Scots Independence and Lord Lyon

Post by r***@gmail.com
Gents,
Granted, predicting this is like reading tea leaves. However, I'm
curious what independence would mean for The Lord Lyon, his court of
chivalry and feudal barons both present and future?
Thoughts? Perhaps some of you have a more discernible tea cup than I?

No change, surely? I thought sovereignty when it came to arms is something
Scotland never gave up.

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

The Chief

2013-02-14 01:30:17 UTC

Post by r***@gmail.com
Gents,
Granted, predicting this is like reading tea leaves. However, I'm curious what independence would mean for The Lord Lyon, his court of chivalry and feudal barons both present and future?
Thoughts? Perhaps some of you have a more discernible tea cup than I?

Hopefully Lord Lyon will get to expunge the Sassenach arms, and restore the Arms of Scotland in their purity!

Regards,
The Chief

Turenne

2013-02-14 15:29:02 UTC

Post by The Chief
Hopefully Lord Lyon will get to expunge the Sassenach arms, and restore the Arms of Scotland in their purity!

Or a lion rampant Gules armed and langued Azure within a double tressure flory-counter-flory of the second.....

Doesn't sound particularly 'Sassenach' to me!

RL

The Chief

2013-02-14 23:25:17 UTC

Post by The Chief
Hopefully Lord Lyon will get to expunge the Sassenach arms, and restore the Arms of Scotland in their purity!

Or a lion rampant Gules armed and langued Azure within a double tressure flory-counter-flory of the second.....
Doesn't sound particularly 'Sassenach' to me!
RL

Hello Richard,
Those are the arms I want restored! I think you are well aware that the arms actually used in Scotland these days are defaced by the addition of three polecats, or somesuch, for Sasana.

Regards,
The Chief

Turenne

2013-02-15 08:56:10 UTC

Post by The Chief
Those are the arms I want restored! I think you are well aware that the arms actually used in Scotland these days are defaced by the addition of three polecats, or somesuch, for Sasana.

Hi Chief

But those ARE the arms used in Scotland; even the Duke of Rothesay uses them (with a label) in conjuction with his arms as Lord of the Isles and Steward of Scotland.

Richard

The Chief

2013-02-15 15:37:45 UTC

Hi Chief
But those ARE the arms used in Scotland; even the Duke of Rothesay uses them (with a label) in conjuction with his arms as Lord of the Isles and Steward of Scotland.
Richard

Richard,
I know you know enough that you must be engaging in this just to have someone to talk to - it having been so quiet around here for so long.

When you say "even the Duke of Rothesay" uses the (original) arms, what you really mean is that one minor character, who is rarely in Scotland, uses a defaced version as his personal standard.

But what arms are used by Betty?
What are the "Royal" arms as used in Scotland?
As you well know, the answer is not the unadulterated arms of Scotland, but the one with the extra polecats...

The Scottish Government has adopted the real arms of Scotland, and once Scotland is free again I trust Lord Lyon will restore the use of the true arms of Scotland arms for all "Royal" and governmental functions in Scotland.

Regards,
The Chief

Turenne

2013-02-15 20:22:36 UTC

Post by The Chief
I know you know enough that you must be engaging in this just to have someone to talk to - it having been so quiet around here for so long.

You're right Chief; I really must get a life

Post by The Chief
The Scottish Government has adopted the real arms of Scotland, and once >Scotland is free again I trust Lord Lyon will restore the use of the true arms of Scotland arms for all "Royal" and governmental functions in Scotland.

If Scotland becomes independent, I promise to come wherever it is in the world that you hang your Glengarry, and buy you Haggis, Tatties and Neeps and a bottle of Glenmorangie!

Richard

Derek Howard

2013-02-16 10:15:34 UTC

Post by The Chief
What are the "Royal" arms as used in Scotland?
As you well know, the answer is not the unadulterated arms of Scotland, but
the one with the extra polecats...
The Scottish Government has adopted the real arms of Scotland, and once
Scotland is free again I trust Lord Lyon will restore the use of the true
arms of Scotland arms for all "Royal" and governmental functions in Scotland.

It is bad enough the Scottish Executive pretending they are the Scottish Government, but think of it from the English perspective. A Scots monarch marched into England in 1603 and took it over. He determined an amended version of the quartered royal arms for use in England and Scotland. The Scots then went around trying to ape the English colonies and went bankrupt over Darien having to be bailed out and taken over by the Scottish Stuart's main government south of the border (much as with RBS) with huge costs to the English taxpayer and to democracy with the representative and financial benefit being skewed in Scotland's favour. Every subsequent monarch has ruled England only by virtue of their descent from the Scots. Many government ministries have been dominated by Scots. Yet the English have tolerated this for two centuries. It is the heraldic changes after the admission of Ireland to the team, which led to the loss to the English of their French quartering that hurts. As a supporter of cross-channel cooperation, I say give us back our fleurs-de-lys ;-)

In reality, as the Crown would still, hypothetically, be retained as Crown of Scotland under the Salmond plan, the arms of the Crown in Scotland would be unchanged, as is the convention in other independent Commonwealth realms, with the Scots beast in the first quarter. Only by the monarch losing her other realms would her arms of dominion change totally. It is more likely that a Salmond realm would jettison its monarch altogether than that the monarch would lose England. In which case, Lyon might be taking action against a nationalist government for usurpation of what would have become merely the family arms of the former monarchs. Luckily the betting at present is on a referendum maintaining the Union and common sense.

