Talk:Style of the British sovereign

of Great Britain Queen?

Why is the title of the British sovereign "X, by the Grace of God, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN" and not "X, by the Grace of God, QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND"? Before the union with Ireland, the style was "X, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain," and then after the union it became "X, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King," why the change? I get that the title in Latin has "Queen" after "of Great Britain," but an accurate and correct translation should still be "Queen of Great Britain," right? And, after Ireland separated from the UK, the title, under George V, "by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King" and not "King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc." WHY is King/Queen AFTER the title!?

These just are the gazetted, official English titles. (Please sign your posts.) Errantios (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act about the constitutional significance of the Act and its impact on the relationship between the UK, the Crown and the dominions. The problem is that the article as it stands makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of the monarch vis-a-vis the dominions. Input from anyone with any knowledge of or interest in this area would be greatly appreciated. This notice may be put up on a couple of other talkpages. Iota 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British Monarch

I have a question after I read the following passage in the Wiki-article "Peerage":

All British honours, including peerage dignities, spring from the Sovereign, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case).

It seems to me that the above passage is not correct, because British monarch could hold ohter aristocratic titles besides the title King, for example:

Lord of Man, Prince of Orange(William III), Elector of Hannover(George I), Duke of Normandy(Henry II) etc.

Could anyone please explain to me ?

--Siyac 14:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• The British monarch can hold [i]foreign[/i] titles and honours since as they're not [i]British[/i] honours flowing from the Sovereign. Lord of Man is a feudal title that was George III got when he bought the island from the family that owned it. (Alphaboi867)

A few questions

Q: Does anyone know an example of a member of British royal family who is a commoner ?

--Siyac 12:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Define commoner. Under the strictest defination anyone who is neither the soveriegn or a peer is a commoner; according to this Princes William and Harry are both commoners. Of course most people don't consider Prince/sses and other titles persons commoners. The highest ranking members of the royal family to lack titles of any kind Princess Anne's kids, Peter and Zara Phillips. Their father was a commoner who declined to Queen's offer of an earldom. (Alphaboi867 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Q: Who is "Mary Queen of Chile" ? That doesn't make any sense - somebody needs to clean up this article. (Charlie (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)) 04:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Welsh

Can somebody please add an explanation as to why the Welsh translation is included? I suppose it's the one language other than English regularly used in British government, but why should it be used in this article if it's effectively a translation?

Yes, why is it also in Welsh? GoodDay 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because it is the only other language in which the style is officially defined. Even a translation will have nuances, so is worth including. I think that if this were an article about the style of the sovereign a non-English-speaking country, we would include it in all the languages in which it was officially defined, as well as in English. TSP 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See United Kingdom fo similiar arguement on the UK's official language. If Welsh is added, Scottish & Irish should be too. GoodDay 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making the question too broad. The issue is not what the UK's official language(s) is/are, but simply in what languages the Style of the British Sovereign has been officially defined. Sources are provided for the two existing languages. If you can find sources which state what the style of the British sovereign has been officially defined to be in either Irish or Scots Gaelic, then absolutely they should be included; but we should not be saying what languages these things should be defined in, merely reporting what languages they are defined in. TSP 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just 'surprised' that there's no 'Scottish' or 'Irish' transilations. GoodDay 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are different issues here. Welsh has always been a living language in active use in Wales; the lowest its use has dropped to is 21%, and it is now rising from that. Scots Gaelic was rescued from near extinction during the latter half of last century, and only a few percent of the population speak it as a primary language. Irish, while spoken widely in some parts of the Republic of Ireland, is rarer in Northern Ireland (with a predictable political divide), and has no official status (though there are proposals to give it one). In a lot of areas of UK government, the two languages that material must be made available in are English and Welsh. TSP 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it be noted that these are the only languages the monarch is currently styled in? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2 questions

Why does the list only begin in 1066? And why aren't places like Australia and Canada listed for the current monarch (after all, Scotland is listed and that was only a personal union, same with Normandy, etc.)? TharkunColl 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the list should go back to 'at least' Egbert of Wessex, and Secondly, that's a UK, first among equals VS All are equal Commonwealth question. GoodDay 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and please stop characterising my arguments thus - they are nothing of the sort. This list includes both England and Scotland when they were in personal union. So why should it not list Australia, Canada, etc.? As for Egbert, he was never king of England. TharkunColl 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List should go back to Alfred the Great of England & Kenneth I of Scotland. Sorry 'bout characterization. GoodDay 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS- Where's the Scottish monarchs from Kenneth I to Mary I (Mary, Queen of Scots)? GoodDay 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Should" seems an odd question to ask. This is about what titles were used, isn't it? We can't go adding to the titles of historical monarchs because we feel they should have used a different one.

