I'm not sure that follows. Who specifically "inherited" the Right to Rule from Roman Empire was always more of a political claim. The concept of "legitimacy" in this regard is dubious. That said, the original Northwest European territory of the Merovingians-Carolingians had a strong political connection to Roman Imperial Rulership. Not to say that this necessarily translated to "legitimate inheritance", but arguably no territory outside of Byzantium had a stronger historical political claim.
In principal I agree, but Costantinople had a sounder claim.
In 298 the emperor Diocleziano split the empire in two different administrative parts, the western one, culturally latin, and the eastern one, culturally greek.
The emperor Costantine I moved the capital from Rome to Costantinople in the 320s, the city was called also New Rome and the greek inhabitants of the eastern empire called themselves "Romei", and the balkans have been called then Rumelia a term that spread even further under the Ottomans. Even today many turks use the term "Rumeli" for balkan people (as Balkans is a term introduced two centuries ago by a german geographer).
By the end of the 4th century the split was basically complete and the latest Latin-born emperor of Byzanthium was Giustiano in the 7th century.
I think that the history of the Eastern Roman Empire has enough "de jure" claims for the inheritance.
This also connects to Russia.
By the fall of Costantinople in 1453 no country claimed to inherit the throne of the eastern roman empire but Russia. The Tsar Ivan III married the last granddaughter of the last emperor (Constantine III) thus uniting the bloodlines. The crown of the byzanthine empire was then given to the Tsars as it was the last country in Europe of greek-orthodox descendance (visible still today, both in religion, culture and language) thus claiming to inherit the throne of the roman emperors more than a thousand years after.
I do absolutely agree with you about the legitimacy, I don't think there's necessarily any nor I think it's relevant, but I find this extremely interesting nonetheless.
There was bo bloodline though. Until quite late (much to its detriment) the empire maintained some of its original “republican” character and the emperors derived their legitimacy from the will of God and the people rather than inherited it (which resulted in endless civil wars). Unlike in Europe in the medieval and the succeeding periods your bloodline/dynasty was secondary to your ability to take and hold power effectively making emperors closer to modern dictators than kings in some ways.
This is one of many ways the Russian claim to be the "Third Rome" is and was bullshit. The Eastern Roman Empire ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, and it was the last polity with a credible claim to the continuation of the Roman Empire of old.
> and the latest Latin-born emperor of Byzant[]ium was Giust[in]iano in the 7th century.
This is a surreal approach to the names of historical figures. Diocleziano and Giustiniano are not their names in English, the language you're speaking, nor are they the actual names of the people. "Costantine" appears to be a hybrid of the modern Italian name Costantino with the English name Constantine, and analogously for "Costantinople".
> the latest Latin-born emperor of Byzanthium
> The crown of the byzanthine empire
There is no H in Byzantium, the Greek original uses a tau and not a theta, and the modern Italian noun and adjective are bisanzio and bizantino. I really can't figure out where you're getting this spelling.
> and the greek inhabitants of the eastern empire called themselves "Romei"
That isn't Greek; surely they called themselves rhomaioi?
What's up with the Italian imperialism from "epolanski"?
I appreciate the history. If we want to discuss actual "inheritance" in a historical sense of the Classical civ and initial expanded civ originated in the Republic, rather than some type of lineal-political claim, than where the decentralized or otherwise Parliamentarian system of government again appears is the heir. Certainly, the HRE is the start of that in Europe. Prior, Frankish-Norman invader Kings sewed its seed in Britain. Today, its largest and historically most powerful manifestation is in the United States.
I'm not sure that follows. Who specifically "inherited" the Right to Rule from Roman Empire was always more of a political claim. The concept of "legitimacy" in this regard is dubious. That said, the original Northwest European territory of the Merovingians-Carolingians had a strong political connection to Roman Imperial Rulership. Not to say that this necessarily translated to "legitimate inheritance", but arguably no territory outside of Byzantium had a stronger historical political claim.