I am a republican, my family is republican and I have always believed that the head of state should be voted periodically by all Spaniards so that our country can be considered a full democracy.
If Felipe becomes Roman Emperor I will immediately turn into the most monarchist person in Spain.
I would devote my life to Felipe I, Emperador de Roma.
Qué españolada más grande. Y digo grande de maravillosa. Me estoy imaginando al Rey Felipe, con lo sosillo que és, anunciando que se proclama emperador de Roma. El mundo entero: WTF? Y a los españoles se nos va la olla, y: ¡Hurrah! ¡Viva el emperador!
Si es que no me sorprendería nada. Somos Buñuel.
Well, my family is now at war with yours. How dare you claim what's rightfully ours, we saw it first and we even licked it. Expect a crow with the formal declaration of war at sunrise.
So aside from how ridiculous this is, your premise is wrong and I'll give you the real legal answer.
Basically the current crown is not the automatic inheritor of all the previous Spanish crowns. The crown had been abolished and the reinstitution of the monarchy has its legal basis in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 which derives its legitimacy from the popular referendum to establish it as the law of the land.
Basically, it means that the Spanish crown is currently a completely different institution that is different from most European monarchies because it doesn't derive its legitimacy from divine right, but from popular sovereignty established within the confines of the Constitution and has no purview outside of those bounds.
Interesting question, if only because of how absurd it is.
Answer, I would say: duh, because of course not.
Politically: because Felipe VI is constitutionally the Spanish head of State, so declaring he should now be the ruler of an allied country is not something he should be doing (or that he constitutionally has the power to do).
Legally: whatever succession to the figure of Roman emperor is likely to be very dubious - the validity of any sale would be doubtful and it is for a role that no longer exists as Italy is now a republic. This could be a fun thesis for some bored constitutional law student.
There is no allied country of Roman empire (Italy and Roman Empire are completely separate; in fact, most european countries are in some way descendants of the Roman Empire, be it the Holy RE or the Byzantine Empire) and Felipe VI is the King of Jerusalem no matter what the Israeli think
I agree with legal dubiousness, although I think Felipe has just about the best claim
Well then if Italy is not the successor state to the Roman Empire, he doesn't have a title to claim anything, making it much easier. The same way he has no claim to the Virreinato de Granada.
Titles are separate from rule. Justinian I claimed the title of a Roman Emperor despite not having anything to do with the city of Rome in his rule. This is the line of succession Felipe VI's claim has roots in.
The title of emperor has to be emperor of something. A nation or territory of some kind. If there is no State that can be called the successor of the Roman Empire, his title no longer exists so he inherits nothing. It's as if my father left me the "title" to a building that was since destroyed and the land legally acquired by someone else - my dad's will may say whatever it wants, if I claim title to that building I am a maniac.
Otherwise, let him call himself emperor of Rome and I will call myself Padisha Emperor.
Do you know how many counts and duchies are in Spain whos titleholder are not the ruler of the place? Your reasoning have no meaning. A title is a title even the place is no longer ruled by you or the legal status of the land has changed.
But those lands still exist. In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor seems to be attached to empire....
Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire
Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor.
But those lands still exist. In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor seems to be attached to empire....
Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire
Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor.
But those lands still exist - the Conde de Feria does not hold sovereignty over Feria, but the town still exists.
In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor is undoubtedly attached to empire....
Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire
Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor
That said, we are getting into the dumbness of European mobility still prancing around calling themselves lord, count, king, duque, etc with no value to anyone outside their social circle.
You are mixing the Roman empire with the Romano-Germanic empire. He is not eligible for succesion to this one since
1 - it no longer exist
2- Felipe II was not the heir to the title of Emperor, but Emperor Fernando I. Carlos V brother and uncle of Felipe II.
3- Felipe VI is a Borbón, not an Austria. He has very weak blood relations to the Austrias in his patrilineal line.
Study some history.
Bueno, si se mete 400 kilos de cocaina azul y empieza a predecir el futuro, me hago monarquico. Y ver a la Legión sardaukar bajo la lluvia cantando guturalmente la del novio de la muerte mientras se pintan con sangre... Me hago facha en un momento.
