Readers' Ombudsman: One monarch, two numbers – how history can turn cumbersome

Published on Sunday 12 October 2008 22:05

THE e-mail is simply signed Judy Steel, Aikwood Tower, but it is of course from Lady Steel, wife of Sir David Steel – Baron Steel of Aikwood. Sir David is the former presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament and former leader of the Liberal Party.

Lord and Lady Steel have restored their peel tower in the Borders, which has many historical connections, so it perhaps no surprise that Lady Steel's complaint also has historical connections. And she doesn't mince her words.

"I am appalled that The Scotsman should give the English numeration of James II to the 17th century King James VII of Scots. (Ban on Catholics taking the throne to go, 26 September).

"Our James II lived in the 15th century and was killed at Roxburgh Castle by a big gun backfiring.

"This paper is The Scotsman, not the Englishman, or even the Briton. Please please call our monarchs by their place in our history, not that of our southern neighbour."

She is of course right – up to a point. The correct Scottish designations should be given by The Scotsman. But although we are The Scotsman we do live in a United Kingdom. So since the Union of the Crowns the monarchs have ruled both Scotland and England. And we are presently still part of that union. We are part of Britain. So therefore there is also a strong argument that we should go with the united designation.

In the interests of historical accuracy and to assuage sensitivities on both sides of the arguments we should use both – even if it is cumbersome. We should describe them as James VI and I, and James VII and II. Lady Steel is right in that we should never use the English numerals on their own.

But this then leads us in to another trap. If that's the rule then we should refer to our current monarch as Elizabeth I and II.

That would be cumbersome and frankly a bit silly. A bit over-complicated. But does logic not dictate we should use the same rule?

Yes it does, but sometimes you just have to do what feels right. The kings were there at the start of the union of the crowns. Over 300 years of history have now passed. It seems appropriate after that length of time for the monarch to take her British numeral. But I am sure there will be other views.

PICTURES are again a source of controversy. Margaret Campbell writes: "Apropos of your article on p21; this morning (Monday) I muttered crossly that I thought today's front page pic was not an appropriate image we (grumpy old) Scotsman readers wanted to be confronted with at the beginning of another economically fraught week.

"The article and pic on p5 was quite sufficient. If we need the day to be brightened, then the pic of the QE2 on p7 (in my opinion) would have been preferable; but then maybe this will be after the Rosyth visit on Wednesday!"

The picture Ms Campbell was referring to was one of the First Minister holding a drink to illustrate our exclusive story about a new legal challenge to government plans to raise the age of buying alcohol in certain circumstances to 21. I'm not absolutely sure exactly what it was she took exception to. Perhaps it was because Mr Salmond was smiling.

IT WAS unfortunate. Following the arrest of a man in connection with the death of a baby in a house fire in Shetland, we carried a very small story.

Alison Thirkell rightly took issue with the headline.

"I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous headline as 'Man held over fire that killed baby'".

Sometimes we get so used to journalistic terms we get blinded to other interpretations or ways to read them. We really should have spotted this one. I can only apologise.

• IF YOU have a complaint about editorial in The Scotsman, please contact Ian Stewart at [e-mail] or The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS or on 0131-620 8633.