That's a republican idea (with a small r), or maybe a nationalist one. Monarchs on the other hand had a habit of collecting titles. If you only had one title as the head of one political entity, you were obviously a very insignificant leader. Conquered territories often continued to exist as separate entities that just happened to have the same monarch, rather than being annexed into the dominant country.
By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; King of Jerusalem etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukowina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friuli, Dubrovnik and Zadar; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenburg etc.; Lord of Trieste, Kotor and the Windic March, Grand Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia etc.
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
I think the more fitting example from that island is the personal union whereby the monarchs of England and Scotland happened to be the same person, but England and Scotland were still separate states. This started with James VI and I who became king of Scotland in 1567 and became king of England in 1603. This state of affairs continued (with I guess some de facto if not de jure interruptions) until the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, after which time the monarch held one title over one state.
Throughout that time and afterwards, the monarch of England & Scotland was often also the monarch of other territories too, so that "one title" is eliding a bunch of stuff.
The grand title [1] of Karl Franz Josef Ludwig Hubert Georg Otto Maria [2], the last Emperor of Austria is over 120 words:
His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty,
By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria,
King of Hungary and Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria;
King of Jerusalem, etc.;
Archduke of Austria;
Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow;
Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovina;
Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia;
Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa and Zara;
Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca;
Prince of Trento and Brixen;
Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria;
Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg etc.;
Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and on the Windic March;
Grand Voivode of the Voivodeship of Serbia
If you "relax" your notion of what is a "nation", even POTUS is at fault at this rule - USA has states (50), territories (5), unhabited territories (9), district (1), and a lot of extra-continental bases and even disputed territories. [0]
I believe USA also claims land around any Apollo device at the Moon. [no source]
If we're talking about claims to the moon, the Bishop of Orlando is Bishop of the Moon, because the Apollo missions took off from Cape Canaveral, in the Diocese of Orlando.
To be president you have to be a resident for the previous 14 years, so he wouldn't be eligible unless he moved here today and waited 14 years. He'd be 83 at that point.
> Interestingly, the Constitution does not specify whether the 14 years have to be consecutive, nor is the 14 years must occur immediately before the person becomes president. Herbert Hoover, for example, lived in London from 1910 to 1917, and when he ran for election in 1928, he had only lived, on his return, to the U.S. for 11 years. This did not disqualify him from the presidency.
That has the same energy as saying "don't say your house was expensive until you compared prices with bay area houses" - not everyone in the world can work for silicon valley companies even if they wanted to. They are a nice aspirational things up in the sky to sometimes think about, but realistically, 99% of programmers are never going to work there and should be comparing their pay against peers within their industry.
Out of curiosity, I googled several of the pubs he mentioned. All but one* was still around.
*I found a pub called the Ranelagh, but it’s not in Pimlico, so I assume it’s a different one. It was the one he described as “really terrible,” so no big loss, I suppose.
Addendum: the other interesting thing I noticed was the ones he derided as having been “modernized” in the 1960s were also newly renovated today, with airy, Scandinavian, 2020s aesthetics. Presumably because unlike the traditional pubs, the 60s style became dated pretty quickly.
There is a pub called The Ranelagh in Bounds Green, North London which is near to what used to be a Middlesex Polytechnic site where the computer centre was located (DEC 10, two IBM 4381s, several VAXen and a couple of Primes) and where I worked in the mid to late 1980s. It was a hole then (still there, but I haven't been in for many years), but that didn't stop us programmers drinking there.
I expect they’ll keep developing Fusion but possibly as even more of a commercial-only offering than it already was.