text:
Prince-elector

The prince-electors (Kurfürst, pl. Kurfürsten, , Princeps Elector) were the members of the electoral college that elected the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.

From the 13th century onwards, a small group of prince-electors gained the privilege of electing the King of the Romans. The king would then later be crowned Emperor by the pope. Charles V (elected in 1519) was the last emperor to be crowned (1530); his successors assumed the title "Elected Emperor of the Romans" (erwählter Römischer Kaiser; electus Romanorum imperator) upon their coronation as kings.

The dignity of elector carried great prestige and was considered to be behind only the emperor, kings, and the highest dukes. The electors held exclusive privileges that were not shared with other princes of the Empire, and they continued to hold their original titles alongside that of elector.

The heir apparent to a secular prince-elector was known as an electoral prince (Kurprinz).

Rights and privileges
Electors were rulers of reichsstände (Imperial Estates), enjoying precedence over the other Imperial Princes. They were, until the 18th century, exclusively entitled to be addressed with the title Durchlaucht (Serene Highness). In 1742, the electors became entitled to the superlative Durchlauchtigste (Most Serene Highness), while other princes were promoted to Durchlaucht.

As rulers of Imperial Estates, the electors enjoyed all the privileges of princes, including the right to enter into alliances, to autonomy in relation to dynastic affairs, and to precedence over other subjects. The Golden Bull granted them the Privilegium de non appellando, which prevented their subjects from lodging an appeal to a higher Imperial court. However, while this privilege, and some others, were automatically granted to Electors, they were not exclusive to them and many of the larger Imperial Estates were also to be individually granted some or all those rights and privileges.

Imperial Diet
The electors, like the other princes ruling States of the Empire, were members of the Imperial Diet, which was divided into three collegia: the Council of Electors, the Council of Princes, and the Council of Cities. In addition to being members of the Council of Electors, most electors were also members of the Council of Princes by virtue of possessing territory or holding ecclesiastical position. The assent of both bodies was required for important decisions affecting the structure of the Empire, such as the creation of new electorates or States of the Empire.

Many electors ruled a number of States of the Empire or held several ecclesiastical titles, and therefore had multiple votes in the Council of Princes. In 1792, the Elector of Brandenburg had eight votes, the Elector of Bavaria six votes, the Elector of Hanover six votes, the King of Bohemia three votes, the Elector-Archbishop of Trier three votes, the Elector-Archbishop of Cologne two votes, and the Elector-Archbishop of Mainz one vote. Thus, of the hundred votes in the Council of Princes in 1792, twenty-nine belonged to electors, giving them considerable influence in the Council of Princes in addition to their positions as electors.

In addition to voting by colleges or councils, the Imperial Diet also voted in religious coalitions, as provided for in the Peace of Westphalia. The Archbishop of Mainz presided over the Catholic body, the corpus catholicorum, while the Elector of Saxony presided over the Protestant body, the corpus evangelicorum. The division into religious bodies was on the basis of the official religion of the state.

Elections
The electors were originally summoned by the Archbishop of Mainz within one month of an Emperor's death, and met within three months of being summoned. During the interregnum, imperial power was exercised by two imperial vicars. Each vicar, in the words of the Golden Bull, was "the administrator of the empire itself, with the power of passing judgments, of presenting to ecclesiastical benefices, of collecting returns and revenues and investing with fiefs, of receiving oaths of fealty for and in the name of the holy empire". The Elector of Saxony was vicar in areas operating under Saxon law (Saxony, Westphalia, Hannover, and northern Germany), while the Elector Palatine was vicar in the remainder of the Empire (Franconia, Swabia, the Rhine, and southern Germany). The Elector of Bavaria replaced the Elector Palatine in 1623, but when the latter was granted a new electorate in 1648, there was a dispute between the two as to which was vicar. In 1659, both purported to act as vicar, but ultimately, the other vicar recognized the Elector of Bavaria. Later, the two electors made a pact to act as joint vicars, but the Imperial Diet rejected the agreement. In 1711, while the Elector of Bavaria was under the ban of the Empire, the Elector Palatine again acted as vicar, but his cousin was restored to his position upon his restoration three years later.

Finally, in 1745, the two agreed to alternate as vicars, with Bavaria starting first. This arrangement was upheld by the Imperial Diet in 1752. In 1777, the question was settled when the Elector Palatine inherited Bavaria. On many occasions, however, there was no interregnum, as a new king had been elected during the lifetime of the previous Emperor.

Frankfurt regularly served as the site of the election from the fourteenth century on, but elections were also held at Cologne (1531), Regensburg (1575 and 1636), and Augsburg (1653 and 1690). An elector could appear in person or could appoint another elector as his proxy. More often, an electoral suite or embassy was sent to cast the vote; the credentials of such representatives were verified by the Archbishop of Mainz, who presided over the ceremony. The deliberations were held at the city hall, but voting occurred in the cathedral. In Frankfurt, a special electoral chapel, or Wahlkapelle, was used for elections. Under the Golden Bull, a majority of electors sufficed to elect a king, and each elector could cast only one vote. Electors were free to vote for whomsoever they pleased (including themselves), but dynastic considerations played a great part in the choice.

From the sixteenth century on, electors drafted a Wahlkapitulation, or electoral capitulation, which was presented to the king-elect. The capitulation may be described as a contract between the princes and the king, the latter conceding rights and powers to the electors and other princes. Once an individual swore to abide by the electoral capitulation, he assumed the office of King of the Romans.

In the 10th and 11th centuries, princes often acted merely to confirm hereditary succession in the Ottonian and Salian dynasty. But with the actual formation of the prince-elector class, elections became more open, starting with the election of Lothair III in 1125. The Staufen dynasty managed to get its sons formally elected in their fathers' lifetimes almost as a formality. After these lines ended in extinction, the electors began to elect kings from different families so that the throne would not once again settle within a single dynasty. All kings elected from 1438 onwards were from among the Habsburg dynasty until 1740, when Austria was inherited by a woman, Maria Theresa, sparking the War of the Austrian Succession and the short-lived rule of a Bavarian Wittelsbach emperor. In 1745, Maria Theresa's husband, Francis I of Lorraine, was elected emperor. All of his successors were also from the Habsburg-Lorraine family.

High offices
Each elector held a "High Office of the Empire" (Reichserzämter) analogous to a modern cabinet office position and was a member of the ceremonial Imperial Household. The three spiritual electors became Archchancellors (Erzkanzler, Archicancellarius): the Archbishop of Mainz became Archchancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Cologne became Archchancellor of Italy, and the Archbishop of Trier became Archchancellor of Burgundy. The secular electors were granted heraldic augmentations to their coats of arms reflecting their positions in the Household. These augmentations were displayed in three alternative ways: firstly, as an inescutcheon on their coat of arms (as in the case of the Arch-Steward, Treasurer, and Chamberlain); secondly: as dexter impalements (as in the case of the Arch-Marshal and Arch-Bannerbearer) and thirdly: integrated into the charge within the escutcheon (as in the case of the Arch-Cupbearer, where the Lion of Bohemia acquired a "simple crown" held in his dexter paw).

When the Duke of Bavaria replaced the Elector Palatine in 1623, he assumed the latter's office of Arch-Steward. When the Count Palatine was granted a new electorate, he assumed the position of Arch-Treasurer of the Empire. When the Duke of Bavaria was banned in 1706, the Elector Palatine returned to the office of Arch-Steward, and in 1710, the Elector of Hanover was promoted to the post of Arch-Treasurer. Matters were complicated by the Duke of Bavaria's restoration in 1714; the Elector of Bavaria resumed the office of Arch-Steward, while the Elector Palatine returned to the post of Arch-Treasurer, and the Elector of Hanover was given the new office of Archbannerbearer. The Electors of Hanover, however, continued to be styled Arch-Treasurers, though the Elector Palatine was the one who actually exercised the office until 1777, when he inherited Bavaria and the Arch-Stewardship. After 1777, no further changes were made to the Imperial Household; new offices were planned for the Electors admitted in 1803, but the Empire was abolished before they could be created. The Duke of Württemberg, however, started to adopt the trappings of the Arch-Bannerbearer.

The electors discharged the ceremonial duties associated with their offices only during coronations, where they bore the crown and regalia of the Empire. Otherwise, they were represented by holders of corresponding "Hereditary Offices of the Household". The Arch-Butler was represented by the Hereditary Butler (Cupbearer) (the Count of Althann), the Arch-Seneschal by the Hereditary Steward (the Count of Waldburg, who adopted the title into their name as "Truchsess von Waldburg"), the Arch-Chamberlain by the Hereditary Chamberlain (the Count of Hohenzollern), the Arch-Marshal by the Hereditary Marshal (the Count of Pappenheim), and the Arch-Treasurer by the Hereditary Treasurer (the Count of Sinzendorf). After 1803, the Duke of Württemberg as Arch-Bannerbearer assigned the count of Zeppelin-Aschhausen as Hereditary Bannerbearer.

History

The German practice of electing monarchs began when ancient Germanic tribes formed ad hoc coalitions and elected the leaders thereof. Elections were irregularly held by the Franks, whose successor states include France and the Holy Roman Empire. The French monarchy eventually became hereditary, but the Holy Roman Emperors remained elective. While all free men originally exercised the right to vote in such elections, suffrage eventually came to be limited to the leading men of the realm. In the election of Lothar III in 1125, a small number of eminent nobles chose the monarch and then submitted him to the remaining magnates for their approbation.

Soon, the right to choose the monarch was settled on an exclusive group of princes, and the procedure of seeking the approval of the remaining nobles was abandoned. The college of electors was mentioned in 1152 and again in 1198. The composition of electors at that time is unclear, but appears to have included bishops and the dukes of the stem duchies.