Derek Howard

The Chief

2013-02-17 16:44:55 UTC

It is bad enough the Scottish Executive pretending they are the Scottish Government,

Hi Derek, good to see that you are still around! Normally you are very well informed, but you are a bit off on this comment - there is no "pretense" about the Scottish Government! Even the Sassanach overlords in London acknowledge this, see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/part/2/crossheading/the-scottish-ministers/enacted

Post by Derek Howard
but think of it from the English perspective. A Scots monarch marched into >England in 1603 and took it over. He determined an amended version of the >quartered royal arms for use in England and Scotland. The Scots then went >around trying to ape the English colonies and went bankrupt over Darien having >to be bailed out and taken over by the Scottish Stuart's main government south >of the border (much as with RBS) with huge costs to the English taxpayer and >to democracy with the representative and financial benefit being skewed in >Scotland's favour. Every subsequent monarch has ruled England only by virtue >of their descent from the Scots. Many government ministries have been >dominated by Scots. Yet the English have tolerated this for two centuries.

Not to worry. Any losses in running Scotland were more than recouped by the money made by raping and pillaging Ireland for over 800 years...

Post by Derek Howard
It is the heraldic changes after the admission of Ireland to the team, which led to the loss to the English of their French quartering that hurts. As a supporter of cross-channel cooperation, I say give us back our fleurs-de-lys ;-)

To my knowledge, no one is stopping you from restoring any number of lilys! i.e. ancient or modern, your choice!

Post by Derek Howard
In reality, as the Crown would still, hypothetically, be retained as Crown of Scotland under the Salmond plan, the arms of the Crown in Scotland would be unchanged, as is the convention in other independent Commonwealth realms,

I am afraid you have lost me here with a "convention" I have never heard of. Other Commonwealth "realms" as you so quaintly call them, have all adopted their own arms. They have not retained the British "royal" arms unchanged.

Post by Derek Howard
with the Scots beast in the first quarter. Only by the monarch losing her >other realms would her arms of dominion change totally. It is more likely that >a Salmond realm would jettison its monarch altogether than that the monarch >would lose England. In which case, Lyon might be taking action against a >nationalist government for usurpation of what would have become merely the >family arms of the former monarchs.

Surely not - they are arms of dominion, not family arms. What you propose is the usurpation of national arms by some Germans!

Post by Derek Howard
Luckily the betting at present is on a referendum maintaining the Union and common sense.

Well, a McPearse may need to march to the GPO in Edinburgh some Easter Monday..
Regards,
The Chief

Post by Derek Howard
Derek Howard

e $$iri k_1

2013-02-17 17:57:28 UTC

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:44:55 AM UTC-6, The Chief (in reply to someone else, not me) wrote:->

-> -> In reality, as the Crown would still, hypothetically, be retained as Crown of Scotland under the Salmond plan, the arms of the Crown in Scotland would be unchanged, as is the convention in other independent Commonwealth realms,

->I am afraid you have lost me here with a "convention" I have never heard of. Other Commonwealth "realms" as you so quaintly call them, have all adopted their own arms. They have not retained the British "royal" arms unchanged.

Canada being a good example. It added the beloved maple leaf to make it Canadian, but retained the royal arms unadulterated above.

Turenne

2013-02-17 21:07:23 UTC

The Duke of Rothsay (Prince Charles, also Prince of Wales below the Border) has >a special heraldic banner for use in Scotland which does not include either the >English leopards or the Irish harp -- IIRC (not at home so can't check) >quarterly the Lord of the Isles (another of his Scottish Titles) & Stewart >>>(ditto -- High Steward of Scotland or some such), overall an escutcheon of >Scotland (the lion & tressure) with a label Azure for Rothsay as the Scottish >title for the heir to the crown (i.e. the Prince of Scotland). The >matriculation is included as a colored (or coloured) illustration in Innes of >Edingight's last edition of this father's Scots Heraldry.

I'm sure that I wrote much the same earlier....

RL

The Chief

2013-02-17 23:34:10 UTC

Post by e $$iri k_1
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:44:55 AM UTC-6, The Chief (in reply to someone else, not me) wrote:->
-> -> In reality, as the Crown would still, hypothetically, be retained as Crown of Scotland under the Salmond plan, the arms of the Crown in Scotland would be unchanged, as is the convention in other independent Commonwealth realms,
->I am afraid you have lost me here with a "convention" I have never heard of. Other Commonwealth "realms" as you so quaintly call them, have all adopted their own arms. They have not retained the British "royal" arms unchanged.
Canada being a good example. It added the beloved maple leaf to make it Canadian, but retained the royal arms unadulterated above.

Not quite. Apart from the maple leaves, the Canadian arms also incorporate the former arms of France, which makes for two differences from those in use in England.

Regards,
The Chief

Derek Howard

2013-02-18 12:51:19 UTC

Post by The Chief
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/part/2/crossheading/the-scottish-ministers/enacted

Thanks for updating me on this. I was a little busy last year and had missed this. However, it does not negate the fact that, for the five years up to last summer, Salmond was telling us consistently he was leading the Scottish Government and spent large amounts of taxpayers’ money on rebranding as such when he had no legal authority to do so.

Post by The Chief
Not to worry. Any losses in running Scotland were more than recouped by
the money made by raping and pillaging Ireland for over 800 years...

Hmm. Rather OT but If I recall my history, there was fairly consistently a heavy flow from the English Exchequer to Ireland rather than the other way around. There was admittedly a flow of private rental income to absentee landlords in the 18-19th centuries but not of the level you suggest. Raping is a strong word. It must unfortunately have happened but I doubt whether there was more raping than in other European countries or in other areas where heavily armed lads are not held in strict control (many of them in the 17th century being your friends, the Scots). After all even the ancient Celtic laws included rules on rape. However, legal intermarriage was far more common and the strength of both countries has been for long all the greater for the interbreeding, for instance, my Irish ancestors presumably were a mix coming originally from Wales and Normandy as well as from the Celtic west.

Post by The Chief
To my knowledge, no one is stopping you from restoring any number of
lilys! i.e. ancient or modern, your choice!

Indeed, I have cuff-links bearing England and France quartered. However the Scots-German monarchy are unlikely to license me – nor we English generally – to use them lawfully.

Post by The Chief
Other Commonwealth "realms" as you so quaintly call them, have all adopted
their own arms. They have not retained the British "royal" arms unchanged.

All? OK, so please tell me, as I would be interested to know, what the arms are on the Queen’s Great Seal when she is acting as Queen of Antigua and Barbuda; the Bahamas; Belize; Grenada; Papua New Guinea; Saint Christopher and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; the Solomon Islands; or Tuvalu?

Post by The Chief
Surely not - they are arms of dominion, not family arms. What you propose
is the usurpation of national arms by some Germans!

The arms of dominion or sovereignty are the quartered arms of the monarch as we know them now. The arms Or a lion rampant within a double-tressure flory counter-flory Gules were borne quartered a number of times by private citizens which would not be the case if they were purely arms of dominion or sovereignty, for instance: Alexander, Earl of Buchan (d. 1405); Walter, Earl of Athol (d. 1437); Alexander, Duke of Albany (d.1485); John, Earl of Mar (d. 1479); James, Duke of Ross, Archbishop of St Andrews (d. 1503). Offspring of monarchs they may have been but they were not sovereigns nor even next heir.

For another example of the principle at work, the French arms Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or are now regarded in French law as the family arms of the former monarchs.

Derek Howard

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 00:19:30 UTC

As regards what arms are borne on the seals you refer to, the arms of HM the Queen in right of each of these countries; that is, her Arms of Dominion, which, as she is legally and separately each countries' sovereign, are both her Arms in her role as Queen of that particular country, and (simultaneously) the National arms of that country, are the Arms that are borne one each seal.

The English UK arms are only relevant to the England, Wales and Northern Ireland. To use them in any of them other commonwealth realms would make not constitutional sense, as they are the Arms of a foreign monarch, albeit one who happens to be they same person.

gregs talkin

2013-02-21 00:42:55 UTC

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/part/2/crossheading/the-s...

Not to worry. Any losses in running Scotland were more than recouped by
the money made by raping and pillaging Ireland for over 800 years...

To my knowledge, no one is stopping you from restoring any number of
lilys! i.e. ancient or modern, your choice!

Indeed, I have cuff-links bearing England and France quartered. However the Scots-German monarchy are unlikely to license me – nor we English generally – to use them lawfully.

Other Commonwealth "realms" as you so quaintly call them, have all adopted
their own arms. They have not retained the British "royal" arms unchanged.

Surely not - they are arms of dominion, not family arms. What you propose
is the usurpation of national arms by some Germans!

