The difference is that people don’t say “president of Indiana.” “Queen of England” is correct informal usage simply for the fact that lots of people choose to use it informally. It’s further reinforced by the fact that it is still very common for people with some degree of education to refer to Elizabeth’s predecessors who actually were kings and queens of England, so the phrase “queen of England” flows easily through habit.
It’s the same with the “chimps are not monkeys” nonsense. Enough people consider chimps to be monkeys that the non-scientific usage of monkeys includes chimps.
It’s regional, though. It probably seems correct in the US and other places, even among educated people, because everybody says it. But it is not correct in Britain, and not just from a nit-picker’s perspective. It actually is incorrect here, and sounds incorrect. Nobody says “Queen of England” here. That said, as with many American usages, we are familiar with it. Maybe it will seep into British usage too, in time. But it’s not there yet.
But you also say “the president of the United States”. Nobody in the UK ever qualifies “the Queen” in that way. The question, I suppose, is what territory people of the constituent countries of the UK have in mind when they say “the Queen”. I think that it is the UK, and not England.
[QUOTE=Ximenean]
Nobody says “Queen of England” here. That said, as with many American usages, we are familiar with it. Maybe it will seep into British usage too, in time. But it’s not there yet.
[/QUOTE]
But that’s a fairly recent event, as other posters have commented. The term “King / Queen of England” used to be used colloquially in England in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
I know, but it doesn’t change the fact that “Queen of England” is not used in the UK. It hasn’t been used for generations, and certainly not in my lifetime. And I don’t think for “politically correct” reasons. It fell out of use long before that phrase had been coined.
That’s interesting if you’re studying British usage. But it’s little more than trivia if you’re trying to be the language police. As an American, I find the locution “the States” irritating. But that’s my problem. “Queen of England” is solidly embedded in the imagination of the English-speaking world. It’s tiresome to have it pedantically corrected in the same say that “chief justice of the Supreme Court” is romantically corrected to “chief justice of the United States.” Casual usage is not subject to the strictures of officially sanctioned standards.
“Romantically corrected”? Here we go again. Acsenray once again strikes a blow for casual usage against correct terminology on a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. Huzzah!
Hell, Obama is not President. Nor President of the United States. He’s *President of the United States of America. *
But if you Brits want to say “President Obama” or “President of the US” or even POTUS, us Yanks won’t correct you. I dunno why you find it necessary to be pedantic over *Queen of England. *
I think it should be pointed out that up to the First World War (and shortly after), it was commonplace in the UK to refer to the whole of the UK as ‘England’, in speeches and in Parliament. The rest of the world persisted in that moniker for some decades later. Only after the Second World War did it become almost entirely offensive to the Scots for their Queen to be called ‘of England’.
I have not “corrected” anybody. All I have said about correctness is that “Queen of England” is not used in British English and is therefore incorrect in British English. Speakers of other dialects of English may continue to say “Queen of England” without fear of reprisal.
I am more interested in the point that England is not a full nation state, despite being widely thought of that way, and does not actually have a head of state, a government, etc.
I doubt she tips at all, or even handles money. One time I saw a documentary on her where she was at the races and was told that she’d won. She asked how much, and was told five. Five what? She asked. And the answer was pounds. She looked confused, as if she’d never dealt with actual money.
That’s not remotely comparable. President Obama is like saying Queen Elizabeth, both of which make sense, and unless there’s another country widely known as the US then that still refers to the USA.
I’m not actually bothered by the term the Queen of England most times, but it does actually make it sound as though she’s only the Queen of England, not elsewhere. Hence people wondering what will happen if Scotland becomes independent, despite the fact that Liz is still the queen of several independent countries.