Talk:Holy Roman Emperor

message: A map of Europe detailing the extent of the empire, and present nation states, would be most interesting and helpful. 86.17.246.75 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: "The emperor was also ordained as a subdeacon which excluded non-Catholics and women from the throne."
If this is true, then how can emperor marry and have children ?
Yes 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catholic deaconate is open to married men.  --Jfruh (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Wilhelm / William of Holland Holy Roman Emperor d 1256 is missing ??
/s/ knee coe kneecola toscanee 69.121.221.97 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: missing William of Holland

message: Dont you think it should be mentioned that he had the pope crown him as holy roman emporor.  He was the last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.82.151 (talk) at 23:55, 23 June 2007
No, Francis II put an end to the idea by abolishing the Empire.  Napoleon was happy to crown himself Emperor of the French. Slac speak up! 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Napoleon crowed himself Emperor of the French but in presence of the Pope, with papal anointing, and he took a quite Holy-Roman-Emperor-like (and -surpassing) position within the Confederation of the Rhine, and what should be especially noted, called his son King of Rome (which Holy Roman Emperors sometimes did). Francis II did not abolish the Empire but time did, what Francis did was a personal abdication. After this both Austria and after 1871 Germany claimed to lead on the idea of the Holy Roman Emperor at least in some respect. --84.154.52.108 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, Francis II may have abolished the Empire to ensure Napoleon not becoming Emperor. I don't know the original wordings. --84.154.56.116 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis didn't have the authority to abolish the empire. Only the imperial diet would have. What he did was abdicating as Roman emperor and declaring the succession of Austria from the empire. That's it.--MacX85 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Napoleon

message: I wonder if this might be a way to resolve the concern about distinguishing Charlemagne and the "emperors of the Romans" from those who later ruled the Holy Roman Empire: use the broader term "Romano-German emperor" current among some historians. As I understand it, it is intended to describe precisely what this article is about, viz., all the German kings who claimed any sort of Romanesque mandate. See also Römisch-deutscher Kaiser, which also covers the changing significance of the term Kaiser. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I think "Holy Roman Emperor" works fine.  In any case, is it really that widespread? Slac speak up! 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in German. There just is no Heiliger Römischer Kaiser. --84.154.52.108 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The emperor never called himself "Holy". It's the Empire that was holy. I like the German term "Römisch-deutsch" in this context. It should also be used in English.--MacX85 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the German term is superior, but unfortunately it is not used in English, and we are stuck with Holy Roman Emperor. john k (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To say "Holy Roman Emperor" is like saying "Great British king/queen". It's ahistorical and sounds silly. If "Romano-German Emperor" is absolutely not used in English I'd suggest "Roman Emperor and king of Germany" which is btw the correct title from the 15th century onwards.--MacX85 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romano-German emperor 

message: I was reading the imperial crown artical and it was mentioned that the imperial regialia is officially to be kept in Austria until there is another holy roman emperor. Should this be mentioned somehow? I do not believe the popes have given up thier rights to crown new emperors. Just a thought. --Wilson 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New emperors 

message: The infobox lists two emperors as the first.  One after the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.245.241 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above. This is disputed, though by how many people apart from JHK I have no idea. I will remove both names from the infobox. Piccadilly (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox is confused 

message: User:Jacobite restoration has been making a lot of edits to the list.  I think they are largely misguided.  As it stands, the article lists rulers' tenure as emperor - whether crowned or emperor elect - and ignores uncrowned kings of the Romans and such-like.  We have a separate article, List of German monarchs, which deals with the whole line of rulers of Eastern Francis and the Holy Roman Empire, included those who were not crowned by the pope and did not use the title of Emperor Elect.  As such, I have reverted. john k (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list 

message: The formal appellation of the Holy Roman Emperor was His Imperial Majesty not as listed in this article as His Imperial Highness, which ceased to be used, whilst the Imperial Office ceased to be a Papal appointment in the 16th century, having such simple mistakes at the begining of this article makes the article look like its written by a 9 year old school boy.Johnkennedy58 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal style and appellation of the Emperor 

message: Maybe there must a piece on the page how and why this list ended with Napoleon Bonaparte  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.71.34 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no there mustn't, and no it doesn't. It ends with Francis II, who was (just) still HRE while Napoleon was Emperor of France. The HRE was abolished in 1806 partly in order to prevent Napoleon making a play for it. Nevertheless, he named his son Napoleon II as 'King of Rome', in reference to the title 'King of the Romans' for the appointed successor of the HRE. Napoleon II never got to try this out for himself, as his father was defeated and exiled. Napoleon II was make Duke of Reichstadt, but was powerless and treated as of no consequence by the victorious allies. He himself felt that his loss was due to his parentage; he said something like "If my mother had been Josephine rather than Marie-Louise, I would be ruling in Paris instead of rotting in Vienna". But none of this affects the fact that the HRE came to an end in 1806, and was supplanted by the newly-created Austrian Empire. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon 

