Separation of the iron crown( italy) from HRE

gurgu

Banned
pod: what happens if at some points the elected emperor of the HRE does not inherit the italian crown but instead is elected one italian prince as king of italy?
for example the Hapsburgs are "emperors" while visconti or d'Este are "kings" of italy? also should the elected italian king have a place as elector of the HRE or is enough?
Does this create an earlier italian unification will or it stays as mere title?
 
It is worth remembering that the medieval Kingdom of Italy only really covered the lands between the Lazio-Le Marche and the Alps, excluding Venice which was never part of the Holy Roman Empire, and the North-East from Val d'Aosta down to Nice, which were part of the Kingdom of Burgundy. If a separate Italian kingdom could establish itself as more than a blip, and something akin to the Golden Bull was implemented, then the King of Italy would almost certainly be too powerful a vassal to deny electoral privileges, though even if they did receive the dignity of Kurfürst, it's unlikely they'd actually exercise it regularly, as Frankfürt-am-Main is a hell of a long hike through potentially quite dangerous lands. Biggest problem I can see with this scenario though, is the city-states and nobles of Italy, who rather liked how loose Imperial control was, and happily switched allegiances between the Pope and the Emperor based largely on who would be least likely to actually exert control (see the Guelph-Ghibelline Wars). Not really sure how you could get the Dukes of Urbino or the Patricianate of Florence to agree to having a king in Milan when being the direct subjects of a distant and largely disinterested Imperial crown was much more convenient.
 
The electors were only those who elected the King of Germany. The titles of King of Italy and other realms of the empire, such as Kingdom of Lotharingia-Arles were bestowed upon the elected King of Germany by the Papacy. Papal opinions were that they accept the right of the electors to chose the King of Germany freely, however, the Papacy reserves the right to 'confirm' the King of Germany as Emperor of Rome which included Italy. This title, as Innocent III stipulated, can be revoked by the Papacy for the reasons of Heresy or breach of his obligations toward the Church. Hence, there could be a legal King of Germany at the same instance as there could be a King of Italy and Emperor of Rome. So no, they cannot elect a king of Italy differentiated from the King of Germany and at least remain in a tradition of any kind.
 
It is worth remembering that the medieval Kingdom of Italy only really covered the lands between the Lazio-Le Marche and the Alps, excluding Venice which was never part of the Holy Roman Empire, and the North-East from Val d'Aosta down to Nice, which were part of the Kingdom of Burgundy. If a separate Italian kingdom could establish itself as more than a blip, and something akin to the Golden Bull was implemented, then the King of Italy would almost certainly be too powerful a vassal to deny electoral privileges, though even if they did receive the dignity of Kurfürst, it's unlikely they'd actually exercise it regularly, as Frankfürt-am-Main is a hell of a long hike through potentially quite dangerous lands. Biggest problem I can see with this scenario though, is the city-states and nobles of Italy, who rather liked how loose Imperial control was, and happily switched allegiances between the Pope and the Emperor based largely on who would be least likely to actually exert control (see the Guelph-Ghibelline Wars). Not really sure how you could get the Dukes of Urbino or the Patricianate of Florence to agree to having a king in Milan when being the direct subjects of a distant and largely disinterested Imperial crown was much more convenient.

There is also the issue of precedence, this had never occurred before. It is a radical action to take, for one to independently declare themselves king of Italy without Papal approval in the matter. This could lead to Papal-many Italian-Venetian and German opposition and would decimate this power in Milan almost inevitably. We would need to create precedence for maybe a viceroy of the Emperor in Italy of some kind. One can scarcely imagine how powerful interdiction would be in this instance or simply an excommunication.
 
There is also the issue of precedence, this had never occurred before. It is a radical action to take, for one to independently declare themselves king of Italy without Papal approval in the matter. This could lead to Papal-many Italian-Venetian and German opposition and would decimate this power in Milan almost inevitably. We would need to create precedence for maybe a viceroy of the Emperor in Italy of some kind.
A serious enough threat might be enough to have the Emperor and Pope sign off on a vassal-king. Bohemia already provides precedent for a kingdom of the Empire to not be ruled directly by the Emperor, but Bohemia is relatively small and peripheral. In many ways Italy is an integral part of the Empire, as while the King of the Germans acts as a de-facto Emperor, in order to be indisputably the Holy Roman Emperor the King of the Germans needs to be crowned by the Pope, who doesn't tend to be a fan of leaving Rome. Of course, in practice many Emperors never bothered, since it was a whole tedious production and carried with it the expense of the army that was needed to keep them safe from their Italian vassals (who saw their leige's passing through as an excellent opportunity to extort him) and to bully the Pope into actually crowning them. Perhaps if the Imperial throne can become more firmly established in the Salian or Ottonian dynasties, a branch could be established as Kings of Italy and general viceroys for the region. Even if their overlordship of the Italians is nominal at best, and their actual rule confined to their personal lands (Ravenna and the Romagnol perhaps?), the title would still exist.
 
