The term "The Queen of England"

[DynamoKev]

In view of recent events this term has been appearing again.

My theory is that it originates from the USA - does anyone else agree or have a different view about where it started/is from?

royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-not-the-queen-of-england-is-it-so-hard-to-get-it-right-138067/

Def Americans i see doing this most. As a Scottish person I correct them . I have great respect for the 👸.

I also educated an American friend how Scotland was part of the UK and GB, and I could be Scottish and British. I was going to mention Europe, but I don't think she could cope.

TheSandman,

Divine Right was a European concept that was never really accepted in England. In fact, Charles I (separately king of England, Ireland and Scotland) got his head cut off over it and James (ii of England and Ireland, vii of Scotland) got chucked off the throne.

@LadyJaye

There has never been a Scottish queen named Elizabeth - the Union of Crowns in 1603 saw James VI of Scotland and I of England inherit the English throne from Elizabeth Tudor ('Elizabeth I').

In fact, E II's right to that title was contested in a famous court case named MacCormick v Lord Advocate in 1953.

I understand that the monarch's number follows on from the highest number in both England and Scotland. So, the reason why the Queen isn't Elizabeth I of the UK is because there was a previous Elizabeth I of England.

So if the next monarch was called James, he'd be James VIII, because there have been two previous English kings and seven previous Scottish kings called James.

I am currently reading Obama’s book and what has really stuck me is that be referred to the Queen as “Queen of England”. Not sure if he did that because of the audience he’s trying to target might not understand of the term “Queen of the United Kingdom” or he thinks that’s her actual title

I do agree OP. It is very annoying especially when well educated people say it!

understand that the monarch's number follows on from the highest number in both England and Scotland. So, the reason why the Queen isn't Elizabeth I of the UK is because there was a previous Elizabeth I of England.

So if the next monarch was called James, he'd be James VIII, because there have been two previous English kings and seven previous Scottish kings called James.

James VIII? It's a good job that the Cambridges avoided the name.
Charles being Charles III shouldn't therefore be a problem.

James VIII? It's a good job that the Cambridges avoided the name

Regnal name can be completely different from actual name if wanted, so Prince George could be King James VIII if he wanted.,

@Peregrina

James VIII? It's a good job that the Cambridges avoided the name. Charles being Charles III shouldn't therefore be a problem.

Why wouldn’t he have been James III, in the way James I and II were but had different titles for Scotland? Also, why would a James VIII need to be ‘avoided’?

He wouldn't have been James III I assume in the way that Elizabeth isn't known as I/II.

To be avoided because the Little Englanders would start frothing.

The only reason that Charles III could be problematical is that some people in Scotland might believe that there has already been a Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charlie). I doubt that is a strongly held view by many people, though.

I doubt that is a strongly held view by many people, though
It’s the 275th anniversary of Culloden today - many people on my FB seem to be commemorating in some way, lots of posting of photos of the clan cairns on the battlefield etc.

Who knows how strongly people feel until the day and hour comes?
I think he will be Kinv George VII anyway.

@Peregrina

The only issue I can see is that, if Charles outlived William, Kate would never be a royal consort - she would ‘just’ be the King’s mother.

If William died before Charles, which could happen, I am not sure what Kate would be. Just the Duchess of Cambridge still.

In the rarified world of royalty and courtiers, the QM was previously Lady Elizabeth, like Lady Diana, both technically commoners, but not the same class of commoner as you and me or Kate Middleton was.

Depends whether Charles had already become King and William had been created Prince of Wales before he died. If so, she would be Princess of Wales until William died and then Dowager Princess of Wales, like Augusta of Saxe-Gotha wife of Frederick Prince of Wales who died before his father George II

@Peregrina

He wouldn't have been James III I assume in the way that Elizabeth isn't known as I/II.

To be avoided because the Little Englanders would start frothing.

Eh? She’s always been Elizabeth II.

She's not the Second Queen called Elizabeth in Scotland.

James is a problematical name , too. Bonnie Prince Charlie's father was James (son of James II and VII), and he was recognized by some as James III and VIII. He was born in England and was Prince of Wales before his father was deposed.

It's curious then why the Queen and PP chose the name Charles for their son, knowing as soon as he was born that he would eventually become next in line to the throne, if it was such a contentious name. Why not just call him George Philip Arthur Charles and be done with it?

Maybe he will duck the obvious and become King Philip?

For what I have read, they chose it for the same reason that most parents choose a name: they liked it. And I don't think at the time it was considered all that problematical. My guess is that it remains unproblematical for the vast majority of people in the UK. Certainly it has sad and unhappy connotations for Charles I, but Charles II and the Restoration have many positive aspects. Quite a few of the traditional names for British kings have some negative aspects associated with the name, including one of the most popular, Edward.

I think he will be Charles III. I became even more convinced of that when William and Catherine named their son George.

@Peregrina

She's not the Second Queen called Elizabeth in Scotland.

Are you telling me Scotland is full of people who refuse to call her Elizabeth II?

Are you telling me Scotland is full of people who refuse to call her Elizabeth II?

Excuse me for butting in, but it sounds like what Peregrina is saying is that she is the first Queen called Elizabeth to reign over Scotland.

I don't think too many Scottish people care what she gets called. I've heard her called Queen Liz, Queen Lizzie, Queen Elizabeth - not many people add 'the second', but I don't think it's because they refuse to. I think it's because it's damn obvious which Queen Elizabeth they are referring to...

Are you telling me Scotland is full of people who refuse to call her Elizabeth II?

Quite a few, yes. Because, as people have pointed out, Elizabeth I was not Queen of Scots.

Avoidance of the regnal number is on lots of official plaques, buildings, etc. in Scotland as well.

@SenecaFallsRedux

Avoidance of the regnal number is on lots of official plaques, buildings, etc. in Scotland as well.

Is that avoidance, or simply accuracy? It would seem misplaced for public buildings to call her Elizabeth II when here, she isn't.

Are you telling me Scotland is full of people who refuse to call her Elizabeth II?

Plenty of pedants and nationalists in Scotland who get themselves well worked up about stupid things like this.

Plenty of normal, well adjusted people to who don't.

Honestly though, how many people include, as standard, 'the second' when they talk about her? Damn few I'd imagine!

What do Scottish letter boxes have on them?