Queens of rUK and other questions - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Queens of rUK and other questions


Recommended Posts

Does anyone know, what was the proposed arrangement for retaining the Queen in the event of Scottish independence?

Would she revert to the pre-1603 'Queen of Scotland', becoming Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland? Or is it more complex than that?

The Queen is, besides the Queen of the UK, of course also the Queen of Australia and Queen of Jamaica, and even the Queen of Papua New Guinea. But as far as I can tell she is Queen Elizabeth II of those countries, even though there was as far as I know never a Queen Elizabeth the first of Papua New Guinea. So for these ex colonies, they take their numerical cue from the Queen of the UK.

What about Scotland? Scotland would not be an ex colony. Yet didn't in some sense the Union (possibly 1707) actually merge the crowns into a single Crown? If so there is no Queen of Scotland at present? And if so, then on independence (assuming monarch retained) would the Queen of Scotland be the same status as the Queen of Jamaica? Meanwhile the Queen of the rUK would still be 'the' Queen - the continuity Queen?

If England became independent, there'd then be a Queen of England and a Queen of rUK - who would be 'the' Queen then? And who would get Her Majesty's overseas possessions?

If Wales became independent, would Charles become King of Wales??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Union of the Crowns was in 1603 when James VI acceded to the English throne.  The Act of Union was not until 1707 so for 104 years there were two sovereign states on these Islands that shared the same monarch.

Scotland becoming independent would effectively be repeal of the 1707 Act of Union - and a whole load of other subsequent legislation.  

The position of the monarch need not be changed, she would still be Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nothing would have changed there.  However, that would be the only context in which the UK had any meaning.

On the list of big important things that would need to be sorted out, I don't think it's particularly high up in the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

Does anyone know, what was the proposed arrangement for retaining the Queen in the event of Scottish independence?

Would she revert to the pre-1603 'Queen of Scotland', becoming Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland? Or is it more complex than that?

The Queen is, besides the Queen of the UK, of course also the Queen of Australia and Queen of Jamaica, and even the Queen of Papua New Guinea. But as far as I can tell she is Queen Elizabeth II of those countries, even though there was as far as I know never a Queen Elizabeth the first of Papua New Guinea. So for these ex colonies, they take their numerical cue from the Queen of the UK.

What about Scotland? Scotland would not be an ex colony. Yet didn't in some sense the Union (possibly 1707) actually merge the crowns into a single Crown? If so there is no Queen of Scotland at present? And if so, then on independence (assuming monarch retained) would the Queen of Scotland be the same status as the Queen of Jamaica? Meanwhile the Queen of the rUK would still be 'the' Queen - the continuity Queen?

If England became independent, there'd then be a Queen of England and a Queen of rUK - who would be 'the' Queen then? And who would get Her Majesty's overseas possessions?

If Wales became independent, would Charles become King of Wales??

Not Queen of Scotland but Queen of Scots surely.

Wales is a Principality. Prince or Princess is as high as you can go there. They've never had a King or Queen in their entire history.

Monarchy is a daft idea anyway. Best done away with.

Can't believe Australia rejected the chance to ditch the silly, irrelevant, foreign monarchy back in 1999. 

Good news is that many of Mrs Windsors Caribbean "realms" such as Jamaica, Barbados and the Bahamas have made no secret about their plans to ditch the monarchy once her reign ends. More power to them I say B)

Incidentally I was reading about the late Tony Benn's highly interesting "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" just the other day which he tried to introduce in the House of Commons during the early 1991, the Tories naturally shot it down and stopped it being presented.

The "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" provided for: 

  • Abolishing the monarchy, a president would be elected by a joint sitting of both the Commons and the newly created senate (see below)
  • Abolishing the House of Lords.
  • Abolishing the Privy Council.
  • Disestablishing the Church of England as the "state church".
  • Northern Ireland would be re-united with the Republic of Ireland.
  • Creating national parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales.
  • Creating an elected senate in place of the abolished Lords.
  • Both the senate and the Commons would have a compulsory 50/50 split of men and women members.
  • Judges would have to be elected.

