Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

Den 31-08-2017 kl. 16:02 skrev Mayayana:
"Janet" wrote

| Maybe it's not really so different these days in
| Britain? When dukes and earls have to put on a
| show for tourists in order to pay the heating bills,
| that's really only a facade of monarchy.
|
| Eh? Dukes and Earls are not monarchs.
|

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke

"A duke (male) (British English: /dju?k/[1] or American English: /du?k/[2])
or duchess (female) can either be a monarch ruling over a duchy or a member
of the nobility, historically of highest rank below the monarch."

I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of
the monarchical hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.

No - see below.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not;
the are, however, members of the British nobility.

/Anders.

"Anders D. Nygaard" wrote in message
news
"A duke (male) (British English: /dju?k/[1] or American English:
/du?k/[2])
or duchess (female) can either be a monarch ruling over a duchy or a
member
of the nobility, historically of highest rank below the monarch."

I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of
the monarchical hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.

No - see below.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not;
the are, however, members of the British nobility.

And members of the royal family (at least in Britain, which I know about)
often have Duke or Earl as one of their titles:

Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall (as well as being Prince of Wales), and
Camilla took the title of Duchess of Cornwall so as not to supplant Diana
who was Princess of Wales, in people's memories.

Prince Andrew (younger brother of Charles) is Duke of York and Prince Edward
(youngest brother of Charles) is Earl of Wessex.

Prince William and Catherine are Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh.

After Edward VIII abdicated, he was granted the title Duke of Windsor.

Prince Philip's uncle (and a cousin of the Queen), Louis Mountbatten (who
was killed by the IRA) had the title Earl Mountbatten.

And so on...

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:26:39 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Anders D. Nygaard" wrote in message
news
"A duke (male) (British English: /dju?k/[1] or American English:
/du?k/[2])
or duchess (female) can either be a monarch ruling over a duchy or a
member
of the nobility, historically of highest rank below the monarch."

I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of
the monarchical hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.

No - see below.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not;
the are, however, members of the British nobility.

And members of the royal family (at least in Britain, which I know about)
often have Duke or Earl as one of their titles:

Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall (as well as being Prince of Wales), and
Camilla took the title of Duchess of Cornwall so as not to supplant Diana
who was Princess of Wales, in people's memories.

Prince Andrew (younger brother of Charles) is Duke of York and Prince Edward
(youngest brother of Charles) is Earl of Wessex.

Prince William and Catherine are Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh.

After Edward VIII abdicated, he was granted the title Duke of Windsor.

Prince Philip's uncle (and a cousin of the Queen), Louis Mountbatten (who
was killed by the IRA) had the title Earl Mountbatten.

And so on...

Sometimes princes in the UK have more than one dukedom/whatever.
Prince William is Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron
Carrickfergus.

Cambridge is in England, Strathearn in Scotland and Carrickfergus in
Northern Ireland.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

In article , NY
wrote:
"Anders D. Nygaard" wrote in message
news
"A duke (male) (British English: /dju?k/[1] or American English:
/du?k/[2]) or duchess (female) can either be a monarch ruling over a
duchy or a member of the nobility, historically of highest rank below
the monarch."

I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of the monarchical
hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.

No - see below.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not; the
are, however, members of the British nobility.

And members of the royal family (at least in Britain, which I know about)
often have Duke or Earl as one of their titles:

Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall (as well as being Prince of Wales),
and Camilla took the title of Duchess of Cornwall so as not to supplant
Diana who was Princess of Wales, in people's memories.

In Scotland, they are the Duke & Duchess of Rothesay.

Prince Andrew (younger brother of Charles) is Duke of York and Prince
Edward (youngest brother of Charles) is Earl of Wessex.

Prince William and Catherine are Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh.

After Edward VIII abdicated, he was granted the title Duke of Windsor.

Prince Philip's uncle (and a cousin of the Queen), Louis Mountbatten (who
was killed by the IRA) had the title Earl Mountbatten.

Mountbatten received his peerage for his WW2 service, as did Montgomery and
a few others

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Anders D. Nygaard" wrote

| I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of
| the monarchical hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.
|
| No - see below.
|
| Am I wrong?
|
| Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not;
| the are, however, members of the British nobility.

I can no longer see the original beginning of this
thread, but surely we must have already discussed
this misreading of what I said? A "nobility" class implies
monarchy. I didn't say a duke *is* a monarch. Who
cares, really? Even the queen of England is only a
monarch in a theatrical sense.

This alt.usage.english group has such potential for
interesting conversations, but many of the regulars
seem to be obsessed with frivolous, hair-splitting
one-upsmanship.

The whole point of my original comment about
turning grand estates into tourist traps was that
monarchy in Britain is an anachronism.

Though an English girlfriend from many years ago
once made an interesting point to me: She thought
that monarchy in Britain provides a relatively harmless
outlet for nationalism, potentially keeping it out of
government. Maybe. I got the sense that her view
was actually a popular excuse for *excessive*
nationalistic frippery. Some consolation for the loss
of all those colonies, what?

"charles" wrote in message
...
And members of the royal family (at least in Britain, which I know about)
often have Duke or Earl as one of their titles:

Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall (as well as being Prince of Wales),
and Camilla took the title of Duchess of Cornwall so as not to supplant
Diana who was Princess of Wales, in people's memories.

In Scotland, they are the Duke & Duchess of Rothesay.

Prince Andrew (younger brother of Charles) is Duke of York and Prince
Edward (youngest brother of Charles) is Earl of Wessex.

Prince William and Catherine are Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh.

After Edward VIII abdicated, he was granted the title Duke of Windsor.

Prince Philip's uncle (and a cousin of the Queen), Louis Mountbatten (who
was killed by the IRA) had the title Earl Mountbatten.

Mountbatten received his peerage for his WW2 service, as did Montgomery
and
a few others

Yes, Mountbatten's was probably one of the relatively few royal dukedoms and
earldoms that was earned as an honour rather than just bestowed as a title.
Mind you, probably *all* dukedoms and earldoms were earned at some time in
the past by the first holder of the title, but subsequent holders have
acquired the title by heredity.

I meant to make the point that another poster made, that several/many
members of the royal family hold multiple titles in addition to the one by
which they are best known.

Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK
is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil
Service.

On 2017-09-13 10:25 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anders D. Nygaard" wrote

| I was assuming that dukes and earls are part of
| the monarchical hierarchy. Wikipedia seems to agree.
|
| No - see below.
|
| Am I wrong?
|
| Yes. The duke of Luxembourg is a monarch, British dukes are not;
| the are, however, members of the British nobility.

I can no longer see the original beginning of this
thread, but surely we must have already discussed
this misreading of what I said? A "nobility" class implies
monarchy. I didn't say a duke *is* a monarch. Who
cares, really? Even the queen of England is only a
monarch in a theatrical sense.

This alt.usage.english group has such potential for
interesting conversations, but many of the regulars
seem to be obsessed with frivolous, hair-splitting
one-upsmanship.

The whole point of my original comment about
turning grand estates into tourist traps was that
monarchy in Britain is an anachronism.

Though an English girlfriend from many years ago
once made an interesting point to me: She thought
that monarchy in Britain provides a relatively harmless
outlet for nationalism, potentially keeping it out of
government. Maybe. I got the sense that her view
was actually a popular excuse for *excessive*
nationalistic frippery. Some consolation for the loss
of all those colonies, what?

That is basically one version or aspect of the idea that it's useful
politically to have a human symbol of the state who isn't involved in
politics. This idea has been used in other countries, too - anywhere
that you have two national leaders - one political, the other not.
Titles vary, of course.

Ideally, it increases national unity without tying the nation to the
fortunes of a particular political party. It doesn't have anything to do
with status as a former empire, although former empires can have a
natural candidate for such a position in the person of the
king/queen/emperor.

--
Cheryl

In article , NY
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
And members of the royal family (at least in Britain, which I know
about) often have Duke or Earl as one of their titles:

Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall (as well as being Prince of Wales),
and Camilla took the title of Duchess of Cornwall so as not to
supplant Diana who was Princess of Wales, in people's memories.

In Scotland, they are the Duke & Duchess of Rothesay.

Prince Andrew (younger brother of Charles) is Duke of York and Prince
Edward (youngest brother of Charles) is Earl of Wessex.

Prince William and Catherine are Duke/Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh.

After Edward VIII abdicated, he was granted the title Duke of Windsor.

Prince Philip's uncle (and a cousin of the Queen), Louis Mountbatten
(who was killed by the IRA) had the title Earl Mountbatten.

