You followed the lead of the article you linked to and made a reference to the “Queen of England”. This title has not existed since the Act of Union united England and Scotland, when the title became “King/Queen of Great Britain, (France), and Ireland”. This was further modified in 1800 when it became “…of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” (finally dropping the French pretense in the process) and tweaked once more in 1921 to say Northern Ireland when the Republic became independent. She is thus now styled, “Her Majesty Elizabeth II (numeral not used in Scotland), by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories Beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth”. Queen of the United Kingdom or British Monarch/Sovereign are acceptable informal forms, but NOT just England or English.
<
p>This is something I follow and cringe when it’s not used correctly. It’s like refering to the USSR as Russia or the Netherlands as Holland, neither of which is any more correct. For any other monarchy buffs out there the Queen is also Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy (yes, duke not duchess) and conjugally Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, and Baroness Greenwich. Consider this your “History Monday” lesson:) BTW, I’m not trying to be critical of the diarist here. This is a common and understandable error, but I took advantage of the opening.
p>No, it is not like those things you put up, in your own spasm of false equivalencies. No one is going to be confused as to who is referred to by “the Queen of England.” (Did you cringe again?)
The other examples aren’t either. I just prefer accuracy and refering to things correctly. Short answer is yes, I care, but I wouldn’t make more of it than pet peeve.
…when we severed ties in 1776. The British monarchy has gone from one extreme of divine right and King’s word is law (that’s good, not the divine right part, but the abandonment thereof) to the other extreme of not being allowed to express an opinion in public (not so good IMO). I’m pretty sure the Brits still say Her Majesty, the Queen, or Ma’am.
You’ve successfully derailed this thread into a discussion about the proper form of address of the basically irrelevant figurehead of a country whose system we tossed out over 200 years ago. For the record, I am not going to call her the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales, South Darbyshire, the Falkland Islands, and North Umbrage, Protector of the Holy Garter Belt, Apple of God’s Eye, and Floater of the Fleet, or whatever all that stuff you put up there was. So don’t be disappointed. Just because the British find it worthwhile to maintain a crew of inbred leftovers for old time’s sake or something doesn’t mean we have to join in the rituals. I knew who I meant, you knew who I meant, and every other person who read it knew who I meant. That makes it perfectly accurate.
<
p>Wait – forget all that. I mean, noted. Thank you.
You ran into something that is of interest to me and I picked up on it. It happens from time to time. We can now return to our regularly scheduled discussion of the latest boycotters of Glenn Beck:)
jimc
2020 years ago
Awesome.
lasthorseman
2020 years ago
korpo-rat oligarch US media Glenn has contributed to the collective awareness of humanity by alienating the worldwide 911 truth movement and as such illustrates the deliberate gatekeeping done by the left wing of politics.
many years to formulate my current worldview. Think of it as rejecting the every fallacy that is American history and replacing it with truth. Truth from the CT theories of everything. You know what. It makes far more sense! It is logical. It even resonates spiritually. That constitutes the three witnesses. Rather more basically.
<
p>Americans stand for nothing today,save what media tells them to!
kirth
2020 years ago
that’s trashed by Media Matters in Bob’s first link is a good example of why everyone should snort in derision when someone calls the publication “liberal.” I read it every week for years (because my father subscribed), and it has always been an organ of the Right.
<
p>Bob’s second link seems to be outdated, as far as the number of departing advertisers goes. Media Matters says more than 60, and that’s before the Queen’s grocer pulled its ads. Also notice that, unlike some of the other advertisers, Waitrose didn’t just tell Fox not to run its ads on Beck’s show, they pulled all their ads from the entire Fox News network. That directly affects the network’s bottom line, where relocating ads to other shows might not.
neilsagan
2020 years ago
Total number of companies that refuse to have ads run on Glenn Beck: 82
<
p>The boycott is working: It is being reported that the Glenn Beck show is losing more than 50% of its weekly ad revenue as a result of this boycott. Keep it up!
<
p>10/6/09 update: 16 new sponsors drop Glenn Beck. The list has been updated to include the sponsors indicated in today’s Color of Change press release . CoC announced 19 sponsors. The reason why I am saying 16 is because 3 of the sponsors in CoC’s announcement were already included in my list. The 16 new sponsors are highlighted in purple.
Great news today in our campaign against Glenn Beck. We’re announcing that nineteen more of Beck’s advertisers have stopped supporting his show. That number includes two British companies who just announced that they’ve pulled their ads from the UK broadcast of Beck’s show after hearing from customers.
Two companies-Waitrose (the British supermarket chain) and Metropolitan Talent Management-pulled their ads not only from Beck’s show, but from Fox News in general.
Over 280,000 of us have now called on advertisers to stop supporting Beck’s show. We are keeping Beck isolated and making sure that he continues to be a financial liability for Fox. Eventually, Fox will have to explain why they are continuing to give Beck’s race-baiting and fear-mongering a platform even as it hurts their bottom line.
