They are independent, but they share the same monarch as the UK, along with a few other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand. I’m not sure that “independent from the crown” makes much sense here: the Crown in right of Australia is not the same as the Crown in right of the United Kingdom, or even the Crown in right of New South Wales, even though they are all personified by the same real human being. And, indeed, in law they can be on opposing sides in legal cases, which works fine, because each crown has its own attorney-general who can do or deputise the real work on the case.
Why not invite the current Jacobite pretender back?
You’re clearly oblivious to the political sensitivities of people in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It might be “arguably correct” in a very tenuous way, but to say that it is “absolutely correct” is absolutely rubbish. Is it “absolutely correct” to always refer to GWB as “President of California”?
Completely ill informed rubbish. Anne (initially) and Henry VIII were not monarchs of the state that Elizabeth is monarch of. The Treaty of Union of 1707 set up a brand new nation state. It is completely irrelevant that Anne and Henry were correctly described as “Queen / King of England.”
According to http://www.royal.gov.uk, her correct title in the UK is “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.” I’ll thank you not to take liberties.
Depending on where in Britain she is at any given time, she might be the Duke of Normandy or the Lord of Man! :eek:
That same site also lists the first 40 in line for the throne:
- The Prince of Wales
- Prince William of Wales
- Prince Henry of Wales
- The Duke of York
- Princess Beatrice of York
- Princess Eugenie of York
- The Earl of Wessex
- Viscount Severn
- The Lady Louise Windsor
- The Princess Royal
- Mr. Peter Phillips
- Miss Zara Phillips
- Viscount Linley
- The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
- The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
- The Lady Sarah Chatto
- Master Samuel Chatto
- Master Arthur Chatto
- The Duke of Gloucester
- Earl of Ulster
- Lord Culloden
- The Lady Davina Lewis
- The Lady Rose Windsor
- The Duke of Kent
- The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor
- The Lady Amelia Windsor
- The Lady Helen Taylor
- Master Columbus Taylor
- Master Cassius Taylor
- Miss Eloise Taylor
- Miss Estella Taylor
- The Lord Frederick Windsor
- The Lady Gabriella Windsor
- Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
- Mr. James Ogilvy
- Master Alexander Ogilvy
- Miss Flora Ogilvy
- Miss Marina Ogilvy
- Master Christian Mowatt
- Miss Zenouska Mowatt
As a practical matter, I wonder if they would really go ahead with the coronation of Queen Zenouska or just give up at that point.
And you’re being needlessly pedantic and hypersensitive. When we Americans talk about Elizabeth II, we speak of her primarily in her persona as an international celebrity, not in her function as the head of state of various states. To interpret our use of “queen of England” as a slight to the Scots reflects a desire to be offended more than anything else.
Considering that no one has ever held an office with the name “president of California” and people are not generally accustomed to hearing about a “president of California,” it doesn’t make sense to, because people would be unsure of whom you were talking about. The fact that “queen of England” is readily understood and, among a sizable portion of the public, is the most commonly used term for the person makes it a logical choice.
And which part of what I said forms a basis for you to conclude that I’m ill-informed? I am perfectly aware of the history in this respect. People who use the term “queen of England” do not do so with the intent to be perfectly correct with regards to such technicalities. And we have the right not to. And, in fact, so does the House of Windsor, or else they wouldn’t be satisfied with calling her Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, because, of course, she’s the first person named Elizabeth who holds the office of monarch of the United Kingdom. They’re free to play loose on their side. When the rest of us are talking amongst ourselves, we’re free to play loose in the manner that suits us.
Obviously, it’s not completely irrelevant. The fact that we like to say “queen of England” is pretty good proof of that.
To keep this pedantic hijack going on, while she is Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann in some places, I don’t think any of these places are in fact in Britain.
ETA:
I think the reason for this is that the usual numbering for British kings and queens starts with William I in 1066, and uses the number the king or queen would use as the monarch of either England or Scotland, whichever is higher. This said, I’ve seen Polycarp talk about “Elizabeth II and I” on occasion.
The only part of Normandy where she still rules in the Channel Islands, and (strictly speaking) that’s not part of Britain. The rest of Normandy is now part of the French Republic (and has been for some centuries now), so if she visited there she would be treated as a foreign head of state, and might only be jokingly referred to as Duke of Normandy.
Similarly, the Isle of Man is not part of Britain or of the United Kingdom either.
