MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953) SC 396
Whether Queen Elizabeth II could use ‘II’ in Scotland where there had never been an Elizabeth I; consideration of judicial and legislative jurisdiction over the Act of Union 1707.
Facts
The claimants, MacCormick and Hamilton, brought an action against the Crown in Scotland which contested Queen Elizabeth using the title ‘Queen Elizabeth II’ within Scotland, as technically Scotland had never had a monarch entitled Queen Elizabeth I, only England had. Thus, the claimants posited it was a breach of administrative and constitutional law, as per the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland.
Issues
Whether Queen Elizabeth II was infringing upon administrative law in her use of the numeral ‘II’.
Decision/Outcome
At first instance, the case was dismissed, and subsequently appealed to the Inner House of Scotland. The Court found for the defendants, stating that the Act of Union 1707 included no provisions regarding the numbering in monarchs’ titles, and it was within the realm of the royal prerogative to decide upon one’s title. Subsequently, there were no grounds on which to sue the Crown.
The judgment aroused interest as the Court’s Lord President did note that the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty being unlimited was ‘distinctively English’ and lacking a Scottish counterpart, thus meaning that the UK Parliament lacks the ability to alter key aspects of the Act of Union 1707. However, the Lord President also noted that there was a complete absence of authority on the matter of whether national Courts in Scotland or England could determine whether Governmental actions were in breach of the Act and thus the Court was uncertain whether they held the authority to issue a determinative statement on the instant case.
Words: 285
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. The core legal points — the outcome on the royal title question, the reliance on the royal prerogative, and Lord President Cooper’s obiter observations about parliamentary sovereignty and the Act of Union 1707 — remain correctly stated. Those obiter remarks continue to be cited in academic and judicial discussion of Scottish constitutional law and the limits of Westminster parliamentary sovereignty, including in commentary surrounding devolution and, more recently, Brexit-era constitutional debates. However, readers should note that the article does not address subsequent case law that has engaged with Lord President Cooper’s observations, most notably AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, in which the UK Supreme Court acknowledged that Scots law may recognise constitutional limits on legislative competence, and Reference by the Lord Advocate [2022] UKSC 31 (the Scottish Independence Referendum Reference), where the Supreme Court addressed related questions of competence under the Scotland Act 1998. These later cases do not undermine the correctness of the MacCormick summary itself, but students should be aware that the constitutional questions raised in obiter by Lord President Cooper have been further developed in subsequent authority. The article remains a broadly accurate summary of the 1953 decision.
