HMS Queen Elizabeth, the only aircraft carrier in the world to have her name subject to claims of conspiracy and collusion against the people of Scotland.

Most of you already know that HMS Queen Elizabeth was named in honour of a renowned World War I era super-dreadnought despite occasional slip-ups in the mainstream media referring to her as ‘HMS Queen Elizabeth 2’ and such, from the same relatively inexperienced journalists of the type that think five inch naval guns are smaller than a toothbrush. Well, not everyone is aware of this.

During the week we recieved an email expressing outrage at this fact from a reporter at a Scotland based paper, who “for obvious reasons” wanted to run a story on this. It was only when asked for a quote we realised what those reasons were, we were asked specifically for a quote “along the lines of ‘people just assumed it was the current Queen”. That’s right, we were asked for a quote and told what the quote should say. This didn’t go unnoticed.

The full message we received reads as follows:

Our response was as follows:

“The Royal Navy have a tradition of ships being named for previous vessels and that’s what’s happening in this case and 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 in turn was named after Elizabeth I who also played a key role in Royal Navy history. As such, the vessel isn’t actually named after Queen Elizabeth the first but after the previous vessel to carry the name (hence why she carries the honours of that vessel too).

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. I have to admit I’m genuinely curious at why this is an issue as the Royal Navy have ships named for leaders/places/events from each part of the United Kingdom and have done for centuries. Some vessels linking purely to Scotland with no connection to England, for example.

As for her being named after the current monarch, that wouldn’t be appropriate for a host of reasons but primarily due to the Royal Navy not naming vessel classes after living people.”

You can guess where this already surreal request was headed.

It gets odder,

and odder.

To clarify, despite how the above is framed, we thought this was common knowledge and at no point believe we unearthed a conspiracy, furthermore the claims above that the Royal Navy and media were colluding on hiding the name from people in Scotland are simply absurd. For every article that can be found claiming the vessel was named after the current monarch, you can find another arguing the opposite.

The most disappointing part of this is that our original short article here, the story that gave rise to the aforementioned outrage piece, was simply meant to counter the usual ‘HMS Queen Elizabeth 2’ headlines appearing in some papers and give people a bit of a history lesson regarding what we thought was a relatively well known bit of trivia, not outrage people.


  1. Mary Queen of Scots became popular in Scotland only after her execution for plotting the assassination of Queen Elizabeth of England. Mary was forced to flee to England because of the threat to her life. Mary left Scotland as child and was married to the Dauphin of France, destined so it was thought to be Queen of France and best placed to bash the English. Didn’t happen, but while it lasted Mary grew up in the most sophisticated society on earth for those times. Packed off back ‘home’ she arrived in country that was slightly worse than modern day Albania but without the courtesy and charm. Her light relief,a cultivated Italian musician was stabbed to death in front of her by a dipsomaniac husband whom another. She had him blown up. Her next boyfriend raped her and following a succession of ghastly events, including being denounced by man who made the late Ian Paisley seem like Constance Spry, she did a runner to England chased bya mob of Bible wielding sociopaths. leaving her son behind. Dear Reader, that little boy became King of England and Scotland in 1603. Centuries later electricity reached Scotland.

    • Barry, where does one start with your history lesson!?!
      Maybe a “D minus”: flawed analysis, but bags of attitude! LOL
      “The Auld Alliance” (1295) between Scotland & France was not about “bashing the English”, it was a defensive treaty. Both countries were often threatened by an aggressive and expansionist English state, one with considerable military power. If the Scots or French were attacked, the other was obligated to come to its partners aid. (Sounds a bit like NATO, doesn’t it!) Making England fight on two fronts dissipated its fighting strength.
      Personally, I’m perfectly happy being compared with a “charmless and discourteous Albanian”, however, the Scottish kings saw themselves as cultured Renaissance princes, and some did build rather fine palaces, albeit small by English and French standards. Medieval, or early modern, Scotland was poor – but it wasn’t backward.
      A certain John Knox was indeed bigoted by modern standards, but this was also a man who believed that ordinary people should be able to read the bible, and understand it on their own terms, and also have the right to choose their own priest. Education and democracy? In that context, he does seem rather a modern thinker!
      Perhaps a more useful history lesson might be to focus on how a small country maintained it’s identity and independence, despite the expansionist tendencies of a powerful neighbour. Ironically, through their leading role in the British empire, the Scots would later become some of the most ardent imperialists in history!
      Here endeth my lesson!
      Incidentally, I think electricity is one of the few things the Scots didn’t invent!
      Good fun to debate with you, Barry.

      • “The French always look blank at the mention of the ‘Auld Alliance” – Andrew Neil.

