Why was Charlemagne not truly the Emperor of the Romans?

Answer 1

Historically, we call people emperors of the Roman Empire if the Roman Senate endorsed them as such, or if an emperor approved by the Senate did so, making them co-emperors, and they subsequently ruled on their own. Anyone else who claimed independently to be the emperor is considered a claimant or usurper. The last known act of the Senate of the West Roman Empire took place in the year 603 AD, 197 years before Charlemagne was crowned emperor.

He might be considered a legitimate Roman Emperor, if he had been accepted by Empress Irene of the Byzantine Empire, which was what remained of the Roman Empire at the time.

From a certain point of view, all this is nonsense. If the Holy Roman Empire were still operating, our position on whether Charlemagne was legally Emperor of the Romans would almost certainly be different.

There are links below.

Answer 2

Historically, we call people emperors of the Roman Empire if the Roman Senate endorsed them as such, or if an emperor approved by the Senate did so, making them co-emperors, and they subsequently ruled on their own. Anyone else who claimed independently to be the emperor is considered a claimant or usurper. The last known act of the Senate of the West Roman Empire took place in the year 603 AD, 197 years before Charlemagne was crowned emperor.

He might be considered a legitimate Roman Emperor, if he had been accepted by Empress Irene of the Byzantine Empire, which was what remained of the Roman Empire at the time.

From a certain point of view, all this is nonsense. If the Holy Roman Empire were still operating, our position on whether Charlemagne was legally Emperor of the Romans would almost certainly be different.

There are links below.

Answer 3

he held no power in the City of Rome itself.