Re: CHAT National toponyms

Ray Brown scripsit:

> Indeed, strictly she is not only Queen of the United Kingdom either; she
> is Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and one or other places IIRC.
Here are Elizabeth's styles:

In the U.K.:  Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and
Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

In Canada:  Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United
Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the
Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

In New Zealand:  Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New
Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth,
Defender of the Faith.

In Jamaica:  Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Jamaica and
of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.

In Australia, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the
Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Christopher and Nevis:  Elizabeth
the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of <name of country> and Her
other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

In the U.S.:  Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor.  :-)

> Why, if what I said is untrue, was it agreed at the time that the reigning
> monarch of the UK would take the higher number out of the English & Scots
> lines of monarchs?
To clarify: at the time of Elizabeth's accession, that is.  But if
applied retroactively, no monarchs since 1707 would change numbers.
The Scottish monarchs had a lot more different names, so their numbers
tend to be lower.

> Nah - the UK is a unique institution, with much of its
> constitution unwritten, designed to mystify all furriners  ;)
Not just foreigners, but natives too, I think.

> So presumably he would be the third Charlie both north &
> >What is he worried about?  That if he is crowned as Charles III, he will
> >offend the large and powerful :-) Jacobite faction which applies that
> >title to Charles II's son?
>
> I doubt it very much - in any case Charles II had no legitimate sons (or
> daughters, for that matter), and was succeeded by his brother.
I doubt it too.  I was of course thinking of the Young Pretender,
Charles II's great-nephew.

> But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names!
So it is:  Charles Philip Arthur George, no less.

> Many people had been hoping he would choose one of his other names,
> 'Arthur' (which BTW, unlike either Charles or George, is spelled the
> same in Welsh as in English).
Perhaps he didn't feel he could live up to being King Arthur.

--
                Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.

Replies