Here’s the full list of new companies ditching Beck:
AmMed Direct
Citrix Online
Concord Music Group
Diageo
Eggland’s Best
Equifax
Eulactol USA (producer of Flexitol)
GetARoom.com
Hoffman La Roche (maker of BONIVA)
Metropolitan Talent Management
ooVoo
Overture Films,
Scarguard,
Schiff Nutrition (maker of Tiger’s Milk and Fi-Bar)
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Subaru
Toyota-Lexus
Waitrose
Woodland Power Products, Inc.
You followed the lead of the article you linked to and made a reference to the “Queen of England”. This title has not existed since the Act of Union united England and Scotland, when the title became “King/Queen of Great Britain, (France), and Ireland”. This was further modified in 1800 when it became “…of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” (finally dropping the French pretense in the process) and tweaked once more in 1921 to say Northern Ireland when the Republic became independent. She is thus now styled, “Her Majesty Elizabeth II (numeral not used in Scotland), by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories Beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and Head of the Commonwealth”. Queen of the United Kingdom or British Monarch/Sovereign are acceptable informal forms, but NOT just England or English.
<
p>This is something I follow and cringe when it’s not used correctly. It’s like refering to the USSR as Russia or the Netherlands as Holland, neither of which is any more correct. For any other monarchy buffs out there the Queen is also Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy (yes, duke not duchess) and conjugally Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, and Baroness Greenwich. Consider this your “History Monday” lesson:) BTW, I’m not trying to be critical of the diarist here. This is a common and understandable error, but I took advantage of the opening.
about what Her Royalness’s official title is?
<
p>No, it is not like those things you put up, in your own spasm of false equivalencies. No one is going to be confused as to who is referred to by “the Queen of England.” (Did you cringe again?)
The other examples aren’t either. I just prefer accuracy and refering to things correctly. Short answer is yes, I care, but I wouldn’t make more of it than pet peeve.
on the history of titles of British heirs to the throne because I was looking for thread on the Beck boycott.
before somebody had their agenda nudged.
lost sight of his agenda and responded with anything other than
<
p>”Noted. Thank you.”
I take the point that I diverged from the point of the diary, but we usually use zeroes around here for the egregiously offensive.
has “Monarchist” listed as his facebook political views. Thus, you can see the outrage.
The monarchy was successfully ended in 1974 with the resignation of Richard Nixon.
<
p>But where do people get off calling her the Queen of England? In the U.K., they call her “Liz”, and “Ye Olde Battle Axe”.
…when we severed ties in 1776. The British monarchy has gone from one extreme of divine right and King’s word is law (that’s good, not the divine right part, but the abandonment thereof) to the other extreme of not being allowed to express an opinion in public (not so good IMO). I’m pretty sure the Brits still say Her Majesty, the Queen, or Ma’am.
You’ve successfully derailed this thread into a discussion about the proper form of address of the basically irrelevant figurehead of a country whose system we tossed out over 200 years ago. For the record, I am not going to call her the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales, South Darbyshire, the Falkland Islands, and North Umbrage, Protector of the Holy Garter Belt, Apple of God’s Eye, and Floater of the Fleet, or whatever all that stuff you put up there was. So don’t be disappointed. Just because the British find it worthwhile to maintain a crew of inbred leftovers for old time’s sake or something doesn’t mean we have to join in the rituals. I knew who I meant, you knew who I meant, and every other person who read it knew who I meant. That makes it perfectly accurate.
<
p>Wait – forget all that. I mean, noted. Thank you.
You ran into something that is of interest to me and I picked up on it. It happens from time to time. We can now return to our regularly scheduled discussion of the latest boycotters of Glenn Beck:)
Awesome.
korpo-rat oligarch US media Glenn has contributed to the collective awareness of humanity by alienating the worldwide 911 truth movement and as such illustrates the deliberate gatekeeping done by the left wing of politics.
Are you pulling flash cards with words out of bag to write that comment?
We may be seeing an example of such.
many years to formulate my current worldview. Think of it as rejecting the every fallacy that is American history and replacing it with truth. Truth from the CT theories of everything. You know what. It makes far more sense! It is logical. It even resonates spiritually. That constitutes the three witnesses. Rather more basically.
<
p>Americans stand for nothing today,save what media tells them to!
that’s trashed by Media Matters in Bob’s first link is a good example of why everyone should snort in derision when someone calls the publication “liberal.” I read it every week for years (because my father subscribed), and it has always been an organ of the Right.
<
p>Bob’s second link seems to be outdated, as far as the number of departing advertisers goes. Media Matters says more than 60, and that’s before the Queen’s grocer pulled its ads. Also notice that, unlike some of the other advertisers, Waitrose didn’t just tell Fox not to run its ads on Beck’s show, they pulled all their ads from the entire Fox News network. That directly affects the network’s bottom line, where relocating ads to other shows might not.
Total number of companies that refuse to have ads run on Glenn Beck: 82
<
p>The boycott is working: It is being reported that the Glenn Beck show is losing more than 50% of its weekly ad revenue as a result of this boycott. Keep it up!
<
p>10/6/09 update: 16 new sponsors drop Glenn Beck. The list has been updated to include the sponsors indicated in today’s Color of Change press release . CoC announced 19 sponsors. The reason why I am saying 16 is because 3 of the sponsors in CoC’s announcement were already included in my list. The 16 new sponsors are highlighted in purple.
<
p>LINK