On Feb 8, 12:57 am, CJ Buyers <susuha
...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:01 pm, The Chief <the.chieft
...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > They have not forgotten that Betty is NOT the "II"http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/letters/in_first_place_1...
> > Regards,
> > The Chief
> I dare say HM will not be in too great a rush to comply with the
> wishes of someone who thinks the United Kingdom existed in the reign
> of James VI, or that the Duke of Cambridge will be William IV.
There are plenty of places in the world, such as all the 15 overseas
Realms, which did not exist as entities during the time of Elizabeth
I, and which have no objection to referring to the Queen as Elizabeth
II. This is because the United Kingdom is the successor entity to
England when it comes to enumerating Sovereigns, since the English
Monarch Anne was Queen of England and of Scotland at the time of the
Union. During the approx. 100 years when the two Kingdoms were
separate countries with shared monarchs, there was a time when the
numbering was more complex, because James, for instance was James I in
England and James VI in Scotland. But all that ended at the Union. It
really is that simple. Places which were but are no longer independent
States, such as England, Scotland, Newfoundland, etc really don't have
much of a say when it comes to deciding the style and title of the
Queen of the Kingdom of the United Kingdom.
Breton
