During Wimbledon a few years ago, a thread about King Felipe VI of Spain went viral. It was posted to the social media platform formerly known as Twitter by Derek Guy, author of the menswear blog Die, Workwear! “Very rare to see this level of tailoring nowadays, even on the wealthy,” he commented on a photo of Felipe in the stands on the tournament’s last day. Even when not attending major sporting events, the king’s collars always hug his neck, his lapels are always well-proportioned, the lines of his coat always flow into his trousers, and his four-in-hand always has just the right asymmetry. For my money, such self-presentation befits not just a monarch, but indeed an emperor.
It so happens that Felipe is one of the most plausible candidates for that job, at least in the hypothetical scenario that the Roman Empire never declined and fell. He’s also the only actual sitting monarch among them, though each of the others can also make his own credible claim to the imperial throne.
So who would rightfully rule over a still-extant Roman Empire? Understanding that history buffs enjoy nothing more than a speculative but knowledge- and judgment-intensive debate of that kind, UsefulCharts creator Matt Baker (whose online store happens to offer a Roman emperors family tree poster) once invited thirteen history YouTubers to cast their votes — and, of course, explain their answers.
In addition to Felipe, the roster of potential modern-day Roman emperors includes Dündar Ali Osman, heir to the Ottoman dynasty, and Andrew Romanov, heir to the Russian throne (a choice for those who accept the onetime description of Moscow as the “third Rome”). Alas, both have died since the making of this video, but the claimants who could draw their legitimacy from the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire live on: the still relatively young Jean-Christophe Napoléon, a descendant of Bonaparte’s brother, and Karl von Habsburg, the undisputed current head of the eponymous house. In favor of each candidate, one can make a variety of arguments political, cultural, and geographical. Nor, as some of us would insist, can we reasonably ignore the sartorial.
Related Content:
Ancient Roman Coins Reveal the Existence of a Forgotten Roman Emperor
Five Hardcore Deaths Suffered By Roman Emperors
The History of Europe from 400 BC to the Present, Animated in 12 Minutes
Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities, language, and culture. He’s the author of the newsletter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Summarizing Korea) and Korean Newtro. Follow him on the social network formerly known as Twitter at @colinmarshall.
This is complete BS. None of these people are Italian. Italians are the only direct descendants of the Romans. You are groping. People who are not Itaians are just jealous. All of you are not Italian, do make up crap. Russians? Why not a Swede? You are Morons.
It would be the pope. The papacy is the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire under the guise of Christianity. The pagan emperors claimed to be God on earth and the popes throughout history have made the same claim. They claim to be God’s vicar on earth. They are not, the Holy Spirit is!!!
Trajan (98–117 AD): Born in Italica, Spain; often considered the first non-Italian emperor.
Hadrian (117–138 AD): Born in Italica, Spain.
Septimius Severus (193–211 AD): Born in Leptis Magna (modern Libya), North Africa; considered the first African emperor.
Maximinus Thrax (235–238 AD): Thracian background.
Philip the Arab (244–248 AD): Born in Syria.
Claudius Gothicus (268–270 AD): Illyrian background.
Aurelian (270–275 AD): Illyrian background.
Diocletian (284–305 AD): Born in Dalmatia (Illyria).
Constantine the Great (306–337 AD): Born in Naissus (modern Serbia).
These are the most notable but not the only non-Italian emperors.
My ancestors include Roman senators and a praetorian prefect based in Gaul. Does this s mean they were Italian or Gauls?
I believe the House of Osman would have the strongest legitimate claim, as several of the early Sultans had mother’s who were Roman princesses — enough that they could make a serious claim to being a cadet branch of the final Eastern Roman dynasty, the Paleaologi — albeit a cadet branch that converted to Islam and considers itself Turkish instead of Greek or Italian. Still, it would not be unprecedented for such a transition, considering the actual Roman State began in Italy as a pagan Kingdom in 753 BCE, becoming a Republic for almost 500 years before the crowning of the first Emperor (who was also a pagan)in 27 BCE, then split into 1 Empire ruled by 2 Emperors in the late 3rd century (and shortly after became a Christian Empire). After the collapse of the Western half of the Empire in the late 5th century AD, the Empire became more Greek than Italian, and it remained Greek until the capture of Constantinople in 1453 — upon which time, most of the Ottoman Sultans were descendants of Roman princesses and much of the “Turkish” population was actually the pre-existing Greco-Roman population that had converted to Islam and adopted Turkish culture. Interesting topic for discussion, that’s for sure!
Thomas Lessman
TALessman’s Atlas of World History
http://www.WorldHistoryMaps.net
The fact that the candidates chosen for this list are the heirs to rich and famous modern dynasties and not the result of careful genealogical and/or genetic study says everything you really need to know about the subject.
It’s always the rich and powerful and it has always been the rich and powerful.
The Roman Emperor was not considered hereditary like the British crown is. True descendents of Augustus Caesar ruled for the first 70 years of the empire. But after that it was mostly the backing of the army or money to bribe the Praetorian guards. If you want to make a conjecture, consider wealth, political connections, and an army to back the candidate.
Felipe II No contest
Sorry folks, a few considerations.
First: does a Roman Empire exist without the capital, Rome? Moving the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople is questionable in itself. So no Byzantium emperor can exist.
Second: it is unthinkable that an Islamic Ottoman would be emperor of a predominantly Europe now: they were kicked out of Europe from both Spain and Vienna; back to Africa and the Middle-East. Furthermore, the Ottomans never considered Constantinople the ultimate prize; that was always Rome, and they never conquered Rome.
Third: someone in the comments under the video says that the one with the largest army is emperor. So we come to Charlemagne: he conquered the greater part of Europe at one time, and since his inauguration as emperor, the rule has existed that only the Pope can decide who becomes emperor. That has always been respected by all royal houses after Charlemagne. That was the rule; that has always been the LAW! And the last person to be inaugurated as emperor while holding the greater part of Europe was Napoleon. His imperial title was never taken from him, not even after Waterloo. So the most obvious candidate is Jean-Christophe Napoléon! Moreover, he has the advantage of being descended from the French kings through his mother. And they ultimately descend, both familial and legitimate, from Charlemagne. And thus it shall be: Jean-Christophe has the best credentials. Vive Empereur Jean-Christophe! ;)