Talk:Holy Roman Emperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Needs significant expansion, citation.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Mehmed

Shouldn't this mention Mehmed's claim to the title, upon his acclaimed conquest of the ancient (and still-standing) Roman capital Constantinople in the 15th Century? Hilal2

Did you read this?I think you are referring to the capital of "one of" the Roman Empires, usually refferred to as the Eastern or Byzantine. The Holy Roman Empire was a mostly Germanic thing, it wasn't Roman per se, it wasn't conquered either! Ciriii 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet's claim to the Roman imperial title is mentioned in the article "Roman Empire" under the section "Legacy", along with other claimants such as the Holy Roman Emperors and the Russian Czars. Iblardi 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

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)

[edit] Question

"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)

The Catholic deaconate is open to married men. --Jfruh (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When the emperors stopped seeking papal coronation and merely took the title of Emperor-elect, were they still ordained as subdeacons, or did that require papal coronation as well as the actual use of the specific title Holy Roman Emperor? Emperor001 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Carolingians

I've removed all the references to the Carolingians, because they just weren't Holy Roman Emperors. It's not even arguable. They styled themselves either Roman Emperors or Emperors of the Romans. Their Empire was in no was organized like that of the later HRE, nor were their administration or institutions the same. The fact that some of what eventually became the HRE had once been ruled by the Carolingians is beside the point. The HRE arguably starts with Otto I, because it was under his rule that it began to take shape in the way we know it. The 'arguable' comes in because there is some evidence that Otto himself looked back to Charlemagne as a model. There is also evidence, however, that the Ottonians looked to the Byzantine Emperors as well. In any case, Otto is a much safer beginning point, although it was not till later -- AFAIK, not to the Salians, that teh title HRE comes into normal use. This means there is clean-up to do in terms of the Carolingian emperors, who will need to be changed to something else -- this is especially sticky, by the way, because the Carolingian emperors themselves seldom used the "Roman", preferring merely the title ' Imperator '. I've been wading through Carolingian legal documents all day, as it happens. JHK 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute what you say, but the problem is that this chunk of information becomes orphaned. There is no generally accepted term that encompasses the the post-Charlemagne, pre-Otto Western Emperors, especially the later ones whose relationship with the Carolingian dynasty was fairly distant. I remember being quite greatful when someone filled in the gaps in the List of Holy Roman Emperors article (which seems to have been redirected to this article without much discussion, if only so one could get at all the names in one place.
I think historiography has traditionally seen these emperors as forming a continuity with Otto and his descendants. Certainly they established the notion that the Pope could bestow an imperial dignity upon a German ruler; without this precedent, the circumstances of Otto's elevation to imperial status doesn't make sense. Otto didn't create the concept of a Western Emperorship ex nihilo. If you're going to just excise this huge chunk of material, you should take the responsiblity of figuring out where else to put it and link it properly to this material. You could have also left in some of the explanatory material about the ordinals of the rulers, which is all the more necessary now that the early rulers aren't in the list--Jfruh (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding the deleted material here just so we have a place to store it while we think about where it could go.

- *Louis I the Pious, 814-840 - *Lothair I, 843-855 - *Louis II, 855-875 - *Charles II the Bald, 875-877 - *Charles III the Fat, 881-887 - - ===House of Guideschi=== - *Guy III of Spoleto, 891-894 - *Lambert II of Spoleto, 894-898 - - ===Carolingian Dynasty=== - *Arnulf of Carinthia, 896-899 - *Louis III the Blind, 901-905 - *Berengar of Friuli, 915-924

--Jfruh (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I could have cleaned it up, but I don't have the time. I used to contribute a great deal, and got tired of fighting lame battles. Also, since I didn't write the original errors, I don't see why I should clean up every piece of someone else's mess. It would be like going in and trying to fix the mess that is the Charlemagne article. Some of it is not bad, but it's misleading in many places. By the way, AFAIK (and I have to say I know a decent amount -- my PhD thesis was on the Carolingians), there is no current accepted authority that argues for continuity. Most of those arguments come from late C19 and early C20 history that tried to show a great continuous history of a German Nation. And I don't know of any reputable history that considers the Spoletans as anything more than interlopers. Althoff, who is perhaps the most accepted authority on imperial traditions and the Ottonians at the moment, certainly doesn't see continuity, except in some of the imagery and ritual. Even then, the Ottonians ignore the Carolingian emperors -- the look directly to Charlemagne. JHK 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say that there is such a thing as too much reliance on the most recent scholarship in preference to past (eg S.XIX) scholarship. All academic fields go through phases and fads and it is difficult in history to know whether any given analysis will stand the test of time or will be blown away in the future. The theories of the Romantic period may make for good mocking today, but who's to say that modern theories won't be equally derided by future generations? If there is a tradition, largely created in the modern era and not at all contemporaneous, to view the HRE as in continuity with the Carolingian Empire, and this tradition is still pretty common in general reference works and other works which don't deal directly with the subject, such that a great deal of people would understand the Empire as being one entity existing from 800 to 1806, then why try to simply excise it? Wouldn't it be better to explain why the predominant opinion today is that the Carolingian and HR empires are distinct and only loosely connected by shared "imagery," while still concluding that "the Carolingian emperors are nonetheless still commonly encountered as HREs"? And what does "interlopers" mean? Does it mean "last to issue capitularies in the Frankish fashion"? The marginal authority of the Spoletans is no cause for their complete dismissal anymore than the purely theoretical authority of the current emperor of Japan is for his. And isn't "Carolus Quintus" evidence that "Carolus Tertius" was considered a predecessor? I just don't want to see important information simply removed when the cause for removal is, in my opinion, cause for a note of explanation within the article instead.
Finally, as the one who mostly wrote what exists of the Charlemagne article, I have been meaning to clean it up and give it citations and more analysis instead of just unending narrative. If you could suggest some places that need the most attention or where it is factually misleading... Srnec 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The HRE as established by Otto I was the resurgence of the Empire of Charlemagne, therefore it should be included. Also, the numbering of the HREmperors look to Charles I (Charlemagne), Louis I (the Pious), Charles II (the Bald), Charles III (the Fat), Louis II (son of Lothair) ... Finally, the non-use of the title "Holy Roman Emperor" by the Carolingians is of no consequence, as no one ever used that title. The Carolingians did not call themselves "Roman Emperors" at all - the first to use this was Otto II. The Holy only pops up in the 12th century. Str1977 (smile back) 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Charlemagne did take the title Imperator Romanorum at his coronation. But I do agree with the restoration of this material --Jfruh (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but only immediately after his coronation. Later he avoided it as it produced trouble with the Emperor at Constantinople and instead called himself "Imperator gubernans Imperium Romanum". Str1977 (smile back) 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor-Elect??

I don't understand why this term is being used in the list of Emperors. It is apparently being used to describe post-1508 emperors, who no longer had to be crowned by the Pope. But "Emperor-elect" to me implies that the holder of the title is not yet officially emperor -- e.g., like a U.S. President-elect who is called that after he is voted in but before his formal inauguration. My understanding is that the post-1508 emperors were generally recognized as the official emperors - not as emperors-elect who never actually took office.

