Emperor and Kings of Germany, explanation of "Gaps"

[unmerged(1463)]

Hello Now i have managed to create a list of Emperors of the HRE, well some say that hte HRE does not have their first Emperor in Charlemagne, but i do

Any case, the title King of Germany does not nessesarily has to be the Emperor, and when comparing the two lists, i find that it has happened on two major occasions. But i do not know why, so i wish to ask you here whom know the Empire, better then i do.

The first "gap" i find is between 899 and 936 (Otto I then assume the title king of Germany, and of what i can see the Empire doesnt have an emperor 924 and 962.. Doesnt sound right, but that is hte info i have.

Well either way, between 899 and 936 the King of Germany is not the Emperor, but im not completely sure..
I have as emperor "Ludwig III the Blind
Emperor - 901-905"

And as King of Germany, 899-911 Louis III the Child, are they teh same person ?

After Louis III i have as Emperor Conrad I, and then Henry I, none of them are emperors.

Then the list starts to be sane again for while.

The next gap is between 1250 and 1308. That is a very long time... can someone explain why the King of Germany is not the Emperor ? Or rather, what happend then, for in my list it doesnt seem the Empire had an emperor between 1250 and 1313.

 

[Havard]

Can someone explain why the King of Germany is not the Emperor?

The King of Germany (also called King of the Romans) was elected by the princes of the Empire. Once become King he had to persuade the Pope to crown him Emperor (as the Emperorship rested on Papal approval).


There are also the titles of King of Italy (coronation in Pavia) and King of Arles (Burgundy+) who belonged to the Emperor...

 

[Umarth]

You can see that information in this web:

here

 

[unmerged(9531)]

Hello Now i have managed to create a list of Emperors of the HRE, well some say that hte HRE does not have their first Emperor in Charlemagne, but i do

Any case, the title King of Germany does not nessesarily has to be the Emperor, and when comparing the two lists, i find that it has happened on two major occasions. But i do not know why, so i wish to ask you here whom know the Empire, better then i do.

The first "gap" i find is between 899 and 936 (Otto I then assume the title king of Germany, and of what i can see the Empire doesnt have an emperor 924 and 962.. Doesnt sound right, but that is hte info i have.

Well either way, between 899 and 936 the King of Germany is not the Emperor, but im not completely sure..
I have as emperor "Ludwig III the Blind
Emperor - 901-905"

And as King of Germany, 899-911 Louis III the Child, are they teh same person ?

After Louis III i have as Emperor Conrad I, and then Henry I, none of them are emperors.

Then the list starts to be sane again for while.

The next gap is between 1250 and 1308. That is a very long time... can someone explain why the King of Germany is not the Emperor ? Or rather, what happend then, for in my list it doesnt seem the Empire had an emperor between 1250 and 1313.

the first gap is between the end of the Charmemagne's empire (not the HRE!!!!) and the fouding of the HRE by Otton.

the second gap is called the great interregnum.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

the first gap is between the end of the Charmemagne's empire (not the HRE!!!!) and the fouding of the HRE by Otton.

the second gap is called the great interregnum.

So you would call the HRE, the Holy roman Empire, created by Otto I, and the Emperors before that are not emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, the Holy Roman is created when Otto is coronated as Emperor of teh Holy Roman Empire, as he is the first to hold that title ?

 

[Seli]

Mikael,

A lot of your current questions have been dealt with in a great post by Abdul Goatherd in an earlier thread.

other great sites are :
The regnal chronicles A royal directory the friesian site

 

[unmerged(1463)]

Mikael,

A lot of your current questions have been dealt with in a great post by Abdul Goatherd in an earlier thread.

other great sites are :
The regnal chronicles A royal directory the friesian site

Yeah i remember that but i had lost the url. So thank you Seli. But there is still the question, it seems it is a very uncertain subject. Many pages, and texts i have read name Charlemagne as the First Holy Roman Empire (HRE-Emperor) some says Otto is the first, and some even say Conrad I. So it seems it is in the eye of the beholder, i personally always thought that Otto I was the first HRE-Emperor..

And if you check http://www.hostkingdom.net/empire.html they seem to list Charlemagne as the first HRE Emperor.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

It is confusing, but there were rules:

1. The King must first be elected King of Germany on Frankish soil (meaning within the Duchy of Franconia) by the German Princes. After his election, he is invested with the Imperial Insignia (sword, lance, mantle, orb, scepter, etc.). This election gives him the right to be crowned King of Germany. Until he's crowned, he's basically just "First Among Equals". Those that didn't vote for him frequently refused to recognize him.

