Talk:Royal we

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History tidied[edit]

It only contained some discussion of poor examples that had been removed, and lots of 'fwappling' about how to do links - it's all in this talk page's history if you have lots of time to waste ! Sorry, but 'Be Bold' is an accepted principle, even on article pages, let alone talk pages !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Example ?[edit]

I would even consider removing "In agreement with the Imperial Duma We have thought it well ..." as possibly being genuine plural, (a bit like 'My husband and I' could lead Queen Elizabeth II to use 'we' as a real plural) or maybe just poor Russian -> English translation ? "We thought it Our duty of conscience to facilitate for Our people the closest union possible ..." may be a better example from the same reference.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

Capitalisation is sometimes used to indicate PM - should that be mentioned in the article ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move: Pluralis majestatis → Majestic plural[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). FilipeS (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FilipeS (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pluralis MAIESTATIS, not maJestatis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.114.10 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are defensible. FilipeS (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:26[edit]

I'm curious as to whether this well-known text should be included as an early example of a majestic plural.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

There is, after all, no office higher than "God."  :) Pine (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word translated in that passage as "God" is itself a plural, Elohim (אלהים). There is some tradition of a "grand plural" in Hebrew, but I am not enough of a linguist to go into it for this article. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering about this too. Lomacar (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three verses later, the same speaker uses the singular "I," which implies that the speaker's usage of "us" and "our" in 1:26 refers to more than just himself.
Whoever/whatever the other beings were supposed to be exactly is lost to us now. The text is one of many in the Torah that support the view that Judaism was likely monolatrous at the time it was written. DavidGC (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For readers of the Christian Bible, Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-16, and 1st Corinthians 8:6 pretty well imply that Genesis 1:26 refers to Jesus, being the one 'through whom all things were created' . Proverbs 8:22 and 23 also refer to an ancient being who 'was the first of all creation', 'at God's side when he made the Earth' (PR 8:27). So, this line of thinking, of another being by God's side who created the universe with him, is quite well established in both the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarean[edit]

I was taught as a child that the plural of majesty descended from the days of multiple Roman emperors: one emperor officially spoke for himself and his colleague(s), whether present or a thousand miles away. This practice was imitated by successors with other titles. It ought to be possible to document this.8-\ J S Ayer (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I would like to know whatever the origins and earliest usages are (and how widespread it is in various cultures) Lomacar (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was used in Latin before the imperial period; by Cicero, for example. Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Needed[edit]

"In pluralis maiestatis a speaker refers to him or her self in other than the first person and may be implicitly using the third person plural for the plurality they represent. "

But "we" is first person--first person plural, to be exact, not third personal plural (which is "they" in English) as stated in the article. Bicoastalguy (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Royal We" is also a song by "Silversun Pickups". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.134.2 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not amused[edit]

Michael Nelson's Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera Gives the following specifics:

[Alick] Yorke has gone down in history as the man to whom the Queen said 'We are not amused.' Alick was once sitting next to a German to whom he told a slightly risqué story. The German laughed so loudly that that the Queen asked Yorke to tell her what had caused the laughter. Alick repeated the story. 'We are not amused', replied the Queen.

The source is given as Mallet (ed), Life with Queen Victoria, p xiii. Amazon shows this as published by John Murray (1968), ISBN 0-7195-1783-4.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed[edit]

I typed "The Royal We" into the search box looking for the Silversun Pickups song, and instead ended up here. I know I won't be the only one to run into that problem, so someone needs to do something about it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The patronizing "we"[edit]

This isn't nosism. Perhaps it should not be here.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 05:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Patronizing We" even the right thing to call it? I feel like it's frequently used as a perfectly innocent/neutral grammatical device, such as "how are we doing today?" or in other pleasantries. I almost want to call it "the arbitrary we." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHakimi (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to nosism[edit]