Hey come to that I wonder if Oliver Cromwell has any descendants
But, according to Odoreida, that Kingdom of England was a completely different state from the one that Elizabeth II is monarch of. The Treaty of Union of 1707 set up a brand new nation state. Thus it is completely irrelevant that there was a Queen Elizabeth of England in the 16th century, and the current queen should not be the II. My point is, of course, that if the House of Windsor can fudge these things, so can we, without being called ignorant and ill-informed.
Off with their heads! 
Tell that to The Hon. William B. Ide.
I blame the British government . Or should that be the government of the United Kingdom?
I guess that doesn’t actually mean Man is part of Britain, but it is certainly easy to read it that way.
He does. Here’s a link that might help.
Then, of course, there’s Sam Vimes, who’s descended from an Oliver Cromwell analogue, but that’s a Cafe Society thread.
The problem is there’s no good adjectival form of “United Kingdom,” so “British” gets used as a default in places where people really mean “United Kingdomish.”
He had quite a few children, including a son who had seven children of his own, so my guess would be yes.
Maybe G. Odoreida is Scottish (or at least British)? I can understand why a Scot (or a Northern Irishman) would object to Elizabeth being called the “Queen of England”. It is in fact factually incorrect: she is no more Queen of England than George Bush is, as previously said, President of California, and if the US did like other federal republics and called the chief executives of its states “Presidents”, it would be emphatically wrong. But personally it doesn’t bother me to see Elizabeth being called the Queen of England; this time I wouldn’t even have noticed it if no one had mentioned it. Still, I understand why it may bother other people, and wouldn’t use it myself.
I think the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not even officially part of the UK. This paragraph on the British Monarchy’s website is very misleading.
Thanks guys for clearing up an area in which I stubbornly insist upon remaining ignorant. Not that I want to, but for some reason it never seems to really take. I know I posted here before about athletes competing in international competition as English, Scottish, etc. instead of simply British.
I guess part of it may be that as an American I find the whole concept of separate heads of government and state kinda difficult to grasp. Seems to me that “independence” is a pretty white or black term. Either you are or you aren’t. The idea of an entity wishing to declare independence - but nevertheless maintaining official institutional ties to their previous colonial ruler - doesn’t seem to rest well in my brain.
I knew there was some kind of relationship between GB - and/or its king/queen - and places like Canada, Australia, and Jamaica. But I just kinda thought it some kind of historical ceremonial thing due to the fact that they had previously been colonies. I’ll have to do a little reading to try to figure out exactly what it means to have the queen as your “head of state.”
*(Have to admit, if it is simply “for show,” I suspect I’ll find it rather silly!) *
While I’m at it, I’ll also need to check up on my history to figure out exactly when England ceased to ruled the waves and bestrode the globe and Britannia took over. It will be interesting to note if - in fact - I have been reading/hearing “Britain” all this time, but my mind has insisted upon translating it to “England.”
The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are part of the archipelago called the “British Isles,” so it’s slightly more correct to include them in “British” than it is to use “British” as the adjectival form of “United Kingdom.”
I’m not saying it’s an intentional slight, but have you considered that to us it implies that “England” can be used interchangably with “UK”. That is offensive to us and to imply that we should just put up with it is patronising, in my opinion. I’m not the only one who’s raised this issue on the boards, so it’s not like I’m coming out of leftfield on this.
But not a correct one. And although my argument stands without it, I’m bringing in a subjective element here; IMO the feelings of substantial minorities who are affected by a usage should be considered when deciding whether it is “correct” or “logical”.
I’m sorry I’ve mis-represented you on this but I was going on the fact that you regarded the title of Henry VIII as being relevant to the title of the monarch of a state which was founded long after he died.
I’m not taking away anybody’s rights. I’m pointing out that GQ is the place for technicalities to be respected, especially if several people have already pointed out that they don’t like the incorrect usage.
That’s a whole different kettle of fish which I’ve no desire to heat up here!
Fine, as long as you realise that if you do it in GQ you are IMHO falling below the usual standard of accuracy we like to see here, and that it annoys people unnecessarily.
Not sure this argument would win you any points in the Oxford Union.
Man - this is really a gobsmack kinda afternoon! While I have always known that “England” was not the proper name for the whole country, I’m not at all sure I ever really drew any distinction between “Great Britain” and the “UK.” I think I may have completely conflated those terms, essentially using them interchangedly as “the longer 2-word name for that island and assorted bits and pieces.” Hell, when I used GB above in this thread, I don’t think there was any real reason that I used that instead of UK other than that it was the first to spring to mind. :smack:
Looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me. Should be more fun that work. (Unfortunatley, I’ve pretty much blown off most of the day, and now need to do most of the day’s work done in the hour or 2 remaining!)