the king of england vs king of england

chance

unread,

Dec 13, 2009, 9:48:57 PM12/13/09

to

1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?

2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?

What is the difference between a simple 'king' and 'the king' in the examples?

Is it a matter of 'style'?

TIA

CK

tony cooper

unread,

Dec 13, 2009, 10:11:00 PM12/13/09

to

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:48:57 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
wrote:

I would consider both versions to be the same *if* the second
capitalized "King". In #2, "King of England" is a title. In #1, it's
a description.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 13, 2009, 10:58:58 PM12/13/09

to

In article <00bbi51hmsclqb1e3...@4ax.com>,
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:

They're still not absolutely identical. The bare 'King of England' can
only be used as a predicate:

Henry is the King of England.
The King of England is Henry.

Henry is King of England.
*King of England is Henry.

I saw the King of England last week.
*I saw King of England last week.

And even as a predicate, it has interesting restrictions:

Who is that?
(That is) The King of England.
(That is) *King of England.

Alan

tony cooper

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 12:11:24 AM12/14/09

to

I don't agree. I don't see that "king" needs to be capitalized unless
it is part of the title and not just a job description.

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 12:31:39 AM12/14/09

to

In article <64ibi5hvueq1gsstk...@4ax.com>,
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I wasn't really concerned about the spelling. The main point is that
syntactically they're quite different from each other. I actually think
that both forms can appear with a capital or not.

The president of the U.S. is Barack Obama.
The President of the U.S. came to our school and gave a speech.

If you google "elect him president" you'll get both spellings.

Alan

Nick

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 12:34:08 AM12/14/09

to

Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> writes:

All that works just the same (possibly barring the comment at the top
about capitalisation) for "captain of the football team".

John is [the] captain of the football team - "the" can be omitted
The captain of the football team is John - not here it can't.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 12:55:23 AM12/14/09

to

In article <873a3ec...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

Right. That's why I think the capitalisation issue is a bit of red
herring.

Alan

António Marques

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 7:48:52 AM12/14/09

to

I don't think 'the' belongs with what follows it. The difference between the
orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction. And the reason A) 'The King
of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order. In
short, I don't think distribution analysis is helpful at all.

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 9:12:35 AM12/14/09

to

In article <hg5c80$r6u$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote:

If you mean just 'king' then yes, but otherwise, what else could the
'the' belong to?

> The difference between the
> orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
> king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.

This is an interesting observation. So that means we shouldn't be able
to say:

Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?

but we can say

Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?

While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
pair is bad.

What about:

During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.

> And the reason A) 'The King
> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.

I thought that's what I said.

> In
> short, I don't think distribution analysis is helpful at all.

Well it shows that the article-less one MUST be a predicate. (I.e., it
doesn't simply become a proper name, for example.)

Alan

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 10:21:08 AM12/14/09

to

On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > Alan Munn wrote, on 14-12-2009 05:55:

> > > In article<873a3ece5r....@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> > > Nick<3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> > >> Alan Munn<am...@msu.edu> writes:
> > >>> In article<00bbi51hmsclqb1e3u51psjaqm00e68...@4ax.com>,
> > >>> tony cooper<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:48:57 +0900, "chance"<cinci...@yahoo.co.kr>

"king of England," of course

> > The difference between the
> > orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
> > king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.
>
> This is an interesting observation. So that means we shouldn't be able
> to say:

But as Nick showed, it's not a semantic thing at all, but a syntactic
thing.

> Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
> Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?

You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
history), because it's well known that there were four presidents of
the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).

> but we can say
>
> Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> pair is bad.
>
> What about:
>
> During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.

No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
1921.)

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 11:12:02 AM12/14/09

to

In article
<2b9bc496-df07-4270...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Dec 14, 9:12�am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yes, of course. Ellipsis wasn't my friend there. I was agreeing that
'the' doesn't belong to 'king' but if it doesn't belong with 'king' it
must belong with 'king of England'.

>
> > > The difference between the
> > > orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only
> > > one
> > > king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.
> >
> > This is an interesting observation. �So that means we shouldn't be able
> > to say:
>
> But as Nick showed, it's not a semantic thing at all, but a syntactic
> thing.

I think that's what I showed. Nick added another data point.

>
> > Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
> history), because it's well known that there were four presidents of
> the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).

Does this judgement persist for you if you have an explicit quantifier?

For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who was the president?

or (perhaps importantly)

For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?

Is there a difference for you?

>
> > but we can say
> >
> > Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
> >
> > While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> > pair is bad.
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>
> No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
> although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
> part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
> 1921.)

What about

For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the president.

Alan

Pat Durkin

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 1:09:22 PM12/14/09

to

"Alan Munn" <am...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:amunn-92BE73....@nothing.attdns.com...

> In article
> <2b9bc496-df07-4270...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >
>> >

>> > > > Right. That's why I think the capitalisation issue is a bit
>> > > > of red
>> > > > herring.
>> >
>> > > I don't think 'the' belongs with what follows it.
>> >
>> > If you mean just 'king' then yes, but otherwise, what else could
>> > the
>> > 'the' belong to?
>>
>> "king of England," of course
>
> Yes, of course. Ellipsis wasn't my friend there. I was agreeing
> that
> 'the' doesn't belong to 'king' but if it doesn't belong with 'king'
> it
> must belong with 'king of England'.
>>
>
>>

>>

>> You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
>> history), because it's well known that there were four presidents
>> of
>> the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).
>
> Does this judgement persist for you if you have an explicit
> quantifier?
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who was the president?
>
> or (perhaps importantly)
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?
>
> Is there a difference for you?
>
>>

>> >

>> > What about:
>> >
>> > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S.
>> > Harding,
>> > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>>
>> No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
>> although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it
>> is
>> part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of
>> March
>> 1921.)
>
> What about
>
> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> president.

Because Republicans ran the country in the '20s, the country's economy
was destroyed. Will we never learn?
For the first 8 years of the the current millennium, a Republican sat
in the oval office. For 20 of the past 30 years, a Republican was the
leader of this country -- and look where we are today!

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 1:32:49 PM12/14/09

to

On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <2b9bc496-df07-4270-b910-fd93b5b56...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Since change-of-president has never coincided with the change from one
year to another, that fails for 1961, 1963, and 1969.

> or (perhaps importantly)
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?
>
> Is there a difference for you?

I suspect "... who was ..." would be frowned upon by stylists, but
it's certainly acceptable colloquial.

> > > but we can say
>
> > > Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > > Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> > > While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> > > pair is bad.
>
> > > What about:
>
> > > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> > > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>
> > No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
> > although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
> > part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
> > 1921.)
>
> What about
>
> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the president.

That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."

Trond Engen

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 3:43:04 PM12/14/09

to

[I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]

Peter T. Daniels:

But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
(Those who were presidents were R/republicans)

And "..., a president was a Republican",
and "..., a president was republican".
(To be president one had to be a R/republican)

And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there was a
among them, that would be the president)

Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?

--
Trond Engen

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 4:19:17 PM12/14/09

to

On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> >> president.
>
> > That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>
> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)

The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.

> And "..., a president was a Republican",
> and "..., a president was republican".
> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)

Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
(Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")

> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there was a
> among them, that would be the president)

Hunh?

Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my time.

> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?

Possibly?

Andrew B.

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 4:37:06 PM12/14/09

to

On 14 Dec, 14:12, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:

> Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?

This allows the quibble answer "He was a small boy called Barack
Obama".

> Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?

This doesn't.

Bill McCray

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 5:20:26 PM12/14/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>> and "..., a president was republican".
>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
> one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")

And yet one of our states had two of its native sons serving as
President simultaneously.

Bill in Kentucky

Trond Engen

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 6:41:18 PM12/14/09

to

Peter T. Daniels:

> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...

... an unusually sloppy post even for him, er, me:

>> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
>>>> president.
>>>
>>> That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>>
>> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
>> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
>> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
>
> The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
> politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.

OK. I thought of English in general.

>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>> and "..., a president was republican".
>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more
> than one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")

No, you're right. I meant to substitute a more general introduction
before the comma, but somehow I forgot. But see that what I'm after is
clearer if we just drop it:

(1) The president is a Republican.
(2) The president is republican.

(3) A president is a Republican.
(4) A president is republican.

(5) The president is the Republican.

I was trying to explore what the articles do here, and under what
conditions these are valid sentences. I don't think I'm up to it
anymore, but when did that stop me?

>> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there
>> was a among them, that would be the president)
>
> Hunh?

If you can't even read thoughts, I might as well give up communicating
with you.

"If there was a _Republican_ among them, that would be the President."

In my simplified example (5) above the the-the construction presupposes
that there's one Republican and one president and equals the two. In the
original pretext this is generalized to mean that whereever there's a
Republican available, that's the one who will be president. Or that's
how I hear it.

> Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
> Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my
> time.
>
>> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
>
> Possibly?

First, and banally, the subject has to be at least as definite as the
predicate*. Second, tentatively, the interpretation of each sentence is
the result of a pragmatic interpretation of each step of removal from
the unmarked case. Or some such. Perhaps related: The article-less forms
feel almost as part of the verb. Or as nominal verbs, being verbed by
the copula. And while am floating: Is that why languages can lose the
copula and push the noun in the slot?

Does this make any sense at all? Is there a syntactician in the audience?

* Or that's what I thought until now. One may stress the definite
article in (5).

--
Trond Engen

Peter Moylan

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 7:23:21 PM12/14/09

to

Pat Durkin wrote:

> Because Republicans ran the country in the '20s, the country's economy
> was destroyed. Will we never learn?
> For the first 8 years of the the current millennium, a Republican sat
> in the oval office. For 20 of the past 30 years, a Republican was the
> leader of this country -- and look where we are today!

This isn't just an American thing. Something comparable happens nearly
everywhere.

The right-wingers get into power, deregulate everything, and sell off
the country's public assets. Wealth moves from the public sector to the
private sector. Deregulation destabilises the markets.

Eventually even Blind Freddie can see that something is wrong. The
government is kicked out, and the left-wingers get into power. Left with
a mess to clean up, the new government has to go into debt to buy back
the farm. Public spending goes up.

The economy starts to recover, but electorate becomes nervous about the
rise in public spending. The new government is also kicked out. We're
back to the start of the cycle.

This wouldn't be so bad if it were a zero-sum cycle. What seems to
happen in practice is that the very rich make a net profit out of each
cycle, leaving the country as a whole a little poorer at the end of each
recovery.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 10:31:05 PM12/14/09

to

Jefferson Davis was born in Kentucky?

They weren't both President (where the capitalization signifies a
specific office). They were presidents of two different nations.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 14, 2009, 10:37:38 PM12/14/09

to

On Dec 14, 6:41 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
>
> ... an unusually sloppy post even for him, er, me:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >>> On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> >>>> president.
>
> >>> That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>
> >> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
> >> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
> >> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
>
> > The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
> > politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.
>
> OK. I thought of English in general.

I suppose you can come up with a nation that has presidents where
"republican vs. royalist" is an issue?

> >> And "..., a president was a Republican",
> >> and "..., a president was republican".
> >> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> > Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more
> > than one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> > (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
>
> No, you're right. I meant to substitute a more general introduction
> before the comma, but somehow I forgot. But see that what I'm after is
> clearer if we just drop it:
>
> (1) The president is a Republican.
> (2) The president is republican.

If you substitute some other predicate adjective in (2), you'll see it
makes perfect sense.

> (3) A president is a Republican.
> (4) A president is republican.

Uninterpretable?

> (5) The president is the Republican.

If there are five people in the room, and we know that four of them
are Democrats, and the other one is Bush or Bush, then the sentence is
interpretable (and fatuous).

> I was trying to explore what the articles do here, and under what
> conditions these are valid sentences. I don't think I'm up to it
> anymore, but when did that stop me?

English articles are hard.

> >> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there
> >> was a among them, that would be the president)
>
> > Hunh?
>
> If you can't even read thoughts, I might as well give up communicating
> with you.
>
> "If there was a _Republican_ among them, that would be the President."

It would be rather unusual that an individual's party affiliation was
more salient than his present or past office.

> In my simplified example (5) above the the-the construction presupposes
> that there's one Republican and one president and equals the two. In the
> original pretext this is generalized to mean that whereever there's a
> Republican available, that's the one who will be president. Or that's
> how I hear it.
>
> > Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
> > Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my
> > time.
>
> >> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
>
> > Possibly?
>
> First, and banally, the subject has to be at least as definite as the
> predicate*. Second, tentatively, the interpretation of each sentence is
> the result of a pragmatic interpretation of each step of removal from
> the unmarked case. Or some such. Perhaps related: The article-less forms
> feel almost as part of the verb. Or as nominal verbs, being verbed by
> the copula. And while am floating: Is that why languages can lose the
> copula and push the noun in the slot?
>
> Does this make any sense at all? Is there a syntactician in the audience?
>
> * Or that's what I thought until now. One may stress the definite
> article in (5).

It might be easier to see what you're talking about if you didn't use
presidents and Republicans, since the one is a very small set and the
other an endangered species.

Mike Lyle

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 10:21:59 AM12/15/09

to

Peter Moylan wrote:
[...]

