Report: Big Ben to be renamed Elizabeth Tower

[Xenophon PCDGS]

HM The (late) Queen Mother was of Scottish aristocratic descent, so I think the whole (Germanic) thing is a bit overdone.

But she was only a minor royal, who married into the Germanic blood-line of her husband. The Honourable Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon did not assume the title of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon until her father, Lord Glamis, inherited the Scottish Earldom of Strathmore and Kinghorn in 1904.

You may say that the whole (Germanic) thing is a bit overdone, but from the advent of the reign of George I onwards, can you name a non-Germanic bloodline-connected monarch of this country since that time.(Until 1917, when the name was changed to Windsor, the British monarchical House name was still that of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). If you can do this, I will be most happy to be proved wrong. Please do not think that I am anti-Royalist or have republican tendancies, for this is most definately not the case. It is just that I do not like actual historical facts being subverted to suit modernistic ideas.

 

[yorksrob]

You may say that the whole (Germanic) thing is a bit overdone, but from the advent of the reign of George I onwards, can you name a non-Germanic bloodline-connected monarch of this country since that time.(Until 1917, when the name was changed to Windsor, the British monarchical House name was still that of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). If you can do this, I will be most happy to be proved wrong. Please do not think that I am anti-Royalist or have republican tendancies, for this is most definately not the case. It is just that I do not like actual historical facts being subverted to suit modernistic ideas.

Obviously I can't because the Queen has some German ancestry. But does it really matter that some of the Queen's ancestors on her fathers side (and a few relatives) came from Germany? It's noteable that what little impact this has had on the constitutional development of the country has been relatively benign.

 

[WestCoast]

Prince Andreas is the reigning Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Head of the House, which of course holds no official legislative status whatsoever. He's the great-great-grandson of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are roughly the modern day German states of Thuringia and Bavaria, interestingly the former was under the socialist GDR's jurisdiction from 1949 until 1990.

The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha bloodline is part of a number of European monarchies. Apart from Britain, I believe the royal family of Belgium have ancestral roots in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, as well as the last King of Bulgaria, who also served as president in the early 2000s. There's also some sort of connection to the former royal family of Portugal and the reigning monarch of Sweden.

So, really, I don't think it matters at all.

 

[LE Greys]

Thats in rather poor taste.

and no I am not a Daily Express reader.

I know, sorry. Although you have to remember, he is in a high-risk occupation.

 

[wintonian]

I know, sorry. Although you have to remember, he is in a high-risk occupation.

It wasn't his occupation I was thinking off, rather more historical matters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

HM doesn't "rule", she "reigns".

Are you addressing this clarification to the word "rule" used by IanXC in posting # 25, in that she is a ruler who "reigns" ?

 

[tbtc]

I can never understand people who only focus on one branch of a family's history, like the "my family came over from Ireland in the 1800s" when people mean "one branch came over from Ireland in the 1800s"...

Ultimately we are all of Ethiopian descent, and most people in the UK have some German/ Scandinavian ancestry (given the invasions/immigration over the last thousand years), so why the focus on the fact that some of the Queen's ancestors came from Germany (when most people have some Germanic ancestry if they go back far enough)?

(and I say this as someone who thinks that hereditary monarchy has no place in a modern country - I just think that the "her family is German" argument is pretty weak/irrelevant)

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I can never understand people who only focus on one branch of a family's history, like the "my family came over from Ireland in the 1800s" when people mean "one branch came over from Ireland in the 1800s"...

Ultimately we are all of Ethiopian descent, and most people in the UK have some German/ Scandinavian ancestry (given the invasions/immigration over the last thousand years), so why the focus on the fact that some of the Queen's ancestors came from Germany (when most people have some Germanic ancestry if they go back far enough)?


(and I say this as someone who thinks that hereditary monarchy has no place in a modern country - I just think that the "her family is German" argument is pretty weak/irrelevant)

It's all to do with the war - the first world war - when Daschunds were kicked in the street and German Shepherd dogs had their breed names changed to Alsation. That's when the royals became the Windsors. Prince Philip is often referred to as Phil the Greek but he's actually more German/Danish than Greek.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I say this as someone who thinks that hereditary monarchy has no place in a modern country - I just think that the "her family is German" argument is pretty weak/irrelevant

I note your comment with regard to your personal view of the monarchy and its relevance to Britain in the 21st century. However, we still have such a state of affairs and this is why I have decided to play "Devils Advocate" to elicit views from forum members as your good self on the matter.