1257 to Thirty Years' War
The electoral college is known to have existed by 1152, but its composition is unknown. A letter written by Pope Urban IV in 1265 suggests that by "immemorial custom", seven princes had the right to elect the King and future Emperor. The pope wrote that the seven electors were those who had just voted in the election of 1257, which resulted in the election of two kings.

 * Three ecclesiastical Electors:
 * The Archbishop of Mainz
 * The Archbishop of Trier
 * The Archbishop of Cologne
 * Four secular Electors:
 * The King of Bohemia
 * The Count Palatine of the Rhine
 * The Duke of Saxony
 * The Margrave of Brandenburg

The three Archbishops oversaw the most venerable and powerful sees in Germany. Since 1214, the Palatinate and Bavaria were held by the same individual, but in 1253, they were divided between two members of the House of Wittelsbach. The other electors refused to allow two princes from the same dynasty to have electoral rights, so a heated rivalry arose between the Count Palatine and the Duke of Bavaria over who should hold the Wittelsbach seat.

Meanwhile, the King of Bohemia, who held the ancient imperial office of Arch-Cupbearer, asserted his right to participate in elections. Sometimes he was challenged on the grounds that his kingdom was not German, though usually he was recognized, instead of Bavaria which after all was just a younger line of Wittelsbachs.

The Declaration of Rhense issued in 1338 had the effect that election by the majority of the electors automatically conferred the royal title and rule over the empire, without papal confirmation. The Golden Bull of 1356 finally resolved the disputes among the electors. Under it, the Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne, as well as the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg held the right to elect the King.

The college's composition remained unchanged until the 17th century, although the Electorate of Saxony was transferred from the senior to the junior branch of the Wettin family in 1547, in the aftermath of the Schmalkaldic War.

Thirty Years' War to Napoleon
In 1623, the Elector Palatine, Frederick V, came under the imperial ban after participating in the Bohemian Revolt (a part of the Thirty Years' War). The Elector Palatine's seat was conferred on the Duke of Bavaria, the head of a junior branch of his family. Originally, the Duke held the electorate personally, but it was later made hereditary along with the duchy. When the Thirty Years' War concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a new electorate was created for the Count Palatine of the Rhine. Since the Elector of Bavaria retained his seat, the number of electors increased to eight; the two Wittelsbach lines were now sufficiently estranged so as not to pose a combined potential threat.

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 outlawed 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.

In 1788, the ruling family of Savoy pushed to receive an electoral title. Their ambition was backed by Brandenburg-Prussia. However, the French Revolution and subsequent Coalition Wars soon rendered this a moot point.

After the Empire
After the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire in August 1806, the Electors continued to reign over their territories, many of them taking higher or alternative titles. The Electors of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Saxony styled themselves Kings, while the Electors of Baden, Regensburg, and Würzburg became Grand Dukes. The Elector of Hesse-Kassel, however, retained the meaningless title "Elector of Hesse", thus distinguishing himself from other Hessian princes (the Grand Duke of Hesse(-Darmstadt) and the Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg). Napoleon soon exiled him and Kassel was annexed to the Kingdom of Westphalia, a new creation. The King of Great Britain remained at war with Napoleon and continued to style himself Elector of Hanover, while the Hanoverian government continued to operate in London.

The Congress of Vienna accepted the Electors of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Saxony as Kings, along with the newly created Grand Duke of Baden. The Elector of Hanover finally joined his fellow Electors by declaring himself the King of Hanover. The restored Elector of Hesse tried to be recognized as the King of the Chatti. However, the European powers refused to acknowledge this title at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) and instead listed him with the Grand Dukes as a "Royal Highness". Believing the title of Prince-Elector to be superior in dignity to that of Grand Duke, the Elector of Hesse-Kassel chose to remain an Elector, even though there was no longer a Holy Roman Emperor to elect. Hesse-Kassel remained the only Electorate in Germany until 1866, when the country backed the losing side in the Austro-Prussian War and was absorbed into Prussia.

Electoral arms
Below are the State arms of each Imperial Elector. Emblems of Imperial High Offices are shown on the appropriate arms.

Three Electors Spiritual (Archbishops): all three were annexed by various powers through German Mediatisation of 1803.

Napoleonic additions
As Napoleon waged war on Europe, between 1803 and 1806, the following changes to the Constitution of the Holy Roman Empire were attempted until the Empire's collapse. The arch-chancellor of Germany and archbishop elector of Mainz continued to be an elector, but as the prince of Regensburg, which took over Mainz's arch-episcopal status. The prince of Württemberg received the formerly defunct office of Arch-Bannerbearer, while the other new electors were not given augments or high office in the imperial household, though new offices were planned.

title: Prince-elector


text:
Talk:House of Hohenzollern

House of Liechtenstein
Aren't the rulers of Liechtenstein still Hohenzollerns? --corvus13 --- I don't you .Check http://www.webtop.com, I have to leave. user:H.J. -- I do "you" -- the family name of the rulers of Liechtenstein is "Liechtenstein". They've been around for ages -- since the 12th century, I think -- mostly because of their impressive ability to look completely inoffensive when necessary. Kind of like a hedgehog. -- Paul Drye -- No relationship. Have a good day!-- Jacob Barsimson talk  06:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