>
> This isn't just an American thing. Something comparable happens nearly
> everywhere.
>
> The right-wingers get into power, deregulate everything, and sell off
> the country's public assets. Wealth moves from the public sector to
> the private sector. Deregulation destabilises the markets.
>
> Eventually even Blind Freddie can see that something is wrong. The
> government is kicked out, and the left-wingers get into power. Left
> with a mess to clean up, the new government has to go into debt to
> buy back the farm. Public spending goes up.
>
> The economy starts to recover, but electorate becomes nervous about
> the rise in public spending. The new government is also kicked out.
> We're back to the start of the cycle.
>
> This wouldn't be so bad if it were a zero-sum cycle. What seems to
> happen in practice is that the very rich make a net profit out of each
> cycle, leaving the country as a whole a little poorer at the end of
> each recovery.

Which, of course, is because money is power in countable form: those who
have one get the other, and those who don't generally don't. Let's not
neglect the subtle twist, that those with are in a position to accuse
those without of having too much.

--
Mike.

Bill McCray

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 5:08:15 PM12/15/09

to

Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Kentuckian, too. Both he and Lincoln held
the title of President. The fact that they were in two different
countries doesn't negate that.

Bill in Kentucky

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 8:06:00 PM12/15/09

to

> Bill in Kentucky-

Would you be comfortable with "Queen Victoria had several nephews who
were King simultaneously." (or whatever the historical fact might be)

Bill McCray

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 8:26:00 PM12/15/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Dec 15, 5:08 pm, Bill McCray <mccrayb...@springmind.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 5:20 pm, Bill McCray <mccrayb...@springmind.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>>>>>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>>>>>> and "..., a president was republican".
>>>>>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>>>>> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
>>>>> one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
>>>>> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
>>>> And yet one of our states had two of its native sons serving as
>>>> President simultaneously.
>>>> Bill in Kentucky
>>> Jefferson Davis was born in Kentucky?
>>> They weren't both President (where the capitalization signifies a
>>> specific office). They were presidents of two different nations.
>> Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Kentuckian, too. Both he and Lincoln held
>> the title of President. The fact that they were in two different
>> countries doesn't negate that.
>>

> Would you be comfortable with "Queen Victoria had several nephews who
> were King simultaneously." (or whatever the historical fact might be)

Sure, why not? Obviously they couldn't be kings of the same country,
but certainly could of separate countries. And Elizabeth II is queen of
several countries.

Bill in Kentucky

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 8:34:20 PM12/15/09

to

Really? I'd like some confirmation of both those claims from
"royalists"!

I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings
simultaneously."

Pat Durkin

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 10:34:24 PM12/15/09

to

"Bill McCray" <mccra...@springmind.com> wrote in message
news:D8SdnW9vU8-QlLXW...@earthlink.com...

Ah, shucks. I thought maybe he and Lincoln were in Wisconsin at the
same time,
but it appears not (though Lincoln, as a militia captain, was
nominally superior to Davis _after_ Davis' service in Wisconsin during
the Black Hawk War, though only for a few months.) They were in
Illinois together, though.

http://www.nndb.com/people/336/000050186/

One site, which I have lost sight of, calls Davis the "Lincoln of the
South". And he certainly looks like Lincoln in the site listed above.

Jerry Friedman

unread,

Dec 15, 2009, 11:31:48 PM12/15/09

to

On Dec 14, 5:48 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
...

> 'The King
> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.

...

It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase. "No
niggard are you, Eomer...."

More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective complements,
especially in academic and other formal writing. They still sound
strange to me.

As far as I can tell, though, you're right that in *"King of England
is Henry" the first phrase can't be the complement (or the subject).

--
Jerry Friedman

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 12:42:21 AM12/16/09

to

Re the second claim:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen
regnant of sixteen independent sovereign states known informally as
the Commonwealth realms:
the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados,
the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda,
and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy,
as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, and Supreme Governor
of the Church of England.... etc....
pjk

Iain

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 5:21:40 AM12/16/09

to

On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?

Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.

--Iain

António Marques

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 6:43:51 AM12/16/09

to

Jerry Friedman wrote, on 16-12-2009 04:31:
> On Dec 14, 5:48 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:

> ....

>
>> 'The King
>> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
>> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
>> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.

> ....

>
> It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase. "No
> niggard are you, Eomer...."

Would that work with 'A niggard', or is it restricted to negatives?

> More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective complements,
> especially in academic and other formal writing. They still sound
> strange to me.

Could you give an example, please?

CDB

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 8:36:28 AM12/16/09

to

Ant�nio Marques wrote:
> Jerry Friedman wrote, on 16-12-2009 04:31:

>> On Dec 14, 5:48 am, Ant�nio Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> ....
>>> 'The King
>>> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry'
>>> doesn't is that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without
>>> T can't be the subject and english doesn't allow
>>> Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order. ....
>>
>> It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase.
>> "No niggard are you, Eomer...."
>
> Would that work with 'A niggard', or is it restricted to negatives?
>

"A wand'ring minstrel [am] I, a thing of shreds and patches ...".

>
>> More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective
>> complements, especially in academic and other formal writing. They
>> still sound strange to me.
>
> Could you give an example, please?

.
"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leads to life, and
few there be that find it." That last one seems to be a pronoun.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 9:40:44 AM12/16/09

to

Really? Several Canadians over the years have denied that she's Queen
of Canada. She does of course have some sort of official title in what
passes for a Constitution up there, but Queen?

And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
while ago?

> > I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings

> > simultaneously."-

Cheryl

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 9:48:25 AM12/16/09

to

She's Queen of Canada. I don't think any Canadian have denied she's
Queen; a number of us think she shouldn't be Queen any longer, but her
role hasn't been changed. I don't think it should be, really, I like
having a head of state who isn't a politician, and all her
representatives in Canada have been locals for decades.

> And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
> while ago?

Speaking from this distance, Australia has more of a republican
sentiment than Canada does, but that sentiment doesn't appear strong
enough to have caused a change in the Queen's role there either.

--
Cheryl

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 9:52:00 AM12/16/09

to

Yes. She is Queen of Canada.

From the website of the Governor General of Canada:
http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State.
The Governor General is the representative of the Queen in Canada.

>And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
>while ago?
>

No. Australia had a referendum to become a republic of a particular
kind. The voters said "No".

>> > I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings
>> > simultaneously."-

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 1:03:25 PM12/16/09

to

Iain <iain_i...@hotmail.com> writes:

He may have been, but looking at Google Books sources from the 1770s,
he seems to have been described (in current events) both as "the king
of England" or "the king of Great Britain".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore

kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Adam Funk

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 1:49:59 PM12/16/09

to

On 2009-12-16, Iain wrote:

(meta-nitpick)

Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
king of England and king of Scotland?

--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of
the American public. [Mencken]

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 2:15:30 PM12/16/09

to

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:49:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2009-12-16, Iain wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 2:48�am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>>>
>>> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>>
>> Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>
>(meta-nitpick)
>
>Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
>king of England and king of Scotland?

