allan connochie

"Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense"" <skrossa-unn@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org>

That is what is claimed isn't it? I've always had my suspicions that this
idea
was just come up with after the furore though. Of course Liz wasn't the
first to do this either [eg William IV and Edward VII]. When William pairs
off with someone and has bairns I wonder what they'll call them. I bet it's
not David, Robert or Alexander though. The Royalty are far more sensitive
to public opinion now and you can just imagine all the letters of complaint
from "Outraged in Turnbridge Wells" when they realise their new monarch was
going to be crowned Alexander IV.

cheers

Allan

robert peffers

Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Just watch their faces if you tell them Westminster is not, and never ever
was, England's Parliament. I have debated independence with English
Nationalists and they, without exception, just assumed that after Scottish
Independence England would fall heir to the Westminster holdings of the UK
government.

Have you not noticed that many of them now think Scots elected to the UK
parliament have no right to speak in debates on, "English", questions? It
also shocks them to be told that as elected members of the UK parliament it
is tall MPs duty to take part in all UK debates. If England wishes English
only questions they must give up England being funded as the UK while
everyone else has a block grant. English Regional Parliaments have no place
in the matter. At lest not until England, as a country, has her own
parliament. After that they can paddle their own canoe.
--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003

robert peffers

"Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense"" <skrossa-unn@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org>


Sorry about the typo but I do know he was Six.
Furthermore there was two events - Union Of The Crowns and Union Of The
Parliaments. 103 years apart.

Although the Union Of The Parliaments does refer to the new entity of the
new united system of government its use of the term, "United Kingdom", only
signifies that part of the joint kindoms entering into the Union. It was,
and is, impossible to make the two main countries in the United Kingdom into
one country for the basic legal system used in each is different. They also
have various national institutions, such as education, that differ to this
day. In contrast have a look at Wales that united by being defeated in
battle. The Welsh legal system, etc., was replaced by Englands.
Parliamentary records show that bills and acts are written for England and
Scotland to reflect those differences in legal systems. Perhaps the most
famous example of thses legal differences is/was the Blacksmith's Shop at
Gretna Green where many generations of ******** English were legally married
under Scots Law. Even after Scots Law changed to make Blacksmith marriages
illegal Scots Law still allowed marriages in churches and Registrar Offices
for brides who were ******** a few foot away on the English side of the
Border. Equally the sale of drink laws differ on either side of the Border.
You can be fined for drinking after hours on one side of the Border but have
a legal drink just a few foot away. Like it or not Scotland and England are
still not the same country, they each have their own laws and the joint
parliament must still reflect this by naming their acts and bills to show this.

here is a cut and paste from:-
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon63.html

"Monarchy, as an institution in Europe, all but disappeared during the two
World Wars: a scant ten monarchs remain today, seven of which have familial
ties to England. Elizabeth is, by far, the best known of these, and is the
most widely traveled Head of State in the world. Her ascension was
accompanied by constitutional innovation; each independent, self-governing
country proclaimed Elizabeth, Queen of their individual state. She approves
of the transformation from Empire to Commonwealth, describing the change as
a "beneficial and civilized metamorphosis." The indivisibility of the crown
was formally abandoned by statute in 1953, and "Head of the Commonwealth"
was added to the long list of royal titles --- --- ---".

Note the bit about, "The indivisability of the crown", in 1953,

I'm getting tired of this> I am an anti-royalist and the subject bores me.
Lizzie, with more Scottish blood than any other in her veins, is a fine
pleasant wee biddy by all accounts but as to me being her subject - forget
it. The wee wiffie twa doors awa is a pleasant wee biddy too. She doesn't
rule me either.
Just to settle it though


--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003

robert peffers

Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
I know I said I was tired of all this but you are still wrong. The Union Of
The Crowns clearly showed both Kingdoms were still different kingdoms by
Jamie adopting two numbers. The Union Of The Parliaments did not affect this
arraignment and the use of United Kingdom to show what was being unified
does not indicate the two countries were being made into one. However I have
no intention of retracing my steps over the Act Of Union as it is more
correctly called.
--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003

robert peffers

Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
I Know! I know! And it is/was a typo. I really must get to bed a bit
earlier.
--
Aefauldlie,
Auld Bob Peffers,
bob@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/


---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003

nusrat rizvi

Does it occurred to you that in American view you pissants are hardly
worth the bother for us to learn the fine distinction between you and
Scots or whoever else shares that dumb Island with you?

alan hardie

You haven't a clue what is being talked about here, have you?

