Elizabeth i … or ii

A song from the Fifties about the Queen’s regnal number put it very simply: “How can there be a second when the first has never been?”

Only counting the English when determining the regnal number, as it is said Churchill persuaded the young Queen to do, effectively ignores and negates Scotland’s distinct history, both as a separate kingdom and the part it played in forming the UK. Insult is added to injury in this case when it is recalled that the previous Elizabeth, who ruled over England, executed the Queen of Scots, who ironically is a direct ancestor of our monarch, unlike her namesake.

In recent years there have been signs that the powers-that-be were becoming aware of the implications for Scotland. Since the advent of the Scottish Parliament the Queen has used the Scottish quartering of her standard when north of the Border. Also, when things are named after her, controversy has been avoided by dropping the number, apparently without complaint from anybody.

For example, we have the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and the current Cunard liner which, unlike its 1960s predecessor, is simply Queen Elizabeth. Even the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier is HMS Queen Elizabeth.

So why could the canal owners (“Queen opens new canal during barge journey to view Kelpies sculptures”, The Scotsman, Wednesday, 5 July) not also respect Scottish sensitivities, heightened and stirred up by the 2014 referendum campaign, and name the stretch of water the Queen Elizabeth Canal?

JANE ANN LISTON Largo Road, St Andrews