William and Wilhelm
Um... what's the difference between Frederick William I and Friederich Wilhelm I? JHK - JHK, you can see how difficult it is to tell them apart. I just added Der Grosse Kurfuerst to the first one. Please read the titles and about the patent, permit for building. This is what I have written about earlier to MT and you. That was followed all the time, no city or coin or anything was done without a permit. Therefore I believe that if a city and surrounding area write it on record (coins etc) that they were a civitas, they were a Freie Stadt or city state. Otherwise they would not have used it. If they had tried the imperial forces would habe gone after them. user:H.J.

 * Hi -- I did read them. I've been trying to explain that what you believe to be true is not in fact the case.  It could be, but there is no clear way of telling.  They could be calling themselves civitas in the sense of "the government and the people".  There is no way of telling from one word what was meant (for certain).  Also, you assume that nothing was done without a permit -- this is patently untrue.  Nothing was supposed to be done without an Imerial license -- But the HRE had no standing army, no unified court system, no unified tax system -- in fact no real central administration!  From before Charles IV issued the Golden Bull, and especially aftrwards, the Imperial government was only as powerful as the people who supported it -- and in the case of a great trade city like Hamburg, the license process may have been more along the lines of "We Minted this coin, Mr. Emperor.  We're using it.  How much do we owe you for the license?"  You have to remember that the Emperor had very little authority -- just prestige.  In some cases, the Emperor was strong -- but only because he happened to be an Emperor with lots of family lands, money, and his own army attached to family lands and money -- not because of an Imperial tie! JHK

 * HJ, as JHK is pointing out you are making a basic mistake of people dealing with legal history. Whenever we look at laws as a source of history, we have to ask "did they pass a law against because SO MANY people were doing it?"  For instance, there are laws against speeding, murder, tax evasion - all those are common (sort of).  There are also laws that are statements of ideals that have very little to do with COMMON human behavior.  There are laws against terrorism, which is, thankfully, not as common as speeding.  However, both of them have laws against them.  Cities sometimes came to exist without legal standing - and then there were decades (literally!) of lawsuits about their standing.   --MichaelTinkler

(or sons) made no grammatical sense where it was so I removed it. Some one else removed the list of titles under Friedrich Wilhelm I so I removed the pointer to it. --rmhermen

How should a list without portraits look like?
House of Hohenzollern For example: The list should contain the following minimum information: Name, reign, relationship with predecessor, birth and death.--Mr. Boston (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1488–1512: Eitel Friedrich II (c. 1452–1512), son of
 * 1512–1525: Eitel Friedrich III (1494–1525), son of
 * 1525–1575: Charles I (1516–1576), son of

Historical names
I think that we should follow the conventions on the discussion page for historical names? Since many, if not most, English speakers aren't as familiar with German history before the end of hte Weimar Republic, I think it would be best to put the name and "of Place", like Albert (or Albrecht) Achilles of Brandenburg, or Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia (or Frederick William -- it's hard to say, because more recent sources use the German names, but 50 years ago, they used English -- on the other hand, Karl der Grosse is ALWAYS Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious is never Ludwig the Pious or der Fromme!). Let's see what the others have to say, and maybe look at each one individually -- because there will always be exceptions, like Frederick the Great (well-known in English). JHK
 * English names make more sense. Sir Tony Britton (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Family Tree
In this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Hohenzollern&type=revision&diff=1065576008&oldid=1065550699 I added a family tree. I want a family tree in this article that adequately shows the relationship of the Protestant and Catholic Branches. How can we properly cite such a tree? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 * The reason it was removed was that you didn't provide a source for any of this. We cite it by pointing to your source. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is created from the infoboxes on all the individual articles, plus the tree in List of monarchs of Prussia. What would the proper format for citation be in this case? Also pardon the moving around of the conversation. I believe something in the tree made me unable to reply and it was unintentionally locked. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:House of Hohenzollern


text:
Talk:Prince-elector

older entries
This is a horrible title, but I am having trouble thinking of a better one -- Imperial Elector? Electors of the Holy Roman Empire? An adjectival/genetive reference would be better than everything in the nominative...JHK
 * I like 'Electors of the HRE'

 * At the risk of being crude, that sounds like the name of a Playboy pictorial....
 * mmmmmm, show me your wittelsbachs, bay-beee...

 * Electors of the Holy Roman Empire gets my vote. But also consider Electoral College of the Holy Roman Empire

-- To M. Tinkler and JHK Please check out Kurfuersten/Electors. Also let me know about the German ( or English) names on the Hohenzollern list ?? Thanks user:H.J. ---

"...shortly before the Empire was abolished by Napoleon I..."

I understood that it was abolished in order to prevent the possibility of its being taken over and used by Napoleon to support his legitimacy, i.e. as a consequence of him but not by him. What is the actual siuation? PML.

