McCormick 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.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the 1953 decision. The case has not been overruled. The obiter remarks by Lord President Cooper regarding the limitations of parliamentary sovereignty in a Scottish constitutional context retain ongoing academic and legal significance, particularly in discussions arising from Scottish devolution and the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2016. Those statutory developments have added further complexity to questions of parliamentary sovereignty and the Union settlement, but they do not alter the outcome or reasoning in McCormick itself. The article is broadly accurate for the purposes for which it is presented, though readers should note that the constitutional landscape surrounding Scottish devolution has evolved considerably since 1953 and the obiter observations on parliamentary sovereignty should be read in that broader modern context.