I think that because this article covers several examples of using 'we' to refer to a single individual, and itself explains that in general terms this is the phenomenon of nosism, then we ought to move the article to that more general title and reword the opening lines accordingly. The royal we is a prominent example of nosism, but our sections on each different example are short enough that it makes sense for them all to appear together. The only problem with doing that is that the current title doesn't properly reflect the topic of the article, which could best be remedied by moving it. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. The current wording suggests all described usages are instances of the majestic plural, which is plain wrong. The word nosism isn't even defined anywhere, the article just uses it (as a heading, but not in the intro) as if it were an everyday expression. The introduction only speaks of the majestic plural and the reader is led to assume incorrectly that nosism is just a synonym for majestic plural, not a superordinate concept, and that all these examples, including people with tapeworms, are majestic plurals. Shouldn't the intro cover everything the article is about? Looks like a sloppy move/merge job.--88.73.17.3 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II and the Investiture Controversy[edit]

"Its first recorded use was in 1169[citation needed] when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of "divine right of kings," that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used "we" as "God and I...," or so the legend goes. (See Rolls Series, 2.12)"

This is what I always assumed the deeper meaning of this phrase to be (that is, "God and I"). Where would we put it in? Are there any more sources of people using it like this? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having been to the British Library Rolls Series (Humanities Reading Room 1), the reference given for where to find this information doesn't relate to any standard cataloguing that I can tell. If this is true (and bear in mind that the Investiture Controversy was ultimately ended by the Concordat of Worms in 1122, coupled with the fact that Henry II didn't come to the throne until 1154), then I'm not sure how it all fits together. However, instead of deleting it, I would rather like to know whether there is a truth in this that I'm missing, as I'm researching the use of English pronouns! Certainly, the British royal motto 'Dieu et mon droit' (effectively the 'royal we') originates in a battle cry from Richard I in 1198, which then became the official motto of the English, then later British, Monarchy from 1340 under Edward III. However, as all English royalty around this time spoke Norman French (parliament wasn't opened for the first time in English until 1362), and seeing as the concept of the divine right of kings dates back at least to Egyptian times, it should seem odd that the first recorded use of the royal we either in English or at all was in 1169.

Anyone know anything of this?!

Hashamyim (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tagged this reference with {{failed verification}}, on two grounds. First, I cannot find a self-reference to the king in the cited pages (156-161) anyway; but even if I could, unless it explicitly says that the king is calling himself "we" because he is acting with the deity, then the explanation is unsourced speculation. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author's We[edit]

The "author's we" is used in university lectures too, not just literature. It's really more of an "academic" or "scientific" we. And it also has nothing to do with brevity specifically, it just indicates that the reader and author should be reaching the same logical conclusion. ie. the author could include all the necessary steps for a proof and still use "we". I have no idea where to get more information on this but it seems like what is there is original content. 69.223.181.229 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Nosism. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19th century British passport message[edit]

Using copperplate script and ex-officio imperious WE (or maybe it refers to his plurality of titles)

7617

We, Archibald Philip Earl of Rosebery, Viscount Rosebery, Viscount Inverkeithing, Baron Primrose and Dalmeny in the Peerage of Scotland, Baron Rosebery in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, a Baronet of Nova Scotia, a Member of Her Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c., &c., &c.,

Request and require in the Name of Her Majesty, all those to whom it may concern to allow

William Alfred Rae Wood (British Subject)

traveling on the Continent

to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance and protection of which he may stand in need.

Given at the Foreign Office London the 8 day of September 1893.

[signature] Roseberry

Signature of the Bearer

W.A.R. Wood[1]

--Pawyilee (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Wood, W.A.R. (2003) [First published 1965]. Consul in Paradise. Chiang Mai: Silkworm books. p. Facing Preface. ISBN 974-9575-12-1. Retrieved June 27, 2012. Author's original passport, 1893 {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
"Principle" (not "Principal")? Really? —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm! "Baron Primrose and Dalmeny in the Peerage of Scotland" – Baron is (was) not a peerage title in Scotland; the correct title is Lord (of Parliament). Don't know why one would list that title anyway, which was created along with Viscount Rosebery. Similarly Viscount Inverkeithing was created along with Earl of Rosebery. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other miscellaneous uses[edit]

Nothing in this section adds to the subject. Either they're not examples of the majestic plural at all and therefore not on-topic, or they fall into a category already discussed and therefore not miscellaneous, or they're utterly trivial instances from popular media which could be multiplied indefinitely but not at all informatively. It ought to be cut. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is not western[edit]

