A German constitutional lawyer, Carl Schmitt’s Political Romanticism has generally been read as a critique of German Romanticism and liberalism as a whole. His main target of criticism, however, was a 19th century German philosopher and politician Adam Müller and political romantics. They would generally not be considered as the legitimate representatives of Romanticism or liberalism by our contemporaries. I raise and answer the two following questions regarding the representative and political qualities of Adam Müller and political romantics. First, why was it particularly Adam Müller? It was because Müller was considered as the main source of uniquely ‘German’ politics, economics and theology, transcending the inner-political oppositions by Schmitt’s contemporaries in the Weimar Republic era whom Schmitt directly opposed. Second, why did Schmitt, a Catholic conservative, reject political romantics who praised conservative and reactionary Restoration and the Catholic Church in their time? It was because, unlike political romantics, Schmitt considered Ultramontanism as unrealistic and believed that German Catholics should not only support but also lead a dictatorial government in which the executive overruled the legislative by accepting the theory and practice of Realpolitik.