SHE is a ship largely built by Scots in Scotland and launched here by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on July 17, 2014, just two months before the independence referendum’s No vote.
It probably would not have affected the result of that referendum too much, but imagine if the Scottish public had been told that HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s largest-ever ship, was not named after our current and much-loved monarch, but after a ship which itself was called after Queen Elizabeth of England who had the head of Mary, Queen of Scots chopped off.
In the biggest piece of hoodwinking since winks were first hooded, the Westminster Government and the Unionist press have colluded in allowing the public to think that the aircraft carrier assembled at Rosyth was named after the reigning Queen.
Tabloid newspapers have even wrongly named her HMS Queen Elizabeth II, and the Royal Navy has referred to the ship as the “namesake” of the current monarch who of course is the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland.
They were still at it late last year in the run up to the massive ship being commissioned in December.
The Royal Navy reported on its website: “Her Majesty the Queen will formally commission her namesake aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, into the Royal Navy fleet in just three weeks’ time.
They roped in Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson who said after his visit: “I’m sure Her Majesty will be similarly impressed at next month’s historic ceremony for the nation’s new flagship, which proudly bears her name.”
But now a journalist working for the respected UK Defence Journal online publication has revealed the truth – in line with naval tradition, the current flagship Queen Elizabeth is named after the original Queen Elizabeth, a Dreadnought battleship launched in 1913 who served in both World Wars before being scrapped in 1948.
That vessel was most definitely named in honour of England’s Queen Elizabeth, also known as the Virgin Queen or Gloriana, whose failure to produce an heir led to King James VI of Scotland becoming James I of the United Kingdom in 1603.
Apparently the new ship’s antecedents are well known in the Navy and there is one massive clue as to the real origin of the name – the ship’s badge features a red and white tudor rose and the insignia ER which belonged to Elizabeth of England.
The Navy confess all to the UK Defence Journal, an onboard source telling them: “The carrier isn’t named after her majesty, she’s named after the first Queen Elizabeth from Tudor times, it’s also why our crest is the Tudor rose. Our ship is named for previous ships with the same name, it’s why we carry the honours associated with that name. The original HMS Queen Elizabeth as pointed out, was named for Queen Elizabeth the first, not Second.”
The journalist who made the discovery, George Allison, said: “The Royal Navy have a tradition of ships being named for previous vessels and that’s what’s happening in this case.
“I appreciate it’s a fine distinction but the ship is named in honour of HMS Queen Elizabeth, a renowned World War I era super-dreadnought, which was named after Elizabeth I who also played a key role in Royal Navy history.
“In defence circles, this is very well known and our recent article was published in order to remove doubt after a few tabloids referred to the vessel as HMS Queen Elizabeth II.”
Allison pointed out that the Navy does not name vessel classes after living people and the Navy also has names ships after leaders, places and event from all parts of the UK.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel