England's "imperial crown"

At some point in its history, England started to use the expression
"Imperial Crown". I have a dim recollection of reading somewhere that

Hovite...

Some Kings of France and Germany styled themselves Emperor, and a few
English kings did the same.

In a charter dated 798, Coenwulf called himself "rector et imperator
Merciorum regni".

this usage had been introduced by an Act of Parliament around the time
of the Reformation, and it certainly appears in Acts from the reign of
Henry VIII onwards.

François R. Velde...

See Blackstone 1.7 :
His [the king's] realm is declared to be an empire, and his crown imperial, by
many acts of parliament, particularly the statutes 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. and 25
Hen. VIII. c. 28; which at the same time declare the king to be the supreme head
of the realm in matters both civil and ecclesiastical, and of consequence
inferior to no man upon earth, dependent no on man, accountable to no man.
Formerly there prevailed a ridiculous notion, propagated by the German and
Italian civilians, than an emperor could do many things which a king could not,
(as the creation of notaries and the like) and that all kings were in some
degree subordinate and subject to the emperor of Germany or Rome. The meaning
therefore of the legislature, when it uses these terms of empire and imperial,
and applies them to the realm of England, is only to assert that our king is
equally sovereign and independent within these his dominions, as any emperor is
in his empire; and owes no king of subjection to any other potentate upon earth.

The concept of "rex imperator in suo regno" goes back to the 13th c., and had
become commonplace by the mid-13th c. among French and English jurists, as a way
to reconcile the role of the emperor in Roman law with the political reality of
current times. The phrase "imperial crown" conveys this meaning, but its
appearance in the Act of Appeals (24 Hen VIII c. 12) marks a serious departure
from previous usage, since it transfers it from the temporal to the spiritual
realm.

The phrase appears in various official documents over the years, such
as the Royal Proclamation of January 1, 1801, that is most famous for
seeing the disappearance of the title "King of France". It was
certainly still in use in the mid-nineteenth century; the Treason
Felony Act 1848 uses it, for instance, when referring to Queen Victoria:

"[...] if any Person whatsoever after the passing of this Act shall,
within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise,
or intend to deprive or depose our most Gracious Lady the Queen, Her
Heirs or Successors, from the Style, Honour, or Royal Name of the
Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of Her Majesty's
Dominions and Countries [...]"

Note that this example dates some three decades before the title
"Empress of India" was created. Indeed, the Act of Parliament that
enabled the latter title to be adopted refers to "the Imperial Crown of
the United Kingdom and its Dependencies", which would appear to be a
continuation of the earlier practice rather than anything to do with
the new title itself.

The 1901 Act that enabled the wording "and of the British Dominions
beyond the Seas" to be added to the royal style and titles also refers
to the "Imperial Crown", but of course by now it's entirely uncertain
whether this is because of the explicit use of an imperial title, or is
a continuation of past practice.

The 1927 Act and associated Royal Proclamation see the word "Crown"
being used without further qualification. It seems highly improbable
that this was due to an oversight; the previous decade had seen all
other Empires fall except that of Japan's, but presumably the conscious
reason for the change was as some form of reflection of the shifting
emphasis from "Empire" to "Commonwealth".

François Velde's Heraldica site makes an interesting observation
regarding the various English (and then British) accession
proclamations from the sixteenth century onwards, that "[the] crown is
called "imperial" in every proclamation except, curiously, that of
1952". The change for Elizabeth II can easily be explained, since
George VI had abandoned the use of the title "Emperor of India" only
four years earlier. It would appear that the association of the word
"imperial" with India had become so strong, however, that when the
latter was lost to history, so was the former.

Given that the expression "Imperial Crown" predates the adoption of the
Indian title by over three centuries, there is clearly no reason to
assume that the United Kingdom still does not have an "Imperial Crown",
no matter how anachronistic that might be in reality!

Selected online references:

"Selected Documents of English Constitutional History", reproduced at:

"The London Gazette" [various dates]

Texts of the various accession proclamations for English and British
monarchs at the Heraldica website:

CJ Buyers...

Ever since her coronation, HM has opened parliament wearing an Imperial
crown (ascending arches), instead of a Royal crown (dipped arches).
Consequently, it seems fairly obvious that the UK remains an Imperial
realm. That the Order of the British Empire and the Imperial Service
Medal continue to be awarded, suggests much the same.