Discussion: Second British Title

[Major Crimson]

My question to you, in a situation totally unrelated to my current TL , is this:

Which British Title would be the Second most prestigious, the First being King of Great Britain and Emperor of the British Empire. If, for example, certain titles were to be handed out to sons, which title would go to the second son? Is it:

A) King of Canada
B) King of Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)
C) Emperor of India (The whole Raj, Burma included)
D) King/Emperor of the Africas (Includes all British African Colonies, bar SA
E) Other (If this is the case, please state below)

So, thoughts?

 

[Alex Richards]

No Imperial title would be handed out- the whole point of Victoria also being Empress of India was so that she possessed a title that wasn't outranked by her daughter, the Empress of Germany.

So 'Emperor of India' would remain with the monarch, and we're unlikely to see any 'King of the Africas' to turn up considering that this would be considered a very unsuitable title at any time that the title may be created.

I would expect the order would go through seniority from date of the granting of the title, so assuming each is granted on the OTL date of Dominionship, and that the Heir to the throne doesn't get a separate title (perhaps King of Ireland?) it would probably follow as:

-Canada
-Australia
-New Zealand
-Newfoundland
-South Africa

After that we probably just see Dukedoms handed out.

 

[Zorqal]

No Imperial title would be handed out- the whole point of Victoria also being Empress of India was so that she possessed a title that wasn't outranked by her daughter, the Empress of Germany.

So 'Emperor of India' would remain with the monarch, and we're unlikely to see any 'King of the Africas' to turn up considering that this would be considered a very unsuitable title at any time that the title may be created.

I would expect the order would go through seniority from date of the granting of the title, so assuming each is granted on the OTL date of Dominionship, and that the Heir to the throne doesn't get a separate title (perhaps King of Ireland?) it would probably follow as:

-Canada
-Australia
-New Zealand
-Newfoundland
-South Africa

After that we probably just see Dukedoms handed out.

Sure, what he said, but empires are cool. Emperor of India is just a general badass title, while Emperor of Africa/The Africas is a creative twist. Maybe give away one of them, while the Monarch keeps the others as not to be outdone.

 

[Major Crimson]

What about an overall Emperor title, ie. Emperor over All the Imperial Realms or something, that would allow the King in London to be overlord to all the others and still hand out the Empire titles?

 

[Captain Jack]

What about an overall Emperor title, ie. Emperor over All the Imperial Realms or something, that would allow the King in London to be overlord to all the others and still hand out the Empire titles?

I like Emperor of the British Dominions beyond the Seas or Emperor of the British Commonwealth/Commonwealth of Nations

Its a modification of the OTL title of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King and would allow the monarch to distribute kingdoms of the various Dominions to royal offspring.

 

[Janprimus]

No Imperial title would be handed out- the whole point of Victoria also being Empress of India was so that she possessed a title that wasn't outranked by her daughter, the Empress of Germany.

So 'Emperor of India' would remain with the monarch, and we're unlikely to see any 'King of the Africas' to turn up considering that this would be considered a very unsuitable title at any time that the title may be created.

I would expect the order would go through seniority from date of the granting of the title, so assuming each is granted on the OTL date of Dominionship, and that the Heir to the throne doesn't get a separate title (perhaps King of Ireland?) it would probably follow as:

-Canada
-Australia
-New Zealand
-Newfoundland
-South Africa

After that we probably just see Dukedoms handed out.

I agree, though the daughter of queen Victoria was German Empress. There are some subtle differences between Emperor of Germany (which wasn't possible IOTL, since OTL Germany is 'Kleindeutschland' (it excluded some German speaking lands, most prominently Austria)), Emperor of the Germans (OTL Germany wasn't a 'Popular Monarchy', but a monarchy by the grace of god) and German Emperor (a compromise title for the head of a federation of German states).

As for the order of precedence, can't that change de facto? Well I guess not, but certain younger titles might end up being handed out more often than certain older ones or at least be more popular.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Prince of Wales already applies to oldest son and Princess Royal to eldest daughter (sometimes).

The problem with the premise of the thread is that a section of the lands ruled by the British monarch can be separated and the Head of State in that area would be a younger son or daughter. This won't happen as it elevates the son or daughter to the same level as the monarch.

You might have a "Prince of ........" as this makes it clear that the monarch is still in charge. However this probbaly won't go down well in the Dominions and Africa is too late to the party and too diverse to justify a unitary title.

Prince of India is a possibility though.

 

[Saphroneth]

As I understand it:



Emperor/Empress

King/Queen/Grand Prince

Prince/Grand Duke

Duke

are the high ranks.
It's best to not have someone in a subordinate position with an equal title - so the "Emperor" titles would stay with the monarch, though I think "Grand Prince of Canada" might - might - be a possibility.
Prince seems most likely though.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Prince of Newfoundland? At least until 1949

 

[Fabius Maximus]

King of England, maybe.

 

[Derek Pullem]

King of Ireland might work before 1801

 

[Saphroneth]

King of Ireland might work before 1801

What about "King in Ireland"?

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

As I understand it:

Emperor/Empress

King/Queen/Grand Prince

Prince/Grand Duke.

This order of precedence is certainly not followed by the British court, who do not discriminate between royal and imperial personages.

Interestingly the Dutch court does follow it, at Dutch royal events you always see representatives of the Japanese Imperial Family seated ahead of mere members of Royal families, except in circumstances where a reigning monarch is present.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

No Imperial title would be handed out- the whole point of Victoria also being Empress of India was so that she possessed a title that wasn't outranked by her daughter, the Empress of Germany.

That's a bit of myth, Victoria was declared Empress of India 6 years after the founding of the German Empire. She was hardly therefore frothing at the mouth and panicked by the prospect of her daughter becoming an Empress to insist on being made one herself.

