I've never understood this. The monarch of Austria-Hungary was an Emperor, the monarch of small Japan was an Emperor, plus many others. But in the British Empire, the monarch was still referred to as "Queen/King" in common parlance. (I know they had a secondary title of "Empress/Emperor of India".) Why, especially when 25% of the world was part of the Empire, didn't the royal family use the title of "Emperor/Empress"? I used to think it required a grant from the vatican, (which wouldn't happen in an Anglican country), but that doesn't explain Japan and other much smaller monarchies having Emperors while the huge British Empire and subsequent Commonwealth has "merely" a Queen.
I think the history, wide-ranging influence and huge landmass of the Commonwealth more than justifies an "Empress".
2006-07-06
09:41:32
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Viceroy
2