Royal Highness (novel)

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (November 2020) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Königliche Hoheit]]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|de|Königliche Hoheit}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

Royal Highness

First edition cover
Author	Thomas Mann
Original title	Königliche Hoheit
Translator	A. Cecil Curtis
Language	German
Genre	Historical fiction
Publisher	S. Fischer Verlag, Berlin
Publication date	1909
Publication place	Germany
Published in English	1916 (Knopf)
Media type	Print
Pages	475
Text	Royal Highness at Wikisource

Royal Highness (‹See Tfd›German: Königliche Hoheit) is a 1909 novel by Thomas Mann. It is Mann's second novel and was written between the summer of 1906 and February 1909.

Royal Highness is characterized by its fairytale-like qualities. The novel describes a young unworldly and dreamy prince who forces himself into a marriage of convenience that ultimately becomes happy, and was modeled after Mann's own romance and marriage to Katia Mann in February 1905.

First published in 1909 in Die neue Rundschau, the novel was met with great enthusiasm from the public. However, it was met with a more divided reception from critics.