"ملف ٥/٤ دولة الكويت: شيخ الكويت، مكانته وطرق تحيته" [و‎‎٨‎٧] (٣٧٠/١٧٣)

n
2*
addressing the present Rulers of both these Arab
Principalities*
It. is implicit in ‘>ir Andrew Ryan's suggestion, as
made, that the proposed new style of address will emphasise
the independent sovereignty of the two Rulers* But the
Government of India, while on general grounds they support
this recommendation, as endorsed by the Political Resident,
must make it clear that in so doing they are actuated rather
by the consideration that the new style of address, so far
from emphasising the independence of these Shaikhs, will in
fact tend to bring them more into line with Ruling Chiefs
in India who are under the suzerainty of the Crown. They
have also iiimind that the Shaikhs of Bahrain and Kuwait, beirg
juridically independent sovereigns in special treaty
relations with His Majesty's Government and the Government
of India, might, should they so desire, take to themselves
the title of His Majesty on the lines adopted by King Ibn
Saud. Such a claim can perhaps be most easily
forestalled by adoption of the present proposal. But it
should be understood that this proposal, while it will no
doubt enhance the position of the Shaikhs both in the
eyes of their subjects and of all other Rulers in Arabia, is
in reality not one to confer on them a new title, but
merely to address them as 'His Highness' instead of 'His
Excellency' as a style more appropriate to their positions.
4* It may be objected that the use of the title 'His
Highness' will encourage a demand on the part of the Trucial
Coast Rulers and in particular from the Shaikh of Qatar for a
similar dignity. Tofthis the Government of India would
reply that none of the Trucial Shaikhs are entitled to a gun
salute which under the orders of 1925 would carry with it
the title of 'His Highness*, while in local estimation no
one of them, even including the Shaikh of Qatar, can be said
to/