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.