OH, no. Yet again the regnal number of Queen Elizabeth in Scotland is resurrected as a complaint (Letters July 4 and 5). Every time this issue is laid to rest someone digs it up and it staggers around for a while as a zombie paraded by those seeking a grievance.
Constitutionally, a monarch can use whatever name and number he or she thinks fit. The Queen chose to be Elizabeth II, and that is what her title is. So was this some kind of insult to Scotland?
In 1952 Commonwealth Prime Ministers discussed, among other constitutional matters, the regnal number because she would be the first Queen Elizabeth for all. It was Canada that proposed that she be requested to use the title "Elizabeth II" and that this should apply to all the states. This was agreed, though Churchill specified that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be consulted. As a result of that consultation it was agreed by the UK Government that the higher regnal number of the former kingdoms of England and Scotland should be considered in future. Thus, if a monarch chose the name Robert, he would be Robert III of the UK, following Scottish regnal numbers, but a William would be William V, following the English sequence.
The use of the title was challenged in the Scottish courts in 1953, and “Elizabeth II” was confirmed as her legal title in Scotland. Other countries, such as Australia, have had robust debates about whether they wish to continue with a monarchy but not a single one has raised the issue of whether Elizabeth should be I or II. Only in Scotland do some indulge in this nit-picking pedantry. Unless someone can explain why Canada would wish to insult Scotland in 1952, perhaps we can let this zombie stagger back to the graveyard of inconsequential grievances.
Russell Vallance,
4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.
IAIN AD Mann writes (Letters, July 5) that he doesn't remember the Queen ever visiting the Falkirk Wheel. In fact, on May 24, 2002, as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations, she officially opened it.
Nita Marr,
7 Stevenson Court, Longniddry.
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