She was also irritated by the Imperial pretence that some reigning houses aspired to and she wrote that it made sense for her to be Empress of India as the Prussian King called himself an Emperor for much less.

It was a natural progression. For Victoria when anyone could just about declare themselves an Emperor, that a monarch with an actual Empire should not have the title seemed rather silly.

Victoria would not have been outranked by her daughter. She was a Sovereign. Consorts do not outrank Sovereigns, moreover the British court has never afforded higher precedence to those from Imperial Families as opposed to Royal Families, much to Victoria's daughter-in-law Marie Alexandrovna of Russia's irritation.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

My question to you, in a situation totally unrelated to my current TL , is this:

Which British Title would be the Second most prestigious, the First being King of Great Britain and Emperor of the British Empire. If, for example, certain titles were to be handed out to sons, which title would go to the second son? Is it:

A) King of Canada
B) King of Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)
C) Emperor of India (The whole Raj, Burma included)
D) King/Emperor of the Africas (Includes all British African Colonies, bar SA
E) Other (If this is the case, please state below)

So, thoughts?

Inspired by the German Empire, I quite like the idea of Victoria's various realms being divided between her sons and grandsons with the British monarch is Emperor.

I believe it was mooted at one point that Victoria's younger sons Arthur and Leopold could be styled Princes of Australia and Canada respectively. This would have resulted in local monarchies being formed in these countries, which could have been extended to New Zealand (perhaps with one of the younger sons of George V as monarch).

 

[Saphroneth]

This order of precedence is certainly not followed by the British court, who do not discriminate between royal and imperial personages.

Interestingly the Dutch court does follow it, at Dutch royal events you always see representatives of the Japanese Imperial Family seated ahead of mere members of Royal families, except in circumstances where a reigning monarch is present.

I didn't mean in official precedence of personages, I mean in terms of titular prestige. So, say, an Emperor in ancient times would also sometimes have the name "King of Kings", while "Grand Prince" ranks above a sovereign Prince but below Emperor in the Russian court (say), thus placing it more-or-less equivalent to a kingdom.


The way that Wiki puts royal/noble/chivalric ranks is


Emperor
King
Archduke
Grand Duke
Grand Prince
Prince / Infante
Duke
Sovereign Prince / Fürst
Marquess / Marquis /
Margrave / Landgrave
Count / Earl
Viscount / Vidame
Baron
Baronet
Hereditary Knight
Knight
Esquire
Gentleman

 

[Derek Pullem]

I didn't mean in official precedence of personages, I mean in terms of titular prestige. So, say, an Emperor in ancient times would also sometimes have the name "King of Kings", while "Grand Prince" ranks above a sovereign Prince but below Emperor in the Russian court (say), thus placing it more-or-less equivalent to a kingdom.


The way that Wiki puts royal/noble/chivalric ranks is


Emperor
King
Archduke
Grand Duke
Grand Prince
Prince / Infante
Duke
Sovereign Prince / Fürst
Marquess / Marquis /
Margrave / Landgrave
Count / Earl
Viscount / Vidame
Baron
Baronet
Hereditary Knight
Knight
Esquire
Gentleman

I think what Welshroyalhistory was getting at was that in Britian the ranks tended to go - British royal family, any other ruling family, anyone else

Exact titles never bothered the royal family that much (although may have sent the protocol flunkies into fits)

 

[The Professor]

I didn't mean in official precedence of personages, I mean in terms of titular prestige. So, say, an Emperor in ancient times would also sometimes have the name "King of Kings", while "Grand Prince" ranks above a sovereign Prince but below Emperor in the Russian court (say), thus placing it more-or-less equivalent to a kingdom.


The way that Wiki puts royal/noble/chivalric ranks is

Or more accurately

• Emperor
• King
• Archduke
• Grand Duke Grand Prince
• Prince / Infante
• Duke
• Sovereign Prince / Fürst
• Marquess / Marquis / Margrave / Landgrave
• Count / Earl
• Viscount / Vidame
• Baron
• Baronet Hereditary Knight
• Knight
• Esquire
• Gentleman

Ie Grand Duke does not rank above Grand Prince, rather in some instances they are equivalent titles in others the shade in meaning confirms which outranks which.

 

[mcdnab]

In British Royal terms the standard style in the 19th century was
Victoria By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India
Her son added - and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas

Even with dominion status there was no King of Canada, King of Australia etc - they were all covered by the line British Dominions beyond the Seas after 1901 before that they were regarded as simply part of the Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland

It was only in the 1950s that the present sovereign started to be styled in those Commonwealth countries as their Queen first - hence

"....Queen of (Australia, Canada etc) and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth etc."

The royal style is governed by statute therefore the British Parliament would have a final say on any change to the style (as it has done on several occassions) and since the 30s the Commonwealth countries who retain the British Soveriegn as their monarch would have the right to do so aswell.

Any attempt to grant a formal royal style to Victoria's younger sons' beyond what they bore as the children of the sovereign would imply a breaking up of the dominions and a reduction in her and Parliament's sovereignty.
At best to strengthen the bonds of Empire etc you could have a situation where instead of receiving peerages reflecting the various realms of the British Isles they were granted titles reflecting the dominions - Duke of Toronto for example

By the 19th Century there was a clear difference between a reigning monarch (whether Emperor, King, Queen, Grand Duke/Duchess or Prince) and members of the non-reigning aristocracy.
Monarch's on the whole endowed their children with aristocratic titles which were empty but look good on an envelope.

You also have tradition to deal with - particularly in relation to the heir to the throne - though the style Prince of Wales implies a royal status it is actually a peerage bestowed by the Monarch and it doesn't implyopr mean the holder is the actual reigning Welsh sovereign.