And that proves what exactly? Actually what it shows is something becoming ever more common in the UK government circles, namely an overcompensation for Scottish sensibilities. Whoever compiled that section of the website presumably realised that a list of ‘Kings and Queens of England’ (or ‘of Scotland’) could not just be continued after 1603, but then assumed that ‘United Kingdom’ would do.
Contrast with the Scottish Parliament’s website.
How about Emperor Baldwin I? Count of Flanders, Emperor of “Romania” (i.e. the Latin Empire of Byzantium during the Fourth Crusade). While Count is a lesser title, he had a lot more money and power in the lesser gig than as Emperor (which mainly consisted of pleading for legitimacy and cash from the Pope and various heads of state). All his squabbling heirs wanted the Flemish title a lot more than the Byzantine one.
Victoria and Mussolini were Empress of India and Emperor of Ethiopia, respectively, but didn’t exactly leave Europe to pursue these sidelines.
Chaing Kai-Chek was President of China, and then President of Taiwan, although the separateness of those two entities has always been a little hinky.
I was just reading last night that Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in 1876, while she was, of course, Queen of the UK and leader, by extension, of all those other places.
On the other hand, she wasn’t exactly elected or chosen by the people of India, so I think this ultimately fails the OP’s criteria.
What I meant was to exclude automatism. I’m interested in people who perform the feat of becoming head of state twice; it’s part of a fascination of mine for people with unusual biographies who excel in different fields(which is why I’m particularly interested in republican instances of this). The case of Andorra, for example, was excluded because every French president is ex officio one of the heads of state of Andorra, so that’s nothing special.
He came close, though. He was the leading choice to be the next U.S. presidential candidate when the scandal occurred with his new wife, Liza(?) Allen. Although, I guess one could argue that had he gone on to become the U.S. president, he would not have drifted to Texas and would not have been President of Texas.
I’ve found 3 examples of ruling two countries. Napoleon Bonaparte created his brother Joseph, King of Naples (which effectively consisted of southern Italy) from 1806-1808. Then Joseph was persuaded to leave Naples and become the King of Spain from 1808 to 1813.
Brazil’s independence from Portugal in the 1820s was a messy affair within the royal family. When Napoleon was defeated, the King of Portugal returned from exile in Brazil (which he had made a co-equal kingdom with Portugal), leaving his heir as regent. This heir declared Brazil independent and himself as Emperor Pedro I of Brazil from 1822 to 1831. When his father the King of Portugal died, Emperor Pedro I came to Portugal and also became King of Portugal for a few months in 1826 before yielding to the throne to his underage daughter and a regency.
Emperor Pedro I’s son succeeded him as Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. HIs daughter became the Queen of Portugal.
The 3rd example was Adolphe, the duke of Nassau from 1839 to 1866. He lost his country and his throne when Nassau backed Austria against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian war and was annexed, However, he became the ruler, as the next eligible heir, as Grand Duke of Luxembourg when that nation split away from the Netherlands because a female, at that time, could not become a ruler of Luxembourg. Adolphe ruled Luxembourg from 1890 to 1905.
More recent thread on topic: Has anyone ever led two different governments in their life?