Scotland never had an Elizabeth 1 or Williams 1 or 2.
Do you actually give a ....?
No wind up intended, just intrigued.
2007-08-30 23:45:18 · 9 answers · asked by nickv2304 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Jock, do you have to be offensive ? If you don't accept that the current monarch is Elizabeth 2 and the Williams you mention are the third and fourth to bear the name, not first and second, what is the point of responding ?
2007-09-03 00:11:17 · update #1
It would have been nice to have had them numbered from 1.
The real confusion will start if we ever have a king or queen who has the same name as an old Scottish king or queen since we couldn't call that one the first since there already was one.
Apart from that, I couldn't give a toss.
2007-08-31 01:35:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jim 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Scottish-American who has taken two semesters of "English history" at the university level, so I'll voice my opinion. Traditionally, textbooks and curriculum customarily slant British history to the English point-of-view (even going so far as to officially name the course English history) if for no other reason than that the English are the overwhelming majority of the British population, so the Scots and the Welsh are use to reading between the lines.
At the same time, if I can judge from my conversations with middle-aged and older native-born Scots, most of them are genuinely fond of Queen Elizabeth (either as I or II) even as they reconcile this regard with the hope for a more independent Scotland. Of course, there are many points along the line towards a completely de-evolved Scotland. They also point out that the Queen Mum was from a Scottish family.
Within the last decade, however, historians are also starting to publish British history from the Scottish point-of-view without resorting to Mel Gibson theatrics and sentimentality, but at least in the United States, one has to look for them. During the past year, I have run across Richard Finlay's Modern Scotland: 1914-2000 (Profile, 2004), Scotland: A History, edited by Jenny Wormald (Oxford, 2005), and the biased Arthur Herman's How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It (Three Rivers Press, 2001).
2007-08-31 01:54:26 · answer #2 · answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Technically speaking, the present Queen is Elizabeth I of Scotland.
2007-08-31 00:30:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I honestly don't care about the numbering, I just want to see the back of the whole sorry crew. Vive la Republique Ecossais!
2007-08-31 05:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by Huh? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm very proud to have that we have got Queen Elizabeth 2.She has done a lot for our country tourists come here to see her which brings money into our country.We are the only people that have got royalty,other countries love to see her. All the pomp and pageantry only happens in our country,and we should be proud of it
2007-08-31 00:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by wigsyette 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
good question actually, although Im not scottish, it illustrates the anomolies in british/english history. James the 1st of england was actually james the 6th of Scotland
2007-08-30 23:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Lets see - I am in a tricky position - I am a - so called "Loyalist" - aka " UK Protestant" ...and I would love to see King William on the throne..( just for the King Billy thing ) ..but I am Scottish - and I want an Independent Scotland... help me out someone...
2007-08-30 23:57:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
She is Queen of England, not the Queen of Britain.
2007-08-31 03:47:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Everyone please read Pink Thong's reply. She is not alone in her views I can assure you. Don't you think we ditched scotland and its 18th Century mind-set?
2007-08-31 04:32:43 · answer #9 · answered by Raymo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