WI: Medieval King Declares himself Pope

f6dbf57e0ffb6b2b2b8d233414e38925.jpg


What if a King, during some time between (1000 AD - 1514AD), had enough bad blood with the Pope and/or Papacy to march on Rome and depose him?

And upon Execution or Indefinite Inprisonment of the Pope and/or Conclave of Cardinals, declares himself to be the Pope de facto, Catholic Law be-damned.

Hereditary Papacy is immediately established, with Salic Law and everything (Divine Right of Popes?)

*************

What would be the ramifications?

Would the Papacy collapse in on itself? (lose is spiritual influence)

What sort of power would this Hereditary Pope-King have during the high middle ages?

Which King do you think could conceivably do this?
 
Last edited:
Basically Henry VIII, which is early modern, not medieval...
The best you get is an Emperor winning the Investiture Controversy and installing some sort of Caeaaropapism as in the east. If you to earlier than that when the Pope isn't yet the figure he is (early middle ages pipes were vassals to Constantinople and not so important til the Investiture Controversy IIRC beyond the weight of holding Rome) then you might also have something like Caesaropapism or the Anglican Church emerge.. Really though the Pope doesn't become all powerful til the later era (1400s/1500s) and by that time a king might as well go Protestant.

Maybe something with a heresy or the Schism might work?
 
Basically Henry VIII, which is early modern, not medieval...
The best you get is an Emperor winning the Investiture Controversy and installing some sort of Caeaaropapism as in the east. If you to earlier than that when the Pope isn't yet the figure he is (early middle ages pipes were vassals to Constantinople and not so important til the Investiture Controversy IIRC beyond the weight of holding Rome) then you might also have something like Caesaropapism or the Anglican Church emerge.. Really though the Pope doesn't become all powerful til the later era (1400s/1500s) and by that time a king might as well go Protestant.

Maybe something with a heresy or the Schism might work?

Fascinating stuff.

I was thinking, at least in regards to your Schism question, maybe some sort of AH intra-catholic iconoclasm say around 1300-1450, could be a interesting prospect?

Say a very Pius King, who supported the Falangists or something, sees the destruction caused by the Black Death, points the finger at the corrupt papacy guilded in gold and pomp, and decides to rescue Christiandom from the Pope himself.

Or may I'm too imaginative for my own good :rolleyes:
 
A Byzantine Emperor could do this: march on Rome, declare the Empire restored and besides proclaim that he is the only head of the church.

Naturally only Byzantinum had previously regained the territories of the Levante and Egypte, since a war on two fronts against enragend western christianity and muslim armies in the east isn't really healthy for an empire.
 
The issue is that the figure of the Pope is something of an oddity.

The medieval catholic church was an international intelligencia, a combination of Maester and Septon if you will;). IiRC few medieval kings were literate until the late era. This together with church tithes gave the head of the institution a lot of power and prestige. More importantly was his ability to leverage spiritual authority into political influence- Charlemagne being the best example, but many kings were crowned by the Pope- Poland and Hungary IIRC, also William the Bastard also had his conquest legitimized by the Pope. They would play local lords off against one another to prevent any one from dominating Itsly- they did it with the Normans in Sicily and he Germans against the Hohenstaufen's.

Feudal kings rested on two principles- the feudal contract, a set of reciprocal privileges and duties between liege and vassal, and the Divine Right; kings were seen as gods vicars in a sense, appointed to sheperd the flock and maintain the land. Thus all he land of a kingdom was theirs in some sense, entrusted by God to be parceled out among their subjects on lease. Actually ll land was seen as belonging to God- therefore the Pope could grant rulers right to manage that land if the leader failed their holy duty (not paying church taxes, attacking the Papacy, supporting heretics, etc...)
Further the person of the king was invested with spiritual autbority- to strike a monarch, or insult them (calling them stupid, evil etc.) Could be seen as almost blasphemous.
And this is why the Pope was so powerful- he could declare kings excommunicated, making them "fair game" to be defied or deposed by their vassals and absolving said vassals of their obligations of fealty. This is what happened to the emperors during their conflicts- the pope essentially gave the German princes the right to rebel, forcing them to seek absolution from the Pope. Furthermore he could essentially draw up land for food Catholics. This is why the Spanish were so big on conversion- the whole justification for their rule over America was a spiritual mission to save the souls of the native peoples. This is also why you had such things as the Treaty of Tordesillas.

This all changed in the early modern era, when the Habsburg's secured the Imperial title. Now the Catholic church became a symbol of support for Imperial authority rather than a mechanism for opposition.

So the long and the short of it is that the Papacy is a special snowflake. An emperor- German or Greek- could conceivably reassert the primacy of their authority over he Church. A leader could concievsbly declare himself head of the church a LA England and many Protestants. A leader could somehow conquer Rome itself, nipping the Papacy in the bud if it happened early on. But all of these would effectively destroy the Papacy as we know it- at best you might get something like the Patriarch of Constantinople during either the ERE or the Ottomans, with other kingdoms breaking g away under autocephalous churches. But the international character of the Papacy almost precludes a temporal leader absent a massive empife- the closest would be a Caliph but Islam is a very different tradition, with spiritual and temporal power bound up together from its inception. And even there the Caliph wasn't necessarily universal- you had the Ummayad split, and different t sects disputed the caliphate.

