St George`s day

[Good Egg]

from MOR: The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1661 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.


Actually she is Queen Elizabeth the FIRST of Scotland ,not QEII

She is Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and in all countries where she is head of State. Australia has never had a Queen Elizabeth before either. If there is a future king James he would be James V111 despite England not having 7 previous James.

[McClef]

This is getting really complicated to answer now!

. Well, this just isn't accurate, or true. It may be 19th century anti-British, pro-Irish inddependence propaganda, but it sure ain't the reality of history.

You have skipped over the problems that Elizabeth I had in maintaining her rule over Ireland with rebellions of Irish Lords such as the O'Neills and the Lack of success of her various Lord Lieutenants and Governors such as the Earl of Essex. English power and influence in reality was centred within the Pale of Dublin - hence the phrase "beyond the pale." Also the actions of figures such as Theobald Wolfe Tone in the 18th century deserve study.

The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1661 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.

I think you are 10 years late here as the last coronation in Scotland was of Charles II at Scone in 1651 when Cromwell was in charge of England. That later Stewart monarchs did not have a separate coronation in Scotland is indeed true but technically they should have prior to the Act of Union, however the Honours of Scotland were present at sittings of the Scottish Parliament to depict the presence of the non-resident monarch.

Of course "ERII" is Queen of Scotland as she was crowned Queen of Great Britain and not merely of England though the is often mistakenly referred to as "The Queen of England."

She did, however create a problem that had not occurred since the Act of Union - that of regnal numbering. Scotland had never had a Queen Elizabeth I. To regularise the position it was decided that the highest regnal number from either England or Scotland would take precedence so, as has been pointed out, another James would be James VIII of the United Kingdom for example.

Wales is an appanage of the crown, rather like the Dukedom of Normandy, or the Channel Islands. It is, in effect, the personal property of the monarch.

The Channel Islands acknowledge the overlordship of the Monarch, as does the Isle of Man, but in effect they are completely self governing entities with their own currencies and do not officially fly the Union Flag, not do they have any representation in the UK Parliament. UK citizens have no automatic right of residency either. Nor are they part of the EU. So Wales is clearly NOT like them. It is no more the personal property of the Monarch than any other part of the United Kingdom is. Nor is it the personal property of HRH the Duke of Rothesay!

And your usage of appanage cannot be correct here as this refers to granting of titles and estates to younger male children of the Monarch whereas the the title "Prince of Wales" can only be granted to the eldest male child of a UK Monarch.

You should hold your water. Lichtenstein is an appanage of the King of Bohemia and is 100% the property of the current representer of that now-defunct kingdom. Monaco is a 19th century invention of French politics-- and owes its status to the political expediency (and on going grace and favour) of succeeding French governments.

What effect this has on the Principality v Kingdom argument I cannot fathom as we are dealing with nomenclature and not with how they originally came into being.

The Welsh National Assembly does not have anything near the powers of the Scottish National Talking Shop. This was one of the gripes voiced by Plaid Cyrmu when the WNA was created. So, theoretically, does Quebec, but neither prospect is likely. I think, if you go back and read the Act, you will discover that independence can not be achieved by a unilateral decision in either Wales or Scotland.

The powers are increasing all the time and more and more are being devolved though tax raising powers were not included as they were in Scotland. The phrase Wales Assembly Government is now also officially used. What is also interesting is that those who were die hard opponents at the time of the referendum now take a full and enthusiastic part in proceedings and the building in which the members meet is called the Senedd complete with its own Mace. The position regarding both Wales and Scotland is that a referendum would have to be held and neither Plaid or the SNP would be likely, even if they gained a majority in government, to go for one unless they felt there was a reasonable prospect of success. Quebec has tried it twice so far and the margin narrowed between the two.

It is true that if Puerto Rico chose statehood over its commonwealth status, it would be accorded a star on the national flag. That is because it would be coming into the union. In the instance of Wales, like it or not, it has been a part of "greater Britain" since at least 1536, if not since Edward I took it, and sliced it up, and divvied it out to his pals, in 1283.

Look, I'm all in favour of people having cultural pride-- like I said originally, I think it's great that Welsh men and women fly the livery banner of "Bluff King Hal" as their own. But, to accord Wales a special place on the national flag? Sorry Trefor, you just haven't managed to convince me that it's the thing that needs to be done.

Ah but the people or Puerto Rico would have the option of freely choosing, something that was denied to the Welsh. Virginia chose to be in a state of rebellion against a King a couple of centuries ago as I recall...

And the old canard of a special place! We currently don't have any place on it! England, Scotland and Ireland have a special place on the flag as they are on it! Each state of your Union has its own flag which I am sure is proudly flown yet each star on the national flag is equal.

Sure there is a lot of debate and maybe if the Draig Coch was stuck on it would look special and also be out of keeping with the Saints flags designs of the rest. But would the Cross of St David merged with those of George, Andrew and Patrick look like it was having a special place?

An interesting article and set of comments, pro and con, can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...g-says-MP.html

Irrelevant really. From Henry VIII onwards, the King of England was also the King of Ireland, until the Act of Union, 1801. A monarchy is not the same as a democracy, the opinion of the people is unimportant. On a related note, it also makes me laugh that in the UK, the media has debates as to who should be the next monarch.... don't those people realise they should be abasing themselves, tugging their forelocks and certainly not being vulgar enough to voice an opinion about their betters?

The concept of absolute monarchy started getting a bashing in the 1640s and the mystique in the 1950s. Now deference is not automatic either.