Talk:Emperor of India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Edits

The title Emperor, Empress of India pretty much guarantees no one will link here just by wikifying text. How about putting the article at Empress of India and making a redirect to it from Emperor of India? -- Someone else 04:42 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

fair point. (Though considering how bad the article was, maybe having no links would be a very good thing!!!) Personally it doesn't bother me. But which one? The office was originally Empress of India.

This is a fairly common error, or at any rate a common cutting of a technical corner, which has led to much confusion in Australian constitutional discussion. A monarch does not "hold an office" (apart from other unrelated offices that might be there by coincidence). This blurs things, so people talking about presidents versus monarchs start arguing about who should hold an office of head of state - never realising that there are different kinds of things going on, so that they are effectively prejudging the point and building in their own conclusions. PML.

PML, please don't take this the wrong way. Its 6.15am. I can see dawn starting to break. I don't know why I decided to save this crappy article. I'm tired, hungry (and the computer is now playing Dooley Wilson singing As Time Goes By at me!) and fed up. Normally I would agree with you 100% and quote from something in the 500,000 words I have written heads of state in two books, or begin a detailed analysis. But right now, I am fed up, pissed off and for once in my life I DO NOT FRIGGING CARE WHETHER A MONARCH HOLDS AN OFFICE OR NOT!!! :-) There. God it off my chest. For one day, I will not eat, sleep and drink heads of state. (Oh Jaysus, the computer has now decided to play Bing Crosby singing Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra. That's it. I'm going to bed. better do the same thing yourself, PML.) And I might be in a better mood, able to quote constitutions by heart, know the intricacies of the French Fourth Republic's constitution compared to the Weimar Germany and the Commonwealth of Constitution Act, 1900, etc. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:21 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Quoting from John Julius Norwich's "Christmas Crackers", from memory: "There are few pleasures greater than watching an old friend falling off a roof - Confucius". It's only mid-afternoon here as I write. At least it isn't that old favourite signature tune of the BBC, Lillibullero. PML.

Do you think I have gone to bed yet? Nope. Ella Fitzgerald began to play so I thought I'd wait a few minutes more and check Recent Changes (and correct something in Reserve powers and make sure we have Weimar Republic not [[Weimar republic]] to . . . . AAAAAGH. Now I have songing singing so not forsake me, O my darlin' to me, frigging Frankie Laine with the High Noon theme tune. But damnit, I did set the computer to play that CD rather than heavy metal (the one played about an hour ago!) or Beethoven (between the heavy metal and Marlene Dietrich's 'falling in love again'.) OK. THIS TIME. GOODNIGHT. Before any more light creeps in my window!!! Oiche Mhaith (goodnight in gaelic!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:46 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

PS: Look below at the number of mistakes in only one paragraph.

The following line was removed:

The title was the brainchild of Prime Minister Sir Robert Arthur Talbot who was jealous of the Imperial titles of Queen Victoria's numerous cousins, and more importantly her daughter, the Queen Empress Alexandra of Germany.

• Number 1: The prime minister being wrongly named above was known as the Marquis of Salisbury or Lord Salisbury. As that is the recognisable name, it should have been used.

• Number 2: Are you sure you have the correct prime minister? Salisbury was not prime minister until later, if I remember correctly. That doesn't mean that he did not hold another post at the time and was PM later.

• Number 3. There is no such person as the Queen Empress Alexandra of Germany. If you mean Victoria's daughter, the Princess Royal, who was briefly Empress of Germany and Queen of Prussia, her name was Victoria. Alexandra was the name of
• Queen Victoria's daughter-in-law, the later Queen-Empress Alexandra of the United Kingdom
• Empress (not queen) Alexandra, wife of Tsar Nicholas II.

Oh and the role Queen-Empress Victoria and later Queen-Empresses were completely different. The former was a monarch, the latter ones were merely Queens-Consort (ie, wives of monarchs), not monarchs themselves.

