‘royal we’: meaning and origin (2024)

The expression royal wedenotes we (the subjective case of the first person plural pronoun) used in place of I (the subjective case of the first person singular pronoun):
– by a monarch or other person in power, especially in formal declarations;
– frequently humorously, by any individual.

AN INFAMOUS USE OF THE ROYAL WE

The British Conservative stateswoman Margaret Hilda Thatcher (1925-2013), Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, infamously used the royal we on Friday 3rd March 1989 when she announced to the press the birth of her grandson. The following is from the Daily Mirror (London, England) of Saturday 4th March 1989:

‘Royal’ Maggie reveals news
WE ARE A GRANDMOTHER
A REGAL Mrs Thatcher proudly announced to the nation from Downing Street yesterday: “We have become a grandmother.”
The Prime Minister adopted the royal “we” when she revealed the news of her first grandchild to reporters outside No 10.

Margaret Thatcher’s use of the royal we drew a lot of criticism. For example, the following is from the Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California, USA) of Wednesday 8th March 1989:

Gaffes Tarnish Image
British ‘Iron Lady’ Shows Signs of Rust, Foes Say
From Reuters
London—It’s been an unsteady few days for the normally sure-footed Margaret Thatcher and Britain’s corridors of power are buzzing with the question: “Is the Iron Lady losing her grip?”
[…]
Even the usually staid Financial Times wrote a light-hearted column as political sketch writers reveled in a series of events which began Friday when Thatcher announced: “We have become a grandmother.”
Downing Street bristles at any suggestion that Thatcher, after nearly 10 years in office, adopts a regal style. But her use of the royal plural—“We” instead of “I”—gave Opposition Leader Neil Kinnock powerful ammunition at Tuesday’s question time.
Kinnock, long the victim of caustic prime ministerial rebuffs, has taken to blending brevity and wit in their twice-weekly verbal sparring sessions to score points off Thatcher.
Dismissing one Thatcher reply, Kinnock evoked gales of laughter as he mimicked a remark attributed to Queen Victoria and declared: “We are not amused.”

ORIGIN AND EARLY OCCURRENCES OF THE EXPRESSION ROYAL WE

The expression royal we is apparently a loan translation from French nous royal 1 as used of Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) by the French novelist and critic Germaine de Staël-Holstein (née Necker – 1766-1817) in her memoirs, published posthumously in 1821. The earliest occurrence of the expression royal we that I have found is from Ten Years’ Exile; or Memoirs of that interesting period of the life of the Baroness de Staël-Holstein, written by herself, during the years 1810, 1811, 1812, and 1813, and now first published from the original manuscript, by her son. Translated from the French (London: Treuttel and Würtz, Treuttel Jun. and Richter, 1821):
—Context: The French-Army general Charles Leclerc (1772-1802) was the husband of Pauline Bonaparte (1780-1825), Napoléon Bonaparte’s sister. In 1801, Napoléon (who was then the de facto supreme ruler of France as First Consul) sent Leclerc to the French colony of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) with an expeditionary army, in order to re-establish French authority there. Leclerc died of yellow fever during the failed expedition:

It was at this period that Bonaparte sent General Leclerc to Saint Domingo, and designated him in his decree our brother-in-law. This first royal we, which associated the French with the prosperity of this family, was a most bitter pill to me. He obliged his beautiful sister to accompany her husband to Saint Domingo, where her health was completely ruined.

This is the corresponding passage from the original French text, Dix années d’exil, ou Mémoires de l’époque la plus intéressante de la vie de madame de Staël, écrits par elle-même dans les années 1810 à 1813, publiés d’après le manuscrit original par son fils (London: Chez Treuttel et Würtz, Treuttel fils et Richter, 1821):

Ce fut vers cette époque que Bonaparte envoya le général Leclerc à Saint-Domingue, et qu’il l’appela dans son arrêté notre beau-frère. Ce premier nous royal 1, qui associoit les François à la prospérité de cette famille, me fut vivement antipathique. Il exigea de sa jolie sœur d’aller avec son mari à Saint-Domingue, et c’est là que sa santé fut abîmée.

