How did becoming king in England and France differ from how it was done the Holy Roman Empire?

In England and France, the monarchy was hereditary, meaning that the crown passed from father to son (or, in some cases, from brother to brother) according to a well-established order of succession. The king was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in England and the Archbishop of Reims in France, in a ceremony that symbolized their divine right to rule and their responsibility to their subjects.

In the Holy Roman Empire, on the other hand, the emperor was elected by a group of seven electors, who were themselves powerful princes and церковные деятели. The electors met in Frankfurt and cast their votes, and the candidate who received a majority of votes became the emperor. This elective monarchy meant that the Holy Roman Empire was not a unified state in the same way that England and France were, and the emperor's power was often limited by the interests of the electors.

Here is a table summarizing the key differences between becoming king in England and France and becoming emperor in the Holy Roman Empire:

| Feature | England and France | Holy Roman Empire |

|---|---|---|

| Method of succession | Hereditary | Elective |

| Coronation | Performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (England) or the Archbishop of Reims (France) | Performed by the Archbishop of Mainz |

| Divine right | King is considered to have been chosen by God | Emperor is elected by a group of electors |

| Power | King has absolute power | Emperor's power is limited by the interests of the electors |

These differences in the way that kings and emperors were chosen had a significant impact on the political development of England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. Hereditary monarchy helped to create a sense of stability and continuity in England and France, while the elective monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire led to a more fractious and decentralized political system.