        The idea that the French care or cared about Scotland is fantasy. Until quite recently it was not one but three or even four ethnicities divided by appalling roads. The Lowland Scots hated the Highlanders. Lord Macaulay pointed out that when the over weight Hanoverian George IV ‘bounded’ ashore at Leith in 1822 dressed in some absurd play actor’s get up made of tartan, nine out of ten Scotsmen thought “he was dressed in the attire of a cattle thief”. In Thurso Museum, Caithness they recount with undisguised glee their part in destroying the remnants of the French finanaced Italo-Hungarian Bonnie Prince Charlie’s band. Barely any of the combatants in the Battle of Culloden were English and many not even Scottish.

        As for the ‘expansionist tendencies’, there was no reason to expand into Scotland since it was dominated by Norman families; Comyn, Le Bruc, Wallace and Balliol (Lyon anyone?). The Romans had weighed the place up (Tacitus) and decided not to bother and until the Industrial Revolution in England, no one did. However, I still pray that next time around the good Lord will see fit to place Scotland next to Turkey and then the bleating will stop rather abruptly.

        • Good afternoon, Barry
          And the list grows: you don’t like the Scots, or the Albanians – and now we must add the Turks to the list!
          Anyway back to history: Agreed, the Auld Alliance did mean more to Scotland – than to France. But in medieval times, it was important for the independence of the Stewart crown that English forces were tied up across the Channel (100 years wasn’t it!), that’s why the Garde Ecossaise fought alongside the French during the 15th century.
          The Battle of Culloden was the culminations of a civil war (arguably part of the British “wars of religion”); about 20% of the Hanoverian army at the battle was Scottish (about 2000 troops), about half the Jacobite army was Highland (perhaps 2500 men). Actually, one can argue that the predominant nationality on the battlefield was Irish!
          As a Scot, and a proud Brit, you hear no “bleating” from me; Scotland has played an important part in the success of the UK – and I believe it will continue to do so. But if we are to live together on these islands, we do need to show each other’s history and culture a wee bit of mutual respect – and I fear comments like yours do not help.

  2. So it’s a case of a media story making another media story, both based on “one ship being named after another ship”. It sort of strangely balances out if you think about it.

  3. The most ludicrous part of the story alludes to a conspiracy by the Navy to hide this fact. On the contrary at every opportunity it has claimed it was not named after the present Queen, I know because I have often argued when seeing it that it was a happy coincidence that the powers that be were happy with despite them denying any such link at every turn. We know hacks love a lie but this one is about as clear a one as you will find. I can’t help but wonder if they actually took inspiration for it from the comments we all made below the original artical here.

  4. This is simply…beyond ridiclous. Even if it was named after the first Eleibeth and not the ship named for her, should I be outraged that Socttish people venrate Wallace, a man who murdered and raped across a hundred villages of the North of England? No, I simply don’t care as it happened hundreds of years ago and people regularly overlook the awful stuff people did in place of the good.

  5. And it was an article written by the rag that calls itself the National that is terminally obsessed with secession. So I’m supposed you even gave them time of day.

  6. So who is it? Who is this outraged person? Name him or her please. Certainly doesn’t seem to be the reporter. He is referring to someone. So who is it?

  7. That grubby little nationalist rag only sells about 8,000 copies (and falling rapidly)’s meant purely for the hardcore nationalist knukledraggers of the separatist movement.

    • Spot on, it even prints in extra large letter type as it’s customer base generally have trouble reading, writing, talking without shouting and interacting with ‘normal’ humans. The crossword is one line, 3 letters, middle one N……and it’s not been completed yet!

  8. The main problem is that the nationalist tendency are seen by many people south of the border as the authentic voice of the Scottish people, they certainly see themselves in that way. I have a number of Scottish friends who think the SNP are an embarrassment and have no time for them and the the politics of grievance.

  9. The Tudors’ right to the throne was always flakey. That’s why it is in constant need of propping up.
    Order will be restored when Prince William ascends the throne. Through his mother he carries Stuart blood.

  10. Just a Scottish national socialist rag trying to invent insult where there was none in order to foster racist hate against the English…

  11. I choose to see this as nasty little muckrakers trying to make a name for themselves rather than the Scots themselves.

    I suspect they are sharpening their skills to get a job on the Daily Mail (the paper that published a story about a Russian air transport crash using photos of fighter jets) where their flair for honesty and accuracy would fit right in.

    Most Scots I know are proud of the QEC (even those who are anti military).

    • Actually The National and the Herald were both newspapers that carried sensible articles about the 200 litre an hour water leak from the QE (my 12v barrel pump can handle 1,200 an hour gets a bit hot all the same). Scotsman too I think. Whereas a few UK rags had the QE as sinking.

      200 litres is about 2 bathtubs nearly full of water, 200 kilogram on a 65,000 tonne ship.