2. The King-Elect is crowned, traditionally by the Archbishop of Cologne at Charlemagne's imperial capital of Aachen. Now he recieves the formal fealty & homage of all the German Princes, even those that didn't vote for him. This "royal" coronation gives him the right to be crowned Emperor by the Pope, which is why the title was sometimes "King of the Romans" instead of "King of Germany". The two titles are interchangeable, and both infer rulership of the German Kingdom with the right to the Imperial Crown.

3. The German coronation also gives the right of succession to the Kingdoms of Italy (after 961) and Burgundy (after 1032). The crowns of Italy & Burgundy were royal, not imperial; once crowned German King, he can claim these two without receiving the Imperial Crown. So for instance, Conrad III was King of Germany & Italy, and Philip I was King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy; but neither was ever Emperor.

4. The King of Germany can now go to Rome to be crowned Emperor by the Pope. Until then, he is not Emperor. Some German Kings were never crowned by the Pope, including Conrad I, Henry I, Conrad III, Philip I, Conrad IV, and several more after the Interregnum. These kings, in virtue of their "royal" German coronations, were basically "Emperor-Elect"; they had the right to the Imperial Crown, but since they didn't receive it, there was no Emperor during their reigns, which explains the gaps. However, even during the Interregnum, there were no gaps in the line of German Kings, only in the Imperial line.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

There were also Rules of Succession:

1. The King of Germany also had the right to nominate his successor. This usually meant he would nominate his son and have him elected by the Princes and crowned at Aachen to secure his succession. While the old King (Konig) was still alive, his son was "Co-King" (Mitkonig); on his father's death, he succeeded to the throne without requiring another election or coronation.

2. However, he generally could not have his son crowned Emperor during his own lifetime. There were only 2 exceptions: Otto I forced the Pope to crown his son Otto II Co-Emperor (Mitkaiser) in 967. Frederick I tried the same, and when the Pope refused, he had his son Henry VI crowned King of Italy and titled "Caesar" (1186). He based this on the old Roman tradition of having a senior Emperor (Augustus) and a junior Emperor (Caesar). However, since the Pope didn't recognize this, Henry VI had to be crowned Emperor again after his father's death (1191).

3. In cases where the King had no direct heir, or chose to pass him over, he could designate his successor by giving him the Imperial Insignia before his own death, which made him the official "royal" nominee at the next election. Examples:

-Conrad I of the Franconian dynasty had his brother Eberhard give them to Henry I of the Saxon dynasty, who was then elected King.

-Henry V, last of the Salian dynasty, gave the Insignia to his nephew, Frederick II of Swabia. However, since the Princes opposed the Salians and feared the Staufen (already Dukes of Swabia, they inherited Franconia and all the Salian family lands from Henry V), they elected Lothair von Supplinburg.

-On his deathbed, Lothair passed the Insignia to his Welf son-in-law Henry X the Proud, again ignoring the legitimate Staufen claim. However, this time the Princes elected the Staufen candidate, Conrad III, because they were afriad of Henry.

-When Conrad III lay dying, he gave the Insignia to his nephew Frederick I, thereby passing over his own son Frederick IV von Rothenburg (1152) for 2 reasons: 1) Frederick IV was only 8 years old and thus incapable of winning the war against the Welfs. 2) Frederick I's father was a Staufen and his mother a Welf, so he was acceptable to both sides and had a good chance of ending the civil war between them. He was elected unanimously.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

In case above 2 posts were confusing, here's a complete list starting with Conrad I, the first "King of Germany" (successor state of Carolingian Kingdom of East Francia (843-911)), and ending at the Interregnum. Where I give dates like this: 1169/90, the first number is the original date of coronation during the predecessor's lifetime; the second number is the date on which the father/predecessor died and the Co-King took over as sole King. A space denotes change of dynasty.

