Thrones of England and Scotland
- From: "wulfit" <wulfit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:27:27 +0100
At various times, I and others have been cyber-spanked by Louis Epstein for
referring to the Queen of England, on the grounds that there is no such
person. The Act of Union clearly established a new kingdom, with lots of
provisions for how the new parliament would work, trade, the peerage and so
on, although I would point out that the new crown was referred to as an
imperial crown, which suggests an empire instead of a kingdom.
Although the act created a new kingdom, as far as I can see it did not
extinguish the thrones of England and Scotland. If that is correct, and if
they were not otherwise extinguised, then I would argue that both thrones
still exist. If this in turn is correct, then it might be argued that the
Queen occupies both thrones, but I think that is unlikely, in which case
they are vacant. But it would also mean that it is technically correct that
there is no monarch of either England or Scotland. Or is there? Because
the Act of Union strongly established Great Britain, it may be a valid
argument that the extinguishing of the thrones is clearly implied.
I may have mis-read the act, or there may be other provisions that
extinguished the thrones. If not, then isn't there still a throne of
England and one of Scotland?
On a different topic, where is the status of Wales laid out? Which act
states that the monarch of GB is also the monarch of Wales? Does Wales have
the same status as England, Scotland and NI?
- Prev by Date: Re: ”Russia - Princes Dolgorouky - a descendancy”
- Next by Date: Re: Thrones of England and Scotland
- Previous by thread: ”Russia - Princes Dolgorouky - a descendancy”
- Next by thread: Re: Thrones of England and Scotland