, we’re all British subjects happy as can be.” In the 18th century I assure you no one living up in Scotland felt this way, nor would their English overlords have much wanted them to–they wanted it understood who was in charge, it was the English ruling class.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2021, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/42 "2021-04-15T21:55:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#):
>
> it was England the country, ruled by the English monarch
English monarchs like George I and George II?
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2021, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/43 "2021-04-15T22:32:26Z")
Yes. Is it your imagination that because they were ethnic Germans and neither spoke much if any English they weren’t English monarchs? The monarchy in the country was quite weak by the time the Hanoverians were put on the throne–note that word–put on the throne. By the men who actually ran the country, the cabal of leaders of the English upper class. They also didn’t much consult the Scots for example about replacing the House of Stuart (whose line of acceptable non-Catholic heirs laid out in legislation from the 17th century ran out with Anne’s death), with a cadet offshoot of it based out of Hanover. That was done by the Act of Settlement passed by the Parliament of England. The Parliament of Scotland expressed its unhappiness with it, and asserted a right to name their own successor to Anne when her time came, and a few years later under English economic pressure and with a great deal of outright corrupt bribing and promising of pensions and offices, the Scottish Parliament agreed to the Act of Union that quite easily sidestepped the matter of Scottish approval for Anne’s Germanic successor by abolishing the Scottish Parliament entirely. Scotland ended up with only one MP more than Cornwall in the new combined Parliament, and 16 Peers in the House of Lords, who could not even vote. It was not at all an equitable arrangement, and outside of the ruling class of Scotland that was quite literally bribed to go along with it (although there were larger economic reasons you could argue it was a necessity) there was **widespread** bitterness and opposition to this. It ultimately “didn’t matter” because Scotland was the Junior partner and always had been.
This was no secret to anyone alive at the time, and there’s a reason there was 50-60 years of violence in Scotland with English soldiers being stationed there treating it almost like an occupied country.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2021, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/44 "2021-04-15T22:37:44Z")
No, we are not excluding the other areas. She is also Queen of Canada and quite a few other Commonwealth nations.
---
### Author:  [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2021, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/45 "2021-04-15T23:04:10Z")
> [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](#):
>
> The Queen is only descended from one person who ruled England between 1509 and 1714 - James VI of Scotland.
The problem, of course, being that those who ruled 1509-1603 (Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I) have no known descendants alive today; neither do Mary II (1689-94), William III (1689-1702), or Anne (1702-1714), while Charles II (1660-85) had no legitimate offspring and the legitimate line of James II (1685-88) died out in 1807.
[Note that Prince William and Prince George ARE descended from both Charles II and James II (and hence their father Charles I), via two of Charles’s and one of James’s illegitimate offspring who were ancestors of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.]
> [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](#):
>
> As far as I know, she only gets to claim descent from the Normans through the Stewart kings and queens of Scotland, via Margaret Tudor, the wife of James IV.
No, the Queen Mother was also descended from the Normans in several lines, as were a number of the foreign royals who married later English/Scottish/British kings (e.g., Edward III → Isabella de Coucy → Marie de Coucy → Robert of Bar → Jeanne de Bar → Pierre II de Luxembourg → Marie of Luxembourg → Antoinette de Bourbon → Mary of Guise → Mary Queen of Scots, or for another example Edward I → Margaret of England → John III of Brabant → Margaret of Brabant → Margaret Countess of Flanders → Mary of Burgundy → Margaret of Savoy → Philip, Elector Palatine of the Rhine → Amalie of the Palatinate → Margaret of Pomerania → Elizabeth of Brunswick-Grubenhagen → Alexander of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg → Ernest Günther of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg → Louise Charlotte of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg → Peter August Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck → Karl Anton August of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck → Friedrich Karl Ludwig of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck → Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg → Christian IX of Denmark → Alexandra of Denmark → George V of the UK).
---
### Author:  [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/46 "2021-04-16T01:11:52Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#):
>
> . . . There **is** a Peerage of England, there **is** a Church of England, there **is** an English Flag, there **are** England national sports terms. Most importantly there **are** people who view themselves as being an English people.
Yes, yes, yes. England the nation certainly exists, and it has a variety of national institutions.
But those institutions do not include a monarchy. There is no more a king or queen of England than there is a king or queen of Wessex, or Gloucester, or Adlestrop. There used to be Kings of Wessex, bu there haven’t been since 886. There used to be Kings and Queens of England, but there haven’t been since 1707. That was a very deliberate and very significant decision.
It’s true that if I mention “the Queen of England”, nobody is in any doubt as to who I mean. But people will still object to the term because it implies a view of the UK and its monarchy which privileges England, and accords it a status within the UK which it does not in fact enjoy. Hence people object to the usage.
(It’s true, as pointed out above, that the UK monarchs can trace their descent all the way back to William the Conqueror, King of England in 1066. But in fact their descent from the Scottish Kings is much older; it goes back to Dòmhnall II, the first monarch to use the title “King of Scots/King of Scotland” in 889 and, through him, to Coinneach I mac Ailpein, King of the Picts in 843. So if for some reason an impressively long monarchical descent is the characteristic to which you wish to draw attention, you would refer to the UK monarchs as Kings of Scotland rather than Kings of England.)
---
### Author:  [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/47 "2021-04-16T02:20:00Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> Is there a country called “England” that has status as an internationally recognised sovereign state? Is “England” a member of NATO? or of the UN?
FIFA appears to think so.
---
### Author:  [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/48 "2021-04-16T06:44:29Z")
> [@Melbourne](#):
>
> Trump is also a head of state. It would have been a faux pas to have laid a hand on the Queen: presidents, like queens and movie stars, should know enough about being mauled by the public to avoid that.
>
> Doubtless there are a few people in the world who think that any commoner is inferior to any aristocrat, but aristocrats like the Queen understand real politics and diplomacy, which require respect to countries and deference to power.
>
> Another observation: in the USA, the American flag is given precedence over the UK flag. Even when the Queen is visiting.
Every time the Queen came to Canada on a royal visit, there would be one kerfuffle or faux pas after another about this or that. Did premier whasisname actually touch the Royal Back to help her up the stairs? Did someone use the wrong address or title? Pierre Trudeau famously did a pirouette behind the Queen’s back, a little disrespectful. One I remember was someone mentioned they had served a meal in public; the Queen politely pushed the food around the plate and took a few nibbles, but someone forgot to tell the organizers of that event that the Queen does not eat meals in public (presumably, to avoid the spectacle of things like trying to chew on something really tough, or spit out chicken bones, etc.) And when Richard Hadfield, premier of New Brunswick, accompanied the royal party onward to Ottawa on a private jet, nobody’s bags were immune from inspection. Apparently the Mounties found Hadfield’s bag had a small amount of pot in it - back in the 1970’s.
A really good story I read - there was a particularly eccentric mayor of a town in New Brunswick(?) who at the ceremony speech started with “Prince Phillip; we are delighted to welcome you and your lovely wife to our great city…” Apparently Phillip laughed harder than anyone.
---
### Author:  [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/49 "2021-04-16T06:57:54Z")
When a small, weak, poor country joins with a larger, stronger, wealthier country, what do you expect?
It’s worth bearing in mind that by 1707 Scotland was a corrupt, failing state in the grip of an economic crisis – and that was certainly not England’s fault. In general, the upper classes in Scotland supported the Act of Union and the lower classes didn’t. (But both classes benefitted from the merged economy, and free access to the English colonies in America.)
By 1762 there was a Scottish Prime Minister, and widespread English resentment about ‘too many Scots in powerful positions in government’.
William Gladstone, one of the most influential politicians and Prime Ministers of the 19th century, was Scottish, and in recent times Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were Scottish.
Brexit, of course, has changed everything, and the chances are that Scotland will now support independence.
Enough with the hijack though. Perhaps someone should start another thread about Scotland.
---
### Author:  [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/50 "2021-04-16T07:01:12Z")
FIFA surely has no say in what is, or isn’t, an internationally recognised sovereign state. It doesn’t claim to have. It recognises the FA as a member association, but that does not imply that England is a sovereign state.
---
### Author:  [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/51 "2021-04-16T07:14:53Z")
> [@Schnitte](#):
>
> FIFA surely has no say in what is, or isn’t, an internationally recognised sovereign state.
Indeed. The Faroe Islands also have a [FIFA team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands_national_football_team).
---
### Author:  [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/52 "2021-04-16T07:26:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#):
>
> Yes. Is it your imagination that because they were ethnic Germans and neither spoke much if any English they weren’t English monarchs?
Neither one was “The King of England”, which is the whole point of this discussion.
Everyone knows that England has more de facto economic and political power than Scotland. The point that several people appear to be missing is that that does not affect the legal/constitutional status of Scotland.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/53 "2021-04-16T07:37:53Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#):
>
> It’s worth bearing in mind that by 1707 Scotland was a corrupt, failing state in the grip of an economic crisis
Is it now? Do you have any cites for corruption being worse in Scotland than England or other countries? Is there any reason you are completely neglecting the context that Martin Hyde alluded to, the English fear of Scotland choosing a different monarch, the Alien Act 1705 etc?
> [@GreenWyvern](#):
>
> that was certainly not England’s fault
Do you have a cite for reliable historians who believe that English interests were not committing piracy against Scottish ones in the years before 1706?
> [@GreenWyvern](#):
>
> in recent times Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were Scottish.
If Tony Blair is Scottish then so was Lord Byron.
---
### Author:  [@its\_the\_daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/its_the_daddy)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/54 "2021-04-16T08:09:49Z")
# Such A Parcel Of Rogues In A Nation
Robert Burns
**1791**
> Fareweel to [a’](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/4.html) our Scottish fame,
> Fareweel our ancient glory;
> Fareweel ev’n to the Scottish name,
> [Sae](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1371.html) fam’d in martial story.
> Now [Sark](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1379.html) rins over Solway sands,
> [An’](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/40.html) Tweed rins to the ocean,
> To [mark](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1127.html) where England’s province stands-
> Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
>
> What force or guile could not subdue,
> Thro’ many warlike ages,
> Is wrought now [by](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/291.html) a coward few,
> For hireling traitor’s wages.
> The English [stell](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1567.html) we could disdain,
> Secure in valour’s station;
> But English gold has been our bane-
> Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
>
> O would, [or](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1212.html) I had seen the day
> That Treason thus could [sell](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1414.html) us,
> My [auld](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/62.html) grey head had [lien](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1072.html) in clay,
> [Wi’](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1859.html) Bruce and loyal Wallace!
> [But](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/288.html) pith and power, [till](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1695.html) my last hour,
> I’ll [mak](http://www.robertburns.org/works/glossary/1124.html) this declaration;
> We’re bought and sold for English gold-
> Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
---
### Author:  [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/55 "2021-04-16T08:19:04Z")
> [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](#):
>
> the English fear of Scotland choosing a different monarch, the Alien Act 1705 etc?
Certainly that was the English motivation. That’s not in dispute.
> [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](#):
>
> Do you have a cite for reliable historians who believe that English interests were not committing piracy against Scottish ones in the years before 1706?
Do you have a cite that they did, since you are the one claiming this?
---
### Author:  [@ALOHA\_HATER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ALOHA_HATER)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/56 "2021-04-16T08:55:08Z")
> [@UDS1](#):
>
> It’s true that if I mention “the Queen of England”, nobody is in any doubt as to who I mean. But people will still object to the term because it implies a view of the UK and its monarchy which privileges England, and accords it a status within the UK which it does not in fact enjoy.
It does, though. That’s why she’s called the Queen of England. Americans know what the UK is, and we still call her the Queen of England, because she’s quite obviously the Queen of England, and because (even if we’re not always clever on the details) we know that the Queen of England’s ideas about fraternal pan-British co-equality is horseshit.
---
### Author:  [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/57 "2021-04-16T10:21:06Z")
I wonder what people who equate England with the UK make of the fact that most British monarchs in history had, previously, been Prince of Wales.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/58 "2021-04-16T10:35:03Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#):
>
> Do you have a cite that they did, since you are the one claiming this?
Not on me right now, but my point is that it’s a stretch to say that Scotland’s “economic crisis” had nothing to do with English actions. The Alien Act was specifically intended to harm Scotland’s economic interests.
---
### Author:  [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/59 "2021-04-16T11:11:27Z")
> [@Schnitte](#):
>
> I wonder what people who equate England with the UK make of the fact that most British monarchs in history had, previously, been Prince of Wales.
The _current_ Prince of Wales received that title at a time when the term “England” was _statutorily defined_ as including Wales.
---
### Author:  [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2021, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894/60 "2021-04-16T11:16:08Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#):
>
> The _current_ Prince of Wales received that title at a time when the term “England” was _statutorily defined_ as including Wales.
I should like to see that statutory definition cited. I don’t think there has ever been any Act of Parliament that said that Wales was a part of England. There are, of course, lots of acts that say they apply to England and Wales, which results in England and Wales having the same legal system (as opposed to Scotland). There are also some statutory definitions that govern minor things, such as whether statutory references to England include Monmouthshire. But I’m not aware of any statute that ever flatly said that Wales was part of England.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/etiquette-for-leaving-the-king-of-england-walking-backwards/939894.md?page=4)