A puzzle for you all

For my Philosophy of Language class we have to break down a puzzle that an old Philosopher (Bertrand Russell) wrote about, and then offer someone else's (Gottleob Frege) response. The puzzle, standing alone, is kinda fun, and so I thought I would pass it along. If anyone wants to take a stab at it - be my guest. Oh, the things that philosophers deal with nowadays.

Here's the puzzle:

Russell sets up his first puzzle with a law of logic from Leibniz: “If A is identical with B, whatever is true of the one is true of the other, and either may be substituted for the other in any proposition without altering the truth or falsehood of that proposition.” Russell then refers to an example that seems to create a problem in light of Leibniz’s law. Sir Walter Scott was a well-known English poet, and when he published the novel Waverley, he chose not to reveal his authorship. Waverley was enormously successful, and curiosity grew about who had written the book. A number of people suspected that the author was Sir Walter Scott. With this storyline as the backdrop, Russell presents two true premises: PR1) “George IV wished to know whether Scott was the author of Waverley,” and PR2) “Scott was the author of Waverley.”
If we let ‘Scott’ be A, and ‘the author of Waverley’ be B, then A is identical to B because Scott is the author of Waverley (PR2). According to Leibniz’s law, we can substitue A for B without altering a sentence’s truth value, but if we do this in PR1 we end up with, “George IV wished to know whether Scott was Scott,” and this statement is false. It seems as if we have gone from two true premises, and by applying a law of logic, we’ve come out with a false statement. So is the law of logic false or not universally applicable, is the example flawed, or is something else going on here? These are the type of questions that arise from Russell’s first puzzle.

Have "fun."