Oh, and please check the right titles and links for British royals. All the royals on the article page here should be linked to [[{name} of the United Kingdom]], not Great Britain (that stopped in 1801) not England (that stopped in 1707). STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:57 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, I think Empress of India is going to raise the thought of Queen Victoria for most people, and for those looking for others, having the (corrected) article at "Empress of India" can serve as a disambiguation page: sort of like a built-in "List of Emperors and Empresses of India". -- Someone else 05:05 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've gone by the numbers and made the page Emperor of India with a redirect at Empress, and fixed links. (What am I doing editing this shit at 6.12am. I started Pope Pius X an hour ago, saw this, laughed at its sheer awfulness and started a rewrite. DAWN IS DUE HERE IN FOURTEEN MINUTES, and I'm here doing this, with Frank Sinatra singing Ol' Man River on my eMac. (It was Guns'n'Roses an hour ago, Beethoven until 10 minutes ago. :-) STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:21 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

First, we must have a chat about your disturbing ecclecticism.... <G>.... or sonombulism, or both! I recognize it's but a footnote (there's no compelling reason an emperor MUST reside within his empire)... but I believe it is true that Victoria never so much as visited India, and wondered if any of the Emperors ever did? -- Someone else 20:34 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Delhi Durbar? Deb 20:39 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

More than one. Victoria didn't attend her proclamation, or am I mistaken? Edward VII apparently did in (1902/3), George V apparently did attend his in 1911? 2 for 5, then, or did any of the others visit? -- Someone else 20:54 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Only one emperor actually visited India. That was King_Emperor George V who did for the Delhi durbar. I never heard of Edward VII doing so as king-emperor. He may have visited it as Prince of Wales. Victoria was too old for the long journey when she became empress. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:59 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I believe she sent the Prince of Wales there as her representative - partly because she wanted him out of the way. Deb 21:05 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

One then<G>. A clean sweep would have made for a better story, alas...but I suppose truth must be served! Thanks for nailing it down. -- Someone else 00:10 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I think there was talk that George VI too was planning a durbar, but the unstable situation in Europe in the late 1930s made a long absence by His Majesty from the UK impracticable. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:26 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

What I rather liked is the idea of buying new jewels that could be permitted out of the country. Not that that's a problem I'm really MIND facing... - Someone else 00:29 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I suppose it is the same thing with the Liberty Bell. If it is something that is of important historical importance or great financial value, you simply would not be allowed to remove it. The jewels weren't George V's to bring. Civil servants decided that there was just too much risk involved in bringing priceless jewels on such a journey. I guess no civil servant wanted to be the person, if they were stolen, to have to say 'actually it was me who authorized their journey'. Today it might be different with air-travel: they could be bought out and brought back in a quick period of time. But you are talking 90 years ago of a long long journey at which at any time they could be nicked and perhaps their absence not immediately noticed if everyone presumed they were safely locked away. Remember also, the Irish Crown Jewels had only been stolen a few years earlier (in 1907) so the issue of the safety of crown jewels was high on everyone's consciousness. Even the King could not order their use; he would be told bluntly, "they ain't yours, your Maj, they are the country's. And it is too big a risk. So no way!" STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:06 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

"it is said that..."

"It is said Victoria's desire for such a title was motivated partially out of jealousy of the Imperial titles of some of her royal cousins in Germany and Russia." Nonsense! actually it is not "said" by anyone who has read anything on the occasion. (Victoria's reaction is well-known and should be quoted in this entry.) The phrase "it is said" is too often followed by a daydream like this... --Wetman 06:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why the retroactive change?

Something I've always wondered, and which isn't answered in this article:

"The title was given up in 1948 by George VI, then King of the United Kingdom, with retrospective effect to August 15, 1947."

Why didn't the change in title happen immediately upon Indian independence, and why the odd "retroactive" change of the title back to the moment of independence? Did the King in practice continue to use the imperial title in late 1947 and early 1948? Was it originally intended that the British monarch would retain the "Emperor of India" title while India and/or Pakistan remained Commonwealth Realms? Was there disagreement between the British government and the Indian and Pakistani governments on this issue? When did the titles "King of India" and "King of Pakistan" first actually come into use?

I was thinking of doing separate King of India and King of Pakistan articles, but perhaps the material is covered better here, where they both redirect. It might also be good to note here that during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, George VI was the head of state of two states that were at war with another, a perhaps unique case in history. --Jfruh 20:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the powers that be just plain "forgot" to make the change and when they realized, they did the right thing and made the change effective from the moment of the independence of India. But that's just a guess; it's a good topic for research.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Independence Act states that the title "Emperor of India" would be removed from the King's titles. This provision of the Act was effected through an order in council.

