Comments on: Reign or Regime?

By: JC

JC — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:35:05 +0000

We’ve got a problem here, but I”l straighten it out for y’all.

“During the reign of of QEII, the regime handed over the reins to the commoners, who instituted a different regimen’.”

See? “Reign” = period of rule
“Regime” = actions of the ruler
“Reins” = method of control
“Regime” = pattern of action .

Got that? Now drop and give me twenty.

By: Paul Russell

Paul Russell — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:05:43 +0000

Bernard, wherever did you get the idea that the Prime Minister of Canada represents Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth?

HM is represented by the Governor General, or Gouverneure générale du Canada in the case of the incumbent Michaëlle Jean. Each Province has its own Lieutenant Governor.

Your statement that “Being an “extension” of the powers of the queen, the use of reign instead of regime for those leaders becomes understandable” is quite wrong. It is neither understandable nor correct. Neither is it true to say “Such is the case of almost every country part of the British Commonwealth” as most do not have a Governor General.

–paul

By: Craig Magnus

Craig Magnus — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:48:44 +0000

Curious that you failed to mention Clinton.
Reign: About 21,000 vs Regime: 6,370

By: Bernard Beaule

Bernard Beaule — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:17:59 +0000

I basically tried to give an explanation of the application of the difference between both terms and certainly not a justification.

This is what I love about the English language compared to, for example, the French language. The context in which a word is used contributes to the understanding of it’s exact meaning whereas in French you have to choose the exact word even before using it. In English, the context has a greater importance than a strict descriptive and immediat significance. A broader reference such as culture, associated period, etc., narrow down the possible terminology options a writer has. This was the main challenge I had to face in writing my current novel where most of the action happens in England during the late Victorian era. I noticed that he British linguistic “world” was quite different from it’s American counterpart within the same period particularly during the 19th century.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:45:44 +0000

In the particular Canadian sense I’d imagine it would be understandable to refer to the reign of the Queen Herself, but I agree that it sounds at least strange to refer to those administering the government below the royal position with that appellation. The Premier and various Prime Ministers may be part of the governmental system, but they don’t reign; they serve elected terms of limited time. To me, this is where the term ‘reign’ is delineated. A reign to me implies power exercised in a controlling and unregulated manner. Though I know this is not technically descriptive of the Queen now, the historical meaning is evident as is the ancestry of the negative connotation it takes when applied to more representative forms of government.