aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Or Sweden. Good ole gay Sweden.
What is the oldest current coutry?
- Thread starter SerriaFox
- Start date
arya126
Squad Leader
Actually, i believe that it has been said that significant change has happened to uk since then. Not the least of which, changing its name several times.
Changing its name hardly fits the topic criterion: "To qualify the country current leadership must be able to trace it power peacefully without great change to the structure of the Government." The Irish and American secessions didn't change the structure of the government and the name changes certainly didn't.
However, changing to a constitutional monarchy which forbids Catholic rule would probably qualify and changing from a republican dictatorship to a hereditary monarchy certainly does.
However, changing to a constitutional monarchy which forbids Catholic rule would probably qualify and changing from a republican dictatorship to a hereditary monarchy certainly does.
arya126
Squad Leader
Were there not changes in government when it changed from just england, to great britain, to the united kingdom? As far as i am aware, the united kingdom today is pretty different from how the government ruled during the times of being england, or even great britain.
Well, obviously the government's different - it's been 300 years since the English and Scottish crowns were merged into the crown of Great Britain, but the structure of the government hasn't changed significantly for a very long time.
I would imagine that the recent changes to the House of Lords are more significant than renaming Great Britain as the United Kingdom.
I would imagine that the recent changes to the House of Lords are more significant than renaming Great Britain as the United Kingdom.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
And when did that happen?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I think he means when it went to being The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.And when did that happen?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Oh, I know that. I just didn't realise that it wasn't the "United Kingdom" until 1801, so my bad.England and Scotland were united as Great Britain in 1707. Ireland was finally merged in 1801 under the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1927, we adopted our current title.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Scotland was conquered by England a few times in its history.
Yet before both countries "united".
So it doesn't count.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A temporary occupation occurred in the period 1304-1306, but Scotland was never subsumed into the Kingdom of England, and the political continuity of the Scottish state was retained.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It was the reformation of both the Scottish and English states into a single, unified state; neither was abolished, and both maintained full legal and political continuity, just as the US maintained continuity when it absorbed the republics of Texas, California or Vermont. That the unified parliament continued to set in Westminster is not a structural matter.1707 was definitely the end of the Scottish state though. Losing its parliament and becoming directly ruled from a different capital was definitely a significant change.
1688 still catches us both - the change to a specifically-Protestant constitutional monarchy that even today forbids any Catholic and his entire family from taking the throne.
Technically though, the Scottish state gave up its independence in 1707, ceding almost all legal and executive power to Westminster and not through its own free choice either.
Technically though, the Scottish state gave up its independence in 1707, ceding almost all legal and executive power to Westminster and not through its own free choice either.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Does that qualify as a major structural change, though? The Bill of Rights/Claim of Right certainly established parliamentary sovereignty, but very little about either system changed. The "Revolution" was really more of a coup, than anything else.
Yet again, I think this comes down to how we define a break in continuity, which there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus on.
That assumes a certain equivalence between Britain and England which I do not believe to be accurate. The legal, and, in Scotland, understood narrative was that both the English and Scottish states merged, retaining the full legal and political lineage of each. After all, it was not that the Scottish parliament ceded control to the English, any more than the reverse; both were combined into a single parliament. That the parliament in question continued to sit in Westminster is simply a reflection of the weight of population and influence of each constituent nation, not a structural primacy on the part of England. One may as well suggest that marrying a person and moving into their house constitutes your own death!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If you'd ever met a Scottish lass, you'd know that coverture doesn't imply for a second that the husband is in charge! 
Failing all else, Cromwell still put in the boot on our "longest successive monarchy" claims. An abrupt shift to an autocratic republic is absolutely a major structural change.Yet again, I think this comes down to how we define a break in continuity, which there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus on.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
True, but Cromwell was never head of the Scottish state, so it's debatable to what extent that applies to us.Failing all else, Cromwell still put in the boot on our "longest successive monarchy" claims. An abrupt shift to an autocratic republic is absolutely a major structural change.
Similar threads
- Poll
