True, but he is. QEII *is *Queen of England, even tho she has chosen not to make that one of her “styles”.
I find it surprising that the Queen doesn’t go to restaurants in her private life. I’m sure Charles and her grandsons have eaten Big Macs occasionally. Certainly they eat at nice restaurants too. But William and Harry have enjoyed a more more normal childhood. The Queen must of been raised in the older, more secluded way with Nannies and tutors.
Speaking of having the picture of the Queen on all the British currency, there’s a bit from the British version of Who’s Line Is It Anyway? where everyone was asked to come up with the most embarrassing thing to say to the Queen. One answer was this: “Good afternoon, Your Majesty. [Hits himself in the forehead like he’s remembering something] That reminds me. I’ve got to get some stamps.”
Technically Indiana does have a Head of State, the aforementioned Mitch Daniels. U.S. States are considered legally sovereign states in union with one another, and the government of that union has a Federal or supra-state government, but legal history and constitutional history make it quite clear that the individual States still retain sovereignty and thus all have Heads of State.
Barack Obama actually isn’t Head of State of Indiana, but he is the Head of State of the United States.
What happened with Scotland and England isn’t really comparable. It’s more like if say, North and South Carolina reunified. The new governor would just be “Governor of Carolina” and there would not technically be any Governor of South or North Carolina any longer. But if a cultural concept of North Carolina or South Carolina persisted, or even an administrative sub unit, the Governor could still be called “Governor of South Carolina”, because even though there is no such office he is a Governor and his domain includes the understood conception of South Carolina.
England exists though, in greater reality than North or South Carolina in my scenario. There is no title that still exists for King of England or King of Scotland, but England still exists, and it still has a monarch. So it’s wrong to say Queen Elizabeth is titled as Queen of England, because that simply is not a title that she has. But it isn’t wrong to say she is the monarch that has dominion over the country known as England, or for short “Queen of England.”
It’s imprecise, and offends the British for whatever reason; probably because most Brits realize their experiment is coming to an end and most likely Scotland will eventually split off and the Act of Union 1707 will no longer mean anything and there will be an actual Queen of England. I don’t know if the English will recreate their title or just call her “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” like she is now. But that could cause problems with the Scots, who will correctly assert it is improper for her to call herself Queen of Great Britain, as under most suggested models of Scottish independence a Scottish monarchy would be created and exist in personal union to the current British monarchy but it’d be hard to argue for keeping “Queen of Great Britain” as a title.
How about if the USA and Mexico decided to merge to form, let’s say, the Federation of Northern American States. If, three hundred years later, people in other parts of the world were still referring to the new nation’s president as the “US president” rather than the FNAS president, would that be OK? That seems to me a closer analogy than the Governor of Carolina scenario.
People in other parts of the world are only using “England” that way because those parts of the world were colonized by British people who used “England” that way. It became obsolete in Britain (or at least England) a lot more recently than three hundred years ago. By the time it happened, those other places had their own local varieties of English that couldn’t be as easily changed by social and cultural changes overseas.
Well, it might be more appropriate to compare if the US merged with Canada and the new country had a totally new name, but people still talked about “President of the US.” Because it’d more analogous to Scotland and England. One country’s language is dominant, one country is more than 10 times larger in economy and population. One country has more or less been synonymous with the conception of the United Kingdom as a great power and the other has historically been little more than a province for 500 years.
Yeah, this “all Kingdoms/states of the UK being equally valuable and valued” is very new. The English did not value the Scottish as equals. Hell, even the first Scot to sit on the throne of England immediately left Scotland, never returned, and was focused almost exclusively on English affairs. It’s only relatively recently that people have recognized many aspects of the England-centricness were fairly negative for the rest of the country and not morally a good thing.
Except, she is Queen of Canada, not to mention Australia (1901), and New Zealand (1907), Jamaica (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), the Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), Belize (1981), and Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983).
Now yes, she has chosen to style herself Queen of the UK, not England, Scotland and Ireland. But she still remains Queen of those areas also, despite her choice in styling.
At least you’ll know what font family to use.
The difference is that Canada, Australia and so on are all sovereign countries, as is the United Kingdom. England, Scotland, and (northern) Ireland are not sovereign countries; they are former kingdoms. It’s not just HM’s choice not to include them in her Royal Style; she only includes sovereign countries. She’s not the Queen of England any more than she’s the Queen of Kent, another former kingdom which long ago was incorporated into a larger kingdom.
So, if she visited Kent she wouldn’t be Queen? Sure, she’s the Queen of Kent, and London, and Berkshire on the puddlegum, and every other place pretty much on that island.
I don’t know. I think “Queen of” sort of implies that she carries out some kind of royal executive function on behalf of that entity. If the Queen deals with Kentish issues she’s doing so through her authority as Queen of the entire UK. She doesn’t have any independent powers conferred on her by Kent (which, as a mere administrative entity existing under British law, has no independent powers).
She hasn’t chosen to style herself Queen of the UK. That particular crown *is *the crown of the UK, not England. I don’t see that she has much choice over it.
I’m still not seeing the difference with “President of Indiana”.
Parliament chose for her in 1953. For the 16 months before that she was the Queen “of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas,” even though she was definitely not the queen of most of Ireland. At least it wasn’t as much of a whopper as monarchs up until George III being styled King/Queen of France.
The other way round too 
Thank you. 
No, Parliament passed the Royal Titles Act of 1953, in which Parliament consented to Her Majesty “using such style and titles as Her Majesty may think fit”, which HM then did by Royal Proclamation.
Given that she is now in her 80’s, probably about 20 degrees.
So what was Queen Elizabeth’s time in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service during World War II, where she was trained to drive and repair military cars, like? Was that a period where she could do normal hanging out with other women in the service?