Ah, so what you are saying is that the Empire was split into three (similar to the previous rending of the Empire into East and West)? Interesting theory, and one that I have never really considered. My own take on the matter has been that the throne of Charlemagne has been vacant since 1806.
Well, the full imperial throne basically has been. Exactly because it was split into three and so no one of the three can claim the fullness of it, though each can claim one of the essential constituent elements of Charlemagne's legacy (the French element, the German element, and the Austrian element).
And if I were to acknowledge the "Queen" of England, Elizabeth of the House of Windsor, then I would have to acknowledge that the House of Commons can arbitrarily decide who can wear the crown, rather then it be the will of God, the laws laid down, and the Church. The "Bloodless" Revolution was a blasphemy against everything the Monarchy had been. If followed to its natural conclusion then the throne should be done away with for it is not an eternal seat but something that can be changed and moved at the wim of the parliament.
You will notice here, though, that I dont include the Queen for England (which throne is only royal, not imperial) but rather for
India, which possesses, theoretically, one of the Imperial titles, and which was only taken by the British monarchy
after everything you are talking about occured. Though, as I've said, I highly prefer the Mughal claim over the colonial British one.
Still, you seem to have some "mystical" view of monarchy, legitimacy, and divine right. Parliamentary channels are totally legitimate, dynasties have changed through many means (including usurpation and deposition) throughout history. The new ruler rules by Divine Right through
accomplished fact. Especially after a generation or so, the de facto ruler is de jure. You are acting as if civil authority is from God by some sort of positive institution on His part, but it is more indirect than that.
See the New Advent article (from 1917) on the traditional Catholic theology on the origins of Civil Authority:
Civil authority is of God, not by any revelation or positive institution, but by the mere fact that God is the Author of Nature, and Nature imperatively requires civil authority to be set up and obeyed.
Obedience, being a practical thing and not a speculation, cannot abstract from the concrete facts of the case; it is paid to the powers that be, to the authority actually in possession. Obedience is as disobedience; men are never disobedient except to the government of the day.
The one point fixed by nature, and by God, is that there must be authority everywhere, and that the authority existent for the time being, under such and such a form, be under that form obeyed; for since there is no actual authority in the country except under that form, to refuse to obey that is to refuse authority simply, and to revert to anarchy, which is against nature: just as a man having nothing but bread and cheese to eat, and refusing to eat his bread and cheese, under pretence that he much prefers mutton, condemns himself to starvation, which again is unnatural. But we must beware of saying of any particularform of authority, monarchy for example, or democracy either, what is true only of authority in the abstract, namely, that all nations are bound to live under it, and that never under any pretence can it be subverted. A country, once monarchical, is not eternally bound to monarchy; and circumstances are conceivable under which a republic might pass into monarchy, as Rome did under Augustus, much to its advantage. Authority rules by Divine right under whatsoever form it is established. No one form of government is more sacred and inviolate than another. Change of persons holding office is usually provided in the constitution, sometimes by rotation, sometimes by vote of the legislative assembly. No monarchical constitution provides for the change of the person of the monarch otherwise than by death or resignation. Change of the form of government can be effected constitutionally, but, as history shows, as often as not, it is brought about unconstitutionally. When the change is complete, the new government rules by right of accomplished fact. There must be authority in the country, and theirs is the only authority available.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htmI may personally wish to see the Imperial (and other) thrones restored in some ideal world, but I am not so unreasonable as to believe the governments currently ruling by right of accomplished fact are illegitimate or that their authority (for as long as they possess it practically) is not of God. That would be like the man who prefers mutton refusing to eat the bread and cheese currently available. Obedience is practical, not speculative.