By my understanding, until their various independences, Australia, Canada and the like were simply British colonies. Some monarchs chose to recognise some or all of the colonies in their titles ("the British Dominions beyond the Seas" and the like), but ultimately they were monarchs of the colonies because they were monarchs of Britain.

At independence, the monarchies split, and the Queen's position as "Queen of Canada" is theoretically separate from her position as "Queen of the United Kingdom". I'm not aware that a compound title is ever used.

But, yes, it is entirely valid to ask why this page traces the English line back and not the Scottish. I would have thought that it would be best to trace back to James I and VI, and have separate pages (or at least sections) for the styles of English and Scottish monarchs. Arguably it should only go back to Anne, but if the monarchs in question actually did use a compound style it seems simpler to keep them as one list rather than have two separate ones. TSP 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It should only go back to Anne, then. She's is the 'first' British monarch. GoodDay 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From 1603 to 1707 the crowns of England and Scotland were legally separate, yet both are listed here. So why don't we list the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II? TharkunColl 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I'm misunderstanding your point. Both are listed here because the monarchs in question used a single style including both. The Commonwealth realms are not listed because Elizabeth II, in her role as British monarch, does not use a style including them. As I say, I'm not sure that should comes into it - this page is reporting what styles were/are used, not saying what styles should be used. TSP 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have WP:BOLD been bold and divided the 'Styles' section into English, Scottish (currently blank), English and Scottish and British. There seems no neutral reason to trace the history back along the English line but not along the Scottish. TSP 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your previous point, the list is incorrect anyway. James I adopted the title "King of Great Britain" in 1604, despite the fact that the two kingdoms of England and Scotland remained separate. So the list as it stands most definitely does not reflect what the monarchs actually called themselves, and seems instead to simply describe what countries they were monarchs of. In which case, there is no legitimate reason to exclude the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II. For example, the list currently includes such places as Normandy and Anjou, which were never part of the English monarchy - they just shared a monarch. TharkunColl 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, that's a problem - it's true that this page is a bit low on sources. This page purports to be a list of the styles actually used by British monarchs - I think it's clear that all the "By the Grace of God" bits wouldn't be included if the intention was to "simply describe what countries they were monarchs of". If it isn't accurate, we need to fix that; but that isn't a reason to say that we might as well throw accuracy to the wind and just list what we think the titles should have been.

I seem to remember that in the case of places like Normandy and Anjou, and certainly France, for a lot of the time they appeared in the monarch's title, the monarch didn't even rule those places; they were included in the style of the British monarch purely as claims that the British monarch was also entitled to rule those places. In the case of Australia and Canada, as I understand it, the monarchies are very explicitly separate, and different styles are maintained (the Canadian one of which mentions the UK; but the Australian one doesn't) and used in the various territories. TSP 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the English/British monarchs from 1328-1801. Styled themselves as King/Queen of France. As for the Commonwealth monarchies? Head of the Commonwealth is acceptable. GoodDay 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

-the title 'Head of the Commonwealth' refers to the British monarch's ex officio position as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations; which is not a monarchical title; and it does not refer to the Commonwealth realms. The phrase 'and of her other realms of territories' is the phrase used in the titulary of the British monarch that refers to the other Commonwealth realms; and is used in this way in each and every other commonwealth realm too in respect to the Queen's title as regards each respective realm. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Defender of...

"...Defender of the Earth." Shouldn't that be faith?68.175.19.252 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete

This article is incomplete concerning its Scottish section. The Scottish monarchs go back before 1603 (like the English monarchs). Would somebody please correct this. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the English ones go back to before 1066 as well. The whole thing is just incomplete. But please don't let them add the Pictish ones as well! TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Picts can't be added, unless the Wessex are added. Actually, this article shouldn't even have the English and Scottish monarchs. This article's earliest date should be 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:76-834.jpg

