Post by Pierre AronaxReally? Is UK made of England, Scotland, Walles and NI in "the same way"
that it is made of counties? I would not say that counties are
"constituent"
Post by Pierre Aronaxpart of the UK, rather administrative divisions of the UK.
I think we're using different meanings of the word "constituent" here. One
meaning, the one you seem to be using, is "that makes a thing what it is",
and the other, which I'm using, is "that makes up". By the first definition,
England is not a constituent part of the UK, as the UK is not made what it
is by being defined as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It
happens to be made up of them, and so by the second definition they are
constituent parts, but they aren't essential or basic factors in its
composition, in that way that, for instance, the states are essential
factors in the composition of the USA.
England is just a division (whether you call it that, or a country, or a
nation, is irrelevant) of the UK. England is to the UK as, for example, a
District is to a County - the District I live in (some of the time),
Guildford Borough, is part of the County of Surrey, and so could be said to
be a constituent part of Surrey, but Surrey isn't defined or constituted as
a collection of Boroughs, but exists in and of itself, in the same way that
the UK exists in and of itself, and just happens to include England. Just as
the Chief Executive of Surrey County Council couldn't said to be anything
"of Guildford Borough", The Queen isn't anything "of England".
Post by Pierre AronaxPost by Peter TilmanEven if England had existence as a quasi-sovereign entity, like the states
of the US, she still wouldn't be monarch of it, in the same way that the
US
Post by Peter TilmanPresident isn't head of state of California, New York or Mississippi.
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
A monarch is just a head of state who happens to be a King, Queen, Prince,
or something similar.
Post by Pierre AronaxThe US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
Just as The Queen could be said to be "monarch in England" but not "monarch
of England".
Post by Pierre AronaxPost by Peter TilmanIf you really want to describe her in relation to England, then I suppose
you could call her "the monarch ruling in England" or "the monarch whose
rule covers England", but it's far easier and more accurate to call her
the
Post by Peter Tilmanmonarch of the UK, which is what she is.
In a list which must begin with Egbert and end with her, it would be
obviously improper.
In a list of monarchs throughout history, something like "monarchs ruling
over England" would be a good option ("people ruling over England" would be
even better, as it would allow Oliver and Richard Cromwell to be included).
When describing The Queen at the present time, "monarch of the United
Kingdom" is best, as it accurately describes her current position.
Post by Pierre AronaxPost by Peter TilmanPost by Pierre AronaxPost by Peter TilmanShe's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Is Piccadilly Circus a constituent part of the UK in the same sense as
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
For the purposes of ruling over it, yes.
And for other purpose, like being a constituent part of it?
So you're asking if Piccadilly Circus is a constituent part of the UK for
the purposes of being a constituent part of it? That's a rather pointless
question, to be honest.
Post by Pierre AronaxPost by Peter TilmanEngland as a sovereign entity
ceased to exist in 1707, and is legally merely a large administrative
division of the United Kingdom. You can no more be monarch of an
administrative division than you can a city square.
Not even of a "constituent" administrative division?
It is wrong for other countries. For example, Castille is no more than a
part of Spain, and not a sovereign entity; nevertheless, the King of Spain
is also, at least in principle, King of Castille.
Only because he has "King of Castille" amongst his titles. The Queen doesn't
have "Queen of England" amongst hers, and if you included it as one of her
titles regardless of this, you'd have to include "Queen of Wessex", "Queen
of Mercia", "Queen of Northumbria", etc, as well, which is clearly nonsense.