A serious enough threat might be enough to have the Emperor and Pope sign off on a vassal-king. Bohemia already provides precedent for a kingdom of the Empire to not be ruled directly by the Emperor, but Bohemia is relatively small and peripheral. In many ways Italy is an integral part of the Empire, as while the King of the Germans acts as a de-facto Emperor, in order to be indisputably the Holy Roman Emperor the King of the Germans needs to be crowned by the Pope, who doesn't tend to be a fan of leaving Rome. Of course, in practice many Emperors never bothered, since it was a whole tedious production and carried with it the expense of the army that was needed to keep them safe from their Italian vassals (who saw their leige's passing through as an excellent opportunity to extort him) and to bully the Pope into actually crowning them. Perhaps if the Imperial throne can become more firmly established in the Salian or Ottonian dynasties, a branch could be established as Kings of Italy and general viceroys for the region. Even if their overlordship of the Italians is nominal at best, and their actual rule confined to their personal lands (Ravenna and the Romagnol perhaps?), the title would still exist.

I do not believe it is impossible, but it must be done with some sort of Papal approval of some kind wherein the Papacy finds benefit with the viceroy over Italy. The issue is, the Papacy confirms the King of Germany as Emperor and King of Italy, thus to allow a viceroy to inherit this title automatically means that the Papacy is relinquishing her privileges even more so. Bohemia was not a title with which the Papacy confirmed in that same sense, so it was not an issue and as yous said, it was not like Italy in terms of its status.

Remind ourselves, when I say that the Papacy is relinquishing even more so, this means the Papacy even by gifting the Empire to the elected German king, in their mind, they are relinquishing power. According to Papal thought, the Papacy has total power over the Imperial title and over all Latin Christians in an absolute manner.
 
A different investiture controversy might sideline the papacy. Additionally, the HREmperor might decide to change a bit of the internal structure of the iron crown to better enforce his will over the papacy.
 

gurgu

Banned
A different investiture controversy might sideline the papacy. Additionally, the HREmperor might decide to change a bit of the internal structure of the iron crown to better enforce his will over the papacy.
how about the aftermath of legnano? after being defeated in order to grant the autonomy promised to the italian cities, but to keep them under the empire Friedrich II gives them the Iron crown with the deal that the italian king will pay an imperial tax equal to a percentage of the tax collected from the italian princes( example: every italian pays a 5% of the income in tax to the italian king, who gives the 50% of the collected money to the emperor, thus avoiding him to get too rich). the Italians are happy because they are more autonomous but under imperial protections, and the pope won't be able to expand northwards. Also the french king won't be able to make the italian wars in the future, since to go through the italian states opposing him means going to war with the emperor( and whoever joins him).
last consideration with a good level of this income the emperor will always have enough money for mercenaries or to even bribe the elector to pass some reforms like the crown succession laws and centralization( the italian peninsula is able to give more money then the entire German part of the empire.
 
A different investiture controversy might sideline the papacy. Additionally, the HREmperor might decide to change a bit of the internal structure of the iron crown to better enforce his will over the papacy.

It is more difficult to defeat the Papacy as the Holy Roman Emperor. There is a reason that the Papacy found its defeat at the hands of the French and English monarchies and not to the Imperial might that though closest to the Papacy, their connection was such that a breach was not so easy. It seems comical and extremely revisionist for the Empire to 'sideline' the Pontiff who appoints him to his position, it is not as if the Emperor inherited the title of Empire through lineage to the Roman empire, but received it in usufruct from the Papacy. Dante and the others who said that the Emperor possessed something other than what was gifted by the Papacy, was incorrect legally, until there was a decline in Papal authority at the tail-end of the Middle Ages.
 
As has been pointed out there's the issue that since the division among Charlemagne's heirs the Imperial title was conferred by the Pope onto the King of Italy. It wasn't automatic but even after Otto conquered Italy the Imperial title was still associated with that kingdom.
 
Top