# Brit Royalty: what's the difference between "Serene Highness" and "Royal Highness?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 26, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920 "2017-06-26T15:27:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/21 "2017-06-30T15:04:43Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The last really dubious succession was in, what, 1714? “Dubious” depends on where you think legitimacy comes from. Parliament decided that issue in 1702, as it had in 1688 and 1660. But the claim of the Stuarts came by descent in the female line from Henry VII, whose claim rested solely on the fact that he was the last man from one line standing after a decisive battle who married pretty well the last woman standing from the rival line. And the claims of either of those lines descended from the inconvenient (and at that time inadmissible for some) claim of the grand-daughter of William the Conqueror, whose claim rested on the (alleged) promises of Edward the Confessor and some hanky-panky over whether or not Harold Godwinson swore allegiance to William. In the end, at key moments, legitimacy came to the person who seemed the most credible contender of the moment. And much the same is true of the continental monarchies. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/22 "2017-06-30T15:18:17Z")
OP here. [Found it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margaret,_Countess_of_Snowdon#Legacy): Observers often characterised Margaret as a spoiled snob capable of cutting remarks and hauteur.[125] She was said to look down on her grandmother, Mary of Teck, because Mary was born a princess with the “Serene Highness” style, whereas Margaret was born a royal princess with the “Royal Highness” style.[126] Their letters, however, provide no indication of friction between them.[127] Wiki cite is to a Heald, a major reference for the article but as far as I can see never identified. ETA: **Elendil’s Heir** , #7: so close, but he refused to go for the jugular of unverified pile-on CD (Crooked Dope) of cattiness. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/23 "2017-06-30T15:31:45Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Whatever happened to “Her Britannic Majesty”? > > > [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > > > Still used in passport wording: “Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.” Huh. Never realized that the Rolling Stones album was a play on that. Plus, they say “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” which is woefully missing an apostrophe. Nonetheless, either the Stones are positing a plurality of Satans, for some stupid concept, or, as I initially and continue to read it, as the Royal We but in third person, which seems to be plausible. Is it? In some languages, the Royal We (to continue its most common conception and use) is used in _second_ person, as a token of respect. I seem to remember some archaic use in English… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/24 "2017-06-30T16:39:02Z")
I’d imagine that a Serene Highness is one that is so far down the line of succession that nobody is going to bother bumping them off… #buttofmalmsey ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/25 "2017-06-30T17:25:21Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Huh. Never realized that the Rolling Stones album was a play on that. > > Plus, they say “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” which is woefully missing an apostrophe. > > Nonetheless, either the Stones are positing a plurality of Satans, for some stupid concept, or, as I initially and continue to read it, as the Royal We but in third person, which seems to be plausible. > > Is it? In some languages, the Royal We (to continue its most common conception and use) is used in _second_ person, as a token of respect. I seem to remember some archaic use in English… “We” is by definition the first person. I always took it for granted that they were indeed meaning a plurality of satanic majesties (not necessary Satans) - possibly themselves? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/26 "2017-06-30T17:37:24Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Of course they are, they edged in, but they are not royalty ab initio as it were: they were placed on the throne by traitors as complaisant obedient figureheads, and to get to a wretch foul enough to take this corrupt bargain the traitors had to be refused by over 60 others nearer in line. > As for old Vicky, that is not very long ago: most Euro royalty is also related to Charles V HRE or Karl the Great or Henry IV HRE, she herself was of no more importance than a Bonaparte. QEII can trace her linage back to Alfred the Great, Harold the II, and William the Bastard. Sure the various Norse Kingdoms can trace their linage back as far. But most of the others are newcomers. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/27 "2017-06-30T17:48:42Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > “We” is by definition the first person. I always took it for granted that they were indeed meaning a plurality of satanic majesties (not necessary Satans) - possibly themselves? Well, great minds will differ on interpretation with grammatical uncertainty (what’s your take on the meaning o_f Finnegans Wake_, then :)), but as to my query above: of course the Royal We is first person by definition; I’m wondering about maintaining the Royal Plural in other grammatical situations. As I say, the Plural is sometimes used as respect even in non-Royal circumstances in many languages. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920/28 "2017-06-30T19:30:24Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Is it? In some languages, the Royal We (to continue its most common conception and use) is used in _second_ person, as a token of respect. I seem to remember some archaic use in English… _We_ is always in the first person, just in the plural (the first person singular is _I_). If you mean that in some language, there is a habit of addressing royalty in the second person plural rather than the second person singular - well, that is not unusual, and in many languages not reserved for royalty. A number of European languages have a social convention whereby the grammatical second person singular constitutes the informal form of address and the second person plural constitutes a formal form of address, used not only for royalty but also in business contexts or generally in situations where you want to express a degree of respect for the person addressed. Linguistically, this is called the [T-V distinction](The power imbalance makes “consent” impossible to assess.). And by the way, that is, historically, also the situation in English - _you_ was originally the second person plural, the singular equivalent being _thou_. It’s just that in English, the informal version has fallen out of use and generally, for all contexts, been replaced by the formal one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brit-royalty-whats-the-difference-between-serene-highness-and-royal-highness/789920.md?page=1)