Kings Can Rule Empires

There are some people who laugh at Paolini and many other fantasy authors for making "kings" rule "empires". They say that kings rule kingdoms, and emperors rule empires. However, this is not always the case. So shut up about it.

We know that the Roman Empire was ruled by emperors, right? Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, they were all emperors. Although... British Empire, anyone?

King Charles II, King George III, Queen Victoria (although she was also dubbed Empress of India) all ruled the British Empire.

However, the real problem with the "kings who rule empires" idea and the reason I still laugh at Paolini, is that most of the time, these "empires" are not empires.

"em·pire

n.

A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."

So if your world is divided into multiple countries, and one decides to go conquer some of the others, the resulting land would be an empire, though the ruler might keep the title of "King" for tradition's sake. After all, he's the king, and while kings may not have absolute power in your world, I'm pretty sure people will let him stay as "King Whatever", especially if they like the sound of "King Whatever" instead of "Emperor Whatever".

Galbatorix does not rule an empire. Alagaesia was all under one banner when the Riders were there. When Galbatorix usurped the throne, his domain was actually smaller than before, since Surda seceded, and he could not extend his reach over the Hadarac Desert. He did no conquering, therefore, not an empire.

Also, empires need not be evil.

Just something I had to get out.