3 ms·

I grew up in the UK, and can tell you it is very rare for people there to refer to her as "the Queen of England". To do so makes you sound ignorant, at least to

I grew up in the UK, and can tell you it is very rare for people there to refer to her as "the Queen of England". To do so makes you sound ignorant, at least to British people. It would be a similar mistake to refer to the British prime minister as "the prime minister of England". That isn't really a political office, any more than the president of the United States is "the president of California".

SllX 2y ago
I get that, but I also have found that sentiments like that are rarely as universal as they are proclaimed to be which I is why I cited specifically British sources which are easy to find and readily available, and I could have just kept going if I wanted to. I've certainly corrected fellow Americans on the whole "President of California" thing myself because Federation is a poorly understood concept even within the United States; but unlike Queen/King of England, that one actually doesn't have a historical precedent whereas if I refer to King Charles as the King of England, King of Britain, King of Great Britain or King of the UK, or give the whole spiel and say King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all will be understood, even though only a couple of those are correct with respect to the legal title described within the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. But if you want to be a true stickler, most instances where people say British with respect to the UK are also incorrect and we should instead be saying British and Northern Irish save for those times we are referring solely to Great Britain itself. I don't think that's a thing that happens much though, and I'm not looking to start now either.
rcxdude 2y ago
I mean, people in the UK will just refer to "The King/Queen". It's usually pretty obvious which one you mean. I don't think I've heard anyone specify "of England" or "of the UK"
gt0 2y ago
Agree, I grew up in the UK too and people don't say "Queen of England", even littlest Little Englanders I know don't. I get that in the USA they seem to have grown up with notion of a "Queen of England" and it's hard to shake though.

SllX 2y ago

I get that, but I also have found that sentiments like that are rarely as universal as they are proclaimed to be which I is why I cited specifically British sources which are easy to find and readily available, and I could have just kept going if I wanted to. I've certainly corrected fellow Americans on the whole "President of California" thing myself because Federation is a poorly understood concept even within the United States; but unlike Queen/King of England, that one actually doesn't have a historical precedent whereas if I refer to King Charles as the King of England, King of Britain, King of Great Britain or King of the UK, or give the whole spiel and say King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all will be understood, even though only a couple of those are correct with respect to the legal title described within the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. But if you want to be a true stickler, most instances where people say British with respect to the UK are also incorrect and we should instead be saying British and Northern Irish save for those times we are referring solely to Great Britain itself. I don't think that's a thing that happens much though, and I'm not looking to start now either.

rcxdude 2y ago

I mean, people in the UK will just refer to "The King/Queen". It's usually pretty obvious which one you mean. I don't think I've heard anyone specify "of England" or "of the UK"

gt0 2y ago

Agree, I grew up in the UK too and people don't say "Queen of England", even littlest Little Englanders I know don't. I get that in the USA they seem to have grown up with notion of a "Queen of England" and it's hard to shake though.