What's the difference between emperor and king？

[v0031]

 What's the difference between emperor and king？

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Emperor is the monarch of an empire.

King is the monarch of a kingdom.

[Damocles]

Emperor also typically implies that the sovereign’s realm includes colonies. For example, Queen Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as Empress of India.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Emperor also typically implies that the sovereign’s realm includes colonies. For example, Queen Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as Empress of India.

Not necessarily colonies, but yes, typically a kingdom was generally considered to be one unified realm, while an empire was comprised of multiple realms. If it weren't for the desire to eliminate local parliaments, leading to the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, Victoria probably would have been styled Empress of the British Isles, Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, even before adding Empress of India to her styles.

Also, in the pre-Napoleonic European tradition, besides an emperor outranking a mere king, a king had only secular authority, but an emperor also had some degree of religious authority, which is why before Napoleon the only European emperor was the Holy Roman Emperor.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Emperor also typically implies that the sovereign’s realm includes colonies. For example, Queen Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as Empress of India.

Not necessarily colonies, but yes, typically a kingdom was generally considered to be one unified realm, while an empire was comprised of multiple realms. If it weren't for the desire to eliminate local parliaments, leading to the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, Victoria probably would have been styled Empress of the British Isles, Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, even before adding Empress of India to her styles.

Also, in the pre-Napoleonic European tradition, besides an emperor outranking a mere king, a king had only secular authority, but an emperor also had some degree of religious authority, which is why before Napoleon the only European emperor was the Holy Roman Emperor.

*the only Western European emperor. Obviously there were Orthodox emperors as well.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Also, in the pre-Napoleonic European tradition, besides an emperor outranking a mere king, a king had only secular authority, but an emperor also had some degree of religious authority, which is why before Napoleon the only European emperor was the Holy Roman Emperor.

More specifically, in medieval Europe a king had to be coronated by the Pope himself in order to receive an "upgrade" to Emperor. Because the Pope was considered the highest-ranking spiritual representative of God on Earth, while the Emperor was the highest-ranking secular representative of God on Earth. Just like with the Pope, there was supposed to be only one Emperor at any given time. In addition, the Emperor was considered the direct successor to the ancient Roman emperors, hence the title "Holy Roman Emperor".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Emperor also typically implies that the sovereign’s realm includes colonies. For example, Queen Victoria was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as Empress of India.

Not necessarily colonies, but yes, typically a kingdom was generally considered to be one unified realm, while an empire was comprised of multiple realms. If it weren't for the desire to eliminate local parliaments, leading to the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, Victoria probably would have been styled Empress of the British Isles, Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, even before adding Empress of India to her styles.

Also, in the pre-Napoleonic European tradition, besides an emperor outranking a mere king, a king had only secular authority, but an emperor also had some degree of religious authority, which is why before Napoleon the only European emperor was the Holy Roman Emperor.

*the only Western European emperor. Obviously there were Orthodox emperors as well.

Those heretics clearly don't matter. Otherwise why would the infidel Mussulmans have been able to conquer Jerusalem and the Second Rome?   

[Motorcity]

History teacher here

King/Queen rules a unified homogeneous place. The people in the British isles are lumped together as one people. Queen Victoria was a empress because she ruled multiple places of multiple people

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

History teacher here

King/Queen rules a unified homogeneous place. The people in the British isles are lumped together as one people. Queen Victoria was a empress because she ruled multiple places of multiple people

I think the Scots and Irish would disagree with that assessment.

[Geoffrey Howe]

History teacher here

King/Queen rules a unified homogeneous place. The people in the British isles are lumped together as one people. Queen Victoria was a empress because she ruled multiple places of multiple people

I think the Scots and Irish would disagree with that assessment.

I think they would have agreed with that assessment (and disliked it)

[Red Velvet]

Honestly, I never understood the difference.

Studying the Colonial era and the Independence of Brazil, Portuguese leaders were referred as the Portuguese kings, while post-independence the Brazilian Empire started and the leaders of the country were called Emperors (not kings).

But I don’t really know what makes a place a Kingdom (in Portugal’s case during colonial times) or an Empire (Brazil between 1822-1889). In practice they sound like the same thing, working in the same way.

