Thread:Djamboe/@comment-26250681-20180331134927/@comment-24808887-20180405212705

It is wrong - for particular reasons:


 * Ruling over Kings is not nesecery requrement for Emperor, even if Empire conqurered someone there is need to be accounted that if King was not murdered then and if he was not forced to resign as King afterwards.  That's too much IF here. Emperor not defined by ruling Kings heck even last real world Emperor of Japan has no Kings(Shoguns) under him now.


 * Your argument about Weasels only counts if Kings of coutries conquered by them retained their title and pledged loyalty to Weasel emperor. There is no known cases.


 * Anything that author ignored is not up to us decide of how it is. It's unknow 'till author clarifies.


 * From all what we saw in novel titles Emperor and King are mutually exclusive if coutry has King there is no Emperor and otherway around(at least atm) what we see is that both titles refer to same role - absolute monarch of country.

With mentioned points making Emperor>King instead of Emperor/King both wrong logically and factually. We do not know Kings under Emperors and considering every known noble King is absolute sovereign monarch with bow to no one,  they cannot be counted under Emperor.

All nobles in county  bow to absolute monarch which from what shown in Novel is Emperor XOR King. There may be cases of Kings pledging to Emeperor or may not, and even then these cases should be noted only when they appear, and still these will be two different types of Kings.