History is usually a neat collection of dates and names. But sometimes, it gets weird. If you go looking for the "Last Emperor of Scotland," you’re going to find a strange mix of brutal dictators, forgotten kings, and a whole lot of people who were just flat-out confused.
Let's clear one thing up immediately. Technically, there has never been an "Emperor" of Scotland. At least, not in the way you'd think of a Roman Emperor or a Napoleon. Scotland had kings and queens. It had clan chiefs and high stewards. But "Emperor"? That’s a title that mostly exists in the realm of ego and cinema.
The Idi Amin Connection
When most people search for the last emperor of scotland, they aren't looking for a 17th-century royal. They’re thinking of Idi Amin.
Amin was the military dictator of Uganda in the 1970s. He was a man of immense charisma and terrifying violence. He also had a bizarre obsession with Scotland. He famously declared himself the "Last King of Scotland," a title that eventually became the name of an award-winning book by Giles Foden and an Oscar-winning movie starring Forest Whitaker.
Why Scotland? Amin grew up under British colonial rule. He served in the King’s African Rifles and was surrounded by Scottish officers. He loved the kilts, the pipes, and the perceived toughness of the Scots. In his mind, the Scots were a fellow oppressed people, struggling under the thumb of the English—just like Ugandans.
He didn't just stop at "King." He gave himself a string of titles that sounded like they were pulled from a fantasy novel: "Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas" and "Conqueror of the British Empire." It was theatrical. It was also a way to poke the eye of the British establishment.
But obviously, he never stepped foot in Holyrood Palace as a ruler. He was a "King of Scotland" in the same way I'm the "Grand Duke of My Living Room."
🔗 Read more: Monroe Central High School Ohio: What Local Families Actually Need to Know
Who Was the Last Actual Sovereign?
If we're being historically accurate, the conversation changes. We have to talk about the Acts of Union in 1707.
Before 1707, Scotland was a fully independent kingdom. It had its own Parliament and its own crown. The last person to hold the title of Queen of Scotland as a separate entity was Queen Anne.
Once the Acts of Union passed, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England ceased to exist as separate sovereign states. They merged into the Kingdom of Great Britain. Anne went from being the Queen of two separate places to being the Queen of one unified country.
The Last King Crowned in Scotland
There is another way to look at this. Who was the last person to actually have a Scottish coronation?
That would be Charles II.
The year was 1651. The English had already chopped off his father's head. Oliver Cromwell was running things in London. Charles II fled north, and on January 1st, 1651, he was crowned at Scone. It was a rushed, somewhat awkward ceremony. The Scottish Covenanters made him swear to all sorts of religious oaths he didn't really believe in.
💡 You might also like: What Does a Stoner Mean? Why the Answer Is Changing in 2026
It was the last time the "Stone of Destiny" was used for a purely Scottish coronation. After the monarchy was restored in 1660, Charles moved back to London. He never came back to Scotland. He actually kind of hated his time there, remembering it as a period of boring sermons and strict religious rules.
The "Empire" Misconception
So, where does the "Emperor" bit come from?
Sometimes, historians talk about the "British Empire" and assume every constituent part had an imperial title. In reality, the only British monarch to officially use the title "Empress" or "Emperor" was Queen Victoria and her successors—and that was specifically as Empress of India.
They were Kings and Queens in the UK. They were Emperors in Delhi.
There's also a tiny bit of linguistic trivia. James VI of Scotland (who became James I of England) loved the idea of a unified "Empire of Great Britain." He used the term "Imperial" in his writing to describe his sovereign power. He wanted to show that he wasn't subordinate to the Pope or any other European power.
But he was never "Emperor of Scotland." He was just a guy with two crowns and a very high opinion of himself.
📖 Related: Am I Gay Buzzfeed Quizzes and the Quest for Identity Online
Why the Title Still Fascinates Us
Honestly, I think the "last emperor" idea sticks because we love the "what if" of history.
- What if Scotland had never joined the Union?
- What if the Jacobites had won at Culloden in 1746?
- What if a rogue dictator like Amin actually was related to Scottish royalty? (He wasn't, obviously).
The title feels heavy. It feels ancient. It suggests a version of Scotland that is grand, isolated, and powerful.
Putting the Legend to Rest
If you're writing a paper or just trying to win a pub quiz, here is the breakdown you need:
- Idi Amin called himself the "Last King of Scotland," but it was purely symbolic and part of his anti-colonial theater.
- Queen Anne was the last reigning monarch of an independent Kingdom of Scotland before the 1707 Union.
- Charles II was the last monarch to have a traditional Scottish coronation at Scone in 1651.
- There has never been an official "Emperor of Scotland."
History is messy. Titles are often more about PR than they are about actual law. Whether it’s a Stuart king trying to hold onto his head or a Ugandan dictator trying to reinvent his image, the "Last Emperor" is a ghost story we tell to make the past feel more dramatic.
If you want to dive deeper into the real grit of Scottish history, look into the Jacobite Risings. That’s where the real drama—the actual fights for the crown—took place. You won't find many emperors there, but you'll find enough betrayal and warfare to last a lifetime.