Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Liturgyworks, Oct 25, 2019.
Not at all. She is Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland. They never had one before.
This is of course true, but the convention now is to use the higher regnum number of whomever is the monarch. But apparently the British Post Office didn't dare put a II on post boxes in Scotland because they knew they would be defaced.
No, she is not. Scotland is not a separate jurisdiction. It is a part of the United Kingdom (UK). The Queen is the queen of the United Kingdom, not of separate parts of it. To say Her Majesty is Elizabeth I of Scotland is wrong because she is not the queen of Scotland but of the UK. It is as ridiculous to say Joe Biden is Joe Biden I of Massuchusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, Joe Biden II of Florida and Texas, etc.
I would prefer being able to say that he is Joe Biden the Last.
Is Northern Ireland considered 'not a part' of the UK, since you mentioned it separately? Are there any other parts of the Isles (such as Wales, etc.) which are not part of the UK?
No! Northern Ireland is a full part of the UK. The latter is the common abbreviation used for our country. It, of course, stands for the United Kingdom. However, the country's full, formal name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Prior to the creation of the Irish Republic its was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain incorporates England, Scotland and Wales.
Your word 'Isles' is really too vague. Geographically the entire UK, its crown dependency of the Isle of Man, and the Republic of Ireland are called the British Isles. It excludes the Channel Islands.
Another term is the British Islands, and that is a political one, which refers to the entire UK and its three crown dependencies: the Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey*, and Bailiwick of Guernsey and Her Dependencies*. These three crown dependencies are not part of the UK legally; although, in practice everyone behaves as if they were.
*These two bailiwicks constitute the Channel Islands.
I cannot claim to know a lot about him. I believe he's got to be better than Donald Trump.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but the Church of Ireland covers the whole island (i.e., including the Republic), and was disestablished in the mid-19th cent. The Church in Wales is disestablished as well. The only two established Churches in the UK are those of England and Scotland. This means the British Monarch is simultaneously Anglican and Presbyterian. (Back in the days of the Hanoverians, they were Lutheran as well.) An interesting example of the Irish case is the fact that R.P.C. Hanson, the author of the monumental study The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, was the bishop of a diocese in the Church of Ireland that included parishes on both sides of the border.
Actually the Channel Islands already came under the Jurisdiction of William the Conquerer, which makes the British Isles technically a dependancy of The Channel Islands because its King at the time conquered us. I might be wrong though, as in most other things.
But the Channel Islands were also occupied by Germany during WW2, so it would seem the main islands lost their dependency status in mid-1945, after having "lost" their technical sovereignty, in this alternate historical retelling, in mid-1940. But this didn't last long, since the Germans then regained sovereignty from 1973-2020.
Ah, I see. Thank you for that. I appreciate the clarification.
Tongue in cheek, I suppose we should no longer think that the below photo depicts Guernsey and Her Dependency...
Ahh then where does the Duchy of Cornwall fit into this picture?
It does not fit into this picture.
A duchy (a.k.a. dukedom) is simply the peerage title of a duke (or very occasionally duchess) held by a man (or woman). For example, the Duke of Devonshire has the Duchy of Devonshire. It gives him no attached territory and no jurisdiction over anybody.
Cornwall itself is one of the counties of England. Many duchies (dukedoms) are named after counties
The title of Duke of Cornwall belongs ex officio to the sovereign's eldest son. So, when the Queen became queen in 1952 Her Majesty's eldest son HRH Prince Charles became the Duke of Cornwall. He, however, only becomes the Prince of Wales if the sovereign confers that title on him. It is not automatic.
I am not completely sure what point you are trying to make although I do get some of the sarcasm.
The Channel Islands were, of course, occupied, illegally, by Germany during World War Two. That does not change their legal status it means, though, it was effectively suspended in practice, until the Channel Islands were liberated.
On a technical note your last bit is not quite correct. As I previously said the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. Therefore, during the UK's membership of the EEC and later the EU these territories were part of neither.