Therefore, to me it would make more sense to either (1) call the post-1508 emperors "Elected Roman Emperor" - which is the way the German title Erwählter Römischer Kaiser, used by Maximilian I, is translated in his article, or (2) don't give them any different title, but simply insert a note in the list regarding the change in the way they became the official emperor.Eldred 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I see there was a long discussion of this on the talk page of the old "List of Holy Roman Emperors" article. Still, I'm not satisfied with the result, for the reasons stated above. It seems to me that they were either Holy Roman Emperors or not. If not, they should not be on the list. If so, then they shouldn't have a different title, or at least not a title that implies they weren't officially emperor.Eldred 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The "emperor-elect" title should be removed. Srnec 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, it surprises me that there would be this much concern about the issue. The distinction between "emperor-elect" and "emperor" was not an important one (as opposed to "President-Elect", where there is an important distinction), but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Readers' unfamiliarity with the intricacies involved in German dynastic politics is no reason to compromise on accuracy. Slac speak up! 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the references to emperor elect should stay and that the pages of all emperors-elect should say Holy Roman Emperor elect because, as far as I know, the emperors-elect did not recieve all of the benefits of being crowned (such as being ordained subdeacons). I was always under the impression that the title emperor-elect was created just so Maximillian could use a higher title (emperor is higher than king). Therefore, if the emperors-elect did not recieve the full benefits that came with the coronation, then there is a differnce between crowned and uncrowned emperors, there for the emperor-elect references should stay. Emperor001 19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But "x-elect" tends to mean "x after winning an election and before taking power" in English. "Emperor-elect" has the wrong connotations. Is it standard in historical works? Srnec 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A quick google reveals this: there are probably others with a more thorough look. I've definitely seen Emperor-Elect in print. In any case, it was part of their official title (imperator electus). Because an Emperor was chosen by God to be ruler of all Christendom, and because he inherited the title from Charlemagne, who acquired it from the Pope, they had to be crowned in order to be Emperors. That the practice of early modern Germany could be confused with that of the 21st-century US is unfortunate, but we aim to be accurate above all. Slac speak up! 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The term "Emperor-elect" - it is useful to note it and doesn't hurt a bit.
It is completely wrong to say that "post-1508 emperors, who no longer had to be crowned by the Pope." They were not crowned by the Pope (Charles V being the exception) but nothing changes in the requirements for being Emperor: no papal coronation - no Emperor. Strictly speaking that is. Sure the term "Emperor" was used commonly for those merely being Emperor elects but that doesn't change the fact that strictly speaking they were not Emperors. (Hence any talk about wrong connotations cannot overcome this fact.)
Indeed, Emperor001 is correct: the Emperor-elect designation was created by the Pope for Maximilian who was prevented on his way to Rome. After Ferdinand I this was continued.
Also, "before taking office" is also the wrong way to look at it, as the Emperor-elect was King - the office which yielded the actual power. And yes, the Emperor-elect was elected to be Emperor but did not actually make it to the inauguration (to use a modern American term). But he was elected and crowned King and ruled as such.Str1977 (smile back) 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all way too simplistic. The meaning of Empire changed drastically over the centuries and its connection to the papacy, though obvious at Charlemagne's time, was nonexistent when Francis II simply made himself Emperor of Austria. The meaning of the term "emperor" was also not the subject of universal agreement. Otto I does not appear to have regarded his title as a Roman one and some authors of his time regarded it as the natural product of his "imperial" rule of multiple peoples or his victories, such as the Lechfeld. Henry IV clearly regarded the imperium as his by right and not by papal gift, as did Barbarossa. By the time of Charles IV, the pope's part was small to play, though not insignificant and the meaning of Empire had been turned on its head since Henry IV's time. Was the emperor the de jure ruler of all Christendom or merely a king on par with those of France and England with a special title owing to his historic forebears and his nominal rule over Rome? Contemporaries would have disagreed. Also, whether or not the emperorship granted one any extra powers is largely related to the time and to the individual. It certainly added prestige in many instances, though not always and it clearly entailed a responsibility: to protect the papal states and the city of Rome. It gave some emperors the power to interfere in papal elections (eg Henry III) and others the prerogative to rule in southern Italy (eg Otto I, Conrad II). It was practically meaningless for Charles I and the later emperors-elect, but its history is too varied to be summed up in sweeping statements. In short, I have no idea if the term "emperor-elect" is accurate for all the emperors after Maximilian I. Srnec 23:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure all this is simplistic. But nonetheless, the distinction between Emperors and Emperors-elect is real, even though it was of little practical importance post 1556.
One must also not confuse different meanings of the term "Imperator" - Otto was acclaimed as such on the Lechfeld (or so the source says) in keeping with the ancient Roman custom predating the Principate by a long shot. But that didn't make him Imperator as a ruler. I never heard that Otto called himself Emperor after Lechfeld. He did so after his coronation by the Pope.
Neither Henry IV nor Barbarossa claimed the Imperial title without (anti-)papal coronation. Also, Barbarossa's conflict was spawned by Rainald von Dassel's dodgy translation and the papal schism. Neither Henry nor Barbarossa did succeed in their claims.
The Roman bit is a matter of diplomatic controversy with the Roman Emperor residing at Constantinople. It doesn't concern this issue. Neither do claims to southern Italy.
And as for German titles ... remember that the official language of the Roman Empire was Latin. So the official title is Latin, which had: "Imperator electus" and not "Erwählter Römischer Kaiser".
As for sweeping statements - such a one was made by Eldoredo at the top of this section. (Including the very wrong one that some requirement changed in 1508 - practice changed, not requirements.)
Also, I was quite surprised and upset at your, Srnec, much to quick jumping to agree with his faulty reasoning. Str1977 (smile back) 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to withdraw the "sweeping statement" -- I was merely parroting what I had found written elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, I'm a bit of a pragmatist when talking about what is "required". My notion is, if a "requirement" is ignored in practice for several centuries, and no strenuous objections are made, then the requirement probably doesn't exist any more. So I would say, first of all, what is the evidence that the requirement still existed? Second, whose authority determines whether the requirement still exists? And third, was anybody making strenuous objections to the fact that they weren't crowned during the 2 1/2 centuries when it wasn't happening? Fourth, what's the ultimate plan here - to change all the titles of the articles for Post-Charles V Emperors to "Ferdinand I [or whoever], Holy Roman Emperor-Elect"? Fifth, what do other encyclopedia's do about this issue? Do they all use the term "emperor-elect" in lists of emperors, or are we making an innovation here?