I've moved the bit about Elohim to 'non-western' usage. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Usage" -> "English Usage"[edit]

The section titled "Western Usage" seems to be exclusively about English usage. How about we title it appropriately? — Josh Roby (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am not a big fan of the Western / Non-Western division tbh. I would suggest just grouping by polity, or if you have to, region, then polity. The non-Western royal pronouns aren't always plural either (eg Chinese where it's singular, but uniquely royal), which makes "the royal we" a bit irrelevant, but I see there was already a whole discussion about that title. Conflatuman (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone fixes up the historical references in the future, it would be worth noting that the 'royal we' was familiar in ancient Greece as well, as in Aeschylus Persians 228-230, a line spoken by the Persian queen: ταῦτα δ᾽, ὡς ἐφίεσαι, πάντα θήσομεν θεοῖσι τοῖς τ᾽ ἔνερθε γῆς φίλοις, εὖτ᾽ ἂν εἰς οἴκους μόλωμεν, "when we (=I) return to the palace, we (=I) will perform for the gods and my dear ones beneath the earth all those rites which you recommend. Tritaaptya (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You vs. Thou[edit]

In Middle English and Early Modern English the second person singular was 'thou'. The modern from 'you' developed from the custom of addressing (usually noble) people using the plural. Isn't that a special form of Majestic Plural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.61.122 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the two are indeed related, but don't know. Maybe some study of pronouns or (grammatical) number will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic plural → Royal we – Simply a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. Extended statistics below While Royal "we" is fine as a redirect, I don't think it's the best title; compare to singular they. BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"majestic plural" -wikipedia "royal we" -wikipedia
Google 13,600 604,000
Google Books 1150 36,600
Google Scholar 136 3980
JSTOR 11 820,345

(The JSTOR results certainly look like an anomaly, but I don't know how to explain them.) While searches for either term include some irrelevant results (particular in the Books search, which includes instances where the two words happen to be next to each other in prose), I note that many of the "majestic plural" results also use "royal we," but not vice versa. Along with the greater prevalence of the latter in all searches, I believe this comprehensively demonstrates that "royal we" is the more common term for this topic. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Personally, this is the first time I've ever heard the term "majestic plural", while "royal we" is fairly common. The explicit search results above seem to support this. I also agree with the precedent expressed by Singular they, that we should not have quote marks in the title. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Much shorter title and more direct/to the point. This is how people will be searching for this. -WPGA2345-Talk 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. See this ngram. Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal we → pluralis maiestatis – Or pluralis majestatis? The current English title looks awkward at best, commonly used or not. I think a Latin term is more appropriate and also commonly used in books. (I'm not certain about [pretentious] news articles.) Other non-English Wikipedia articles use the Latin phrase. Perhaps English Wikipedia can? George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Books, Royal We gets 25,000+ results, but the results include royal as end of one sentence and We as start of another. Add "Latin", and you get 1,510 results. However, if you want to search for either proposed title, maiestatis gets 12,000+, and majestatis gets 8,000+. 71 news articles use "royal we", but I added Latin to skim down results. Royal We results 2,100 pages, but it also includes sentences that use royal and we differently. majestatis includes many German articles, unfortunately. maiestatis includes many foreign-language articles.