The arms of dominion or sovereignty are the quartered arms of the monarch as we know them now. The arms Or a lion rampant within a double-tressure flory counter-flory Gules were borne quartered a number of times by private citizens which would not be the case if they were purely arms of dominion or sovereignty, for instance: Alexander, Earl of Buchan (d. 1405); Walter, Earl of Athol (d. 1437); Alexander, Duke of Albany (d.1485); John, Earl of Mar (d. 1479); James, Duke of Ross, Archbishop of St Andrews (d. 1503). Offspring of monarchs they may have been but they were not sovereigns nor even next heir.
For another example of the principle at work, the French arms Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or are now regarded in French law as the family arms of the former monarchs.
Derek Howard

-- All? OK, so please tell me, as I would be interested to know, what
the arms are on the Queen’s Great Seal when she is acting as Queen of
Antigua and Barbuda; the Bahamas; Belize; Grenada; Papua New Guinea;
Saint Christopher and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines; the Solomon Islands; or Tuvalu?

Uh, The Chief was right on that: said countries DO have independent
arms. Now, the Great Seal, is British / parental, but national arms
are indeed different.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 00:59:50 UTC

-and each realm has a Great Seal of its own in its own right.

Derek Howard

2013-02-21 14:45:22 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
-and each realm has a Great Seal of its own in its own right.

The Chief, Greg and you may be correct and I may be wrong - hence I posed it as a question. However, I am looking for evidence preferably published.

Derek Howard

gregs talkin

2013-02-21 16:09:49 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
-and each realm has a Great Seal of its own in its own right.

The Chief, Greg and you may be correct and I may be wrong - hence I posed it as a question. However, I am looking for evidence preferably published.
Derek Howard

Oh pishaw. Just Google the countries in question and you'll see the
results. You're not "wrong"; you just jumped a little at "chiefie".

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 16:27:34 UTC

Derek; also btw, why HM has banners in right of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados and Jamaica, and formerly also for Malta, Trinidad and Tobago and Sierra Leone, which are/were her arms for each country, defaced with the 'E' from her personal standard, on a field Azure surrounded by a garland Or.

Derek Howard

2013-02-21 20:42:48 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Derek; also btw, why HM has banners in right of Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Barbados and Jamaica, and formerly also for Malta, Trinidad and
Tobago and Sierra Leone, which are/were her arms for each country, defaced
with the 'E' from her personal standard, on a field Azure surrounded by a
garland Or.

As I said, you may be right but what is on a banner is not always nor necessarily what is on a Great Seal. I merely asked whether there is any evidence as to what the Crown uses as its arms on its Great Seal. I am not certain off the cuff, but I do not think the Australian arms of the Commonwealth in the 19th century, comprising the bearings of the states combined in 6 quarters, were used as the arms of the monarch at the time. What the exact legal relationship of each state with its arms and the monarch with her arms in each state would be of interest. At least more interest than merely having a quick scan of Wikipedia.

Derek Howard

Andrew Chaplin

2013-02-23 02:42:23 UTC

Post by Derek Howard
As I said, you may be right but what is on a banner is not always nor
necessarily what is on a Great Seal.<snip>

E.g.
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/o7-eng.cfm
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/o8-eng.cfm

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 16:27:36 UTC

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 16:27:38 UTC

Derek Howard

2013-02-21 20:46:33 UTC

Post by gregs talkin
Oh pishaw. Just Google the countries in question and you'll see the
results. You're not "wrong"; you just jumped a little at "chiefie".

Well maybe. But the The Chief is a big boy, experienced here and usually capable of giving as good as he gets, and often with great wit. I just think on this one we could do better and dig deeper than a quick google.

Derek Howard

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 21:26:30 UTC

Yes, I can say for a fact that I have seen a photo of the Great Seal of Australia, for one, with the Arms of Australia and the words "Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia" around the outside, and a picture of Elizabeth II on the obverse. I have also seen the same for Canada. I have also seen the text of an Act of the Ceylonese Parliament specifying the great seal: the arms of Ceylon on one side and the Queen on the other. I will send you attachments, pictures, links etc. when I get the chance.

As regards the latter comment, its must been remembered that the Dominions (as they were then called) were not sovereign until 1931. As such, all used the British Great Seal but all replaced this with their own Great Seal, starting with the Irish Free State.

The Chief

2013-03-15 03:35:15 UTC

Oh pishaw. Just Google the countries in question and you'll see the
results. You're not "wrong"; you just jumped a little at "chiefie".

I am not obese! Maybe a few extra grams here or there, but not a "big
boy"!

More seriously, I got overtaken by work this last few weeks, perhaps I
can return to this this weekend.
Regards,
The Chief

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-21 01:03:50 UTC

-and each realm has a Great Seal of its own in its own right.

gregs talkin

2013-02-25 21:00:58 UTC

Post by The Chief

Post by The Chief
Hopefully Lord Lyon will get to expunge the Sassenach arms, and restore the Arms of Scotland in their purity!

Or a lion rampant Gules armed and langued Azure within a double tressure flory-counter-flory of the second.....
Doesn't sound particularly 'Sassenach' to me!
RL

It occurs to me that were Scotland to achieve independence, and due to
the Scottish connection to the crown, that a new set of arms would at
least appear per pale with the Scottish arms to the dexter. Wouldn't
this meet the need for "independent arms" while maintaing a proper
connection?