Apart from these issues, and assuming there is consensus that the requirement still exists, I would still disagree with calling these emperors "emperor-elect." (I would think that "imperator electus" would translate as "elected emperor" rather than "emperor-elect", but I don't know a lot of Latin.) As Srnec has explained, the term implies, at least to American readers, that the monarch was waiting to complete a formal ceremony before becoming officially emperor. But the reality is that they weren't waiting to complete the ceremony because it never happened for 2 1/2 centuries. So you'll have American readers, at least, scratching their heads and saying "Huh? Why did none of these later emperors ever actually take office?" So I feel it would be preferable to call them "elected Emperor" - which merely indicates that the method by which they became Emperor was different. Then if you want to insert a note somewhere saying that the Pope never officially recognized any of them as emperor, if that's the case, I would have no objection.

Finally, despite the above rant, I don't feel all that strongly about this issue. It just struck me as pretty odd to call these guys "emperor elect" when none of them ever "finished the process" of becoming emperor.Eldred 12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Eldredo, I hope you don't take my remarks above personally.
Articles always use as titles the one title that is consider most common, so that a reader might most easily find the article. Personally, I find the term "Holy Roman Emperor" horrid since a) it was never used, b) it actually terms a person Holy for whom such an attribute was never claimed ... but I have long given up to protest against it (and Emperor of the Holy Roman Emperor is just too unwieldy)
... and commonly these are called Emperor (or Kaiser in German). Thus the article titles.
Nor would it be, under these premises, be extremly wrong if the list used the word "Emperor" - but Emperor elect is more precise, and we shouldn't be changing it back.
The requirement exists as long as there is no formal revokation of it. No Rome, no Emperor - and Rome basically means Pope in this context. And remember, the title "Imperator electus" was conferred on Maximilian by the Pope.
The linguistic difference actually is none, because to say "elected Emperor" only makes sense if something is still lacking. The difference to American politics is that a President does step down after 4 years, whereas a King or Emperor was such for life. "the method by which they became Emperor" was actually not different, it just lacked the final step.
Also, there was not much ado about this step because the Emperor did after Charles V no longer de facto the old Imperial importance. It was only important to German Kingdom, of which half didn't care about the Pope anyway.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't take it personally at all. I've been around long enough to recognize that this is a teatime chat by Wiki standards. So, I gather that the answers to my first four questions are (1) the requirement still existed formally, (2) because the Popes made the requirement and never formally revoked it, (3) nobody was making strenuously, (4) no need to change article titles. That still leaves (5) what do other encyclopedias say? Does anybody know?

