3d The British Brass Threepence

[UK Decimal +]

3d The British Brass Threepence

This is an easy coin to deal with, as it was struck to Circulation standard only from 1937 to 1967, excluding 1947, with a special Proof edition dated 1970 (issued in 1972).   A few pattern coins exist for 1936, bearing an effigy of Edward VIII.   There are two main versions each with some changes, as described below.

The coin is twelve sided with a maximum diameter of 22mm and weighing 6.8g.   The metal is Brass (79% copper, 20% zinc and 1% nickel), although some were reportedly struck in cupro-nickel.   I have often wondered about the metal used, as the issues from 1953 onwards tend to hold their 'shine' far better than the earlier ones and this should be apparent in the illustrations.

1937 to 1948 (not 1947).   Obverse of King George VI by Thomas Humphrey Paget.   Reverse depicting the 'Thrift' plant (allium porrum), by Frances Madge Kitchener.

1949 to 1952.   As above, but 'IND IMP' deleted from obverse.

1953.   Obverse of Queen Elizabeth II by Mary Gillick.   Reverse depicting a Portcullis with Chains, Crowned, by William Gardner Sharpe. 

1954 to 1967 (plus 1970 Proof).   As above, but omitting 'BRITT OMN' from the obverse.

This coin was demonetised 31 Aug 1971 (which means that the Proofs dated 1970, struck in 1972, were never valid).

Illustrations are for 1937, 1952, 1953 and 1967.

Bill.

[Galapagos]

As for the omission of "BRITT OMN", which implied that HM was Queen Elizabeth II of all Britons, I've heard that some Scots objected to it, since she is actually only Elizabeth I of Scotland but Elizabeth II of England. Elizabeth I of England did not ever rule Scotland. What's your take on it, Bill? If that were really the reason, then surely she would have changed her title too.

[UK Decimal +]

Were the 1970 Proofs medal-coins?

(Duck).

I'll delete this message soon.   Promise.

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Bill.

[UK Decimal +]

As for the omission of "BRITT OMN", which implied that HM was Queen Elizabeth II of all Britons, I've heard that some Scots objected to it, since she is actually only Elizabeth I of Scotland but Elizabeth II of England. Elizabeth I of England did not ever rule Scotland. What's your take on it, Bill? If that were really the reason, then surely she would have changed her title too.

The question (which I haven't done enough studying to answer yet), is whether it was also dropped from other coins.   Also, if what you are suggesting is correct, why was 'II' ('the second') allowed to remain?

I think that you should raise the subject as a 'stand alone' question rather than in part of a series dealing with one particular variety of coin.   However, I should be interested to know the answer.

Bill.

[translateltd]

I've raised the question of titles before elsewhere, as I was also curious as to why Elizabeth II isn't Elizabeth I in Scotland and why William IV wasn't William V in Scotland, for instance.  The answer I got was plausible:

Prior to 1707 the countries were separate kingdoms (even though they shared the same monarch after 1603), so their own counting systems applied - James II was James VII north of the border, for instance.  However, since 1707, the kingdoms have been "United" into a greater whole, so the numbering that applies in the "England" component also applies to Scotland with effect from that date.  You could ask the same question about almost all of the Commonwealth Countries - since Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand by statute, why don't we call her Elizabeth I over here?  Ditto Canada, Australia, etc.

[Galapagos]

so the numbering that applies in the "England" component also applies to Scotland with effect from that date. 

You'll notice that that system gives priority to England, which annoys the Scots. Ideally she should be Queen Elizabeth the First of the United Kingdom, which was a new and successor state to BOTH Scotland and England. However, she is rarely if ever given the title of Queen of the UK or Great Britain, but rather of each constituent country. Which doesn't ultimately solve the problem.

[translateltd]

You'll notice that that system gives priority to England, which annoys the Scots. Ideally she should be Queen Elizabeth the First of the United Kingdom, which was a new and successor state to BOTH Scotland and England. However, she is rarely if ever given the title of Queen of the UK or Great Britain, but rather of each constituent country. Which doesn't ultimately solve the problem.

The reality is that whatever number a monarch is assigned in England post-1707 applies to the entire Empire/Commonwealth.  It may not be entirely logical, but it's what we've got.  Another thing that's often overlooked is that numbering (in England, anyway) started only after the Conquest, so the three Edwards that we had prior to 1066 are left out of the equation.  The Duke of Windsor should technically have been Edward XI, from a strictly logical/purist perspective.

[Figleaf]

Don't think so. England was not a political unity until after the conquest of Cnut the Great in 1016 (benchmark: until 1016, Wessex was an independent kingdom, afterwards, it was an earldom). If you don't want to include Norman kings, the first Anglo-Saxon king would be Edward the confessor (1066). That leaves only one Edward and a Harold before the Norman conquest.

As for leaving out BRITT:OMN, I think this was simply the first time after the silly D:G debacle anyone dared to simplify the medieval looking legends on UK coins. It was of course a title without significance in the first place. If any Scots were arguing that it would leave them out, they were wrong, as Martin pointed out, at least since the Act of the Union. I don't remember any muttering Scots, but I do remember a useless debate on whether BRITT:OMN referred to land (colonies and the Commonwealth or sundry islands around the UK or Brittany - properly called Bretagne) or people (sweating natives). In both cases, there was a case to drop it, as decolonization was in full swing in 1953 and as erstwhile subjects of her majesty got second rate UK passports that didn't give them the automatic right to come into Britain. Really, you don't want to be queen of THOSE people!

Peter

[translateltd]

Don't think so. England was not a political unity until after the conquest of Cnut the Great in 1016 (benchmark: until 1016, Wessex was an independent kingdom, afterwards, it was an earldom). If you don't want to include Norman kings, the first Anglo-Saxon king would be Edward the confessor (1066). That leaves only one Edward and a Harold before the Norman conquest.

The date of when kings started being kings of "England" is a fluid one, and while Peter is entitled to his view, there are earlier claimants going back to the 9th century, which would allow my other two Edwards, another Harold and various other chappies :-)

If entire political unity is required, then no-one could claim to be king of "France" until after 1453, which I don't think anyone would go along with.  Just like there was a smaller "France" compared to now that excluded the territories held by Britain until that date, I don't have any problem with the notion of a smaller "England" that, while largely unified, still excluded one or two of the constituent kingdoms.