Image:76-834.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have suggested merging Most Excellent Majesty, Most Gracious Majesty and Britannic Majesty to this article simply because those articles are little more than stubs and will always be subsets of content on this page. I suggest creating a section with the forms of Majesty used by the British sovereign and the context under which they are used rather than having three little articles on the very closely related subjects. Charles 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are all variants of Majesty.--Gazzster (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also add the information to Majesty? DBD 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Howabout giving these articles a chance to expand? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How could they expand, buddy?--Gazzster (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, DBD. A template at the section on British variants of Majesty can notify the reader to also see Style of the British Sovereign. GoodDay, some article will never expand... We don't always have to be so inclusionist with individual articles for absolutely everything. Charles 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya mean there's nothing more to put in them? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit I dont know much about them, but how big could they get? Beyond stating what the style is, a bit of history and the circumstances in which they are used, what else?--Gazzster (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears merge is the preferred option. Best I go with the majority. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The information is now at Majesty#The United Kingdom (also, if anyone thinks they can clean it up a little, please do :) ). I can work on adding it to this page as well but I have a lunch meeting to go to shortly. Cheers! Charles 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job.--Gazzster (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Highess, Grace, Majesty

"Majesty", however, was not used exclusively; it arbitrarily alternated with both "Highness" and "Grace", even in official documents. For example, one legal judgment issued by Henry VIII uses all three indiscriminately; Article 15 begins with "the Kinges Highness hath ordered," Article 16 with "the Kinges Majestie" and Article 17 with "the Kinges Grace."

-Highness, Grace and Majesty

I would be interested in a citation for this one legal judgement, not because I doubt it (I don't really), not so much that I think it should be there (it should, of course), but that I'd like to read it.

-SM

I don't think what's said in the article is correct. My understanding is that the Emperor had been using the style Majesty for some centuries before the kings of England & France adopted it. Peter jackson (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

France

Have you not left out the &c or etc. after "beyond the Seas" that came into use after the 1763 Treaty of Paris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphilips (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha(n)nover

Didn't the promotion of Hanover to a Kingdom come some time after the Act of Union 1801? —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Congress of Vienna, wasn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Electorates were abolished along with the Holy Roman Empire, so the Elector of Hanover was made a King instead.--Gazzster (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

-the British government did not acknowledge the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire on August 6th, 1806. Thus; the British monarch continued to use the electoral titles pertaining to Hanover until the creation of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1814 and continued to use the Electoral bonnet over the inescutcheon of the Hanoverian dominions in the royal arms; quite strangely up until 1816. Similarly; Hesse-Cassel continued to use the electoral style after the abolition of the Empire.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish

How come there is only the Welsh translation of the full styles of Elizabeth II? Someone should include the Irish and Scottish version of it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is discussed above. The only officially defined versions are in English and Welsh. And just a pointer, there are 2 "Scottish" languages - the Scots language & the Scottish Gaelic language. Scroggie (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Berwick-on-Tweed

Wasn't Berwick-upon-Tweed sometimes mentioned separately? I seem to remember something about Elizabeth I being Queen of England and Berwick-upon-Tweed. See also Wales and Berwick Act 1746 etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) -No; that's just an oft-repeated misconception. It's true that Berwick had a separate status from the rest of England; that of a Royal Borough (but it was legally still part of England; and the same is equally true of the counties palatine of Cornwall and Lancaster, and previously of Durham and Chester) that English law did not apply to Berwick (or Wales) unless explicitly mentioned in the particular Act; but the British monarch did not have any particular title in the royal style as regards Berwick; and never did. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

King of France

"George III used the opportunity to drop both the reference to France and "etc." from the style."

Why would he want to do that? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be something to do with the Napoleonic Wars. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, it became awkward for the British king to claim to be king of France while at the same time insisting that the exiled Bourbon pretender was the legitimate king of France. Of course, the Stuart pretenders managed to pull of the trick of claiming to be the king of France while at the same time living as guests of the actual kings of France. --Jfruh (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Welsh etc

I think the article should make it clear that the legislation that actually confers these titles on the Monarch confers these titles only in the English and Lating languages. At the moment it is really misleading. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Different style for George III?

I saw the text of the Treaty of Paris (1783) and it uses a different style for George III: "George the third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, Arch-treasurer and Prince-Elector of the holy Roman Empire, &c." [1] Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) -The above style is the correct one. The title was never formally 'Elector of Hanover' (and likewise; neither did any of the other electors bear such titles as 'Elector of Brandenburg'; 'Elector of Bavaria'; etc.). JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Henry II or John

There is contradiction in text and in table about beginning of use titles "King of England, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Anjou" instead of "King of English, Duke of the Normans, Duke of the Aquitanians and Count of the Angevins"... 1154 or 1199? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.141.150 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lady of the English, Queen of England and Duke of Normans

This is Modern English, but Matilda (if somehow she'd learned English) would have used a form of very early Middle English. Wouldn't it rather have been in Latin or Anglo-Norman? 129.79.203.172 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• English wiki is in English, understand?--Yopie (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Chile?

