Talk:Emperor of India

No "Indian Empire"
Legally Parliament and the throne never officially proclaimed an "Indian Empire" -- the term was informally used for the British Raj. For that matter, "British Empire" was also an informal term. Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying 'India' became 'India' is equally, if not more, nonsensical. It's also ungrammatical to call it 'the India'. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indian subcontinent includes other states like Nepal, Bhutan, Portugal (State of India) and France (French Settlements in India). Using India will be sufficient as most people do know what India meant before 1947 (or specifically 1858 to 1947) and is likely to not cause confusion. The title itself says "Emperor of India", and mentioning the name of the state rather than an ambiguous and non corresponding region is better. Please don't make this into a big issue. It's an extremely small change. Also, I apologise for edit warring previously.
 * Also, India never became India in 1947, rather it remained India. In 1947, India was granted independence and not "created".
 * And, regarding the proclamation of the Indian Empire, if you'd check proclamations of other "empires" like Russia and Germany, they too were never proclaimed. Rather, on that particular day, the monarch was proclaimed as the Emperor of India, Emperor of All Russias and German Emperor respectively. Also, the Indian Empire was much different from the British Empire. The British Empire was a colonial empire comprising the United Kingdom, the Indian Empire, Dominion of Canada, and other colonies, similar to French colonial empire and German colonial (note the term "colonial") while the Indian Empire was the name of a state (though, non-sovereign) similar to Russian Empire and German Empire. As for official-ness, I'd prefer not to debate much about it as I've not arguing for the inclusion of "Indian Empire", but you see, in the modern day Republic of India, no legislation or even the Constitution ever used used the term "Republic of India", rather only used "India" or "the Union". However, the Indian passport uses the term "Republic of India" up front on its blue cover. Similarly, in the Indian Empire too, neither Indian legislation nor British legislation used the term "Indian Empire" or "Empire of India", but rather used "India". But the British Indian passport, used the term "Indian Empire" up front on its blue cover and "Empire of India" on its front page. Sources – The Shadows of Men, Enemy of the Raj, Chasing Terrorists, The Heavens We Chase. A quick google search of "British Indian passport""Indian Empire" will show you many more sources. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no use calling the state before and after the partition the same thing. That's obviously confusing and unhelpful. If you don't like "Indian Empire" or "Indian subcontinent" then suggest another specific alternative, such as "British India and the princely states" or "British territories in the Indian subcontinent". There are plenty of options that are clear. We don't have to use official names or even a precise description. But to be frank, I think you're being unnecessarily, indeed disruptively, pedantic by claiming that "Indian Empire" or "British India" is somehow wrong. It's not wrong. It's just a convenient shorthand for "British territories in the Indian subcontinent". Celia Homeford (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm all right with Indian Empire. I never claimed it was wrong. I'm adding that then.
 * British India is however incorrect, as it's used specifically to refer to the directly-administered provinces of India, (excluding the princely states). Thus British India can't be used. Have a look at this image from the Imperial Gazetteer of India. [[Image: Political Divisions of the Indian Empire, 1909.jpg]]PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that is supposed to show or prove. It puts Nepal, Bhutan, Burma, etc. inside British India, which is marked on the map by a red border line (as indicated in the key bottom left). Celia Homeford (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the key says British India colored red. The red line doesn't mark British India. The territory colored red shows British India and those colored yellow shows princely states. Those colored white outside the Indian Empire. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Role
The title did not come with any official role. The role of the monarch was identical before and after the 1876 act. The role of the King in India and Pakistan between 1947 and 1948 was also totally unchanged between 1948 and 1950 in India and 1948 to 1952 in Pakistan. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect caption under cartoon with Victoria, Disraeli, and Crowns
The caption under the cartoon of Queen Victoria and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli claims that one headgear is a crown and the other is the Coronet of an Earl. It can't be. Its rim looks wrong, but the definitive diagnosis is that it has arches holding up a central ornament (orb, sphere, finial, marble, jewel, etc.). The Coronet of the Heir Apparent (who is often also Prince of Wales and often also Duke of Cornwall, but not necessarily either of those) and the Crown of the Monarch and some spouses of Monarchs (and possibly some spouses of Heirs Apparent) have arches, but the Coronet of a noble such as an Earl does not have arches. I believe the number of arches in the cartoon are two intersecting (i.e. four half-arches springing from compass-points on the rim and all meeting at the central finial), which would eliminate any headgear other than Monarchical. The rim has fleurs-de-lis and I think crosses patonce, but not strawberry leaves. Furthermore, the title of the cartoon was "New Crowns For Old", and that wouldn't include a Coronet being exchanged. Please discuss why anyone thinks this can POSSIBLY be the Coronet of an Earl when it doesn't match ANY of the specifications of the Coronet of an Earl. Or, if you want to waste your time and mine, rig up one of those messages that reaches me the next time I access any Wikipedia article, so that I'm personally told that Comments of this kind, although 100% true and correct on the facts, are still wrong of me to type, for some hidden reason of etiquette and manner which nobody at Wikipedia will ever reveal to me.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Legacy?
No legacy section, with a bit of balance, such as criticism of this phenomenon? Seems, from this article, like it's the most natural thing in the world. Must be many reliable sources who've thought otherwise. I'm no expert. Just asking. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed title
I do not agree with this re-revert & start of an edit war (with a user who should know well enough to use this page, not edit summaries, to strive for coinsensus). The people of India never proclaimed this title. Thus "self-proclaimed" can be asserted, and that, with the source citation requested, should remain for now. I will reistate it unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. That would not include Brits proclaiming titles for themselves over other countries whose populations were ignored in the matter. This is not British Imperial Wkipedia. If the Swedish prime minister proclaims that his king is Emperor of Finland. That would be self-proclaimed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Royal Titles Act 1876 is a legal document. Queen Victoria was internationally recognised as a head of state. That is totally different from "self-proclaimed", which is a term used for entities with no legal standing such as pretenders and micronations. Uncited original research can be removed at any time, and persistent reinsertion of such content is disruptive, for which editors can be blocked. Plus it was you that started the edit-war with a revert of a revert. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was proclaimed by the Indian ruling caste at the Delhi Durbars. It is not wikipedia's job to right the wrongs of the past. Despite our more informed hindsight, British monarchs were the legal heads of state of India even though only a tiny proportion of both Indians and Britons had any say in the matter. DrKay (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)