AH Challenge: 'Real' British Empire

I was browsing and then it occured to me that Britain, unlike the French, Russian and German empires, never had an Emperor. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a scenario where the British Empire is ruled by an Emperor and no, Emperor of India doesn't count. Go!:D
 

Thande

Donor
The British Empire did not exist as an entity, it was just a propaganda phrase, hence the modern confusion that "empire" means a bunch of colonies rather than a state ruled by an emperor.

The confusion probably arose because the British monarchs from Victoria on did have the title of Emperor (sometimes they were called King-Emperor or Queen-Empress), but only Emperor of the Empire of India, essentially filling the old Mughal Emperor's shoes.

Incidentally, back in 1803 or whenever it was when Napoleon declared himself Emperor and the Austrian Archduke did likewise, the Austrian (whose name I don't recall) urged his Prussian and British counterparts to do the same to devalue Napoleon's declaration. Both declined, and King George III specifically turned down "Emperor of the Britons" because he thought it was a silly made-up title and didn't want to bring himself down to Napoleon's level of vulgarity.
 
When Ireland joins the Kingdom of Great Britain, George III takes up the title Emperor to symbolize the growing British Empire.
 

Thande

Donor
When Ireland joins the Kingdom of Great Britain, George III takes up the title Emperor to symbolize the growing British Empire.

That was when they offered him the title I mentioned. He refused as it had no historical precedent so it would make him no better than Napoleon.
 
That was when they offered him the title I mentioned. He refused as it had no historical precedent so it would make him no better than Napoleon.

Then lets butterfly away Napoleon (probably King George as well) and how about he also holds the title of king in another, potentially greater, country then Great Britain itself (America anyone?) thus it would seem that a former colony would outrank their former masters which would sound ridiculous to them so they "upgrade" their monarchy.
 
Except by very definition British monarchy is utterly un-imperial.
The king is just some guy who the British people have decided to let sit on the throne purely because there has to be a king. Any suggestion that he wields absolute power over them....well it wouldn't be treaty very enthusiastically.
Britain wasn't Rome. It was Athens.
 
I was browsing and then it occured to me that Britain, unlike the French, Russian and German empires, never had an Emperor. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a scenario where the British Empire is ruled by an Emperor and no, Emperor of India doesn't count. Go!:D

How about this:?

Queen Elizabeth I decides to take up the Dutch offer and also becomes queen of the Netherlands, or at least gets heavily involved in the Dutch revolt. Together they manage t beat the Spanish and all (or at least most) of the Netherlands is freed of the Spanish. The southern Netherlands stay protestant (and many of those who aren't, are "convinced" to become protestant). When the English are more or less finished in the Netherlands, the religious wars start in Germany. England, seeing themselves as defenders of protestantism gets involved and they managed to beat the imperial troops. The HRE either splits in a protestant part and a catholic part or the protestant manage to completely beat the imperials. After that the protestant German elector declare the current ruler of England (and if Elizabeth didn't got any children also of Scotland) Emperor.
 
"Constantine doesn't leave" provides a historical precendent for an imperial title, though it's a bit early to happen without substantial damage to the timeline by the imperialist period.

Now, if we can somehow get the British annoyed enough with the royal line to depose them, and inexperienced enough to go without a monarch, we could (I guess) have a para-French situation of an emperor's takeover. Could a Cromwellite have assumed the title?
 
There isn't really a British precedent for the title of Emperor. The closest is High King and that was an Irish title not claimed since Henry II.
The Plantagenets and succeeding dynasties preferred to hold on the royal titles rather than allow someone below them the title of King. And all an Emperor is really is King of Kings.
Perhaps what you need to do is have James VI & I claim himself High King of Britain, create a side branch who are High Kings of Ireland then remerge the two for an Emperor of the British Isles?
 
The title never caught on in OTL because it was largely seen as both foreign and despotic; 'Emperor of India' was an excellent workaround because it put British soverigns on an equal footing to their continental counterparts, without importing 'Emperor' as a 'British' title. IIRC 'Emperor' was proposed to George III about the time of the Act of Union, but George was an arch-traditionalist.

Maybe if George IV or someone similar had been on the throne at the time, who knows.
 
There isn't really a British precedent for the title of Emperor. The closest is High King and that was an Irish title not claimed since Henry II.
The Plantagenets and succeeding dynasties preferred to hold on the royal titles rather than allow someone below them the title of King. And all an Emperor is really is King of Kings.
Perhaps what you need to do is have James VI & I claim himself High King of Britain, create a side branch who are High Kings of Ireland then remerge the two for an Emperor of the British Isles?
THere was also a British/Saxon 'high king'
 
THere was also a British/Saxon 'high king'
Though that as in relation to other 'kings' who ranked lower, which is quite common for emperors. Though this (a 'king of kings') requires there to be more than one king within the British empire, which might not be that bad of an idea, even though it probably is implausible.
 
Maybe if George IV or someone similar had been on the throne at the time, who knows.

And here in-lies the solution. There would be a kercuffle in Parliament over the tacit recognition it gave Napoleon's imperial title, but ol' Georgy-Porgy would most likely have his way and eventually everyone would just come to accept it without sacrificing their anti-French credentials.

Of course, George IV being on the throne for 30 years...now there's a hugely unattractive proposition.
 
Top