Attributed to Mary and Philip:

By the grace of God, King and Queen of England and France, Naples, Jerusalem, Chile and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy, and Brabant, Count and Countess of Habsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol

Chile was added 25 Mar 2011 (by someone with only one other edit) with this summary: Philip was made King of Chile before his marrige so he would have an equal title, it was included in there style. Hm. It's not mentioned in Philip's own article. Was the name 'Chile' known in Spain by then? —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's unsourced and extremely dubious. I'm removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stewart kings styled themselves "King of Great Britain".

This article is inaccurate. From as early as 1603, King James VI / I customarily styled himself "King of Great Britain", rather than "King of England, Scotland, etc.", and the other Stuart monarchas (Charles I, Charles II, James II) followed suit. True, the parliaments of England and Scotland were not yet united, but the Stuart kings RULED England and Scotland as a single entity, Great Britain. Paintings of Charles I, for example, are labeled "Carolus Rex Magnae Britanniae". JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.156 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2014‎ (UTC)

You would need to find a reference to a published reliable source for such a change. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia etc.

The Latin version of the style is undoubtedly correct, but does anyone know why it uses the English form of the name ("Elizabeth") rather than the Latin form, "Elizabet(h)a"? Looking back to previous Monarchs, the Latin styles always used the "proper" Latin forms of the names – Georgius, Edwardus, Guilielmus, Maria, Anna, Carolus, Iacobus, etc. P M C 09:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Coins of the pound sterling#Regal titles notes that Edward III and both Elizabeths use(d) the English versions of their names. History of the English penny (1154–1485) suggests the names used in the legends weren't standardised (Henri (II), Henricus, Edw (I), Edward (III), Edwardus, Ricardus, Ricard (II), Henric (IV)), even to the point of not changing for Richard I and John; while Crown (English coin) shows Edvvard VI. Tudor pennies shrank the legend further (H, E, P Z M, E). It looks like they didn't really standardise on the Latin forms until James I and VI. I would speculate that Elizabeth II was following the precedent of Elizabeth I's crowns, choosing on aesthetic grounds, or both.—dah31 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

One may add to that: the May 1953 London Gazette gives in the titles 'Fidei Defensor' when surely this should read 'Fidei Defensatrix'. To this day, the Fid Def abbreviation on the coinage is an abbreviation of the latter. The 1953 coins also were minted Elizabetha. All other Latin genders take the feminine for the duration of the present reign, which makes it strange that the London Gazette should have printed what it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.51.170 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Which 1953 coins have "Elizabetha"? A quick search shows "ELIZABETH II DEI GRA BRITT OMN REGINA F D" on all circulating coins but the sixpence (which had "FID DEF" on the reverse) and "ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA BRITT OMN REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR" on the Coronation crown. "VIVAT REGINA ELIZABETHA" is the edge inscription of the 70th birthday five pounds.—dah31 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we just have to go with whatever has been officially chosen: (1) in proclamations, which are law, (2) in the London Gazette and (3), earlier, on coins. If these sources are inconsistent or might have got the author sent to the back of a Latin class, our task is only to record what they have done.

In any case, in Latin and latinate languages grammatical gender is not tied to biological gender. Thus: in Latin agricola (farmer) and nauta (sailor); and in French there is an illustration that begins, "la sentinelle aimait le manneqin (the sentry was in love with the model)...". So Hollywood has been correct in applying 'actor' to both genders and the same can go for defensor. Errantios (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of titles and honours of the British Monarch which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Has been moved. Errantios (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Britanniarum omnium

What's the correct translation of Britanniarum omnium? The article currently says "of all the Britons", but I don't think that's right. I don't know much Latin, but I believe Britanniarum is the genitive plural of "Britannia" - the place - and not whatever the Latin word for Briton (a person) is. Shouldn't the translation be "of all Britains" or "of all Britannias"? I found some confirmation of this through web searches, but only in message boards, so not reliable sources. Indefatigable (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Britannia has a plural: Lewis & Short, Latin Dictionary [2]. Why it should have been used here is beyond me. Errantios (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've inserted the option "of all the British lands". Similarly, "of the British lands" in efns in the list of British titles. Errantios (talk)

Latin translation

This needs updating to Rex, etc. 185.48.63.1 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Been done. Errantios (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC) But see section "Latin" below. Errantios (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Title Change, or a lack thereof

Unless I am mistaken, Charles III's ascension to the throne has not changed the Royal title beyond the gender and the top of "List of changes to the royal style" states that "Changes that only take into account the gender of the sovereign (such as replacing "King" with "Queen") are not indicated". 2A00:23C5:A180:2901:2CD4:CEF7:1AEE:B6F6 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct: the Accession Proclamation of 2022 makes no other change. Errantios (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"By/by" and "God,"

Checking against the Gazette issues all the British titles from 1901 on, I've corrected all "By" to "by" and removed all commas after "God". I've then done the same for earlier British titles, assuming that they were in the same form—but subject to re-correction from their own sources.