I also like "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire" better than this title. As for the abolition, what happened was that Napoleon created the Confederation of the Rhine. The states that joined it (including Bavaria, Wurttemberg, and Baden), seceded from the Holy Roman Empire, and the Emperor eventually decided to give up the ghost, and declared the Empire at an end. I'm going to edit a bit. john 02:30 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

What about the adjectival Holy Roman Imperial Elector? -- Lord Emsworth 02:47, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC) - Encyclopedia Britannica (online ed.) has, "...Beginning around 1273 and with the confirmation of the Golden Bull of 1356, there were seven electors..."; what happened circa 1273? — Matt 09:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Britannica, then, contradicts my main source for the original composition of the collegiate: Lord Bryce's Holy Roman Empire. Lord Bryce suggests that Pope Urban IV wrote a letter mentioning seven electoral princes, but Urban died in 1264—before the year mentioned in Britannica. -- Emsworth 14:40, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe one for Making fun of Britannica? Rudolf I of the House of Habsburg was elected in 1273, maybe that's what Britannica was referring to. — Matt 14:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Electoral Prince
Is it appropriate to give "Electoral Prince" as an equivalent to "Prince-Elector"? My understanding was that the former term was generally used for heirs to Prince-Electors, and not for prince-electors themselves. john k 06:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the abolition of the HRE. I think it is accurate to say that it was Napoleon himself who abolished it, rather than the Habsburg emperor. Napoleon was at the time the undisputed master of Europe, and the abolition was imposed on the Habsburgs as a virtual decree from Bonbaparte. While Franz II, as the last title holder, executed the formalities of the abolition, the act itself can be unambiguously attributed to Napoleon. I shall stop short of reverting the edit of StanZegel, however, to preserve the distinction of that formality. Thank you StanZegel for that edit, in fact. --A. S. A. 06:29, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Chamberlain
Link to Chamberlain is to a disambiguation page. It seems that term chamberlain in this context is not mentioned there. Can somebody even link chamberlain to a correct article or create it as red link? Can somebody confirm me that term chamberlain in this context is not mentioned on disambiguation page? --Jan.Smolik 09:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Language tangle
The following passage (from Composition, 1st paragraph after bulleted lists) is both pedantic and poorly edited.
 * By the thirteenth century, the Franconian and Swabian ducal lines became extinct (both had been most recently been held by the Hohenstaufen, Swabia as their ancestral duchy and extinct in 1268, Franconia as a sort of secundogeniture, extinct much earlier, but Franconian ducal lands had been passed through inheritances to Count Palatine of the Rhine, heirs of Frederick Barbarossa's younger brother); their electoral claims passed to the Count Palatine of the Rhine, Imperial Arch-Stewards and holders of the ancient capital Aachen, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, Imperial Arch-Chamberlains since Albert the Bear.

The passage implies, but does not clearly state, that electoral privileges used to reside in the Franconian and Swabian ducal lines, then later passed to the Count Palatine of the Rhine and the Margrave of Brandenburg. If that is the case, that is what we should state in the article. However no source is given, and the 1911 Britannica doesn't mention it. Overall the contribution is of poor quality and likely to confuse readers. I have removed it. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

HRE Criticism Edit
User:Fabartus was kind enough to add to the introduction of this article the following: "When the term "Elector" or "election of a king" is mentioned during the High Middle Ages and afterwards, the term almost certainly is refering to that curiously inept geopolitical entity that managed somehow to last century after century, usually to the detriment of the common people of Europe run over by the wars that ensued." Seems a bit... POV to me. 205.157.110.11 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 * no not really. just the usual bullshit of whose knowledge sucks big time.--Tresckow (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperial election table of contents
The table of contents template used for the article Imperial election — Imperial election TOC — is currently nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion on the custom ToC layout used in this article, please contribute to the relevant TfD discussion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bohemia
OK so when the Habsburgs took over the kingdom of Bohemia, did it continue to be an electorate ? So did the Habsburgs get an automatic vote for themselves to be Emperor ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes they did. They also 'bribed' a number of other electors to ensure their election as Emperor. Ds1994 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
It should be noted that from early in the sixteenth century the formal and correct title of the Empire is the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation'.

Quite frankly I'm astonished this hasn't been mentioned.Ds1994 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Because it was not formal or correct title. See Peace of Westphalia for formal title.--Yopie (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the article on the Holy Roman Empire. I suppose it is similar to using United Kingdom, versus United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Cheers.  EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is a substantive one, as suggested in the article, and referenced to many source materials I have read.Ds1994 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The formal title was "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" or Holy Roman Empire. The "of German nation" occassionally appeared in 16th and 17th century meaning "those parts of the empire that are predominantly German-speaking". It was quite a common term in that time, see Luther's tract "To the Christian Nobility of the German nation" and the like.--MacX85 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Elector was below King
The Elector was below any King. Electorate of Bavaria was elevated to Kingdom of Bavaria, Electorate of Saxony was raised to Kingdom of Saxony, and Electorate of Hesse requested elevation to "Kingdom of the Chatti", but after refusal remained Electorate. If Elector was same in dignity as King, this elevation was without sense. King of Romans and the Emperor usually were different persons and the King of Romans was above Electors. About King of Bohemia - he was called in the "constitution of the Empire" - Golden Bull of 1356 as King, not as Elector of Bohemia (see full text. He precedes all other temporal Electors .--Yopie (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 * But you are referring to events in 1804. The Empire was abolished in 1806. Obviously 'king' outranks 'elector', but for virtually the entire history of the Empire the only royal title allowed in the Empire was that of Emperor, with the King of Bohemia admittedly in an anomalous position.

 * I have added the qualification 1804-06 noted above to the text. Ds1994 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 * What about King of the Romans as Heir apparent, e.g. Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans? He was King, but his father was in same time Emperor. We are talking about Kings generally, not in limits of the Empire and internationally were Electors below Kings, see Precedence among Nations This ranking was not about King of the Romans or Bohemia, but generally on the top was Emperor, below were Kings (of the Romans, Hungary, France etc.) and below Kings were Electors, above Dukes.--Yopie (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. The problem here is that this is inadequatly explained and documented in the article: we acknowledge that there were three rulers in the Holy Roman Empire who held the title of king -- 1. Habsburg: Emperor's heir-apparent and/or the Emperor-elect (Rome); 2. Habsburg: (Bohemia); and 3. Hohenzollern: (King in (later of) Prussia). That's too many exceptions to declare that the kingly title wasn't recognized or borne within the Empire. Better to avoid that claim, state that "kingships" were rare inasmuch as they implied absolute rather than quasi-sovereignty, then explain the three exceptions clearly. FactStraight (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The King in/of Prussia was no more a king within the Holy Roman Empire than the numerous other kings who intermittently had hereditary possessions within the empire (e.g. the King of Spain, the King of Hungary, the King of Denmark, the King of Sweden, the King of Poland, the King of Great Britain, the King of Sardinia). The territory of "Prussia" was not within the Holy Roman Empire - within the Empire the King of Prussia was merely Elector of Brandenburg, just as the King of Great Britain was elector of Hanover. john k (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing as I asked above, "we acknowledge that there were three rulers in the Holy Roman Empire who held the title of king...That's too many exceptions to declare that the kingly title wasn't recognized or borne within the Empire. Better to avoid that claim, state that 'kingships' were rare inasmuch as they implied absolute rather than quasi-sovereignty, then explain the three exceptions clearly." If the Hohenzollern kingship hadn't been considered confusing and/or misleading, its holder would have been simply "King of Prussia" from the beginning. "King in Prussia" attests to the fact that the Hohenzollerns' royal title both existed and yet was initially problematic. Let's use your language to make the distinction clear -- as is needed. FactStraight (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of "King in Prussia," as I understand it, had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire. It had to do with relations with Poland, which controlled Royal Prussia until 1772 - that's why that year was the year that the title was changed to "King of Prussia."  That is to say, the Elector of Brandenburg became King in Prussia to avoid claiming a royal title within the Empire; he became King in Prussia to avoid claiming a title already claimed by the King of Poland. john k (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is all correct. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And in this context it might be noted that all the kings of/in Prussia were crowned thus in Königsberg (which is in Prussia) rather than in Berlin (which is in Brandenburg). This continued even after the Prussian kings became German emperors in 1871. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.146.43 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Crickey, having tried to explain that Royal titles were not permitted within the Empire apart from the King of the Romans/Emperor Elect, and the King of Bohemia, the discussion seems to have become a little clouded. But then toward the end of the Empire, the issue of 'Royal' titles had become clouded anyway. I would like to add the following to attempt clarity:

