That’s a different issue, which is separate from monarchy. For example, both India and Ireland have the head of state (President) separate from the head of government (Prime Minister), even though they are republics.
Well, firstly, in Australia at least, the question of monarchy and independence is pretty controversial. Many people (including me) believe that as long as the Queen of the UK continues to be Queen of Australia, then Australia is not truly independent. However, in every practical sense Australia is independent. The only real action that the Queen ever takes with respect to Australia is to appoint the Governor-General, and on that she takes the advice of her Australian ministers – her ministers in the UK have no influence on that whatsoever.
But, in a real sense, Australia did become independent gradually. The most important dividing line is January 1st, 1901, when the Commonwealth of Australia was established. However, for a long time after that the UK had some influence in both internal and foreign affairs in Australia. And for up to 50 years before that the Australian colonies (New South Wales, Victoria, etc.) were internally self-governing, effectively ruled by their own governors, premiers and parliaments, with minimal interference from Westminster except on the really big foreign relations and imperial defence issues. Of course, being on the other side of the world helps with this.
Then think about it differently. We’re not thinking that we’re talking about the United Kingdom and just saying “England,” implying that England is equivalent United Kingdom. We really are just talking about England. And Elizabeth II is literally the queen of England.
It’s not a “whole different kettle of fish.” It’s exactly the same kettle either the “Kingdom of England” is a completely separate state than the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” or it isn’t. If you’re going to demur on the Elizabeth II issue, you should be willing to demur on the queen of England issue.
The British monarch has been Canada’s head of state since 1763. As Canada gradually became more independent from Britain/the UK, we kept the same head of state, since there wasn’t really any reason for changing: by the time Canada could have made this decision by itself, the monarch’s actual powers had declined to what they are now. Today the Queen of Canada is a legally distinct person from the Queen of the United Kingdom, but Elizabeth II holds both titles. That’s it in a nutshell, and it’s similar for the other countries of which Elizabeth is head of state today.
Northern Ireland (and previously Ireland) is part of the UK, but not of Great Britain. Maybe there are more differences between both entities, but I’m not really aware of them. The country that is internationally recognized today is, appropriately enough, the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
IMO you’re clutching at straws. The OP was about the succession, which can only be decided at the UK level.
Who said I was demurring? It’s just an extra layer of hi-jack I don’t want to get into. The title “Elizabeth II” is enshrined in the UK constitution; while I disagree that it should be, I won’t criticise people for using it. The title “Queen of England” is not enshrined in the UK constitution, therefore I will ask people not to use it inaccurately, such as when describing the current queen.
What family was the late king Zog (Albania) related to? Hohenzollerns, Habsburg, Windor, Boubon?
any chance for a royal comeback in Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary?
To make a hypocrite of myself, I should say that I and many other people in Great Britain (in the correct sense of the term) often fail to make this distinction as well.
I’m only trying to help you with your anger issue. Face it: You’re not going to change usage that is so entrenched and widespread. You might as well lie back … and think of the United Kingdom.
Please cite to the relevant provision of the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
“By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom … Queen”?
Is Yoda a member of the Privy Council?
Why not “by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom …”
I notice that “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is translated to Latin simply as “Britanniarum Regnorumque.” Why aren’t the Northern Irish offended?
Because it’s the God of the United Kingdom – the one that good Anglicans and Presbyterians believe in – a different god from the one that those terrible Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., worship.
king zog (one of my fav. boy’s name ) is strangly related to the nixon (yes, that nixon) through his wife. anyhoot, as a moslem he has closer ties to turkey and the mideast. he has a son leka, who has a son leka. they do spend time in albania, and there have been talks every now and again, but no real desire in a comeback.
bulgaria has simeon ii who was prime minister from 2001-2005. there are kids and grandkids as well.
rumania or romania, has king micheal and he has 5 daughters and is working on getting the salic laws reworked so his eldest daughter, the crown princess could move up and her husband radu become prince consort.
turkey could have ertugrut osman (who lives in nyc) as sultan with durhaneddin cem as follow up.
Because “Britanniarum” is the genitive case of “Britannia,” the old Roman name for the entire province comprising all the British Isles, including Great Britain, Ireland, and those little windswept rocks (all these islands having been collectively called “Britanniae”). In Modern usage, all of that land that’s part of the UK is Britannia.
If you read the thread again, I made a simple point in post 4 about incorrect usage in the first sentence of the OP. If other people want to unsuccessfully argue the toss about this, then could you also take the hijack issue up with them, please? Thank you.
Here’s some more fudging, because (as I understand it) throughout the significant part of the Roman period, Britannia referred only to the island of Great Britain or only to the area directly ruled by Rome, which was, essentially, England.
Perhaps “Regni Coniuncti Britanniae Hiberniae Septentrionalisque” seemed like too much of a mouthful for “of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, or perhaps there would have been too many words in the genitive case strung together
Taking Guinastasia’s point that it’s irrelevant to this thread, I’m forced to point out that acsenray’s contention about the “Queen of England” is no more correct than calling George W. Bush President of the Republic of Texas. We don’t need to promote that sort of ignorance on the SD. But, it probably needs to be moved to a GD thread. Or more likely a Pit thread, at this point.
For several reasons, that would never happen today (and shouldn’t have happened then - funny story). As friedo says, the UK has plenty of successors waiting for their turn at the crown, but Sweden does not. We have precisely three: the kids of the king. If the royal family is wiped out, the smart money says that the Swedish monarchy is history.