1 The common French expression is nous de majesté, not nous royal.

I have found an early humorous use of the expression royal wein a theatrical review published in The Satirist; or, the Censor of the Times (London, England) of Sunday 24th November 1839:

ADELPHI.—The new pageant brought out here, under the title of The Knight of the Dragon, and the Queen of Beauty, has been received with a fervour that justifies the belief that it will carry the manager on comfortably till Christmas, with, it may be, a few odd entremets, or theatrical kickshaws, thrown in to whet the public appetite. In availing himself of the story of “Crichton,” 2 Yates 3 has put forth his best energies to produce a spectacle which may vie in splendour with theatres of double the size, and proportionately greater means and appliances. […] Henri de Valois, the polished Royal roué of a roué Court, is fitly and exquisitely represented by Yates. The air of self-satisfaction which marks the monarch’s demeanour is marvellously edifying, and his fascinating and truly Royal style of seducing female innocence, perfectly irresistible. […] The scenery, though there is not much of it, merits high praise. “The Royal Gardens of the Palace by Moonlight,” “The Ball at the Louvre,” are very effective; and the last scene, after the procession, when the dramatis personæ, knights, squires, men in armour, and men in none, with the attendant splendours of the Queen of Beauty, are marshalled in full, presented a coup d’œil of imposing magnificence, the effect of which was much heightened by the intense white and violet-coloured light thrown upon it. The spectators were taken fairly by surprise. The manager, at the fall of the curtain, appeared no less delighted himself, when addressing the audience, still using the Royal “we” appropriate to his stage character, he hoped that the Adelphi could not only produce Jack Sheppard 4, but a spectacle likewise, in its way, of equally lofty pretensions to public favour.

2This stage play was adapted from Crichton (London: Richard Bentley, 1837), by the English novelist William Harrison Ainsworth (1805-1882).—Cf. also the phrase admirable Crichton.
3The English actor Frederick Henry Yates (1797-1842) was then the manager of the Adelphi Theatre, in London.
4Jack Sheppard is a novel by William Harrison Ainsworth, first published in instalments from 1839 to 1840 in Bentley’s Miscellany (London, England).

In an article about the dismissal, by his superiors at Somerset House, of Mr. H. W. Parker, Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, published in The Railway Bell and London Family Newspaper (London, England) of Saturday 21st March 1846, a journalist criticised a particular use of the royal we—this journalist first quoted the letter of dismissal, then commented on it:

Poor-law Commission Office, Somerset House, 16 October, 1845.
My dear sir,—Looking at the importance and peculiar nature of the functions, delegated to an Assistant Commissioner, we have, after full consideration, come to the conclusion, that we cannot, consistently with our public duty, retain you any longer in your present office. It is therefore incumbent on us to request that you will send your resignation to the Commissioners.
We wish to assure you that we take this step with the utmost reluctance; and we willingly acknowledge the zealous and efficient services which you have on various occasions, rendered to the Commission.
I remain, my dear sir, ever yours, faithfully,
H. W. Parker, Esq. Geo. Nicholls.
Now we have here the most startling evidence, not only of the utter want of union and regularity with which the business of the Poor-law Board is conducted, but of the total disregard on the part of the Commissioners of the express directions of the Act of Parliament under which they are constituted.
So grave a step as that of dismissing an Assistant Commissioner—and officer next in authority to themselves—ought, manifestly, to be well considered by the whole board before it is resolved upon. In the present instance, the individual upon whom the sentence was inflicted, had been ten years in office, and was confessedly well qualified by ability and experience for the duties of it. He had quitted the bar to accept the appointment; and his removal from it was an act of authority deeply affecting his character, and deciding the fate of his after life. And yet, with these afflicting consequences in the train of it, we find this documentary mandate issued by a single Commissioner. Mr. George Nicholls stands upon the face of it, alone responsible for the act. There is no evidence that his colleagues were consulted upon or concerned in it.
As to the use of the plural pronoun on the occasion, the introduction of it throughout the body of the letter, and dropping down into the “I remain,” at the conclusion, is truly ludicrous. Is it as one of “the three kings of Somerset House,” that this gentleman uses the royal “We?” It is only in assuming this, that we can account for the absurdity of it.