I'm sorry to bump this after so long; but the reason the title wasn't abandoned until 1948 because of the Princely states. What you have to remember is that what was divided in 1947 was British India; which was-whilst it is not entirely accurate to call it a crown colony-essentially the same as one (in that it was British territory, whereas the Princely States were not.) Basically; the Princely States (as protectorates; that is, theoretically states in their own right-but not sovereign ones)owed fealty to the British monarch in their role as Emperor of India, and the title could therefore not be abandoned until all the Princely states had declared whether they were going to accede to India; or accede to Pakistan. You thus had the weird situation of there being an Emperor of India; a King of India (although George VI never used that title although he was undoubtably King of it.), a King of Pakistan (ditto; and his daughter Elizabeth II never used that title whilst she reigned in Pakistan 1952-1956). Oh; and the King of India and the King of Pakistan were at war with each other (as it is the monarch of any given monarchy who declares war on another state in his own name) during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan war as well; even though they happened to be the same person. Weird; but true.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Signature

I vaguely remember reading that the monarch put "R. I." after his name but his consort could not put the "I", so George V signed his name "George R.I." while his consort Queen Mary could only sign her name "Mary R". HOWEVER i read that a very long time ago so i cannot cite a source! (jayboy)

Yes, it's true. I've seen a group of signatures with "George RI" (George VI), "Elizabeth R" (Queen Elizabeth) and "Mary R" (Queen Mary). Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's a matter of "could only"... If so, as queens consort, Mary and Elizabeth wouldn't be able to use "R" either. It was merely a matter of practice. Charles 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Alexandra, Mary and Elizabeth also signed with RI on occasions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Error

The article states that the Monarch would sign RI when attending to Indian business. This is incorrect. From the moment Queen Victoria received the title until the time it was abolished British Monarchs used RI as their part of their signature on everything.

Why?

Why did consorts only sign their name "R" instead of "R.I"??

I suppose it was just considered that "RI" was reserved for the Emperor or Empress Regnant, and that "I" symbolically represented his or her position as head of the British Empire, rather than just being a letter meaning "Emperor". It's a similar situation for "P": the Prince of Wales can sign "Charles P", but his wife cannot sign "Camilla P" (and Diana could not sign "Diana P"). Proteus (Talk) 12:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Empress of India

I don't know if I'm just being pedantic here, but shouldn't this page really be at Empress of India, since the title was created for Victoria? I can see the arguments against the name change, but I think the article ought to be there. Just wanted to see what the consensus was on here. Driller thriller 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as there was 25 years of an Empress and 46 years of Emperors, I'd say not. Sexist as it is, the male form of the noun is considered the "default" form for royal titles. That's why the United Kingdom didn't become the "United Queendom" when Elizabeth became its head of state.

Technically, I believe Disreali engineered not the creation of an "Empress of India", but of an "Empire of India"; Victoria was the sovereign of this empire, and, since she was a woman, her title was "Empress." But "Emperor" was still the generic title for the head of that state. --Jfruh 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The UK didn't become the 'United Queendom' because the word doesn't exist; what a fatuous remark. The title was created for the sovereign at the time, the number of years with each title is irrelevant; the masculinist bias in royal patronage is the only argument that can be made for keeping the page where it is. It is however a good argument, the question is whether it is the consensus. Driller thriller 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The masculinist bias is there for a good reason. As Jfruh says, the male form is the default. There's also the fact that the husband of a reigning Empress is not an Emperor, but the wife of a reigning Emperor is an Empress. Under constitutional theory, Victoria is generally considered to have been the equivalent of an Emperor of India, just as she's considered to have been the equivalent of a King of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Edward VII and VIII, and George V and VI, were not the equivalent of an Empress of India, and all of them, save Edward VIII, had their own Empresses of India who were distinct from themselves. Empress of India would be inappropriate. john k 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The masculinist bias is there because of patriarchal hegemony; that's not a very good reason. Point taken on the constitutional differences, I never argued against that, all I wanted to bring up was that the title was inaugurated for Victoria, and though Empress would not be the default form, it was the first. Driller thriller 19:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I take a bit of offense at being labeled "fatuous". The fact that there is no such word as "Queendom" is exactly my point. It illustrates the fact that the default (in linguistics, it would be called "unmarked") form of the sovereign title is the masculine one. That is, the sovereign title is "Emperor"; the only reason that Victoria was called "Empress" and not "Emperor" is that English is somewhat obsessive about marking the gender of certain words.

I'm not arguing that this is a good thing. I think that it would be great if English had more gender-neutral pronouns and terms at its disposal. Of course the masculinist bias in the language is there because of patriarchal hegemony. But wishing the patriarchal hegemony weren't there, and fighting to remove it from our current lives, does not change how words were used in the sexist, patriarchal political culture of 19th century Britain.