Not separately, or at least no much more than the present monarch is
Queen of Yorkshire, Queen of Essex, etc.

From _The Treaty (act) of the Union of Parliament 1706_:
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/union.html

Article 1

I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st
May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into
One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN:...

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 3:30:39 PM12/16/09

to

The French would not have acknowledged that claim, but kings of England
(and later of Britain) bore the title of King of France from 1340 to 1801.

--
James

R H Draney

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 3:32:57 PM12/16/09

to

=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?= filted:

Maybe we could call such a person the "United King"...you know, just to save
ink....r

--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 9:58:54 PM12/16/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:15 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:49:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-12-16, Iain wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>>>> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>>
>>>>> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>>
>>>> Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>>
>>> (meta-nitpick)
>>
>>> Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
>>> king of England and king of Scotland?
>>
>> Not separately, or at least no much more than the present monarch is
>> Queen of Yorkshire, Queen of Essex, etc.
>
> Or Queen of Canada?

Canada is NOT part of the UK.
A Queen of United Kingdom is not automatically a Queen of Canada.
A Queen of Canada is the sovereign ruler of Canada *separately*
and *independently* from being a ruler of England, Scotland, etc
by the virtue of being Queen of the UK.

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 10:21:11 PM12/16/09

to

On Dec 16, 9:58 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 2:15 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:49:59 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2009-12-16, Iain wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >>>>> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> >>>>> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> >>>> Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>
> >>> (meta-nitpick)
>
> >>> Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
> >>> king of England and king of Scotland?
>
> >> Not separately, or at least no much more than the present monarch is
> >> Queen of Yorkshire, Queen of Essex, etc.
>
> > Or Queen of Canada?
>
> Canada is NOT part of the UK.
> A Queen of United Kingdom is not automatically a Queen of Canada.
> A Queen of Canada is the sovereign ruler of Canada *separately*
> and *independently* from being a ruler of England, Scotland, etc
> by the virtue of being Queen of the UK.

Show me a Canadian who says that E2R is Queen of Canada.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 10:23:23 PM12/16/09

to

Sounds like a multinational corporation.

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 10:47:27 PM12/16/09

to

When Canadians sing their royal anthem, God Save The Queen,
whose queen do you think they sing about?

AFAIK, in 1953, a Canadian law (Royal Style and Titles Act),
formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada.

In 2012, it'll be her 60th anniversary as Queen of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada.

pjk

P.S. It is true that in 1500 the queen Elizabeth was not
a queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., so our
queen should be called ER, not EIIR. However, it's one of
those inexplicable things that our respective countries do
officially have EIIR while we never have had any ER. :-)

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 10:58:06 PM12/16/09

to

In article
<d6dc21bf-c34e-44cd...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

I'll bite. I'm Canadian. The Queen is the Queen of Canada.

I would venture that most Canadians would agree. As someone else has
mentioned earlier in this thread, Canadians aren't really particularly
anti-royalist; it's mainly seen as a non-issue. We've generally been
more concerned over the past decades about Quebec separating than
declaring ourselves a republic.

Alan

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 11:06:23 PM12/16/09

to

In article <hgc9ij$9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"PaulJK" <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

Well we don't do much of that. If we sing an anthem it tends to be the
national anthem, and that doesn't include reference to royalty at all.

I've never actually heard the term 'Royal Anthem' although it does seem
to be a term of art on the Canadian government web site. But you're
right, Elizabeth is who it's aimed at not Margarethe or Beatrix ;-)

Alan

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 16, 2009, 11:52:48 PM12/16/09

to

It's similar to situation in New Zealand. God Defend New Zealand
(with different words and tune from GStQ) was officially declared to
be a national hymn in 1940, while God Save the Queen was still
a national anthem. In 1977, however, God Defend New Zealand was
given equal status with God Save the Queen as NZ's national anthem.

I've just confirmed that, and it actually surprised me, I didn't realise
that GStQ still had the status of a national anthem. IIRC, the last
time I heard it played in purely NZ context was before screenings
of films in the cinemas in the late 1960s. These days it's usually the
first stanza of GDNZ that's sung twice, once in English and once
in Maaori.

pjk

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 2:33:29 AM12/17/09

to

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:

> On Dec 16, 10:05�pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:
>> > =?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?= filted:
>>

>> >> It's the 'United Kingdom', not the 'United Kingdoms'. Of
>> >> course, 'King of the United Kingdom' without the constituent
>> >> parts sounds weird.
>>
>> > Maybe we could call such a person the "United King"...you know,
>> > just to save ink....r
>>
>> I'd go for "Unidom".
>> That plus the name would still fit nicely on a signet ring.
>
> Sounds like a multinational corporation.

Sounds more like a prophylactic to me.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet

kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 10:41:42 AM12/17/09

to

On Dec 17, 10:53 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:21:40 -0800 (PST) from Iain

> <iain_inks...@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> > > 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > > 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>
> Nope. The UK came into being in 1801. From 1707 till then it was
> Great Britain.

In 1707 it was referred to as the 'United Kingdom', whatever its
reach.

--Iain

Iain

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 10:43:48 AM12/17/09

to

On Dec 16, 6:03 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> >> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>

> He may have been, but looking at Google Books sources from the 1770s,
> he seems to have been described (in current events) both as "the king
> of England" or "the king of Great Britain".

That's because England was another name for Britain until the mid
twentieth century, in addition to being the name for the middlemost
country of the island.

--Iain

James Hogg

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 10:46:27 AM12/17/09

to

Yes. The OED has a quotation from 1734 and defines the term, as used
before the union with Ireland in 1801, as "the kingdom of Great Britain".

--
James

António Marques

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:11:50 AM12/17/09

to

PaulJK wrote, on 17-12-2009 03:47:

> P.S. It is true that in 1500 the queen Elizabeth was not
> a queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., so our
> queen should be called ER, not EIIR. However, it's one of
> those inexplicable things that our respective countries do
> officially have EIIR while we never have had any ER. :-)

we were into a personal union with spain for 60 years once (don't ask),
which spanned 3 kings, creatively called Filipe I (II of spain), Filipe II
(III of spain) and Filipe III (IV of spain). Known as the Filipes.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:15:31 AM12/17/09

to

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> In 1707, the Act of Union terminated the existence of England

It got better?