From what I gather, the monarchical settlement is the most important thing in life to those who "reign" over us and the peoples of other countries with a monarchy. If we are subservient to the ruling monarch and "owe allegiance" to such a ruler, how is then that the powers invested in the monarch have gradually been diminished since the Commonwealth of the time of Cromwell, then after the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy. Charles I must have been one of the final proponents of the "Divine Rule" of the British monarchy. I am sure that someone on the forum can state the exact power that is now invested in a British ruling monarch.

My point still remains that we once had endemic ruling Houses, such as the House of Tudor, of which Henry VIII was a member.....(was there a strong Welsh connection to this House ?). This is the type of "home-grown" monarchy that people can readily identify with, rather than to have our own throne in the hands of the Dutch or the Germans.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ultimately we are all of Ethiopian descent

Yes, but how did we arrive in Ethiopia....and where did we set off from to arrive there ? I am well aware that in the Ethiopian National Museum in Addis Ababa reside the 40% complete skeletal remains of the female hominid given the name of "Lucy", which by means of the 40Ar/39Ar (Argon) dating technique has been arrived at a date of 3,180,000 years, making this specimen the oldest known hominid so far.

Chicken and egg syndrome.

 

[90019]

Chicken and egg syndrome.

The egg came first.

 

[IanXC]

Are you addressing this clarification to the word "rule" used by IanXC in posting # 25, in that she is a ruler who "reigns" ?

Yorksrob is of course correct that "reign" is better terminology than "rule". I had simply copied the language The Barlow Boy had used, and which you had prior to your edit .

 

[tbtc]

Yes, but how did we arrive in Ethiopia....and where did we set off from to arrive there ?

Depends on whether you believe in the Garden of Eden or the Big Bang really, which is a whole other conversation.

Either way, it looks likely that the first humans came from that part of north eastern Africa that we now know as Ethiopia, before migrating around the globe.

I don't understand why people still use the "Queen is German" line of argument, when you have to accept that (1) she was born in the UK and (2) if you go back several generations then her family were probably African (just like you and me).

Why people think that she is "German" based on one line of her family tree which included Germans for some generations is a bit odd - it's not like we are all different species, so that a child of a German parent inherits the "German gene" or anything.

 

[yorksrob]

From what I gather, the monarchical settlement is the most important thing in life to those who "reign" over us and the peoples of other countries with a monarchy. If we are subservient to the ruling monarch and "owe allegiance" to such a ruler, how is then that the powers invested in the monarch have gradually been diminished since the Commonwealth of the time of Cromwell, then after the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy. Charles I must have been one of the final proponents of the "Divine Rule" of the British monarchy. I am sure that someone on the forum can state the exact power that is now invested in a British ruling monarch.

My point still remains that we once had endemic ruling Houses, such as the House of Tudor, of which Henry VIII was a member.....(was there a strong Welsh connection to this House ?). This is the type of "home-grown" monarchy that people can readily identify with, rather than to have our own throne in the hands of the Dutch or the Germans.

I think we tend to mythologise a lot about the Civil War in this Country. However, the historical reality is that Charles II’s style of Government was remarkably similar to Charles I’s. I think the fact that we managed to successfully get away from absolutist monarchy has a lot to do with the disparate collection of disinterested/not always entirely competent foreign monarchs that came before the Saxe Coburg’s. Infact, had we continued with home grown monarchy in the early Stuart mould, we’d probably have reached a constitutional impasse of the sort that many European countries had in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[Michael.Y]

So, just to clarify, the Queen is to be known henceforth as Big Ben?

 

[IanXC]

So, just to clarify, the Queen is to be known henceforth as Big Ben?

The way I read it she is to be known as St Stephen.

 

[Eagle]

The way I read it she is to be known as St Stephen.

