King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
D. Spencer Hines

King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 nov 2007 07:23:15

"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-------------------------------------

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident, Pogue
Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred, flaccid arse and
presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of the
English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of Arbroath
(1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred style,
including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King of France"
(1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce" (1315), the
Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the
Papal Bull authorising the anointing of Scottish Kings (1329) and the Treaty
of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_monarchs_of_Scotland>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

Rico

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av Rico » 13 nov 2007 07:35:43

Are not the people who are styled as King/Queen of the Scots (the people)
the same as those who were known as The King/Queen of Scotland (the
realm/nation/country) in the same way that the men who are/were styled as
the Kings of the Belgians (the people) also known as the Kings of Belgium
(the realm/nation/country)???????


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:ypb_i.541$Ig4.2734@eagle.america.net...
"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-------------------------------------

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as
dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident,
Pogue
Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred, flaccid arse
and
presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of
SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of
the
English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of Arbroath
(1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred
style,
including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King of France"
(1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce" (1315), the
Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the
Papal Bull authorising the anointing of Scottish Kings (1329) and the
Treaty
of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_t ... f_Scotland

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

allan connochie

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av allan connochie » 13 nov 2007 07:58:02

"Rico" <hoganrj@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message
news:3Bb_i.11913$CN4.11653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Are not the people who are styled as King/Queen of the Scots (the people)
the same as those who were known as The King/Queen of Scotland (the
realm/nation/country) in the same way that the men who are/were styled as
the Kings of the Belgians (the people) also known as the Kings of Belgium
(the realm/nation/country)???????

Certainly as far as documentation goes. For example the 1363 proposal for
union with England starts "The King of Scotland" whilst the 1364 General
Charter To The Burghs starts "David, by the grace of God, King of Scots".
Professor Donaldson's "Scottish Historical Documents" shows that King of
Scots may have perhaps been the more used but there are a great many times
where "of Scotland" is used also.

Allan

D. Spencer Hines

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 02:36:05

"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."...

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Blithering Nonsense...

Errant Codswallop, Balderdash & Twaddle.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

The Highlander

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av The Highlander » 14 nov 2007 06:50:20

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.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as dumb
as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish [NEG] for our
dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident, Pogue
Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred, flaccid arse and
presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of the
English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of Arbroath
(1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred style,
including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King of France"
(1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce" (1315), the
Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the
Papal Bull authorising the anointing of Scottish Kings (1329) and the Treaty
of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_t ... f_Scotland

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

D. Spencer Hines

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 07:18:09

"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.

Lame!

Michael Paterson has been caught by the short hairs and is whinging.

DSH

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson], absolutely *determined* to flaunt his
ignorance, make a fool of himself and prove to all and sundry he is as
dumb as a sack of hammers, has posted New Entertaining Gibberish
[NEG] for our dalliance, dissection and delectation.

Posing as a Real Scot, this scrofulous Canadian [Vancouver] resident,
Pogue Highlander, has - once again -- bared his pimpled, scarred,
flaccid arse and presented it for a Good Robust Kicking.

I've put on my best sturdy boots, with the steel toes, and am happy to
oblige him in his masochistic pursuits into the slough of depravity -- by
leaving him with a few more scars.

It is a GREAT MYTH that the monarchs of Scotland have always styled
themselves as King or Queen of SCOTS and NEVER as King or Queen of
SCOTLAND.

That is simply NOT TRUE.

Pogue Highlander [Michael Paterson] has proven himself to be pig ignorant
even about SCOTLAND and Styles Adopted By Scottish Monarchs.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

Pax Vobiscum.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
----------------------------------

"David Dei gratia Rex Scotiae -- David by the Grace of God, King of
Scotland." [1124-1153]

"David Dei gratia Rex Scottorum -- David by the Grace of God, King of the
Scots" [1124-1153]

"From David I onwards, the royal style is either "rex Scottorum" or "rex
Scotiae"."

"In the late Middle Ages the styles "rex Scottorum" [King of Scots -- DSH]
and "rex Scotiae" [King of Scotland -- DSH] were used interchangeably."

"Similarly, the Monarchs of England could be referred to as the "king of
the English" as indeed Edward II of England was in the Declaration of
Arbroath (1320)."

"King of the Scots was used in "The Declaration of the Clergy in favour of
Robert the Bruce" (1334), as it was in the charter by which Edward Balliol
ceded the southern counties of Scotland to England."

"However, in many other documents King of Scotland was the preferred
style, including "The Letter of the Magnates of Scotland to the King
of France" (1308), "The Settlement of Succession on Robert the Bruce"
(1315), the Treaty of Corbeuil (1326), the Treaty of
Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), the Papal Bull authorising the anointing
of Scottish Kings (1329) and the Treaty of Berwick (1357)."