The difference is only regarding expansionism (If you govern only your people = Kingdom, govern other places = Empire). But that never made sense to me because then UK isn’t really a Kingdom like people talk, it’s an Empire. Same thing with all these European monarchies which expanded through colonialism in the sea exploration period.

In Brazil case it made sense to be called Empire because well, most of the people who lived here and were ethnically entitled to be the “Real Brazilians” had been murdered in the centuries prior, the Indigenous. So both the people being governed and the monarchy had no place of calling itself a “Kingdom” in a land so ethnically diverse post-colonial years. Even if they happened to be born here and be Brazilian for all effects.

Calling itself an empire was also strategy of showing Portugal there wouldn’t be any continuity to their kingdom government. That’s why to me it sounds like people just randomly choose the terms and “king” and “emperor” are in practice interchangeable terms.

[Хahar 🤔]

king: 王
emperor: 皇帝

[Mr. Smith]

Honestly, I never understood the difference.

Studying the Colonial era and the Independence of Brazil, Portuguese leaders were referred as the Portuguese kings, while post-independence the Brazilian Empire started and the leaders of the country were called Emperors (not kings).

But I don’t really know what makes a place a Kingdom (in Portugal’s case during colonial times) or an Empire (Brazil between 1822-1889). In practice they sound like the same thing, working in the same way.

The difference is only regarding expansionism (If you govern only your people = Kingdom, govern other places = Empire). But that never made sense to me because then UK isn’t really a Kingdom like people talk, it’s an Empire. Same thing with all these European monarchies which expanded through colonialism in the sea exploration period.

In Brazil case it made sense to be called Empire because well, most of the people who lived here and were ethnically entitled to be the “Real Brazilians” had been murdered in the centuries prior, the Indigenous. So both the people being governed and the monarchy had no place of calling itself a “Kingdom” in a land so ethnically diverse post-colonial years. Even if they happened to be born here and be Brazilian for all effects.

Calling itself an empire was also strategy of showing Portugal there wouldn’t be any continuity to their kingdom government. That’s why to me it sounds like people just randomly choose the terms and “king” and “emperor” are in practice interchangeable terms.

Would you say this for the Portuguese words too?

[Red Velvet]

Honestly, I never understood the difference.

Studying the Colonial era and the Independence of Brazil, Portuguese leaders were referred as the Portuguese kings, while post-independence the Brazilian Empire started and the leaders of the country were called Emperors (not kings).

But I don’t really know what makes a place a Kingdom (in Portugal’s case during colonial times) or an Empire (Brazil between 1822-1889). In practice they sound like the same thing, working in the same way.

The difference is only regarding expansionism (If you govern only your people = Kingdom, govern other places = Empire). But that never made sense to me because then UK isn’t really a Kingdom like people talk, it’s an Empire. Same thing with all these European monarchies which expanded through colonialism in the sea exploration period.

In Brazil case it made sense to be called Empire because well, most of the people who lived here and were ethnically entitled to be the “Real Brazilians” had been murdered in the centuries prior, the Indigenous. So both the people being governed and the monarchy had no place of calling itself a “Kingdom” in a land so ethnically diverse post-colonial years. Even if they happened to be born here and be Brazilian for all effects.

Calling itself an empire was also strategy of showing Portugal there wouldn’t be any continuity to their kingdom government. That’s why to me it sounds like people just randomly choose the terms and “king” and “emperor” are in practice interchangeable terms.

Would you say this for the Portuguese words too?

Pretty much. King = Rei, Emperor = Imperador.

I feel like people here use it in an interchangeable manner when talking about 1800s Brazil (Pedro II is often called a king even though officially he was an emperor according to books).

However, I think Emperor is perceived in a more negative way than King because it passes the idea of someone who invades other places. Which is why people just tend to use King for almost everything, in order to not offend. I guess that’s probably why western monarchies are almost never called empires.

[Lechasseur]

Emperors will sometimes rule over kings, for example the German Empire (the German Emperor being the overlord of the King of Bavaria)