# Royal we
The royal we is the use of the plural pronoun *we* by a single person, typically a monarch or holder of high office, to refer to themselves. In Latin terminology it is the *pluralis majestatis* (plural of majesty), and the broader practice of self-reference with *we*, *us*, or *our* is called nosism, from the Latin *nos*, meaning "we".[1](https://lingodigest.com/the-royal-we-a-history-of-nosism/) Traditional English grammar also recognizes two neighboring singular uses of *we*, the authorial *we* and the editorial *we*, which are kept distinct from the royal use.[2](https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2023-10-15-1.html)
| Key fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Definition | A plural pronoun used by one person, usually a monarch or high officeholder, for self-reference[1](https://lingodigest.com/the-royal-we-a-history-of-nosism/) |
| Latin name | *Pluralis majestatis*, the "majestic plural"; the umbrella term for singular *we* is nosism[1](https://lingodigest.com/the-royal-we-a-history-of-nosism/) |
| Dating in English and French | By the 12th century, French and English monarchs had adopted *nous* and *we* respectively, framing rule as a corporate act rather than a personal one[3](https://q.pfl.com/article/the-royal-we-decoding-pluralis-majestatis-in-power-and-language) |
| Related uses | The authorial *we* and editorial *we*, both distinct categories in traditional grammar[2](https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2023-10-15-1.html) |
| Interpretation | Linguists group the royal we with hearer-dominated readings as "pseudo-inclusive", producing mitigating effects of modesty or solidarity between speaker and addressee[4](https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2183376.pdf) |
| Modern register | Formal and often archaic; it survives in royal proclamations and ceremonial language[5](https://elon.io/grammar/english-from-dutch/pronouns/royal-editorial-we) |
## Varieties of the singular *we*
Dictionaries classify the non-prototypical uses of *we* alongside the basic one, in which the pronoun refers to the speaker and one or more other people. One recognized special form is *we = I*, with dictionaries sometimes distinguishing the "royal we" (or *pluralis majestatis*) from the "editorial we" (or *pluralis modestiae*).[6](https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/viewFile/16931/13449) A grammatical survey of pronominal transposition separates three cases: the "editorial we" (corresponding to the Latin *pluralis auctoris*), in which the sender does not speak on their own behalf but on behalf of a group; the *we* used metonymically as a symbol of royal power (*pluralis majestatis*); and the *we* of scientific prose, which signals the author's modesty (*pluralis modestiae*) or includes the reader in the discourse.[7](https://sci-conf.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/priority-directions-of-science-development_3-4.02.2020.pdf)
The naming of these categories does not map neatly onto one another across sources. One account assigns *pluralis modestiae* to the editorial *we*, while another reserves it for the scientific author's *we* and calls the editorial use *pluralis auctoris*.[6](https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/viewFile/16931/13449) • [7](https://sci-conf.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/priority-directions-of-science-development_3-4.02.2020.pdf) What they agree on is that the royal use is one member of a family in which a single speaker chooses the plural form.
## What distinguishes the royal use
The editorial *we* and the royal *we* differ in origin and function. The editorial *we* arose when the editors of publications used it to reflect that their opinions represented those of the publishers, and one linguistic treatment argues that it is a very different phenomenon from the royal *we*, which was used for address and self-reference consistently, and should therefore be kept separate from it.[8](https://elibrary.narr.digital/xibrary/10.24053-9783823374268) The editorial sense extends readily to any single writer speaking for an organization, even a small one.[9](https://tweedediting.com/2010/11/royal-editorial-or-otherwise-the-vague-we/)
The royal *we* instead frames the speaker's individual acts as those of an office or institution. By the 12th century, French and English monarchs adopted *nous* and *we* to frame their rule as a corporate act, and the usage lingers in institutional speech even where monarchical titles have disappeared; companies likewise use *we* in mission statements to imply collective effort even when the voice is a single founder or executive.[3](https://q.pfl.com/article/the-royal-we-decoding-pluralis-majestatis-in-power-and-language) In this form it is formal and often archaic, appearing in royal proclamations and ceremonial language.[5](https://elon.io/grammar/english-from-dutch/pronouns/royal-editorial-we)