Similar changes may be appropriate in the other lists. Happy to discuss: my French is very good and my Latin possibly adequate. Errantios (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Latin

Is Charles III really styled "Carolus III" in Latin? It seems that "Carolus III" is not official. The coins with his name use Charles III.[3] 218.250.159.177 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I can't find a proclamation of the title in Latin, so some editor seems to have jumped the gun. While making that correction (I can't do it right now because of Covid), I think it would also be appropriate to follow the Gazette in putting the English text first. Errantios (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It stayed on my mind, so I've done a basic update. More may happen at or following Charles's coronation. Errantios (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 218.250.159.177 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed a part of the coronation where a proclamation of "Vivat Camilla Regina" and "Vivat Carolus Rex" was made. I hope editors will be able to include his Latin title if anyone can find a source for the whole thing. Huntington (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this quite amounts to a declaration of title, rather than being formally proclaimed and gazetted. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A user has removed as 'speculative comment', but I have restored, my "As of 2023, it remains to be seen whether there will also be a Latin version." Not my speculation: merely a comment on what would be a normal expectation. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is speculative, as well as unsourced, and furthermore, it is incorrect. A Latin version appeared on coins in 2022, notwithstanding that the name "Charles" is used in place of "Carolus". A full Latin style, with or without "Carolus", may or may not appear on the Great Seals, whenever they might be authorized and manufactured. Wikipedia is not supposed to forecast the future, especially without reference to reliable sources.

Errantios, you have also restored your own speculative and misleading addition of "Ireland (Hibernia) may be included in Britanniarum ("of the Britains"), until 1927". I removed this because it is wrong and misleading. "Britanniarum" means "of the Britains", or as we would normally say "of the British Isles" and "rex Britanniarum" or "regina Britanniarum" has been the basic title of British monarchs since the union of Ireland and Great Britain beginning in 1801. For a relatively short time between 1927 and 1953, Great Britain and Ireland were enumerated separately, to reflect the existence of a separate Irish state within the Commonwealth. When this, together with an addition of a comma between "Great Britain" and "Ireland", had been recommended by the Imperial Conference of 1926 (see "Changing the King's title, 1926: an asterisk to 'O'Higgins's comma"), it opened the field to demands from the (other) Dominions that they too should be represented in the royal title, but since they were too numerous, and would not agree on an order of precedence, the matter went back and forth until 1953, by which time Elizabeth II had been proclaimed in the 1926 style and after which the Royal Titles Act 1953 gave the Dominion governments powers (for the first time) to alter the royal style as they saw fit, allowing for the first time innovations like "Queen of Canada", "of Australia", "of Pakistan" etc. This done, the meaning of the British title in Latin reverted to its simplest 1801 form: Queen of the Britains, as was inscribed on all her Great Seals. Since there were no longer two separate monarchies in the British Isles by Elizabeth's (unplanned) accession, there was no longer any need to name Ireland as a monarchy distinct from Great Britain, and no need to separate the two largest Britains, hence the 1953 reversion to the George III style. As of 2022, when Charles III authorized the use of his mother's Great Seal for the time being, "Of the Britains" (Britanniarum) simply meant "of the British Isles", as it has always done, and it includes the realm of Ireland, as "the Britians" has always done.

I notice that you, Errantios, have also reinstated your own incorrect addition of "of the British lands" and "of all the British lands" as you here admit. Your admission here that you do not understand the meaning of Britanniarum accords with your erroneous translation of omnium Britanniarum as "of all the British lands". "British lands" is by no standard an acceptable translation of Britanniae, which means "the Britains" or "the British Isles". As Pliny the Elder wrote in his description of the British Isles in his famous Naturalis historia, "Britanniae vocarentur omnes", that is: "they are all called Britains". In [omnium] Britanniarum, there is no mention of "lands", and the word Britanniae ("the Britains") is a plural noun of which Britanniarum is the genitive case ("of the Britains"), not an adjective ("British").

Your repeated insertion of this unverified and incorrect material ([4], [5]) is, I believe edit warring. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom, please assume good faith and don't accuse lightly of edit warring.

