Pluralis majestatis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluralis majestatis ("majestic plural") is the plural pronoun where it is used to refer to one person alone. This is also known as the "royal 'we'" or the "Victorian 'we'" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, popes, and university rectors. The idea behind the pluralis majestatis is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people. For example, the Basic Law of the Sultanate of Oman opens thus:

On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman…^[1]

Famous examples of purported instances:

• We are not amused. — Queen Victoria (in at least one account of this quotation, though, she was not speaking for herself alone, but for the ladies of the court.)
• The abdication statement of Nicholas II of Russia uses the pluralis majestatis liberally, as in "In agreement with the Imperial Duma We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power."^[2]
• We are a grandmother. — Margaret Thatcher announcing the birth of Mark Thatcher's son Michael in 1989.

Another view of the form is that it reflects the fact that when a monarch speaks he or she speak both in their own name and in the name of their function, office or status.

United States Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover told a subordinate who used the royal we: "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?" This was said as the subordinate was speaking for superiors without authority as well as in an unofficial capacity.

It is to be distinguished from pluralis modestiae, also pluralis auctoris (inclusion of readers or listeners). For instance:

Let us calculate! — Leibniz

We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. — Albert Einstein

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• We
• T-V distinction
• Elohim, a plural name of the Hebrew deity Yahweh.

[edit] External links

• Ambiguous Collective logical fallacy