[thms]

the snp has been saying for about four years that it supports the union of the crowns in 1603.. the queen will therefore be queen of scots in an independent Scotland under a snp government.. the clip used in the news item is from 1977 when there was no support for a monarchy.

you can read the article and watch the actual news item by clicking on this link

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...h-independence

[barrcode88]

Let'em go, less on the tax payer and they'd have to join the ailing euro like with the ailing SPL.

[Mr Perks]

The BBC man in question, the Royal suppository, Andrew Witchell (that dreadful man, as Prince Charles put it some years ago) lives in a strange, atavistic Royal fantasy land that bears little relation to reality. Quite why the BBC still employ him is a mystery.

[David Tee]

Originally Posted by Mr Perks

The BBC man in question, the Royal suppository, Andrew Witchell (that dreadful man, as Prince Charles put it some years ago) lives in a strange, atavistic Royal fantasy land that bears little relation to reality. Quite why the BBC still employ him is a mystery.

They don't. They employ someone who's none of the above (even the quote by Charles is incorrect) and calls himself Nicholas Witchell.

[Glengavel]

I don't think she would be distressed to any great extent. Otherwise, why did she style herself Queen Elizabeth II? A move which distressed a great many Scots.

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by Glengavel

I don't think she would be distressed to any great extent. Otherwise, why did she style herself Queen Elizabeth II? A move which distressed a great many Scots.

Because she's the second Queen called Elizabeth? And how many Scots did this 'distress'?

[MrIncredible]

Why would anyone give a shite what the Queen thinks?

[Cent]

This is nonsense.

1. The Queen never gives an opinion.
2. She would still be Queen of Scotland. Her role wouldn't change in any way and her status wouldn't change in any way. It's just a political shift.

[Mr Perks]

Originally Posted by David Tee

They don't. They employ someone who's none of the above (even the quote by Charles is incorrect) and calls himself Nicholas Witchell.

Sorry, I got it slightly wrong, in words if not spirit, the actual quote was "These bloody people. I can't bear that man. I mean, he's so awful, he really is.". As for the rest, have you ever seen one of his fawning, almost quasireligious in tone, 'news' items about the royals? Nauseating doesn't do them justice, such is their dire subservience.

[Glyn W]

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

Because she's the second Queen called Elizabeth? And how many Scots did this 'distress'?

Because she's the first Elizabeth to be queen of Scotland...

[Glyn W]

Originally Posted by Mr Perks

Sorry, I got it slightly wrong, in words if not spirit, the actual quote was "These bloody people. I can't bear that man. I mean, he's so awful, he really is.". As for the rest, have you ever seen one of his fawning, almost quasireligious in tone, 'news' items about the royals? Nauseating doesn't do them justice, such is their dire subservience.

All royal correspondents are like that though.

[BorderReiver]

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

Because she's the second Queen called Elizabeth? And how many Scots did this 'distress'?

Compare a Scottish post box to an English one for your answer.

Regardless of what Witchell thinks the Queen thinks I'm more interested in the figures published earlier this week regarding the true level of oil and gas production in Scottish Waters's support of the UK economy and just how much is left . . .

No wonder Westminster are terrified . . .

[Glengavel]

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

Because she's the second Queen called Elizabeth?

Not in Scotland she isn't.

And how many Scots did this 'distress'?

Plenty. People were blowing up letter-boxes because they had the EIIR cypher on it.

[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by Glengavel

Not in Scotland she isn't.



Plenty. People were blowing up letter-boxes because they had the EIIR cypher on it.

Pathetic twerps - destroying other people's letters and cards etc.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by Glyn W

Because she's the first Elizabeth to be queen of Scotland...

Originally Posted by Glengavel

Not in Scotland she isn't.

Plenty. People were blowing up letter-boxes because they had the EIIR cypher on it.

Perhaps you should campaign to revert back to the descendants of the Stuarts.

[Glengavel]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Perhaps you should campaign to revert back to the descendants of the Stuarts.

She IS a descendant of the Stuarts.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by Glengavel

She IS a descendant of the Stuarts.

I meant a more direct one and you can then use Scottish numbering.

[Glyn W]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Perhaps you should campaign to revert back to the descendants of the Stuarts.

Why on earth would I want to do that? It seems you're preconceiving my opinion on the whole subject.

[Annsyre]

Originally Posted by Glengavel

She IS a descendant of the Stuarts.

The last Stuart monarch was Queen Anne.

We then had Hanoverians.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by Glyn W

Why on earth would I want to do that? It seems you're preconceiving my opinion on the whole subject.

Well why on earth does it appear you are bothered she is Elizabeth II not the I?

[starman700]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

The last Stuart monarch was Queen Anne.

We then had Hanoverians.

Who are linked to the Stuarts by Sophia of Hanover whose mother was from that family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_of_Hanover

[BorderReiver]

The historical ignorance on display in this thread is incredible.

The facts are very, very simple. Elizabeth is the first Queen to be called sich since the Union of the Crowns, in one half of that Union she is the first Monarch to be called Elizabeth since the institution began, therefor calling her "Elizabeth the Second Of Scotland" is factually untrue.

In Scotland she's Elizabeth, and she is descended from the Stuarts, as are all the Hanoverians.

Christ this is painful . . .

[starman700]

Originally Posted by BorderReiver

The historical ignorance on display in this thread is incredible.

The facts are very, very simple. Elizabeth is the first Queen to be called sich since the Union of the Crowns, in one half of that Union she is the first Monarch to be called Elizabeth since the institution began, therefor calling her "Elizabeth the Second Of Scotland" is factually untrue.

In Scotland she's Elizabeth, and she is descended from the Stuarts, as are all the Hanoverians.

Christ this is painful . . .

I agree,the fact people can get this wrong makes all the other threads come under question,it was basic school history lessons in the 1970s/80s .

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by BorderReiver

The historical ignorance on display in this thread is incredible.

The facts are very, very simple. Elizabeth is the first Queen to be called sich since the Union of the Crowns, in one half of that Union she is the first Monarch to be called Elizabeth since the institution began, therefor calling her "Elizabeth the Second Of Scotland" is factually untrue.

In Scotland she's Elizabeth, and she is descended from the Stuarts, as are all the Hanoverians.

Christ this is painful . . .

Isn't this all a tad pedantic as nobody other than perhaps some Scots refers to her as Queen Elizabeth of Scotland.

Btw some of the Stuarts were also descended from the Tudors who are descended from................

[anndra_w]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

Isn't this all a tad pedantic as nobody other than perhaps some Scots refers to her as Queen Elizabeth of Scotland.

Btw some of the Stuarts were also descended from the Tudors who are descended from................

Not at all. We speak about James I because he was the first King James of Scotland and England. Elizabeth is the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland and England but for some reason the decision was made to break with the traditional precedent and she is called Elizabeth the second. The minority of Scots who pay attention to history are justified in finding this irksome.