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-26 18:52:42 UTC

No; because were the Act of Union repealed, instead of being Queen of the UK, she would be instead separately Queen of Scotland/the Scots, and whatever the rest of the UK decides to call itself. So, two separate offices, and as Arms of Dominion are Arms of Office (albeit of the highest order-of sovereignty-and before the more republican-minded decide to protest, this is equally true of the national arms of Republics too), you wouldn't impale two Arms of Office per pale next to each other as this would denote either marriage or the way in which arms of office of a lesser rank (like county councils or archbishoprics/bishoprics) are marshalled with the arms of the person who holds or is the chief executive of that armigerous body. I see three possibilities were Scotland to become independent:

1.The Royal Arms will stay as they are, marshalled in one way for Scotland, another for England, Wales, and NI.

2.The Queen's arms in right of Scotland will become simply the Arms of Scotland, and the Scotland quartering will be removed from her Arms in right of England

3. There will be a whole new re-marshalling of the Royal Arms, perhaps with the Arms for England and Ireland impaled, and the Scottish Arms in 2nd and 3rd in England & NI, and in 1st and 4th in Scotland. I see this as unlikely however.

I think the first possibility as the most likely (after all, the Arms were not re-marshalled when the Irish Free State was established), but would personally like to see the second.

gregs talkin

2013-02-26 19:53:49 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
1.The Royal Arms will stay as they are, marshalled in one way for Scotland, another for England, Wales, and NI.
2.The Queen's arms in right of Scotland will become simply the Arms of Scotland, and the Scotland quartering will be removed from her Arms in right of England
3. There will be a whole new re-marshalling of the Royal Arms, perhaps with the Arms for England and Ireland impaled, and the Scottish Arms in 2nd and 3rd in England & NI, and in 1st and 4th in Scotland. I see this as unlikely however.
I think the first possibility as the most likely (after all, the Arms were not re-marshalled when the Irish Free State was established), but would personally like to see the second.

The reason I say that is because Scotland still has a tie to the
British throne.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-26 22:05:17 UTC

But the thrones/crowns of all the Commonwealth realms have a tie to the British crown.

gregs talkin

2013-02-26 22:31:38 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
But the thrones/crowns of all the Commonwealth realms have a tie to the British crown.

What I mean is; a tie to being in line to the throne . . . (Stewarts
et al)

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-27 00:22:18 UTC

-Pretty much irrelevant both from a constitutional and heraldic point of view (but not, of course, succession-wise). Plus, when (and if) Scotland becomes independent, it will be via repealing the 1707 Acts of Union. Which will mean there won't be a British crown any more. There will be an English one and a Scottish one, and the Queen will bear arms accordingly in right of each one accordingly.

gregs talkin

2013-02-27 00:43:14 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
-Pretty much irrelevant both from a constitutional and heraldic point of view (but not, of course, succession-wise). Plus, when (and if) Scotland becomes independent, it will be via repealing the 1707 Acts of Union. Which will mean there won't be a British crown any more. There will be an English one and a Scottish one, and the Queen will bear arms accordingly in right of each one accordingly.

Okay, good point: Do you think there might be another Scottish
king? . . . And if not, then why carry royal arms at all?

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-27 03:01:05 UTC

I'm not sure what you mean; royalty doesn't really have a nationality, and a monarch in particular, as a sovereign, is not a subject of any sovereign and thus does not have a nationality, part of the reason they don't use passports for example. Plus, legally; the members of the British royal family are simultaneously Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Barbadian, Tuvalan, Jamaican, etc. etc. etc. The next Scottish King (if Scotland does indeed become independent) will, death notwithstanding, be the current Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay. If you mean 'will there be another King of Scotland born in Scotland-it's possible (but unlikely), but ethnicity is not really important as regards monarch (though arguably it should be) -being the legal successor in law to the Scots throne is. Bear in mind there were plenty of Kings of Scotland before 1603 that were not Scottish either, out of the Kings and Queens of England prior to the 1707 Act of Union, Sweyn and Canute were Danish, William I, Stephen and Henry II were French by birth and upbringing (and the Kings of England up until roughly 1400 spoke French as their first language), James I and Charles I were Scottish, and William III was Dutch. George I and George II out of the British Monarchs were German, and so on.

gregs talkin

2013-02-27 17:23:03 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
I'm not sure what you mean; royalty doesn't really have a nationality, and a monarch in particular, as a sovereign, is not a subject of any sovereign and thus does not have a nationality, part of the reason they don't use passports for example. Plus, legally; the members of the British royal family are simultaneously Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Barbadian, Tuvalan, Jamaican, etc. etc. etc. The next Scottish King (if Scotland does indeed become independent) will, death notwithstanding, be the current Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay. If you mean 'will there be another King of Scotland born in Scotland-it's possible (but unlikely), but ethnicity is not really important as regards monarch (though arguably it should be) -being the legal successor in law to the Scots throne is. Bear in mind there were plenty of Kings of Scotland before 1603 that were not Scottish either, out of the Kings and Queens of England prior to the 1707 Act of Union, Sweyn and Canute were Danish, William I, Stephen and Henry II were French by birth and upbringing (and the Kings of England up until roughly 1400 spoke French as their first language), James I and Charles I were Scottish, and William III was Dutch. George I and George II out of the British Monarchs were German, and so on.

