The common view remains that the patriarch's participation reflected "the church's prestige and individual patriarchs' political stature", but Peter Charanis has pointed out that throughout Byzantine history there are numerous and clear indications that a patriarchal coronation alone conferred full legitimacy to an emperor. Thus in 1143, Manuel I Komnenos, although crowned by his father, John II Komnenos, in the field, repeated the coronation upon his return to Constantinople; After the Fourth Crusade, Theodore I Laskaris, founder of the Empire of Nicaea, was unable to be crowned emperor until he had filled the vacant position of Patriarch of Constantinople; in 1261, the coronation of Michael VIII Palaiologos in Constantinople laid the ground for the removal of the rightful dynastic emperor, John IV Laskaris, from power; and in the civil war of the 1340s, John VI Kantakouzenos crowned himself emperor in 1341 in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, but had to repeat the ceremony after his victory in the war, in Constantinople, after installing a willing patriarch; and a few years later, the coronation of Matthew Kantakouzenos as co-emperor had to be postponed until a new, more pliable patriarch was installed.