News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Was further unification planned?

Started by Pabitra, August 24, 2022, 06:38:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pabitra

East India Company established 3 presidencies and started issuing coins in 1790s.
The coinage was unified in 1835.
Subsequently more territories came under British control.
This pattern was appears to have been designed in 1904.
Is it a genuine pattern?
Was a more unified currency planned for "Indian Empire"?
What were the territories planned to be included?


Mister T

I believe it's a genuine pattern - I think it was in the Stevens and Weir book.

Pabitra

Thanks.
Any document links for planned territories to be included?
Why was the unification dropped?

FosseWay

I'm not sure that the phrase "Indian Empire" implies any change in the political makeup of British India. The kings/queens of Britain were called "Emperor/Empress of India" already, including on the coinage.

I suspect that "Indian Empire" here is directly synonymous with "India" as it appears on all other 1862-1947 coinage. The choice to use "Indian Empire" here may just be because it fills the available space better than "India" on its own does.

Figleaf

I agree with FosseWay. Also, keep in mind that in the region, only Birma used quarter annas. Any expansion into the Himalayan countries would have led to consequences for the relation with China, where Britain was vying for influence with France, Russia and other colonial powers. The cost of such an expansion would have far outweighed the benefits. No plot.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Pabitra

I am still working on it but I have reasons to believe that name "Indian Empire" could include Ceylon, Afghanistan, Burma and some more British owned territories like Malaysia, Straits, Singapore ( and Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles etc) .
After all Edward VII had tendencies of grandeur like events.

The first unification was in 1835 when Bengal, Bombay and Madras Presidencies of East India company were combined to form India and Rupee was the new currency. Madras Preseidency used Pagoda and Cash as currency till then.

FosseWay

Quote from: Pabitra on August 29, 2022, 07:01:35 PMI am still working on it but I have reasons to believe that name "Indian Empire" could include Ceylon, Afghanistan, Burma and some more British owned territories like Malaysia, Straits, Singapore ( and Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles etc) .
After all Edward VII had tendencies of grandeur like events.
The Maldives and Afghanistan were never British colonies.

Edward VII (and the other British monarchs who bore the title Emperor/Empress of India) may or may not have had a liking for grandiose events and plans, but the precise administration of the colonies will have been decided by the British government and its civil servants, not the king. Edward had little more practical power than the current Queen does.

I've never heard of any plans to combine the colonies and territories you mention - it would be interesting to see more information on this. Previously the opposite change had been effected: in the days of EIC rule, the Company governed not only India but also the Straits Settlements and bits of what later became the Federated Malay States. These colonies were then separated into their own entities.

quaziright

Quote from: Pabitra on August 29, 2022, 07:01:35 PMI am still working on it but I have reasons to believe that name "Indian Empire" could include Ceylon, Afghanistan, Burma and some more British owned territories like Malaysia, Straits, Singapore ( and Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles etc) .
After all Edward VII had tendencies of grandeur like events.

The first unification was in 1835 when Bengal, Bombay and Madras Presidencies of East India company were combined to form India and Rupee was the new currency. Madras Preseidency used Pagoda and Cash as currency till then.

Burma was already part of the same British run administration in India, only having been separated in 1937. Could you potentially mean unification of the princely states and the directly run presidencies? As I understand it , at that time, the princely states had their own autonomy as long as they accepted British suzerainty/ protectorate status. Their coins, bills and stamps co-circulated with British Indian currency in their territories. Perhaps this might have been a ploy to introduce a single currency and standardisés denominations across the "Indian empire"

Pabitra

The unification of currency is different from unification of administration. Euro is a current example.

The silver coins of Rupee, minted in steam powered mints of Calcutta and Bombay were accepted as trade coins in all countries around the Indian Ocean, very much like Maria Theresa Thaler was accepted in Europe. This was due to quality of minting.

Ceylon already had decimal system of coinage in early 20th century, so going back to non decimal would have appeared to be retrograde step.

What advantage did Queen Victoria gain by getting renamed as Victoria Empress with effect from 1877? It is the illusion of grandeur. Same was perhaps suggested by courtiers to King ( or Emperor ) Edward, by renaming of India as Indian Empire.

FosseWay

"Indian Empire" was simply what the British called their occupation of India. Victoria was given the title Empress because it fitted with the "Indian Empire" terminology. I doubt the decision had much to do with Victoria herself; it will have been the government, both in London and Delhi, that made the decisions. Use of the empire/empress terminology will of course have been partly driven by the fact that it sounds impressive and grand. I suspect of greater practical consideration was its use as an attempt to paint the British as the successors of the Mughal Empire - an attempt to legitimise, officialise and centralise their rule by appealing to superficially similar setups in the past.

Edward VII's reign was a time of numismatic experimentation and change in India. The new cupro-nickel 1 anna coin was introduced and if I remember right, a number of other innovative patterns were produced that ultimately didn't lead to production coinage. Some of them have different terminology for both India and for the King Emperor from what was ultimately used on the coinage. Edward's portrait on the actual coinage was also crownless.

My verdict is that this is an interesting pattern illustrating what could have been, and showing that some designers of British imperial coinage were exploring going beyond the already overly traditional reliance on heraldry and abstract patterns. Unless someone can come up with documentation regarding possible changes in the underlying political situation, I don't think it's possible to extrapolate such changes from this pattern.

Pabitra

Thanks Fosseway, for great analysis.
I was reading about Queen Victoria.
Her husband visit their son ( Bertie, prince of Wales, their second child but eldest son) and is not happy at his indulgences.
He dies soon thereafter.
Queen goes in to mourning, adopts widow's dress and stops attending the Royal office. She holds her son responsible for death of her husband ( or his father).
He is sent of a long tour from 26th Sept 1875 to 11th May 1876, to see grand empire which he will rule.
He comes back and ensures that parliament renames his mother as Empress.

His vision of grand Empire starts.

I am sure you can link the dates and locate documents.

quaziright

As fosseway mentioned, the king and/or queen even in those times had no political power, let alone the power to deem themselves emperor/empress.

However, there was a timing aspect to it indeed since you had the previous Habsburg HRE and then Austro-Hungarian empire, the newly formed German Empire and the Tsarist Russian Empire. All of these royals were related to the British Royal family, yet Britain, for such an important European player of the time only had a modest King/Queen. It was a national prestige issue to have their monarch sit on equal terms with their European counterparts.

But for the British govt, the conundrum was that they wanted to retain a constitutional monarchy unlike those other European countries. So they reached a happy medium declaring Victoria Empress of India, yet queen of UK. It also fit neatly into their narrative that the British were the successors of the recently deposed Mughal Emperor.

From the diaries of Edward VII, it seems he sympathized with his Indian subjects in the way they were harshly treated. He had more designs on womanizing than grand empire. His son George V however was the mirror-opposite and did enjoy the pomp, so was the only one to attend his own Imperial Durbar

Pabitra

Quote from: quaziright on August 31, 2022, 03:09:07 PMAs fosseway mentioned, the king and/or queen even in those times had no political power, let alone the power to deem themselves emperor/empress.

It was never implied that Queen could deem herself as Empress or Prince of Wales could bestow that title.
It was an act duly passed by the Parliament.
See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Titles_Act_1876
But every act needs to be proposed, navigated through the process of passing and notification. The PM and Queen, as is the practice, had give and take relationship.


Pabitra

Edward VII must have queried on his ascending the throne, that he was emperor indeed but where was the empire. Perhaps parliament did not oblige him by passing any relevant act.

Pabitra

What portion of British Empire would have been named Indian Empire?