Sign up ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When did the British monarch become an Emperor? I know that Queen Victoria became Empress of India, that there is an order of the British Empire, but is there such a thing as a British Emperor?

share|improve this question
Not entirely sure that I understand the question. Disraeli and Victoria attached the title "Emperor" to the British Monarchy. Thus whoever occupies the throne gets the title (adjusted for gender). Thus when Edward assumed the throne after Victoria, he was "Emperor of India". – Mark C. Wallace Aug 29 '14 at 12:13
Certainly from the times of James II/VI, Monarch of Britain and Scotland, the Monarchy had the right to the title, but I believe I've seen it even earlier; I just can't remember where I saw it. – Mark C. Wallace Aug 29 '14 at 14:16

6 Answers 6

up vote 17 down vote accepted

The British were in charge of India from 1858 to 1947. During the period from 1877 to 1947 (or so), the British monarchs also called themselves "Emperor of India" or "Empress of India," in addition to their status as King or Queen. So Victoria signed letters as "Victoria RI," where the R was for "queen" (Regina) and the I was for "empress" (Imperatrix).

share|improve this answer
So, if I understand correctly, there is a British Empire, but no British Emperor (just a British King/Queen that happens to be Emperor elsewhere)? – Jean-Christophe Dubacq Feb 8 '12 at 23:13
That is essentially correct, yes. – aeismail Feb 8 '12 at 23:55
John was styled Emperor of Ireland. – Francis Davey Jul 22 '14 at 7:19
Queen Victoria was Empress of India, so she was an Empress. – Oldcat Aug 29 '14 at 19:18

Victoria and her successors were king/queen of the United Kingdom (England + Scotland + Wales + Ireland) and emperor/empress of India in personal union, in part at least so as not to be outdone by the Hohenzollern (king of Prussia and emperor of Germany) and the Habsburgs (emperor of Austria and king of Hungary). “RI” (regina-imperatrix) is the exact equivalent of “k.u.k.” (kaiserlich und königlich).

share|improve this answer
Sources would help. – Mark C. Wallace Sep 20 at 18:18

People talked about the British Empire, but nobody ever actually officially created a British Empire.

There was no monarch of the British Empire, no prime minister of the British Empire, not cabinet of the British empire, no parliament of the British Empire, etc.

There was merely the United kingdom and a bunch of colonies controlled by it with no central institutions except for those which the United Kingdom already had.

share|improve this answer

The sometimes used the title "King-Emperor". The main cultural region was England (& Britain), which had historically be "Kingdoms" not "Empire". Hence it was more cultural acceptable for the reigning monarch to be called "King", not "Emperor"

share|improve this answer
This isn't correct—the monarchs were considered to be emperors of India during the period known as the British "Raj" in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. – aeismail Feb 8 '12 at 12:31
Yes, Emperor of India. But King of Great Britian. – Rory Feb 8 '12 at 19:32
That is correct. Don't know why this answer is down voted. +1 to compensate. Rory, you can perhaps clarify in your answer that Emperor of India and King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were two different titles. – Apoorv Khurasia Jul 28 '12 at 16:51
@MonsterTruck. Northern Ireland did not exist as a political entity at that time. – TRiG Sep 12 '12 at 17:11
@TRiG Before 1927 the title used to be King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.… – Apoorv Khurasia Sep 13 '12 at 16:05

There is no formal ritual which bestows the title "Emperor". The term doesn't have a legal meaning, there no copyright, nothing to prevent Joshua Norton from declaring himself to be the Emperor of North America. (Pedants may argue that the term derives from Imperator, which does have a formal requirement and bestowal ritual, but since the fall of Rome that title is not relevant.)

Arguably the Monarch of the United Kingdom became an Emperor in 1759 after the Battle of Quebec. Great Britain defeated France and inherited title to French lands in North America. That is the event that my teachers asserted made the UK an Empire, although there isn't really a legalistic justification for the change. The UK suddenly had Imperial problems, which I would loosely define as "How to perform governance in a foreign land where domestic governance obviously doesn't apply?". North American colonies were not "represented" by members of Parliament, nor by the House of Lords (One could argue the Lords Spiritual, but ...) British law applied and British rights, but governance would have to be exercised differently. There could be no Bishops, no Lords, no Barons, no Marquis, etc. The institutions of governance that relied on these officials would have to be restructured. For me, that is an Imperial problem and that is why Britain is suddenly an Empire. (note that Scotland had Scottish titles and Scottish governance institutions that the UK could co-opt; there were no such institutions in North America. While the individuals serving as Governors' may have had titles, they were serving as the King's representative, not as titled Lords.)

Flip the question the other way - What would have happened if Britain were never an Empire? What if there is no point at which one can say "at this point Britain is not an Empire, but at the point it is." Nothing in history would have changed. Emperor is a word we use out of convenience to describe Executive authorities that must incorporate a diversity of governance institutions. (In point of fact, I believe that Adams suggested that G. Washington be addressed as his Imperial Majesty. Thank goodness he was defeated.)

share|improve this answer

Victoria was the first to have an official title, but I believe Henry II, also known as: Henry FitzEmpress or Henry Plantagenet, was the first to be addressed as one, so around 1160 could be an answer to your question.

Henry ruled as Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Nantes, King of England (1154–89) and Lord of Ireland; at various times, he also controlled Wales, Scotland and Brittany.

share|improve this answer
Any source for your claim that Henry was "addressed" as "emperor"? – fdb Sep 19 at 22:28
Will have a look, but his mother was Empress Matilda, Lady of the English, and heir to the throne and regent (but not officially crowned) so she's also a contestant. – arober11 Sep 20 at 2:40
She was an empress because she was the wife of the "Holy Roman" emperor. – fdb Sep 20 at 8:32
You're confusing the plantagenet empire with a emperor title for henry I think. – user5001 Sep 21 at 2:04
The head of an empire is an emperor, so I've taken the question to be a simple quest to find the first body to have the job, an be addressed / recognised as such. – arober11 Sep 21 at 2:21

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.