LL-L: "Monarchs & their realms" (was "Monarchs") LOWLANDS-L, 01.JUN.2000 (02) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.JUN.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Monarchs

I wrote

>Good Queen Bess was Queen of Ireland as well. Second, her successor's
styles and
> titles begin "Her Most Excellent Majesty ELIZABETH THE SECOND ... by the
Grace
>of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of
her
> other Realms and Territories Queen, ..."

And Sandy commented:
>You're missing the point of this title, John - it's declaring her Queen
>Elizabeth II _of the United Kingdom of Great Britain_ &c. However, she is
>Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. You can see this in action in the royal
ensignia
>which in England (eg on post boxes and post office vans, in police
stations &c) is EIIR,
>whereas in Scotland it's always simply ER. Just as Jamie the Saxt was
James I & VI,
>Liz is Elizabeth II & I.
>And Prince Charles will be George the whatth? It's going to get even more
confusing!

I don't think I'm missing any point. She is, as far as I know, not
separately Queen of Scotland. If she were then her styles and titles would
say so. My memory is that at the beginning of her reign she was EIIR
everywhere, but some Scots started blowing up post boxes for that reason
and
so the loss of "II" counts as force majeure.

Jamie the Saxt was King of Scotland before he was King of England and
before
the Act of Union of 1707, so his case is quite different.

George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland since he came to the throne
in 1714. "George" therefore causes no problems. Wills is another matter if
he ever gets there.

Sandy also wrote:

>Up until the 1970's the border of England and Wales wasn't clearly
>established - mapmakers simply included the counties of Herefordshire and
>Monmouthshire into England and/or Wales at whim.

We had the "Principality of Wales and Monmouthshire" so "Wales" was an
ambiguous term. I have never heard that Herefordshire was considered part
of
Wales in recent centuries. BTW, to get back to linguistic matters, the
pronunciation apparently ought to be "Herford". Some Shakespearian actors
insist on using it in "Richard II".

If this were "1984" I would edit the record to show that I said "some of us

Brits" and/or omitted the possessive before "Virgin Queen".

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Monarchs" LOWLANDS-L, 01.JUN.2000 (01) [E]

Here in Australia a collective term that Scots, Irish, Manx, Bretons, etc
find most offensive is the ridiculous Anglo-Celt. It's a classification
I've
never come across anywhere else and seems to have been introduced by a
pompous New South Wales academic in the early 1900's. After years of
protest
from folks of real Celtic descent it was formally abolished as a
classification in the late 1970's although politicians and radio announcers

still use it. In fact around 1993 I had to get stuck into our Ethnic
Affairs
Council (of all people) for using it repeatedly in a report. The accepted
way of referring to the origins of ethnic groups now is Scots Australian,
Irish Australian, German Australian etc.
Regards
Tom
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
"Oh wid some power the Giftie gie us
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us"
Robert Burns--

> From: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Discussion list for Germanic Lowlands languages and cultures
> <LOWLANDS-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:41:40 -0700
> To: LOWLANDS-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> Subject: LL-L: "Monarchs" LOWLANDS-L, 01.JUN.2000 (01) [E]
>
> Others have argued that the term *British* Isles is offensive to Irish
> nationalists

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Monarchs" LOWLANDS-L, 01.JUN.2000 (01) [E]

Ted,

No, Berwick upon Tweed no longer has independent status - in fact
reference to Berwick upon Tweed (in addition to England and Scotland) was
merely symbolic for many years, not official. However, its town council did

sign a peace agreement with Russia in the 1960s - much to the relief of the

Russians I'm sure!!

Berwick upon Tweed is indeed in England, however Berwickshire was a
county of Scotland and the Tweed itself (i.e. the river that runs through
Berwick) actually belongs to Scotland. The town has changed hands 42 times
(at
the last count!). If you cross the border from Scotland to England on the
A1 just north of Berwick you are not in fact welcomed to England, only
to "Northumbria - Border County" - whereas on the A74 in the west you
are indeed welcomed to "England" as well as to "Cumbria" (despite the
fact Carlisle also changed hands, I believe 13 times). Hope that helps!

I might add on the subject as a whole that "Britain" is indeed
loosely used to mean "the UK" - as with "Britain in Europe" (a loose way of
saying
"the UK in the EU").

Just a minor thing on this point, European border posts mark each
country in the local language (e.g. "Espana", "Nederland", "France" etc.),
but
on entering Germany the sign reads "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" - which
is rather difficult to fit on! Why is this? Why does it not simply say
"Deutschland" - after all, it doesn't say "Republique Francaise", merely
"France"! Maybe somebody knows.

Best wishes to all,
-------------------------------
Ian James Parsley
http://www.gcty.com/parsleyij
0772 0951736
"JOY - Jesus, Others, You"

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Monarchs & their realms

Thomas wrote:

> Here in Australia a collective term that Scots, Irish, Manx, Bretons, etc

> find most offensive is the ridiculous Anglo-Celt. It's a classification
I've
> never come across anywhere else and seems to have been introduced by a
> pompous New South Wales academic in the early 1900's.

I've heard Americans and Canadians use that term plenty of times, perhaps
more frequently than in Australia.  It tends to be used in reference to
culture, namely to that which is believed to have been derived from the
British Isles, supposedly a mixture of "Anglo" (i.e., Anglo-Frisian-Saxon
Germanic) and Celtic.  I think some people find it more "learned" than
using "Anglo-Saxon."

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================