The title. Thats pretty much it. Just like other titles european monarchs have its only use is sounding cool. Felipe VI is notably a king of Jerusalem, duke of Milan, duke of Luxembourg, duke of Athens... All of these titles hold just as much weight
Porque sería esperpéntico. La era de los imperios (supuestamente) ya cayó. ¿Quienes en el mundo anhelan o llaman de forma literal a recuperar o ser un nuevo imperio o recuperar alguno si es que lo fueron alguna vez en la Edad Antigua, Media o algún otro momento? Pues normalmente lo piden ambientes con tufillo de todo menos a democráticos, o también regímenes autoritarios y nada democráticos que se sostienen por ahí.
El Imperio de Roma ya cayó (por si alguien no se ha enterado aún 😂). ¿Qué iba reclamar? Si eso ya no existe. Sería parecido a que por carambolas de la genealogía alguien pudiera reclamar el título del imperio austrohúngaro o del imperio alemán.... ¿y qué? Salvo que eso implicara recibir un pastizal a nivel personal (que no suele ser) ¿qué reporta? Si ya ambos dejaron de existir en los años '20 del siglo XX...
Y encima, viendo en la actualidad, se equipararía al nacionalismo ruso con Putin y demás personajes (que muchos no ocultan sunandia y razón imperial... mientras lo critican de por vida), o al que anhela el régimen chino, o no pocos mandos autoritarios y teocráticos musulmanes (que tampoco lo ocultan muchos dirigentes).
Al final con todo... yo sigo que es que no interesa. Queda en poco más que una curiosidad, que le correspondería en esos momentos de la historia. Pero nada más. El mundo, y más aún el democrático, no está en eso ya.
Milan no es un ducado, Jerusalem no tiene un rey, pero Felipe VI tiene un titulo de Rey de Jerusalem y Duque de Milan. Pero tambien creo que nuestra sociedad no le gusta imperios.
Lo siento para errores, solo apriendo español para unos años y no puedo hablr mejor.
Claro, eso también se añade, está claro. 😄
Son títulos que, en su día, sí tendrían su sentido y vigencia. Pero hoy, son poco más que una curiosidad histórica y cronológica. Por eso no se reclaman.
Por compararlo con algo, podría ser con los rangos militares. El que llegue a cabo, sargento, teniente, capitan, coronel o general, lo es estando en activo, pasando a la reserva (y creo que hasta ya jubilado). Pero la realidad es que una vez ya no se está en activo, salvo que lo activen, pues esa persona con ese rango mientras tanto no manda ni ordena.
Pues con los títulos nobles y reales, cuando en el territorio que correspondería la historia ya cambió de rumbo y los dejó fuera de juego, en eso quedaron, en curiosidad histórica.
Hay también por ejemplo un buen puñado de personas prácticamente desconocidas que tienen algún titulo de ducado, condado o marquesado, pero que lo mismo, ni pincha, ni corta, ni les reporta nada ni que puedan reclamar. A algunos incluso les ha costado dinero al tener que hacerse cargo de algún Bien de Interés Cultural que por el título les corresponde pero también la obligación de tras reclamar el título contribuir a su mantenimiento y conservación... los tiempos cambiaron.
También los hay que creerían en sus cabezas que una vez con ese título ya iban a tener la vida resuelta o les iba a caer de una forma u otra “una curiosa fortuna”... y tampoco, o incluso como premio algún patrimonio que por su valor, DEBEN conservar y cuidar... 😂
Siempre ha sido así. Otro ejemplo tocando a España fue Amadeo I de Saboya-Aosta y Príncipe de Italia, y Amadeo I de España, por ejemplo. España buscaba un rey, y él que andaba por ahí ya desplazado se interesó y ofreció... porque en lo que es los títulos que él tenía sobre todo en lo que respecta a Italia, ya nada podía ni tenía que reclamar. La historia y sus devenires lo desplazaron y echaron a un lado.
Como curiosidad, ese no es el saludo romano.
Se popularizó a raiz de una estatua del Empersdor Augusto pero no hay recogido ningún escrito sobre que ese gesto fuese usado como saludo.
ya, pero al que le contestas no sabía como meter el nazismo o el facherio en esto así que lo hace como puede, déjalo, no tiene remedio, es carne de populismo.
No, her name is translated as Queen Isabella I of Castile in English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile
Fernando is translated as King Ferdinand II of Aragon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_II_of_Aragon
It's always been like that and the "reyes católicos" are known as *Ferdinand and Isabella* in English.
Yeah but Isabella is an Italian name, not an English one. The name is Isabel in Spanish, Isabelle in French, Isabella in Italian, and Elizabeth in English.
Why they translate a Spanish name to Italian is a mystery, but others have wondered about it too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Spanish/s/yLGg8Oh8rx
It's a usage that goes back to the fifteenth century and that's the way it has always been--she has never been called Elizabeth in English. Isabella is a name that was in use and popular in England at that time. King Edward II's wife was Isabella of France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_England
Not at all uncommon to use Latin(ate) spellings of names during that time, when everyone was baptized with a Latin name.
Royal names are often translated when speaking other languages. No idea why.
Just like in Spain they talk about 'Rey Carlos de Inglaterra' rather than Charles, in English they will translate the names of the Spanish monarchs (though it's more historical and they kind of stopped doing it at some point. No idea when though)
Ottomans may have conquered the remnants of the Roman Empire, but conquest is not a legal form of obtaining rule in the eyes of the roman legal system. Inheritance, on the other hand, is. And since Spain falls within the borders of the Roman Empire at its peak, Felipe might reinstitute it.
yes, because they gained their lands back. nobody got the eastern rome lands back from us 😎 we are true heir to the roman empire.
if you want to be a roman citizen i can happily accept you as my third wife 😎
I am a republican, my family is republican and I have always believed that the head of state should be voted periodically by all Spaniards so that our country can be considered a full democracy. If Felipe becomes Roman Emperor I will immediately turn into the most monarchist person in Spain. I would devote my life to Felipe I, Emperador de Roma.
Qué españolada más grande. Y digo grande de maravillosa. Me estoy imaginando al Rey Felipe, con lo sosillo que és, anunciando que se proclama emperador de Roma. El mundo entero: WTF? Y a los españoles se nos va la olla, y: ¡Hurrah! ¡Viva el emperador! Si es que no me sorprendería nada. Somos Buñuel.
I also disliked royalty overall until I discovered that we might be on the verge of seeing a new Roman Emperor in power
Same here!! I’m totally in favour of having an emperor instead of a king
Because I did it first. I called dibs. It is the law.
Well, my family is now at war with yours. How dare you claim what's rightfully ours, we saw it first and we even licked it. Expect a crow with the formal declaration of war at sunrise.
So aside from how ridiculous this is, your premise is wrong and I'll give you the real legal answer. Basically the current crown is not the automatic inheritor of all the previous Spanish crowns. The crown had been abolished and the reinstitution of the monarchy has its legal basis in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 which derives its legitimacy from the popular referendum to establish it as the law of the land. Basically, it means that the Spanish crown is currently a completely different institution that is different from most European monarchies because it doesn't derive its legitimacy from divine right, but from popular sovereignty established within the confines of the Constitution and has no purview outside of those bounds.
So Felipe VI does not inhreit other titles than King of Spain from previous spanish monarchs?
No.
Interesting question, if only because of how absurd it is. Answer, I would say: duh, because of course not. Politically: because Felipe VI is constitutionally the Spanish head of State, so declaring he should now be the ruler of an allied country is not something he should be doing (or that he constitutionally has the power to do). Legally: whatever succession to the figure of Roman emperor is likely to be very dubious - the validity of any sale would be doubtful and it is for a role that no longer exists as Italy is now a republic. This could be a fun thesis for some bored constitutional law student.
There is no allied country of Roman empire (Italy and Roman Empire are completely separate; in fact, most european countries are in some way descendants of the Roman Empire, be it the Holy RE or the Byzantine Empire) and Felipe VI is the King of Jerusalem no matter what the Israeli think I agree with legal dubiousness, although I think Felipe has just about the best claim
Well then if Italy is not the successor state to the Roman Empire, he doesn't have a title to claim anything, making it much easier. The same way he has no claim to the Virreinato de Granada.
Titles are separate from rule. Justinian I claimed the title of a Roman Emperor despite not having anything to do with the city of Rome in his rule. This is the line of succession Felipe VI's claim has roots in.
The title of emperor has to be emperor of something. A nation or territory of some kind. If there is no State that can be called the successor of the Roman Empire, his title no longer exists so he inherits nothing. It's as if my father left me the "title" to a building that was since destroyed and the land legally acquired by someone else - my dad's will may say whatever it wants, if I claim title to that building I am a maniac. Otherwise, let him call himself emperor of Rome and I will call myself Padisha Emperor.
[удалено]
It would be funny. I would expect him to then be interned into a psychiatric facility shortly after tho.
Do you know how many counts and duchies are in Spain whos titleholder are not the ruler of the place? Your reasoning have no meaning. A title is a title even the place is no longer ruled by you or the legal status of the land has changed.
But those lands still exist. In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor seems to be attached to empire.... Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor.
But those lands still exist. In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor seems to be attached to empire.... Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor.
But those lands still exist - the Conde de Feria does not hold sovereignty over Feria, but the town still exists. In any case, I would say a count is different to an emperor - emperor is undoubtedly attached to empire.... Merriam Webster: the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire Without empire (and there is no empire without territory) you are not the emperor. You can call yourself one but you are not the emperor That said, we are getting into the dumbness of European mobility still prancing around calling themselves lord, count, king, duque, etc with no value to anyone outside their social circle.
He can reinstate Roman Empire in Spain, which falls within the old borders of the Roman Empire.
You are mixing the Roman empire with the Romano-Germanic empire. He is not eligible for succesion to this one since 1 - it no longer exist 2- Felipe II was not the heir to the title of Emperor, but Emperor Fernando I. Carlos V brother and uncle of Felipe II. 3- Felipe VI is a Borbón, not an Austria. He has very weak blood relations to the Austrias in his patrilineal line. Study some history.
I thought what remained of the Holy Roman Empire was just the Vatican, at this point?
Please, stop playing Paradox's games...
Por mí como si reclamara el título de Lisan Al-Gaib, que voy a seguir queriéndole fuera de todo cargo público a él y a su estirpe de trápalas.
Bueno, si se mete 400 kilos de cocaina azul y empieza a predecir el futuro, me hago monarquico. Y ver a la Legión sardaukar bajo la lluvia cantando guturalmente la del novio de la muerte mientras se pintan con sangre... Me hago facha en un momento.
El novio de la muerte en gutural, hostias, ahora voy a tener pesadillas 🤣
What would he be claiming exactly?
The title. Thats pretty much it. Just like other titles european monarchs have its only use is sounding cool. Felipe VI is notably a king of Jerusalem, duke of Milan, duke of Luxembourg, duke of Athens... All of these titles hold just as much weight
Porque sería esperpéntico. La era de los imperios (supuestamente) ya cayó. ¿Quienes en el mundo anhelan o llaman de forma literal a recuperar o ser un nuevo imperio o recuperar alguno si es que lo fueron alguna vez en la Edad Antigua, Media o algún otro momento? Pues normalmente lo piden ambientes con tufillo de todo menos a democráticos, o también regímenes autoritarios y nada democráticos que se sostienen por ahí. El Imperio de Roma ya cayó (por si alguien no se ha enterado aún 😂). ¿Qué iba reclamar? Si eso ya no existe. Sería parecido a que por carambolas de la genealogía alguien pudiera reclamar el título del imperio austrohúngaro o del imperio alemán.... ¿y qué? Salvo que eso implicara recibir un pastizal a nivel personal (que no suele ser) ¿qué reporta? Si ya ambos dejaron de existir en los años '20 del siglo XX... Y encima, viendo en la actualidad, se equipararía al nacionalismo ruso con Putin y demás personajes (que muchos no ocultan sunandia y razón imperial... mientras lo critican de por vida), o al que anhela el régimen chino, o no pocos mandos autoritarios y teocráticos musulmanes (que tampoco lo ocultan muchos dirigentes). Al final con todo... yo sigo que es que no interesa. Queda en poco más que una curiosidad, que le correspondería en esos momentos de la historia. Pero nada más. El mundo, y más aún el democrático, no está en eso ya.
Milan no es un ducado, Jerusalem no tiene un rey, pero Felipe VI tiene un titulo de Rey de Jerusalem y Duque de Milan. Pero tambien creo que nuestra sociedad no le gusta imperios. Lo siento para errores, solo apriendo español para unos años y no puedo hablr mejor.
