JMcMillan wrote: Chris Green wrote:
Empress/emperor is generally regarded as a higher title than queen/king, yet Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI were normally referred to within the UK by the lower title.
They were Emperors/Empress of India. But although we speak of the British Empire, no-one was ever Emperor/Empress of the whole. Queen Victoria's titles from the date she became Empress of India were: "Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India".
Exactly my point. If, as Ryan asserted, "a person is known by their highest title, no matter where they are," then Victoria would have been referred to as empress rather than queen, no matter where she was. But she wasn't, just as the Duke of Wellington is not known in England or most other places as Prins van Waterloo.
Here is what I actually asserted, emphasis added:
Ryan Shuflin wrote:Traditionally, a person is known by their highest title, no matter where they are. There are exceptions
Ton de Witte wrote:not even in the Netherlands, overhere he is usually refered to as: de Hertog (Duke) van Wellington. In the Dutch nobility the title prince outranks a duke.
I believe very few people are actually referred to by different names based on location, especially in common usage. For example: I believe Irish Peers who also hold a lower title that allows them to sit in the House of Lords, are known by their Irish title in England in social situations, but are summoned to the House of Lords by the title that allows them to sit there.