I still believe that there is a significant difference between "emperor elect" and "elected emperor". Emperor-elect implies to me that the emperor's authority is still provisional, because something that everyone expected to happen hadn't happened. In other words, you have no authority as U.S. president until you're inaugurated. You're president-elect from November 2008 until January 2009, when you're sworn in and the old president steps down. Similarly, an organization can have a "chairman" and a "chairman-elect," who doesn't become "chairman" until the old chairman steps down. But by the 1600s, anyway, it seems that nobody expected the emperor to be crowned anymore before exercising authority. That's why I would prefer "elected emperor." There was a new method of establishing an emperor, unsanctioned by the pope but well enough accepted that it was repeated over and over for several centuries.Eldred 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Eldredo, the two situations are not really comprable. The US president elect has no actual office yet, while the HRE elect is already King of Germany (or rather: "King of the Romans") - imagine the president elect couldn't come to the inauguration and the Supreme Court decided that he would have the authority of the office nonetheless. A more comparable case is the one of a King elected in his father's lifetime ... this junior King had no actual governing authority until his father's death. But he was nonetheless King.
Another issue: what makes a King a king: the death of the predecessor?, the election?, the coronation? The US is one of these countries where there is still a noticeable gap between election (first popular election, then election by the electors, then confirmation by Congress) and the inauguration. In non-presidial countries the prime minister goes rather quickly from election to appointment (but then there is a distinction between the parliamentary election and the election of a prime minister).
And no: there was no method of establishing an emperor! There was a special solution in the case of Maximilian I, sanctioned by the Emperor. This was continued by Ferdinand I and successors (whether any Pope had something to say on this I do not know). It was a permanent exception (but so was the 1555 Religious Peace of Augsburg)
But there was no method until other rulers claimed the Imperial title: Peter of Russia, Napoleon, Francis II adopting "Emperor of Austria". Simply repeating the claim about "a new method" doesn't make it true. Str1977 (smile back) 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not just America. I think it's the English language that recognises "x-elect" as meaning "not holding office yet." The fact that there are places where election implies the holding of an office means that the term "x-elect" is meaningless there. My questions are these:
  • Was the title imperator electus the (near-)universal official title of the post-1508 emperors? Did it ever go out of style?
  • Did the emperor hold the imperial office, or did he not? If he did, then I think it is incorrect to say that he was "emperor-elect." Eldredo would, I think, be right in asserting that "elected Emperor" would be a better choice in this instance, but...
  • Is "emperor-elect" common use in English, even common use by one author at least?
  • Also, especially after the Protestant Reformation, was the emperor regarded as emperor by those who did not regard the pope as anything important? Did the Protestant German princes regard the emperor as emperor w/o papal coronation and, if so, would they have regarded the lack of papal coronation as have any (even de jure) significance?
  • Finally, does not the fact that, as I pointed out, Francis II made himself an emperor after he abdicated from the HRE imply that papal coronation was not regarded as essential to the imperial title by that time?
Anyways, I think that the issue here is pretty minor and I think we have to maintain accuracy and clarity. If these emperors were de jure elect only, then we should make that known, but if they can be considered as holding the imperial office w/o papal coronation than it is not clear English to call them "emperors-elect," in my opinion, unless that is typical scholarly usage. (Though I am pretty certain it is not standard.) Srnec 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not saying that it's just America. It is basically those countries with a presidial systems (USA, France) as opposed to parliamentary systems (Britian, Germany). I was merely pointing out that the two situations are not actually comparable.
  • The Imperator electus was the official titulatur. Commonly Emperor/Kaiser was used.
  • The Protestants accepted the Emperor (without any regard for the Pope), even hoping that he would support their cause (in the cases of Charles V and Maximilian II) or that one day a Protestant would be elected. But the main thing in this regard was the Emperor/King as ruler of Germany. Even before the reformation there was line of thought leading to a nationalisation of the Imperium (nonetheless with universial importance), a though prevalent in 19th century nationalism and Wilhelminism. The HRE(otGN) existed in between these two worlds: the old idea of the universal Roman Empire with an Emperor crowned by the Pope and the newer national(istic) Empire with the German people as the centre of the universe. The Protestants would have supported the cutting of the ties - but it never to this until 1806.