## The authorial and academic *we*
The use of the authorial *we*, in which a sole writer refers to themselves in the plural, was widespread in the nineteenth century and was a standard convention in academic writing and journalism; the same phenomenon is also discussed under the labels editorial *we* and royal *we*.[10](https://hull-awe.org.uk/index.php/Authorial_%27we%27) In academic prose the pronoun can do more than replace *I*: it can fold the reader into the argument, as in "If we compare the two maps, we can see that the boundary moved eastward".[5](https://elon.io/grammar/english-from-dutch/pronouns/royal-editorial-we)
**Style guidance today is narrower.** Writers following [APA style](https://www.edgepedia.org/apa-style) are told to be careful not to use first-person pronouns to mean anyone other than the author or authors of the study, which excludes both the royal and the editorial stretches of *we* from that style's academic register.[9](https://tweedediting.com/2010/11/royal-editorial-or-otherwise-the-vague-we/) Cross-cultural work on research articles also finds systematic differences between languages: some academic cultures prefer the first-person singular *I* while others favor the *we* perspective, a difference that can produce misunderstandings across languages such as English, German, French, Russian, and Bulgarian.[11](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x)
## History and interpretation
The apparent [Old English](https://www.edgepedia.org/old-english) instances of the singular *we* are uncertain and may instead show an inclusive plural use of the pronoun; one cited example is the early Old English rendering "Nu hæbbe we scortlice gesæd ymbe Asia londgemæro" from the translation of Orosius's *History*.[2](https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2023-10-15-1.html)
Linguistic work on politeness places the royal *we* in a wider functional family. Haverkate labels such hearer-dominated readings, along with what Quirk et al. call the "Royal" we, as "pseudo-inclusive", and argues that the usage "produces mitigating effects by expressing modesty or implying that a solidarity relation holds between him/her and the addressee, as a result of which a direct confrontation between the participants in the speech act is avoided".[4](https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2183376.pdf) The same survey notes that the determining factor appears to be the context of use and the status of the speaker, and that a non-royal self-referring *we* can be found in spoken registers to downplay an individual's part in some action.[4](https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2183376.pdf) A recent philosophical treatment of the pronoun observes that in such examples *we* is not used with a plural meaning at all but refers to a single person, a point most evident in the royal we.[12](https://philpapers.org/archive/JANWAN-5.pdf)
## References
1. [The Royal 'We': A History of Nosism, LingoDigest](https://lingodigest.com/the-royal-we-a-history-of-nosism/)
2. [単数の we --- royal we, authorial we, editorial we, Hellog (Keio University)](https://user.keio.ac.jp/~rhotta/hellog/2023-10-15-1.html)
3. [The Royal We: Decoding Pluralis Majestatis in Power and Language, PFL Zone](https://q.pfl.com/article/the-royal-we-decoding-pluralis-majestatis-in-power-and-language)
4. [The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems: A comparative approach](https://www.asau.ru/files/pdf/2183376.pdf)
5. [Royal we en editorial we, Elon.io English Grammar for Dutch Speakers](https://elon.io/grammar/english-from-dutch/pronouns/royal-editorial-we)
6. [International Journal of Linguistics (Macrothink Institute)](https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/viewFile/16931/13449)
7. [Priority directions of science development, conference proceedings (2020)](https://sci-conf.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/priority-directions-of-science-development_3-4.02.2020.pdf)
8. [Corpus · Culture · Discourse, Narr eLibrary](https://elibrary.narr.digital/xibrary/10.24053-9783823374268)
9. [Royal, Editorial, or Otherwise: The Vague "We", Tweed Editing](https://tweedediting.com/2010/11/royal-editorial-or-otherwise-the-vague-we/)
10. [Authorial 'we', Hull AWE](https://hull-awe.org.uk/index.php/Authorial_%27we%27)
11. [Vassileva (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x)
12. [We are no Plural Subject (philpapers.org)](https://philpapers.org/archive/JANWAN-5.pdf)
---
*Topic: Encyclopedia › Society and history › Politics and government › Political systems and ideas › Monarchy and republicanism › National and regional monarchies › Monarchy in the Commonwealth realms › Succession, royal style and titles, and shared legal instruments*
*Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Sep 17, 2026; Sep 30, 2026; Oct 25, 2026 · Edited: Sep 30, 2026; Oct 25, 2026 · Last review: Oct 25, 2026*
*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*
License: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license