Plenty I personally agree with there. A shame that Benn never got the chance to get a good national debate going on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aaid said:

The Union of the Crowns was in 1603 when James VI acceded to the English throne.  The Act of Union was not until 1707 so for 104 years there were two sovereign states on these Islands that shared the same monarch.

Scotland becoming independent would effectively be repeal of the 1707 Act of Union - and a whole load of other subsequent legislation.  

The position of the monarch need not be changed, she would still be Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nothing would have changed there.  However, that would be the only context in which the UK had any meaning.

On the list of big important things that would need to be sorted out, I don't think it's particularly high up in the list.

OK so the monarch would not revert to a Queen/King of Scots... but the 'king'dom of GB&NI would be disunited politically (two states), and GB&NI would be just a royal title...

If so it wouldn't need sorting out and would not be on the list. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Incidentally I was reading about the late Tony Benn's highly interesting "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" just the other day which he tried to introduce in the House of Commons during the early 1991, the Tories naturally shot it down and stopped it being presented.

The "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" provided for: 

  • Abolishing the monarchy, a president would be elected by a joint sitting of both the Commons and the newly created senate (see below)
  • Abolishing the House of Lords.
  • Abolishing the Privy Council.
  • Disestablishing the Church of England as the "state church".
  • Northern Ireland would be re-united with the Republic of Ireland.
  • Creating national parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales.
  • Creating an elected senate in place of the abolished Lords.
  • Both the senate and the Commons would have a compulsory 50/50 split of men and women members.
  • Judges would have to be elected.

Plenty I personally agree with there. A shame that Benn never got the chance to get a good national debate going on the subject.

Maybe Jeremy Corbyn could give it a go?

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get Indy first and then argue about keeping the monarchy or not. Too many folk last time were mixing the union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments which only causes uncertainty let's focus on one before we tackle the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hunchy said:

Can we get Indy first and then argue about keeping the monarchy or not. Too many folk last time were mixing the union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments which only causes uncertainty let's focus on one before we tackle the other

Aye, nothing worse than having a plan for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

 

Wales is a Principality. Prince or Princess is as high as you can go there. They've never had a King or Queen in their entire history.

 

No it's not, and it hasn't been for almost 500 years now.

"Wales is not a Principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in its own right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adamntg said:

Wouldn't dispute for a second the fact that Wales is a country, a very great one too with a superb history and culture just like ourselves :ok:. I am confident that after we gain our own independence then we will see a great upsurge in demand for Welsh independence.

Technicalities aside about whether they are or are not a principality, the fact remains that they have never had a King or Queen. Their ruler historically was always a Prince. Even Owain Glyndŵr never became a King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Wouldn't dispute for a second the fact that Wales is a country, a very great one too with a superb history and culture just like ourselves :ok:. I am confident that after we gain our own independence then we will see a great upsurge in demand for Welsh independence.

Technicalities aside about whether they are or are not a principality, the fact remains that they have never had a King or Queen. Their ruler historically was always a Prince. Even Owain Glyndŵr never became a King.

That's cool.  But they're not a principality and they get justifiably upset if you tell them they are.  "Nails on a blackboard", apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grim Jim said:

 

Anyway, what would have happened if the dauphin did not die on our Mary?

Scotland in a wee Union with France and Allies, England out on their own..............  or is that the future.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, hunchy said:

Can we get Indy first and then argue about keeping the monarchy or not. Too many folk last time were mixing the union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments which only causes uncertainty let's focus on one before we tackle the other

I see what you mean, but then, if you want independence, you need to convince a whole lot of people who voted no last time, many of whom are monarchists, that they might like to live in a tolerant and inclusive iScotland. Confirming the exact status of Her Majesty Elizabeth the First, Queen of Scots is then part of establishing certainty rather than uncertainty... 