The use of the royal we by newspaper editors and reviewers was discussed in the following response to a letter that had been addressed to the Editor, published in The Weekly Telegraph (Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland) of Saturday 20th November 1852:

Eblana.—It would be more correct if a reviewer did not make use of the plural pronoun in his remarks; but is only because the “we” is looked upon chiefly as the distinction of the political editor. The objection, however, that its use would imply “a plurality in the composition,” is an entire mistake, for the editor universally uses the royal “we.” That a reviewer—and a first-rate one, too—uses the plural pronoun—you may see by a sentence in the last number of The Critic (November 15), in which the well-known and able “Frank Grave” writes—“Probably there are imperfections in the present combination system of the English printers, but, unlike Mr. Gladstone, we assure them that unless they can limit their numbers, the repeal of the taxes on knowledge will be of very little benefit to them.” Again—“If our readers have sometimes thought that we have devoted too much attention to the state and prospects of literary institutions,” &c.

The English educationist and lexicographer Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897) used the expression royal we in the following from Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, giving the Derivation, Source, or Origin of Common Phrases, Allusions, and Words that have a Tale to Tell (London: Cassell, Petter, and Galpin, [1870]):

We. co*ke, in the “Institutes,” says the first king that wrote we in his grants was king John. All the kings before him wrote ego (I) 5. This is not correct, as Richard Lion-heart 6 adopted the royal we. (See Rymer’s “Fœdera.” 7)

5Ebenezer Cobham Brewer was referring to the following passage from The Second Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England. Containing the Exposition of many ancient, and other Statutes (London: Printed by M[iles] Flesher, and R[obert] Young, for E[phraim] D[awson], R[ichard] M[eighen], W[illiam] L[ee] and D[aniel] P[akeman], 1642), by the English jurist and politician Edward co*ke (1552-1634):
—Context: Edward co*ke was commenting on the use of the Latin expression Concessimus Deo, translating as We have granted to God, in the Magna Carta, as reissued in 1225 by Henry III (1207-1272), who reigned from 1216 to 1272 (Henry III was the son of John (1165-1216), King of England from 1199 to 1216; the Magna Carta is a charter of liberty and political rights obtained from King John by his rebellious barons at Runnymede in 1215):

Here in this Charter, both in the title and in diuers parts of the body of the Charter, the King speaketh in the plurall number, concessimus; The first King that I read of before him, that in his graunts wrote in the plurall number, was King John, Father of our King H.3. other Kings before him wrote in the singular number, they vsed Ego, and King John, and all the Kings after him, Nos.

6Richard I (1157-1199), known as Richard Cœur de Lion, or Richard the Lionheart, reigned from 1189 to 1199.

7Ebenezer Cobham Brewer was referring to Fœdera, Conventiones, Literæ, Et Cujuscunque Generis Acta Publica, Inter Reges Angliæ, Et Alios quosvis Imperatores, Reges, Pontifices, Principes, vel Communitates, ab Ineunte Sæculo Duodecimo, viz. ab Anno 1101, ad nostra usque Tempora, Habita aut Tractata; Ex Autographis, infra Secretiores Archivorum Regiorum Thesaurarias, per multa Sæcula reconditis, fideliter Exscripta, a collection of agreements between the English Crown and foreign powers from 1101 onwards, compiled by the English antiquary and historian Thomas Rymer (c.1643-1713). For example, in Epistola Ricardi Regis Angliæ ad Hubertum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum, de liberatione sua (Letter of Richard King of England to Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury, regarding his liberation), written in 1193, Richard I (who was then held hostage by the Holy Roman emperor Henry VI) used sumus (we are), the first-person plural present indicative of the verb esse (to be), and the first-person plural possessive determiner nostra (our):
—as published in the first tome of Fœdera (3rd edition – The Hague: Jean Neaulme, 1745):

Certi sumus quod liberationem nostram plurimum desideratis.
translation:
We are certain that you desire our deliverance very much.

‘royal we’: meaning and origin (2024)

FAQs

‘royal we’: meaning and origin? ›

The English royal we, or pluralis majestatis, dates to the late twelfth century, around the time of Henry II and his successor Richard I, and meant “God and I,” invoking the divine right of kings. It has since come to be understood that a monarch using the royal we is speaking for the state.

What does the expression "royal we" mean? ›

The royal we, majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), or royal plural is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) used by a single person who is a monarch or holds a high office to refer to themselves. A more general term for the use of a we, us, or our to refer to oneself is nosism.

Why did monarchs refer to themselves as we? ›

Traditionally, monarchs address themselves as “We” to indicate that they referring to themselves and God. Elizabeth II seems to have dropped that… possibly because God has said ”Don't you drag me into this!”. Occasionally, she refers to herself as “One” but not as frequently as satirical impersonators seem to think.

Does Charles use the royal we? ›

Only the monarch uses the royal we. All other pronouns remain as they usually are. “He is King Charles III now, yet I remember him as just another student at Cambridge.”

What is meant by the royal you? ›

The royal you is me making up a phrase to mean "I'm using the word you to mean the reader, not you the person I am responding to" I thought it was pretty obvious but yea you got me. Good point, well made.

Why do some people use the royal we? ›

The English royal we, or pluralis majestatis, dates to the late twelfth century, around the time of Henry II and his successor Richard I, and meant “God and I,” invoking the divine right of kings. It has since come to be understood that a monarch using the royal we is speaking for the state.

What is the royal we in the Quran? ›

For them, it is just like inna (إنا) and nahnu (نحن)—consistently translated as “We” without implying that Allah is plural or refers to multiple deities. Even in English, the “royal we” is a known linguistic convention for denoting greatness and sovereignty, not plurality.

Why does the Queen say one instead of I? ›

She uses it as an alternative to the first person “I.” This is for the sake of good manners, and used to be normal practice among “good families.” So instead of saying “I do this…”, which might sound vain and self-centred, she says “One does this…”.

Why do people use we instead of I? ›

lower status participants in interactions, particularly those in an employment context, psychologist James Pennebaker and his colleagues found that those who took on leadership roles used fewer first-person singular words (I, me, my) and more plural words (we, our, they), while those in subordinate roles used I-words ...

Is it really true to say that a monarchy is a government of one person? ›

monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign -- such as a king, queen, or prince -- with constitutionally limited authority.

Can Charles be king if divorced? ›

There is no law in the UK that prohibits a person from being crowned king or queen if they have been divorced. This may surprise some who know their history (or have watched The Crown) as people will point to Edward VIII who was forced to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée.

Is the royal we grammatically correct? ›

As others have mentioned, monarchs when they speak/write formally (British royalty perhaps since this is English), use the term "we" instead of "I" because they (presumably) speak for the nation or the court. It's plural, not third person. 3rd person would be he or she.

Who would be king if Charles dies before Elizabeth? ›

Had Charles died in that avalanche Prince William would have become the Heir to the throne, Prince of Wales, and on Queen ElizabethII's death last year, King William IV.

Why do kings refer to themselves as we? ›

The British monarch Henry II is credited with using the royal “we” first, referring to his connection with God, and the fact that he and God were acting in concert. Richard I often used the royal “we” to assert his rule by divine right, which is the belief that the king answered to no one but God.

What is the royal we slang? ›

[singular] ​the use of 'we' instead of 'I' by a single person, as used traditionally by kings and queens in the past. Culture. We are not amused.” a famous remark made by Queen Victoria.

How do Royals say hello? ›

Bowing and curtsying are the traditional greetings, and perhaps a handshake if they offer one.

How to use royal we in a sentence? ›

noun. When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we."

What is the royal we in academic writing? ›

The royal 'we' – that is, the use of 'we' instead of 'I' by a single author – is outdated and pompous. 'We' should only be used by multiple authors to refer to themselves, or by a single author to refer to themselves and their imagined reader.

Does the Queen of England refer to herself as we? ›

Keen fans of the Royal Family and Queen Elizabeth will have noted the royal often uses the term “we” to refer to herself (or oneself). Linguistically speaking, the royal “we” is known as the majestic plural, used exclusively by society's ruling elite. She did when she was alive. It's called “The royal 'we'”.

Why do people say we instead of you? ›

Some people feel that “we” communicates trust or leverages a more friendly manner; it's neither bossing nor accusatory.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Kerri Lueilwitz

Last Updated:

Views: 5533

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (67 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Kerri Lueilwitz

Birthday: 1992-10-31

Address: Suite 878 3699 Chantelle Roads, Colebury, NC 68599

Phone: +6111989609516

Job: Chief Farming Manager

Hobby: Mycology, Stone skipping, Dowsing, Whittling, Taxidermy, Sand art, Roller skating

Introduction: My name is Kerri Lueilwitz, I am a courageous, gentle, quaint, thankful, outstanding, brave, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.