> and Scotland and created a new nation called Great Britain. Then in
> 1801 a new Act of Union dissolved Great Britain and Ireland and
> created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe

CDB

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:38:19 AM12/17/09

to

Cheryl wrote:
> PaulJK wrote:
>
>> It's similar to situation in New Zealand. God Defend New Zealand
>> (with different words and tune from GStQ) was officially declared
>> to be a national hymn in 1940, while God Save the Queen was still
>> a national anthem. In 1977, however, God Defend New Zealand was
>> given equal status with God Save the Queen as NZ's national anthem.
>>
>> I've just confirmed that, and it actually surprised me, I didn't
>> realise that GStQ still had the status of a national anthem. IIRC,
>> the last time I heard it played in purely NZ context was before
>> screenings of films in the cinemas in the late 1960s. These days
>> it's usually
>> the first stanza of GDNZ that's sung twice, once in English and
>> once in Maaori.
>>

Paul, if you see this: is "Maaori" a typo or the little-known correct
spelling?

>
> In at least one part of Newfoundland, up to the early to mid 1960s,
> I suppose, we sang God Save the Queen and the Ode to Newfoundland
> at every school assembly, one at the beginning and one at the end.
> I think I was in about Grade 8 before the principal decided we
> really should be taught O Canada, and one was dropped - I think it
> was the Ode, because to my shock and amazement, my much-younger
> sister didn't recognize it years later. Everyone of my generation
> and a lot of the younger one (if not my sister) would have known
> all three off by heart, at least the verse(s) usually sung.
>

Make her learn it; it's a lovely anthem. No mayhem: We love thee,
smiling land.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SpUmZtaRBQ
>
Not exactly the arrangement you sang in school, maybe, but the
pictures are good.
>
Wish we had one like that in Ontariariario.

CDB

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:38:41 AM12/17/09

to

"On the death of King George VI in February 1952, his daughter
Princess Elizabeth immediately succeeded to the Throne as Queen. When
the coronation ceremony took place the following year, Her Majesty was
proclaimed in Canada with the following words: "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." The
proclamation reaffirmed the newly crowned monarch's position as Queen
of Canada, a role totally independent from that as Queen of the United
Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms."
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/fr-rf/crnCdn/102-eng.cfm
>
More officially, from the current consolidated version of the
/Constitution Act/:
>
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby
declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/2.html#codese:9
>
And I say so too, eh.

Trond Engen

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 3:24:55 PM12/17/09

to

António Marques:

Likewise, there are kings with different numbers in Denmark, Norway and
Sweden. For 500 years Denmark had a line of kings alternately named
Christian and Frederik (except that the first Frederik was a Hans, so
the numbering is out of step). Until the aftermath of the Napoleonic
wars they were also kings in Norway (in what started as a personal
union, became a personal possession of the Danish king with the
abolition of _Riksrådet_ ("The Royal Council") following the
Reformation, and ended as a unified state), and two of the early
Christians were even kings of Sweden. Also some earlier kings were
shared for shorter or longer periods by two or three of the kingdoms.
Denmark and Norway also share kings with England, and Sweden shares one
with Poland-Lithuania.

(Is there a simple English term for what in Norwegian is called
'kongerekka' "the row/line of kings", the list of kings with dates of
their rule?)

--
Trond Engen

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:00:20 PM12/17/09

to

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:24:55 +0100, Trond Engen <tron...@engen.priv.no>
wrote:

>Ant�nio Marques:

>
>> PaulJK wrote, on 17-12-2009 03:47:
>>
>>> P.S. It is true that in 1500 the queen Elizabeth was not
>>> a queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., so our
>>> queen should be called ER, not EIIR. However, it's one of
>>> those inexplicable things that our respective countries do
>>> officially have EIIR while we never have had any ER. :-)
>>
>> we were into a personal union with spain for 60 years once (don't ask),
>> which spanned 3 kings, creatively called Filipe I (II of spain), Filipe
>> II (III of spain) and Filipe III (IV of spain). Known as the Filipes.
>
>Likewise, there are kings with different numbers in Denmark, Norway and
>Sweden. For 500 years Denmark had a line of kings alternately named
>Christian and Frederik (except that the first Frederik was a Hans, so
>the numbering is out of step). Until the aftermath of the Napoleonic
>wars they were also kings in Norway (in what started as a personal
>union, became a personal possession of the Danish king with the

>abolition of _Riksr�det_ ("The Royal Council") following the

>Reformation, and ended as a unified state), and two of the early
>Christians were even kings of Sweden. Also some earlier kings were
>shared for shorter or longer periods by two or three of the kingdoms.
>Denmark and Norway also share kings with England, and Sweden shares one
>with Poland-Lithuania.
>
>(Is there a simple English term for what in Norwegian is called
>'kongerekka' "the row/line of kings", the list of kings with dates of
>their rule?)

Not that I know of, at least not in general use.

There are phrases such as "List of Kings and Queens" or "List of
Monarchs":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs

There is a recent tendency to call such a dated list a "timeline":
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/CUSTOMS/questions/kings.htm

Timeline of the Kings and Queens of England

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/monarchs.htm

Monarchs of England
A timeline of English monarchs from the Saxon period to the present.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:06:50 PM12/17/09

to

In the 1960s, lots of people remembered Newfoundland before it was
annexed by Canada. Today, not so many.

How did the 1949 event happen? Was there a plebiscite? a decree? was
it controversial? welcomed? on both sides?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:08:18 PM12/17/09

to

line of succession?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:09:11 PM12/17/09

to

> declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/2.html#codese:9
>
> And I say so too, eh.-

So is Canada secretly a kingdom? I thought it was a Commonwealth.

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:23:01 PM12/17/09

to

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:08:18 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 3:24�pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

>> Ant�nio Marques:

>>
>> > PaulJK wrote, on 17-12-2009 03:47:
>>
>> >> P.S. It is true that in 1500 the queen Elizabeth was not
>> >> a queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., so our
>> >> queen should be called ER, not EIIR. However, it's one of
>> >> those inexplicable things that our respective countries do
>> >> officially have EIIR while we never have had any ER. :-)
>>
>> > we were into a personal union with spain for 60 years once (don't ask),
>> > which spanned 3 kings, creatively called Filipe I (II of spain), Filipe
>> > II (III of spain) and Filipe III (IV of spain). Known as the Filipes.
>>
>> Likewise, there are kings with different numbers in Denmark, Norway and
>> Sweden. For 500 years Denmark had a line of kings alternately named
>> Christian and Frederik (except that the first Frederik was a Hans, so
>> the numbering is out of step). Until the aftermath of the Napoleonic
>> wars they were also kings in Norway (in what started as a personal
>> union, became a personal possession of the Danish king with the

>> abolition of _Riksr�det_ ("The Royal Council") following the

>> Reformation, and ended as a unified state), and two of the early
>> Christians were even kings of Sweden. Also some earlier kings were
>> shared for shorter or longer periods by two or three of the kingdoms.
>> Denmark and Norway also share kings with England, and Sweden shares one
>> with Poland-Lithuania.
>>
>> (Is there a simple English term for what in Norwegian is called
>> 'kongerekka' "the row/line of kings", the list of kings with dates of
>> their rule?)
>
>line of succession?