I think a more interesting proposal is a pope becoming king- they basically were after the 16th century, ruling much of central Italy. A Papal wank leading to a unification of Italy under the Pope perhaps?
 
The issue is that the figure of the Pope is something of an oddity.

The medieval catholic church was an international intelligencia, a combination of Maester and Septon if you will;). IiRC few medieval kings were literate until the late era. This together with church tithes gave the head of the institution a lot of power and prestige. More importantly was his ability to leverage spiritual authority into political influence- Charlemagne being the best example, but many kings were crowned by the Pope- Poland and Hungary IIRC, also William the Bastard also had his conquest legitimized by the Pope. They would play local lords off against one another to prevent any one from dominating Itsly- they did it with the Normans in Sicily and he Germans against the Hohenstaufen's.

Feudal kings rested on two principles- the feudal contract, a set of reciprocal privileges and duties between liege and vassal, and the Divine Right; kings were seen as gods vicars in a sense, appointed to sheperd the flock and maintain the land. Thus all he land of a kingdom was theirs in some sense, entrusted by God to be parceled out among their subjects on lease. Actually ll land was seen as belonging to God- therefore the Pope could grant rulers right to manage that land if the leader failed their holy duty (not paying church taxes, attacking the Papacy, supporting heretics, etc...)
Further the person of the king was invested with spiritual autbority- to strike a monarch, or insult them (calling them stupid, evil etc.) Could be seen as almost blasphemous.
And this is why the Pope was so powerful- he could declare kings excommunicated, making them "fair game" to be defied or deposed by their vassals and absolving said vassals of their obligations of fealty. This is what happened to the emperors during their conflicts- the pope essentially gave the German princes the right to rebel, forcing them to seek absolution from the Pope. Furthermore he could essentially draw up land for food Catholics. This is why the Spanish were so big on conversion- the whole justification for their rule over America was a spiritual mission to save the souls of the native peoples. This is also why you had such things as the Treaty of Tordesillas.

This all changed in the early modern era, when the Habsburg's secured the Imperial title. Now the Catholic church became a symbol of support for Imperial authority rather than a mechanism for opposition.

So the long and the short of it is that the Papacy is a special snowflake. An emperor- German or Greek- could conceivably reassert the primacy of their authority over he Church. A leader could concievsbly declare himself head of the church a LA England and many Protestants. A leader could somehow conquer Rome itself, nipping the Papacy in the bud if it happened early on. But all of these would effectively destroy the Papacy as we know it- at best you might get something like the Patriarch of Constantinople during either the ERE or the Ottomans, with other kingdoms breaking g away under autocephalous churches. But the international character of the Papacy almost precludes a temporal leader absent a massive empife- the closest would be a Caliph but Islam is a very different tradition, with spiritual and temporal power bound up together from its inception. And even there the Caliph wasn't necessarily universal- you had the Ummayad split, and different t sects disputed the caliphate.

I think a more interesting proposal is a pope becoming king- they basically were after the 16th century, ruling much of central Italy. A Papal wank leading to a unification of Italy under the Pope perhaps?


That does seem more likely to me. The pope declaring himself King of Italy.
 
I think a more interesting proposal is a pope becoming king- they basically were after the 16th century, ruling much of central Italy. A Papal wank leading to a unification of Italy under the Pope perhaps?

No way!

A Religious Fanatic King kicking down the door of St. Peter's Basilica, walking up to the Pontiff and snatching the headpiece off the Pope's head to then place on his own is way more interesting :cool:
 

jahenders

Banned
I don't think it's necessarily impossible. Imagine a French or German king crashes in (perhaps he's ostensibly in the area going to/from a crusade), his people quickly kill the pope, and he then drags every available cardinal into a conclave and tells them the emergency requires that they quickly select a pope from amongst the faithful men immediately at hand while his men conveniently stand guard INSIDE THE ROOM. They prudently select him and quickly ordain/annoint him. In great piety, he states that he will soon step down as king to focus on his new calling, but can't until the crisis passes. In the meanwhile his troops get into position to defend "Mother Church"

Now, several things may happen:
- Several rulers unite at the outrage and attack
- Some areas refuse to recognize him and break away from the church (ala Henry VIII)
- The Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other original churches, state that this is proof that the primacy of one church is inappropriate and argue, instead, that a council of patriarches lead from the East. Most Western European areas ignore them, but some shift that way
- A council of bishops/cardinals throughout Europe may meet in secret, declare him apostate, and appoint a pope in exile

However, assuming this king is quite strong, with lots of allies, and considered quite pious. Many areas (and some bishops) might conclude that "going along" is the best strategy and that the king will be as good a pope as the last guy and take care of them.