Finally, I would also disagree with the notion that the title was created for Victoria specifically. Again, from the constitutional perspective, the title was created for the sovereign of the UK, who happened, at that time, to be Victoria, who was female. It's like saying that the office of the US President was created for George Washington. Just because most people knew he'd be the first person to fill it, doesn't mean that it was created for him. --Jfruh 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if I came across wrong earlier, my hard-drive was filling up and I had to get away. I apologise if I caused offence, that was never my intention, I did not say that you were fatuous, merely that your remark had been. My remark about "patriarchal hegemony" was ironic and meant to signal my beating retreat and I didn't mean to argue for "political correctness gone mad"-style historical rewrites.

However, I would argue that the title Empress of India was created specifically for Victoria as a form of flattery for her, and to satisfy her imperialist aspirations. Punch pointed, unfairly, to a tit for tat exchange of honours when she created Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield: 'One Good Turn Deserved Another'. This is of course a distraction at this point, I've already ceded that the strength of opinion is clearly in favour of keeping the page where it is and my intention was only to demonstrate that the points I made are still valid, wherever the page resides. Driller thriller 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, apologies if I sounded defensive. I guess my response would be that whatever the circumstances were for the creation of the title and the play of personalities between Disraeli and Victoria, it had a lasting constitutinal existance that ended up being much bigger and more important than the historical moment that created it.

I've also heard it said that the title was largely a favor to Victoria (who was jealous of her continental relatives with imperial titles) but I've never actually seen any concrete evidence of same. We only discuss this in this article with the Wiki weasel words "it is said." I'd love it if we could add something more concrete. --Jfruh 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I saw that mentioned in an article, I'll do a search for it and try to track it down. Driller thriller 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Abandonment of the title in 1948

I have changed this wording:

The title was given up in 1948 by George VI, then King of the United Kingdom, with retrospective effect to August 15, 1947.

to this:

The title itself was not formally abandoned by Edward VII's successor, George VI, until 1948.

The Royal Proclamation that abandoned the title makes no reference to its effect being back-dated (which would surely have been a rather pointless thing for it to claim to do anyway). Silverhelm 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

Of course, George VI was Edward VIII's successor! {g}

Silverhelm 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

He was one of Edward VII's successors, just not his immediate one.

Huntington 22 Jan 2007.

Confusing Transition

"... and later by British rulers of India. After he was deposed by the British East India Company, and after the company itself was dissolved, the title Empress of India was taken by Queen Victoria in 1877."

The transition between the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs is pretty nonsensical right now, as the 3rd references a "he" that isn't explicitly stated beforehand (I assume "he" does not refer to Bahadur Shah II, because he was years before Victoria & had nothing to do w/the East India Company). Can someone with knowledge of the subject change this? Otherwis I'll come back & make it at least readable.Rockdozen 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Emperor of the all the Indies?

Isn't the title referring to both East and West Indies? After all, Commonwealth laborers in the UK are from South Asia (East Indies) and the Caribbean (West Indies). Plus, the Grand Union (of the American colonies) and East India Company flags were practically identical. Remember that Columbus hoped to find the Indies and that is why there is such a place known as Indiana in the States, the earlier inhabitants being named Indians.

The King of Spain is also King of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea. The Tsars of Russia were styled Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias.

I assume there is a similar meaning to the title in this case, as all-encompassing instead of exclusive. Furthermore, the official styling of the British monarchs reflected a pluralism in "the British Dominions beyond the Seas". 68.110.8.21 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The title was created in 1876, long after the distinction between the old and new worlds was well understood, and referrred specifically to what we refer to today as India. --Jfruh (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Empresses-Consort?

Can anyone give a source for the assertion that wives of Emperors of India were Empresses? I had thought that it was just another of the British Sovereign's titles, and that the King-Emperors' wives were no more Queen-Empresses than they were Defendresses of the Faith. The article even says that Queens-consort just signed "R" instead of "R I" like their husbands. Opera hat (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a very quick Google search and selected a link at random and found a website of the Royal Collection which speaks of jewels presented to Mary of Teck "to mark the first visit to India by a British Queen-Empress". Until I can find more sources I would chalk it up to the age-old convention that a wife is usually entitled to her husband's titles unless expressly forbidden. I can't say for Defender of the Faith though, it seems to be part of a style explicitly reserved for a king- or queen-regnant. Charles 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Liner

There was apparently a liner named RMS Kaisar-I-Hind. Do we have a page on her? Drutt (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed from article

surprisinly a great chapters in indian history is missing in wikipedia. There have been emperors of north and south india, many, namely-Chandragupta,Ashoka,Chandragupta II in 3rd century and Harsha in the north and Pulikeshi, Krishnadevaraya and other 16 emporors of south india whose capital was Vijayanagar.

