what about Ancient Rome? There were hundreds of small allied kingdoms whose rulers kept their titles but paid tribute to Rome. One of the Emporers funerals could have been attended by many many kings.
Don’t know about Russia but my native Philippines has at least two Sultanates. Peninsular Malaysia has nine, while Indonesia --I’m too lazy to count. Sultan - Wikipedia
And you won’t share your far superior knowledge on the subject?
Sure. The princely states were (largely) independent kingdoms, and their relationship with the British Raj (or the UK) was mostly governed through treaty. The majority of princely states had full autonomy within their borders (although many of them did voluntarily contract with the British Raj to provide basic governmental services); typically the British only handled international relations/international trade and took a yearly payment/tax from the kingdom. The British called this relationship “paramountcy”.
After India and Pakistan were given independence, British paramountcy lapsed, and India and Pakistan had to go negotiate with each and every single princely state in order to annex them (and when negotiations failed, India and Pakistan annexed by force). If the kingdoms were not independent, the British could have simply transferred paramountcy to the newly created countries of India and Pakistan.
If may be fair to characterize the relationship as the British having suzerainty over the Indian kingdoms. But you claimed that the kingdoms were not autonomous, which is utter nonsense. As I said, if you’re going to make definitive claims about a topic, do some basic research first. :rolleyes:
As for whether or not the kings accepted the British king as an “overlord,” they may have, they may not have. It’s not necessary to accept the British monarch as an overlord just to sign a treaty with the UK. How about you define what you mean by “overlord” and then provide some evidence that the majority of these kings did indeed fall under the category you claim. And then explain why the Indonesian sultans count under your bizarre definition, but the Indian kings don’t.
Ok, good. My understanding was that the British Raj at its height directly ruled at least two thirds of the states. Quite simply you cannot call yourself a sovereign ruler if you have that. And George V of England wasn’t the first. You have some maharajahs and nawabs in the past attaining what can be described as “imperial” status like the Guptas and the Muslim Mughals.
Wiki says the various sultanates in southeast Asia became autonomous with the decline of imperial Muslim houses like the Srivijaya and Majapahit.
How is it that the “400 kings and sultans from different parts of Indonesia” should “count” but the 500+ maharajahs and so forth from the British Raj don’t? The Indonesian kings and sultans are clearly not “autonomous”, given that their “kingdoms” are part of the sovereign state of Indonesia.
What do you mean by “states” here? There was a portion of the Raj directly ruled by the British, and that was divided into various states (or presidencies or provinces or whichever term you want to use) for administrative purposes. But the majority of the princely states were not directly ruled by the British, in the sense that the British were supposedly limited by treaty as to what they could do within a princely kingdom.
The princely states were certainly sovereign under British law/treaty. Sovereignty is different concept than autonomy, though.
What? The Gupta empire ended a thousand years before the British showed up. What does that have to do with the British Raj? And the Mughal empire was disbanded by the British, so it’s not relevant to what I’m talking about either. Your statement is incoherent.
Srivijaya fell apart 700 years ago, and Majapahit fell apart almost 500 years ago. You gave us an example from 2013.
I really, really didn’t want to start a definitions war. I know (and said going in) that the exact meaning is going to be impossible.
I like the word “suzerainty” as a kind of boundary condition: a kingdom over which an empire has suzerainty can still claim some kind of autonomy. A region directly ruled by the empire can’t. It isn’t quite as simple as “Whom do the troops salute?” or “Who gets to name the military officers,” but that gets close to the heart of the issue. If the local king appoints army commanders, he’s a lot closer to “kingly” than if he doesn’t, in which case he looks sort of satrap-ish.
There are probably a million shades of grey in between. Can we use my rough-and-ready definition, that if a large majority (2/3?) of the people at the conclave would, in fact, recognize a specific individual as a “king,” then he is a king? i.e., if a whole bunch of maharajahs are all acknowledging each other, then it doesn’t matter (as much) what the Imperial Governor says. But if half of 'em sneer down the other half (“That little postage-stamp despot! He isn’t fit to sit at the same table!”) then the guy isn’t a “king.”
The new British King, at the funeral of Queen Victoria, may have held Kaiser Wilhelm in low esteem, but he did acknowledge that he was the Hohenzollern monarch. Everybody held their noses…but they also bowed.
For my part, it seems I am wrong with regard to the Maharajas, especially after the 1947 independence. Hard to say what makes a king, doesn’t it? I’m reminded of what Tolkien wrote in Silmarillon, “A king is he that can hold his own or else his title is vain.”
Monarchy itself its a pretty convoluted topic. If someone doesn’t want to include Indian monarchs in their personal definition, it’s not that big a deal to me. You could spend years trying to delineate the relationship between the ruling monarch, the crown, the UK and various dependencies or territories at different points in history.
Myself, I would probably use sovereignty as my boundary point. And I would define sovereignty as an independent authority for a government to create and enforce laws. Under that definition, I would consider most princely states to be sovereign (and the British certainly did consider most princely states to have this kind of sovereignty).
No worries. After doing some research, it appears that Malaysia has several states with hereditary monarchies, and these monarchs, in turn, elect a federal monarch periodically.
As far as I can tell, Indonesia has one territory with a hereditary governorship, and this governor descends from a royal line, so I suppose one could say that Indonesia has at least one monarch.
As far as I can tell, the Philippines has no official monarchs. I do vaguely recall reading about a few Sultanates which claim they never ceded control to either the British or the Spanish (maybe the Sulu Sultanate?), but my googling is failing me again, and I don’t think these claims are recognized by any government.
On a general note, many people socially will still refer to deposed monarchs (or their descendants) with their royal titles. And, in some areas of the world, traditional monarchs can wield defacto power in parallel with the official government–I’ve read this happens in parts of West Africa, but African monarchs are not anything I have any expertise in.
^
Need to brush up myself on that so I can’t guaranty factuals at the moment. Among those I heard were the fact that the World Court seemed to side with the Sultan of Sulu, who is Filipino. One accusation is that the contract (or the word itself) was changed from “lease” to “cede.”
In looking into a bit further, it looks like the Sulu Sultanate ceded all its territory to the Spain at one point, and so the claim to North Borneo passed to Spain, then to the US and then to the Philippines. So, it doesn’t look like the Sulu Sultanate actually has any existing claims to territory.
So, I wouldn’t consider the Sulu Sultanate a monarchy under any of the definitions that have been advanced in this thread.