|
Author
|
Topic: Is Queen Elizabth II really Scottish?
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 12 July 2004 08:55 PM
PS: Zahid, you should know that in Scotland, our current queen is NOT called Elizabeth II.She is just Elizabeth R. The Scots, who have some self-respect, consider that they never had an Elizabeth before her -- which is true. Mailboxes got blown up over this issue. It was resolved in favour of those who blew up the mailboxes. Canadians could think about this issue ... or maybe not.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David-Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5417
|
posted 13 July 2004 01:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Canadians could think about this issue ... or maybe not.
Not than anyone really cares... If we did take issue and celebrated our colonialist past: The "Monarchs" of Canada: [God, that doesn't sound right]
François/Francis I (1535-1547)
Henri/Henry I (1547-1559)
François/Francis II (1559-1560)
Jean/John (1560)
Charles I (1560-1974)
Henri/Henry II (1574-1589)
Henri/Henry III (1589-1610)
Louis I (1610-1629)
Charles II (1629)
Louis I (1629-1643) [Restored]
Louis II (1643-1715)
Louis III (1715-1763)
George I (1763-1820)
Geroge II (1820-1830)
William/Guillaume (1830-1837)
Victoria (1837-1901)
Edward/Edouard I (1901-1910)
George III (1910-1936)
Edward/Edouard II (1936)
George IV (1936-1952)
Elizabeth/Elisabeth (1952-) [ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: David-Marc ]
From: Fort Rouillé, Pays d'en Haut | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 July 2004 09:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by clearview:
I'd go with parasite, if anyone were to ask me.
Exactly. Also, quote:
If we did take issue and celebrated our colonialist past
Why would we want to do that?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 13 July 2004 11:21 AM
quote:
Technically, I wouldn't start changing royal ordinal numbers until 1867. Prior to that, we were ruled by the two European monarchies as colonies.
Colonies yes, but two monarchies? Didn't France give up all "rights" to rule North American colones in 1763? quote:
I don't recommend blowing up mail boxes, but perhaps a few incendiery emails?
 [ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 13 July 2004 12:42 PM
Well, if we're going to be technical, the title "King of Canada" did not exist until after the Second World War, when it replaced some formula along the lines of: "of the United Kingdom and his other Dominions beyond the seas, King." I like the old formula that gave Kings different numbers: James I of England and VI of Scotland. Clearview, i imagine you're thinking of Dutch because of William of Orange, King of England (by marriage and the bloodied sword) and Stadtholder of the Netherlands. But William and Mary were succeeded by Mary's sister Anne, so there's no Dutch blood in the royal line that way. The House of Hanover, later Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, later Windsor, is German, no? The Scottish strain is pretty slight, through a daughter of James I & VI who married a German princeling. The Hanoverians were none too kind to Scotland at any rate. Quite apart from usupring the rightful Stuart succession, dontcha know. (Insert mournful Highlands dirge here.) It's a good thing the royals don't have to fill out forms about their nationality. There'd be a lot of crossing out. Greek (after Prince Philip). No, German! No, British, yes, that's it, British! A family tree from Billy to Brenda
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
David-Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5417
|
posted 13 July 2004 01:16 PM
Well according to those anachronistic people at the Monarchist League of Canada,the Queen and her heirs (Chuck and Will) are: "Albanian, Arab, Armenian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Lithuanian, Mongol, Norman, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Scottish, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, Tartar, Ukrainian and Welsh." http://www.monarchist.ca/menu/arguments.html#12 And that list was just for entertainment purposes. I don't support the monarchy as such. The only ones to not change numbers there, were François I and II.
From: Fort Rouillé, Pays d'en Haut | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David-Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5417
|
posted 13 July 2004 01:28 PM
Well from what I could understand, it was due to some sort of parliamentary election:"King George I, the second son of King Christian IX of Denmark, born in Copenhagen on Christmas Eve 1845, was invited to become King of the Hellenes in 1863, after the Greek National Assembly voted unanimously for the restoration of Monarchy. The agreement that King George I successfully negotiated was that Greece would acquire the Ionian Islands (Corfu, Kephalonia, Zakynthos, Ithaca), and Kythira, which had been British possessions for the previous 48 years. George I would remain on the throne for almost 50 years." http://www.greekroyalfamily.org/english/family_george1.html [ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: David-Marc ]
From: Fort Rouillé, Pays d'en Haut | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 04 August 2004 12:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by David-Marc:
The "Monarchs" of Canada: [God, that doesn't sound right]
That's because we chickened out in 1867. We were to be the Kingdom of Canada. Then some early counterpart of Tony Blair in the UK decided that "our American allies" might be offended at a new Kingdom next door. So Kingdom was out. They checked their Thesauruses and came up with Dominion. A bit late now. Dommage.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