Original post was from 152.131.11.1. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Emperor of India" --isn't it weird???

India had never been what we call "INDIA" before British times,just as America was a jigsaw made of different colonies, India also had been a "state" full of Princely states big and small and the title Emperor of India itself is incorrect as there were states which had their own titles. The title BAADSHAH means a sovereign in Urdu and many states had their own Baadshahs. Also, Emperor was a title never assigned to Bahadur Shah II---it was Baadshah-i-Hind, and as far as I know titles are taken up 'AS THEY ARE' by other rulers from a particular dynasty. But not translating them into 'their own language' to assert that they are THE rulers of that land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.173.113 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It was known as the British Indian Empire until 1947. (92.20.35.73 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

The title

As one of the few contributors who actually lived through the death of the king and the years after, at the time there was some confusion over the final awarding and ending of the title "Emperor of India".

At some stage or other the title was taken over by the then Prime Minister Clement Atlee for political reasons.

Does anybody else have any information about this obscure event?AT Kunene (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Change the headline to British emperor of India

Emperor of India is a generic word which means many things to many people. For Indians, while Emperor of India means Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Akbar or other Emperors. Its only for the British, that British colonial monarchs are associated with emperor of India.That distinction should be made in the headline. I was searching for Indian Emperors and i got this link ! What the hell ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.165.71 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan? yes

The RS all agree that the domain of the British Emperor of India always included Pakistan, so no separate article sis needed to make that obvious point. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan? No

It is a fact that the term "British India" included all territories that later became a separate country called Pakistan. Therefore any reference to pre-1947 India includes those territories. It is also a fact that Pakistan ceased to be a part of "British India" on 14 August 1947. The article is about the title "Emperor of India"; it is not about countries or person(s) who might have been incidentally emperor, king or queen or another country. When Pakistan ceased to be a part of India in 1947, any reference to a post-1947 separate country does not belong to the article "Emperor of India". Only pre-1947 references to those territories pertain to this article. Rao Ravindra (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is Prince Albert listed?

The photo of Prince Albert here is the same one in the infobox on the main article for Albert, Prince Consort. When you look at the picture's file you see that this photo is on THIS page - Emperor of India; this is confusing as it makes it look like Prince Albert was Emperor of India. I understand that he is listed and pictured here as the consort of Victoria, Empress of India, but this is not strictly true as Albert was long dead before the title became Victoria's.

Spouses are not considered consorts unless they were alive when their husband or wife held the title. Just a couple of English examples would be that James II's first wife Anne Hyde is never listed as a consort of the King of England, nor is Mary de Bohun listed as the royal consort of King Henry IV - both ladies died before their husbands gained the throne.

Opinions? History Lunatic (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

I suppose that if Prince Albert is listed as the spouse of Victoria (which at one time he was), we should also list Wallis Warfield (Simpson) as spouse of Edward VII. In his listing it says however: "unmarried during reign", which goes for Victoria as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I chose to remove Prince Albert instead of adding Wallis Simpson.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ranks of Title

Why did the Kings or Queens of the United Kingdom assume an imperial title for a foreign territory higher than their domestic one, rather than elevate their English, Scottish, Irish etc. title to an imperial rank and create a kingdom of India beneath it? Was there any mechanism preventing the British titles from changing? 173.206.21.161 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No such mechanism exists and it was once proposed in the days of George III to make him Emperor of Great Britain. This was not done however, probably because of a reluctance to upset tradition. Britain and England have had a long line of Kings and Queens. England however had regarded itself an Imperial state (albeit with a monarch named "King") since the days of Henry VIII. It has never been acknowledged therefore that an Emperor is higher in rank than an English or British king. The idea to raise the prestige of the monarch by making her Empress of India, could be done without upsetting English and British royal tradition. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Title in Hindi

The title "kaisar i hind" would seem to be rendered in Devanagari as कैसर-ए-हिंद but this article uses हिन्द का कैसर which I read as "hind ka kaisar" - backwards. The Urdu presented seems to use the order "kaisar"-"hind". Can someone check on this and explain? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The reaction to this has been to remove all of the Hindi-Urdu rendering of the title "Emperor of India". This seems to be a drastic measure. For one thing, the title "Kaisar i Hind" appears in many places in the English - and Hindi -wikipedias, and I didn't see anything wrong with the Urdu. Isn't there someone who can just check on my request? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)