-Conrad I the Franconian, King of Germany (911-918)

-Henry I the Fowler, King of Germany (919-936)
-Otto I the Great, King of Germany (936-973) & Italy (961-973), HRE (962-973)
-Otto II the Red, King of Germany & Italy (961/73-983), HRE (967/73-983)
-Otto III the Wunderkind, King of Germany & Italy (983-1002), HRE (996-1002)
-Henry II the Holy, King of Germany (1002-1024) & Italy (1004/14-1024), HRE (1014-1024)

-Conrad II the Salian, King of Germany (1024-1039), Italy (1026-1039), & Burgundy (1032-1039), HRE (1027-1039)
-Henry III the Black, King of Germany & Italy (1028/39-1056), & Burgundy (1038/39-1056), HRE (1046-1059)
-Henry IV the Elder, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1054/56-1106), HRE (1084-1106)
-Henry V the Younger, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1099/1106-1125), HRE (1111-1125)

-Lothair I/III von Supplinburg, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1125-1137), HRE (1133-1137)

-Conrad III von Rothenburg/Hohenstaufen, King of Germany & Burgundy (1127/38-1152) & Italy (1128/38-1152)
-Frederick I Barbarossa, King of Germany (1152-1190), Italy (1154-1190), & Burgundy (1156-1190), HRE (1155-1190)
-Henry VI Caesar, King of Germany & Burgundy (1169/90-1197) & Italy (1186/90-1197) & Sicily (1194-1197), HRE (1191-1197)
-Philip I von Hohenstaufen, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1198-1208)

-Otto IV von Brunswick, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1198/1208-1215), HRE (1209-1215)

-Frederick II Roger/Stupor Mundi, King of Sicily (1198-1250) & Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1212/15-1250) & Jerusalem (1225-1228/43), HRE (1220-1250)
-Conrad IV von Hohenstaufen, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1237/50-1254) & Jerusalem (1228/43-1254)

Gets confusing now because of the Interregnum. Hope this helps.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

There were also Rules of Succession:

1. The King of Germany also had the right to nominate his successor. This usually meant he would nominate his son and have him elected by the Princes and crowned at Aachen to secure his succession. While the old King (Konig) was still alive, his son was "Co-King" (Mitkonig); on his father's death, he succeeded to the throne without requiring another election or coronation.

2. However, he generally could not have his son crowned Emperor during his own lifetime. There were only 2 exceptions: Otto I forced the Pope to crown his son Otto II Co-Emperor (Mitkaiser) in 967. Frederick I tried the same, and when the Pope refused, he had his son Henry VI crowned King of Italy and titled "Caesar" (1186). He based this on the old Roman tradition of having a senior Emperor (Augustus) and a junior Emperor (Caesar). However, since the Pope didn't recognize this, Henry VI had to be crowned Emperor again after his father's death (1191).

3. In cases where the King had no direct heir, or chose to pass him over, he could designate his successor by giving him the Imperial Insignia before his own death, which made him the official "royal" nominee at the next election. Examples:

-Conrad I of the Franconian dynasty had his brother Eberhard give them to Henry I of the Saxon dynasty, who was then elected King.

-Henry V, last of the Salian dynasty, gave the Insignia to his nephew, Frederick II of Swabia. However, since the Princes opposed the Salians and feared the Staufen (already Dukes of Swabia, they inherited Franconia and all the Salian family lands from Henry V), they elected Lothair von Supplinburg.

-On his deathbed, Lothair passed the Insignia to his Welf son-in-law Henry X the Proud, again ignoring the legitimate Staufen claim. However, this time the Princes elected the Staufen candidate, Conrad III, because they were afriad of Henry.

-When Conrad III lay dying, he gave the Insignia to his nephew Frederick I, thereby passing over his own son Frederick IV von Rothenburg (1152) for 2 reasons: 1) Frederick IV was only 8 years old and thus incapable of winning the war against the Welfs. 2) Frederick I's father was a Staufen and his mother a Welf, so he was acceptable to both sides and had a good chance of ending the civil war between them. He was elected unanimously.

Excellent ! I thank you Barbarossa, truly great answers I now understand it more.

And i see you have good quotes. Do you have more good quotes from Emperors ?

 

[unmerged(1463)]

In case above 2 posts were confusing, here's a complete list starting with Conrad I, the first "King of Germany" (successor state of Carolingian Kingdom of East Francia (843-911)), and ending at the Interregnum. Where I give dates like this: 1169/90, the first number is the original date of coronation during the predecessor's lifetime; the second number is the date on which the father/predecessor died and the Co-King took over as sole King. A space denotes change of dynasty.

