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.
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.