Why did medieval Royals refer to themselves in the plural form of "we", instead of the singular, "I"?

For example, a king or queen might say We do not like this, refering to themselves instead I do not like this. Please back up your answer with a sound source. Thanks.

Asked by The_Baron 60 months ago Similar Questions: medieval Royals refer plural form singular Recent Questions About: medieval Royals refer plural form singular Education & Reference > Languages.

Similar Questions: medieval Royals refer plural form singular Recent Questions About: medieval Royals refer plural form singular.

Royals use "we" because they represent an institution or nation From Wikipedia: The royal we (Pluralis Majestatis) is the first-person plural pronoun when used by an important personage to refer to himself or herself. It's best known usage is by a monarch such as a king, queen, or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors.

In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking, not in his own proper person, but as leader of a nation or institution. Nevertheless, the habit of referring to leaders in the plural has influenced the grammar of several languages, in which plural forms tend to be perceived as deferential and more polite than singular forms. This grammatical feature is called a T-V distinction.

Popes have used the we as part of their formal speech with certain recent exceptions. The English translations of the documents of John Paul II dispensed with this practice, using the singular "I", even though the Latin original usually continued to use the first person plural "We". Sources: Wikipedia .

Expressed unity and authority, even distance in a way from those being addressed. Okay, that was fun. You just sent me off on a meandering, fun search thru all sorts of topics, from the Bible to Shakespeare, and find that this is a term used since Biblical times at the very least.

In my mind, it’s a power thing, a figure of speech used to raise the speaker above the listeners. Think about it. "We" means plural, "we" outnumbers "I.

" "We" is more powerful than "I," not to mention that in a weird way it sorta distances the speaker from the degree, so to speak, making it a statement of many, not just one. When used by royalty, I’d think it’s used to sorta call to mind all the power and influence of past royals, too, as if indicating that this statement doesn’t come from just me, Queen Tunda, but all those who’ve come before me. I also find it quite pompous, but that’s a whole other story.

Look at scalzi.com/whatever/003615.html" rel="nofollow">scalzi.com/whatever/003615.html "We" are happy to annouce that this site agrees with "our" royal, lofty opinion. Look long enough, and "we" can vindicate anything! Another to check out if you can.

jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496(198206)2%3A17%3A2%3C313%3APSAPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C" rel="nofollow">links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496(1982... I’m not authorized to get in there and read the full story, but sounds like it might be of interest to anyone who can get into jstor.org. We are not amused at being excluded, I might note. Discussing the term's origins: scalzi.com/whatever/003615.html" rel="nofollow">scalzi.com/whatever/003615.html An excerpt: "The royal "we.

" We (meaning all or most or at least a large number of us) use "we" in place of "I" from time to time. Royalty used it to denote their place above the fray. " I found this one, the above excerpt, interesting in that it points out how language has evolved while at the same time noting, perhaps unintentionally, how tightly we cling to habit.

The "royal we" appears in the Bible and is all over the place in Shakespeare’s works. Look at Macbeth. The royal you is all over the place there.

http://education.yahoo.com/homework_help/cliffsnotes/macbeth/42.html As they’re preparing for the fest, Macbeth adopts the use of the royal we. "The use of the plural in place of the singular pronoun is a traditional figure of speech by which the monarch expresses not only unity with his people but also his absolute authority over them. ” Again, it’s a power thing, in this case perhaps part of a power trip.

http://www.workersect.org/2x205s.html This one notes that the use of "we" implies automatic agreement, too, which makes sense. "We are going to do this" books no rebellion. "We have decided" implies listeners have had a voice in something when, in reality, it’s very possible they haven’t.

Once you convince everyone that they’re already in agreement with you, after all, "we" can rule the world. "We rock! " Sources: Listed within .

Wow, good question. In short, because they were speaking on behalf of an entire community The royal we (Pluralis Majestatis) is the first-person plural pronoun when used by an important personage to refer to himself or herself. It's best known usage is by a monarch such as a king, queen, or pope.

It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking, not in his own proper person, but as leader of a nation or institution. Nevertheless, the habit of referring to leaders in the plural has influenced the grammar of several languages, in which plural forms tend to be perceived as deferential and more polite than singular forms.

This grammatical feature is called a T-V distinction. Popes have used the we as part of their formal speech with certain recent exceptions. The English translations of the documents of John Paul II dispensed with this practice, using the singular "I", even though the Latin original usually continued to use the first person plural Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We .

The Royal We It's the royal we because they are the whole country, respresentatively.

I believe that Queen Victoria started this usage in the 19th Century. She used it when refering to herself and her beloved Prince Consort, Albert, as in "we are not pleased". When she said "we", she really meant herself and Albert.

However, the usage continued even after his early death. Thus, the usage is far more recent than one might think (i.e. , not medieval).

Sources: I read this somewhere...

I heard a speaker say "sheeps" to refer to more than one. What's the word for just one? " "If calories is plural, why isn't calory the singular?

" "Is the plural form of mongoose, mongooses or mongeese? " "Is the word "underwear" singular or plural?

20 noun that is the same in both its singular and plural.

I heard a speaker say "sheeps" to refer to more than one. What's the word for just one?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.