Mea Culpa: not saying what we did not mean

Questions of language and usage in last week’s Independent, policed by John Rentoul

Can we understate the meaning of the John Lewis Christmas advert? (John Lewis & Partners)

In a comment article that praised John Lewis for its Christmas TV ad, we managed to say the opposite of what we meant: “You cannot understate what it is for an enormous retailer to put children in care at the heart of its flagship ad campaign.” This happens so often that all writers should be advised to avoid the “cannot overstate”, “impossible to overestimate” formula altogether. Thanks to Linda Beeley for spotting that one.

Long live the King: Simon Kane wrote to point out that we had referred to the King, Charles and King Charles all in the same article. He is right that the King’s mother was always referred to as the Queen, and not Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth. However, I think that we are in a period of transition. It will take people time to get used to calling him just the King.

I was surprised to see that The Times refers to Camilla as the Queen, rather than the Queen Consort. I found the headline “Queen pays tribute to ‘dear mother-in-law’ Elizabeth in first speech” confusing because I thought (a) the Queen is dead, and (b) she seems to be talking about herself. I am not in the least interested in royal titles and flummery, but I think clarity is aided by Queen Consort until we get used to the new names, just as it helps to stick a Charles in here or there just to remind the reader who this unfamiliar King person is.