Fernando and Isabella, Emperor and Empress of Spain

The title of Imperator totius Hispaniae is a title attached to the king of Leon which is one of the kingdoms that formed the crown of Castile. The title was used mainly during the reign of Alfonso VII the emperor but it was a title commonly used by Leonese monarchs which believed that they had a right all over Spain.
If ypu ever go to Leon (a wonderful city) you should take a look at the royal panteon. In their crypts a lot of monarchs have the title of Imperator totius Hispaniae written in their crypts
 
The title of Imperator totius Hispaniae is a title attached to the king of Leon which is one of the kingdoms that formed the crown of Castile. The title was used mainly during the reign of Alfonso VII the emperor but it was a title commonly used by Leonese monarchs which believed that they had a right all over Spain.
If ypu ever go to Leon (a wonderful city) you should take a look at the royal panteon. In their crypts a lot of monarchs have the title of Imperator totius Hispaniae written in their crypts

So a more worldly Isabel (or I proposed a scenario a while back where Isabel dies before wedding Fernando and he weds Juana la Beltraneja instead) might start using the title of "Empress of Spain" by dint of her being ruler of Léon
 
Well there is one country that may object to the Catholic Kings starting calling themselves Imperator totius Hispaniae when they don't control all of Spain, for a small village Kingdom of indomitable Gauls Iberians is still resisting Castilian control.
 
So a more worldly Isabel (or I proposed a scenario a while back where Isabel dies before wedding Fernando and he weds Juana la Beltraneja instead) might start using the title of "Empress of Spain" by dint of her being ruler of Léon
Pretty unlikely who Ferdinand will marry the Beltraneja as would be easier for him (or better his father) claim Castile against her as legitimate heir after the death of Alfonso and Isabella.
 
This was after claiming the Rhoman one for a few centuries though.

It was explicitly stated that this title has nothing to do with the Byzantine empire and I already addressed this issue. Anyway, there were new insignia (imperial crown, scepter, etc.) instead of the old ones (of the Byzantine origin) which never had been used again. The whole idea was an intentional lowering of the old Byzantine-based status (even if an earlier tradition considered "Tsar" being equivalent of an "emperor") and "upgrade" to the higher Western status of "emperor".

And it's telling that the "west" still just called them Tsars rather than Emperor/-eur/Kaisar etc until after the Napoleonic wars.

Wrong again. The new title and it was officially acknowledged and used in the official documents well before anybody heard about Napoleon: Holland and Prussia recognized title immediately, Sweden in 1723, Ottoman Empire in 1739, Britain and Hapsburgs in 1742, France and Spain in 1745, the PLC in 1746.
 
Last edited:
It was explicitly stated that this title has nothing to do with the Byzantine empire and I already addressed this issue. Anyway, there were new insignia (imperial crown, scepter, etc.) instead of the old ones (of the Byzantine origin) which never had been used again. The whole idea was an intentional lowering of the old Byzantine-based status (even if an earlier tradition considered "Tsar" being equivalent of an "emperor") and "upgrade" to the higher Western status of "emperor".
Ie they probably lied. The fact they kept an imperial title is telling.

Wrong again. The new title and it was officially acknowledged and used in the official documents well before anybody heard about Napoleon: Holland and Prussia recognized title immediately, Sweden in 1723, Ottoman Empire in 1739, Britain and Hapsburgs in 1742, France and Spain in 1745, the PLC in 1746.
Now that I didn't know. Thank you for pointing out.
 
Ie they probably lied. The fact they kept an imperial title is telling.0

You still did not quite get it and I admit that the issue is somewhat convoluted, especially for an outsider so let me try to add some "depth".

The 1st "imperial" claim dates back to the reign of Ivan III who did not even officially adopt tsar's title but was married to a Paleolog and combined this linkage to the Byzantine empire with the older claim going back to Vladimir Monomah. Ivan IV was the 1st Russian ruler who became Tsar officially and he and his successors had been crowned by "Monomah's Hat", the crown of Byzantine origin. The diplomatic argument was that Tsar is the same as "Caesar" and as such is equal to an emperor. Needless to say that this claim never was accepted by the Hapsburgs even if from time to time some of the Western diplomats had been using "Imperial Majesty" (IIRC, this was, for example, the case with the British Ambassador at Peter's court who in his speech made in 1710 used the imperial title; at least this was claimed by vice-chancellor Shafirov who was at that time in charge of the Russian foreign policy).

After the Peace of Nystad Russian Senate and Synod came with initiative of the brand new title which was intended to identify new Russian position in Europe. Peter was declared an Emperor of All Russia. Actually, initially Peter was somewhat reluctant to accept because of the existing legacy. However, eventually he was persuaded with an argument that "Emperor" is a Western title which reflects the new position of Russia as the victorious Western state too big and powerful to be just a "kingdom". As a part of the argument, it was assumed and agreed upon that, contrary to the earlier claims, "Tsar" is just an equivalent of a "king". This had some supporting logic because the full title at that time included ".... Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, ... Tsar of Siberia, ..." (none of them having any imperial connotation), and fit the notion of an emperor as "Overlord of the Kings".

In other words, the old meaning of the "Tsar" was officially downgraded to be replaced by the Western "emperor/empress". The same happened with the coat-of-arms (Monomah's Hat was replaced with the imperial crown), crown, scepter, etc. In other words, this imperial title represented a complete break with the old tradition and its claims. It does not make sense to talk about "lying".

Now that I didn't know. Thank you for pointing out.
 
You still did not quite get it and I admit that the issue is somewhat convoluted, especially for an outsider so let me try to add some "depth".

The 1st "imperial" claim dates back to the reign of Ivan III who did not even officially adopt tsar's title but was married to a Paleolog and combined this linkage to the Byzantine empire with the older claim going back to Vladimir Monomah. Ivan IV was the 1st Russian ruler who became Tsar officially and he and his successors had been crowned by "Monomah's Hat", the crown of Byzantine origin. The diplomatic argument was that Tsar is the same as "Caesar" and as such is equal to an emperor. Needless to say that this claim never was accepted by the Hapsburgs even if from time to time some of the Western diplomats had been using "Imperial Majesty" (IIRC, this was, for example, the case with the British Ambassador at Peter's court who in his speech made in 1710 used the imperial title; at least this was claimed by vice-chancellor Shafirov who was at that time in charge of the Russian foreign policy).

After the Peace of Nystad Russian Senate and Synod came with initiative of the brand new title which was intended to identify new Russian position in Europe. Peter was declared an Emperor of All Russia. Actually, initially Peter was somewhat reluctant to accept because of the existing legacy. However, eventually he was persuaded with an argument that "Emperor" is a Western title which reflects the new position of Russia as the victorious Western state too big and powerful to be just a "kingdom". As a part of the argument, it was assumed and agreed upon that, contrary to the earlier claims, "Tsar" is just an equivalent of a "king". This had some supporting logic because the full title at that time included ".... Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, ... Tsar of Siberia, ..." (none of them having any imperial connotation), and fit the notion of an emperor as "Overlord of the Kings".

In other words, the old meaning of the "Tsar" was officially downgraded to be replaced by the Western "emperor/empress". The same happened with the coat-of-arms (Monomah's Hat was replaced with the imperial crown), crown, scepter, etc. In other words, this imperial title represented a complete break with the old tradition and its claims. It does not make sense to talk about "lying".
I get it, it's just that I don't see a new Russian word that replaced Tsar.
It's like claiming that the King of Great Britain is a completely new thing that has no connection to the King of England and King of Scotland.
 
I get it, it's just that I don't see a new Russian word that replaced Tsar.

Well, the obvious question is how good is your Russian language and history. Even basic knowledge would tell you that the new words were "Император" or "Императрица" (for the female rulers). FYI, prior to the newly adopted status, Emperor of the HRE was referenced in Russia as "Кесарь".
 
Top