Well, what I mean is; with an independent Scotland, wouldn't there
also be an independent Scottish king ascended from a purely Scottish
line? The point being: independent is idenpendece, is it not?

Turenne

2013-02-27 17:35:53 UTC

Post by gregs talkin
Well, what I mean is; with an independent Scotland, wouldn't there
also be an independent Scottish king ascended from a purely Scottish
line?

I wonder whether Franz, Duke of Bavaria will claim the throne....

RL

gregs talkin

2013-02-27 18:33:23 UTC

Post by gregs talkin
Well, what I mean is; with an independent Scotland, wouldn't there
also be an independent Scottish king ascended from a purely Scottish
line?

I wonder whether Franz, Duke of Bavaria will claim the throne....
RL

Well, why not? You're in there too somewhere.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-28 02:39:10 UTC

-First of all; define 'purely'. Even the Kings of Scotland prior to 1603 who were born and brought up in Scotland, due to the intermarriage between european royal houses, were hardly 'purely' Scottish. A great many had French, or English, or Danish mothers for one thing. What is not important is whether they had a 'pure' Scottish bloodline (which is a ridiculous concept at best-who the hell has a 'pure' bloodline anyway?!?), it was that they legitimately held the Scottish throne in law and that they themselves, in at least some numinous way; viewed themselves as Scottish-but let's not forget, Scotland as an independent state before 1707 was largely a feudal creature-and during the feudal period 'national' loyalties either did not exist or were at best a secondary concern-men did not think of themselves as 'Scottish' (or any other nationality for that matter) particularly, they saw themselves as vassals to the local lord, and any loyalty to the King (and by extension the nation) was through the extensive feudal ladder that was above them.

Furthermore; the fact that Scotland has a monarch who is, by birth; English, is of no constitutional importance either. Both England and Scotland will revert to the situation from 1603 to 1707; that is, they will both be completely independent countries; but the Queen of Scotland will be at the same time Queen of England.

This is precisely the same situation we have presently with, for example, Canada. Canada is a completely independent country, able to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, declare war, give away territory, etc. etc., all completely separately from the United Kingdom. It just happens that the Queen of Canada, the Head of State and sovereign of that country, happens to be simultaneously Queen of the UK. That has no bearing on Canada's independence and doesn't make it or any of the other 'commonwealth realms' any less independent that any other sovereign state (say; Sweden), it just happens that, in the eyes of the law, this is the case. But bear in mind that the 'Queen of the UK' and the 'Queen of Canada' are completely separate positions, legal persons, and offices from each other. It is no different from; say, if the populance of say (were it possible in either countries' consitutions), Barack Obama were elected President of France (except from the fact that he, unlike the Queen, is not a sovereign). France would not become any less independent, or become in any way part of the U.S.A., they would just happen to share the same person (separately) as their chief executive.

So would it be as regards Scotland: constitutionally, there would be no difference between Elizabeth II, Queen of England, and Elizabeth II, (any yes, it would be 'II') Queen of Scotland, as there is presently between Margarethe II, Queen of Denmark, and Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands. They just happen to be two offices held by the same person separately. They could conclude treaties with each other, declare war on each other (as her father, George VI, simultaneously King of Pakistan and King of India, did during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1947.), and conclude peace with one another. The fact they are two offices held by the same person is wholly irrelevant in the eyes of constitutional theory and international law.