There should be no conflict of interest in principle between the staunchest British monarchist and Scottish political independence as long as Her Majesty long reigns over us....no? After all, some of the more 'glorious' moments of the monarchy occurred when Scotland and England had their own parliaments...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Wouldn't dispute for a second the fact that Wales is a country, a very great one too with a superb history and culture just like ourselves :ok:. I am confident that after we gain our own independence then we will see a great upsurge in demand for Welsh independence.

Technicalities aside about whether they are or are not a principality, the fact remains that they have never had a King or Queen. Their ruler historically was always a Prince. Even Owain Glyndŵr never became a King.

At one time Wales had lots of "Kingdoms", and they did have a King  ( Gruffydd ap Llywelyn)                        that ruled the entire country. Seemingly he was known as the King of Britons, not King of Wales and only ruled for 7 years.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/king-wales-murdered

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tam fae kofta said:

At one time Wales had lots of "Kingdoms", and they did have a King  ( Gruffydd ap Llywelyn)                        that ruled the entire country. Seemingly he was known as the King of Britons, not King of Wales and only ruled for 7 years.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/king-wales-murdered

 

An interesting wee fact about Wales, the welsh language doesnt have a work for England, it is called 'An Lugar' ( spelling) which means Lost Land, there are few signposts saying this, however if u take the old road from Chepstow over to England, beneath the castle, you will see a prime example..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stocky said:

An interesting wee fact about Wales, the welsh language doesnt have a work for England, it is called 'An Lugar' ( spelling) which means Lost Land 

They've now changed it to 'An Ia Lugar' - Lost to Ice Land...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Tony Benn's Commonwealth Bill and corresponded with him at the time. An eminently sensible set of proposals. The 50/50 men and women split for parliaments was a surprisingly simple idea - halve the number of constituencies and have each one elect one man and one woman....of course that predated the various pseudo-PR systems we now have.

The ideas on federal "UK" could be a way forward for the current situation.   Make all parts of the UK independent sovereign states (to satisfy the half of us who desperately want that) (and allow individual membership of the EU for those nations who still want it) and then retain a federal association of the nations of these islands, co-operating as deemed appropriate, to satisfy those who don't want to go it entirely...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Queen...yes it was (and I think still is) the proposal of the SNP to retain QEII as Queen of Scots. And it has to be said she is the most Scottish monarch since the Stuarts... and a direct descendant of The Bruce.

But ofcourse whether a monarchy is retained in the future would be a decision of the Scottish people. Maybe its even possible to have an elected president as head of state whilst the King or Queen still carries on as an hereditary line just like the dukes and Earls etc do now. ...but with no power or role within the state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2016 at 7:09 PM, exile said:

Does anyone know, what was the proposed arrangement for retaining the Queen in the event of Scottish independence?

Would she revert to the pre-1603 'Queen of Scotland', becoming Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland? Or is it more complex than that?

The Queen is, besides the Queen of the UK, of course also the Queen of Australia and Queen of Jamaica, and even the Queen of Papua New Guinea. But as far as I can tell she is Queen Elizabeth II of those countries, even though there was as far as I know never a Queen Elizabeth the first of Papua New Guinea. So for these ex colonies, they take their numerical cue from the Queen of the UK.

What about Scotland? Scotland would not be an ex colony. Yet didn't in some sense the Union (possibly 1707) actually merge the crowns into a single Crown? If so there is no Queen of Scotland at present? And if so, then on independence (assuming monarch retained) would the Queen of Scotland be the same status as the Queen of Jamaica? Meanwhile the Queen of the rUK would still be 'the' Queen - the continuity Queen?

If England became independent, there'd then be a Queen of England and a Queen of rUK - who would be 'the' Queen then? And who would get Her Majesty's overseas possessions?

If Wales became independent, would Charles become King of Wales??

Really does anyone give a flying fcuk about this nonsense. Declare a republic take their assets into public ownership give them a bit of compo and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Really does anyone give a flying fcuk about this nonsense. Declare a republic take their assets into public ownership give them a bit of compo and move on.

I refer the right honourable member to my previous reply.

But aside from the monarchy, the constitutional issue of what kind of nation/kingdom Scotland is, and what kind of the Union the UK is, could have material effect on who gets what at the time of divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...