‘The King is dead, Long live the queen’

Also the union happened in the reign of Queen Anne, so technically her or her legal team might have had the ability to query it but George I, her successor was King of Great Britain and he had never been KIng of England etc.

It is all down to the legal minutia.

Well you know what proison is like nowadays, you will be able to whistle out of both ends, simultaneously!

On the subject of the “English Queen”, it really doesn’t matter. The Queen didn’t stop being Queen of England and started being Queen of Britain, she took on additional titles and, eventually, combined them all into one title.

A court ruling against Mr Smith doesn’t cease to have effect because Mr Smith changes his name to Mr Jones or becomes Lord Smith. If you’re the Managing Director of Axel Widgets Ltd and Axel Widgets Ltd becomes Wonko Widgets Ltd, everything you did under the old name doesn’t become void.

Berwick upon tweed, was under an ownership struggle to see if it was part of england or part of scotland, in the mid 19th century and for a while it was treated as a seperate entity, until the legalities were resolved.

1914, we go to war with Germany, on the same side as Russia, only to discover that technically, berwick upon tweed was still at war with russia, it had declared war with the rest of the empire in 1853 but in the ensuing excitement, had been finally and legally incorporated into England.

So although common sense would say as representitive of the British Empire, the peace signatories ended the war, poor old Berwick was not included.

And this is the dull guff we are up against when looking for any sort of reform.

And the law being the law must be precise, so unless the relevant laws were updated and mentioned in the current version because she is not ‘English Monarch’, it does not apply.

A petty legal triviality I know but this is one of the reasons that lawyers are so rich, arguing over crap like this.

The laws I’ve mentioned in this post are all still in force – either in full or in part – today.

I think there are 2 things that spoil this bit.

i)1603 & 1707 union of the crowns,there was a lot of legal malarkey on both sides of the border with both parliments, to make the act legally permissable and I think, she is no longer the ‘English Queen’ but the ‘British Queen!’ and i think that is the compromise the way around both parliments.

ii) The commonwealth 1650-1655 The Parlimentarians abolished tons of parlimentary rulings and re-introduced them as a new complied and concise set of laws, so although the post 1655 laws are spiritually descended from their ancesters, there is no actual legal connection