Mountbatten received his peerage for his WW2 service, as did Montgomery
and a few others

Yes, Mountbatten's was probably one of the relatively few royal dukedoms
and earldoms that was earned as an honour rather than just bestowed as a
title. Mind you, probably *all* dukedoms and earldoms were earned at
some time in the past by the first holder of the title, but subsequent
holders have acquired the title by heredity.

I meant to make the point that another poster made, that several/many
members of the royal family hold multiple titles in addition to the one
by which they are best known.

So do most of the aristocracy. They might have started off an an earl, but
got "promoted" to Marquisa or Duke. They keep their previous titles, which,
by tradition are used by the eldest son.

The Marquis of Linlithgow (for instance) is also Earl of Hopetoun.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Mayayana" wrote in message
news
The whole point of my original comment about
turning grand estates into tourist traps was that
monarchy in Britain is an anachronism.

Though an English girlfriend from many years ago
once made an interesting point to me: She thought
that monarchy in Britain provides a relatively harmless
outlet for nationalism, potentially keeping it out of
government. Maybe. I got the sense that her view
was actually a popular excuse for *excessive*
nationalistic frippery. Some consolation for the loss
of all those colonies, what?

I think you make some very good points here. As a Brit, you might expect me
to be a bit biassed one way or the other. I *think* I'm in favour of them
(though maybe with fewer peripheral relatives receiving what is effectively
a "salary" from the Civil List). One thing that I noticed whenever I went on
holiday to see my sister who was living in Boston at the time was that the
US seems to have a much healthier attitude to nationalism than the UK. They
are proud to swear allegiance to the President and the country, whereas here
in the UK you are accused of being racist and biassed against immigrants who
now live here if you show support your country, whether it is the UK as a
whole or one past of it such as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern
Ireland. What is particularly disappointing is that people have been
vilified for displaying an England flag (north-south / east-west red cross
on white background) to show their support of the England football team, in
ways that people who display the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish flag
don't. That may be due to the fact that the use of the English flag has been
"hijacked" by the National Front (ultra-right-wing, racist organisation).

The reaction of the country to the untimely death of Diana Princess of Wales
20 years ago - the mass mourning and the demands that the Queen give a
tribute for Diana - shows that you can never predict how people will react.
Looking back on that time (I remember it well) there were undoubtedly
several faux-pas on the part of the Queen: she should have made her
statement, from Balmoral (ie without leaving the young princes), much sooner
than she did; a flag of some description (even if it was a Union Jack rather
than a Royal Standard) should have been flown over Buckingham Palace right
from the first day, as the sort of mark of respect that everyone expects.
Sometimes common decency and the conventions of the day take precedence over
tradition and protocol.

Much as I respect the Queen, she really does need to learn to fake sincerity
when she speaks. Everyone raved about her (eventual) tribute to Diana. I
suppose that *what* she said was sort-of OK, but she really does need to
learn to speak off the cuff rather than reciting a pre-written speech in a
very bored voice.

Hopefully Charles, and even more so, William, will be better and more
sincere communicators. I have high hopes for William as a King.

On 2017-09-13 10:55 AM, NY wrote:
"Mayayana" wrote in message
news
The whole point of my original comment about
turning grand estates into tourist traps was that
monarchy in Britain is an anachronism.

Though an English girlfriend from many years ago
once made an interesting point to me: She thought
that monarchy in Britain provides a relatively harmless
outlet for nationalism, potentially keeping it out of
government. Maybe. I got the sense that her view
was actually a popular excuse for *excessive*
nationalistic frippery. Some consolation for the loss
of all those colonies, what?

I think you make some very good points here. As a Brit, you might expect
me to be a bit biassed one way or the other. I *think* I'm in favour of
them (though maybe with fewer peripheral relatives receiving what is
effectively a "salary" from the Civil List). One thing that I noticed
whenever I went on holiday to see my sister who was living in Boston at
the time was that the US seems to have a much healthier attitude to
nationalism than the UK. They are proud to swear allegiance to the
President and the country, whereas here in the UK you are accused of
being racist and biassed against immigrants who now live here if you
show support your country, whether it is the UK as a whole or one past
of it such as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. What is
particularly disappointing is that people have been vilified for
displaying an England flag (north-south / east-west red cross on white
background) to show their support of the England football team, in ways
that people who display the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish flag
don't. That may be due to the fact that the use of the English flag has
been "hijacked" by the National Front (ultra-right-wing, racist
organisation).