message: The first von Habsburg, Rudolph I, is missing from the list. Odlly, Rudolph II is there, which makes the math slightly puzzling. 108.161.117.228 (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because Rudolph I was just King of Germany. He was elected but never got around to be crowned Emperor. Rudolph II was Emperor but he was Emperor at a time when the Coronation wasn't acquired anymore. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Von Habsburgs 

message: Are there examples of emperor elevate nobles to kingship ?
Or is that a privilege of papacy ?
Siyac 08:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kings of Bohemia were elevated to Kingship by the HRE. So were some early Kings of Poland I believe. The Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia became King with permission of the HRE in 1701. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingship 

message: I am not an expert, but I enjoyed this article and I noticed two related curious points. In the article Family tree of the German monarchs the relationship of Otto I to Louis I the pious is spelt out, yet this article gives it as a possibly wrong fact ("citation needed"). I was looking at the names and Charles IV seems to follow the Carolingian numbering, which probably means that back then the Saxon bit of the Holy Roman Empire was considered a continuation of the Carolingian one, which I would guess has a lot more weight that what current historian believe or debate unlike what the separating paragraph. However, no names are shared with the original roman empire (Maximilian and Maximinus are close though), which could mean that the continuity thing must not have been a big deal anyway. --Squidonius (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two peculiarities 

message: Shouldn't the sentence "The title was held in conjunction with the rule of the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy (Imperial Northern Italy)" be amended to include the Kingdom of Arles? Actual rule was lost quite early on but the title was kept (and rule in the Kingdom of Italy ended up being little more than a pretence, too).  105.227.222.87 (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should. The Emperors held the three kingly titles since Burgundy specifically joined the HRE. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Arles/Burgundy 

message: It is mentioned that Lothair III is 9th descendant of Otto I and 11th descendant of Charles II; I think both are wrong. If not, can you explain the connection? Also the image of his seal is the same as Henry IV's above; the seal has the inscription HEINRICVS; when you click on the seal and then More Info... it says Henry IV, so the image of the seal is also wrong. You may correct these, Aris de Methymna (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lothair III

message: How are Frederick III and the other Habsburgs related to Lothair II?
Since the article only says he is a "far descendant" of Lothair, I would like to know exactly how they are related.
Martiniterum (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As the office was elected. It doesn't matter. The fact was, was that Rudolf the First WAS an emperor, albeit uncrowned, and that Fred3 was a descendant of his. Charles V was elected through "heroic bribery" when he ran against Henry VIII. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry of Habsburgs 

message: Is there any source for this link ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdemaths (talk • contribs) 09:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: and not just a reference that such a descent existed.  Even if true, does anyone consider it relevant in the Emperor's election, or is this just genealogical trivia.  The same goes for Lothar II's descent.  Have any scholars drawn attention to these specific descents as playing a role in their candidacy. Agricolae (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VII descendant of Louis III 

message: The below quote from the article seems to be talking about the thoughts of the people at the time:
 "From an autocracy in Carolingian times the title evolved into an elected monarchy chosen by the prince-electors. The Holy Roman Emperor was widely perceived to rule by divine right by Roman Catholic rulers in Europe,..."
But my understanding is that the term "Catholic" is more of a Protestant term, loosely meaning: non-Protestant. It was rarely used before the Reformation (and the related divisive hot and cold "wars"). (Even today, it seems to be used more by Protestants than "Catholics," who think of themselves simply as; "Christians." Generalized; in popular usage at least, the two terms: Catholic and Protestant, have no meaning without the other.   
Shouldn't the proper wording be:
 "was widely perceived to rule by divine right by Christian rulers in Europe,...?" 
I notice a tendence in history for say, Dark Ages nasties to be descibed as "Catholic," while the goodies were done by "Christians." (As above.) I can remember when a Catholic could not be elected to national public office in the USA...prejudice, bias, and so on.
This is just one exmple of many, many in the article.     Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:CCB5:DDE9:52E:F9B3 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't. There were Catholics elected to Congress in the US of A going back to the time of the Revolution. As to the Presidency, Al Smith got the Democratic Nomination in 1928, nearly a century ago, and the first Catholic Chief Justice, Roger Taney, was appointed by Andrew Jackson. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically Correct?? The terms: Roman Catholic & Catholic 

message: A section about residential cities of the HR Emperors would be very useful. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital cities 

message: Why is Charlemagne said to be Holy Roman Emperor? He was emperor of the Romans, but the HRE didn't exist back yet. Just like Charlemagne was not king of France or Germany, he wasn't Holy Roman Emperor technically. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because modern historians vary in whether they consider Charlemagne or Otto to be the first Holy Roman Emperor. You'll note that later emperors named Charles are enumerated after Charlemagne (Charles I). The title emperor of the Romans was used by all emperors, not just Charlemagne, until 1806 (with the addition of "elected" before "emperor of the Romans" for those who were not papally crowned). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlemagne 

message: The redirect Imperator Romanorum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Imperator Romanorum]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]