Charles/Carolus: as I have tried to explain, my phrase is in no way a speculation—still less is it a forecast. It has been traditional for British monarchs to express their title in Latin, so presumably he will do so too—and also, presumably, by a proclamation published in the Gazette. I have merely commented that these things have not happened as yet. I don't understand your "notwithstanding that the name 'Charles' is used in place of 'Carolus'". If "Carolus" were to appear, or has appeared, on coins, a note on that could be added.

I offered "British lands" as a translation of "Britanniarum", not of "Britanniae". Your "British Isles" for "Britanniarum" is guesswork although a justifiable guess, but is the reference simply geographical or only to the monarch's realms within the British Isles (remember, this is a legal claim)? As your detail shows, these two possible meanings used to coincide but no longer do. My "lands" prefers the second meaning. But literal translation (from Latin of what period?) and guesswork are not enough; we need a source about the introduction of "Britanniarum". The point about Charles III and the Great Seal doesn't seem important: presumably this has to happen at every change of monarch. Errantios (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios, you appear to have misunderstood my answer in several respects.

1. Charles III has already expressed a version of his title in Latin. It appears on coins. It has not appeared in any royal proclamation and there is no reason to suppose it will. Your presumption that it will is simply unsourced speculation, which has no place on a Wikipedia page. A fuller version of the title may appear on the Great Seal, but unless and until it does, there is no reason to mention a Latin title here. To do so is to indulge in speculation.
2. Britanniarum (in the genitive case) means "of the Britains", not "the Britains" and even less "of the British lands". Britanniae (in the nominative case) means "the Britains", not "the British lands". Your addition of "the British lands" or "of the British lands" is in either case incorrect and unsourced. Your reinsertion of it without consensus is edit warring.
3. Britanniarum does not have two possible meanings. It means "of the Britains", being the genitive form of the word Britanniae ("the Britains"), itself the plural form of the nominative singular Britannia ("Britain"). This has always been the case, and its meaning has not changed in any period, and certainly has the same meaning now as it had in 1801. Your claim that "two possible meanings used to coincide but no longer do" is simply wrong.
4. There is no guesswork in my answer. In your additions to the Wikipedia page, your erroneous guesswork misrepresents the facts and suggests an impossible translation for a well-known Latin word. If you have any reason to believe the meaning of Latin words has changed since 1801, you should produce it, or else cease to suggest it has, or could.
5. You point about a "reference simply geographical or only to the monarch's realms within the British Isles (remember, this is a legal claim)" is incomprehensible because of the preceding facts. The meaning of the word "Britains" has not changed, and the monarch's Latin title is not in any sense a "legal claim", whatever that might mean.

Your speculative additions to the article are announced as such by your own words: "appears" and "perhaps". Claims following such words require attribution, to establish verifiability. Without a reliable source, this is unacceptable original research. As stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability under Wikipedia:Burden "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Since you admit that "we need a source about the introduction of "Britanniarum"", and since you do not appear to contest that fact that you have not presented any such source, I will again remove your unsourced mistranslations and speculations from the article. I might further add that "of British lands", as well as being a mistranslation, risks confusion with the British legal term "British possessions", which encompasses all countries and territories where the king is head of state, but which explicitly excludes the United Kingdom itself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom, there is no need to lecture.

• Since British sovereigns have had a Latin title since 1901, Charles will presumably do the same. If that is a 'speculation', it is well founded. That he has not (yet) done so is therefore something to note. If eventually he does not do so, that may still be noted as a break with tradition or convention.
• What is your source for "Carolus" appearing on coins? Charles has made several proclamations about new coins, but those I have looked at in the Gazette say only "Charles III". The new Australian one-dollar coin likewise has only "Charles III", although its predecessor had only "Elizabeth II".
• A royal title is certainly a legal claim—to have some kind of authority over or in the place mentioned. Or: whatever it means, it has a legal status and so has to be legislated in some form, British practice being by royal proclamation. Note that, at least for the UK, the English and Latin titles are given as equivalents; neither of them appears as a translation of the other.
• For the word britanniarum, a translation is needed (which I don't think must count as OR) and I made a guess in good faith since I did not find the word in Lewis & Short; and that a word can be grammatically derived does not show that it was ever in use. I don't agree with translating britanniarum as "of the Britains": while that may be literally correct, it ain't ordinary English. See OED online "Britain" II.3: "1874– In plural. Great Britain and its dominions and dependencies, the British Empire", including as a translation of omn[ium] britanniarum. I have now found britanniarum in Perseus, which confirms it as Roman usage and apparently as meaning "British Isles" (although that is not a literal translation). On that point, it seems we can now agree. But this doesn't get us to finding that britanniarum now means "of the British Isles"; it might include the "Realms and Territories" or at any rate the Territories. Errantios (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios, I will try and finally answer these points completely:

