Dennis Cavanan

See that, we have gone full circle back to King George!

Is that British or Ossie Prime Minister recommendation?

If British then the Queen has the final say as to who is appointed as she could disagree with every recommendation.

So which do you think!

@Socket et al
James VI/I may have united the thrones, but that was about all!
Golf became established in England through his courtiers (ak hangers-on) though!
 
Not in the context that Socketrocket used.

It was in the correct context. When Elizabeth I died she had no children so her Cousin James the VI of Scotland was appointed King of England. It was at this point when he was King James I of England he United the thrones. He didn't have the power to do that as James VI of Scotland.
 
You don't get it, do you? :rolleyes:
The King of Scotland, James I, reigned 150 years before the unification of the thrones.

And ended up being assassinated by his countrymen in a sewer outlet!

Seems like Scottish Fitba! Fighting amongst themselves in a load of excrement! :whistle:
 
You don't get it, do you? :rolleyes:
The King of Scotland, James I, reigned 150 years before the unification of the thrones.

I think you confuse the unification of thrones (crowns) and the unification of states. They were different events completely.
 
You're contradicting yourself. That is the point. :rolleyes:

To be only a little more pedantic than you, Was James I (of England) also King of Scotland?

If the 1 word answer to that question was 'Yes' - as of course it has to be - then SR wasn't contradicting himself. The statement was merely ambiguous!
 
You're contradicting yourself. That is the point. :rolleyes:

King James the I of England was also King James VI of Scotland, he was King of both countries. He unified the Crowns of both countries, I have not referred to James I of Scotland anywhere. Nothing I have said is confusing, contradicting or wrong.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
King James the I of England was also King James VI of Scotland, he was King of both countries. He unified the Crowns of both countries, I have not referred to James I of Scotland anywhere. Nothing I have said is confusing, contradicting or wrong.

:rolleyes:

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really this thick?
In your post #6, which I've quoted already, you referred to the King of Scotland, James I, uniting the thrones.
James I of Scotland was deid, pushing up the daisies, rotted in his ceremonial garb, an ex monarch by 150 years by the time this event took place!
I suggest you get yourself a good history book ( one which actually includes some Scottish history ) and read it instead of taking all your information from Wikipedia!
:rolleyes:
 
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really this thick?
I shall state Post 30 a different way - to make it simple?

King of Scotland, James I (of England) is/was not the same as James I of Scotland!

You merely (mis)interpreted SR's post!
 
I shall state Post 30 a different way - to make it simple?

King of Scotland, James I (of England) is/was not the same as James I of Scotland!

You merely (mis)interpreted SR's post!

You may have attempted to make it simpler, but you're wrong.
If you'd said King of Scotland, James I ( of Great Britain and Ireland) is/was not the same as James I of Scotland! You would have been correct.
But I guess trying to differentiate Scottish history and English history runs the risk of being accused of being pedantic.
 
You may have attempted to make it simpler, but you're wrong.
If you'd said King of Scotland, James I ( of Great Britain and Ireland) is/was not the same as James I of Scotland! You would have been correct.
But I guess trying to differentiate Scottish history and English history runs the risk of being accused of being pedantic.
Sometime in the 1400's our street had a King James. He reunified the crowns of the whole village and even our local pub. Funnily enough no-one else in the UK gave a stuff about our King either, so I know how you feel.
 
Top