Double choice

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

The term double choice (also ambivalent choice ) denotes a historical situation in which two rulers of secular or spiritual power exercise power in parallel with or against each other.

A double election could come about if the rules for determining the majority did not exist, were unclear or not recognized by all voters. Inadequate provisions on the right to vote favored ambiguous elections. In such a situation it could usually lead to the competitive exercise of power or even a military struggle for power. A consensual solution to the conflict is the exception. If a higher authority was responsible for resolving the electoral conflict ( right of reprobation ), decisions were often made after a long time and were not always recognized by the conflicting parties.

Controversial elections are more common in the ecclesiastical field , especially when it comes to the occupation of dioceses , but also occur with popes ( schism ). The canon law of the High Middle Ages represented two different positions on the right to vote . According to Rufinus of Bologna († before 1192), the consent of three instances - the people, the clergy and the authorized representative (metropolitan bishop) - was required, while Huguccio († 1210), following the model of the Roman consensus marriage, considered the consent of the metropolitan to be superfluous.

Examples

• Schism 1130: Anaclet II / Innocent II
• Double kingship : Otto IV / Philip of Swabia (1198)
• Double election of 1256/57 : Richard of Cornwall / Alfons X.
• Double choice of the Mongolian Great Khan: Arigkbugha Khan / Kublai Khan (1261 - see David VII. )
• Double choice: Ludwig IV / Friedrich the Beautiful (1314)
• Great Occidental Schism 1378: Urban VI. / Clemens VII. (Antipope)

See also

• Against king
• Antipope

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Uta Kleine: Between monastery and curia. Monks as legal experts and the development of forensic orality in the papal judiciary (1141–1256). In: Frank Rexroth, Teresa Schröder-Stapper: Experts, Knowledge, Symbols: Performance and Mediality of Pre-Modern Cultures of Knowledge (= historical magazine, supplement 71). Walter de Gruyter, 2018, ISSN  2190-1341 , p. 91 f.
2. ↑ Martin Kaufhold : The Rhythms of Political Reform in the Late Middle Ages. Institutional change in Germany, England and at the Curia 1198–1400 in comparison. Thorbecke, Ostfildern 2008, ISBN 978-3-7995-4274-6 , pp. 28, 37, 303
3. ^ Hans Prutz : State history of the West in the Middle Ages from Charlemagne to Maximilian. First volume, 1885, p. 708 f.
4. ↑ Alsu A. Arslanova: Political Relations between tehe Ulus of Djoci and the Uluses of the Khulaguyids . In: Kinship in the Altaic World. Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10-15 July, 2005 (= Volume 150 of: Asiatic Research. Series of monographs on the history, culture and language of the peoples of East and Central Asia ). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006, ISBN 978-3-44-705416-4