The difference between a crown and a crown

Don't talk nonsense if you don't understand the above. The crown is the king's crown and the crown is the emperor's crown. The crown was brought by the king of Europe, indicating that he was the leader of a nation, so he was called the king, such as the king of England, the king of France (Castilla, Leon, Aragon, Navarra), and this king was later incorporated into the Kingdom of Spain, and so on. Only one of the emperors in the Pan-Germanic cultural circle or the Latin cultural circle in a broader sense was the German emperor or the Holy Roman emperor, and the other emperor was the Eastern Roman emperor, which remained in the eastern half of the divided Roman Empire. The emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was an emperor who could not be considered a Roman until the Pope was crowned. East Rome inherited the Roman Empire directly, and it was dismissive of the Pope, not arrogant at all. There are only two emperors in Europe. Theoretically, no one can get past them. Later, Napoleon destroyed St. Rome, and the original St. Rome abdicated to retain the title of Austrian emperor. Napoleon was crowned emperor of France, and Britain, France's arch enemy, was also crowned emperor. But the crown of the British emperor is the Indian emperor, and Britain eliminated the Mughal Empire in India and replaced it. By the way, what about East Rome? At this time, East Rome has been lying dead for more than 400 years. East Rome 1453 was called Ottoman by Turkey before, and the princess of East Rome married the Russian Grand Duke, who thought he inherited the orthodoxy of East Rome, so he called Moscow the third Rome and crowned himself as the czar.