1. I don't dispute that the non-appearance of a Latin title in a proclamation is unusual, but I don't think it's proper to note this without any source. If the king decides to have an English-language Great Seal, imitating Cromwell, that will be worthy of note, but it is not yet the time to write about any break with tradition, since we don't really know whether such a break has (or will) actually occur. Writing about something which hasn't happened but may yet seems redundant and premature and adds nothing concrete to this article.
2. "Carolus" does not appear on coins (yet?). Charles does. The rest of Charles's titles on the coins are in Latin: d.g. rex f.d. They appeared in December 2022. [6]
3. A royal title, again, is not a legal claim. The royal title is a matter of royal prerogative and has no value in law. Legislation is made by the king-in-parliament, not by royal decree. Royal proclamations on this sort of subject may be official, but they are not law, per se. Anyhow, it's irrelevant. The title is no more or less geographically accurate than the title president of Ireland, which certainly does not imply any "legal claim" to the island of that name.
4. "The Britains" is perfectly ordinary English, even if it is almost always used to translate Latin and therefore necessarily rare. I am afraid that the OED definition is rather misleading; its quotations, from The Times and from Hansard are obfuscatory and misrepresent the meaning of "Britains", and it appears the OED went along with this, rather then what the Latin actually means. For this, there are two sources, though neither deals directly with the 20th/21st-century context. The first is actually quoted by the OED, omitting the crucial point:

Stanley Bindoff, writing for the The English Historical Review [7] about the choice of the title "King of Great Britain" by James VI and I in 1604:

Another possible name, 'The British Isles', would have been open to the objection that, by including Ireland, it would confer on 'the other island' an equality of status which no Englishmen would ever acknowledge. But this difficulty could be overcome by the use of the simple plural 'Britanniae', 'The Britains ' (an anticipation of the 'Britt. omn.' borne by our coins since 1800), which found favour with several panegyrists of 1603-4, and was used by Isaac Wake in the title of his Latin account of James I's visit to Oxford in August 1605,

Wake's poem was entitled "Rex platonicus: sive, De potentissimi principis Iacobi Britanniarum Regis". Bindoff's footnote 4 lists more examples of the non-official Jacobean use of "Britanniarum" and "omnium Britanniarum" to mean "of [all] the British Isles", referring to his three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland:

For example, Robert Ayton, 'Ad Jacobum VI Britanniarum Regem, Angliam petentem, Panegyris', in Delitiae Poetarum Scotorum (1637); Sir Thomas Craig, 'Serenissimi et invictissimi Principis Jacobi Britanniarum et Galliarum Regis στεφανοφορία (Edinburgh, 1603); David Sinclair, 'De auspicatissima Inauguratione Jacobi Primi, omnium Britanniarum Regis, Concilium Deorum ' (Paris, 1603); and John Gordon, 'Elizabethae Reginae Manes de Religione et Regno ad Jacobum Magnum, Britanniarum Regem' (London, 1604).

Since "Britanniarum" is, following standard practice of plural Latin abbreviations, abbreviated "Britt·", this appears to have led to confusion in the 19th century, or the appearance of a misspelling, when the difference with the older abbreviation "Brit·" for "Britanniae" ("of Britain"), or "Mag·Brit·" ("of Great Britain"), which had appeared on coins since the Jacobean union of 1603. This confusion is of course deepened by the fact that "Britanniae" can either mean "of Britain" (genitive singular) or "the Britains" (nominative plural). (There is no such ambiguity with "Britanniarum", which is unquestionably genitive plural "of the Britains".)

Frederic William Madden, attempting to clear up this confusion in an article for the Royal Numismatic Society [8], concluded:

... I think I have proved that " BRITT." cannot but be correct, if written for "Britanniarum"; and "BRITT," on the new coinage of our Queen, representing, as it is meant to do, "The British Islands — Great Britain and Ireland," is, as every scholar (who has in any way studied our ancient Roman coins or the classics) will most assuredly allow, the right and proper reading. Therefore " BRIT." is not the correct form to put on our coins.