 * The Emperor-Elect (as all Emperors were after 1556 as Charles V was the last Emperor to actually be crowned by the Pope) was the only substantive Royal title allowed in the Empire, apart from Bohemia. The title 'King of the Romans' i.e King of Germany was the designated successor or heir-apparent and on the death of the Emperor-Elect the King of the Romans then stood for election by the College of Electors. If elected the King of the Romanns became Emperor-Elect and if he had a son then it became traditional within the Habsburg dynasty for the heir apparent to assume this title. The title King of the Romans was not a substantive one - it was rather more a courtesy title for the heir apparent rather like the Prince of Wales is appointed by the Sovereign of Great Britain.
 * (This is distinctly incorrect. If you had a King of the Romans when the old Emperor died, the King of the Romans automatically became emperor. The election would only occur upon the death of the Emperor if there was no King of the Romans. The King of the Romans held that title because he had already been elected. john k (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC))
 * The King of Bohemia was a sovereign 'associate' of the Emperor Elect, and was the exception to the rule of royal titles. However, on the death of the Emperor and on the meeting of the College of Electors, all electors shed their territorial titles and were addressed simply by the electoral ones: the Elector of Bohemia, the Elector of Brandenburg etc. All electors became equal and there being no Emperor-Elect, the Elector Palatine of the Rhine acted as Imperial Vicar until the election took place. Also, the anomalous position of the King of Bohemia within the Empire became virtually irrelevant after 1526 anyway as the Habsburg Emperor was also King of Bohemia, and could vote for himself within the College of Electors. This position after 1526 went a great deal way to solving the bitterness of the Archduke of Austria, who had always been resentful of the Treaty of the Golden Bull in the 14th Century in that the Archduke of Austria had not been made an elector. It also meant the Habsburg candidate only needed to bribe six electors, and not all seven, as Charles V had done at his election.
 * The note made of the 'King in Prussia' is correct. The Duchy of Prussia (East Prussia) lay outside the frontier of the Reich, hence King 'in' Prussia. The change of King 'of' Prussia in 1772 is the clouding issue as clearly the framework of the Empire, already shadowy, was already breaking up at this point.
 * In summary the point I have tried to make is that only two Royal titles were permitted in the First Reich: the Emperor-Elect/King of the Romans, and the King of Bohemia. The King of the Romans was the designated heir apparent and the King 'of' Prussia does not count. As far as the administration of the Reich was concerned, the King 'in' Prussia was still Margrave and Elector of Brandenburg. And neither do all the aggrandised Princes and Electors courtesy of Napoleon I, such as the King of Hanover, as this all took place after the abolition of the First Recih in 1806. Ds1994 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I speak German and I also know some about the German history, and as far as I know, the HRE was ordered like this:
 * The Emperor was the highest instance of all, he could overrule everybody else in the hierarchy. He was NOT elected, but anointed by the pope (although only formally - since 1338 he could rule without being crowned Emperor by the pope).
 * The heir to the throne was the King of the Romans or King of the HRE, he was the one, who was supposed to be anointed by the pope as soon as possible after the old Emperor's death ("Der König ist tot, es lebe der König!")
 * The prince-electors (or probably better Elector Counts?) were those, who had exactly one vote for the election of the King in the HRE. They were called "Kurfürst"/"Kurfürsten" and were initially seven, so there had to be a majority, because everybody had to vote. There were three Archbishops - those of Cologne, Mainz and Trier - each of them Archcancellor (of Italy, Germany and Burgundy respectively) for the clerical part and four for the secular part of the German vassals. The secular votes weren't assigned due to spheres of influence, but due to their rank - the Count Palatine of the Rhine was the lowest dignitary of those four. After him came the Margrave of Brandenburg and the Duke of Saxony. The highest amongst the Prince-electors' titles was "King of Bohemia". After the Bull was officially valid, the prince-electors usually used this title to show, that they were not only Count Palatines/Margraves/Dukes/Kings, but the highest one of all the CP/M/D/K out there in the HRE.--95.244.108.10 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

 * There have always been kings within the HRE. The Emperor (and sometimes the successor chosen within his lifetime) was King of Germany (or Roman King). The Emperor was also King of Italy (until 1648) and King of Burgundy (until that title became meaningless somewhat later). The ruler of Bohemia (sometimes the Emperor, sometimes not) was also a King. The King in (or of) Prussia was most definitely king over all territories of that state, inside or outside of the HRE. He bore the title with permission from the Emperor. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that the King of Prussia's title applied to his lands within the Empire. The Emperor did, indeed, give him permission to use the title, but I thought that had more to do with the Emperor's vague suzerainty over the former state of the Teutonic Knights, not to allowing the royal title to apply within the Empire. A source would be useful. john k (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

král český
Why is the Bohemian king's title in Czech relevant in this Holy Roman / German context? It is even listed before the German. 99.238.134.143 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Regensburg arms
The arms depicted for Regensburg are the present city arms. That's not right. I have a picture of the right arms but I'm not sure about the copyright situation.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How can the arms of a state which has been defunct for two hundred years be copyrighted? john k (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The arms itself may not be, but the artists depiction of it might. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

