Talk:Emperor of India

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, Lillibulero. 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)