One of us - why we should use ordinary names for royal family members

1. Rejecting Legitimacy Without Dehumanising

Using titles like King Charles III implicitly affirms the legitimacy of the monarchy by reinforcing the language and symbolism of inherited power. Republicans who aim to challenge that system naturally avoid those titles.

But going to the opposite extreme—mockery or body shaming (e.g. "sausage fingers")—undermines credibility and turns the focus from the structural critique of monarchy to personal attacks. It’s a distraction and can come off as petty or cruel.

2. Moral Consistency

If the goal is a society based on equality and dignity, then that has to extend even to those you oppose. Using mocking language contradicts republican ideals of universal respect, and can mirror the very elitist attitudes being critiqued.

3. Clarity and Focus

Using ordinary names like Charles Windsor:

- Strips away the mystique and inherited grandeur of monarchy.

- Highlights the reality that royals are just people with a last name like anyone else.

- Keeps attention on the institution of monarchy rather than tabloid-style gossip about individuals.

This approach is especially effective in serious discussions—legal, political, or educational—where clarity and credibility matter.

4. Strategic Persuasion

Mockery may feel good to supporters, but it alienates moderates or undecided people who might otherwise sympathise. Using neutral or ordinary language shows seriousness and appeals to reason rather than emotion.

In Summary:

• Don't use royal titles: It reinforces the system you're questioning.

• Don't use insults or mockery: It undermines your ethical and rhetorical position.

• Do use ordinary names like "Charles Windsor": It humanises without legitimising, keeps the focus on the system, and shows respect even in disagreement.

This tone and approach help republican arguments land more powerfully and persuasively.