Talk:King of the Romans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I did that by including a "Other usages" section. Str1977 (smile back) 07:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex Romanorum

message: 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)
thread_title: Coronation in Aachen

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

text: [Oppose.] Sanders is right, two different topics! Hyperboreer 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Per Sanders and complete difference of articles' respective scopes. — LlywelynII 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Merge Kingdom of Germany article into King of the Romans


message: 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). 
*:"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Don't forget the crown and regalia 

message: 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)
thread_title: Trying to sort this out

message: What's about Masuna King of Romans and Maurs (Rex gentium Maurorum et Romanorum)?--Greutungen (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually not the same title, is it? Str1977 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: "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)
thread_title:  History and usage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image of Charlemagne's throne 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: colloquial term

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem with Edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Should the article include ...?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article seems well written but requires more sources