That would be a reasonable phrase except that it is already in use for
the list of people who are in line to succeed when the present occupier
of the throne falls off it.

The phrase is also used in at least one republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_United_States_presidency

The United States presidential line of succession defines who may
become or act as President of the United States upon the incapacity,
death, resignation, or removal from office (by impeachment and
subsequent conviction) of a sitting president or a president-elect.

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 4:23:26 PM12/17/09

to

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:24:55 +0100, Trond Engen

<tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in
<news:hge42o$hnv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:

[...]

> (Is there a simple English term for what in Norwegian is called
> 'kongerekka' "the row/line of kings", the list of kings with dates of
> their rule?)

Regnal list.

Brian

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 10:44:25 PM12/17/09

to

On Dec 17, 4:23 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:24:55 +0100, Trond Engen

> <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote in

> <news:hge42o$hnv$1...@news.eternal-september.org> in
> alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > (Is there a simple English term for what in Norwegian is called
> > 'kongerekka' "the row/line of kings", the list of kings with dates of
> > their rule?)
>
> Regnal list.

Assyriologists (Sumerologists) speak of the Kinglist.

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 17, 2009, 11:58:54 PM12/17/09

to

CDB wrote:
> Cheryl wrote:
>> PaulJK wrote:
>>
>>> It's similar to situation in New Zealand. God Defend New Zealand
>>> (with different words and tune from GStQ) was officially declared
>>> to be a national hymn in 1940, while God Save the Queen was still
>>> a national anthem. In 1977, however, God Defend New Zealand was
>>> given equal status with God Save the Queen as NZ's national anthem.
>>>
>>> I've just confirmed that, and it actually surprised me, I didn't
>>> realise that GStQ still had the status of a national anthem. IIRC,
>>> the last time I heard it played in purely NZ context was before
>>> screenings of films in the cinemas in the late 1960s. These days
>>> it's usually
>>> the first stanza of GDNZ that's sung twice, once in English and
>>> once in Maaori.
>
> Paul, if you see this: is "Maaori" a typo or the little-known correct
> spelling?

No, it's not a typo, it is spelled correctly. Neither it's little known spelling
down here. The vowel length in Maaori is phonemic and as such has
to be marked. If the font allows it, the long vowels are marked by
horizontal bar above them.

This post happens to be in "Central European" font and all I have
available are ďż˝, a, ďż˝, a, ďż˝, or a, none of which would be correct.
Rather than changing the font to, say, UTF-8, I chose a legal
spelling alternative of 'aa'.

There are some exceptions to a-with-bar spelling. When two identical
vowels end up next to each other in a compound word they are not
usually contracted into a single vowel-with-bar even if they are
pronounced exactly the same way as if they were a single long vowel.
There are also some personal and geographical names which are
spelled with doubled vowels for traditional/historical reasons.
pjk

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 12:08:44 AM12/18/09

to

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On Dec 16, 10:05 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> =?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gTWFycXVlcw==?= filted:
>>>
>>>>> It's the 'United Kingdom', not the 'United Kingdoms'. Of
>>>>> course, 'King of the United Kingdom' without the constituent
>>>>> parts sounds weird.
>>>
>>>> Maybe we could call such a person the "United King"...you know,
>>>> just to save ink....r
>>>
>>> I'd go for "Unidom".
>>> That plus the name would still fit nicely on a signet ring.
>>
>> Sounds like a multinational corporation.
>
> Sounds more like a prophylactic to me.

You mean like a short name for "Confederation Kingdom"? :-)
pjk

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 12:24:53 AM12/18/09

to

Trond Engen wrote:
> António Marques skrev:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote, on 16-12-2009 18:49:
>>
>>> Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
>>> king of England and king of Scotland?
>>
>> It's the 'United Kingdom', not the 'United Kingdoms'.
>> Of course, 'King of the United Kingdom' without the constituent parts
>> sounds weird.
>
> Isn't the idea of a 'united kingdom' that it's a unit for most purposes,
> not only that of succession but also central institutions. The
> alternative would be a 'personal union', where two monarchies share
> their monarch but keep separate institutions. The personal union will be
> dissolved (at least in principle) whenever the laws of succession are
> different in the constituent states. Of course, the latter may tend to
> develop into the former.
>
> Thus, the United Kingdom (with its constituent parts) is in a personal
> union with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of lesser states.

I'd say the kind of the relationship between the UK and NZ is more than
just personal union. For example, only recently, in 2004, the Supreme
Court of New Zealand replaced the Judicial Committe of the Privy Council
located in London. The right to appeal from the New Zealand-based
courts to the Privy Council was lost then. However, certain appeals still
continue to be determined by the Privy Council but I don't know off hand
what conditions have to be satisfyied for that to happen.

The role of the Queen is not purely ceremonial either.
Viz well known sacking of the Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam
by the Queen's representative in Australia.
pjk

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 12:34:05 AM12/18/09

to

PaulJK wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Cheryl wrote:
>>> PaulJK wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's similar to situation in New Zealand. God Defend New Zealand
>>>> (with different words and tune from GStQ) was officially declared
>>>> to be a national hymn in 1940, while God Save the Queen was still
>>>> a national anthem. In 1977, however, God Defend New Zealand was
>>>> given equal status with God Save the Queen as NZ's national anthem.
>>>>
>>>> I've just confirmed that, and it actually surprised me, I didn't
>>>> realise that GStQ still had the status of a national anthem. IIRC,
>>>> the last time I heard it played in purely NZ context was before
>>>> screenings of films in the cinemas in the late 1960s. These days
>>>> it's usually
>>>> the first stanza of GDNZ that's sung twice, once in English and
>>>> once in Maaori.
>>
>> Paul, if you see this: is "Maaori" a typo or the little-known correct
>> spelling?
>
> No, it's not a typo, it is spelled correctly. Neither it's little known
> spelling down here. The vowel length in Maaori is phonemic and as such has
> to be marked. If the font allows it, the long vowels are marked by
> horizontal bar above them.
>
> This post happens to be in "Central European" font and all I have

> available are á, a, â, a, ä, or a, none of which would be correct.

Hm, drats, even those got screwed up. :-(

Okay, I repost again, this time in UTF-8.
The above line should read:
> available are á, à, â, ã, ä, or å, none of which would be correct.

and now I can correctly spell Maaori as Māori.
pjk

Nick

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 2:30:22 AM12/18/09

to

Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> writes:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Really? Several Canadians over the years have denied that she's Queen
>> of Canada. She does of course have some sort of official title in what
>> passes for a Constitution up there, but Queen?
>
> She's Queen of Canada. I don't think any Canadian have denied she's
> Queen; a number of us think she shouldn't be Queen any longer, but her
> role hasn't been changed. I don't think it should be, really, I like
> having a head of state who isn't a politician, and all her
> representatives in Canada have been locals for decades.

