"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ckrlj35oh5ss8gjf15o6vgtp9vutcsl7ie@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:18:09 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:p03lj31u06orsisug0busu62qsflc5dqh9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:23:15 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:k38ij35snb1nt7ta3ss04dr3aqnlkig23v@4ax.com...
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX,
Queen
of Scots."
------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------------------------------
Tonight I'm tired, but in the next day or so, I'm going to show you
how I've made a fool of you.
snipped distant braying from Kailua
One of the more arrogant and egregious errors that one can make is to
pontificate about a country, its institutions and its society, that
one has never visited.
Until you have sat in its law courts, its political assemblies and its
opera houses; until you have spoken to its "people on the street", its
workers, its farmers, its professors of history, your view or "take"
must always be flawed to a greater or lesser degree.
Nowhere is this more true than of two countries; Belgium and Britain.
Both are composed of originally warring tribal groups which came
together for whatever reason; self-defence; to eliminate duplication
of political and other functions; but one problem always remains; the
lingering contempt of each for the other.
Even in the United States, where it took a civil war to "unite" North
and South; that contempt lingers on. I know so, because I have visited
both regions.
I have sat in the US Congress to hear my views and warnings on the
transportation of oil down the west coast from Alaska to Northwest
Washington State's Cherry Point refinery, read to a gathering of
Congressmen; warnings which culminated in the Exxon Valdez disaster.
I have walked on the battlefields such as Chickamauga, the Battle of
Lookout Mountain and the Battle of Missionary Ridge.
And while I have never visited an American law court, other than the
Congress, I feel safe in making certain assumptions, such as that the
rule of law will take precedence over personal influence.
Belgium is currently at a standstill, as the very question which
bedevils the United Kingdom; to wit, who gets a fair shake and who
doesn't; bids fair to destroy the country as a political entity.
Belgium and the UK have the same problem; both are what might be
called "artificial states". The integrity of Belgium is threatened by
one of its ethnic groups threatening to break away, just as is
happening in the United Kingdom with Scotland. Each group comes from
ethnic backgrounds which have little in common, other than proximity
to each other. There is no common language; that defining mark of an
homogenous people.
Scotland itself has long been an artificial state, in that it is
composed of widely disparate groups speaking (originally and to some
degree today) different languages . Be it the Lowland people, whose
roots lie in the mainland of Europe; the Highland people whose origins
are Irish; the people of the far northeast, Orkney, Shetland and
Caithness who are the descendants of Viking settlers; all are part of
the country called Scotland.
Needless to say, these differences have caused many difficulties in
the past and continue to do so today as each demands parity with the
whole; in matters of health, educational and communication services,
and the sharing of the wealth.
I had the benefit of being born into a family which was and still is
wealthy, and no expense was spared to ensure that I would not become a
burden on that family. I went to a school whose annual fees were
substantial to say the least and it was hoped and expected that I
would emerge with more than a passing understanding of the society I
was born and brought up in.
To this end, I learned a great deal about England and its history and
institutions and very little about Scotland. Examinations were
composed in Oxford or Cambridge; and I was startled when finally
exposed to London society to discover that most people there had no
idea that Scotland had its own legal code and other institutions. Like
so many others here, much of what I know about Scotland's history, I
taught myself from Scottish history books.
However, not all our masters (teachers) were English,and some of the
Scots did their best to give us at least some insight into Scotland's
history and place in the United Kingdom. It was there that I was rold
that there is no such thing as a King of Scotland; but only a King of
Scots. This information came from a man whose father was the Marchmont
Herald, one of the Heralds in the Lord Lyon's Court; an expert on all
matters to do with heraldry and Scotland's institutions, and as such,
I accepted it at face value and indeed still talk by telephone to that
same master who is now retired and in his late nineties.
The question of whether a King in Scotland is a King of Scotland or a
King of Scots had been widely debated over the centuries. No better
proof could be produced of this fact than the citation given by Mr.
Hines, that indefatigable seeker after truth, who was able to find and
post a Wikipedia article dealing with that very subject; namely. "What
were/are Kings or Queens in Scotland called?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_t ... f_ScotlandVide Mr. Hines, galloping off madly in all directions to tell the
world that Paterson, M. has finally been caught in error, doing so
with but one clear purpose in mind; the glorification of David Spencer
Hines, amateur historian, and to quote Surreyman, twit.
The reality is that had Hines not been dipping into the arcane world
of Scottish history in order to establish some personal connection
with our country, he would never have known about this still on-going
argument; an argument which will not be resolved by the quoting of
various authorities in the past who may or may not have been in error
themselves.
What a King called himself in days gone by may well have placed him in
error as far as the genuine experts are concerned, but, given the
times when Scottish monarchs sat on a Scottish throne, there can have
been few bold enough to step up to the throne and tell His current
Majesty, "You're wrong, pal!"
While not doubting the obviously hard work put into the list of titles
in the Wikipedia article assumed or used by Scots kings and queens in
the past. I note that the original question - "Is a King in Scotland
called King of Scotland or King of Scots does not seem to have been
answered.
Even Her Majesy has neatly avoided this question over the years by
styling herself Queen of the United Kingdom; a question which she may
have to resolve in the event ot Scottish independence and any national
desire to keep the Queen as the head of a Scottish state, like Canada
and many other Commonwealth countries.
It is an argument which is certainly not going to be resolved by an
elderly, disgraced, USN Commander eking out his days in Kailua by
trying to score retaliation brownie points on Usenet at the expense of
others, such as myself.
I rest my case.
Was that 'Yes' or 'No'?
Surreyman
Yes or no to what? The argument has never been resolved. I was taught