KING William Fortified Wine has been told to amend its branding after a watchdog deemed it to be “divisive and inflammatory”.
A complaint initially made by a member of the public against the wine brand for “causing serious offence” has been upheld by the Portman Group’s Independent Complain Panel (ICP).
The complainant wrote that the use of King William of Orange as branding and the alcohol volume of 16.90% was playing to “sectarian elements”.
The wine was first launched in Glasgow and the west of Scotland last September with creators Belcondie Ltd stating they weren’t worried about criticism.
The group previously released a King William Gin, and also owns trademarks for King William Rum and King William Whisky.
The ICP noted that the image and its associations were “intrinsically linked to sectarianism and he was seen as a figurehead by one side of a faction”.
It further highlighted that sectarianism still causes “serious conflict” in some areas, and would be a “known experience” for communities in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Working with anti-sectarianism charity Nil by Mouth, the panel heard that as a figure, King William had historical importance on both sides of the Irish Sea and was closely associated with Protestantism.
The charity highlighted the importance of symbolism and how imagery should be viewed in the context of identity and religious prejudice in Scotland today.
Nil by Mouth said: “In the context of Glasgow, the city topped the table for the number of religiously aggravated arrests every year, in many of which alcohol played a part, and that issues with religious prejudice since the reformation were indisputable.”
READ MORE: Jeremy Vine hails video of Inverness locals condemning Prince Andrew
The panel also noted a “repetition” of the drink’s alcoholic strength of 16.90%, which appeared five times.
It found it “unusual” to see the number presented to two decimal places, and considered it “intentional” to directly associate the number with a year.
The number 16.90 also appeared without a percentage sign on top of and on the back of the label.
The panel said this “framed the number as a historical date reference in the context of King William of Orange”.
The company had stated that the number was a reference to the 1690 Distilling Act, but the panel said it thought the Battle of Boyne was a more significant event – calling it a “turning point” in relation to sectarianism.
READ MORE: Why The Cheviot, Stag and Black, Black Oil still matters
It said: “The combination of elements on the label were likely to be divisive and inflammatory and would further fuel division in certain communities where religiously aggravated crime was still prevalent.”
The complaint was upheld and producers Belcondie will now work with Portman Group’s Advisory Service to change potentially offensive comments on the label.
When it first launched, a spokesman for Belcondie said: "We have no idea which football clubs our customers support but our previous products have done well in areas within west central Scotland. It seemed a natural choice for our launch."
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