Using Bing News, maiestatis results 17 articles. 29 articles use majestatis. royal we supposedly results 14,000+, but you can't get pass 114 results. Add Latin and you narrow down to 1,400+, but you still can't pass 10th page. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support "Royal we" is a jokey title not used in encyclopedic sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the i or the j, in ictu oculi? --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably with i, but either. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't it a big strange to only look for uses in Latin? Relatively few people speak Latin. We've heard of the "royal we" many times, but we don't personally recall ever seeing either of these Latin variants before. To us, it seems clear that the so-called "jokey" English phrase is the common name (in English). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of "royal we" (or remember it) until now. Who phrases "royal we" more often? There must be other meanings to this Latin phrase besides "majestic plurality". --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's an WP:ENGVAR issue? That expression is commonly used. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. [...] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." royal we is most common but problematic by the looks of it and easily judged negatively. But you can prove me wrong. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything especially inaccurate or ambiguous about the phrase "royal we". IIO suggests that it's informal, but I think it's simply vernacular. People familiar with Latin have been considering things written in English to be somewhat vulgar for a long time, but Vatican II has come and gone and the Latin Mass is mostly a historical curiosity these days. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Google Scholar: maiestatis results 460+; majestatis, 1,000+. royal we, I wouldn't know out of 4,000+; eliminating port results 3,000+. Eliminating some words may decrease results much, but eliminating phrases does very little. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. WP:UE would seem to favor the current title. I also see nothing that disproves this as the common name, regardless of how many different stats you've spat out. -- Calidum 04:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will WP:DIVIDEDUSE apply? --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that "royal we" is the most common term used by English speakers, and I suspect that to be especially true for American English. Please note that I have not actually opposed this move. I hesitate to disagree with IIO on such a topic, and it seems possible that there are regional differences. WP:COMMONALITY is also desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to just merge this article into Nosism? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nosism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was split from this article last year. I don't think it's a good idea at this moment. Besides, two topics are distinct enough, but "nosism" isn't proven notable yet. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unfortunate. Is that really a neologism? What's the etymology? I note that it appears at Wordsmith.org (and that "royal we" is given there as a synonym – with no mention of Latin equivalents). But the example use is from 1996, which does seem rather WP:RECENT. The term unfortunately doesn't seem to be in the three dictionaries that I checked. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added pluralis modestiae—no, I did not copy-and-paste—into list of Latin phrases (P). It may translate to "plural of modesty"; I don't know the simple definition of the phrase. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nosism" is not a neologism. See this source. It also currently appears as an archaic entry in Merriam-Webster online. It's old, not new – just rare. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As BarrelProof pointed out, "the royal we" is certainly in common use. See this ngram for proof that it has always been used to some extent, and increasingly over the past 40-50 years. The results are more striking in American English, but hold up in British English as well. And to allay In ictu's concerns about register, here are several reference works which use "the royal we": [1] [2] [3]. It's used regularly in scholarly works as well. Dohn joe (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ngram results seem even more striking if you drop "the" from "the royal we" (although I suppose I have generally seen it to include the "the"). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the "the" to help cut down on false positives (as George notes above, plain "royal we" picks up hits where "royal" ends one sentence and "We" begins the next.) This still happens a bit even with my ngram, but not so much. Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while I'm not a native English speaker, I've heard the phrase "royal 'we'" countless times. So it comes as a surprise to me that it's not (near-)universally recognized among native speakers. Of course, it's just anecdotal evidence so it only counts as a "weak oppose", I suppose. No such user (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the native speakers in this discussion at least do in fact recognize it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. And to confirm, "royal we" is the common name in British English these days. Today Latin is little used and understood even less here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Ho As far as I can tell you do not come from a country with a monarchy and I am baffled as to why you would propose this move, Please do searches on issues like WP:UCRN before proposal.
Propose Royal We, The whole part of the façade of the whole (POV) royal nonsense is the hyped aggrandisation of some, sometimes, all two ordinary folk. Grammatically speaking the pompous "We" should be capitalised whether we commoners like it or not. i know my place. gregkaye ✍♪ 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose any violation of WP:UE, such as the current proposal. If the current title in fact is unacceptable, I'd counterpropose Royal "we" if need be. (Though I do prefer leaving it as is.) Red Slash 00:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, "royal we" is the common name. SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current English title looks awkward at best, commonly used or not. To me, it doesn't look particularly awkward. ¶ I think a Latin term is more appropriate and also commonly used in books. The established Latin name for something is more appropriate in English than is a nonce English name for it. That doesn't seem to apply here. I don't see evidence that the Latin name is commoner. ¶ Other non-English Wikipedia articles use the Latin phrase. I daresay they do, but I'm not aware of a principle by which the name used for something in various languages should be the name used for it in another language. ¶ This is a strange proposal: none of the arguments presented for it seems to have any merit. The only quasi-reason I can think up for it would go something like: "the suitable term to describe a pompous archaism is a pompous archaism", but I haven't seen that suggested and have no reason to think that it's WP policy. Therefore oppose. ¶ That said, I don't know why WP needs an article on this in addition to the article on "nosism": the former is merely an unremarkable variety of the latter. (Also, I'm surprised by the seeming lack of discussion of any possible connection between "Nosism" and T–V distinction.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as "royal we" is the common name, and we also have singular they. The current title is not "awkward" or "jokey". Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reflexive "ourselves" or "ourself"[edit]

