"Emperor of India" vs. "King of India"

George VI abandoned the use of the title "Emperor of India" in 1948,
presumably because it took a year from the passing of the Indian
Independence Act before anyone realised that he hadn't previously done
so. But was he known by this title in India during those twelve or so
months?

Don Aitken...

In fact he ceased to use it in August 1947; it just took another year
to issue the formal instrument. No-one referred to him by it, in India
or elsewhere, except insofar as it remained part of the formal full

mjcar...

And yet, for instance, British and Imperial (eg Australia) coins for
1947 and for 1948 all included the titles "Ind. Imp." These included
the UK sixpenny piece, which bore on the obverse the monarch's crowned
cipher, viz GRI (1947 and 1948).

Francois R. Velde...

There are production lags when it comes to coins; it may be that the 1948
coins were produced before the Act of 1947 passed. Of course, the mint
could have chosen not to issue these coins at all (just as it never issued
the coins of Edward VIII dated 1937!).

Even the proclamation of 1948 prescribes the omission of Ind Imp "so far as
conveniently may be".

titulature, and I think it was sometimes left out of that, although
without any legal authority.

susuhanan...

That isn't quite so. The title was in fact in use on the coinage, and
in use from time to time in various other contexts. One example, other
than the coins is the appointments to the various Indian orders and
decorations. These went on until 1948, but most of them, especially the
Orders of the Star of India, Indian Empire and the Kaiser-i-Hind
(Emperor of India) Medal were last announced on 1st January 1948 but
back dated to 14th August 1947. Again, many of these appointments were
to influential princes or their ministers and were a sort of bribe to
ensure that they actually signed the instruments of accession.

The actual proclamation is rather cannily worded, in so far as it says
the words shall be omitted.

Joseph McMillan...

Oh, it's not really that canny. It means that the King renounced the
title. In fact, he used that exact word. Or "relinquished the use of
it." Or something. It's all the same.

susuhanan...

Perhaps you have an American dictionary which gives such an
explanation? Or perhaps it is to be found in the same place which says

Joseph McMillan...

No, I wouldn't presume to try to understand a British legal act by
reference to an American dictionary. I was merely extrapolating from
the statement of some fellow in this group who asserted in another
thread that renouncing something and relinquishing its use were legally
the same thing. I find in the OED that "relinquish" means "to desist

susuhanan...

I have seen nobody show different, have you?

from an action or practice." Thus to "relinquish the use" of something
would mean to desist from using it. According to this same OED, to
omit something means, among other things "to forbear to use" it. If
the King forbears to use a title that he used heretofore, then he has
desisted from using it, thus relinquished the use of it, thus renounced
it. Or is relinquishing the use of something not the same as
renouncing it after all?

susuhanan...

desist: abandon an effort or course, cease to do something, break off.
forbear: abstain from, not use or mention.

Not "quite" the same thing, me thinks.

Joseph McMillan...

I may decide to forbear (abstain from) claiming the throne of Timbuktu.
I may forbear (abstain from) arguing in ATR with Christopher Buyers.

In the first case, forbearing is not the same as desisting, because I
have never claimed the throne of Timbuktu.

In the second case, forbearing is "quite" the same thing as desisting.

At the time he decided to omit (forbear to use, abstaining from using)
the title "Emperor of India," George VI had previously used the title
throughout his entire reign. He desisted from (ceased, stopped) using
it. He relinquished (OED: gave up, desisted from, abandoned) the use
of the title.

Does that or does that not mean that he renounced the title?

susuhanan...

Perhaps you should desist with all that forbearance and spend some time
actually reading the proclamation in question. The reference for this I
posted earlier.

As far as I can see the use of phrases like "so far as conveniently may
be ... omitted ..." does not have quite the same meaning that you are
trying to construe.

Francois R. Velde...

The phrase "so far as conveniently may be" is present in all proclamations of
styles (1801, 1816, 1876, 1927, 1948, 1953). I'm not sure that it carries any
special meaning in 1948.

susuhanan...

Never said it did, old chap.