These two scholars are far closer to the truth than the journalists and politicians quoted by the OED, who grandly, but only rhetorically, equate the meaning with the rhetorical "Greater Britain" of the same period. The OED itself writes [9], mistakenly calling the usage "post-classical":

... The legend post-classical Latin Brittaniarum rex 'king of the Britains' (shortened as Brittaniar rex, Britt rex; also Brittaniarum regina 'queen of the Britains') appears on British coins of various denominations from the reign of George III (from 1816, the year of the beginning of the Great Recoinage); from the reign of Edward VII (from the year 1902) the legend appears as Brittaniarum omnium rex 'king of all the Britains' (only in the shortened forms Britt omn rex, Br omn rex; also Britt omn regina 'queen of all the Britains'); as such it appears on the coins of Elizabeth II of 1953 (the year of her coronation) but not subsequently.

There is no indication anywhere that meaning of the title of Elizabeth II's "Britanniarum regina" differed from George III's "Britanniarum rex", which itself is no different to the "Britanniarum rex" with which the Latin poets of James VI and I's time (including Hugo Grotius) lauded the first monarch of all the British Isles (or the first, as they might see it, since the dynasty of King Arthur). It is, in effect, the Latin for "of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and [Northern] Ireland", which has never been translated as such. There has never been a "Regno Uniti Rex". If Elizabeth II's "Britanniarum regina" meant to encompass the "other realms and territories", that would make the "regnorumque suorum ceterorum" redundant, even if it has never been an exact translation (it means "and of her other kingdoms" or "other realms").

My apologies for another lecture, but I think this adequately answers the questions. Britanniarum regnorumque suorum ceterorum regina means simply "Of the Britains and of her other realms queen". The English title is not an exact translation, and never has been. If "the Britians" means something other than "the British Isles", I have seen no evidence of that. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom:

• I still cannot agree about "speculation", but I have made my point.
• However, I must correct your point 3, since it could mislead. A British royal proclamation is certainly a form of law, although now of very limited scope. It counts as a statutory instrument (a category of secondary legislation). Examples are Charles III's proclamations for his coronation coins, as recorded in Privy Council minutes; the texts can be found in the Gazette. The royal titles are still determined by royal proclamation, as is permitted by the royal titles legislation of each Commonwealth realm. They still take the form of a legal claim, even though other factors render the claim nominal or superfluous (the Irish example is not of the same kind).
• You hold that "'The Britains' is perfectly ordinary English, even if it is almost always used to translate Latin and therefore necessarily rare." That statement seems to me to be self-contradictory. And I would not be so ready to challenge the OED, which describes English usage and does not seem to be out to correct anybody's understanding of a foreign language.
• You may be assuming that choices of legal terminology always seek to avoid ambiguity. In British constitutional terminology, however, ambiguity has sometimes been found useful: see e.g. Anne Twomey, The Chameleon Crown (2006). Nonetheless, your point about redundancy of regnorumque suorum ceterorum does count against britanniarum referring more widely than to the British Isles.
• Each of us seems to have made our views clear. I'd appreciate those of others. Errantios (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios procedurally, I think it would be proper to remove your uncited additions to the article. If you can gain consensus to re-add them, then that could be done at that stage, and not before. I quote again Wikipedia:Burden: "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". You added the material, I removed it, and you restored it without any inline citation to a reliable source. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom: you still misunderstand. Errantios (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios misunderstand what? Are you denying that that you restored material without an inline citation to a reliable source? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom: I'll spell it out for the last time. That material points out an encyclopaedically noteworthy factor arising from material already present—to wit, that the practice (tradition, convention or whatever) since 1901 of having a Latin title has not, as yet, been continued. There is nothing actually new in saying that, so no citation is required. Errantios (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios So you claim. I challenge this, and until you can reach a consensus to include the material, it should stay out of the article. Do you object to removing the misleading footnotes on "appears to include Ireland"? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom: "appears to include Ireland" addresses an evident ambiguity. However, I have removed "of the British lands", although I consider it valid for the same reason. Errantios (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios If it is "evident" or an "ambiguity" as you claim, readers will be able to see that for themselves. Your addition of your own commentary remains unacceptable. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The wisest fool in Christendom, let us both now have confidence in the readers. Errantios (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Errantios I have removed the objectionable footnotes. They are evidently incorrect. There is clearly no consensus to include your commentary, and "any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"His Majesty The King" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect His Majesty The King has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § His Majesty The King until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Her Majesty The Queen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Her Majesty The Queen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Her Majesty The Queen until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Her Majesty the Queen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Her Majesty the Queen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § Her Majesty the Queen until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

post 927 england is missing?

the titles of "english monarch" start at 1066 despite england uniting in 927, shouldn't the title of King Aethelstan be there since he was first to create the kingdom of england out of Wessex? 84.71.92.188 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)