...or an empress and a queen? Is it just a different title? For exemple, Victoria was known as Queen of England, but as Empress of India---why not Queen of India?
2007-03-31 18:10:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
If heredity is the case for kings but not of emperors, then what about the emperor of Japan who got his position because of birth.
If it's a case of "size does matter" (i.e. an emperor sounds grander like he rules over an larger area), then why historically did England and France (except for Napoleon) have kings and queens that ruled over EMPIRES, which definitely covered vast areas
2007-04-02 19:12:54 · update #1
The difference between an emperor and a king is that an emperor rules over an empire and a king rules over a kingdom. But these are just titles: there is no functional difference between an empire and a kingdom.
In the Roman Empire the emperor had both a high priest role and a kingly role. Thus, many throughout history have distinguished emperors from kings on the ground that emperors have a religious function whereas kings do not. King Henry VIII of England said he was an emperor in the sixteenth century because he rejected the authority of the Pope and called himself Head of the Church of England. But Henry VIII and his successors never officially changed their title to "emperor." Nor did other emperors always have a religious role. The Holy Roman Emperor, for example, had no religious authority.
When Queen Victoria became "Empress of India," she took a manufactured title. She was not an empress because she was queen of many kingdoms. She was only Empress of India. In fact, the primary reason that India became an "empire" was because Victoria's daughter married the German Emperor, and Victoria did not want her daughter to have a title which she lacked.
2007-04-01 14:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by benjaminsbaum 2 · 10⤊ 0⤋
King Emperor
2016-12-31 07:15:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
India was much, much larger than the United Kingdom (Victoria was queen of the UK, not just England). 'Queen' was not a big enough title for India. Similarly China had an emperor, and the king of Prussia became Emperor of Germany when the small German states merged to form one big country in 1871. An empire, whether geographically contiguous or not, is generally larger than a kingdom.
One instance where it was simply a meaningless change of title was when King Kojong of Korea declared himself Emperor of Korea around the 1890s. He had not added any new territory to Korea, unlike Wilhelm I of Germany, but hoped that puffing himself up as an emperor would discourage the Japanese from invading. He was wrong.
2007-03-31 21:20:15 · answer #3 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Emperor= Empire
King= Kingdom or Individual nation
2007-04-01 02:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Traditionally, an emperor ruled over an empire (duh), which could have multiple kingdoms within it. So you could be Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and if, say, Prussia was part of the empire then the King of Prussia would be subserviant to you.
In the case of the Victoria (and her successors) and India, the British colonial government let many of the local monarchs keep their titles and rule over their region at the cost of paying tributes to London. Since Vicky was therefore superior to other monarchs, she was given the title of Empress.
Nowadays, there's really no difference. The only world leader with the title of Emperor is Akihito of Japan, and like most kings (and some princes, shahs, and folks with "lesser" titles) only oversees a single country.
2007-04-01 12:14:04 · answer #5 · answered by JerH1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Answer depends on what region of the world in question.
Essentially main difference is that a "king" cannot be a king over other kings; an emperor can.
An emperor rules over a territory which can be comprised of many kingdoms.
In Europe only the "Holy Roman Emperor" could call himself emperor, going back through the first Holy Roman Emperor - Charlemagne - to the Roman Emperors.
This is the reason that Napolean insisted in the early 19th century that the last Holy Roman Emperor based in Vienna rescind the title, enabling Napoleon to crown himself Emperor.
In ancient Rome "Imperator" did not mean emperor in our sense. It was simply a person who had been given the power of command - called "Imperator" in Latin, usually a general, and that only for a specific purpose and time, for example over an certain army to command them in a particular command.
2007-04-01 09:49:05 · answer #6 · answered by Bibs 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
What's the difference between an emperor and a king?
...or an empress and a queen? Is it just a different title? For exemple, Victoria was known as Queen of England, but as Empress of India---why not Queen of India?
2015-08-18 08:59:03 · answer #7 · answered by Josphine 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A King/Queen is usually the ruler or Head of State of a Kingdom. An Emperor/Empress is the ruler or Head of State of an Empire.
2016-03-19 03:01:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Emperors have empires, meaning more than one nation under them. The nations of an empire are united under the ruler.
Kings have a kingdom. But they may be a king over more than one kingdom.
Queen Victoria was Queen of England, her kingdom; at the same time she "ruled" India which belonged to England, but wasn't a kingdom.
I believe the status of the kingdom, ruled by a king or queen, is higher than the status of lands belonging and ruled by the Empire. India was bigger than England, even all of the British Isles, but of less stature internationally.
2007-03-31 22:33:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
King: a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially : one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life
Emperor: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire
See the difference?
2007-03-31 18:16:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