Not Tuvalu. Right now, the constitution says the monarch of Tuvalu, in the absence of contrary legislation, is “the Sovereign of the United Kingdom; or any person exercising the whole or the relevant part of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”
I don’t think there’s any contrary legislation, so arguably, unless the Tuvaluan parliament enacted new laws establishing a different line of succession, a republican president of the UR would be the ex officio King or Queen of Tuvalu, sort of like the French president and Andorra.
The balance of power between the Government and the Queen is a carefully trod tightrope. The PM advises the Queen to do what he thinks he can get away with without Parliament and the country getting up his arse. If everyone but the PM thinks he’s wrong to advise the Queen refuse the Scottish throne - and I feel pretty sure that Parliament and the country would think it pretty outrageous for Cameron to dictate such a thing to the Queen, not least because it would drive a huge hammer blow to any friendship Scotland and the rUk would still have - then the Queen, reading the general mood, can tell him to sod off, a constitutional crisis ensues, the government receives a vote of no confidence from Parliament, the PM loses his job and we get a new government. And the Queen gets a new crown to add to her collection.
Now that I think of it… is anyone in Scotland still pissed off about her alleged disrespect to the physical crown of Scotland?
After her coronation shindig she went up to Edinburgh to receive the Honours of Scotland, but ruffled some feathers by wearing a day dress and carrying her purse around while the crown and associated regalia were presented. The official painter chose to censor the offending handbag, IIRC.
It was a long time ago so I assume nobody even remembers, but you never know…
Apparently, Queen Elizabeth II already holds “royal privilege” in the Scottish Parliament. She selects the First Minister from someone nominated by the Scottish MPs.
I think it’s because she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland individually. She didn’t get crowned Queen of England either, despite what non-Brits like to call her. So, she pays respect to the symbol of the crown, but doesn’t wear it.
Yup. In fact, I hope Cameron does decide to tell the queen which countries she’s allowed to be monarch of. It’d be a wonderful way of completely destroying the current government.
For some reason, he loved the Scottish and saw himself as their avenger, and “King of Scotland” was actually his second title, after “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular”.
If it wasn’t for that pesky “dead” thing, he would make an awesome cannibal-warlord, er… king of Scotland.
TECHNICALLY, Elizabeth II would be queen of Scotland because James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, uniting England UNDER Scotland. Ongoing questions from this thought are would she then abandon the English and Welsh thrones, abandon the Scottish throne, or remain the single monarch of separate countries?
Sources within Scotland say they would keep Elizabeth II, and I add that it’s probably just to be an ass and remind England and Wales that they technically belong to Scotland.
OTHER OPTIONS from the Windsor house is to have one of Elizabeth’s children, or even prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh (interestingly enough, the only other ruler of a separate sovereign nation married to the ruling monarch of England was also named Phillip). Princess Anne seems to have more Scottish patriotism than anyone else in her family, so she would be a more popular pick for the Scottish Parliament to make.
IF SCOTLAND DEPOSES THE WINDSOR LINE, the Tudor pretenders could lay claim, making the current King of Lichtenstein also king of Scotland. (Not unprecedented) Scotland would probably not accept any of the lesser houses within Scotland, some say that there is too much history of strife between Scottish clans (said in jest).
OR Scotland could abolish the monarchy and setup some form of republic.
ALSO NOTE that Elizabeth II said “Don’t make me the last Queen of Scotland.”
Welcome to the Straight Dope. It’s recommended to actually read previous answers before replying and to then notice that one is fighting a two year hypothetical.
No she wouldn’t, because this entire debate is predicated on the hypothetical that Scotland will pick someone else. We’re not looking for a factual answer here; this thread is all about speculation in a somewhat fanciful what-if scenario.
There is no King of Lichtenstein, current or otherwise.
Don’t assume there’s a binary English+Hanoverian / Scottish+Gaelic+Stuart division.
Gaelic was never the native language of all of Scotland, and the Stuarts were rejected by the Scottish Parliament (not overwhelmingly, granted) even before the Union. The '15 and '45 were Scottish civil wars as much as Anglo-Scottish.
The Jacobites might prefer to call him Francis II of Scots out of deference to his gt-gt-gt-uncle Franz Duke of Modena who was also denied his reign as King Francis I of Scotland and England.
(But there is a certain controversy in this whole descent, Francis I’s mother, a Sardinian Princess who “should have been” Queen Mary III of England and II of Scots, married her own uncle; this illegal marriage would have invalidated the claims of her heirs in Britain, but the marriage was legitimate in its jurisdiction.)
And if we’re going to reject the usurpations of the Hanoverites, why not go all the way back to the abdication of John Balliol in 1296? This abdication was not binding on his sisters, three of whom married and left many descendants, one of whom is presumably the legitimate genealogic heir of David MacCrinan (d. 1153) King of Scots. Why is this never pursued? Wikipedia doesn’t even clarify the birth order of those sisters.
I’m not sure if your primary object is to the spelling of Liechtenstein, or referring to its Monarch as a King, but Joseph Wenzel Maximilian Maria von und zu Liechtenstein, who was born in London and schooled in Worcestershire, will, upon the deaths of both his parents, both his grandfathers, and a great-uncle, be the Monarchs of Liechtenstein, England, Scotland and Wales — or would be, were the anti-Papist Usurpation of 1688 negated (and ignoring the illegal marriage of Queen Mary II and III … and ignoring the failure of Balliol’s nephews to pursue their own claims).
On further reflection, I don’t know what I was thinking three years ago when I posted this in General Questions rather than Great Debates. An oversight on my part, maybe? If the mods feel strongly about it, feel free to move the thread.
That’s an excellent point, but I think being born and educated in England would count against him for the purposes of my question. If an independent monarchical Scotland wants to better distance itself from England, they’d sooner choose Franz than Joseph (if indeed they want a Jacobite at all). Of course, if they do choose Franz, they’re liable to end up with Joseph eventually anyway, unless Franz or his brother decide to have any late-in-life male children.
Very impressive.