Ehhhh... at that time. youd still have to be crowned by the Pope to be Emperor. Of course, at this time it always was the German King who was crowned, but he didnt become automatically Emperor. So when it is said that he wanted to make the imperial dignity hereditary, that is kidna correct, but technically it was about the dignity of the German King.
Election was what gave the Emperor the powers of his office, implementation of the Erbreichsplan would have changed this to pass them automatically to the Crown Prince. The Coronation by itself was a symbolic act, of course, but it was not a NECESSARY one, even by the culture of the time. Contemporaries understood that the real power of the office was transferred and operant according to the normal rules for selection of the monarch (hereditary, elective). The coronation ceremony by itself indeed granted added prestige, but nothing more. Kings and emperors sometimes went years of reign before the coronation was performed. The loss of prestige, while not trivial, was not crippling, especially if it came from causes that were evident to all, such ongoing conflict with the current Pope.
Besides, it was well-evident to contemporaries that coronation by the Pope was itself a novelty for the imperial dignity, as the Romans had none of the sort. And if need be, such rules can be always changed. A king or emperor could always summon the Diet/Estates General and have it declare that from now on, the presence and assent of the Pope was no more necessary for the coronation of the Emperor. The precedent of Charlemagne could always be overruled by making appeal to the Roman precedent, or the Byzantine precedent. An Emperor that was in control of his subjects could make such an argument and it would have made much sense.
Of course, there always was the alternative way of putting your own subservient anti-pope in charge. If you can kick out the previous pope from Rome, and have the vast majority of bishops and nobles in Europe acknowledge your own pope, he's the real one for all that matters.
But the Kings of England and France never had the imperial dignity to begin with. It just isnt expected of them. The German Kings, though - its expected of them, so when the King doesnt get crowned Emperor, it is a loss of reputation, and that means a loss of authority.
Yes, but not one that being a poltically, economically, and/or militarly strong defacto uncrowned Emperor could not and would not make trivial. if the monarch would be otherwise powerful, the issue would dwindle to a minor technicality. People minded about forms, but weren't stupid.
Also, it was universally regogncied bakc in the days that the Pope crowns Emperor. A German King not crowned Emperor will not be Emperor, but indeed just German King.
Again, the precedent of Charlemagne was not absolute. The emperors of Rome, even Christian ones, weren't crowned by the Pope, nor the Emperors of Byzantium. The fact was known and evident to middle-age jurists. At the very most, all that was needed was a decree by the then-equivalents of the Roman Senate and People, the Diet/Reichstag/Estates General, that the Pope had overstepped his authority by putting himself in charge of the imperial coronation, and the precedent would have sticked. Legally, the selection of the Emperor was an area where the Pope had no true authority.
Not in the 10th to 13th century, back then the Kings of France and England hadnt much secuaklr bureaucray, either. In any case, what Kings should do is different to what they find in reality, and reality was that by the time of Barbarossa the system of clergy as imperial vasalls was deeply ingrained in the system.
True, but what a dynasty of strong, centralizing Emperors could and should have done is to play the laity nobles, clergy nobles, and budding burghers against each other to prop up his own authority and gradually develop his own secular bureaucracy in the process (by late 13th early 14th century, the development of burghers and secular clerks would have been sufficiently advanced to allow one).
Yes, of coruse, thats why the system was introduced in the first place. Still it means it tied the Empire to the Church. And if the Emperor cant invest the clergy, then evebntually the clergy wont be sufficiently loyal.
True as well. But the control of the Pope and the Curia on the clergy of the Empire and the various Kingdoms of Europe was still a very shaky and partial thing, an ongoing development, in the 10th-14th century, which Popes, Kings, and Emperors fought about. If a dynasty of strong Emperors would have been able to inflict some serious defeats on the theocratic Popes and the budding Curia, the historical process of Church centralization would have been killed in the crib or seriously hampered.