  12. Another point that should not be forgotten is that the House of Tudor had a strong Welsh connection so it was not all about england

  13. Even if this guy (lets call him a journalist) is fervently Scottish, his approach to writing this article is unprofessional and he should be fired.

    Never let a fact get in the way of a good story….

  14. I agree with those indicating that this is a pointless political history lesson. I am far more interested in the ships ability to defend the UK. A strong name is important but let’s not get bogged down with people attempting to drive a wedge between different countries with the UK.

      • True George, but by the same token Mark B is free to make his point too. He did it politely after all. Free speech and all that.

      • George I did not mean to cause offense. I read your articles with great interest and I am impressed with the site and those contributing and I read this article because it also was of interest. Much of my interest is routed in wanting to discuss what needs to be done now to learn the lessons of the past and perhaps I am guilty of showing some irritation because much of the discussion at the moment is about trying to change decisions which have already been made for better or worse. Apologies.

  15. Strange, the only knuckle dragging nationalists I am aware of are those UKIP thugs who voted Brexit ably assisted by the two thugs currently in prison who head up the Britain First group.

    • Nonsense. I debunked all of your Marxist propaganda in the comments in another article and will continue to do so.

      So my family, including grand parents, are thugs and knuckle dragging nationalists?

      Wish I was rich, I’d sue you right now for the nonsense you keep spouting.

      You really are making yourself look daft.

  16. Now if only the US Navy could also adopt a policy of not naming ships after living people (Carter, Giffords, I’m looking at you!).

  17. Love it. Considering The National had this in its article “But now a journalist working for the respected UK Defence Journal online publication has revealed the truth” (my bold), and this article indirectly mentions The National in the tweet, seems to me to be a combined effort to boost both media.

    Look forward to the next episode 🙂

    • Combined effort? We were asked for a quote and both it and our original story were taken widely out of context to create an issue. There’s no conspiracy.

        • Apologies, had quite a few very angry comments/emails today. Assumed this was the same type of situation.

          • Sorry to hear that George, some people take things to extremes.

            I give UKDJ a boost in “nationalist” circles, as there’s as much ignorance on defence matters as there is in some of the more sensational media.

            I was partiularly annoyed some months back about an MP who is normally good, talking about “dud carrier with no aircraft”.

            I kind of like the QE, same will be true for the PoW.

          • Everyone on all sides can take things to the extreme, as is the nature of social media I suppose. We also do our best to stay politically neutral, we counter remarks made by politicians all over the political spectrum on defence matters, we criticise the government as much as other parties, perhaps even more so, given they’re the ones actually making the poor decisions when it comes to the forces.

            The issue, IMHO, is the way MSM works in trying to always publish a negative spin for clicks/revenue, it’s why people think QE is a leaky carrier “with no aircraft”. Our best way of avoiding that is, I think, doing this all for free so there’s no need to chase after clicks/sponsorship/funding etc. You may be surprised to know I usually find The National to be better than most on defence matters, that’s the main reason I decided to write this article, I was quite saddened to see our quote used in such a disingenuous way.

            Again, apologies if my earlier comment seemed rude.

          • No worries George, I didn’t think it rude at all, my humour is a bit deadpan at times. Interesting to see your comment about The National. I do my best to keep it on its toes below the line, as does another poster from the “unionist” point of view. When we agree, which is usually on defence matters, it seems to me if the article writers read the comments they have to pay attention.

            Something some of the more extreme on both sides of the Independence issue ignore, is that if next time it’s a YES vote and Scotland becomes Independent, we’re next-door neighbours, and Scotland has a lot of airspace and sea to defend, which also affects the rest of the UK. That’s something I try to address at times – and something I’d’ like to see the likes of RUSI game out.

            Meanwhile of course we’re still a part of the UK, something 55% voted for back in 2014. I was one of the 45%.

  18. I am embarrassed beyond belief at this slur against our queen who is the queen of GtBritain . I wish, as a Scot that these petty nationalists would just bugger off and stop trying to gain brownie points. It s so childish.

  19. Propaganda needs to be called out, as does stirring up racial dissention. Let’s hope the truth & balance defeats this attempt to stir up Anglo-Scottish hatred. What matters today is that we treat each others nations with fairness, respect & warmth.

    • What so sad is that most is based on myth, as if people from England are Anglo Saxon. A Germanic peoples who after 150 years of slowly taking over what is now England, had disorganised Britons, and instead of them assimilation to us Britons, we assimilated to them by the looks of it (the wipeout theory is a myth). Quite the opposite to what happened in what is France where the place was conquered quickly and the invaders assimilated to the Franks (or were they the invaders?). All by the by, as if Britain were not united, many of us would not be around. Not been to Scotland yet, but most of my ancestry comes from there and Cornwall.

  20. Only in Britain A! The sort of Country that can snatch defeat from the arms of certain victory. God give me strength and plenty of it!