The critical thing there is that she's Queen of Canada and Queen of the
UK [of ...]. These are two entirely separate roles she fills. She's
not part (or all) of some separate entity that both the UK and Canada
are subordinate to. Complicated (and something we Brits probably
understand far worse than anyone else - which can give us the wrong idea
of the status of, particularly, some of the smaller Commonwealth
nations).
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu

Trond Engen

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 4:55:59 AM12/18/09

to

Peter T. Daniels:

Ah, thank you both. "Regnal list" seems to be preferred in the context
of British history, but I also find one for the Frankish kingdom.
"Kinglist" is used for the ancient kingdoms of the middle east, but on
the first few pages of hits there's also an Inca and a Pictish one.
There's even "royal canon", almost exclusively used for the Turin papyrus.

(Google turned up several oddly interesting things, like e.g.
<http://www.hf.uib.no/smi/sa/06/6Darfur.pdf>.)

I suppose one could argue that there ought to be a difference in usage
based on the character of the list: A regnal list might contain all
regents, also those that didn't get the title of king. A royal canon has
an official position, being the sanctioned version among many. As it
happens, the Norwegian 'kongerekke' has a few regents that weren't kings
(or royal) and it does make choices between contestants for the crown.
Applying my own logic it ought to be called a 'regnal canon'. There are
some hits for "regnal canon", mainly in academic writing, many of them
for Ireland but also some for even older kingdoms.

(But, obviously, it isn't so. The terms are interchangeable; different
academic traditions have different preferences.)

--
Trond Engen

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 5:21:49 AM12/18/09

to

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:24:53 +1300, "PaulJK"
<paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>
>The role of the Queen is not purely ceremonial either.
>Viz well known sacking of the Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam
>by the Queen's representative in Australia.

The role of the Queen in each of the countries of which she is queen is
determined by the constitution (written or unwritten, i.e. prescriptive
or descriptive) of each country. Australia defines the role of the Queen
in Australia, and so on for each other of her realms.

Cheryl

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 6:49:28 AM12/18/09

to

There was a referendum. Newfoundland had previously been a colony, been
independent, run out of money, and ruled directly from Britain again. It
was highly controversial, and played out across various social divisions
- rural vs urban, fishermen vs 'merchants' (St. John's elite), although
the Protestant/Catholic religious divide may not have had the influence
people at the time thought it might. It's still a very emotional issue,
and although almost no one wants independence, you'll still find the old
flag on t-shirts, and people writing plays and songs about it far more
recently than the 1960s. The vote was between Canada, Commission of
Government (rule from the UK), Confederation and responsible (ie
independent) government. It took two referendums to get a majority vote
- 52% in favour of Confederation. That was largely due to the efforts of
one Joey Smallwood, who went on to rule NL for decades almost like a
banana republic. Or maybe he was our saviour from poverty. Like I said,
it was all very controversial, and the debate continues.

Some issues were the omission of the US from the list and whether the
whole thing was cooked up behind closed doors by the Canadians and
British. I have no idea whether the US ever even wanted us as a state,
but there had been strong ties through trade and emigration with the
'Boston states', and some local people thought that would be a good way
to go. The UK wanted rid of a burden, I suspect, preferably to a member
of the Commonwealth, and Canada liked the idea of controlling access to
the St. Lawrence, and of course there were all those mineral and forest
resources...I suspect there were negotiations between the UK and Canada
behind the backs of the Newfoundland delegations.

Biggest mistakes? Giving control of the fisheries to the federal
government, and not getting a decent deal for access to Quebec for the
transmission of hydroelectric power from Labrador to the US - and the
importance of the second of those wasn't appreciated at the time.

I could go on about this for hours!

--
Cheryl

Cheryl

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 6:52:14 AM12/18/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
> So is Canada secretly a kingdom? I thought it was a Commonwealth.

It's not a secret. We're a member of the Commonwealth, and we're a
Dominion, although that title isn't used much any more. I guess you
could call us a kingdom too, although that seems to indicate a resident
king or queen, and we have various representatives resident instead.

--
Cheryl

António Marques

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 8:46:05 AM12/18/09

to

PaulJK wrote (18-12-2009 04:58):

> CDB wrote:
>> Paul, if you see this: is "Maaori" a typo or the little-known correct
>> spelling?
>
> No, it's not a typo, it is spelled correctly. Neither it's little known spelling
> down here. The vowel length in Maaori is phonemic and as such has
> to be marked. If the font allows it, the long vowels are marked by
> horizontal bar above them.
>
> This post happens to be in "Central European" font and all I have

> available are á, a, â, a, ä, or a, none of which would be correct.

> Rather than changing the font to, say, UTF-8, I chose a legal
> spelling alternative of 'aa'.

Couldn't they allow ^ when the macron is not available? Or is ^, or ´, or
whatever already used for other purposes?

You end up not giving the (implied) straight answer 'Yes, doubling vowels is
considered a correct spelling'. Why? You never used to be this way.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 8:51:16 AM12/18/09

to

It does, though, help explain why there was still a (nostalgic?)
"nationalistic" sentiment in the early 60s.

We're about to go through the same exercise (again) wrt Puerto Rico.
Every time they vote on it, the split is almost even between retaining
Commonwealth status and becoming a state, with just enough support for
independence that there's never a majority in either direction.

Surely if the US were interested in Nfld, we'd have to take the
Maritimes as well?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 8:53:03 AM12/18/09

to

"Dominion" is still around? I don't see it in atlases any more.

John Kane

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 9:46:01 AM12/18/09

to

On Dec 13, 9:48 pm, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?

Technically there was no King of England during the American
Revolution just as there is no Queen of England now.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Cheryl

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 11:22:05 AM12/18/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> It does, though, help explain why there was still a (nostalgic?)
> "nationalistic" sentiment in the early 60s.

I think I would have put it down to inertia, myself, although it wasn't
long after that that we had a lot of young people championing the
'Republic' of Newfoundland (an idea that would have probably shocked the
most ardent anti-Confederationist singing about 'the Canadian wolf').
Their parents, who would have included the school administration, had
been through the family and community splits over the issue and were a
lot calmer by the 60s.

> We're about to go through the same exercise (again) wrt Puerto Rico.
> Every time they vote on it, the split is almost even between retaining
> Commonwealth status and becoming a state, with just enough support for
> independence that there's never a majority in either direction.

That does sound familiar.

Cheryl

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 6:14:38 PM12/18/09

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Alaska, anyway, is because the Russians weren't imperialist enough.
> Why didn't they claim the coast all the way down to Vancouver? Hawaii
> has to do with first missionaries, then pineapples.