In current-day English when we use the second or third person plural in lieu of the singular, we use a reflexive pronoun that ends with "self" rather than "selves":

  • Instead of "thou gave it to thyself" we say "you gave it to yourself" not "you gave it to yourselves". (In older English, "you" used to be plural only and there was no "yourself".)
  • Instead of "he/she gave it to him/herself" we say "they gave it to themself" not "they gave it to themselves". (In older English (and some would argue currently too), "they" used to be plural only and there was no "themself".)

Can anyone provide a quality citation that indicates whether

  • "I gave it to myself" royally becomes "we gave it to ourself" or "we gave it to ourselves"?

If so, please modify the article to incorporate it. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal we from the bible[edit]

In Ezra 4:18 King Artaxerxes uses a royal we when he says "The letter you sent us has been read and translated in my presence." Ezra 4:18 NIV. This book was written in 537 B.C. So this conflicts with the reference article where it states "There is no evidence of the poetic device being used until 4AD". 

Me274 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese section[edit]

I think the entire paragraph on China needs some citations to back up the claims. Specifically:

(1) the various claims on pronouns in imperial China; I expect references exist but not sure where

(2) the claim that this practice spread to the rest of Asia -- this feels speculative

(3) the claim that this practice was ended by the Communists -- this feels very speculative and possibly untrue.

DrIdiot (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Chinese section seems irrelavant to this page. This page is about using "we" instead of "I" to refer to oneself. The Chinese section talks about how Chinese monarchs using different pronouns, but those pronouns do not mean "we" in the first place. Betty (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nosism" is considered archaic.[edit]

"Nosism", as used in the introductory paragraph, is considered archaic and/or exceedingly rare by most sources, e.g.: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nosism https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nosism https://www.lexico.com/definition/nosism

Many dictionaries lack the word; some consider it a neologism or a misspelling, e.g.: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/5614/nosism https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nosism

The word itself is a peculiar combination of the Latin base "nos" and the Greek-derived English suffix -ism.

It is, as noted in those few sources that do provide a definition, generally considered indicative of conceit or egotism; and that applies to all self-referential uses of plural forms by an individual (as distinct from uses where an individual is speaking or writing as a representative of a group). An example is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540114000182 where the author, with neither coauthors nor acknowledgement of contributions, uses "we" no less than 78 times, "our" 5 times (including in the abstract and footnotes), and "us" 4 times in a 9-page article (barely 8 pages if the publisher's heading and the bibliography are excluded). The rationalization about academic use elsewhere on the talk page certainly doesn't apply to the abstract and footnotes of this example, where the author is simply making assertions.

"Nosism" is, as noted in definitions, archaic; "the royal we" is generally used to describe the practice whether or not the user is royalty: https://grammarist.com/usage/royal-we/ https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-royal-we https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-royal-we.htm

Given the archaic/rare use, I'd prefer to see the sentence about "nosism" elided or replaced by the factual statement that the term "the royal we" includes usage by people other than royalty. If "nosism" is retained, at minimum it should be noted that that term is both rarely used and archaic, and that "the royal we" is in fact used to describe the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.43.57 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal We = 'God and I'?[edit]

Mediaeval kings claimed to be appointed by God. I always thought of the Royal we as a verbal reminder to subjects of the Divine right of kings, Dieu et mon droit etc. Is there a source which confirms this? Crawiki (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction[edit]

The first paragraph under "Western usage" states that "William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs" However, the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs was not established until the late 15th century, according to its wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:F03:E00:F44B:88AB:FBA4:2033 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Is there a reason as to why the “We” in the headline is in a different font as opposed to italicized/in quotes? I'm not very well versed in wiki praxis, so is that just how it's done? MamboWiking (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal you" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Royal you and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22 § Royal you until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_we&oldid=1210140322"