gregs talkin

2013-02-28 19:51:07 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
-First of all; define 'purely'. Even the Kings of Scotland prior to 1603 who were born and brought up in Scotland, due to the intermarriage between european royal houses, were hardly 'purely' Scottish. A great many had French, or English, or Danish mothers for one thing. What is not important is whether they had a 'pure' Scottish bloodline (which is a ridiculous concept at best-who the hell has a 'pure' bloodline anyway?!?), it was that they legitimately held the Scottish throne in law and that they themselves, in at least some numinous way; viewed themselves as Scottish-but let's not forget, Scotland as an independent state before 1707 was largely a feudal creature-and during the feudal period 'national' loyalties either did not exist or were at best a secondary concern-men did not think of themselves as 'Scottish' (or any other nationality for that matter) particularly, they saw themselves as vassals to the local lord, and any loyalty to the King (and by extension the nation) was through the extensive feudal ladder that was above them.
Furthermore; the fact that Scotland has a monarch who is, by birth; English, is of no constitutional importance either. Both England and Scotland will revert to the situation from 1603 to 1707; that is, they will both be completely independent countries; but the Queen of Scotland will be at the same time Queen of England.
This is precisely the same situation we have presently with, for example, Canada. Canada is a completely independent country, able to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, declare war, give away territory, etc. etc., all completely separately from the United Kingdom. It just happens that the Queen of Canada, the Head of State and sovereign of that country, happens to be simultaneously Queen of the UK. That has no bearing on Canada's independence and doesn't make it or any of the other 'commonwealth realms' any less independent that any other sovereign state (say; Sweden), it just happens that, in the eyes of the law, this is the case. But bear in mind that the 'Queen of the UK' and the 'Queen of Canada' are completely separate positions, legal persons, and offices from each other. It is no different from; say, if the populance of say (were it possible in either countries' consitutions), Barack Obama were elected President of France (except from the fact that he, unlike the Queen, is not a sovereign). France would not become any less independent, or become in any way part of the U.S.A., they would just happen to share the same person (separately) as their chief executive.
So would it be as regards Scotland: constitutionally, there would be no difference between Elizabeth II, Queen of England, and Elizabeth II, (any yes, it would be 'II') Queen of Scotland, as there is presently between Margarethe II, Queen of Denmark, and Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands. They just happen to be two offices held by the same person separately. They could conclude treaties with each other, declare war on each other (as her father, George VI, simultaneously King of Pakistan and King of India, did during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1947.), and conclude peace with one another. The fact they are two offices held by the same person is wholly irrelevant in the eyes of constitutional theory and international law.

Hi, Thanks for taking the time. I guess what's going on here is a
difference of opinion with respect to "idependence" . . . Prior to
1603, Scotland was (an independent country) if memory serves me. I
understand that European royal lines are indeed mixed as a matter of
politics, protection, and of course mostly money :)

I'm coming from the idea of a truly independent Scotland, not one
hinged as a state of the British empire. Having said that, it would
seem to me inapropriate for an (Eng;ish) prince to occupy a Scottsih
throne - follow. Therefore, for teh sake of argument (and for
preserving the Scot's amrs), let's say, that up to and after 1603,
Scotland had remained completely independent: who would then be in
line today? And would that person not sit indxependently of England?

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-28 22:18:42 UTC

Well then, with due respect, your interpretation of 'independence' is a wrong one: an independent Scotland would not be part of the 'British Empire' (mainly because Britain would cease to exist as a state), and the same goes for countries that right now share a monarch with the UK: Canada for example is not an 'arm of the British Empire' (which at any rate doesn't really exist any more), it is a totally independent country from Britain in absolutely every sense.

The fact the Queen of Canada was born and brought up in Britain has absolutely nothing to do with whether Canada is independent. Likewise, an independent Scotland sharing the same monarch as England would likewise be totally independent, as indeed was the case 1603-1707 also.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-28 22:27:17 UTC

Also, had England and Scotland not been united in 1707, that person would have been...Elizabeth II. (Well, she would have been titled Elizabeth I had the two countries not unified.)

Also. I don't see why it's inappropriate, or what relevance or consequence the nationality of the monarch has to with anything (much less in a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has little or no real power anyway and thus can't affect such things as foreign policy that would compromise the country in question's independence. Haakon VIII was a Danish prince sitting on the Norwegian throne, and I think we'll all agree he did a pretty damn fine job representing the Norwegian national interest despite his foreign birth. Was Carl XIV Johan of Sweden any less a decent King of Sweden because he happened to be born the Frenchman, Jean-Jules Bernadotte? And so on. Also, with respect, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how the different 'realms' of HM the Queen operate in relation to each other: all are wholly and totally independent, and are not in any way dependent on the UK or a non-existent 'British Empire' that now no longer exists. Hope at least some of this helps, if a little off topic.

gregs talkin

2013-02-28 23:43:16 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Also, had England and Scotland not been united in 1707, that person would have been...Elizabeth II. (Well, she would have been titled Elizabeth I had the two countries not unified.)
Also. I don't see why it's inappropriate, or what relevance or consequence the nationality of the monarch has to with anything (much less in a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has little or no real power anyway and thus can't affect such things as foreign policy that would compromise the country in question's independence. Haakon VIII was a Danish prince sitting on the Norwegian throne, and I think we'll all agree he did a pretty damn fine job representing the Norwegian national interest despite his foreign birth. Was Carl XIV Johan of Sweden any less a decent King of Sweden because he happened to be born the Frenchman, Jean-Jules Bernadotte? And so on. Also, with respect, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how the different 'realms' of HM the Queen operate in relation to each other: all are wholly and totally independent, and are not in any way dependent on the UK or a non-existent 'British Empire' that now no longer exists. Hope at least some of this helps, if a little off topic.

Hi web,

Yeah thanks for the respect. No, nationality has nothing to do with
who sit on the throne in my view: I just thought The Prince of Wales
sitting on a Scottish throne wouldn't exactly be a "boon" to Scotland.

