Two HRE questions (related to a TL I'm thinking about)

1. Is it possible for the Electors (or another Imperial body) to remove an Emperor? What all would the process for doing this evolve?

2 (More speculative) What would have happened if a Protestant had been elected as Emperor in the 17th C? Would there have been any basis for him calling himself "Holy Roman Emperor" and claiming to rule over the HRE?
 
Other than any issue of persuading the electors (relatively believable), the importance of the Pope to the HRE title is probably a deal breaker for #2. Though at the point it would come up, its not inconceivable - as the emperors seem to have skipped that part to some extent anyway, if I remember correctly.
 

Thande

Donor
The Thirty Years' War was an extraordinary circumstance. Yes it'd be kind of weird for a Protestant to call himself Holy Roman Emperor, but if Henry VIII can keep calling himself Defender of the Faith...
 
1. Well, this guy was deposed as King of the Romans (basically an Emperor who wasn't crowned by the Pope).

2. Well, that's not impossible; though of course the Habsburgs had decided they could be Emperors without a Papal coronation (the last Emperor to be crowned by the Pope was Charles V, and effectively at swordpoint).
 
I think that - if the new Protestant Emperor really wanted it - there wouldn't be many problems about changing the name. After all, in 1512 they had already changed it from "Holy Roman Empire" to "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".
 
Of course, a Protestant wouldn't be elected without a lot more of Germany going Protestant, or going on the rampage and forcing the election at swordpoint. The three Electoral Archbishoporics are, by default, Catholic leaning, Bohemia is with Catholic Austria, and Bavaria is Catholic. That leaves Saxony, Brandenburg, Brunswick-Luneburg and possibly the Elector Palatine depending on his opinions, and they're easily outvoted.
 
I think that - if the new Protestant Emperor really wanted it - there wouldn't be many problems about changing the name. After all, in 1512 they had already changed it from "Holy Roman Empire" to "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

What would the new name be, though? "Roman Emperor"? "German Emperor"?

@Alex Richards-I'm aware of that. I'm still working the TL out in my mind, but it involves things going really, really bad for the Hapsburgs in the early part of the Thirty Years War.
 
What would the new name be, though? "Roman Emperor"? "German Emperor"?

@Alex Richards-I'm aware of that. I'm still working the TL out in my mind, but it involves things going really, really bad for the Hapsburgs in the early part of the Thirty Years War.

No reason it can't be "holy Roman" still - if memory serves, the "holy" was put in place by an Emperor (Barbarossa), not the papacy.

But if not, German Emperor makes the most sense. Roman has too many papal connotations if one is looking for a way to avoid any.
 
Of course, a Protestant wouldn't be elected without a lot more of Germany going Protestant, or going on the rampage and forcing the election at swordpoint. The three Electoral Archbishoporics are, by default, Catholic leaning, Bohemia is with Catholic Austria, and Bavaria is Catholic. That leaves Saxony, Brandenburg, Brunswick-Luneburg and possibly the Elector Palatine depending on his opinions, and they're easily outvoted.

Don't forget that the Elector Palatine became Catholic after a certain cadet branch of the Palatinate Wittelsbachs gained the electoral dignity, so that's maybe why the Protestant electors were very ambitious.
 
2. (More speculative) What would have happened if a Protestant had been elected as Emperor in the 17th C? Would there have been any basis for him calling himself "Holy Roman Emperor" and claiming to rule over the HRE?
As SavoyTruffle mentioned there were already rulers that still called themselves Holy Roman Emperor even when not crowned by the Pope. I guess it depends on how friendly different rulers are to our prospective Protestant Emperor and their relations with the Papacy, those that liked him would probably recognise him as Holy Roman Emperor whilst those that didn't would only recognise him as King of the Germans or King of the Romans after 1237 if you don't change the timeline before then as a ruler that's been elected but not crowned by the Pope.


But if not, German Emperor makes the most sense. Roman has too many papal connotations if one is looking for a way to avoid any.
Apparently during the Investiture Controversy Gregory VII purposely refered to Henry IV as King of the Germans to undercut their right to rule the parts of the Empire outside of Germany so he changed it to King of the Romans to stress the office's Imperial stature and his right to rule all of the Empire.
 
Last edited:
No reason it can't be "holy Roman" still - if memory serves, the "holy" was put in place by an Emperor (Barbarossa), not the papacy.

But if not, German Emperor makes the most sense. Roman has too many papal connotations if one is looking for a way to avoid any.

This. "Holy Roman Emperor" was its established name, and a Protestant would argue that they were just as holy as a Catholic. Holiness is nothing to do with how close to the Pope and his policies you are, it's to do with how saintly you act. Since the term is describing the country not the Emperor anyway, where's the problem?
 
Simplest way to get a Protestant Emperor would be to prevent the Habsburgs from inheriting Spain.

Even OTL, the Reformation initially swept all before it until it ran up against Charles V, to the point where the only major dynasties remaining Catholic were the Habsburgs and about half of the Wittelsbachs.

Take away the Spanish conection, which tied the Habsburgs to the Catholic cause, and quite likely they also become Protestant, which probably means that all of Germany does.
 
Simplest way to get a Protestant Emperor would be to prevent the Habsburgs from inheriting Spain.

Even OTL, the Reformation initially swept all before it until it ran up against Charles V, to the point where the only major dynasties remaining Catholic were the Habsburgs and about half of the Wittelsbachs.

Take away the Spanish conection, which tied the Habsburgs to the Catholic cause, and quite likely they also become Protestant, which probably means that all of Germany does.

I doubt that Charles V or Ferdinand I (for that matter) would convert, more ATL Philip II and Maximilian II could. Certainly for Charles V it was more than politics; it was connected with his personal beliefs. (His brother Ferdinand I was also a Catholic, but a much more pragmatic politician.)
Furthermore a emperor much more focused on the empire could have prevented a rapid spread or at least have slowed down the spread of protestantism in the empire. IOTL one of Charles V problems was, that he had to divide his attention between the various parts of his vast domains. A emperor more focused on the empire could have had an earlier and better response. In other words removing the 'Spanish connection' has more than one effect.
 
Last edited:
I doubt that Charles V or Ferdinand I (for that matter) would convert, more ATL Philip II and Maximilian II could. Certainly for Charles V it was more than politics; it was connected with his personal beliefs.
Furthermore a emperor much more focused on the empire could have prevented a rapid spread or at least have slowed down the spread of protestantism in the empire. IOTL one of Charles V problems was, that he had to divide his attention between the various parts of his vast domains. A emperor more focused on the empire could have had an earlier and better response. In other words removing the 'Spanish connection' has more than one effect.

Even if Charles V loses the Spanish wealth and military, with fewer lands to worry about he can devote more time to the Imperial issues. Which means that the Habsburgs won't be converting, although I can see them taking a more relaxed stance towards the Reformation.
 
Top