How about corporations? Do you refer to them as he or she? They are people you know.
If they can’t go to jail they can’t be people.
Pravda.
Hey, that’s a double, I never realized I could work it out that way! The old editions, of course.
Tripolar knows a lot about fish though. My source of this info has informed me privately.
So, England isnt part of Great Britain?
They were also PM of Lesser Puddinham Under the Bridge and every other burg.
To be further pedantic, the ocean liner QE2 is not named after the queen’s mother. From Wikipedia, “Queen Elizabeth 2, often referred to simply as QE2, is an ocean liner built for the Cunard Line which was operated by Cunard as both a transatlantic liner and a cruise ship from 1969 to 2008. She was designed for the transatlantic service from her home port of Southampton, UK, to New York, and was named after the earlier Cunard liner RMS Queen Elizabeth.”
Emphasis added. And why does every thread referring to the monarch require someone to nitpick about her title?
B/c we’re fighting ignorance here, and there’s no good reason for it to take longer than we thought.
And yet if I refer to the “Queen of England” is there any confusion who I’m referring to? So why the endless nitpicking over her title?
You asked a question, I answered it. This is General Questions, it’s what we do.
But you’re not fighting Ignorance. Queen Elizabeth* is* the Queen of England. And Essex, and Southampton, and Lesser Puddinham Under the Bridge and…
Now, her titles and styles vary by region, but In the UK and other areas she is* styled-* Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
So, coming into GQ to annoy people by a pedantic but wrong hijack is not fighting ignorance.
I don’t know if this makes any difference, but she wasn’t heir presumptive until the age of 10 when her uncle (Edward VIII) abdicated.
To be pedantic, this happens to be Nawth Chucka’s own thread; s/he is not “coming into GQ to annoy people” if s/he happens to join in some nitpicking about the thread’s details.
And exasperated rhetorical questions about nitpicking, as you’ve now no doubt realized, are often just as distracting and derailing as the nitpicking itself.
I had not realized the criticisms of Dewey Finn and DrDeth were directed at me until your post, since it’s my thread.
PS, I’m a she but am not a ship.
PPS, it looks as though the answer to my OP is yes, about 17 and possibly more. Which sounds ridiculous now in the context of the recent posts.
How many Commonwealth PMs has she met? I imagine it would be a lot.
There are 53 current members of the Commonwealth. There’s a biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting been held since the early 1970s, and she’s attended most of those. Add in her foreign travels and meeting others who have passed through the UK during her reign and it must easily be in the hundreds.
Yes. She’s a very handy cite in the “six degrees” game, if you’re playing just on the basis of who has met who. I have met a few people who have met the British Queen, so in three degrees of separation I have an army of heads of state, heads of government and ambassadors from all over the world for the past sixty years or so. And they, of course, are all in the business of meeting lots of people as well.
^I think the key problem is handy refused to provide cites! 
Yeah, that Queen, always name-dropping…
Yeah! The nerve, who does she think she is, the queen of… oh, nm.
The topic brings to mind Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee - “A modest little man, with much to be modest about…”