The Queen's We *

Mamacita says:  It’s Labor Day and I don’t feel like laboring, so I’m re-running this semi-pornographic post from Valentine’s Day, 2006.

As an English teacher, I’ve spent my entire career talking about various grammatical forms, including one we call the “Queen’s ‘we.'”

I always thought it was all about the fact that royalty never uses singular first person pronouns in public; they always use the plural forms.

Queen Victoria’s “We are not amused” is possibly the most famous example of the Queen’s ‘we.’

Until now.

Ohhh, Elizabeth, you cheeky little devil you. Kind of makes me wonder what you carry in those immensely dowdy purses. You’re not fooling me any more with your prim and proper press-lipped public face. I know you won’t be writing any self-help books about successful child-rearing any time soon but maybe there are other topics you’re actually qualified to talk about, eh? I mean besides dogs. Of course, from the looks of your children. . . . but I digress.

This picture also answers another question I’ve had for a long time about men in kilts.

I sincerely hope this picture doesn’t offend anyone. If I hurt anybody’s sensibilities, please accept my apology, and. . . . wait a minute.

Nah. This picture is just funny. If you don’t think so, please move along.

*Not to be confused with the Queen’s Wii.  As if.


Comments

The Queen's We * — 7 Comments

  1. Look at the expression on the guy’s face! He knows just what he’s doing. It is so disrespectful but so damn funny!!!

  2. LOL! I didn’t see it when I started reading and I wondered what was going to show up when I scrolled down. I got the the line about kilts and it dawned on me. That poor man!

  3. LOL! I didn’t see it when I started reading and I wondered what was going to show up when I scrolled down. I got the the line about kilts and it dawned on me. That poor man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.