Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 9 down vote favorite

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

3 Answers

up vote 7 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
3  
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
up vote 9 down vote

Victoria was persuaded to take the title of Empress of India by then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli in 1876

Partly this was to stop the political embarrassment that her daughter was married to the heir to the German emperor which would have made her daughter an empress and so outrank her - thus making Britain less important than Prussia.

Mostly it was that Disraeli was an expert politician and able to twist the monarch and public opinion to his purpose. Giving the head of state an impressive title that made her happy, the people happy and increased the country's international standing - at no cost - was a masterstroke.

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote

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
1  
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
1  
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. – Monster Truck 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. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Monster Truck Sep 13 '12 at 16:05
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.