Abstract

This article examines the legal and linguistic grounds for recognising female rulers as “kings” rather than restricting their sovereignty to the term queen regnant. Through close analysis of historical and contemporary legal language and titles, it argues that gendered naming practices and English translation conventions improperly withhold the category “king” from rulers whose original-language designation is explicitly “king”. The study traces how courts, statutes, and formulaic designations construct authority, and it demonstrates that linguistic categorisation can be revised on evidential and doctrinal bases. By reframing recognition in translation, the article clarifies continuity and change in sovereignty’s textual authority and shows how accurate translation should preserve royal category.