So the long and the short of it is that the Papacy is a special snowflake. An emperor- German or Greek- could conceivably reassert the primacy of their authority over he Church. A leader could concievsbly declare himself head of the church a LA England and many Protestants. A leader could somehow conquer Rome itself, nipping the Papacy in the bud if it happened early on. But all of these would effectively destroy the Papacy as we know it- at best you might get something like the Patriarch of Constantinople during either the ERE or the Ottomans, with other kingdoms breaking g away under autocephalous churches. But the international character of the Papacy almost precludes a temporal leader absent a massive empife- the closest would be a Caliph but Islam is a very different tradition, with spiritual and temporal power bound up together from its inception. And even there the Caliph wasn't necessarily universal- you had the Ummayad split, and different t sects disputed the caliphate.

I think a more interesting proposal is a pope becoming king- they basically were after the 16th century, ruling much of central Italy. A Papal wank leading to a unification of Italy under the Pope perhaps?
 
The conclave was not even a thing until like the 1300s I believe so this king wouldn't be able to lock em in because that wasn't even done until the medieval period had almost entirely past. Also why would they just do what the king of France did and move the pope and the papacy to Avigon or such to keep the pope close and exercise control that way.
 
The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. A king can't become Pope. If he declares himself, it wouldn't obeyed. Every other king in Europe does not recognize him and the entire Catholic hierarchy ignores him.

It would cause vast instability in said king's own realm as the monasteries and clergy are split between political loyalty based on fear of the king's power and outrage of his actions.

Most likely, said king is deposed and killed by own of his own vassals. The most likely candidate for a march on Rome is the Holy Roman Empire, so msot likely result is a civil war lasting many years and then a new Emperor is elected who restores a proper Bishop to Rome.

It could be as damaging as the Babylonian Captivity of the Avignon Popes and Great Schism, but most likely a lot less.
 
The conclave was not even a thing until like the 1300s I believe so this king wouldn't be able to lock em in because that wasn't even done until the medieval period had almost entirely past.

While the modern practice of near-total isolation was not instituted until after Ubi Periculum in 1274, "conclaves" in which the college of cardinals met for several days in a relatively isolated place were common long before then. The split election of 1159, for instance, was carried out with the college entirely within Saint Peter's Basilica, in the space behind the high altar and the transept. While they were not literally "locked in" the transept, they were separated from the lesser clergy and other observers in the rest of the church, and indeed when things went badly in 1159 the Alexandrine party was briefly trapped in the "fortifications above Saint Peter's" (the munitio, some kind of tower associated with the old basilica).

You basically have four key milestones in the medieval papal selection process:

In Nomine Domini, 1059 - The cardinal election is instituted. Cardinal-bishops confer, cardinals in general vote, the assent of the remaining clergy and laity (that is, acclimation of the priests and people of Rome) is then needed.
Second Lateran Council, 1139 - Assent of the clergy and people of Rome no longer needed (though it continues to be a source of legitimacy for some time, as in the 1159 election).
Third Lateran Council, 1179 - All cardinals now equal, and discuss and vote together.
Ubi Periculum, 1274 - Institutes "modern" isolation and rationing to force faster elections (but is not always observed after 1274; it takes a while to take hold).

I agree in general that a Pope becoming King is much more plausible than a King becoming Pope, chiefly because the Pope already was a king. The Papacy expressed, at various times, a claim to Corsica and Sardinia and various parts of Italy beyond what was historically considered part of the Patrimonium.

A king becoming pope suffers from the problem that nobody would take this claim seriously, and certainly not after the Investiture Controversy. Consider that Barbarossa couldn't even get a puppet pope appointed who was accepted outside his own empire. Such a union also runs contrary to the core doctrines of Christianity, which posits a division of the secular and spiritual worlds as originally expressed by "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

I think you could maybe get away with something like this, but if it's possible at all I think the time to strike is much earlier than most people are thinking, around the nadir of the Papacy prior to the reform era, when the office is chiefly the plaything of the Tusculani and later the Crescenzi.
 
Not going to happen.

Oh, someone could TRY it, but it wouldn't work.

No one except the king's subjects would recognize him as pope.

Firstly there will be a schism, as at least one other pope will be chosen (somehow).

Then it gets complicated.

IF there is only one other pope chosen, the king is put under interdict (which he'll ignore - and declare interdict on the rest of Christendom). Probably there's a crusade launched against the heretical king, who loses quickly because half his country supports the real pope.


If there are multiple 'popes' chosen by various factions (Holy Roman Empire appoints one, the rump of the College of Cardinals who have fled Rome elect another, and possibly France or Spain gets a bunch of bishops together in a conclave and have THEM elect a third.)

THEN you could get a mess that lasts 'til the king dies. But if his son takes over, it will be a really short reign - much like Richard Cromwell was only Lord Protector of England for 264 days, and for the same lack of legitimacy.


Said king would also have the huge problem of logistics. If he's pretending to be pope he has to stay in Rome (most of the time), which leaves his capital (wherever that may be) not under his thumb. That's a really unstable situation, especially when he's trying to pull off such an unheard of powerplay.



To be honest, the most likely thing to happen is that he dies (somehow) a few days after he crowns himself pope, and it only is a brief footnote in the annals of history.
 
Top