The point of not being very absolute in the language is deliberate. The
same reason that the present government found it so difficult to
"abolish" the position of Lord Chancellor.

With a country that has such a long legislative history and common law,
one can never be absolutely certain that somewhere, somehow, the title
or office may survive or continue to have application in an obsure,
though valid and necessary, law or regulation.

Christopher Buyers

Joseph McMillan

that the US constitution allows for the principle of a sole 'font of
honour'.

While you are fumbling for that, let me give you my little OED
explanation of omit: leave out, not insert or include; leave undone,
neglect doing, fail to do.

Oddly, "relinquished the use of it", does not seem appear.

Joseph McMillan

BY THE KING
A Proclamation

Whereas at the time of the coming into force of the Indian Independence
Act, 1947 Our Style and Titles were .... George VI by the Grace of God
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas
King Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" ... We have thought it
fit, and do hereby appoint and declare, that .... the words "Emperor
of India" shall be omitted.

Gazette Issue 38330 published on the 22nd June 1948, p 3647.

Christopher Buyers

And on a related point, would I be correct in thinking that his being
referred to as "King of India" is in fact just a convenient (and
perhaps anachronistic) description of his constitutional position,
rather than a title that was ever established by Indian law or
otherwise used in an official capacity?

Don Aitken...

In 1947-48, no formal instrument stated that he was King of Canada, or
of Australia, and no such titles existed. Nonetheless, he *was* king

frederick...

Oh, indeed. I think noticing the oddity about the imperial title just
threw me!

of those countries; in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same
purposes, he was king of India. In all of them he was normally called
simply "the King".

Guy Stair Sainty...

There seems to be a conflicthere between your reportage of the facts and those
of Susanna, aka Christopher Buyers; can anyone else shed further light on
exactly what instrument formally led to the abandonment of the title?

frederick...

I don't have access to an irefutably reliable source for the original
text of the Indian Independence Act, but apparently s. 7(2) has the
following to say:
"The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to
the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words "Indian
Imperator" and the words "Emperor of India" and to the issue by His
Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal
of the Realm."
I should note that I obtained the above text from a site maintained by
a regional secessionist movement, so the obvious caveats apply;
however, it does appear to be a faithful copy of the act (although I
don't know what "Indian Imperator" is really supposed to be).

Francois R. Velde...

A typo for "Indiae Imperator" (the style was modified in Latin and in English).

frederick...

Right, I had wondered that; but wasn't sure as I don't know the Latin
versions of the titles. But I wouldn't have put money on it either
way, given the nature of my source!

Here's the full text of the proclamation that was made in 1948:

==TEXT BEGINS==
BY THE KING

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas at the time of the coming into force of
the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Our Style and
Titles were, in the Latin tongue, "Georgius VI
Dei Gratia Magnae Britanniae, Hiberniae et
terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt
Britannica Rex, Fidei Defensor, Indiae Imperator",
and in the English tongue, "George VI by the
Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender
of the Faith, Emperor of India":

We have thought fit, and do hereby appoint and
declare, that, so far as conveniently may be, on
all occasions and in all instruments wherein Our
Style and Titles are used, in the Latin tongue, the
words "Indiae Imperator", and, in the English
tongue, the words "Emperor of India" shall be
omitted.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this
Twenty-second day of June, in the year of our
Lord One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight,
and in the Twelfth year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE KING.
==TEXT ENDS==

The proclamation was published in the London Gazette of 22/06/1948.
[issue no. 38330, page no. 3647]

frederick...

I've just found the text of the proclamation on Francois Velde's site:

It's noted as an Order in Council in the menu at the top of the page,
but I believe that strictly that term only applies to the formal
approval of the text of the draft proclamation, rather than the
mechanism for promulgating it; however, I don't know the ins and outs
of the procedures for such things, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding a
technicality.

Francois R. Velde...

"The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the
omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words "Indian Imperator" and
the words "Emperor of India" and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose
of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm."

The proclamation issued for that purpose on June 22, 1948 is here: