Jo

Right, so, something you occasionally see people do in reaction to the atheist commie libby transes is say "My pronouns are 'His Majesty'."

What's the problem with that?

Some libbies shrug and say, "Sure thing, Your Majesty; no skin off my nose if I call you that." Because really, who cares. But I say that doesn't go far enough.

As an American, I believe strongly (relative to much of the world) in egalitarianism. Because of this, in my writing, I do not refer to people by their rank-titles unless it is to introduce them. I will say "Justice Scalia said the following", but for the rest of the paragraph he is 'Mr Scalia'. (Heck, I'm often inclined to refer to 'Mr Mountbatten-Windsor' and 'Mr Shakespeare'.) However, that is only when I am referring to them. When I am speaking to them, I will address them by their title for the sake of politeness. I will say (this is a made-up example) "Doctor Súileabhánach takes a dim view of Lord Steyn's reasoning in Chester v Afshar: Ms Súileabhánach alleges that Mr Steyn's citation of Fairchild is illegitimate", but when I am speaking to her I will say "But Doctor Súileabhánach, what about the precedent of Boland?". For the same reason  –  namely, politeness  –  I will refer to people by the pronouns they request. I may not believe that someone is a female per se, but I'll still refer to them as 'she'. I don't believe the Pope is any holier than (say) a particularly learned vicar in Essex, but I'll still refer to him as 'His Holiness'. It's just being polite.

Furthermore, because I believe strongly in egalitarianism, I don't think any royal pronouns are more valid than any others! What right does Mr Mountbatten-Windsor have to be 'His Majesty' just because he was born to certain parents? What right does that architecture student at St Johns have to be 'Her Serene Highness' while I'm 'they' because she was born to Astrid and I was born to Ingrid? (Compare how the lefty senator from Vermont said that he appreciates his constituents, to whom he is their servant, referring to and addressing him as his forename alone.)

Now, the obvious conclusion is to say "By gosh, nobody has a right to use royal pronouns! Hereditary aristocracy is dumb and bad and so if I ever meet the King I'm calling him 'Mr Mountbatten-Windsor'." (Presumably life peers would still be entitled to their, er, titles.) But that wouldn't be polite, now, would it. 

So: nobody is more entitled to royal pronouns than anyone else is. As such, everyone has an equal right to royal pronouns. Thus, if someone requests royal pronouns, then not only is it polite to accede, but they have as much of a right to it as Elizabeth II did.

"But royal pronouns are a fake societal construct that people only incorporate into their 'identity' because it affects how they're perceived by themselves and others!" Buddy have I got some news for you about gender.

One could argue that, sure, everyone has an equal moral right (if not legal right) to royal pronouns, but what about 'His Holiness', 'Her Honor', 'His Excellency', and other titles that refer to earned position rather than mere birth? Surely those should be reserved for persons who have actually had those titles conferred upon them, with perhaps a further restriction that blatant incompetence and corruption doesn't count? Sure, okay. I'm just here about royal titles. Probably there should also be an exception for misleading uses of 'His Supreme Highness' or other things that denote actual governmental power…though by the same token one should put in scare quotes such titles for powerless monarchs-in-name-only like Charles III.