King of Bohemia
It'd be good to get some clarity on the participation of the King of Bohemia. I found an old source (from 1716) which seems to suggest that it's only in the fifteenth century (the elections of 1400, 1410-11, 1438, 1440, and 1486) that Bohemia was excluded. I know that, until much later (1708, apparently), Bohemia did not participate in the non-electoral proceedings of the College of Electors. I'm fairly certain that Maria Theresa's representative was kicked out of the 1741-1742 election after the French and Bavarians took Prague, allowing for Charles VII's unanimous election. I *think* the King of Bohemia's representative did participate in the 1519 election. I'm not clear on the elections from 1531 to 1690, when the King of Bohemia was always the one elected. It appears to me that he sent a representative, but generally that representative did not himself participate in the vote? But I'm not clear on that. Any sources would be useful so that we can clarify this in the article. john k (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I can't answer your question, but I have a point of my own I want to clarify, when it's written "Meanwhile, the King of Bohemia, who held the ancient imperial office of Arch-Cupbearer, asserted his right to participate in elections. Sometimes he was challenged on the grounds that his kingdom was not German, though usually he was recognized, instead of Bavaria which after all was just a younger line of Wittelsbachs". I've added a citation needed tag, as this is an interesting claim but is unsourced. Mabandalone (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Elector was not the title of a ruler
Elector was an office of the Holy Roman Empire. All Electors, were also Duke's Princes, Prince-Bishops or Grand Dukes and Kings of their states. Hanover (or Brunswick-Luneburg) didn't stop being a Duchy upon gaining the Electorate, and the Elector did not stop being a Duke, taking the Electoral title instead. Same goes for all others. It was an additional title for the ruler of the specific territory. It didn't replace the titles they had before. The article doesn't reflect that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the area so well, but are you sure? Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria article, for example, distinguishes clearly that Maximilian I was Duke of Bavaria until he became an elector, being Prince Elector afterwards. Same with many other articles. Solid sources would be needed to change that everywhere. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't need to be a worry. Í don't think it is everywhere. I'd have to check specifically but most articles on Electoral states of the HRE that I've seen are not a problem, where this is concerned. Look here for instance, where it's very well explained (mark the word 'adittionally' in the second paragraph of the introduction). Even this one, that you have mentioned, says nothing that would be problematic versus this issue as far as I've read. A source must be easy to find I think, since this is basically common knowledge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that an electorate was a high office in the Holy Roman Empire, it came with certain privileges which gradually brought it to be perceived as a title of suzerainty that was invariably used in place of any other title save those of king and emperor. That is why, after the abolition of the HRE in 1806, the ruler of Hesse-Kassel, recently elevated from landgrave, chose to reign as Elector, although there was no longer anything to which he had the right to "elect" anyone. Among an electorate's most important privileges was, aside from the right to vote to fill vacancies in the Imperial crown, the office and vote could only be held and wielded by one individual, which meant that it conferred primogeniture upon the main, defined Imperial fief of its possessor. This was important because German titles and lands did not descend by primogeniture and eldest sons had no unilateral right, without the consent of all male agnates, to impose primogeniture, resulting in the fragmentation that kept German dukelings and princelings petty and prevented German consolidation. But electors had other prerogatives appertaining to monarchs beyond those of other Imperial princes. So although technically correct that the hereditary title of the members of an elector's family derived from his territorial fief rather than from the Imperial office, in practice I'd say that the title and position came to be viewed as the title in HRE ranking between king and duke (grand dukes only proliferated in replacement of that title as the HRE was dissolving in the early 19th century). FactStraight (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the articles on Bavaria seem to treat electorate as a title that replaced the Dutchy. See Duchy of Bavaria, Electorate of Bavaria and List of rulers of Bavaria. Old editions of Britanicca also have a way of referring to all rules of Bavaria as Electors (and kings, later) and not Dukes. Might it have been different in different electorates? No longer a penguin (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince-elector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604170137/http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/reichsstande.htm to http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/reichsstande.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Approved by the Emperor
The page says that the new Electorates created by Napoleon were not approved by the Emperor. Is that correct? My understanding was that Franz II did in fact approve the reorganization in 1803. Emperor001 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I believe he approved in this document. https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Hauptschluß_der_außerordentlichen_Reichsdeputation_vom_25._Februar_1803 Emperor001 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kursachsen-Erz.png (discussion)
 * Kurwürttemberg-Erz.png (discussion)

Requested move 14 September 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Prince-elector → Elector of the Holy Roman Empire – The page name Prince-elector has been questioned since 2004, and I believe that the WP:COMMONNAME of the title is simply "elector", which can be disambiguated by adding "of the Holy Roman Empire". In Wikipedia the members of Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire are disambiguated as elector rather than prince-elector and, as an example, "Elector of Brandenburg" is used 984 times and "Prince-elector of Brandenburg" only 32 times. The context is a proposal to rename "Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire" as "Category:Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire". TSventon (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Prince-elector is a more literal translation of Kurfürst, but the usage of Elector on its own may prevail in English-language historiography. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unscientifically searching the Internet Archive's books, I find "prince elector" to be far more common than "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire", which is a bit clumsy, and "Elector" and "Prince elector" both seem common. As the territories are called things like Electorate of Mainz, going for "Elector" makes sense, but I'm not convinced by the long title. I would suggest a slight variant with parenthetical disambiguation: Elector (Holy Roman Empire). —Kusma (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this variant: natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). Opera hat (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't common enough to be used, and annoying to type because there's no pipe trick for it. —Kusma (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose. In fact, according to ngram Viewer Prince Elector is the most common rendering, followed by prince elector, Prince-Elector and prince-elector in that order, so this article title is a victim of MOS:STYLE beats WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. But even the least common, prince-elector, is more common that Elector/elector of the HRE, which doesn't register at all on Ngram Viewer. Bermicourt (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bermicourt.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2617425702 2806:101E:6:835:8863:AFBB:BB22:288A (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prince-elector