Talk:Royal we

message: 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)
thread_title: History tidied

message: 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)
thread_title: Better Example ?

message: 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)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). FilipeS (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FilipeS (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Both spellings are defensible. FilipeS (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move: Pluralis majestatis → Majestic plural

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It was used in Latin before the imperial period; by Cicero, for example. Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesarean 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Correction Needed 

message: 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), .
Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are not amused 

message: 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)
replies: text: I took care of it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed 

message: This isn't nosism. Perhaps it should not be here.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The patronizing "we"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move to nosism 

message: "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)
replies: text: I have just tagged this reference with , 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)
thread_title:  Henry II and the Investiture Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Nosism. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Author's We

message: Using copperplate script and ex-officio imperious WE (or maybe it refers to his plurality of titles)
7617We, 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
--Pawyilee (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Principle" (not "Principal")? Really? —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  19th century British passport message 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other miscellaneous uses 

message: I've moved the bit about Elohim to 'non-western' usage. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism is not western 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Western Usage" -> "English Usage" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  You vs. Thou 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reflexive "ourselves" or "ourself" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal we from the bible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese section 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Nosism" is considered archaic. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal We = 'God and I'? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Royal you and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  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)
thread_title:  "Royal you" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]