"This remained the case until the last three monarchs of Scotland, William
II of Scotland (William III of England), Mary II of Scotland (Mary II of
England), and Queen Anne, who became Anne of Great Britain following the
Acts of Union 1707."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_t ... f_Scotland

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Dies Irae

The Highlander

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av The Highlander » 14 nov 2007 16:13:37

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_Scotland

Vide 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.

The Highlander

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av The Highlander » 14 nov 2007 16:30:28

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:58:31 GMT, "allan connochie"
<conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:

"Rico" <hoganrj@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message
news:3Bb_i.11913$CN4.11653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Are not the people who are styled as King/Queen of the Scots (the people)
the same as those who were known as The King/Queen of Scotland (the
realm/nation/country) in the same way that the men who are/were styled as
the Kings of the Belgians (the people) also known as the Kings of Belgium
(the realm/nation/country)???????

Certainly as far as documentation goes. For example the 1363 proposal for
union with England starts "The King of Scotland" whilst the 1364 General
Charter To The Burghs starts "David, by the grace of God, King of Scots".
Professor Donaldson's "Scottish Historical Documents" shows that King of
Scots may have perhaps been the more used but there are a great many times
where "of Scotland" is used also.

Allan

As always, fair and truthful commentary. Thank you for that.

a.spencer3

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 14 nov 2007 17:04:36

"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_Scotland

Vide 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

allan connochie

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av allan connochie » 14 nov 2007 22:47:09

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a35mj3l60homk2t4654d3tmva89mqv4hc2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:58:31 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:


"Rico" <hoganrj@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message
news:3Bb_i.11913$CN4.11653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Are not the people who are styled as King/Queen of the Scots (the
people)
the same as those who were known as The King/Queen of Scotland (the
realm/nation/country) in the same way that the men who are/were styled
as
the Kings of the Belgians (the people) also known as the Kings of
Belgium
(the realm/nation/country)???????

Certainly as far as documentation goes. For example the 1363 proposal for
union with England starts "The King of Scotland" whilst the 1364 General
Charter To The Burghs starts "David, by the grace of God, King of Scots".
Professor Donaldson's "Scottish Historical Documents" shows that King of
Scots may have perhaps been the more used but there are a great many times
where "of Scotland" is used also.

Allan

As always, fair and truthful commentary. Thank you for that.

Mind saying that I'm not totally disagreeing with you either. The proper
convention may well have been King of Scots, just because they sometimes
used 'of Scotland' doesn't mean they were valid in doing so. After all James
VI styled himself King of Great Britain a century before Great Britain
existed - and some of the British kings called also claimed to be King of
France.

cheers

Allan

John Briggs

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 02:13:49

allan connochie wrote:
"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a35mj3l60homk2t4654d3tmva89mqv4hc2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:58:31 GMT, "allan connochie"
conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:


"Rico" <hoganrj@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message
news:3Bb_i.11913$CN4.11653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Are not the people who are styled as King/Queen of the Scots (the
people)
the same as those who were known as The King/Queen of Scotland (the
realm/nation/country) in the same way that the men who are/were
styled as
the Kings of the Belgians (the people) also known as the Kings of
Belgium
(the realm/nation/country)???????

Certainly as far as documentation goes. For example the 1363
proposal for union with England starts "The King of Scotland"
whilst the 1364 General Charter To The Burghs starts "David, by the
grace of God, King of Scots". Professor Donaldson's "Scottish
Historical Documents" shows that King of Scots may have perhaps
been the more used but there are a great many times where "of
Scotland" is used also.
As always, fair and truthful commentary. Thank you for that.

Mind saying that I'm not totally disagreeing with you either. The
proper convention may well have been King of Scots, just because they
sometimes used 'of Scotland' doesn't mean they were valid in doing
so. After all James VI styled himself King of Great Britain a century
before Great Britain existed - and some of the British kings called
also claimed to be King of France.

"All our subjects in this our isle and kingdom of Great Britain and the
members thereof, shall bear in their main top the red cross commonly called
St George's Cross and the white cross commonly called St. Andrew's Cross
joined together according to a form made by our heralds and sent to our
Admiral to be published to our said subjects."
--
John Briggs

The Highlander

Re: King/Queen Of Scots & King/Queen Of Scotland

Legg inn av The Highlander » 15 nov 2007 07:00:28

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:04:36 GMT, "a.spencer3"
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"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_Scotland

Vide 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

that it is King or Queen of Scots; others disagree; most are unsure.

Hines of course has no idea - as usual he has simply parroted someone
else's work and given it a veneer od personal scholarship to impress
the casual reader and obviously pay off a few scores.

SCS is a fairly interesting forum in normal times, where the posters
often display a high level of knowledge. People like Hines are just an
interruption. As I said above, how can he know anythiing about
Scotland without at least having some background tp base his arguments
on. some background?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»