English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why do presidents use last names (Pres Bush) and kings use first names (King George, Queen Victoria)? Is there a reason behind this?

2006-11-09 05:27:09 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Royalty

9 answers

Yes, tradition. A King or Queen does not lose their actual name, they adopt a TITLE as members of the nobility. "King George" is a TITLE not a name exactly.

When the USA broke away from England, we specifically prohibited the recognition of titles -- there are no kings, dukes, earls, peers or knights in the USA, only names.

2006-11-09 05:30:52 · answer #1 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 1 0

We use President as it is his title much like Doctor or Judge, instead of Mr.
With royalty, it would be a bit confusing if you said Queen Winsor the daughter of King Winsor, because they have the same family name their first name is used. Also this goes back to a time when sur-names were not used, there were only additional titles or honorifics.

2006-11-09 13:32:37 · answer #2 · answered by roamin70 4 · 0 0

Presidents are just ordinary people, who have grown up having ordinary names, eg George Bush, Bill Clinton. It would be a tad presumptuous to suddenly become President George, or President Bill. And, as they are only elected for a four year term, or two at the most, there is a huge turnover in presidents.
But the royals have traditionally used only one name, and they rule for life. When they are young they are known as Prince Charles, or Princess Elizabeth. When they are crowned, they continue the practise of using only one name. Just as Popes do, as they also serve for life.

The original reason may go back into antiquity -- most people only had one name (surnames are a fairly recent innovation) but when you referred to someone, to identify who it was, you could call them Bill, John's son (which rapidly became Bill Johnson) or Bill the Tailor, which became Bill Tailor (or Taylor) or when referring to slaves and indentured servants, you indicated to whom they belonged: George's man Bill.
But when you referred to the king, he worked for no one, he belonged to no one, and there was no one with whom he could be confused. Hence, only a single name was required.

2006-11-10 23:08:31 · answer #3 · answered by old lady 7 · 0 0

In beginning of the American nation, the first presidents did use their first and last names, but we tend to be a country of abbreviations, so we have recently started using last name.

2006-11-09 17:02:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, in royalty, one way of distinguishing is by your family dynasty.
It is also more democratic ( in my opinion ) that presidents and prime ministers use their last names.

It one sense... royalty is honoured by all kinds of people and in the old days were loved by more people unlike today. Calling them king or queen by their first name is distinguishing that they are your ruler and you are their people.

2006-11-10 00:03:00 · answer #5 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 0 0

As someone already suggested royalties have been inbred for so many years now that it is also getting difficult for them to remember anything more of their name than the first one...

2006-11-10 12:56:42 · answer #6 · answered by Goswin 2 · 0 0

As royalty often use titles rather than surnames, and often change titles, using a clear and agreed nomenclature can sometimes be difficult.

2006-11-09 13:29:36 · answer #7 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 0 0

Most (so called) royalty has the same last name.

2006-11-09 13:30:35 · answer #8 · answered by Do What 2 · 0 0

Give to Ceasor what is ceasors

2006-11-09 14:07:31 · answer #9 · answered by Pacino 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers