Quote:
Originally Posted by dekeguy
Canada - HM is also Queen of Canada. Last demographic breakdown of Canada that I saw showed it to be not all that diverse. . . . .
|
My point in mentioning Canada was not diversity—though in the sense of "not everyone here is British, just ask Quebec," that was a consideration. I mentioned Canada as an example of a Commonwealth country that maintains the monarchy but chose to move away from a colonial flag. In the case of Canada, that was a red ensign rather than a blue ensign. I think most would say that the Maple Leaf flag is a much better Canadian flag than the defaced red ensign.
Quote:
|
New Zeeland - Again, the demographic breakdown is far less diverse than Australia. Native Maoris are few in number and Brits are the dominant majority. HM is Queen of New Zeeland directly as well.
|
Haven't looked into it myself, though the article I linked says Auckland is more diverse than London or Sydney. Regardless, diversity is one reason the people of New Zealand (not Zeeland) are considering a new flag. To them, it matters. FWIW, it's been an issue in Australia for a decade or two as well.
Quote:
|
My take is that if Her Britannic Majesty is Queen then the Union portion of the flag ought to be retained. Do whatever with the rest of the flag but keep the union portion intact.
|
Meh. The defaced blue ensign is the British equivalent of the seal-on-a-bed-sheet flags of so many American states—virtually indistinguishable except on close inspection.
Quote:
|
As to Scotland, they would probably just remove the Cross of St Andrew and revert to the flag in use before the Act of Union. Incidentally, HM is Queen of Scotland although in Scotland she is Elizabeth I not Elizabeth II. Elizabeth I of England was never Queen of Scotland.
|
Sorry, but unlikely, not quite and no.
First, the flag before the Union was the Cross of St. George, which is the flag of England. Ireland (Northern or otherwise) wasn't represented in the flag as it is now. Meanwhile, Wales may want some recognition. There have been various ideas and predictions in Britain already, and none have been simply using the Cross of St. George.
Second, properly speaking there is no such person as the Queen (or King) of Scotland, or of England for that matter. The Act of Union abolished the English and Scottish thrones, making the monarch the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. But if the throne of Scotland still existed, or if Scotland leaves the Union and re-establishes the Scottish throne, Elizabeth would correctly be Queen of Scots.
Third, while it is correct that there was never an Elizabeth I in Scotland, the decision was made when she became Queen that to avoid confusion she would be Elizabeth II throughout the UK, even in Scotland. (She
is, however, a Presbyterian when in Scotland, not an Anglican.) Likewise, at least if Winston Churchill's advice were to be followed, a King James would James VII throughout the UK, even England. Of course, an independent Scotland might decide otherwise about Elizabeth II/I.
ETA: Sorry for the thread derailment. I guess Anglophilia and Scotophilia could be considered other hobbies of mine.
I just got suspended for two weeks on another board, and if I cut up again they will ban me. Looks like I will be spending more time on GC in the mean time. 
Hybrid Mode
