Position:Home>History> History - What's the difference between a princely title granted by the Holy
Question: History - What's the difference between a princely title granted by the Holy Roman Empire as opposed to-!?
-just being the son of a King or Queen!? also how was this title affected if the monachary was abolished in a country!? Would the title be allowed to continue as it was held under a different manner from the sons of a King or Queen!?
Doing a project on the 'Holy Roman Empire' but I'm getting confused with the role and function of a Holy Roman Prince as opposed to an ordinary Prince!.
Any clarification on this difference will be gratefully received!. Many thanks in advance!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
The Holy Roman Emperor was essentially an overlord!. The Electors in Germany were all as powerful as many European kings but could not afford to fight each other!. The Holy Roman Emperor was a leader amongst these rulers!. There was often also a hereditary King of Germany, which was usually, but not always the Emperor!. The powers of these two roles overlapped but Emperor was the higher title to have!.
When the Holy Roman Empire expanded into new lands (such as in Eastern Europe) these areas were best governed by a separate sub-monarch who could deal with internal affairs and this is when the Emperor would award the title of King!. The new King, or Holy Roman Prince, would essentially be a viceroy or a sub-regales for the Emperor!. He would have the autonomous powers of a monarch but would also have to pay at least token homage to the Holy Roman Emperor!.
In some ways this was analogous to the Satraps of ancient Persia!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I would have thought that any titles would have been forsaken due to the fall of the Roman Empire, otherwise we would still know about them through history books!.Www@QuestionHome@Com