Draft talk:Nawab of Atrauli

What's the difference between a Titular Ruler and a Ceremonial Ruler?
I am sure this is standard understanding amongst students of the region, or even of India, but making this distinction clear in the text would be useful. Found the following at https://brainly.in/question/1792153 and given it is an Indian website, it seems likely that the answer conforms to a broader Indian understanding. But, I'd like to be sure. It reads to me that Governors took over as the Titular heads of Indian states leaving the old Royalty as the Ceremonial heads, that titular heads have "in theory" power (everything is still done in the Governor's or Queen's name even if she just "takes the advice of _her_ government"), whereas ceremonial heads have just the ceremonial position and zero actual or de facto power.

Nominal head-

a. A nominal head is the Constitutional head of the country who represents the country but does not rule the country.

b. In a parliamentary form of Government, the President is not directly elected by the people, hence he remains the nominal head.

c. Nominal head, is the ceremonial head who stands at the apex of country's political system, all decisions are taken in his name. The decisions though are taken by the Prime Minister and his council members.

But a titular position is a position with just the title, but without the power or responsibilities that the position carries. A titular head is someone who is the official leader or ruler of a country without enjoying the power or the authority of the leader or the ruler. For example-

1. The queen of England is a titular ruler of the country. She just has the title of the queen without the power or the authority of a ruler of the country.

2. State Governors in India are titular heads of the state. They are Governors only for name but in reality they do not have the power or the authority to govern the state.