https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ib2iuz/why_didnt_the_british_monarchy_use_colonial/
created by lachlanf82859 on 27/01/2025 at 07:24 UTC
63 upvotes, 1 top-level comments (showing 1)
Hi all,
I was reading Tristram Hunt’s book “Ten cities which made an Empire”, (a great read so far which I would definitely recommend), and I came upon an interesting point in his chapter on Hong Kong. Hunt notes that Victoria had written to the Prime Minister in 1842 on matters relating to the colony, and mentioned that Albert was thinking of making Princess Victoria, Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter, “Princess of Hong Kong”, as a royal title.
This got me thinking, why didn’t the British Monarchy use colonial cities, possessions and territories in their titles? There are Princes of Wales, Dukes of Edinburgh, but why not an Earl of Australia, Duke of Aden, Viscount of Barbados, etc.
I know of course that Victoria was made Empress of India, and certain notable aristocratic figures earned titles of places where they made their name (Clive of India, Mountbatten of Burma, Wolfe of Quebec, etc.), so what was the differentiating principles between these examples and the royal family?
Thanks!
Comment by AutoModerator at 27/01/2025 at 07:24 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules[1] before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed[2].
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension[5], or getting the Weekly Roundup[6]. In the meantime our Bluesky[7], and Sunday Digest[8] feature excellent content that has already been written!
7: https://bsky.app/profile/askhistorians.bsky.social