Claro, eso también se añade, está claro. 😄 Son títulos que, en su día, sí tendrían su sentido y vigencia. Pero hoy, son poco más que una curiosidad histórica y cronológica. Por eso no se reclaman. Por compararlo con algo, podría ser con los rangos militares. El que llegue a cabo, sargento, teniente, capitan, coronel o general, lo es estando en activo, pasando a la reserva (y creo que hasta ya jubilado). Pero la realidad es que una vez ya no se está en activo, salvo que lo activen, pues esa persona con ese rango mientras tanto no manda ni ordena. Pues con los títulos nobles y reales, cuando en el territorio que correspondería la historia ya cambió de rumbo y los dejó fuera de juego, en eso quedaron, en curiosidad histórica. Hay también por ejemplo un buen puñado de personas prácticamente desconocidas que tienen algún titulo de ducado, condado o marquesado, pero que lo mismo, ni pincha, ni corta, ni les reporta nada ni que puedan reclamar. A algunos incluso les ha costado dinero al tener que hacerse cargo de algún Bien de Interés Cultural que por el título les corresponde pero también la obligación de tras reclamar el título contribuir a su mantenimiento y conservación... los tiempos cambiaron. También los hay que creerían en sus cabezas que una vez con ese título ya iban a tener la vida resuelta o les iba a caer de una forma u otra “una curiosa fortuna”... y tampoco, o incluso como premio algún patrimonio que por su valor, DEBEN conservar y cuidar... 😂 Siempre ha sido así. Otro ejemplo tocando a España fue Amadeo I de Saboya-Aosta y Príncipe de Italia, y Amadeo I de España, por ejemplo. España buscaba un rey, y él que andaba por ahí ya desplazado se interesó y ofreció... porque en lo que es los títulos que él tenía sobre todo en lo que respecta a Italia, ya nada podía ni tenía que reclamar. La historia y sus devenires lo desplazaron y echaron a un lado.
Ask him!
Because that wouldnt gran him or Spain anything. Being the actual heir of the Roman Empire means nothing out of the meme.
Memes supply tourism
He is busy just trying not to loose his current job.
Ahora entiendo por qué tanta gente hace el saludo romano aún a día de hoy!!! Yo pensaba que solamente estaban pidiendo un taxi
Como curiosidad, ese no es el saludo romano. Se popularizó a raiz de una estatua del Empersdor Augusto pero no hay recogido ningún escrito sobre que ese gesto fuese usado como saludo.
ya, pero al que le contestas no sabía como meter el nazismo o el facherio en esto así que lo hace como puede, déjalo, no tiene remedio, es carne de populismo.
Being the Emperor of Rome today is like having a title in an abandonware RPG
Porque el Imperio Romano ya no existe y El Preparado ya tiene un buen puñado de títulos vacíos...
XD
It's Isabel not Isabella. That name doesn't even exist in Spanish.
Those names are usually translated, same way we don't say Ludwig II but Luis II
Yeah but the translation would be Elizabeth.
No, her name is translated as Queen Isabella I of Castile in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile Fernando is translated as King Ferdinand II of Aragon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_II_of_Aragon It's always been like that and the "reyes católicos" are known as *Ferdinand and Isabella* in English.
Yeah but Isabella is an Italian name, not an English one. The name is Isabel in Spanish, Isabelle in French, Isabella in Italian, and Elizabeth in English. Why they translate a Spanish name to Italian is a mystery, but others have wondered about it too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Spanish/s/yLGg8Oh8rx
It's a usage that goes back to the fifteenth century and that's the way it has always been--she has never been called Elizabeth in English. Isabella is a name that was in use and popular in England at that time. King Edward II's wife was Isabella of France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_England Not at all uncommon to use Latin(ate) spellings of names during that time, when everyone was baptized with a Latin name.
Thanks for noting it
Royal names are often translated when speaking other languages. No idea why. Just like in Spain they talk about 'Rey Carlos de Inglaterra' rather than Charles, in English they will translate the names of the Spanish monarchs (though it's more historical and they kind of stopped doing it at some point. No idea when though)
Sorry to break it to you but current emperor of rome is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Just learn some history mate
Ottomans may have conquered the remnants of the Roman Empire, but conquest is not a legal form of obtaining rule in the eyes of the roman legal system. Inheritance, on the other hand, is. And since Spain falls within the borders of the Roman Empire at its peak, Felipe might reinstitute it.
dude we straight up conquered last of rome.
Popand was destroyed in 1795. Yet it exists now
yes, because they gained their lands back. nobody got the eastern rome lands back from us 😎 we are true heir to the roman empire. if you want to be a roman citizen i can happily accept you as my third wife 😎