Page 5 of 5
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:36 pm
by JQH
dyqik wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:12 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:21 pm
We should have an Egbert again. Sounds like a children’s character.
Only if it's our Egbert.
I'd vote for her.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:53 pm
by dyqik
Tessa K wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:02 pm
Who was the newsreader who got Jeremy Hunt's name wrong? Imagine the fun they'd have with Cnut.
King Hnut?
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 1:58 pm
by Gfamily
I'd go for El-not-'im
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:22 pm
by jdc
Tessa K wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:02 pm
Who was the newsreader who got Jeremy Hunt's name wrong? Imagine the fun they'd have with Cnut.
I think James Naughtie might have been first, but I have a feeling it might not have been the only time someone made that slip.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:54 pm
by Martin Y
jdc wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:22 pm
Tessa K wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:02 pm
Who was the newsreader who got Jeremy Hunt's name wrong? Imagine the fun they'd have with Cnut.
I think James Naughtie might have been first, but I have a feeling it might not have been the only time someone made that slip.
Might even have happened three times IIRC. It got to the stage that you couldn't help reading between the lines and guessing the whole newsroom called him Jeremy c.nt so often that they sometimes made the slip on-air.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 3:51 pm
by Tessa K
Martin Y wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:54 pm
jdc wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:22 pm
Tessa K wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:02 pm
Who was the newsreader who got Jeremy Hunt's name wrong? Imagine the fun they'd have with Cnut.
I think James Naughtie might have been first, but I have a feeling it might not have been the only time someone made that slip.
Might even have happened three times IIRC. It got to the stage that you couldn't help reading between the lines and guessing the whole newsroom called him Jeremy c.nt so often that they sometimes made the slip on-air.
Yep. If you're trying very hard not to say something, sooner or later you will.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 6:51 pm
by Allo V Psycho
WFJ wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:03 pm
Allo V Psycho wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:41 am
Cardinal Fang wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:30 pm
Weird factoid. Because the UK monarch is now the ruler of both England and Scotland, were there to be another King James, they wouldn't be James III, they would be James VIII, because they would have to take into account the James's in the Scottish line (James VII is who we know as James II)
CF
Weird truthoid: When an Elizabeth ascended to the throne, they didn't call her Elizabeth the First and Second: they just ignored the fact that the Scots had never had an Elizabeth before. This didn't go down too well in the Northern country: I seem to remember that red pillar boxes marked E2R got blown up. And I remember a popular song which went
"Scotland disnae hae a King, it disnae hae a Queen,
How can there be a second Liz, when the first yin's never been?
We'll mak our land Republican, at the Scottish Breakaway"
Incidentally the last King of Scotland was Idi Amin. The traditional style of the monarch was King or Queen of Scots (possibly up to the Union of the Crowns). Which actually makes a bit of a philosophical difference.
The "nth and mth" style hasn't been used since 1707, as the kingdoms of England and Scotland no longer exist.
That still doesn't make Lizzie Lizzie the second, since she is still the first of the united crowns to be called Lizzie.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:35 pm
by WFJ
Allo V Psycho wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 6:51 pm
WFJ wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:03 pm
Allo V Psycho wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:41 am
Weird truthoid: When an Elizabeth ascended to the throne, they didn't call her Elizabeth the First and Second: they just ignored the fact that the Scots had never had an Elizabeth before. This didn't go down too well in the Northern country: I seem to remember that red pillar boxes marked E2R got blown up. And I remember a popular song which went
"Scotland disnae hae a King, it disnae hae a Queen,
How can there be a second Liz, when the first yin's never been?
We'll mak our land Republican, at the Scottish Breakaway"
Incidentally the last King of Scotland was Idi Amin. The traditional style of the monarch was King or Queen of Scots (possibly up to the Union of the Crowns). Which actually makes a bit of a philosophical difference.
The "nth and mth" style hasn't been used since 1707, as the kingdoms of England and Scotland no longer exist.
That still doesn't make Lizzie Lizzie the second, since she is still the first of the united crowns to be called Lizzie.
As mentioned above, it goes by the lowest number that gives a unique name across the UK. It had nothing to do with ignoring Scotland, and any future kings called James, Duncan, Robert, MacBeth etc will follow on from the last Scottish monarchs with those names.
