The list came from Gary Gygax, specifically the Living Fantasy book from Troll Lord Games. IIRC, This was a base approximation of the Middle Ages model, and I think it's an amalgamation of the ranks based on all the European models, which may have changed in the modern English era. (If you combine English, French, Spanish, German, and Dutch). I have a few others tomes that I will pursue tonight--I think he has language-specific ones.

The general point I was trying to make was that you can't really be a King or Emperor unless your territory is big enough. That's why in history some sovereigns were called Prince, Grand Duke, etc...

that's a painfully hideous generalisation, but I take your point.

It wasn't only about territory... It depends of the "denomination" of your territory and if you have a higher rank above you.
There were kingdoms smaller than some american duchies or things like that.
And I think that to be an emperor you needed to be king of several countries.
But of course, if you're powerful enough (economically, politically, militarly, whatever) and demand to be called emperor probably you'd be an emperor

Yeah, mostly it depends on how many other kingdoms are around you and how they rank. Mostly its a way of sovereigns to rank their peers.

.. I don't know where you're all getting this stuff from...

But you can't put down rules for the titles of rulers or what they call their dominions. It may work in roleplay or in fantasy novels, but it doesn't work in real life.

Swaziland is a Kingdom.
Britain was an Empire.
Wales was a Principate.
Wessex was a Kingdom.
The Holy Roman Empire was (according to Voltaire) neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.

Historians have attempted to define the word 'Empire' as a multi-ethnic state ruled from a single place... but any Ruler can call himself and his state what he likes. Whether it be Louis XVI's as Sun King, or Napoleon as Emperor. You can't ever hope to make the ambitions and arrogances of three thousand years worth of wildly different cultures (and languages) conform to rules of size and denomination.

It's more about the concept of Precedence amongst states.

The concept becomes a little bit valid if you assume the following.

1) You have a bunch of sovereign states.
2) You have to have meetings between those states.

While each kingdom can rank their suzarian as they see fit, if the kingdoms come together for a meeting, or dignitaries from one kingdom meet another, there is a pecking order or rank.

If we would apply it to Lusternia, Daevos, Shamarah, and Nejii might all call themselves "Emperor", but IIRC the current politics situation (sorry, on lunch break at work), Daevos and Nejii would outrank Shamarah if they all sat down to a multi-kingdom meeting, because their respective political organizations are larger.

This exists today in the real world when heads of state host other heads of states. Those people are ranked based on their relative ranks compared to each other.

ETA: I dunno if Gary was baseing in on historical data or extrapolated this, but I sent him an e-mail and will respond when I get a response.

And of course, we shouldn't forget the situations where the sovereign is more than one of the above. Like in the commonwealth, the monarchs are/were the King/Queen of England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc... but Emperor/Empress of India. Not sure if that has to do with the cultural situation there, or some left over remnant from the colonial periods, but if I were over an empire, I'd want to be Emperor of the whole thing.

On second though, it could have to do with the constitutional monarchies in the rest of the dominions, and some different arrangement with India, I don't know much about that part, but it'd make sense.

I seriously read that as Ear-less. Yes. Without ears.

So did most of Celest when the first one came about...

Yeah, I remember people giving cityfavours with things like "off with her ears!" as reasons.