I'm an American and I consider myself pretty well read. I know that
crowns are mixed; but I'm not as hip on the subject as yourself and
other Europeans who were born into such a governing body and have way
more knowledge on it than I do.

Having said that however, then wouldn't a per pale set of Scot's arms:
under the prince / king be the right way to go?

And BTW, off topic is fine: I love to learn

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-28 23:53:29 UTC

No; you're right, having the Prince of Wales on the Scottish throne probably wouldn't be good for Scotland. no doubt it may, after a while as an independent monarchy, proclaim itself a republic. (As quite a few of the commonwealth realms' have done in the years since 1950. An infamous television survey in 1997 asked: "should the monarchy be abolished?", and Scotland was the only area of the UK that answered with a majority 'yes', so I think that likely, but not a given.

Not mixed crowns so much as two or more separate crowns are held by the same person at the same time.

And no, putting the two arms side-by-side per pale would not happen. To quote John Brooke-Little in 'Boutell's Heraldry'; "Arms of Dominion are never impaled".

m***@gmail.com

2013-03-14 02:00:29 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
And no, putting the two arms side-by-side per pale would not happen. To quote John Brooke-Little in 'Boutell's Heraldry'; "Arms of Dominion are never impaled".

How did Mr. Brooke-Little account for the royal arms used by Mary Tudor and Philip II of Spain, or Mary Stuart and Francis II of France? Or, for that matter, for the way England and Scotland were marshaled in the British royal arms from 1714 to 1801?

(I agree that no matter what happens with Scottish independence, the heraldic outcome won't be impaling England and Scotland in either order, but "never" is an unsupportable generalization.)

gregs talkin

2013-03-18 18:52:14 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
And no, putting the two arms side-by-side per pale would not happen. To quote John Brooke-Little in 'Boutell's Heraldry'; "Arms of Dominion are never impaled".

How did Mr. Brooke-Little account for the royal arms used by Mary Tudor and Philip II of Spain, or Mary Stuart and Francis II of France? Or, for that matter, for the way England and Scotland were marshaled in the British royal arms from 1714 to 1801?
(I agree that no matter what happens with Scottish independence, the heraldic outcome won't be impaling England and Scotland in either order, but "never" is an unsupportable generalization.)

"(I agree that no matter what happens with Scottish independence, the
heraldic outcome won't be impaling England and Scotland in either
order, but "never" is an unsupportable generalization.)"

Interesting: if Scotland were to maintain a crown then what would you
say would be the ideal heraldic representation? And, if it were the
royal Scot's arms, would not the ascendancy clock set back to what
Scot would take the throne post James VI? If independence as such
were to be the case could not Scotland do as she pleases in that
respect?

w***@hotmail.com

2013-03-20 20:03:37 UTC

I'm not sure what you mean. The Scot who was next in line after James VI to inherit the Scots throne was his son, Charles I (born in Scotland!). Had England and Scotland never been unified in the first place, and assuming the 1689 Act of Settlement remained in force, Elizabeth II would still legally be the Queen of Scots. (Because Roman Catholics were excluded), had it not been, then Franz, Duke of Bavaria, would be sitting on the Scottish (and English) throne, and he's a German. What you have to remember is that questions of nationality, ethnicity and even race are immaterial as regards royalty and royal families, who are and always have been cosmopolitan. Where would reconstituted Scottish Kingdom get a 'Scottish' monarch from when the rightful heir is either German (Duke Franz) or is herself half-Scottish? (Elizabeth II, whose mother was after all Scottish and is thus half-Scottish by blood.) I wouldn't attach too much importance to questions of ethnicity or nationality as regards the old Scottish Kings either: the families of Bruce (of Robert the Bruce fame), Balliol and Stuart were all of French origin anyway, so that makes he question quite moot anyway.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-03-20 20:06:58 UTC

Also, ideally, The Scots lion on its own as regards Scotland, and not quartered with the Lions of England. As regards the remaining United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, I would imagine the Queen would quarter the Arms of England 1 and 4 with Ireland 2 and 3. But that's a matter of opinion what would be 'best', others might (and will) disagree, and what will be the case anyway will no doubt be something complete different from either.

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-28 23:55:17 UTC

Ps I hope you know I reply with the most honest respect, sorry if any offence has been caused in the tone of any of my replies.

gregs talkin

2013-03-01 01:44:57 UTC

Post by w***@hotmail.com
Ps I hope you know I reply with the most honest respect, sorry if any offence has been caused in the tone of any of my replies.

My brother; no you have not offended at all. Good debate and spirited
discussion is what it's all about.

You have answered my questions; shown me where I was wrong, admitted
that "The Prince of Wales" sitting on the Scottish throne wouldn't be
(a great idea for Scotland). We've had fun.

Thanks

Regards
Greg

w***@hotmail.com

2013-02-26 18:52:46 UTC

Michael F. McCartney

2013-02-17 05:24:03 UTC