Authorship: What’s the royal rule?
How would Queen Elizabeth (of the UK) be cited if she were ever to do an unexpected thing like write a book? Psychologist Stephen Black answers this question, asked of him by investigator Beth Benoit. Black writes:
Interesting question. Lizabeth has not, but the Royal offspring and heir apparent has. Here are a few variant scholarly references I’ve found for his work. [H.R.H. = His Royal Highness]. No word on which, if any, is preferred by the APA.
H.R.H. Prince Charles. A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture. London: Doubleday, 1989.
Charles, HRH The Prince of Wales, (1989), A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture, London: Doubleday.
Charles, Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain. A Personal View of Architecture, London, 1989.
HRH The Prince of Wales, A Vision of Britain. Doubleday, London, 1989
Prince of Wales, Charles. A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture (1989).
However, always helpful Wikipedia advises:
“when Charles uses a surname, it is Mountbatten-Windsor, although, according to letters patent dated February 1960, his official surname is Windsor”. This means that the correct reference must be either:
Mountbatten-Windsor, C. (1989). A Vision of Britain.
or
Windsor, C. (1989). A Vision of Britain.
However, Wikipedia notes elsewhere that as a result of anti- German sentiment, the name of the British royal family was changed from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor by Royal Proclamation of 1917. Thus, if we reject this subterfuge to hide the German origin of the British royal family, the correct reference to Charles’ book would be:
Saxe-Couburg-Gotha, C. (1989). A Vision of Britain, etc.
By the way: Recent news reports say that apparently the heir apparent isn’t. The rumour is that the Queen is going to leap-frog over her son (picture it) and settle on the grandson, Prince Will, for king instead. It’s now been officially denied but then, they would say that, wouldn’t they.
Recent news reports are wrong. The Queen is not allowed to pass over Charles. In fact, she has no say in the succession whatsoever. If Parliament passed an act making her successor Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, she’d have to sign it into law.
Parliament’s unilateral right to control the succession of the Crown is a basic principle of UK constitutional law dating back as far as 1689. There’s basically zero political will to change the succession; if they changed it every time some unprepossessing character was the heir, they’d never stop making laws. (And some of the most unprepossessing characters have made the best sovereigns.)
Reporters trot this idea out all the time, but it’s as unrealistic as stating that George W. Bush could have passed on the presidency to John McCain if he’d really wanted to.
Incidentally, the royal family’s legal surname was not “Saxe Coburg-Gotha” (or, even worse, “Saxe-Couburg-Gotha”) before they changed it to “Windsor”. Their surname was probably Wettin, since that was probably Prince Albert’s surname. (I say “probably” because most royal families didn’t use surnames before the 19th century.) “Saxe Coburg-Gotha” was the name of the royal house; house names and surnames didn’t always coincide.
Except that she doesn’t have the right to pass over Charles. Parliament and only Parliament controls the succession, and there’s no political will to change things.
Journalists trot this idea out all the time, apparently unaware of the basic constitutional principles of their country. She could no more pass over Charles than George W. Bush could have passed over Barack Obama.
Royalty and Popes are listed according to their final titles in RILM’s database, since one could argue that they have legally changed their names. We list her as Elizabeth II, Queen of England (not inverted); we list Charles as Windsor, Charles Philip Arthur George.