-Conrad I the Franconian, King of Germany (911-918)

-Henry I the Fowler, King of Germany (919-936)
-Otto I the Great, King of Germany (936-973) & Italy (961-973), HRE (962-973)
-Otto II the Red, King of Germany & Italy (961/73-983), HRE (967/73-983)
-Otto III the Wunderkind, King of Germany & Italy (983-1002), HRE (996-1002)
-Henry II the Holy, King of Germany (1002-1024) & Italy (1004/14-1024), HRE (1014-1024)

-Conrad II the Salian, King of Germany (1024-1039), Italy (1026-1039), & Burgundy (1032-1039), HRE (1027-1039)
-Henry II the Black, King of Germany & Italy (1028/39-1056), & Burgundy (1038/39-1056), HRE (1046-1059)
-Henry IV the Elder, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1054/56-1106), HRE (1084-1106)
-Henry V the Younger, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1099/1106-1125), HRE (1111-1125)

-Lothair I/III von Supplinburg, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1125-1137), HRE (1133-1137)

-Conrad III von Rothenburg/Hohenstaufen, King of Germany & Burgundy (1127/38-1152) & Italy (1128/38-1152)
-Frederick I Barbarossa, King of Germany (1152-1190), Italy (1154-1190), & Burgundy (1156-1190), HRE (1155-1190)
-Henry VI Caesar, King of Germany & Burgundy (1169/90-1197) & Italy (1186/90-1197) & Sicily (1194-1197), HRE (1191-1197)
-Philip I von Hohenstaufen, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1198-1208)

-Otto IV von Brunswick, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1198/1208-1215), HRE (1209-1215)

-Frederick II Roger/Stupor Mundi, King of Sicily (1198-1250) & Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1212/15-1250) & Jerusalem (1225-1228/43), HRE (1220-1250)
-Conrad IV von Hohenstaufen, King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy (1237/50-1254) & Jerusalem (1228/43-1254)

Gets confusing now because of the Interregnum. Hope this helps.

That post wasnt done when i entered. Now i have a good list. I am very thankfull.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Excellent ! I thank you Barbarossa, truly great answers I now understand it more.

And i see you have good quotes. Do you have more good quotes from Emperors ?

Glad I could help. Took me years of study to understand it, and it wasn't until I started reading German sources instead of English books/translations that it became clear how it all worked.

Another quote I like: "Let he who can snatch the club from the hand of Hercules!" Frederick I Barbarossa to the Romans who claimed the Empire was theirs by ancient right instead of his by right of conquest (1155). They laid out their historic claims, and he replied by challenging them to try and take it back.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

Glad I could help. Took me years of study to understand it, and it wasn't until I started reading German sources instead of English books/translations that it became clear how it all worked.

Another quote I like: "Let he who can snatch the club from the hand of Hercules!" Frederick I Barbarossa to the Romans who claimed the Empire was theirs by ancient right instead of his by right of conquest (1155). They laid out their historic claims, and he replied by challenging them to try and take it back.

Amazing how good Rulers are to say things a personal favourite of mine is not a quote, but something i would list as rather interesting atleast

Last argument of kings. [Cannon.]
[Lat., Ultima ratio regum.]
- order this engraved on cannon, but removed by the National Assembly, Aug. 19, 1790

Also i sent you a PM

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Whoops! I just noticed a mistake in my list. I had Henry III listed as Henry II. Is now fixed.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Also i sent you a PM

Got it and replied to the email address you provided.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

Got it and replied to the email address you provided.

Excellent

 

[unmerged(2695)]

King of Germany?

Just for the record: There was never, ever, any "King of Germany" or "King of the Germans". The closest is the Rudolf of Rheinfelden elected by the princes in opposition to the Empror Henry IV in 1077. He was styled "King of the Teutons" (rex teutonicus) by the Pope.

The usage King of Germany is ahistorical and anachronistic. It is a national-liberal invention without the slightest basis in history.

During the Early Middle Ages (600-1000) the title "king" denoted birth status as well as, and as much as, rulership. Any adult male, of the royal lineage that was sound of limb and mind was a "king" unless he had been disqualified by being shipped off to a monastery. Given the bilateral nature of the kinship system royal descent was cognaticf; descending thourgh women as well as men. Becoming "King of ..." required proven leadership abilities - basically the ability to defeat all other contenders in a dynastic civil war and tus being recognized as top dog by the aristocracy that actually controlled all land and all men. But "King of ..." was not an office, it was a status position. (The royal dignity only became and office in the mid 12th Century and then only because of the institutionalization of central power in England under Henry I and Henry II. The kingship then became disembodied in the notion of the Crown as the transpersonal node of authority and disembedded from the poerson of the ruler -the king vs King dichotomy of English constituional law - cfr. Kantorowitz' The King's Two Bodies).

The title routinely given to a Frankish apanage ruler was "rex". All of Charlemagne's sons were ar different times "kings" of Italy etc. So were all his grandsons. Louis the German started out as rex baiuvaiorum - king of the Bavarians. Not because Bavaria was a kingdom but because Louis was a king in his capacity as a direct male descendant of Charlemagne. Withe partition of the Carolingian patrimony in 843 the three sons of Louis the Pious got the lands they actually controlled, with the western part going to Charles the Bald, king of the Aquitanians, the central part to Lothar, king of the Italins and the eastern to Louis, king of the Bavarians. The younger were styled kings of the west and east Franks respectively; Lothar became emperor. On his death his patrimony was divided amonghis two sons - who styled themselves kings of the Upper and lower Lotharingians respectively because the Frankish core lands had no convenient territorial appelation.

By the third quatrter of the 9th Century the blood of Charlemagne was running in the veins of many Frankish aristocratic lineage because the civil wars lead, as they always to, to the royal lineage giving women in return for political support. In the third generation after Charlemagne his cognatic offspring also claimed kingly status for themselves in Burgundty and Italy. The Italian bransh even managed to get recognition as Roman Emperors after the abdication of Charles the Fat, scion of the Western Frankish line, in 888. This was mainly due to the preoocupation of their second cousins with the Vikings.

The Carolingian empire had always been an "ethnically" Frankish affair in that the empire was goverened by Rhinefrankish aristocrats as counts and bishops. When the East Frankish direct line of Charlemagne became extinct with the detah of Arnulf in 911 the East Franks (the men of Franconia) elected their dux, Conrad, as their king, ie as king of the East Franks. There were at that time no eligible candidates with a better dynastic claim available and the East Franksern needed as leader. Conrad in a stroke of genius designated the dux of the Saxons, Henry, as his successor. He was elected king in 918 - in opposition to the king elected by the Bavarians.

In becoming king Henry was also ritually transformed from an "ethnic" Saxon into an "ethnic" Frank in the coronation rites. The rites were performed on Frankish souil by the leading Frankish magnates, the three archbishops of the Rhineland, with the king-elect entering the church dressed as a Saxon and leaving it dressed as a Frank.

The core of Ottonian ideology was in fact the notion that the Saxons in beingc onqured and converted by Charlemagne had become his godchildren and thus his chosen people, "Franks" by spiritual adopition rather than birth. This notion is no more curious than the idea that crossing the Atlantic and gaining US citizenship makes you an "American" - which I believe is the majority consensus oinion among my third cousins living in the US.

Henry I declined the imperial dignity - but probably more out of apprehension about the claims of the church than anything else. His major achievement was of course to redefine the rules of succession by introducing monogeniture - that only one son could become king, ie that there could only be one king at a time. But there was absolutely no more room for any apanages in the East Frankish kingdom either. Junior royals had to be placed in the Church (as Bruno of Cologne) or imposed on the men of the other duchies (as Henry the Quarrelsome of Bavaria). Tensions over this ran high within the Ottonian dynasty for as long as it lasted, sparking off rebellions every decade. (Daugthers were sacrificed by being placed in nunneries - Ottonian Saxony is really a complez archaic polity in Christian garb. Having the women take up the veil also placed them out of reach of enterprising aristocrats and stabilized the kingship by limiting the number of new male member sof the dynasty).

Otto, king of the Eastern Franks, made himself Roman Emperor in 961. His major motive - beyond the wealth of Italy - was of course to contain the ambitions of the Swabian and Bavarian by denying them the opportunity to do the same. Italy became a "kingdom" as it had been under Charlemagne - but was, significantly enough not turned into an apanage. Control of Italy also gave control of the Pope and enabled Otto to resuscitate the imperial church system of Charlemagne.

And by wresting the Papacy from the rapacious hands of the Roman aristocracy Otto laid the foundation for the Church as a universal institution - and thus sowed the seed that destroyed the Roman Empire.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

Explain to me why every bio i have list them as Kings of Germany, no matter if the bio is from Meyers conversationslexicon, or the National Encyclopedia or something, they all list them as Kings of Germany. SO even if they did not have that exact title, they all (logically) should have a title, or position in common that all theese Kings of Germany had.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Just for the record: There was never, ever, any "King of Germany" or "King of the Germans". The closest is the Rudolf of Rheinfelden elected by the princes in opposition to the Empror Henry IV in 1077. He was styled "King of the Teutons" (rex teutonicus) by the Pope.

The usage King of Germany is ahistorical and anachronistic. It is a national-liberal invention without the slightest basis in history.

We've had this conversation before. It is neither ahistorical nor anachronistic; it is a simple and indisputable historical fact that there was indeed, after 911, a Kingdom of Germany. There was both a formal election and a coronation that specifically imparted rulership of this Kingdom (by name) that was definitely separate from and precursory to the imperial coronation, and there is a veritable wealth of facts and sources that prove it. Follow the links below or read German sources (not English translations or popular history books), and you'll see that this is equivalent to claiming there was no Kingdom of England. Like I said when last you made that claim:

Thats not true but its a common misconception. The Kingdom of the East Franks was first called the Kingdom of Germany in 919 on Henry I's election, though it was actually born in 911 on the extinction of the East Frankish Carolingians. (http://www.weltchronik.de/dck/dcx_920.htm). There are plenty of documented sources, just do a search with the exact term you used, Regnum Teutonicum. There was certainly, between 911-1806 a Regnum Teutonicum, and an unbroken line of Kings of Germany.

After Otto I the title was also sometimes given as "King of the Romans", which was directly analogous & interchangeable with German King. Both specifically imparted authority over a Kingdom composed of the German tribal Duchies of Franconia, Saxony, Swabia, Bavaria, Lotharingia, plus the Saxon north marches (Brandenburg, Misnia, Lusatia, Mecklenburg) and the Bavarian east marches (Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola). Obviously, then, the Kingdom in question was not the "Empire" in its entirety; it was Germany. Otto used "Romans" to stress his son's right to be crowned emperor; the Pope refused to use this term with Rudolf I to deny him that same right.

Election in Franconia & coronation at Aachen only made one King of Germany, not Emperor; only coronation by the Pope did that (until 1508). So what were Conrad I? Henry I? Conrad III? Philip I? Conrad IV? Rudolf I? They certainly were never emperors, and yet, they were all elected something, and except for Henry I, they were certainly crowned King of something...of Germany. In fact, after Maximilian I, the title was always King of the Germans (Romans was dropped).

Many general works, especially in English or bad German translations, perpetuate this myth simply by not giving specific details of the Empire's composition; but I have yet to see one that actually denies the existence of the German Kingdom. So what's your source? Regardless, check out the histories of medieval Germany by Haverkamp & Fuhrmann, plus hundreds of other German works, and:

http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/cgi-bin/stoyan/wwp/LANG=engl/?class
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/deutschland_koenige_2/koenige_des_deutschen_reiches.html
http://home.t-online.de/home/jochen.seidel/territ2.htm
http://iprase.g-floriani.it/didateca/glossari/scheda_glossario.asp?num=222
http://plato.kfunigraz.ac.at/dp/FRMIT/C3.HTM
http://ragz-international.com/holy_roman_empire25.htm
http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwhist/faculty/ehaberer/KEY1-F02_211.htm
http://www.monarchieliga.de/historie/imperium2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/5589/DeutscheKaiser.htm
Regnum Teutonicum first mentioned in documents, specifying the Kingdom of the Germans

http://home.comcast.net/~sylvanarrow/Holy_Roman_Empire.htm
“It is thus no coincidence that at this time, the terminology changes and the first occurrences of a Regnum Teutonicum are found.”

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/k/Konrad_II.shtml
http://www.bsz-bw.de/rekla/show.php?mode=source&id=410
http://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/ivgem/veranstaltungen/faz_text.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gauvain/lectio/script3.htm
http://www.courses.psu.edu/ger/ger100_fgg1/transparencies/ottonian_dyn.html
http://www.wcurrlin.de/links/daten/daten_ottonen.htm

http://www.wcurrlin.de/links/daten/daten_ottonen.htm
“Regnum Teutonicum mentioned in documents for the first time”, referring specifically to that Kingdom to which Conrad I was elected (911) and Henry I succeeded.

http://www.beyars.com/kunstlexikon/lexikon_3904.html

And thousands of others...in fact here are some from even so simple a source as Encyclopedia Britannica:

Conrad I: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=26323&tocid=0&query=conrad i&ct=
Henry I: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=40878&tocid=0&query=henry+i&ct=
What does it say Henry was elected as in 919? I quote, "He was elected king of Germany..."
Conrad III: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=26327&tocid=0&query=conrad iii&ct=

And so on and so forth.