Electors with no HRE territory

[SamStarrett]

Really?

No. Hanover was an electorate in personal union with the Kingdom of Great Britain, but that's not the same thing.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

No. Hanover was an electorate in personal union with the Kingdom of Great Britain, but that's not the same thing.

Conceivably, Denmark could've been an elector through Holstein.

 

[SamStarrett]

Conceivably, Denmark could've been an elector through Holstein.

But the game doesn't model electors in personal union by transferring electoral status to the senior partner, which makes sense; elector status belonged to a ruler as ruler of a particular state; the closest EUIII can come to modeling this is to have the elector in PU with another state (although I would like to see a way for the senior partner to control the junior's voting).

 

[unmerged(1047)]

There was no written rule saying this, ever; and indeed the French and English kings both mounted serious imperial candidacies at the time of the election that crowned Charles V.

Of course, electors may have had a bias in favor of imperial rulers, but that's represented by the "within the HRE" bonus electors get in their decision to vote.

Running for Emperor and being an elector (voter) are two different things. At that time, England and France weren't electors, but were trying to be elected.

 

[Evie HJ]

Re-read the post I was replying to:

Since emperors don't need to be part of the HRE in the game (whereas they do need to be in the HRE IRL).

I was addressing the idea that EMPERORS need to be part of the HRE IRL. Which they didn't.

Didn't say anything about electors.