IN seeking to defend the use of the name “Elizabeth II" by our present monarch, Russell Vallance (Letters, Septmebr 15) cites a number of precedents from Iceland, Spain, Italy and the Vatican which follow what he calls “general principles in constitutional practice”. None of these examples, however, is necessarily constitutionally sound, and none replicates the situation of the UK monarchy.
The adoption of the title Elizabeth II (and of Edward VII in 1901 and Edward VIII in 1936) was and is basically illogical. Its legality rests on the use of the royal prerogative, as was recognised in 1953. That does not mean that we must accept this to be a correct use of the prerogative. Nor does any dating of the monarchy according to a formula devised by the Churchill government make any sense. There is only one starting date for the unified monarchy of the United Kingdom, and that is 1707. Until then the two monarchs named James had different regnal numbers in Scotland and in England. After 1707, however, there was a new state and therefore a new monarchy (though not a new monarch). All regnal numbers should be counted from then.
Elsa Hamilton,
79 Finlay Rise, Milngavie.
DAVID Purdie (Letters, September 16) makes two errors. First, that the Queen chose her title: it was explained quite clearly in a letter he acknowledges that the matter of choice does not arise.
Secondly, that the title is insulting: for most the title is a matter of indifference. What is insulting is the existence of a Royal Family at all.
He then goes on to decide for us all that the numbering of monarchs with specific names in the future will not follow a clearly laid down structure, because the names referenced were formerly held by Scottish monarchs and “everybody knows” that the Scottish are always treated badly by everybody.
Frankly, there are more important reasons to be angered in society.
Iain Montgomery,
78 Skirsa Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel