0

Alternatively, why was it called the British Empire when it was really the Kingdom of Great Britain? To me, having a empire without an emperor is as nonsensical as having a kingdom without a king. They seem to imply each other, yet it didn't work that way. Is there a good explanation for it?

Improve this question
2

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

The reason is simple the unpredictable course of history. It was first proposed to George III that he take the title of Emperor upon the union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. However, he rejected this title.

Then in 1876 Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India, which had previously been the title used by the Mughal Emperor (as the Padishah). This title held until the 1947 independence of India and Pakistan. George VI and Elizabeth (later Queen Mother) were the last Emperor and Empress to hold that title.

Under the Commonwealth, the member states are assumed to be equal and so there is no Emperor. Elizabeth is legally the Head of the Commonwealth.

Improve this answer
4

The ruler of the British Empire was indeed an Empress (at least until 1997, when Hong Kong was given back to China). She also happens to be a Queen.

Improve this answer
4
  • but never styles her/his self that way... I suppose that makes sense. It is strange that the British will refer to themselves as the British Empire but not call their monarch an empress officially, but I guess thats just historical.
    – Lawton
    Jul 4, 2012 at 2:01
  • After the handover of Hong Kong there is officially no longer any Empire, although there is still an OBE.
    – Mark Beadles
    Jul 4, 2012 at 2:02
  • 1
    Aah! True that. As soon as I leave school, the world starts changing. OK, Elizabeth WAS an Empress, but apparently is not now.
    – user16269
    Jul 4, 2012 at 3:10
  • Thanks @MarkBeadles, I have edited the answer accordingly.
    – user16269
    Jul 4, 2012 at 3:47

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