Jefferson crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 1806

The pope has no authority to choose who is the Emperor. The title of HRE was ostensibly an elective office as defined by the Golden Bull of 1356. The pope attempt to choose an emperor would not only piss off Napoleon it would alienate the German states.

If the Pope looked at the situation as being the Habsburgs effectively abdicating their claim on the title, the Pope has as much right as anyone to PROPOSE a new Emperor to the Electors. Quite what this means if the Electors have all taken kingdoms and Grand Ducal titles from Napoleon in return for giving up their role as Electors is uncertain. It could potentially be argued that the dispossessed religious electors are now the only ones who remain, so the Pope could propose a name to them, arguing that nobody has the right to dispossess them of their role, and they could back his choice.

Why not ask a moderator to move this to the ASB forum.

This is NOT as ASB discussion but a historical one.
 
Why not ask a moderator to move this to the ASB forum.
I feel this should stay here. While extremely implausible, it does allow us to look at the mechanics of how the position of Holy Roman Emperor worked, the legal state of things in the United States, Jefferson aethiestic (I don't feel Deistic as a label really works, considering what was edited out from the Jefferson Bible) views, and a whole host of things.
 
Oh yes I definitely blew it, wasn't thinking about the date (Napoleon), you are absolutely correct, changes everything. Sorry! - - New plan: Pope appoints - Jefferson sells to Napoleon - Jefferson kicks-back to the Pope. -- Win, win, win.

And, if I understand correctly, the end product is "Kingdom of Rome" (I doubt that "empire" is acceptable by the numerous reasons) created by Nappy out of the Papal States and ruled, just for a change, by someone who is NOT Nappy's brother. Being an absolute nobody in Europe, Jefferson is harmless as a candidate. Well, the only other thing you need is to the Americans to kick Jefferson out of the office after his European "activities" are made public in the US. ;)
 
Interestingly the biggest block on Jefferson would be that he was not of noble blood - but what IS noble blood? Since new nobles are constantly being created, the gentry move up in rank, the military take on rank etc, it can be seen that the idea of noble blood was always fairly fluid. You had it once you had it.

Looking at America, where there were no noble titles, the question would be whether the Founding Fathers, for example, could be held to hold a status equivalent to nobility. The majority were great landowners, and several founded dynasties (Adams being notable in achieving a father-son double in the presidency).

This, from the ubiquitous Wiki, covers the final Electors

In 1685, the religious composition of the College of Electors was disrupted when a Catholic branch of the Wittelsbach family inherited the Palatinate. A new Protestant electorate was created in 1692 for the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, who became known as the Elector of Hanover (the Imperial Diet officially confirmed the creation in 1708). The Elector of Saxony converted to Catholicism in 1697 so that he could become King of Poland, but no additional Protestant electors were created. Although the Elector of Saxony was personally Catholic, the Electorate itself remained officially Protestant, and the Elector even remained the leader of the Protestant body in the Reichstag.

In 1706, the Elector of Bavaria and Archbishop of Cologne were banned during the War of the Spanish Succession, but both were restored in 1714 after the Peace of Baden. In 1777, the number of electors was reduced to eight when the Elector Palatine inherited Bavaria.

Many changes to the composition of the college were necessitated by Napoleon's aggression during the early 19th century. The Treaty of Lunéville (1801), which ceded territory on the Rhine's left bank to France, led to the abolition of the archbishoprics of Trier and Cologne, and the transfer of the remaining spiritual Elector from Mainz to Regensburg. In 1803, electorates were created for the Duke of Württemberg, the Margrave of Baden, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, and the Duke of Salzburg, bringing the total number of electors to ten. When Austria annexed Salzburg under the Treaty of Pressburg (1805), the Duke of Salzburg moved to the Grand Duchy of Würzburg and retained his electorate. None of the new electors, however, had an opportunity to cast votes, as the Holy Roman Empire was abolished in 1806, and the new electorates were never confirmed by the Emperor.

Was the Pope party to any of these treaties? Did he recognise them?

Even if so, he is still left with ONE spiritual elector, that at Regensburg.
 
Interestingly the biggest block on Jefferson would be that he was not of noble blood - but what IS noble blood? Since new nobles are constantly being created, the gentry move up in rank, the military take on rank etc, it can be seen that the idea of noble blood was always fairly fluid. You had it once you had it.

Looking at America, where there were no noble titles, the question would be whether the Founding Fathers, for example, could be held to hold a status equivalent to nobility. The majority were great landowners, and several founded dynasties (Adams being notable in achieving a father-son double in the presidency).

This, from the ubiquitous Wiki, covers the final Electors



Was the Pope party to any of these treaties? Did he recognise them?

Even if so, he is still left with ONE spiritual elector, that at Regensburg.

All of the above did not really matter due to 2 fundamental factors: 1st, the popes did not elect the emperors (and did not crown them since 1530) and 2nd, in 1806 the HRE ceased to exist.
;)
 
All of the above did not really matter due to 2 fundamental factors: 1st, the popes did not elect the emperors (and did not crown them since 1530) and 2nd, in 1806 the HRE ceased to exist.
;)

Anyone can propose a candidate

The HRE coming not to exist was illegal, there was no legal mechanism for the Habsburgs to just decree this. That is the whole point of the thread - that the Emperor has abdicated and done so effectively in the name of his entire dynasty. But if some influential people decide not to accept this, what could they do to preserve the HRE?

Which is why I was looking at the status of the Electors - and of the spiritual elector especially.
 
Was the Pope party to any of these treaties? Did he recognise them?

Even if so, he is still left with ONE spiritual elector, that at Regensburg.
Hoooh boy. This makes me remember how much I wish I knew the exact name of a large series of book by Cambridge. They had a historical atlas as part of the series, and it showed the dynasties in control of the major Prince-Bishoprics. Anyways, did any of them actually do what the Pope said? A lot of them seemed to look more at the Prince part of Prince-Bishop.
 
Anyone can propose a candidate

But not anyone can declare him an emperor and the thread was NOT about just an abstract proposition.

The HRE coming not to exist was illegal, there was no legal mechanism for the Habsburgs to just decree this.
There was no legal mechanism for dissolving more than one empire and, yet, somehow they are not on the map.

That is the whole point of the thread - that the Emperor has abdicated and done so effectively in the name of his entire dynasty. But if some influential people decide not to accept this, what could they do to preserve the HRE?

Wrong. The thread was explicitly about the POPE declaring a new emperor and he did not have a legal authority for such an action. The "influential people" who legally could refuse to accept dissolution of the HRE did not do so (obviously, none of them was foolish enough) and papal opinion on the subject was irrelevant.

Which is why I was looking at the status of the Electors - and of the spiritual elector especially.

OK, let's put it differently. If any of them expressed any objection, he would became elector in exile. Which, of course, will leave him with a complete freedom of continuing his objections but their practical value would be zero. The only meaningful opinion in this specific situation was Napoleon's even if it was not quite "legal".
 
One point of this thread was to show that the HRE, like Rome, actually had aspects of a Republic. In the HRE, the Emperor was elected, while in Rome, they needed the support of the army. Any time the monarch has to be chosen, the electing body becomes part of the executive branch and the monarch is effectively sharing power.

Even the Byzantine Empire was like this, because at various times people called for the generals to declare themselves Emperor.

Wait- I'm surprised no one mentioned the Louisiana Purchase. If the US and France were at war in 1798, Napoleon probably wouldn't have sold Louisiana to the US. So the US would be half of the size it actually was in 1806, and also, France would be able to use Louisiana as a base to attack the US. This aspect of the thread was arguably the most interesting!
 
Last edited:
One point of this thread was to show that the HRE, like Rome, actually had aspects of a Republic. In the HRE, the Emperor was elected, while in Rome, they needed the support of the army. Any time the monarch has to be chosen, the electing body becomes part of the executive branch and the monarch is effectively sharing power.

Even the Byzantine Empire was like this, because at various times people called for the generals to declare themselves Emperor.

Wait- I'm surprised no one mentioned the Louisiana Purchase. If the US and France were at war in 1798, Napoleon probably wouldn't have sold Louisiana to the US. So the US would be half of the size it actually was in 1806, and also, France would be able to use Louisiana as a base to attack the US. This aspect of the thread was arguably the most interesting!

Why would the US and France be at war, especially in 1806? As for Louisiana, it was doomed: French population was too small.
 
Why would the US and France be at war, especially in 1806? As for Louisiana, it was doomed: French population was too small.

That was the entire premise of this thread... what if the Quasi War turned into an actual declared war. Also, I didn't say they would be at war in 1806, I said what if they were at war in 1798.
 
As for Louisiana, it was doomed: French population was too small.

Yea, isn't is an accepted notion that Napoleon sold the territory (beside the need for immediate cash) because he knew he couldn't hold it against American intrusion (settlement); why not grab the bucks for something you know you are likely to lose control of anyway?

Napoleon launching an American invasion from Louisiana seems absurd even for this discussion. We would have to change an awful lot happenings in Napoleon's Europe to get an appreciable number of French troops into Louisiana. And then wouldn't the Brits recognize that Napoleon was over-extended and embargoed (harassed) the port city, or maybe even go as far to use the political circumstances to occupy New Orleans outright. I guess we would have to start with NO Trafalgar, because Napoleon would need one hell of a naval force to even begin thinking of an American invasion in 1806.
 
Did anyone mention the Emoluments Clause yet? Granting a noble title to the US President is flagrantly unconstitutional.
 
I thought it OK with the 'consent of the Congress.'

Yes, but granting a title like Holy Roman Emperor not to some random dude, but to the sitting President, that's exactly the kind of corruption that the Clause was designed to prevent. If Congress went along with it, then there'd be no point in having that in the Constitution at all.
 
Yes, but granting a title like Holy Roman Emperor not to some random dude, but to the sitting President, that's exactly the kind of corruption that the Clause was designed to prevent. If Congress went along with it, then there'd be no point in having that in the Constitution at all.

I agree Congress never goes for it, and well they shouldn't. But that does not make the Constitution nugatory; so long as Congress stays within its enumerated powers, (which in this case they would) it doesn't make Big C pointless, just poorly deployed.

But, yea, never happens, way too dangerous to our liberty.
 
I agree Congress never goes for it, and well they shouldn't. But that does not make the Constitution nugatory; so long as Congress stays within its enumerated powers, (which in this case they would) it doesn't make Big C pointless, just poorly deployed.

But, yea, never happens, way to dangerous to our liberty.

Well, I meant there'd be no purpose to the Emoluments Clause specifically, if Congress gave the go-ahead even to something as out-there as this. No threat to the Constitution as a whole.

Still, I think we're otherwise agreed here.
 
Seems about as likely as this.

6C1C28CA3AEFC56DFDC51F02D841E87724658ECA
 
Top