At face value, the ‘divisio’ of Charlemagne’s empire does appear to be a betrayal of the empire, a let-down of the expectations for a united realm. The ‘divisio’ is deceptive at face value however, and if one cares to peruse its nature a little further it will fail to maintain any suggestion of imperial disloyalty. If one considers, not urh, but Roman-imperial and Frankish precedents, division implied no rejection of an overarching, single, political entity. Taking the example of the Franks, while two or more kings could rule independently in their corresponding kingdoms, the kingdom of the Franks would not cease to be. A kingdom could be a single whole yet possessing three kingdoms within in. It is basically a problematic concept for the modern historian as ‘our contemporary political vocabulary simply does not possess any term that would adequately describe this structure.’ Robert Folz most aptly refers to this relationship between division and unison as ‘a scholarly dialectic between the ideas of partition and unity.’ The act of 606 cannot therefore be used to support the thesis that Charlemagne abandoned the principle of empire.