Is the Indian queen the same as the emperor of China?

There are essential differences. Obviously, according to the traditional concept, the title of emperor is far higher than that of king.

According to Article 1 of the Irish Union Act 1800, Queen Victoria's title after her accession to the throne is "By the grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of Faith".

According to the Indian Control Act of 1858, the British East India Company was revoked, and the Indian government was managed by the British East India Company Trust Company and handed over to the British government in the name of the Queen. According to this change in governance, members of the House of Lords, whether secular or spiritual, suggested that the Queen adopt a suitable title in the House of Commons. Later, at the suggestion of the Privy Council, the written law approved by the British Houses of Parliament decided to create the title of "Queen of India". (It is said here that the legal basis is the title of emperor that India inherited from the Mughal Empire, and it is also said to be self-created. In either case, the title of Queen Victoria comes from India. She is the emperor of India. )

In fact, it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not. What is important is that at that time, Britain, as the first power in the world, colonized every time zone in the world and forged the legal basis for the coronation of the emperor. After the end of World War II, Britain's national strength and dominance over the world were not as good as before, and nationalist movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America surged. After India's independence, the king of England silently and despondently took off the title of emperor himself.