And what does "in American view" mean? And pissant isn't a word. And
"island" doesn't need a capital "i". And an island can't be dumb.

If you can't converse with the grown ups I suggest you run along off
to bed.

skrossa-unn

Sad. When I left Scotland (1998) the media had largely learned to say
Britain when they meant Britain -- it's sad to hear they've backslid
since then. But then, even when I was there it did seem that the
fundamental mental hurdle they couldn't quite grasp was that Britain was
not England was not Britain. The switch from England to Britain/UK when
they meant Britain/UK was really just as switch of synonyms for them
rather than really understanding why they should say Britain/UK rather
than England when they meant Britain/UK -- as shown by the simultaneous
increase in saying Britain when they really did mean just England. (That
is, it seemed that all they learned was to say Britain instead of
England in all insteances rather than learning that Britain and England
are not the same thing...)

Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skrossa-unn@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/

skrossa-unn

Indeed, and that is what I said. But the Union of Crowns in 1603 is
*not* what made a singular United Kingdom -- it was the Union of
Parliaments in 1707 that did that. Thus that James VI & I has two
numbers used for him is not evidence that the Union of Parliaments,
which hadn't happened yet, didn't create a single United Kingdom.

Now, that every monarch *since* the Union of Parliaments (Act of Union)
in 1707 *has* used only a single number _is_ evidence that the Act of
Union created a single United Kingdom.

It was Edward VII of the United Kingdom, not "Edward I of Scotland & VII
of England", Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, not "Edward II of
Scotland & VIII of England", and is "Elizabeth II", not "Elizabeth I of
Scotland & II of England".


By that argument it is impossible to make the United States into a
single country because the basic legal system used in each state is
different (and in some cases not even based on the same model). (And the
United States *is* called the United State*s*!) This is ridiculous.

A kingdom being a kingdom isn't based on whether it has only a single
uniform legal jurisdiction or whether all its other insitutions are
uniform, it is based on it being recoginzed and considered a single
kingdom by its monarch and parliament and by having only one monarch and
parliament with ultimate sovereignty -- and that makes the UK a single
unitary kingdom. It is about where the power and authority lies, not
whether they exercise that power and authority uniformly. And all the
power and authority lies with the single UK parliament.

When Scotland is no longer subject to a parliament shared with England,
then you can talk about it being a separate kingdom again.


Again, by that same argument Vermont, New Hampshire, Lousiana, and
California are not the same country. The laws are different. ***s can
have civil unions (marriage by another name) in one and not the others.
The sale of drink laws differ. Heck, even the murder laws differ. Trials
are conducted in separate, independent legal systems. Etc.

Indeed, by your logic Germany isn't one country, either -- the different
regions have different laws. Likewise I believe with Mexico, Canada,
Australia, Spain, and so on. None of them are single countries by your
definition because they all have different regions with different laws.
(And, unlike in the regions of the UK, in all of these [non-]countries
all the different regions get to set their *own* laws.)


Nice quote. Of course it is talking about the _Commonwealth_ and not the
UK and thus is irrelevant to the issue disputed in this discussion.

You haven't settled anything. Indeed, you haven't even addressed the
points that illustrate the error in your logic.

BTW, note that being a royalist or anti-royalist doesn't enter into the
matter. The UK is a single kingdom not because of the Union of Crowns
but because of the Union of Parliaments. Getting rid of the monarchy
wouldn't change anything except the terminology. ....

....

Apparently, a great deal ;-)

Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skrossa-unn@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/

skrossa-unn

So California is a separate country? Because using exactly the same
logic you're using to declare Scotland and England separate
kingdoms/countries would make California a separate country (and
likewise all the other 49 US states) -- every one of which actually has
more autonomy, authority, and sovereignty in their own regions (within
the single country of the USA) than any part of the UK. Likewise,
Bavaria is a separate country? Aragon is a separate kingdom/country? New
South Wales is a separate country?

I confess I am puzzled why you keep insisting that the Act of Union (as
it is more correctly called) wasn't an Act of Union despite the Act
saying it was an Act of Union and the consequences clearly showing it
was an Act of Union. That is, it resulted in a single monarch and single
parliament having unitary authority and sovereignty over all of the
single kingdom of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". (Note, *not*
the "United Kingdom*s* of *England and Scotland*")

Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skrossa-unn@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/