Like the Americans tried? Maybe the Russians dismissed Alaska, as
Voltaire did Canada as merely 'several acres of snow', but you'd think
the Russians would know more about the value of northern territories
than the French. Or be less dismissive of snow.

> By Maritimes I meant NB, NS, and PEI -- surely we wouldn't want all
> that vacant territory (would we get Labrador too?) without some good
> stuff in between.

That's the Maritimes, all right. They're not much richer than
Newfoundland, although also very picturesque. If you'd been able to look
into the future, you'd have wanted Labrador with its iron ore and
hydoelectric resources, but without Quebec's agreement, having the
Maritimes wouldn't help you get the goodies south, particularly the
electricity. And Quebec has consistently refused to accept the perfectly
fair legal decision in 1927 that gave most of Labrador to Newfoundland,
so they're not generally terribly happy or generous when renting out the
right to build or use transmission lines across their territory. The
people who actually live in Labrador sometimes disagree with both Quebec
and The-Island-Part-Of-The-Province, feeling underappreciated and
neglected by everyone.

> In 1949 my mother flew on one of the first commercial passenger
> flights across the Atlantic -- from St. John's to Shannon -- because
> she was in the freight forwarding business and had connections, having
> taken over her brother's job when he entered the Army. (Incredibly,
> his job in the service was actually related to his regular job -- he
> dealt with supplies, and came home with a War Bride and the first of
> his four sons. He was six years younger than my mother but died just
> six weeks after she did. My aunt is older than my mother(!) and still
> lives in the "mansion" in New Rochelle that accommodated the five
> children (with lots of room left over), paid for by that freight
> forwarding business.)

From St. John's! That must have been unusual back then. All kinds of
famous people used to travel by planes that needed to refuel at Gander
or Botwood, and are said to have 'visited' Newfoundland, but you don't
hear as much about early aviation out of St. John's. Allegedly, the
authorities built the airport in the foggiest end of the city because
that's the only spot there was enough flat ground.

There was a big US presence here during WW II, with a couple of really
big bases and some smaller ones. A lot of Newfoundland women married
American men and went home with them - I think there was some jealousy
among the local young men because the Americans had more money than they
did plus the allure of the foreign and exotic, and provided a lot of
competition for dates. My mother married an American too, but that was
after the war, and they stayed in Newfoundland twenty years or more. He
worked with a mining company.

--
Cheryl

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 11:20:31 PM12/18/09

to

On Dec 18, 6:14 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Alaska, anyway, is because the Russians weren't imperialist enough.
> > Why didn't they claim the coast all the way down to Vancouver? Hawaii
> > has to do with first missionaries, then pineapples.
>
> Like the Americans tried? Maybe the Russians dismissed Alaska, as
> Voltaire did Canada as merely 'several acres of snow', but you'd think
> the Russians would know more about the value of northern territories
> than the French. Or be less dismissive of snow.

54 40 or fight!

> > In 1949 my mother flew on one of the first commercial passenger
> > flights across the Atlantic -- from St. John's to Shannon -- because
> > she was in the freight forwarding business and had connections, having
> > taken over her brother's job when he entered the Army. (Incredibly,
> > his job in the service was actually related to his regular job -- he
> > dealt with supplies, and came home with a War Bride and the first of
> > his four sons. He was six years younger than my mother but died just
> > six weeks after she did. My aunt is older than my mother(!) and still
> > lives in the "mansion" in New Rochelle that accommodated the five
> > children (with lots of room left over), paid for by that freight
> > forwarding business.)
>
> From St. John's! That must have been unusual back then. All kinds of
> famous people used to travel by planes that needed to refuel at Gander
> or Botwood, and are said to have 'visited' Newfoundland, but you don't
> hear as much about early aviation out of St. John's. Allegedly, the
> authorities built the airport in the foggiest end of the city because
> that's the only spot there was enough flat ground.

Yes, Gander.

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 11:28:54 PM12/18/09

to

António Marques wrote:
> PaulJK wrote (18-12-2009 04:58):
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Paul, if you see this: is "Maaori" a typo or the little-known correct
>>> spelling?
>>
>> No, it's not a typo, it is spelled correctly. Neither it's little known
>> spelling down here. The vowel length in Maaori is phonemic and as such has
>> to be marked. If the font allows it, the long vowels are marked by
>> horizontal bar above them.
>>
>> This post happens to be in "Central European" font and all I have
>> available are á, a, â, a, ä, or a, none of which would be correct.
>> Rather than changing the font to, say, UTF-8, I chose a legal
>> spelling alternative of 'aa'.
>
> Couldn't they allow ^ when the macron is not available? Or is ^, or ´, or
> whatever already used for other purposes?

I am not the right person to say whether they (whoever they are)
could or couldn't. 'They' simply don't. By the way, you can never
assume that some particular diacritic would always be available.
I have seen some signs with ä, ö, etc. but that's considered wrong.
Anyway, the choice is ā (for all offical and formal texts) or aa (allowed
as an alternative in unofficial texts), and that is perfectly sufficent.

If a particular computer font doesn't have ā, then, provided one
can type a, one can always type aa. :-)

> You end up not giving the (implied) straight answer.

I answered the question whether Maaori was a typo by saying

"No, it's not a typo, it is spelled correctly."

I considered that to be a straight enough answer.
pjk

PaulJK

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 11:47:19 PM12/18/09

to

Cheryl wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 6:52 am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> So is Canada secretly a kingdom? I thought it was a Commonwealth.
>>> It's not a secret. We're a member of the Commonwealth, and we're a
>>> Dominion, although that title isn't used much any more. I guess you
>>> could call us a kingdom too, although that seems to indicate a resident
>>> king or queen, and we have various representatives resident instead.
>>
>> "Dominion" is still around? I don't see it in atlases any more.
>
> Like I said, it doesn't seem to be used much. I don't remember hearing
> that it was ever officially abandoned, but I might have missed the
> announcement.

Dominions were already quite different from directly governed Colonies.

Dominion status allowed the dominions to become virtually independent,
while retaining the British monarch as head of state, represented locally
by a governor-general appointed in consultation with the Dominion's
government.

Control over defence, constitutional amendments and (partially) foreign
affairs, remained with the British government, until the Statute of
Westminster was adopted.

For example, New Zealand was originally administered from New South
Wales, then became a direct British colony in 1841 and received a large
measure of self-government following the New Zealand Constitution Act
of 1852. New Zealand chose not to take part in Australian Federation
and assumed complete self-government as the Dominion of New Zealand
on 26 September 1907, Dominion Day, by proclamation of King Edward VII.

pjk

Alan Munn

unread,

Dec 19, 2009, 1:18:59 AM12/19/09

to

In article
<1efad933-cc17-48d2...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

No, the airport in St. John's. Gander is 300 km from St John's.

Alan