THEIR histories may not be as illustrious as others which have served this island nation but, for more than 300 years, the ships of the Royal Navy named after the Faithful City have always done their duty.

The last ship to bear the name Worcester saw action in the Second World War, earning the soubriquet 'The ship that refused to die' after being struck by a mine in 1943.

If the relationship between the Senior Service and other British towns and cities had been echoed in the heart of England since, there would have been other HMS Worcesters with sea-faring tales to tell today. Sadly, that isn't the case.

In the early 1980s, a Type 42 destroyer was earmarked by the Royal Navy to be named Worcester.

Regrettably, too many city councillors feared that it would be glorifying war if they took up the invitation, so it was turned down.

What a mistake that was. Warships are a necessity. The British public knows the fact. The Falklands War and those in the Gulf make that undeniable.

What's more, anyone who's fought on the Lower Deck will tell you that glory is the last of the emotions which drive a ship's company. Pride, however, is often the resource which turns the day.

Similarly, it's pride, not political dogma, which should have been the guiding force behind the decision to accept the Navy's 1980s invitation, just as it should be now.

Indeed, civic pride should be the wave which carries city councillors in support of former Mayor Derek Prod-ger's proposal that a fresh campaign should begin to persuade the Navy to name a warship after the city.

It would be wonderful for a ship to bear Worcester's name. The idea has our overwhelming support.

Civitas in Bello et Pace Fidelis. City Faithful in War and Peace. There can't be a finer declaration of loyalty to our boys in blue than that.