Regnal numbers debate solution

I CANNOT help but agree with Archie White (Letters, July 7) when he perhaps suggests that, in 1953, Greenock Corporation got the regnal number debate resolved; hopefully by logic and not nationalism. Mr White apparently has a commemorative coronation tin which simply says “ER”.

I would have thought that when James succeeded to the throne from Elizabeth and created the Union of Crowns in 1603 that regnal numbers should have returned to zero from that date. I accept that the Union of the Crowns may not be accepted as a watertight argument by some on this issue as both England and Scotland remained independent nation states, and hence many would point out that there were still two sovereign crowns, not one.

However, under Queen Anne, the first Article of the Union of 1707 states clearly: “That the two kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first day of May, which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain.”

I believe that to continue to use regnal numbers which articulate sequentially with those existing before 1707, and arguably before 1603, would be to present the idea that we are not one United Kingdom but essentially still two kingdoms – plural – but in some kind of regal coalition. I would have thought that the very terms of existence of a sovereign and of a single nation state must surely reflect those interdependent conditions.

I consider therefore that our present monarch should never be described as Elizabeth II as there never has been an Elizabeth I of the one United Kingdom of Great Britain. If distinction is required in a text, it should perhaps be Queen Elizabeth (England) and Queen Elizabeth (United Kingdom).

Bill Brown, 46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.