Although it would have to be Stephen II (unless you dispute Stephen I's reign over England in favour of Matilda, of course).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In fact, had we continued with home grown monarchy in the early Stuart mould, we’d probably have reached a constitutional impasse of the sort that many European countries had in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I will confess to being a most definite supporter of the Red Rose side in the early Middle Ages and having an interest in the House of Plantagenet (1154 to 1485) with Edward I (Longshanks) being somewhat of a strong monarch. Much occurred during this dynastical period, with The Hundred Years War against France having many notable examples of fluctuation in fortunes.

 

[Eagle]

I will confess to being a most definite supporter of the Red Rose side in the early Middle Ages...

Didn't know you were that old

 

[yorksrob]

I will confess to being a most definite supporter of the Red Rose side in the early Middle Ages and having an interest in the House of Plantagenet (1154 to 1485) with Edward I (Longshanks) being somewhat of a strong monarch. Much occurred during this dynastical period, with The Hundred Years War against France having many notable examples of fluctuation in fortunes.

Dangerous business being a Plantagenet monarch, bearing in mind the way some of them died ! (apparently they were renowned for being rather a bloodthirsty lot even by the standards of our European neighbours).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Dangerous business being a Plantagenet monarch, bearing in mind the way some of them died ! (apparently they were renowned for being rather a bloodthirsty lot even by the standards of our European neighbours).

The matter of Edward II and the red-hot poker is indeed something to be noted...

Never a dull moment with the House of Plantegenet.

 

[yorksrob]

The matter of Edward II and the red-hot poker is indeed something to be noted...

Ouch !

 

[HowMuch?]

Back to language changes.

To say "The tower is not called Big Ben" is ridiculous when that's EXACTLY what 99% of people call it. It's one of those things that marks out the pedant from people who love language, and don't use it carelessly, but recognise that it's a communication system, not a sytem of "Laws".

By all means say "Officially, only the bell is Big Ben". But if I were to stand on Westminster Bridge and say "No, you can't see Big Ben from here" most would people call me a right anorack (See, I can't even SPELL Anorak! Or can I?)

Actually, I am quite Anoracky in my own interests : IT, Real Ale, and Canals as well as travel. And seeing language used poorly DOES irritate me, I'm NOT an "anything goes" type.

 

[Badger]

I think HowMuch? is right to be honest - it's "called" Big Ben - that might not be what an official named it, but it's what "we" named it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's one of those things that marks out the pedant from people who love language, and don't use it carelessly, but recognise that it's a communication system, not a sytem of "Laws".

Once a pedant, always a pedant. Indeed, I do stand convicted of this particular nomenclature. The fact that 99% are unaware of the true facts of the name of the said edifice and blindly go around believing what they say is true does not alter the incontrovertible fact that they are wrong.

The current "sloppy" use of the English Language is reflected in many ways..."could of" rather than "could have"...or even worse "could ov"...:roll: Is this too an example of a communication system ?

I do bow before your knowledge of the word "sytem" as stated in your quote above, as arcane English words such as this show a most deep lexicolological knowledge on your part.......It is only a matter of days ago when the word "porminent" was used to describe a football commentator.

 

[HowMuch?]

Once a pedant, always a pedant. Indeed, I do stand convicted of this particular nomenclature. The fact that 99% are unaware of the true facts of the name of the said edifice and blindly go around believing what they say is true does not alter the incontrovertible fact that they are wrong.

The current "sloppy" use of the English Language is reflected in many ways..."could of" rather than "could have"...or even worse "could ov"...:roll: Is this too an example of a communication system ?

I do bow before your knowledge of the word "sytem" as stated in your quote above, as arcane English words such as this show a most deep lexicolological knowledge on your part.......It is only a matter of days ago when the word "porminent" was used to describe a football commentator.

I'm not sure you're using the word "pedant" quite correctly.

And "sytem" is a pefectly good word! I just invented it. Note especially-irritating US-influenced avoidance of the perfect tense in that last sentence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not sure you're using the word "pedant" quite correctly.

This is not what my wife would have you to believe.....

I am forever being reminded by her that I pay far too much heed of the minutiae of matters, rather than seeing "the big picture"...:roll: