Talk:King of the Romans

Rex Romanorum

I'd appreciate a third opinion on these uncommented edits by User:Str1977. My feeling is that some useful information was lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To explain my edits and whether information was lost:

• I restricted the article to the actual title "Rex Romanorum" as used in the Holy Roman Empire, and in fact expanded on the actual origins and usage, correcting some inaccuracies (especially terminology - e.g. "after they had been confirmed as Emperor, but before they had undergone the ceremony of coronation" was down right wrong).
• The Rex Romanorum of Syagrius had to go - it covers something completely different, has no relation to the rest of the article (except for the words), and was short-lived anyway. But we may well add a note of distinction that Syagrius (with a link) bore the same title.
• I am unaware of any babarian king using the title.
• I removed the "Augustus" bit as not relevant to this title and as containing the incorrect folk etymology which led to the translation "allzeit Mehrer des Reiches" (always augmenter of the Empire)

So, now that I stated my case, you may tear me apart for that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we should put Rex Romanorum of Syagrius somewhere else and link to it, since this would be a likely way for someone to try to look it up. - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I did that by including a "Other usages" section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Coronation in Aachen

What is missing is the important fact that the (German) Kings of the Romans were crowned in Aachen until 1531, later in Frankfurt (see de:Krönung der römisch-deutschen Könige und Kaiser). DaQuirin 02:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Kingdom of Germany article into King of the Romans

It has been suggested (see Revision as of 18:38, 13 April 2007 King of the Germans" & "King of the Romans" is really the same thing) that Kingdom of Germany article be merged into this article "King of the Romans". --Philip Baird Shearer 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article deals with the usage of the term 'King of the Romans', in the HRE, Napoleonic France, and the Austrian Empire. The Kingdom of Germany article is a stub: it should be discussing the kingdom, how it related to the HRE, etc. The fact that it doesn't indicates that someone should be writing more into the article, not that it should be merged here (which will lessen the impulse to write a thorough article on the subject). Michael Sanders 22:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[Oppose.] Agree with Sanders. The topics, though related, are sufficiently distinct and are far from synonymous. Srnec 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[Oppose.] Sanders is right, two different topics! Hyperboreer 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Per Sanders and complete difference of articles' respective scopes. — LlywelynII 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. I'll remove the banner. — LlywelynII 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen of the Romans and related issues ("one and the same" or not)

Why are you removing this title from succession boxes? Michael Sanders 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, thanks for asking. Because "Queen of the Romans" and "German Queen" are the same thing, the former just being a title to denote the latter. It is pointless to have a separate box for each. It would be like having two boxes for a Chine Emperor, one being "Chinese Emperor", the other "Son of Heaven", or "Vice President of the USA" and "President of the Senate of the US" - with the latter example at least denoting a difference in function, a difference totally lacking in our case.

I have observed that you seem to draw a distinction by thinking that becoming Empress voids the title "Queen of the Romans". True, an Empress would not be called "Queen of the Romans" but nonetheless she remains QotR and GK as long as her husband remains so and he remains so until either his death/abdication or the election of a successor in that office.

Personally, I could do without consort sucession box - but shouldn't we then have a list of consorts - currently the box links to the list of the Kings.

Though I prefer the clearer "German Queen" (or my compromise suggestion "Roman-German") I don't object to the title QotR. What I adamantly object to is creating two different succession boxes, implying that there is a distinction between the two. I hope you understand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 'Queen of the Romans' and 'German Queen' aren't the same thing. The Holy Roman Empire was divided up into several different Kingdoms: the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the Kingdom of Italy. The 'King of the Romans' or 'Emperor of the Romans' was monarch of all of these places, and his consort 'Queen of the Romans' or 'Empress of the Romans'; however, the 'King of Germany' was not necessarily 'King of the Romans' (although it was usually the case), and the 'King of the Romans' not always 'King of Germany' (ditto). The reason the 'Kingdom of Burgundy' and 'Kingdom of Italy' aren't included is because, quite simply, I don't know the dates and statistics for those - Germany, on the other hand, was the main substituent Kingdom, and thus easier to know.

As for separating out 'King of the Romans' and 'Holy Romab Emperor' - the latter was a specifically honorary title, used to indicate that the monarch had received a coronation by the Pope. It is thus useful to denote precisely which men and women held what title, since it is an institutionalised system (i.e. the idea that the title would change from 'King' to 'Emperor' upon Papal coronation was built into the system), unlike an example I encountered recently (Eugenie de Montijo being preceeded as 'Empress of the French' by Marie Louise and as 'consort of the French state' by Maria Amalia), where a made-up title wsa used to demonstate continuity. Michael Sanders 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further: the 'King of Germany' was the actual monarch of Germany: the monarchical power was vested in him, etc - though when there was an Emperor above him, the Emperor would be seen as the ultimate power above the King. The 'King of the Romans', by contrast, was either the monarch of the 'Roman' imperium (an 'uncrowned Emperor', although quite a lot were never crowned Emperor), or the designated heir apparent. In the latter form, it gave no power on its own; rather, it meant that the King would automatically succeed in the entire Empire without need of an election. Although, again, Germany and 'King of the Romans' were closely tied: election as King of Germany and as King of the Romans were usually the same (again, I don't know what happened about the 'Kingdom of Italy' and the 'Kingdom of Burgundy'). Michael Sanders 10:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you are seriously mistaken. Let's get the facts straight:

• The HRE consists (for most of the time) of the German Kingdom (originally the Eastern-Frankish Kingdom), the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy.
• the usual procedure was: being elected and crowned as German King, move to Italy, get crowned as King of Italy, move to Rome, get crowned Emperor by the Pope (the Burgundian kingship is not essential to this and might occur any time)
• the title of the German King was unclear, after a Saxon dynasty took over a Frankish kingdom. Because of the German Kings were the future Roman Emperors, the term "king of the Romans" developed - since the Investiture struggle, the kings used it as their official title (as opposed to "Rex Teutonicorum", which was favoured by the Pope) as long as they hadn't acquired the Imperial crown yet. The title "Rex Romanorum" has nothing to do with possessing Burgundy, Italy or Rome but is the title used by the "German King".
• the title was also used for those heirs that were elected to the kingship in their sucecssor's lifetime. This even continued after the German kings ceased to get the Imperial coronation and simply ruled as Emperor elects.
• Occurences of the title "Rex Romanorum" in other contexts is completely unrelated to this. There is no continuity between the HRE's Rex Romanorum and the Napoleonic usage.
• As for sovereign power: only the Emperor as such had sovereign power. His authority covered all of Western Christendom, though it was merely way of diplomatic precedence. This was later challenged by the French legists, who claimed that the "King acts in place of the Emperor in his lands". The German King theoretically was subordinate to the Emperor. But after Otto the Great there was either no Emperor or he was the German King (not counting the heirs elected in their father's lifetime, who were subordinate to their father's anyway). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I am afraid. As the Henry IV example indicates, the title was used quite specifically to denote that he was King of the Romans (i.e. of the entire imperium), rather than only the Germans. The Holy Roman Empire was made up of three main kingdoms, plus other bits and pieces. It would thus be used to denote that the King was ruler of all three, prior to his becoming Emperor. It is true that, originally, the process was unclear - the history of the empoire is like that, I'm afraid. But as it developed, the title 'King of the Romans' was used to refer to the sovereign of the Empire - as opposed to the title 'King of Germany', which was used to refer to the specific monarch of the Kingdom of Germany.

As the Empire developed, Germany became the cockpit of the Empire (because the Ottonians derived from there, originally ruled there, and built their power base there); Burgundy and Italy were both added later (Italy in the time of Otto I, Burgundy in the time of Conrad II). Because of this, Germany and the Empire became, to a large degree, unified in terms of process - the Germans would elect a King, who would then effectively be rubberstamped as 'King of Burgundy' and 'King of Italy', allowing him to take the honorific title of 'King of the Romans' to denote that he was ruler of the so-called 'Roman Empire'. He would then, as you noted, proceeed to the various coronations, before (if circumstances permitted) getting himself crowned by the Pope, which would give him the apparent divine sanction to take on the title of 'Emperor'.

The title 'King of the Romans' was also used to denote those who had been elected 'King of Germany' in the lifetime of the Emperor - it would indicate that the new King had the right to succeed in the Empire. When there was a co-existent King and Emperor, the King was understood as the monarch of Germany (and anywhere else he was recognised as ruling), and the feudal overlord of his kingdom; he himself was subject to his own feudal overlord, the Emperor. In one of the many paradoxes of the Empire, the Emperor would cease to be personally sovereign over the lands he ceded to his heir (just as, for example, the King of France was not personally sovereign over the Duchy of Brittany in the days of the feudal dukes); however, because he was the feudal overlord, he retained the right to command his vassal the King, and could dethrone him if he thought it appropriate. Because of this, the power of a subject 'King of Germany' varied from person to person. See, for example, Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor#Early life and reign for an example of the balance of power between King and Emperor.

When the sole monarch, the 'King of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy, and of Italy) used the title to indicate that he was the monarch of the entire Empire. He would use it until he was crowned by the Pope - at which point he would cease to be 'King of the Romans', and become 'Emperor of the Romans' (himself also his own vassal King of Germany, of Burgundy and of Italy).

Think - to a certain extent - of the British monarchy. The Queen is 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. The two titles are automatically united - by the terms of the constitution, the monarch of Britain is automatically the monarch of the Commonwealth - but they are, nonetheless, not the same. The former indicates that the Queen is the monarch of Great Britain (and also of Australia, Canada, etc). The latter indicates that she is the theoretical leader of the entire body of Commonwealth nations. The same, to a large extent, was true of the HRE (except, of course, the Queen doesn't become Empress of the Commonwealth by means of a Papal coronation, and the Commonwealth has less bric-a-brac. With the exception of cricket, of course). Michael Sanders 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You give many correct details but are nonetheless wrong in the overall assumption, that there is an office or a title subsuming all the particular kingdoms into one entity, the HRE, other than that of the Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor. The King of the Romans is only the title of the ruler of Germany (since the High Middle Ages) - yes, it denotes the claim to succeed in the Empire, to become Emperor, but this was based on the Ottonian-Salian practice of the German King becoming Emperor. The title denotes nothing more than kingship in Germany.

Of course, the Commonwealth parallel is flawed. The Empire was no league of different nations - some monarchies, some not - but one monarchical realm in (at least claimed) continuity of the old Roman Empire. You either are Roman Emperor or you are not ... you cannot be King of the Empire. And you become Emperor simply by getting crowned by the Pope. Of course, not just anyone will be crowned, since the Ottonians you have to be German King (which later takes the title King of the Romans) and King of Italy (on the way to Rome) ... Burgundy is actually not really necessary.

But even if we take your Commonwealth parallel: I see no "Head of Commonwealth" succession box in the article on Elisabeth II, only many boxes on her various states, from Britain to Malawi. But even if there were, the parallel to being head of the Commonwealth would be being Emperor. There is no intermediate third tier of a King of the Romans who rules all particular Kingdoms but is not yet Emperor. Such a thing doesn't exist out of your mind. Please stop your misinformed campaign.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was the case. Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire', and thus 'of the Romans', but could not, by the conventions of the Empire, call himself 'Emperor' until formally crowned in Rome by the Pope. Look at the article King of the Romans - as it clearly states, before Imperial coronation, the monarch always called himself 'King' - sometimes with the addendum 'of the Franks'. It was when the Pope insisted that Henry IV was 'only' 'King of the Germans' that he took a title which he felt reflected his claims as much over Burgundy and, more importantly, Italy (the Pope was claiming that Henry had no rights in Italy because he was primarily the King of the Germans - and couldn't enforce his rights in Italy - Henry respnded by using a title indicating that Italy was as important, and that he would defend his rights there).

"The Holy Roman Empire is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor" - a simplification, I am afraid, that is not even true by the 19th century style of Empire. The French Kings referred to themselves as 'Emperors' in correspondance even before Napoleon. The colonial powers had 'Empires' but no empires. Rome had an Empire whilst it was a republic. The Roman idea of Empire was not 'the nation ruled by the Emperor', but 'a collective of nations ruled by a single person or institution'. Which was the practice in the HRE (which was not, btw, it's formal name anyway at first). There are plenty of monarchs of the 'Holy Roman Empire' who were never 'Emperor' - look at Albert of Habsburg, who quite specifically ended the 'Interregnum of the Holy Roman Empire' - yet was never any higher title than 'King of the Romans'.

The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call the Holy Roman Empire, who had not yet received the Papal, and thus divine, sanction to be considered a universal Emperor. Michael Sanders 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Before an Emperor was crowned by the Pope, he called himself 'King of the Romans' - since he considered himself monarch of 'the Roman Empire'"

Well, of course the title was intended to support his claim to become Emperor. But nothing more. It has nothing to do with having collected various kingdoms, it is just a way of underlying one's customary position as "Imperator futurus". I know the article "King of the Romans" - I have participated in writing it and it absolutely confirms my position.

Look into the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor - somebody falsely inserted a sucession box for "King of the Romans" (which he supposedly became at his father's death in 1056). But you clearly see that at the time he succeeded to Germany, whereas it took until 1080 for him to become King of Italy. As I said, such a separate box is nonsense, but it beautifully collapses your nice little personal theory.

The HRE is called by that name because it is headed by an Emperor remains true, even if other rulers ("illegally") use that title to push their claim to sovereignity as the French Kings did since the 13th century. We are also not talking about Napoleon's French Empire. That Empire originally did not imply a form of government (as in the Roman Republic's Empire) is another matter and totally irrelevant to the issue. Of course, one could say that the Emperor was called that way because he was the one that ruled the Empire - in any case, the link between the two is clear: a realm ruled by a King is a Kingdom, not an Empire.

"The title 'King of the Romans' was not only the title of the King of Germany. It was the title used to refer to a monarch of the collection of states we call ..." bla bla bla. Simply repeating doesn't make it right. The ruler of the HRE is the Emperor. A ruler combining the Kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy is the King of these three respective Kingdoms, the first one being confusingly headed by a "King of the Romans". Every German King since Henry IV had that title, even if they have never even seen the Alps, let alone Italy or Burgundy or Rome. Rudolph of Habsburg and Adolph of Nassau were King of the Romans. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I found the article cited below illuminating. Seeing as it looks pretty authoritative and is written by a German professor, who presumably knows more than we do, I suggest we consider it authoritative until something better comes along.

The cite is: <http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/3/13-Averkorn_177-198.pdf>

I recommend especially pp. 186-89. What I take away from this is that the terms "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" have the same denotation, and are different only in their connotations. They were each used to express a particular point of view about the Emperor's authority vis-a-vis the Pope. As usual, politics is at the root.Eldred1 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"When I refer to the end of the Hohenstaufens, ... I mean the period during which the King of the Romans, as ruler over his dynastic domains, became nothing more than one sovereign among many..."

"The most unmistakable example, however...of the indeterminedness in Germany during this period...Lupold's treatise on kingdom and Empire of 1340 defended the freedom of the electors to choose the the Emperor and the right of the king of the Romans, Louis of Bavaria, to the imperial crown. Since the Pope based his claim to the right of approval over the election of the King of the Romans on the theoretical subordination of imperium to sacerdotium, simultaneously associating this subordination with his right to crown he Emperor, every proponbant of an autonomous empire independent from the Papacy had to define the relationship between the regnum (that is, the German Empire as pertaining to the rights of the German electors) and the imperium (the empire as pertaining to Rome and the papacy in the imperial coronation). Lupold argued for the restriction of the papal rights by citing a body of proof ...[that] led him to understand the concept of empire in three distinct senses. Regnum meant the German Empire (reich), Charlemagne's legacy. In the regnum, in Aachen, the electors chose the German King without asking leave of the Pope. In the imperium, too, the king of the Romans reigned independently of the pope. In Burgundy and Italy, in Arles, Milan, and Rome, he presided over the administratio imperii, the maintenance of those imperial rights which Louis the Bavarian had stated in 1323 and which had aroused the opposition of Avignon. On the other hand, the rights of the King of the Romans in the imperium extended only as far as the area of Charlemagne's conquests; these rights were, therefore, 'irrational', as there was no question of any rational legitimization in the sense of a translatio imperii. It was a matter of rights by conquest and history. The third sphere lay beyond this historically attained imperium. It was the imperium in the widest sense, which the Pope had taken from the Greeks and confirmed upon Charlemagne, the legitimate and eternally valid translation imperii. This alone was the imperium as the universal office bestowed by the pope at the time of the imperial coronation." Heimpel, Hermann, "Characteristics of thge Late Middle Ages in Germany", contained in Pre-reformation Germany (editor Gerald Strauss).

And as for Henry IV, as the article King of the Romans states, the title only developed in his day, and did not mean what it came to mean later: that the title 'King of Germany' and 'King of the Romans' were two distinct titles, used often to mean the same thing, but politically separate offices. Michael Sanders 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, this whole long quote doesn't support your view:

• the theories of one author (Lupold) writing under Louis is no basis to deny the usage of the title "King of the Romans" universally used before and after him, from Henry IV to Francis II.
• however, your author doesn't even say that the King of the Romans was the ruler of the three particular kingdoms. He simply uses the title most important to him (KotR) as he is concerned first and foremost with the German Kingdom (to which that title belongs) - in Louis' day the HRE was already somwhat restricted to Germany - not of course completely: there still were Burgundian and Italian territories but these two Kingdoms were very much fragmented.

As for Henry: yes, the title developed in his day (or become prominent, I think it was used before but only sporadically - Henry IV is the relevant startin point). The two titles do not refer to two offices but to two aspects of one office: "Rex Teutonicorum" stresses the German base and orgin of the Kingship, "Rex Romanorum" its Roman dimension and destination. In the investiture struggle, each side wanted to stress the one element over the other.

If there really was a seaparte office, maybe you can provide some evidence for that? Or you can show when Henry (or another king) attained this mysterious office? We can clearly see when someone was elected and/or crowned German King, King of Italy, King of Burgundy or Emperor - but where is there ever reported a separate elevation to the (supposed) office of a "King of the Romans"?

I will soon also post the relevant entry from the Lexikon des Mittelalters. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The source makes it quite clear. The King of the Germans rules over the regnum. The 'King of the Romans' rules over the imperium. As for when the office developed - like everything else in the Empire, it developed chaotically, by custom, and without clear starting point. It simply became the case that the uncrowned emperor would be called 'King of the Romans' ('Empress' Matilda, who was never crowned Empress, always signed herself Regina Romanorum during her marriage, since she was the ruling consort of the Roman domains, but not crowned Empress; she is however, by modern standards, an Empress-consort). Michael Sanders 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The writings of an authority of the time, as quoted in a modern book, without inclusion of any apparent critiscism of Lupold's writing, either contemporary, or modern, implies that it is accepted as the truth. Michael Sanders 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A clear distinction is made. As I told you, the 'King of the Germans' was ruler of the regnum - Germany itself. The 'King of the Romans' was ruler of the imperium - the entire collection of domains, either directly ruled, or claimed by Charlemagne's conquest. That is a clear distinction. Michael Sanders 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if the source made it quite clear, it wouldn't matter. One writer doesn't make a consistent usage. But even that is wrong: it is not clear: it simply claims that the King of the Romans (that is the German King) has authority in the components of the HRE even before an Imperial coronation. Which only indicates the sorry state of the other two kingdoms at the time.

That it developed chaotically is evading an answer (understandable, as there is no answer to this): which king where and where was the first to assume this mysterious fifth office (apart from the three Kingly and the one Imperial office)? The Regina Romanorum is simply the wife of the Rex Romanorum, which is the German King. Period. You are constantly assuming your definition without ever having established its veracity. It is a phantasy.

The modern writer quoting Lupold need not criticize him for something he never wrote. Lupold did not support your view.

Or to take your "clear distinction" from another angle: where's the evidence for an independent existence of the title "King of the German"/"German King" after Henry IV assumed the "King of the Romans"? Where is it? Which ruler distinguished between his German and his Roman kingship? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't need to make any differentiation in titles otherwise - he'd say, 'the King of Germany rules the regnum, and also the imperium. The clear differentiation of the two titles demonstrates the clear differentiation of the two offices. Michael Sanders 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such distinction between a German and a Roman King!

There is a distinction between a German Kingdom and the Imperium.

The only king mentioned is the Roman King (who happens to be the King of the German Kingdom)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is little point in citing Henry IV as an example of the title 'King of the Romans' - whether it had been used at all (which I neither confirm or deny) prior to him, it was under him that it was first consistently used - and it did indeed have a different function then. However, the title and its usage changed, as demonstrated by the source, to mean 'the ruler of the imperium.' That can happen, you know. Michael Sanders 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to reject things I have never said. I clearly already stated that the title is relevant only since Henry IV. Also, you have not given any evidence for such a "different function" - it only has ever one function: to stress the link between the ruler of the German Kingdom and the Roman Empire, quite apart from the Pope. Of course, the propagandistic battle died down in time, but the meaning of the title is clear and undisputed: it is the King of Germany. Get it!!! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'King of the Romans' was King of Germany, Burgundy and Italy - the collective imperium, as stated in my source. And, for the record, Henry was 'King of Italy', and 'King of Burgundy', from his succession. He was merely crowned 'King of Italy' at a later date. The titles were used, whether the monarch was crowned there or not. And referred to by the title of 'King of the Romans'. As the source states. 'Get it!!!'? Michael Sanders 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there is no use discussing with you. You simply can't grasp that things might be different from your phantasy. You invent an office that never existed, You claim a source that doesn't support your view (as it doesn't talk about a King of Germany it cannot produce even an unclear distinction between that and a King of the Romans - they are one aand the same: King of the Romans at that time is the title of the German King - there is no other). I can only say: wake up to reality! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no point in discussing this any further with you. The source clearly states my point. The article King of the Romans - which you claimed to have written - states my point. You have only your own assertions that "they are the same". All I can do is demand that until you have a good reliable source stating "the two titles are simply variants of each other", you stop meddling. I also suggest you read the sources, since mine clearly mentioned and differentiated the German King from the Roman King ("In the regnum, in Aachen, the electors chose the German King without asking leave of the Pope. In the imperium, too, the king of the Romans reigned independently of the pope. In Burgundy and Italy, in Arles, Milan, and Rome, he presided over the administratio imperii, the maintenance of those imperial rights which Louis the Bavarian had stated in 1323 and which had aroused the opposition of Avignon.) And please work on your civility. Michael Sanders 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this whole sorry debate to this talk page, to enable others to comment on the situation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is the article from the Lexikon des Mittelalters:

"Rex Romanorum.

"Der Römername war zuerst under Otto II. und seit Otto III. regelmäßig in den bis dahin ethnische undefinierten (absoluten) Ks.titel (Kaiser) aufgenommen worden, während der absolute Kg.stitel (König) im 11. Jh. die Norm geblieben ist. Doch schon in der Kg.szeit Heinrichs II. begegnet der röm. Kg.stitel in einem Diplom für sein Bm. Bamberg von 1007 (ausgefertigt 1017) und 1016 im Datum eines Trierer Papstprivilegs. Wie mit der 1003 und 1007 belegten Kaiserbulle ist mit diesem und anderen 'Sondertiteln' auch fernerhin der Anspruch auf die Kaiserwürde ausgedrückt worden. R.R. wurde in das Monogramm Heinrichs III. aufgenommen und erscheint als Sondertitel bei ihm und Heinrich IV. in 7 von 8 Diplomen zur imperialen Legitimation für Empfänger Italiens und Lotharingiens (Merta, 187). Die Titelvarianten der burg. Kanzlei Heinrichs 111., die 'Gesta Chuonradi' seines Hofkappelans Wipo und Titulierungen in provenzal. Privaturkunden (1044: 'rex Romanus') zeugen von Reflexionen über das staatsrechtl. Verhältnis der drei Gliedreiche zum Imperium.

"In einem von Benzo v. Alba überlieferten Brief begehrt 1063 Ks. Konstantin X. Dukas einen Pakt >>cum puero Heinrico, rege Romano<< (Rl III, 2, 258). Nach der im Investiturstreit belebten, auch Benzo vertrauten sibyllin. Überlieferung (Antichrist, Eschatologie, Friedenskaiser) ist r.R. der Endkaiser (H.D. Kahl, Mediaevistik 4,1991,124).

"Erst seit Heinrich V. ist der röm. Kg.stitel, jetzt endgültig mit Inversion ('Romanorum rex' analog zu 'Romanowm imperator'), im Gegenzug zur Titulierung als 'rex Teutonicorum' durch die Päpste seit Gregor VII., die den imperialen Anspruch in Frage stellte, zur Kanzleinorm geworden. Zuerst bei Lothar III. (1132) und häufiger bei dessen Nachfolgern wurde mit der Fassung 'Romanorum rex (et semper) augustus' eine weitere Annäherung an den Kaisertitel erreicht.

"H. Beumann

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That appears to state that 'King of the Romans' is analogous to 'Emperor of the Romans'. Michael Sanders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't the article first talks about the appearance of the "Roman" particle in the Imperial title and then in the royal title - the hitherto "absolute" (not bound to any ethnicity) kingship in Germany. It also relates that the title RR did imply a claim on the Empire and had an eschatological element as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, basically, what you are saying is that wikipedia is a more reliable authority than half-a-dozen or so published books. Michael Sanders 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, do you have any evidence that anybody ever called themselves, or was called, both King of Germany and King of the Romans at the same time? If nobody ever used both titles at the same time, then it seems to me it's misleading for Wikipedia to do so. 66.208.46.254 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Look below. Michael Sanders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a useful, English-language article by Raphaela Averkorn available in PDF online. I think it brings all the issues quite into the light. I would like to make a few points of my own, however:

• A variety of titles were used for the king who was elected by the nobles of East Francia, subsequently Germany. Some of these titles were the official usages of the royal chancery, others are found only in chronicles and the like, be they foreign or German. The profusion of variations and their synonymy must be taken into account. That said, there are reges Romanorum who appear in other sources as reges Teutonicorum etc. So, they titles would appear to be treated synonymously by at least some contemporary writers. (S)

Or it indicates that the two were, or are, known by both. Michael Sanders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that the issue of royal election which became enshrined in the kingdoms of the Frankish Empire after the deposition/death of Charles the Fat (887-8) led to some inexactness concerning what regions constituted kingdoms. The Lorrainers consistently elected their own kings, but these were usually the kings of either France or Germany. In effect, they decided to which realm they would give allegiance and thus reserved for themselves the right to elect their own monarchs should they eventually so desire. However, the contests for Lorraine between France and Germany give ample evidence that principles of hereditary succession, enshrined by the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, provided competition to the principle of election. (S)
• The significance of the last point is that the German nobles elected the kings of Italy and Burgundy and the Holy Roman Emperors, a situation which hardly gives evidence of three truly independent realms. The fact is that over time the need for the Italian nobility to participate in an election became a mere formality, as did that of the Burgundians, and so the elected German sovereign was presumed to be sovereign of Italy and Burgundy as well. This tripartite division continued to be recognised in law by the presence of three distinct chanceries. Presumably, had the nobilities of Italy and Burgundy been strong enough after the twelfth century, they could have elected kings against the will of the German nobles, who claimed to be electing and Emperor, probably on the basis of their understanding of the translatio imperii of 962 — an understanding that the popes did not share. (S)

Well, yes, it would be fully mistaken to claim that Italy and Burgundy were 'independent'. They were appendages of the German monarchy - Germany and its electors and monarchs decided what happened throughout the imperium. That's why the conflation of 'King of the Romans' and 'King of Germany' comes about - because, unless the King of the Romans had become the Emperor of the Romans, both titles would be simultaneously appropriate (after Papal coronation, the Emperor would also be referred to as 'King of Germany', but never 'King of the Romans', since he had gained the Imperial dignity). (MS)

• Thus, rex Romanorum and rex Teutonicorum are really the same title from two distinct viewpoints concerning the events of Otto I's coronation as Roman Emperor. If it "translated" the imperial title to the Germans, then Otto was King of the Romans insomuch as the Germans were the new Romans. However, if it was merely a continuance of the old imperial title, this time being granted by the pope to a German monarch, then the German king was, by election or by inheritance, nothing more than the King of the Germans. (S)

Only in the sense that 'Queen of England' and 'Queen of Britain' are 'really the same title' - both are used to refer to the same person, but have different forms of relevance (though the comparison with the Empire is slightly flawed, in that QoE and QofB aren't official titles). But the Germans weren't considered "the new Romans" - they were considered Franks (Otto dressed in Frankish clothing, rather than Saxon garb). But Otto then became, first of all, a victorious war-leader (considered suitable excuse for Imperial status by the Germans), then King of the Italians (multi-national status, also considered appropriate reason for being an Emperor), and then became 'Emperor of the Romans' - meant to symbolise his overlordship over Europe, his succession to the Roman legacy, and his alliance with the papacy. He never used the title 'King of the Romans' - the first to do so was Conrad II, prior to his Imperial coronation. (MS)

• For this reason did some high mediaeval kings of Germany consider titles like rex Alemannorum and rex Germaniae to be vulgar and inappropriate: because they implied that the translatio had not been a translation of the right to be crowned emperor to the German kings. Then they wouldn't have been true imperatores futuri, which they claimed. Because the Italian and Burgundian national titles (rex Italiae and rex Burgundiae) did not constitute such a smear, the kings did not have a problem bearing them. Thus, the reges Teutonicorum claimed to be rex Romanorum, rex Italiae, and rex Burgundiae by election in three different realms, the election in Germany being also an election as imperator futurus in their eyes. At least, this is how I see it. (S)

The Emperors resented the attempts to limit their sovereignty, by this name, to only Germany - they claimed to also have sovereignty over Italy, and, in a wider sense, to be able to exercise the rights of a Roman Emperor, even when not confirmed as such by the Pope. (MS)

I hope this in anyway clears it up. I don't wish that any original research be added, but I think my points are amply supported by the sources, including the very on-topic one I cited above. In short, I agree with Str1977 et al. that the titles "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" are identical. However, I want to affirm that Sanders is right insofar as the Kings of Germany claimed to be emperors by right and not merely papal election. (That point was not really in dispute, but I believe Sanders misunderstands it and it leads him to believe that the German kings claimed to be "kings" of HRE, which they didn't.) Srnec 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And your source for so doing? As 'King of the Romans', the Emperors claimed to "hold our kingdom and our empire not as a fief of the Pope but by election of the princes from God alone." (Brackmann) The title 'King of the Romans' denoted that the King ruled not only in Germany but in the Empire, and that he had the right to claim Imperial rights - that, unlike other monarchs, he was not subject to the authority of the Pope, to be made or unmade, but, given the Papal coronation or not, he had the Imperial rights of the "come down, come down" variety. Michael Sanders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims are claims and realities are realities:

• Henry made his claim based on the German kingship therefore adopted for it the title "King of the Romans".
• Of course, Henry was just as much subject to the Pope as any Christian ruler or any Christian in general would be.
• The special issue of "fief" only came later at the Diet of Besancon under Frederick I, when Rainald von Dassel mistranslated the word "beneficium" as "fief" (which would have been "foedum", I think)

In any case, nothing here support the fantasy that there was a intermediate layer between the particular Kingships of Germany, Italy and Burgundy and the Empire. Henry IV certainly would have resisted such a claim. He said: I am King and all my kingly ancestors did customarily become Emperors, therefore I am Imperator futurus and have authority in the Empire even before my Imperial coronation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims are claims and realities are realities:

• Henry made his claim based on the German kingship therefore adopted for it the title "King of the Romans".

No, quite the opposite. The Pope claimed that Henry was only King of the Germans; Henry retorted, not at all, he was "King of the Romans" - ruler of Germany, Burgundy, and - most importantly as regards the Pope - Italy; and he was a 'Roman' sovereign, heir of and entitled to all the rights of Emperor Otto and co, rather than those of Henry the Fowler's weak predecessors. Henry's main (but not only) power base was Germany (KofItaly and KofBurgundy were strategically important, but politically under German control); but his claim was based on the universal nature of his predecessors. He claimed that as German King, he was also heir of the Romans, and thus 'King of the Romans'

• Of course, Henry was just as much subject to the Pope as any Christian ruler or any Christian in general would be.

Dubious. Did you miss the entire history of the Middle Ages, where the Popes and Emperors repeatedly quarrelled about the extent to which they controlled each other.

• The special issue of "fief" only came later at the Diet of Besancon under Frederick I, when Rainald von Dassel mistranslated the word "beneficium" as "fief" (which would have been "foedum", I think)

No, beneficium translated to either "benefaction" or "fief" (it was the case with the Victorian Church in England). The issue was precisely formulated as such at Besancon, but it had already been bubbling for years - with Gregory VII declaring Henry IV deposed as the most notable example.

In any case, nothing here support the fantasy that there was a intermediate layer between the particular Kingships of Germany, Italy and Burgundy and the Empire. Henry IV certainly would have resisted such a claim. He said: I am King and all my kingly ancestors did customarily become Emperors, therefore I am Imperator futurus and have authority in the Empire even before my Imperial coronation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to chalk that one up to bad phrasing. The 'King of the Romans' was in the exact same position as the 'Emperor of the Romans', but without the Papal sanction and recognition of an imperial title. As your pseudo-quote itself demonstrates (how about a source there?), Henry was firmly testifying to possessing all the rights of the Emperor, and using the title of 'King of the Romans' to emphasise that he was "Emperor to be". Michael Sanders 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. "the same position as Emperor but without papal sanction" - without papal sanction, rather coronation you cannot be Emperor in medieval western Europe. If you cannot accept this fact I am wishing you all the luck. Henry claimed authority in the Empire because, so he argued, he would be Emperor anyway soon, because coronation was only a formality. That was his claim. And to push this claim he called his Kingship (the one of Germany) Roman. But that is a claim in political conflict. We are not here to decide who was right and wrong. You seem to think that we have to take Henry's side and accept his claims. Anyway, his claims are not your claims: he doesn't say as King of the Romans I am already Emperor, or (as you used to say:) as combing the three Kingships I am something more, King of the Romans. No, even the term "Imperator futurus" makes it clear that was not yet Emperor. If he were, why did he waste energy on being crowned in Rome by the (anti-)Pope? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. You cannot be Emperor without Imperial coronation. You can, however, rule the Empire, whether given an imperial coronation or not. And the point is that the title was used as Henry IV to denote his greater authority, which then became taken up as the title to signify the position as imperator futurus of the Empire, and all that went with it. Michael Sanders 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I never disputed the claim to the right to the Empire. Only, that claim was based on the one German kingship titled "of the Romans", not on some combination of three titles subsumed under a fourth. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Srnec 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Noticing, now, that I never took a side on the succession box issue... I would personally prefer "King of Germany" to "King of the Romans" and to any amalgam like "Roman-German King." The Roman title was nothing but a formal title the kings themselves liked to use. Also, it is better for the succession box to link to List of German monarchs than to King of the Romans. The current compromise position has its benefits, but it is so unusual-sounding to me that it almost seems like original research. The title "King of Germany" is a good translation of the many Latin titles that chroniclers and even the kings themselves from time to time used: rex Alemanniae, rex Teutonicorum, rex Germaniae, rex Alemannorum, and rex Germanorum. I would prefer "King of Germany and of the Romans" to the current format if a compromise wording is necessary. In my opinion, rex Romanorum is more formality than reality and can justifiably be ignored. Srnec 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "King of Germany" if it's to be used for, for instance, Ferdinand I, or Joseph I. They were never called this, nor did they act as rulers of Germany. For rulers prior to Maximilian I's taking of the title of Emperor-Elect, I'm indifferent. john k 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For later monarchs, we could use "Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation," no? There were only a few occasions after Maximilian I where there was a rex Romanorum who wasn't emperor and I'm not adverse to calling them "Kings of Germany." Encarta calls the Emperor Ferdinand I a King of Germany. My solution, however, was meant only to apply to emperors before Maximilian. Srnec 14:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All monarchs, up to Francis II, held the title of 'King of Germany' (or rather, 'King in Germany'); however, after Charles V, the rules were altered, so that the 'King of the Romans' became 'Holy Roman Emperor' after coronation at Aachen (Charles VII is specifically stated as such in the Almanach). Michael Sanders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about English but "Römisch-Deutscher König" does exist in German. My proposal does link to both the the "King of the Romans" (via the Roman) and the List (via the German). In any case, succession boxes should always link to succession lists.

"Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation" is terribly yieldy. And the same thing is covered by "Holy Roman Emperor" (with or wihtout the elect)

I don't think that we should treat any ruler different. Ferdinand I was very much a King in Germany, in his brother's absence.

I don't think that "King of Germany" can be called a translation, it's more like an equivalent in another language, or a deduction from the name of the Kingdom. But in itself it is okay, as long as the box doesn't claim that two offices exist side by side. Contrary to Michael's protestations - this is phantasy.

"All monarchs, up to Francis II, held the title of 'King of Germany' (or rather, 'King in Germany)" - any evidence for that. They held the title King of the Romans

"Roman-German" is clumsy, and absurd. You, Str, are the only one arguing that the titles are identical (Srnec's point appears to be that they are two different titles, but mean exactly the same thing) - and "Roman-German" is not used in English/

All those who used the title "Holy Roman Emperor" are always considered as such in English history, whether they were 'Emperor-elect' or crowned by the Pope (and this is in defiance of history. That's why we list Henry IV as Emperor rather than King).

As demonstrated below, by custom after the Salians, the Emperors used the title 'King of the Romans' until they became Emperor (which was either at Papal coronation or, after Charles V, at the German coronation at Aachen, the Empire by now having dwindled to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

"History of the Holy Roman Empire" cites Francis II and Charles V both as "King in Germany". I leave you to reflect on the relevance of the in (rather than on) for yourselves, but it doesn't alter the rex teutonicorum title.

"this is phantasy" - funny, I appear to have demonstrated it to be fact. You, by contrast, have cited nothing. Michael Sanders 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You haven't demonstrated anything apart from your ability to read into texts and your ability to overlook the fact I and others have cited books too.
• I don't see how "Roman-German" is clumsy, it certainly is not absurd. Anyway, I gladly yield to revert it back to "King of Germany" as long as it is not claimed that KotR is a separate office.
• Note I am totally one with Srnec that KoG and KotR are two separate titles, two titles stressing two different things, but they denote one single office. The actual title for most of history is KotR but it denotes the man elected as King over Germany.
• "and this is in defiance of history. That's why we list Henry IV as Emperor rather than King)" ... you should first get a bit of an overview on the matter before you make such absurd statements. I can easily look up the date on which Henry IV, hitherto King of the Romans (i.e. King of Germany) was crowned Roman Emperor by a Pope (it didn't matter that it was an anti-Pope ... which wasn't so at the time anyway).
• Is "King in Germany" an official title? ... of course they were Kings in Germany. Why didn't it say "of Germany"? Because that would denote a title that wasn't used. The Kingdom always was called Germany (as evidenced by the name of one three Chanceries of the HRE)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You haven't demonstrated anything apart from your ability to read into texts and your ability to overlook the fact I and others have cited books too.

What, precisely, have you cited, apart from a short passage about the title usage in the day of Henry IV, when it didn't mean the same thing?

• I don't see how "Roman-German" is clumsy, it certainly is not absurd. Anyway, I gladly yield to revert it back to "King of Germany" as long as it is not claimed that KotR is a separate office.

Since it doesn't even exist in English, it would be entirely gratuitous to create it.

• Note I am totally one with Srnec that KoG and KotR are two separate titles, two titles stressing two different things, but they denote one single office. The actual title for most of history is KotR but it denotes the man elected as King over Germany.

A source? As my sources have pointed out, it denotes the same person (because the King of Germany automatically became claimant to all imperial dignities by virtue of coronation as German King, with the German regalia, and was entitled to the guardianship of the Roman Regalia) - thus, yes, it denotes 'the man elected as King over Germany', just as 'Duke of Aquitaine' under the Williams denoted the Count of Poitou - same person, different jurisdictions.

• "and this is in defiance of history. That's why we list Henry IV as Emperor rather than King)" ... you should first get a bit of an overview on the matter before you make such absurd statements. I can easily look up the date on which Henry IV, hitherto King of the Romans (i.e. King of Germany) was crowned Roman Emperor by a Pope (it didn't matter that it was an anti-Pope ... which wasn't so at the time anyway).

So, again, you are arguing with published sources, namely Chibnall, who, when speaking of the ambiguity of Matilda's imperial title, states, "A similar ambiguity of usage hangs over her husband's father, Henry IV, who was never crowned emperor; the records are inconsistent in giving or denying him the imperial title." But, no doubt, you know more than a published historian. Perhaps you are the one in need of the overview?

• Is "King in Germany" an official title? ... of course they were Kings in Germany. Why didn't it say "of Germany"? Because that would denote a title that wasn't used. The Kingdom always was called Germany (as evidenced by the name of one three Chanceries of the HRE) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange that there is sourced usage of rex teutonicorum by the German chancery below. Michael Sanders 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I take back my remark about Ferdinand I, who was an ill-chosen example. The key example, at any rate, of a King of the Romans who did not actually rule anything was Ferdinand IV. (There were others who held the title before becoming Emperor elect). Calling Ferdinand (and these others prior to their accessions) "King of Germany" seems problematic - this is never really used in English. In English we call these co-regent kings "King of the Romans." We should follow standard English usage on this. Roman-German, I will add, is a German form not used in English. We shouldn't pioneer its use in English on wikipedia. I still think that, at least for post 1508, we should use "King of the Romans." john k 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why he is "Ferdinand IV of Hungary", no doubt (granted, he didn't necessarily rule in practice, but he was legal monarch of Hungary and Bohemia, as well as whatever the title 'King of the Romans' granted to a King under an Emperor). Michael Sanders 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Evidence of both being used at the same time, and the relationship between the two:

• "The most unmistakable example, however...of the indeterminedness in Germany during this period...Lupold's treatise on kingdom and Empire of 1340 defended the freedom of the electors to choose the the Emperor and the right of the king of the Romans, Louis of Bavaria, to the imperial crown. Since the Pope based his claim to the right of approval over the election of the King of the Romans on the theoretical subordination of imperium to sacerdotium, simultaneously associating this subordination with his right to crown he Emperor, every proponbant of an autonomous empire independent from the Papacy had to define the relationship between the regnum (that is, the German Empire as pertaining to the rights of the German electors) and the imperium (the empire as pertaining to Rome and the papacy in the imperial coronation). Lupold argued for the restriction of the papal rights by citing a body of proof ...[that] led him to understand the concept of empire in three distinct senses. Regnum meant the German Empire (reich), Charlemagne's legacy. In the regnum, in Aachen, the electors chose the German King without asking leave of the Pope. In the imperium, too, the king of the Romans reigned independently of the pope. In Burgundy and Italy, in Arles, Milan, and Rome, he presided over the administratio imperii, the maintenance of those imperial rights which Louis the Bavarian had stated in 1323 and which had aroused the opposition of Avignon. On the other hand, the rights of the King of the Romans in the imperium extended only as far as the area of Charlemagne's conquests; these rights were, therefore, 'irrational', as there was no question of any rational legitimization in the sense of a translatio imperii. It was a matter of rights by conquest and history. The third sphere lay beyond this historically attained imperium. It was the imperium in the widest sense, which the Pope had taken from the Greeks and confirmed upon Charlemagne, the legitimate and eternally valid translation imperii. This alone was the imperium as the universal office bestowed by the pope at the time of the imperial coronation." Heimpel, Hermann, "Characteristics of thge Late Middle Ages in Germany", contained in Pre-reformation Germany (editor Gerald Strauss).

[1]

• "Here we will use the term “Germany” to mean the German regnum, part of the imperium,

the Holy Roman Empire which covered many more territories than the German parts and was linked for example in the times of the Hohenstaufen to the regnum of Sicily or in the times of the Luxemburg dynasty to the regnum of Bohemia...The eastern part of the former Carolingian empire became later Germany. The German kingdom, the regnum teutonicum included different regna: Bavaria, Franconia, Alemania, Lotharingia and Saxony...The fact that many German king were crowned emperors too complicated the process of nationbuilding in Germany. It is essential to keep this crucial fact in mind. In Germany this was the starting point of the creation of an imperial consciousness which was marked by imperial, Roman and sacral ideas, the idea of an empire – not of a nation – was born and was dominant for a long time...In Germany during the Middle Ages there was a dualism in various contexts, opposite concepts which did not allow the development of a nation as in France because these dualisms often caused a conflict of interest which made integration impossible...The connection between the Empire and the Eastern Frankish, later German kingdom; between the Emperor and the kingdom of Germany represented by the princes; and in the later middle ages the dualism between Roman Empire and German nation. We have to stress that in Germany empire, state and nation were never identical, never exactly the same during the Middle Ages...It is very obvious that this term “regnum teutonicorum” was first used in a propagandistic anti-imperial manner in the chancellery of the pope. The letters of pope Gregory VII which were sent to kings and princes all over Europe and to German princes served as a vehicle for distributing this new term. Pope Gregory VII wanted to reduce the emperor to his status as a king of Germany. He should be treated as a king in the Western Christendom like other Christian kings. The German king should be put on the same level as for example the kings of England and France without taking into consideration his imperial status. Secondly, the term from that moment on was used by the German princes who opposed the king and emperor Henry IV. They used it to emphasise the importance of a German kingdom and to claim more rights for themselves...authors writing in Latin were aware of the idea of “Germany” much earlier. The terms “Roman Empire” and “German Empire” were discussed in the sources for centuries. Finally, as mentioned above, from the 15th century the new title “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” came to be used. Why did this change occur? In the 13th century, there were political discussion in which lawyers tried to distinguish between the “king of Germany” and the “emperor of the Roman Empire” and the “kingdom of Germany” or the “kingdom of the Romans”. In the 12th century King Henry V, the son of the unlucky Henry IV, had called himself king of the Romans, rex Romanorum, to stress his political position in his fight against the pope. Meanwhile the pope and other political enemies continued to address him as rex Teutonicorum, rex Alemannorum or rex Alemanniae, exactly as they had done in the times of his father. Occasionally in polite letters they say rex Romanorum. These enemies did not want to accept the imperial functions of the German king...The same attitude can still be found in the 14th century when persons who wanted to abolish the empire addressed the German king as rex Alemanniae. Emperor Henry VII († 1313) became furious when he was called rex Alemanniae and not rex Romanorum...many historians believe that the feeling of belonging together in a common empire was stronger; the supra-national and imperial character of the so-called German state continued to be stressed. The idea of the imperium seemed stronger and more inclusive than that of a simple kingdom...we can conclude that in the 15th century the king of Germany, the so called Roman king, the rex romanorum or imperator Romanorum no longer had possessions in Italy with the exception of a few towns. He did not reign in reality any more in the Palatinate county of Burgundy with its capital in Besançon, which was now in practice a part of the kingdom of France. In fact these territories still belonged to the empire but reality was different and they were governed by other foreign princes...At the end of the 14th century some princes tried to elect a German king who would stay in Germany and not like king Wenzel, son of the famous emperor Charles IV, who spent most of his time in other countries like the regnum of Bohemia because he was also the king of Bohemia. The German kings of the 15th century did even not travel any more regularly to Rome whereas in former times they were crowned emperor by the pope. If we look carefully at the sources we will see furthermore that the distinction between regnum (Teutonicum) and imperium (Romanum) was no longer clear. And finally in the 16th century regnum and imperium were used in a quasi identical manner...Now as the Germans were reduced to the territory of the German kingdom, they started accepted the reduction of the royal title from “Roman king” to “German king” because now the official estimate of terms like “German”, “Germany”, and so forth had increased a lot in public opinion. The same development can be seen in the use of the imperial title. Foreign sources from the 12th century on had frequently called the emperor just imperator Alemanniae, imperator Teutonicorum, imperator Teutonicus and so forth but the emperors themselves continued to use the official title imperator Romanorum...During the 14th and 15th centuries the imperium is reduced to the regnum with which it comes to coincide. The consciousness of belonging to a Roman empire was trasformed into that of belonging to a German empire; this development might be regarded as the first step to a national consciousness. The new title “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” stresses the new importance of the German element."

The former source gives a clear political distinction between the two titles. The latter explains the connection between the two, and how they came to be conflated. Further to this is other evidence:

• Arnold, in "Princes and Territories of Germany", refers to the title "King of the Romans" as "an alternative title for the reigning king before his second coronation as Roman Emperor";
• Friedrich Heer, in "The Holy Roman Empire", lists "King in Germany" as a title of the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (since the former was also Holy Roman Emperor, and therefore, as I keep pointing out, could not be 'King of the Romans'), and states that "At Hagenau...the King of France became in 1505 a vassal of the Empire, or rather of the King of the Romans, with Milan as his fief" (if 'King of the Romans' is merely a 'most-Chrisitian King' style honorarium of the King of Germany, then the King of France would be a vassal not of the King of the Romans - i.e. of Germany - but of Italy, under which jurisdiction Milan formally fell), and notes "King in Germany" as being a title of Emperor Charles V after his coronation;
• Arnold cites that "as late as the 1280s Alexander of Roes still thought that he had to explain to his readers that the kings of the Franks or the Germans were also called kings or emperors of the Romans", and confirms again that "King of the Romans" was the usual title of the King "before his Roman coronation as Emperor"; he also records the consideration of the three kingdoms, Burgundy, Germany, and Italy, as 'the Roman realm', in which Henry VI demanded that he should be succeeded by hereditary right";

• Prescott records of Maximilian I that he could not appoint an heir as 'King of the Romans', despite being named 'Emperor-Elect', because "neither the Italian nor the German chancery had bestowed any title upon him other than that of King of the Romans; and no example occurring in history of any person's being chosen a successor to the King of the Romans, the Germans, always tenacious of their forms, and unwilling to bestow upon Charles an office for which they knew no name, obstinately refused to gratify Maximilian in that point" (if 'King of the Romans' was merely another title for 'King of Germany', then plenty of of successors to a 'King of the Romans' had been chosen).

So what can we take away from this? First off, the subject is (unsurprisingly, given this is the HRE) complex and confusing. Authors often contradict each other, using German Empire variantly to mean either the regnum teutonicorum or the imperium romanum; some, for convenience, make a false distinction between the 'King of the Romans', which title they use as that of the heir apparent, and 'King of Germany', which they use to refer to the sole ruler in the imperium without the imperial title. Repeatedly, authors note the confusion (e.g. Bader, Chibnall).

What we do have is a bit of solid political description, which differentiates between 'Germany' and 'the King of the Romans', and which records the usage pretty much as this article describes it.

I remind you that, so far, you have presented no real arguments of the case that there is "no difference" between the title of 'King of the Romans' and 'King of the Germans'. Except insistence that "they have to be" because "What I think is that Michael has far more confidence in his correctness than his actual knowledge warrants" (and, incidentally, the most priceless argument was that 'the King of the Romans' couldn't rule the Empire because "a realm ruled by a King is a Kingdom, not an Empire". This is the organisation ruthlessly lampooned as illogical (and indeed "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire", although that is misleading in this case). Michael Sanders 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title "King of the Romans" signified the King of Germany's right (in his own eyes) to succeed in Burgundy and Italy and be crowned Emperor. So while it may be different in a sense from King of Germany, it is not different in another sense insofar as we are only talking about the claims of the kings. The pope, the chroniclers, and the other kings of Europe had other ideas. The popes did not regard the imperial title as belonging to the German kings by right and so opposed the title King of the Romans. Do you agree with this as an explanation of the confusion? Srnec 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What the Pope's thought of the matter, to a large extent, is irrelevent. As the Empire itself formulated in the middle ages (as sourced above), the rex teutonicorum was King in Germany. The rex romanorum was the ruler of the entire Empire, until he became imperator romanorum. The titles are clearly different - the title "King of the Romans" wouldn't be used after becoming "Emperor of the Romans"; the title "King of Germany" was, from the late 12th century, used officially by the German chancery to refer to the head of the Empire, even whilst he was "Emperor of the Romans". Insofar as the Empire had a constitution, the Germans would elect the King of Germany, who would then, in their eyes, automatically succeed to all the other rights and dignities of the imperium, using the title "King of the Romans" because the title of Emperor was always, until the time of the Habsburg dominion, accepted without question as being in the beneficium of the Pope. Michael Sanders 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael claimed that: (if 'King of the Romans' was merely another title for 'King of Germany', then plenty of of successors to a 'King of the Romans' had been chosen). Could he provide examples of this? john k 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles IV is referred to as being simultaneously "King of Germany and Emperor of Rome" in "The Emperor Charles IV" (Jarrett). If I recall correctly, he later had a son elected "King of the Romans" in his lifetime. Michael Sanders 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Box restoration

Okay then. Just as a heads up, until adequate evidence, refuting that above, is provided, I'm restoring the succession boxes. I have given abundant evidence of the separate usage of the two titles ("King of Germany" as the title of the ruler of Germany, regardless of other honorifics, until he passes on sovereignty of the Kingdom to another; "King of the Romans" as the title used by Imperator futurus until he becomes "Emperor of the Romans", or "Holy Roman Emperor", at which point the title of rex romanorum is unused until a fresh election is called). I'd appreciate it if editors could refrain from altering until they have presented a sourced refutation of the above sources and published assertions. Michael Sanders 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have giving nothing of the sort, nothing to support your fantasy. "Rex Romanorum" is the title of the King of Germany period. Your announcement here says: "Guys, I will edit-war again!" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sourced my assertions. You have not. What my announcement says is that until you prove your own assertions, wikipedia is not supporting your fantasy of the 'German-Roman Kings and Queens'. Michael Sanders 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that you are the one that ended our discussion yesterday when you found my capability of picking up a book annoying, and simply reverted again. And that you are also being ridiculously uncivil. Michael Sanders 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I find annoying is showering is with text that DO NOT prove your point and claim that it does. Provide proof for your assertion that there is a fifth office apart from the three particular kingships and the Empireship. Prove that because that is what you are claiming. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See the first quoted text above (the one I posted on your talk-page yesterday. And which you deleted because you disliked it). What I am saying (backed up by the sources above) is that the 'King of the Romans' and the 'Emperor of the Romans' were the same office - only with the latter demonstrating a particular honour, and a greater supposed power. Michael Sanders 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please stop altering Conrad IV's successor from "no clear successor" to "William of Holland". As I keep telling you (with a source to prove it), the "Interregnum" is commonly dated from the end of the Hohenstaufens, either in 1250 or 1254. William is not commonly accepted as King of Germany, the Romans, or anything else, by historians - he is merely considered an anti-king. Michael Sanders 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not that I disliked the text, I disliked your fantasizing supposedly based on the text. Now you go beyond fantasy saying that the King and the Emperor are the same - why then get crowned at Rome. It was Henry's claim that it didn't make any difference but that was merely his claim, not fact.

'Fantasizing'. It clearly differentiated the two terms.

Even worse, you are turning succession boxes into nonsense over at Conrad IV. A sucession box exist to relate the succession and not silly statements "there was confusion afterwards". Even if there were confusion, the box is supposed to give the next in the line of kings, which happens to be William of Holland. And he is followed by Richard and Alfons. And so on. When the so-called Interregnum started (others give 1250) is of no matter to the sucession box. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is - William is not recognised as a valid King, merely an anti-king. We don't include anti-Kings. Michael Sanders 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quotation from Averkorn:

In the 12th century King Henry V, the son of the unlucky Henry IV, had called himself king of the Romans, rex Romanorum, to stress his political position in his fight against the pope. Meanwhile the pope and other political enemies continued to address him as rex Teutonicorum, rex Alemannorum or rex Alemanniae, exactly as they had done in the times of his father. Occasionally in polite letters they say rex Romanorum. These enemies did not want to accept the imperial functions of the German king. [2]

I think it affirms what I am saying: the titles are equivalent, but the one signifies the pretensions to an imperial right and the other signifies the successor to the old East Francia. Only a few historians, then and now, have ever tried to distinguish the titles by making the rex Romanorum the imperator futurus before he was imperator. However, the fact that there was no separate election, the titles are not really differentiable, you cannot give different dates for the one as opposed to the other, there was no separate coronation, and contemporaries used the terms interchangeably gives lie to the fact that there is really only one office. I would be happy, however, to see the article on rex Romanorum expanded to include all these claims and counterclaims and historical opinion. (Also, the title rex Romanus et Germanus is contemporary and I can therefore accept the title "Roman-German king," though I think the forms I suggested are a little btter still.) Srnec 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd look askance at that text, since "The Holy Roman Empire" (Friedrich Heer) states of the title "King of the Romans" that "Conrad [II] was the first to use this title as a preliminary to the full imperial dignity". Possibly he, and Henry III and Henry IV, only used it when sole ruler in the Empire (as opposed to junior ruler). Possibly the concept simply wasn't fully developed. However, the point remains, as I have sourced, after the Salians, the title "King of the Romans" was accepted as the designation of the uncrowned Emperor (in contrast to "King of the Germans", a title recognised as held even after Papal coronation).

The titles are easily differentiated, if the monarch became Emperor - since the title "KotR" terminates with the imperial coronation, whereas the monarch continues to be "KotG", as well as King of Italy and Burgundy, until the election of a new "King of Germany", who would thus automatically become the King of the Romans as the imperator futurus, Emperor in waiting.

There is not much point in sourcing the usage in the days of the Salians, when it, and the conception of differentiation, was still in the making. That doesn't contradict the sourced usage in later days. Michael Sanders 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Str, stop reverting those boxes until you provide sufficient evidence. Wikipedia is not a forum for your fantasies. Michael Sanders 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So, then, let's recap. Str1977, apparently, thinks he knows better than several clear statements, a library full of books pointing the same way, solely because he says so. He hasn't produced any sources agreeing with him; he has no evidence to suggest he is right. He ignores all evidence saying that he is wrong, so that he can peddle his non-existent title of "German-Roman King" through wikipedia. Nobody here, except Srnec, has produced any clear proof that the two titles are synonymous, beyond "because I say so"; Srnec's only examples refer to the title as it came into existence at the time of Henry IV, rather than the later meaning of the title. Str1977, however, refuses to look at the sources above, insisting that he has the right of it, whilst failing to produce anything agreeing with him. Am I right so far? Michael Sanders 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the thing is I know better than you and I don't see any clear statements proving your point. Only statements saying that the title "King of the Romans" emphasized the Imperial claims of the German Kingship and Roman link inherent in it.

Of course you do. All you have cited is a German source which actually conflates the two titles of Emperor and King, and says that they were meant to be the same.

BTW, I have provide the relevant article from a well-respected work of reference that did agree with my point and definitely didn't confirm yours (which if you were correct, wouldn't be the case). I can just as well provide you the same evidence for William being a king. Also, a third party provided a pdf file that agreed with my view, which is not actually my view but the view of historiography.

Your (conveniently difficult to translate) source says that it "appears as a special title of [Henry III] and Heinrich of IV in 7 to 8 diplomas as the imperial authentication for receivers Italy and Lotharingiens" (which, if translated correctly, would suggest it as a cover-all title for Italy and 'Lotharingia', that "The title variants of the castle. Kanzlei Heinrichs 111. , the “Gesta Chuonradi” of its yard cutting energy Wipo and titles in provenzal. Privaturkunden (1044: “rex Romanus”) witness from reflections over staatsrechtl. Relationship three member realms to the Imperium" (?), and that "“Only since Heinrich V. is röm. Kg title, now finally with inversion (“Romanorum rex” similar to “Romanowm imperator”), in response become the title as “rex Teutonicorum” by the Popes since Gregor VII., which questioned the imperial requirement, the Kanzleinorm. First with Lothar III. (1132) and more frequently with its successors was reached with the version “Romanorum rex (et more semper) augustus” a further approximation to the emperor title." That does not suggest any particular agreement with you; it suggests deliberate altering of the title to demonstrate it as equivalent to the title of 'Emperor'.

Finally, may I add that you have been the aggessor adding this title "King" or "Queen of the Romans" anywhere you went.

You have been the agressor, removing it everywhere you went. You need to have adequate sources to add or remove content. You do not.

You are not even consistent: sometimes you add KotR as a separate box (in line with your initial claim that it is an additional fifth office), then you add it into the box already containing "German King" (which actually proves my point that they are one and the same), you do not add it into the box containing "Emperor" (despite your newest version which says that KotR is identical with the Imperial title).

No, because if the Imperial title was never achieved, then the two offices were held simnultaneously - the Roman title was never changed, because the King never became Emperor. In fact, the Burgundian and Italian nominal dates should also be in there - but as Conrad II demonstrates, the actual kingdoms weren't necessarily given over with the right of Imperator Futurus and the actual governance in Germany, so - without sources - it seems precipitate to add those titles in. If you look at George III of the United Kingdom, you will see "King of Great Britain and Ireland" in one succession box - it demonstrates that the two titles are connected, but not the same.

Stop your ill-informed edit-warring. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop your inattention to sources. Michael Sanders 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In chapter XII ("Imperial Titles and Pretensions") of James Bryce's The Holy Roman Empire, available here, he specifically mentions four crowns only and remarks on the evolution of the title from rex Francorum to rex Francorum orientalis and finally to rex Romanorum semper Augustus. (I feel more confident that my conclusion regarding the nature of these "titles and pretensions" is the correct one.) Srnec 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, he mentions four crowns, does he? Funny, that. As this article itself states, these were the titles taken as the Imperator futurus prior to imperial coronation, and becoming king. Michael Sanders 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the one I have found consistently used and nothing in Michael's text contradicts it. IMHO he confuses the Imperial implication of the title with that of an actual office.

IMHO, you have been confused by the persistent identification of "the Empire" with "Germany", and thus interpret the fact that as a matter of course the "King of Germany" would, after the Ottonians and the Salians, always be the ruler of the entire Empire, and thus either "King of the Romans" (or "King of the Franks", or "King of the East Franks") or Emperor of the Romans, as meaning that the two were the same ("Prince of Wales" and "Duke of Cornwall" always refer to the English heir to the throne, but are not "the same").

The German King, once elected, was considered Imperator futurus. As such it was of course assumed that he would also take over the other two kingdoms, so he could be called "Rex Italiae Futurus" as well. As King of Italy he of course had the royal authority in Italy, as King of Burgundy in Burgundy - in combining the three (which de facto became a formality) he practically had all the authority in the Empire and the Imperial did not bestow any greater authority (as far as internal affairs go) to him. So I can definitely see where Michael is coming from. But his conclusions, packing these into nice little titles and offices is wrong, or rather, against the usage of the people then and against the usage of the historians now.

Str1977 (talk contribs) 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As Str says.john k 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A source for "rex italicum futurus". The German King, when elected, automatically also became "King of the Romans", and thus immediately "King of Italy" and "King of Burgundy" (unless there was already an Emperor, in which case, I know not). And you are demonstrably wrong, since "Holy Roman Emperor" precisely did arrange matters as such. And, as we already know, and have sourced, "King of the Romans" was the title the Emperor used before his coronation. Michael Sanders 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryce's four crowns are: Germany (Aachen/Frankfurt), Burgundy (Arles), Italy (Pavia/Monza/Milan), and the Empire (Rome). There is no intermediate fifth crown between the separate royal crowns and the imperial crown. The German emperor's claimed that the imperial title belonged by right to the German king, so they called themselves "Kings of the Romans." Nobody else accepted this. To everybody else, the emperorship was bestowed by the pope, and it could be bestowed on whomever he wished (as it was in the days before Otto I). The Roman and German titles were used interchangeably, different writers having different preferences. Can you provide one source saying that election to the German kingship automatically meant election to another kingship, namely the Roman, and thus to the other kingdoms, Italy and Burgundy? The title rex Romanorum signifies the pretensions of the German kings to hold the right to be emperor. This was formalised by the Golden Bull of 1356. See Fuhrman's article referenced at Kingdom of Germany. I understand that there is some support for your position (or something similar to it), but I cannot see that it is the typical scholarly opinion. For the most part Alemannorum=Romanorum. Srnec 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

'King of the Romans' and 'Emperor of the Romans' are the same political role, but the latter denotes Papal recognition and confirmation of rights; the former, as repeatedly cited, is the title the imperator futurus takes before being crowned emperor. If Bryce is saying that there is a fourth crown (of the empire) that would seem to agree with the point that there was in existence an overarching political role above the constitutuent monarchies, which was referred to as 'Emperor of the Romans' or 'Holy Roman Emperor' when there was a Papal coronation, or 'King of the Romans' when there wasn't. Michael Sanders 21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what Bryce says. The fact is, there was no overarching authority over the Empire unless there was a crowned emperor. Why do you think all the German kings made such efforts to receive papal coronation in Rome? Because without it they could not claim imperial prerogatives. Historians are divided as to whether the imperium was a mere formality, constituted some power, or was the chief power (the regnum being the formality, as the Burgundian one was). You have yet to show that the imperium was also a regnum. It ought to be plain that the title rex Romanorum was merely German royal propoganda intended to uphold the notion that the translatio had made the Germans the iudices nationum, an interpretation of the coronation of 962 which John of Salisbury, for one, did not share. Whether or not the German kings regarded their election in Germany as binding on Burgundy and Italy also seems to be an open question among historians (and probably among contemporaries). Henry VI was crowned rex Romanorum in Bamberg in 1169 and then rex Italiae in 1186 (can't remember where, probably Monza). Did the coronation in Bamberg make him ruler of the whole empire or just in the regnum Teutonicum? Another complicating issue is that the nature of all these titles was far from stagnant. Srnec 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the crown and regalia

It is interesting to follow your detailed exchange of arguments here. Maybe you want to bring clarity where no such clarity exists. Moreover, the situation (and interpretation) changed over time, as some of you have stated. To me, it sounds very artificial to say something against the fact that the (German) "King of the Romans" was the ruler of the Empire from the beginning. Once he was crowned Emperor the former title was not be used anymore (but he could claim to be both "King in/of Germany" and Emperor/ "König und Kaiser). Do not forget that the "King of the Romans" was crowned in Aachen with the Imperial Crown of the HRE. The same goes with the Imperial Regalia handed over to him during the "royal coronation". Interestingly, much less is known about the imperial coronations themselves (procedure, sources etc.). For example, it seems that in most cases the imperial crown was transported from Germany to Italy to be used a second time, but this was not necessarily the case. --DaQuirin 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One should maybe add that in German "Reich" makes no difference between regnum / kingdom and imperium / Empire. The term "Königreich" (kingdom) was not used during the time under consideration here. --DaQuirin 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The German wikipedia article (de:Römisch-deutscher König) makes it very clear: "Mit dem Begriff Römisch-deutscher König werden in der neueren historischen Fachliteratur die Herrscher (rulers) des Heiligen Römischen Reiches für die Zeit zwischen ihrer Wahl zum König und ihrer Krönung zum Kaiser (during the period between election as King and the imperial coronation) bezeichnet. Ihr eigentlicher (correct) Titel lautete seit der späten Salierzeit Römischer König oder König der Römer (King of the Romans)." "King of the Romans" and "King of Germany" are two ideological perspectives on the same thing - the ruler of the Empire before his imperial coronation. But there were not separate titles, there was just one royal coronation to be held ... Finally, I don't see any modern researcher denying this, but in the medieval ages (already) there was much propaganda going on between different parts of Europe! --DaQuirin 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I more or less agree, especially about trying to bring clarity where it simply doesn't exist. The point about idealogical perspectives is one I kept trying to hammer. Srnec 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that DaQuirin got one important fact wrong: the Kings were not crowned with an Imperial crown of the HRE in Aachen or Frankfurt. They were crowned with the Reichskrone which is the crown of the German Kingdom. There was no one crown of the Empire or at least there's no information about it. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to sort this out

Some of the distinctions that various people have been trying to make may be clarified if we adopt a distinction between dignities and titles.

As is well known, a dynastic title may not correspond to anything in the real world; for instance, the several claimants to the title "King of Jerusalem" long after the Crusader Kingdom of that name had ceased to have a real existence, or the English inclusion of the title "King of France". Such titles, reflecting transient phases in the history of a royal house, or even claims made for propaganda purposes that were never fulfilled, were hereditary adornments that had become bereft of meaning.

Less well known is the fact that a ruler might hold a dignity and yet never refer to that dignity even in the most ample forms of their titles. An example is the dignity of ruler of the Kingdom of Italy. Following its 10th-century annexation, this "kingdom" was administratively distinct from the German portion of the Empire (i.e., largely unruled!), and the rulers even sometimes had their own coronation at Pavia (though not, it seems, after 1530); but the Emperors and/or Kings of the Romans rarely if ever used the title "King of Italy". Possibly this was because the various royal dignities of Germany, Italy, etc. were held to be subsumed under the Roman title, whether Imperator or Rex.

In the first decade of the 16th century, under Maximilian I, the title "Rex Germaniae" was revived. Possibly this was to emphasize Maximilian's authority in Germany, in spite of the fact that he had abandoned any intention of receiving an imperial coronation from the Pope; at nearly the same time the Pope granted him the right of calling himself Imperator (electus) even without the coronation. The titles "Rex Italiae" or "Rex Burgundiae" did not resurface at the same time, however -- or at any later time.

As far as titles go, "King of Italy" was unknown at least as far back as the 14th century, and likely before that. The dignity was unquestioned, and was symbolized by the Royal/Imperial title "of the Romans". The actual power was another thing, waxing and waning -- but mostly waning -- with the twists and turns of Imperial politics.

As a title, "King of Germany" is at first quite similar to "King of Italy": i.e., it was not always used, and for some periods very rarely used. The Kingdom of Germany was quite real, with its own administrative identity -- indeed, in the latter centuries of the Empire, it was much more real than the "Kingdom of Italy", with its own legislative and judicial system. But its ruler was not called "King of Germany" (or even Rex Teutonicorum) for quite some time; the entire dignity was wrapped up with, and practically disappeared under, the titles of King or Emperor of the Romans. In the early 1500s the title reappeared, and sat quite comfortably next to various other kingdoms and principalities claimed by the Habsburgs for nearly 300 years; but it's an open question as to whether the title, in that form, is to be considered real or merely decorative. At any rate, nothing happened in the first decade of the 16th century to alter the administrative set-up of the Empire Maximilian I ruled; he simply took an additional title which (for the first time) was listed beside the title Romanorum Imperator.

Ferdinand I, brother of Emperor Charles V, (who concerned himself largely with Dutch, Spanish, and Italian affairs in his later years), was elected in 1531 as "King of the Romans" -- i.e., heir to the Empire. During the decades before his brother's death in 1558, he had the titles both of "King of the Romans" and of "King of Germany"; when his brother abdicated the Empire (shortly before his death), Ferdinand became "Emperor of the Romans" but remained "King of Germany". The awkward fact is that during precisely the same period, Charles V _continued_ to use the title "King of Germany".

This example suffices to show that the two titles cannot be held to be precisely equivalent; but it also raises doubt about the propriety of using the title "King of Germany" anachronistically, i.e. before the time of Maximilian I, because we cannot be sure what rules it "would have" followed had it been used -- only how it was actually used. It is perhaps notable that the title of "King of Germany" (Rex Germaniae in Latin, but König in Germanien in German) was not, at this time, much used by the Habsburg rulers outside of Germany itself, e.g. in Spain or Hungary.

In short, when we use the titles of "Roman Emperor" or "King of the Romans", we have a pretty good idea of how and where those titles should be applied; they appear to be the substantive ones that respond to changes in position, whereas there's something rather vague about the application of the title "King of Germany", without such certainty about when and to whom it should be applied.

RandomCritic (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the page to clear up the differences between the titles of King of Germans, King of Romans and Emperor of Romans. First the king had to be elected by german nobility (hence king of germans, or king of franks, since the elections where held in Franken), then he was crowned King of Romans in Aachen and later crowned Emperor of the Romans in Italy. 83.253.104.243 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"King of the Romans" and "King of the Germans" are two titles for the same dignity. The latter is not associated with the election (in which the place was not, as you suggest, restricted to "Franken") and the former with the coronation. Once, KotR came into usage, the prospective ruler was elected King of the Romans and then crowned King of the Romans. Also, he was not crowned Emperor in (the Kingdom of) Italy but in Rome. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Africa

What's about Masuna King of Romans and Maurs (Rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum)?--Greutungen (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not the same title, is it? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History and usage

"After the Salian heir apparent Henry IV, a six-year-old minor, had been elected to rule the Empire in 1056, Romanorum Rex became his standard title"

That's not true. Henry IV's royal title was "divina favente clementia rex" without any ethnic notation. This did not change until Henry V introduced "Romanorum rex".

"Nevertheless Pope Gregory VII insisted on using the derogatory term Teutonicorum Rex ("King of the Germans") in order to imply that Henry's authority was merely local and did not extend over the whole Empire."

That one obviously wouldn't be true as well. The kings used to list all of their royal titles (including the Italian and Burgundian) when necessary. The pope had to specify Henry's kingship somehow and since the "Roman" one wasn't yet invented and the absolute one would have caused irritations he had to use the German one.--MacX85 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image of Charlemagne's throne

Changed the picture of the throne to the one half-way from the front. Article originally had the one from the side, which looked weird. (Because you didn't know it was from the side.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.224.114 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

colloquial term

What would be the colloquial yet correct form to refer to the king of the HRE in a conversation where it's not clear that you're talking about the HRE? I mean, you can say "Holy Roman Emperor", many people do it. "Holy Roman king" would be unusual and "German king" might need some clarification as well, same for "Roman king" or "king of the Romans". Would it be "king of the Holy Roman Empire"?--MacX85 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify this one. There was never a 'king' of the HRE only an emperor. So Holy Roman Emperor is the best term and Holy Roman King makes no sense. German King, Roman King or, in modern historical literature, Roman-German King, are all used to refer to the King of the Romans i.e. the sovereign elected by the German electors as their candidate for the imperial throne. This title was born by the sovereign in the interim between being crowned King by the Germanic states and being crowned Emperor by the Pope. And German King never meant King of Germany since Germany as a single political entity never existed until the last century. Bermicourt (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the "Kingdom of Germany" never existed part as we did so plenty on the respective article. But as for the "king of the Romans" not being king of the entire empire I don't know how you can make that statement. The "king of the Romans" did rule with the same authority as he did as emperor. There were no extra judicial rights he gained when becoming emperor.--MacX85 (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Edit

There is a problem with feeding the list I can see the names correctly in the edited list but not at the page after the edit.... There were some Emperors missing in the list as were Charles VI.(Habsburg), Charles VII. (Wittelsbach), Francis I. Stephen (Lorraine/Habsburg Lorraine), also there was a mistake in the Lineage Joseph II. had no male issue as of this Francis II. is the Son of Leopold II. who like Joseph was a son of Francis I. Stehpen (Lorraine/Habsburg Lorraine)

The list goes therefore

Joseph I. Charles IV. (Last Habsburg in direct Male Line) Charles VII. (House of Wittelsbach) Francis I. (House of Lorraine / Habsburg Lorraine) Son in Law to Charles VI. Joseph II. (Grandson of Charles VI.) Leopold II. (Grandson of Charles VI., Younger brother of Joseph II., Father of Francis II.) Francis II. (last holy roman emperor!)

Xandl Hofer (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the article include ...?

1. Günther von Schwarzburg - "He was elected king at the Dominican monastery in Frankfurt on 30 January 1349 by four of the electors". He appears in italics in List of German monarchs. The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia includes him in italics.

2. The German Wikipedia article also includes the following in italics - Frederick the Fair (in this article in normal type), Alfonso X of Castile (not in this article), Henry Raspe (in this article in normal type), Hermann of Salm (in this article in normal type), Rudolf of Rheinfelden (in this article in normal type).

3. If we are going to have names in italics, should this include Jobst of Moravia? Although the German Wikipedia has him in normal type.

Alekksandr (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Dates

1. Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor is shown as having become king on 17 July 1054 - the date on which he was crowned in his father's lifetime. However, he is also shown in the table of heirs from 1053 to 5 October 1056 - the date of his father's death. I suggest that she should be shown as having become king on the date of his father's death.Alekksandr (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

He became king when he was crowned, so that's the date this article/list should go by primarily. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Article seems well written but requires more sources

It currently has two sources cited, only in the Later Developments section. I'm gonna do some digging to see if the information presented throughout this article is in reliable sources, I'd encourage anyone with any expertise in this area to check as well. If I find anything that substantially contradicts uncited information in the article I'll edit and post on the talk page. Cbrfield (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)