I'm afraid this is not quite correct the Duke of Devon doesn't have a dukedom, just the peerage title as you mention. There are in fact only two Duchies in Britain, Lancaster where the Queen is the duke, and Cornwall where Charles is of course Duke.
Again I'm afraid this is not correct and is a common misconception. Cornwall is attached to him and confirmed as his under the 1337 Charter of Cornwall, and defined as all land to the east bank of the Tamar. The 1337 Charter says the King writ doesn't extend to Cornwall without his (the dukes) permission and he is in fact de jure ruler of Cornwall. This is why to this day certain legislation has to be run past the Duke and he still has the right to veto legislation from Westminster.
And now for
This is again incorrect. If you have an abandoned business it reverts to the Duchy of Cornwall not the crown. If you own land in Cornwall you get your fee simple from the Duchy and not the crown as the duke has allodial ownership of all land in Cornwall. If you PDL own land in England your fee simple is from the crown as it owns the allodial rights to all that land. There is of course a law from 1290 that says there is only one fee simple in the realm, which is why Cornwall is a different country. A practical effect of this fee simple business, and a good example of jurisdiction over anyone is, that if you die without a will or relatives your land reverts to the Duchy and not the crown as the Duchy is the land owner. Another example of jurisdiction over people is if you PDL want to become a priest the duke has the right to appoint priests to churches in his duchy only, not in England. The sheriff in Cornwall is appointed by Charles and not the Queen as again it is his own country.
Happy to take any questions
It rather annoys me on fora when people attempt to refute what you have said with a strawman argument based on what you did not say.
In post #32 I was not talking specifically about the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. The former belongs to the eldest son of the sovereign and the latter to the Crown. I was talking about duchies in general. They do not come with any land or anything else these days. Of course in the past a peerage often meant you would receive land and other rewards with the title. For example, the Duke of Marlborough was given Blenheim Palace. Cornwall and Lancaster are not good examples of what is the norm. They are two exceptions to the norm.
But it was in a reply to a question about the Duchy of Cornwall
Exactly! that's why I mentioned Cornwall.
The Duke of Marlborough has nothing to do with this issue and I should know as I'm an apparent straw man arguer.
When you said this in reply to my question I think you understood the Duke of Cornwall was in the same position as say the Duke of Devonshire, I hope I have corrected this assumption, if it was your assumption.
I think you thought you understood the complexities of British Political territorial entities but now realise there is a further complication.
So I'll rephrase my question; Ahh then where does the Duchy of Cornwall fit into this picture? ,
To; Ahh then where does the Duchy of Cornwall fit into this picture?
They do occupy a (very) unique status, no pun intended. My comment was intended as a bit of follow-up humor to what Tiffy had said earlier:
Being across the pond, I have no dog in this fight. Sometimes a little friendly banter is its own reward.
Very much this, and the numbering would most probably remain the same even if the United Kingdom tragically dissolved and Scotland became independent. For example, Her Majesty is also Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia - even though we most certainly haven't had another Elizabeth prior to the creation of the title in 1953. Likewise Charles will become Charles III (or George VII, if rumour is to be believed), not Charles I, in all of the Commonwealth realms - not just the UK.
All for the better I say, given the state of the republic debate in Australia I don't know if I'd be able to tolerate another petty argument to fundamentally reshape our democracy like "We should have a president because keeping tracking of the numbers is too hard".
I did not want to mention the Queen's Commonwealth Realms as I did not want to complicate things. As you correctly point out she is the Queen of Australia. Indeed, I think you get a public holiday to celebrate her birthday, which we in the UK do not. I believe, without double checking my facts, the Queen is the queen/monarch/head of state of 16 countries.
Really???!!! I honestly did not know the debate was that poor!
In a way it's really tragic, but another part of me is silently satisfied, because if the republican movement don't start treating the general public like they're above a grade 5 reading level they'll probably botch the next referendum too. It's the kind of general anti-tradition momentum that you can't really hold back, as the monarchists will need to win a referendum every 20-40 years for the rest of eternity, whilst the republicans only need to win an election once, but the longer we can hold back the collapse of the most stable democratic tradition ever tried the better.