If multiple regnal numbers were to be used for parts of the kingdom, why stop at Scotland. William III & II of England and Scotland's name ignored Wales (where he was the first), and William IV should have been William IV, III, II & I of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland respectively. And if the current William becomes king, these should all be incremented (with I replaced by NI—or maybe not).
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:54 pm
by bjn
And don’t forget the commonwealth countries that have her as head of state. She is Lizzy II in Australia and New Zealand, even though those land masses weren’t even known to Europeans during Lizzy I’d reign, let alone settled or countries in the modern sense.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
by lpm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:24 am
by Bird on a Fire
Tessa K wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 3:51 pm
Martin Y wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:54 pm
jdc wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 2:22 pm
I think James Naughtie might have been first, but I have a feeling it might not have been the only time someone made that slip.
Might even have happened three times IIRC. It got to the stage that you couldn't help reading between the lines and guessing the whole newsroom called him Jeremy c.nt so often that they sometimes made the slip on-air.
Yep. If you're trying very hard not to say something, sooner or later you will.
Don't think about elephants.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:11 am
by plodder
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
They are special, because they cannot be removed from post without a credible threat of public disorder and violence.
She should be called Elizabeth Betterthanyou.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:26 am
by WFJ
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
But they clearly are special. Whether they should be or not is a different question.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:25 am
by Tessa K
Or to give her her real name, Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:31 am
by JQH
Tessa K wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:25 am
Or to give her her real name, Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
Except it isn't. The family name was
changed to Windsor during WW1 in order to sound less German.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:52 am
by lpm
WFJ wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:26 am
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
But they clearly are special. Whether they should be or not is a different question.
That argument is as circular as a really circly thing.
They are special because we allow them to claim a whole bunch of special things. Chip all of that away and they're no longer special. Fancy naming, magic coronation rituals, unique access to govt, their own tax laws...
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:12 am
by WFJ
lpm wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:52 am
WFJ wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:26 am
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
But they clearly are special. Whether they should be or not is a different question.
That argument is as circular as a really circly thing.
They are special because we allow them to claim a whole bunch of special things. Chip all of that away and they're no longer special. Fancy naming, magic coronation rituals, unique access to govt, their own tax laws...
Exactly. They are special because of the things that make them special. There's no circular argument there. Nothing special would be special if you ignore all the special things about them.
I agree that they should not be, and would happily see them end up in a Leicester car park.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:41 pm
by plodder
Good luck with the "tease them into irrelevance" tactics. The moment the teasing gets a bit tart they'll drag you and your family away for re-education.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:52 pm
by lpm
Mockery is effective, long term.
Can't do it with Elizabeth Windsor, she's too old and respected to take the piss out of. The younger generations on the other hand... She knows this, which is why she's clinging on to the role aged 95.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:26 pm
by plodder
lpm wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:52 pm
Mockery is effective, long term.
2021-1066=955
well yes, you raise an interesting point there
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:30 pm
by Gfamily
plodder wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:26 pm
lpm wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:52 pm
Mockery is effective, long term.
2021-1066=955
well yes, you raise an interesting point there
There was a time when it worked, though it was pretty divisive overall.
Not sure we'll be ready for a Chexit debate
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:34 pm
by dyqik
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
Ah yes, Henry Tudor, Henry Lancaster, George Hanover and Edward Capet would definitely agree that this is much more sensible.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:39 pm
by Tessa K
dyqik wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:34 pm
lpm wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:08 pm
Just call them by their regular names.
Elizabeth Tudor. Elizabeth Windsor.
All this silly numbering is playing along with the fantasy that they are special.
Ah yes, Henry Tudor, Henry Lancaster, George Hanover and Edward Capet would definitely agree that this is much more sensible.
The only problem with that is when there is more than one with the same family name. Then we'd have Henry VII Tudor and Henry VIII Tudor, for example, following the model of some Byzantine emperors (and others). Or would that be Henry I Tudor and Henry II Tudor? Confusing.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:38 pm
by lpm
It's not confusing cos we'd also stop talking about them.
Got to stop seeing history through the lens of individuals. Remove a family history from school books and replace with history of the people.
Re: God save the King
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:43 pm
by dyqik
lpm wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:38 pm
It's not confusing cos we'd also stop talking about them.
Got to stop seeing history through the lens of individuals. Remove a family history from school books and replace with history of the people.
Good luck with that.