| Author |
Replies: 12 / Views: 936 |
|
|
New Member
United States
24 Posts |
Why are Guernsey, Isle of Man etc. allowed to have their own coins whilst I've never seen the same for Cornwall, Wales, Scotland?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3468 Posts |
|
|
New Member
 United States
24 Posts |
OK, I was actually thinking of metallic coins. I never saw a coin saying "Scotland", not as a place in UK, but as an issuing authority. I got today a coin "Bailiwick of Guernsey", which I can't post because of size no matter how many times I reduced it to 200k.
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16806 Posts |
Cornwall, Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom. Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man are not. They are "crown dependencies", colonies in effect, though they're not called "colonies" because that word is seen as derogatory. Crown Dependencies are self-governing; they have their own parliaments to pass local laws, and laws passed in the British parliament do not apply to them unless the laws specifically state that they do.
Formally, Cornwall and Wales are both part of the Kingdom of England. Scotland is not part of England, but is a separate kingdom within the United Kingdom of Great Britain - which sounds like a paradox, but that's the British for you. The Channel Islands - Guernsey and Jersey - are not part of England either; they are the last remnants of the old Duchy of Normandy, the French territory from whence the current ruling class of England traces their ancestry. The English monarchs lost control of most of Normandy hundreds of years ago, but were able to keep the Channel Islands thanks to English naval supremacy. So if you ask someone from Guernsey or Jersey if they're a "colony of England", they will insist quite firmly that they are not - and rather, that England is their colony and not the other way around, since it was their Duke who conquered England back in 1066. They call Charles III "the Duke", rather than "the king".
The Isle of Man was historically not part of either England, Scotland or Ireland, lying as it does in the Sea between those three nations. It was fought over between England and Scotland for centuries, before the English finally won. Under Scottish rule, a "Lord of Mann" was established, and the English kept this system under their rule. The Lords of Mann were largely autonomous, and had their own parliament. The British government bought out the last hereditary Lord of Mann in 1765 and the British Monarch is now the "Lord of Mann", as well as his other titles.
In short: the quasi-independent, quasi-colonial status of the Crown Dependencies is a historic anachronism, a legacy of the long and peculiar histories of those places, and one that nobody is in any particular hurry to correct.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16806 Posts |
As far as the coinage is concerned, British coins are legal tender in the Crown Dependencies, but Crown Dependency coinage is not legal tender in Britain. But because people are constantly travelling between Britain and the Dependencies, you can nevertheless occasionally find Dependency coinage in circulation in Britain; my friends and family who have visited Britain (but not the Dependencies) have brought me back several Dependency coins they found in change while in Britain.
In theory, the same status applies to the three other coin-issuing "colonies" that use the pound rather than the dollar: the Overseas Territories of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and St Helena-Ascension. But because of their remoteness from Britain, you're much less likely to find their coins in circulation.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
24894 Posts |
Sap, thank you for this excellent summary.
Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
Edited by HondoB 02/05/2024 12:31 am
|
|
New Member
 United States
24 Posts |
Thanks. I thought 1066 was William the Conqueror.
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16806 Posts |
Finally, in regard to "separate coinages" for Scotland etc that are part of the United Kingdom, this is expressly forbidden by law, for Scotland at least. Article 16 of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland states: Quote: XVI. 'That, from and after the Union, the Coin shall be of the same Standard and Value throughout the united Kingdom, as now in England, and a Mint shall be continued in Scotland, under the same Rules as the Mint in England, and the present Officers of the Mint continued, subject to such Regulations and Alterations as her Majesty, her Heirs or Successors, or the Parliament of Great-Britain, shall think fit. Prior to Union, England and Scotland were legally separate countries with separate coinages; the new Union would have a unified coinage for the entire country. The Treaty of Union with Ireland does not mention coinage, but Ireland prior to Union did not have its own separate coinage, so this question did not need to be directly addressed by that treaty. Indeed, some separate Irish crown coinage was struck in the 1820s after that Union was finalized. But overall, while British coinage could (and often did) have "themes" or "designs" evoking one particular part of the country, the coinage system had to remain unified and united. A point of trivia: you'll note those sentences in the Treaty about the Scottish Mint being retained to strike British coins. This is something of a sore point with the Scots; The Royal Mint kept the Edinburgh mint open for a few years after Union, but then shut it down. The English avoided breaching the Treaty by a sneaky technicality: they kept the "Officers of the Mint" of Scotland on the payroll, so the Scottish Mint theoretically continued to exist on paper - they just had no presses, dies, engravers, coin designers or anything else to actually make coins with. This pretense wasn't abolished until Britain went decimal in 1971. But if you want a "Scottish coin" in your collection, you've got several options: - A pre-Union Scottish coin. They exist, and range from cheap to pricey. - A "Scottish shilling" - between 1937 and 1970, British shillings, came in two different reverse designs, an "English" and a "Scottish" variant. - A "Scottish pound" - between 1984 and 2017, British pound coins changed design every year, with designs rotating to representing one of the four constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) or Britain as a whole. - Scottish bank notes. Three private banks in Scotland retain permission to issue their own paper money. Bank of England notes can be used as legal tender throughout Britain, but Scottish notes can only be used in Scotland.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16806 Posts |
Quote: Thanks. I thought 1066 was William the Conqueror. It was. William the Conqueror invaded England... from Normandy.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187582 Posts |
Quote: Wales [is] part of the Kingdom of England I believe that is incorrect. Wales is no longer legally part of England (although it had been for a few centuries); it is now a country in union with the others.
|
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
251 Posts |
Sap isn't quite right on Bank of England notes - they are only legal tender in England and Wales. Scottish banknotes aren't legal tender anywhere - even in Scotland. BoE notes and Scottish notes are legal currency, though, and may be accepted at the discretion of shops.
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16806 Posts |
I'd agree with both of those corrections. 
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5238 Posts |
Well, the whole thing is a bit of a muddle in theory, but in practice it doesn't seem to matter a great deal!
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 936 |
|