Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Ronald Di Iorio

Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Legg inn av Ronald Di Iorio » 01 sep 2004 22:39:59

Greetings

To throw some more information into the controversy
concerning the title or lack of one for the supposed
sovereign of the various Channel Isles, here is what
one would have from the numismatic evidence.

1. Guernsey
Coins from 1830 through 1949 were simply
inscribed "Guernsey" with arms on the obv.,
date and denomination on rev. Later issues
usually show a portrait of Elizabeth, but
in most cases no actual title is given, just
the inscription "Elizabeth II" and "Bailiwick
of Guernsey", or "Ballivie Insule De
Gernereves". On some commemmorative issues
one finds the inscription "Queen Elizabeth
the Second". Considering the discussion
that has been taking place, one wonders
exactly to what do these inscriptions refer?
Elizabeth II of what? England? The United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Certainly not the "Duchy of Normandy", as to
the best of my knowledge there was never an
Elizabeth I?

2. Jersey
A different treatment. The coinage from 1841
to present usually carries a portrait of the
reigning U.K. monarch, but significantly, with
the exception of the Victorian issues, not the
bare headed portrait found on U.K. proper coins,
but the crowned portrait usually found on
colonial issues. The title, until the issues
of Elizabeth II, is the usual Latin that appears
on standard U.K. issues including the "Ind Imp"
when that was added. The identifying
inscription is "States of Jersey" or "Bailiwick
of Jersey". All of the issues of Elizabeth
are inscribed "Queen Elizabeth the Second".
Once again, one wonders, "Queen Elizabeth the
Second" of what, as least as far as Jersey
is concerned.

3. And to further muck up the issue, lets look
at the Isle of Man, while not part of the
Duchy of Normandy, another place that has an
unusual status, the last rights of the Atholl
family having been transferred to the crown
in 1829. The issues of George III are inscribed
"Georgivs III D.G. Rex" while those of Victoria
are simply "Victoria Dei Gratia". When coinage
resumes under Elizabeth the coins are inscribed
"Isle of Man" and either "Elizabeth II" or
"Elizabeth the Second". Not "Queen" and
evidently no longer through the grace of God,
as that inscription has also been lost.

Thought this might be of interest.

Ronald Di Iorio





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Charani

Re: Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Legg inn av Charani » 01 sep 2004 22:40:00

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:39:59 +0000 (UTC), Ronald Di Iorio wrote:

8>< snip

3. And to further muck up the issue, lets look
at the Isle of Man, while not part of the
Duchy of Normandy, another place that has an
unusual status, the last rights of the Atholl
family having been transferred to the crown
in 1829. The issues of George III are inscribed
"Georgivs III D.G. Rex" while those of Victoria
are simply "Victoria Dei Gratia". When coinage
resumes under Elizabeth the coins are inscribed
"Isle of Man" and either "Elizabeth II" or
"Elizabeth the Second". Not "Queen" and
evidently no longer through the grace of God,
as that inscription has also been lost.

Elizabeth II is Lord of Man that's why she's not designated Queen.

Man is not part of the United Kingdom, nor of the European Union, but
it is/was part of the British Commonwealth.

George III was also Lord of Man, not its King.

Charani

Re: Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Legg inn av Charani » 01 sep 2004 22:40:00

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Chris Dickinson wrote:


Now, that's going to confuse a lot of people! :-)

Next, someone is going to mention Berwick-upon-Tweed. Oops!


lolol

Chris Dickinson

Re: Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 01 sep 2004 23:25:26

Charani wrote:

Elizabeth II is Lord of Man that's why she's not designated Queen.
Man is not part of the United Kingdom, nor of the European Union, but
it is/was part of the British Commonwealth.

George III was also Lord of Man, not its King.


Now, that's going to confuse a lot of people! :-)

Next, someone is going to mention Berwick-upon-Tweed. Oops!


Chris

John Steele Gordon

Re: Titles, Channel Isles, etc.

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 02 sep 2004 14:23:42

"Charani" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2pmjmoFmk4nqU1@uni-berlin.de...

Elizabeth II is Lord of Man that's why she's not designated Queen.
Man is not part of the United Kingdom, nor of the European Union, but
it is/was part of the British Commonwealth.

George III was also Lord of Man, not its King.

Only after he bought the lordship from the Duke and Duchess of Atholl, who
had inherited it through the female line from the earls of Derby. Henry IV
had given it to Sir John Stanley in 1406, along with the title of "King of
Man." The Stanleys, however, refused to use that title, settling on Lord of
Man instead, which was undoubtedly politically wise of them. The Atholl
regime turned Man into a smuggler's heaven and, to protect the tariff
revenues, Parliament paid £70,000 for the sovereignty of Man in 1765, plus
£2000 a year to the duke and duchess. Atholl retained the manorial rights
(plus the right to name the bishop) until 1828, when Parliament forked over
the colossal sum of £417,144 for them as well.

There Will Always Be an England Dept.

JSG

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»