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 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The Queen is the Queen of each of those individual countries. Her role as Queen of Canada, for example, is different from, and on a level equal to, her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. There is no empire. Canada, Australia, Jamaica and dozens of others are not in any sense dependent on the UK. The Commonwealth is a group of nations with a common history. Its membership is elective and you need not recognise the Queen as your sovereign to be a member of it. The Queen has a strictly ceremonial role as 'figurehead' of the Commonwealth, but again, that's not imperial in any useful sense of the word.
2006-07-07 05:17:15 · answer #1 · answered by XYZ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
HM the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland first. After that, she is the Head of the Commonwealth. Back in the day, when HM's father was King and there was an Empire, His Majesty was always King of the UK first, before Emperor of India and of the Empire.
2006-07-06 19:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by hasina_ghani 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See what you mean about the use of the term Empress. I think, to all intents and purposes, the British people were familiar with kings and queens, and regarded people who would accept an "Empress" as their ruler to be somehow less great and less noble than they believed themselves to be. Therefore, although Victoria could be Empress of India, when ruling over her "domestic" subjects, she was the Queen, and only the Queen. Sounds odd to be so touchy over these matters, I know, but don't forget, this was the mentality of the people of the age, who wouldn't crown Victoria's chosen husband "King" but made him make-do with being "Prince Albert".
Naturally of course when the empire (thankfully) was removed from official existence, there was nothing to be Empress of, and Commonwealthress just sounded utterly weird, so the subsequent rulers reverted to being kings and queens - in an effort to make the former colonies and provinces feel like the monarch was theirs on an equal footing to domestic subjects.
2006-07-06 18:04:42 · answer #3 · answered by mdfalco71 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easy an Empress is the ruler of an empire.Sadly we do not have an empire anymore that's why the world is in a much worse state than when we did
2006-07-06 17:02:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
interesting point you have raised here, but the British empire no longer exists thus using emress instead of queen would be obsolete
2006-07-07 10:18:05 · answer #5 · answered by freedom_of_speech 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
kings and queens have been in our history for generations
2006-07-08 06:02:33 · answer #6 · answered by martin r 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ive never understood the why the monarchy exists period any period
2006-07-07 09:25:00 · answer #7 · answered by cookedermott 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