  21. I can just see the headline, “Shock, horror! Journalist makes up story!”
    It just seems another example of “news” being manufactured; must have been a quiet news day up here in Scotland!
    Actually, despite the formal explanation that HMS Queen Elizabeth simply follows an earlier naming tradition; many of us on this forum suspect that it was informally named after the current monarch, this on the basis that it might play a small part in repelling a potential cancellation!
    ** George, I believe the Navy has named ships after living people, see HMS King Edward VII (launched 1903)
    I think it would be great PR for the Navy to go “full-astern” on this one, and state that our flagship is named in honour of our longest serving British monarch.

    • Alan, read my posting above, the reply to you. Nothing manufactured aboout the news itself in that article, nothing at all, the journalist did his research – thoroughly. How the article is written is up to you to decide.

    • If it was named after QE II, it would be HMS Queen Elizabeth II, just as the HMS King George V was named after that king. Both QE & POW are names with WW2 capital ship pedigrees, WW1 in the case of the QE at least. Many RN ships are or have been named after Scottish people & places.
      Sure the Tudor QE had Mary Queen of Scots beheaded, but that doesn’t mean all English condone that or everything any Englishman or monarch in particular did against the Scots. That’s an absurd argument when both nations had been at war over many centuries until the act of union. If mankind keeps every grudge over every slight to his tribe or nation we’d be at endless war until we were all wiped out.

      Besides, nobody at all is trying to hide the fact that both carriers have had much made & all assembled & fitted out in Scotland. That will always be on the record.

      • “That’s an absurd argument”

        Frank, as far as I can see, you’re the only making that argument, the article didn’t. Hold on, I’ll just re-read The National article … nope, doesn’t say anything like that.

        Quite frankly if it had, I’d have the guy for garters. Anti-English comments are not tolerated, in fact in Scotland, they get reported to the police and actioned.

  22. Those Scotsnats? what are they about. I think the journalist in question obiviously didn’t have much to show his editor, so decided to create some news of his own. It seems in this troubled old world of ours we have far too many people whose mission in life is to create trouble, division and strife where there was none and then stand back and take perverse pleasure in watching the trouble unfold that they created! Shameful I say!

  23. One wonders why the it was not make clearer initially who the ship was named after. Could it possibly be that someone was aware that the Scots, in the present political climate, might understand that there might be a certain amount of irritation that the ship be named after an English queen rather than a British one?

  24. Is there NOTHING that is not a bone of contention? Does anyone REALLY believe that the name was chosen just to insult the Scots? Was there the same nationalist furore when the ORIGINAL ship was named? Do the names’ roots REALLY matter? And indeed, does anyone REALLY care? No. This is just another case of someone banging the PC drum trying to make a name for themselves. The second ship is named Prince of ‘Wales’ – how long before some ignoramus claims this is in honour of Moby Dick…….

    • I would have thought that the fact that this article made it into this site makes it self obvious that names and origins DO matter. Who said I was a Nationalist? No, I don’t believe the name was chosen to insult the Scots but it does concern me that nobody considered that they would be. When was the last Royal Navy vessel named after a Scots king? Or Welsh? Or Irish?

  25. My whole point is that people seem to go out of their way to find things to be aggrieved about! My own choice of names would have been Ark Royal and Eagle, but the really important point is that they have been built and will give many years of service to the WHOLE of the UK

    • Well, I have an ear in the Independence movement in Scotland, and there’s no huge roar of outrage at this outrage which doesn’t actually exist and didn’t during the Independence Referendum when nobody knew nor cared who the carrier was named after. There aren’t huddles of aggrieved “nats” angrily shouting for, errr, things. To be frank there’s actually little interest in defence, I post (below the line) the occasional defence news, and get very little interest – unless perhaps it’s about the T26 on the Clyde, and not really even then.

      But apart from that I kind of think the article in The National was a bit of a wind-up, of “nats” as well as “yoons”, and here’s the clue, this quote casually throw in in the middle of it:

      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.

      “In the biggest piece of hoodwinking since winks were first hooded”.

  26. “WHOLE of the UK”. Glad you accept that but your point was also about the name of a ship. If names don’t matter why don’t they just have numbers?

  27. I fully appreciate and understand that The National’s article was complete and utter nonsensical rubbish. However, I also find it quite fascinating, in so far as it must stand out as a prime example of the worst possible form of journalism.

    I believe that in future students of journalism will always be able to quote it as being:-
    1) A Classic example of “Gutter Press” principles i.e. Not letting the truth spoil a good story.
    2) A Classic example of Lincoln’s quote “..that you can fool some of the people all of the time..”
    3) A Classic example of how to start your own “Conspiracy Theory”
    4) A Classic example of extremely biased propaganda.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here