Talk:Imperial Majesty

Quote: "In the International Protocol, holders of this style outrank any others although the holders of the style sometimes voluntarily follow after religious leaders with the style of his holiness."

That is untrue as far as i'm aware.

Popes i.e. Holinesses outrank Emperors, i.e. Imperial Majesties in the European hierarchy. Holders of the style Imperial majesty do not "outrank any others". The idea that the pope comes before Imperial Majesties because Emperors "volunteer that position" to them is TOTALLY out of line with what I know of historical European protocol. The rest of the world usually follows Western protocols, so i'd imagine the same is true elsewhere.

I suppose you could argue that a more correct translation of the title of the "Emperor" of Japan would be as "Pope" - in both the secular and (before 1945) religious sense. But that is another debate altogether. Titles have largely become meaningness anyway. The Emperor of Japan reigns over a single nation and as such is a King. Queen Elizabeth II reigns over multiple realms of varying sizes with countless ethnic and racial groups and is therefore more accurately an Empress.

Hierarchies in Europe were: Pope -> Emperor -> King -> Grand Duke -> Duke -> Prince -> etc...

121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. 'Emperor' is just a higher title than King; it does not mean someone who rules over more than one country.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:His Eminence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)