  • Regarding the new Imperia: Napoleon, controlling France and Italy, wanted to revive Charlemagne's Empire, supposedly French (as in of the Franks) and therefore crowned himself Emperor (in reference to the first Imperial coronation of Louis the Pious) in 1804. The changes in 1803 had produced a Protestant majority among the electors and Francis expected that Napoleon would make these elect him as Holy Roman Emperor too. Therefore, he announced in 1804 that he had assumed the title of Emperor of Austria (by which he referred to all his territories, including Hungary, Bohemia etc.) - remember: Austria was also the family name. Then in 1806 expectations proved right: Napoleon pressured Francis into resigning as HRE - Francis however refused and (after the secession of the Rheinbund states) declared the Empire to be dissolved (to hinder Napoleon from succeding). So the Austrian Empire dates from 1804 - since it is no Roman Empire, no Roman confirmation (by the Pope) was needed. But that is a whole new state.
Finally, I do not think that Emperor elect takes away clarity. I do think it is more accurate (even though the difference is more and more a technical thing without any effective importance).
Ah, and yes, it is indeed a minor issue. Str1977 (smile back) 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, just on one point: I'm asserting that "emperor-elect" is the usual form of the title in English-language work. I've found one source so far that says this, but of course we probably can and should do some more digging. Slac speak up! 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The exact nature of an "emperor-elect" and how it differs from a proper pope-crowned emperor can be gotten into in article text. The issue of what to call the office which in Latin was called imperator electus ought to be one based on common usage in English, not our own judgment as to what makes the most sense. I agree with Slac on this point - "emperor-elect" is the commonly used term in English. "Elected Emperor" may or may not be a better translation, but that's not really relevant - it most certainly isn't the dominant one. john k 20:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must honestly say, I've never seen the term Holy Roman Emperor-elect in the English language, until having seen this article. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that title should enclosed in quotes: Leopold I, 1658–1705 ("emperor-elect"). SamEV (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this article, all the HRE articles have to be moved to HRE-elect. Example - Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor should be moved to Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emepeor-elect. I suspect orginial research in the additon of (elect). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning behind using Holy Roman Emperor-elect (emperors weren't crowned), could also be used to describe Popes John Pau I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as an uncrowned Pope or Pope-elect (simply because they had no papal coronation, but rather an investiture). We have to be careful of misleading less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not OR. It's just that it gives the wrong impression to the non-expert readers, whom Wikipedia articles should cater to: most readers, whether they're all experts in one or even ten fields, won't be experts at everything. That's obvious enough. But it bears reminding other contributors, because sometimes we seem to forget that we shouldn't be throwing obscure stuff at readers. So it's not an OR issue, it's just that as already stated, emperor-elect has a connotation of 'not quite emperor' for the non-expert reader, whose most likely reference will be president-elect, when in fact the moment these emperors became "elect(-ed)" (no waiting till inaguration day) they held imperial power (such as this was by then), for life. SamEV (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head; when I first came across this term Holy Roman Emperor-elect, my first impression 'was' -elected emperor, but not installed yet-. We've got to be careful with such potentially confusing terms. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "Holy Roman Emperor-elect" is not used. "Emperor-elect," however, is used, in order to distinguish between the uncrowned post-1508 emperors and the papally-crowned emperors who preceded them. We should, however, only use that term in contexts where it's meaning is clear, and the distinction is important. In most contexts, it is perfectly acceptable to call, say, Joseph I, simply the Holy Roman Emperor." john k (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's like the article List of Popes, even though since 1978 Popes haven't been crowned, we certainly don't put (elect) next to their names. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not like that at all. The official title of the Emperors after 1508 (except Charles V) was Imperator Electus. There is nothing similar for popes. john k (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Still though, they were as much Emperors as their pre-1508 predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That's it. And unfortunately, the only readers who will know that are those who are either experts or serious hobbyists in this. SamEV (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In informal contexts, and in contexts where the distinction doesn't matter, we should just call them "Holy Roman Emperor". But in places where it is relevant, we ought to make and explain the distinction. john k (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon

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)

[edit] Romano-German emperor

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)

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)

[edit] New emperors

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)

[edit] Roman Catholic Mass

According to the article Exultet, the Catholic mass had prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor up to 1955! I think this is worth mentioning. 203.17.70.161 03:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)