The reaction of the country to the untimely death of Diana Princess of
Wales 20 years ago - the mass mourning and the demands that the Queen
give a tribute for Diana - shows that you can never predict how people
will react. Looking back on that time (I remember it well) there were
undoubtedly several faux-pas on the part of the Queen: she should have
made her statement, from Balmoral (ie without leaving the young
princes), much sooner than she did; a flag of some description (even if
it was a Union Jack rather than a Royal Standard) should have been flown
over Buckingham Palace right from the first day, as the sort of mark of
respect that everyone expects. Sometimes common decency and the
conventions of the day take precedence over tradition and protocol.

Much as I respect the Queen, she really does need to learn to fake
sincerity when she speaks. Everyone raved about her (eventual) tribute
to Diana. I suppose that *what* she said was sort-of OK, but she really
does need to learn to speak off the cuff rather than reciting a
pre-written speech in a very bored voice.

Hopefully Charles, and even more so, William, will be better and more
sincere communicators. I have high hopes for William as a King.

Do you mean that they will become sincere communicators by learning to
fake sincerity? If, according to you, the Queen's problem is that she
can't fake sincerity in her speeches, it does sound that way.

--
Cheryl

"NY" wrote

|here
| in the UK you are accused of being racist and biassed against immigrants
who
| now live here if you show support your country, whether it is the UK as a
| whole or one past of it such as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern
| Ireland. What is particularly disappointing is that people have been
| vilified for displaying an England flag (north-south / east-west red cross
| on white background) to show their support of the England football team,
in
| ways that people who display the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish flag
| don't. That may be due to the fact that the use of the English flag has
been
| "hijacked" by the National Front (ultra-right-wing, racist organisation).
|

Funny thing.... I came across that flag just
recently and didn't recognize it... Denmark, maybe?
That prompted me to find maps of the world online.
I was very surprised to find it was the flag of
England. I'd always mistakenly thought that was
the "Union Jack" flag. In retrospect I seem to remember
Sean Connery having such a flag when he played
the king in Robin Hood. But I can't recall ever
having noticed it in public. The union jack, on the
other hand, is ubiquitous. I think I remember it
even being a popular pattern on the "willie warmers"
sold to tourists at London trinket stalls.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:
"NY" wrote

|here in the UK you are accused of being racist and biassed against
| immigrants
who
| now live here if you show support your country, whether it is the UK as
| a whole or one past of it such as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern
| Ireland. What is particularly disappointing is that people have been
| vilified for displaying an England flag (north-south / east-west red
| cross on white background) to show their support of the England
| football team,
in
| ways that people who display the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish flag
| don't. That may be due to the fact that the use of the English flag has
been
| "hijacked" by the National Front (ultra-right-wing, racist
| organisation).
|

Funny thing.... I came across that flag just recently and didn't
recognize it... Denmark, maybe? That prompted me to find maps of the
world online. I was very surprised to find it was the flag of England.
I'd always mistakenly thought that was the "Union Jack" flag. In
retrospect I seem to remember Sean Connery having such a flag when he
played the king in Robin Hood. But I can't recall ever having noticed
it in public. The union jack, on the other hand, is ubiquitous. I think I
remember it even being a popular pattern on the "willie warmers" sold to
tourists at London trinket stalls.

when England were competing in the World Cup (football) - it appeared
everywhere - in England.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Much as I respect the Queen, she really does need to learn to fake
sincerity when she speaks. Everyone raved about her (eventual) tribute
to Diana. I suppose that *what* she said was sort-of OK, but she really
does need to learn to speak off the cuff rather than reciting a
pre-written speech in a very bored voice.

Do you mean that they will become sincere communicators by learning to
fake sincerity? If, according to you, the Queen's problem is that she
can't fake sincerity in her speeches, it does sound that way.

I *was* being very facetious. At the very least, any communicator needs to
sound sincere so that people genuinely believe that they are being told the
truth. If they *are* being sincere (as opposed to faking it), that's
considerably better.

Sadly the Queen's rather stilted and painful reading-out of a speech that
was probably written by someone else is a big turn off.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote:


Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the UK
is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil
Service.


Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer
Prime Minister?

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote:


Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of
the UK is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister
for the Civil Service.


Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer
Prime Minister?

they are job titles. The only thing that is permanent is membership of the
Privy Council - allowing the honourific "Right Honourable"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England