Talk:Japanese imperial succession debate/Archive 1

First chat

I changed "clearly" in the last paragraph to "currently" as all other views but equal primogeniture had been receiving minimum, if at all, media attention. Also, I erased "a traditonalist" after Prince Tomohito as unless those promoting equal primogeniture were called something too, it would be impartial. Also added, "prior to his comment" after "Public surveys" as that's a fact. -- Revth 07:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify. Assuming that there is no change in the law of succession, and the current royals do not either adopt a child or have a new one, who is heir to the throne? PatGallacher 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look here: Imperial_Household_of_Japan#Current_order_of_succession. The problem may be that all these people are of at least Naruhito's generation (at least in their 40s) and will probably live little longer than Naruhito, hence the need for a young male heir (but there are only girls in the younger generation). laug 17:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jingu Kogo merits at least some sort of mention among those included on the list of "ruling empresses in Japanese history".216.99.228.120 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Collateral imperial branches?

Is there a real danger of the male-line imperial family completely dying out? Japanese_imperial_family#Succession implies that there are collateral branches of the family out there -- individuals who are male-line descendents of former emperors but not part of the current core Japanese imperial family. Would there be an heir to the throne if the current family died out and a strict Salic law succession algorithm was applied? --Jfruh 16:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the old lines all died out in the early 20th century... the current collateral lines are branches which took on the "old names" but are in reality decended from Hirohito's brothers... and they too have a male succession problem. Could be wrong though. --fdewaele 18:45 23 January 2006 (CET)

On the contrary, seven of the eleven cadet branches of the imperial dynasty (one shinnōke and six ōke)that became commoners in October 1947 survive. The surviving cadet lines are Fushimi, Kitshirakawa, Takeda, Kuni, Kaya, Nashimoto, Asaka, and Higashikuni. The last six families descend from the Fushimi house. None of them descend from the Emperor Shōwa's brothers, Prince Chichibu, Prince Takamatsu, and Prince Mikasa. Although Prince Takamastu succeeded to the headship of the extinct Arisugawa house (one of the four shinnōke of the Edo period, which reverted to its orginal name Takamatsu), he and his wife had no children. Likewise, Prince and Princess Chichibu were childless. Only Prince Mikasa had children: three sons and two daughters. Two of the sons, Prince Tomohito of Mikasa and the late Prince Takamado (Nobuhito), married and had children: two and three daughters, respectively. Prince Mikasa's middle son, Yoshihito, revived the dormant Katsura house in 1988. However, the current Prince Katsura is unmarried. --Jeff 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To fdewaele. As Jeff explained, none of the eleven cadet branches which are called as "the ex-Imperial houses" descend from the Emperor Shōwa's brothers. However, four of them descend from his one daughter and the Emperor Meiji's four ones. The both is Higashikuni, the latter only are Kitashirakawa, Takeda, and Asaka.--INOUE, Keisuke 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The current situation of remote imperial branches is poorly documented. They have no longer been in public spotlight, not for sixty years. Few if any seem to be aware of sons born recently to those. In addition to Fushimi branches, imperial yet in early 20th century, the male-line blood appears to have been carried on by certain other branches, such as the Konoe, the Tokudaiji-no-Takatsukasa-no-Kanin, the Daigo-no-Ichijo (which were branched out from emperors in 17th century or so). The fact that there were big number of those males yet in, say, 1900, speaks against them going totally extinct this rapidly. Shilkanni (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they simply restore these other collateral branches to imperial status? From what I gather, they could not run out of heirs - the collateral branches are too numerous. Female succession would be fine too, but only if the heiress would marry a male from these collateral branches. Reigen (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Event

I'm thinking it might be best to put the 'current event' thing in this, considering how Prince Hisahiro was born only a few months ago. Anakalypsis 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what {{current event}} is for. It's meant to be used in articles which are likely to change a lot in the next few hours or days. —Nightstallion (?) 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I am INOUE, Keisuke, a Japanese wikipedian who have a great interest in this controversy. I had contributed to only Japanese pages, until finding this English page today. My writing is thus poor, but reading comprehension is a little better, so I thik I could contribute slightly to this English page too. If there are any questions about circumstance and atmosphere in Japan now, or Japanese texts which you want to be translated into English, please feel free to ask me!! --INOUE, Keisuke 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your English is great, and welcome! Chris 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But if you find any my errors in grammar or bad selections of vocabulary, particularly the article and the tense, please correct them freely.--INOUE, Keisuke 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Imperial vs imperial

As Emperor, Empress are capitalized in the article, shouldn't this article be the "Japanese Imperial succession controversy"? Jpatokal 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Does not feel good. Keep them all uncapitalized - unless each word is capitalized, which would require that this had become a really established term, practically a name, concept, itself. Shilkanni (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong descriptions

A precedent, Empress Koken's relationship with a foreign man, had however not then been an obstacle for her to reascend the throne as Empress Shotoku.

She never had love affairs with a foreign man. The man whom she loved was a Japanese monk who came from what is Osaka Prefecture today. And she did not marry him (or anyone else). (Aya4 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

it is widely believed that Abe opposes any change to the current succession law.

Prime Minister Abe does not oppose all plans to alter the law. He insists that the law be reformed into a more traditionally correct one. I cannot find an English source for it. But read [1] if you read Japanese. (Aya4 06:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

conceptual problems in Vapour's edits

In addition to poor English (which in itself is not a reason to forbod someone to edit En-WP articles, though it increases workload to other editors), User:Vapour appears to be somewhat devoid of comprehension of certain terms and concepts in expertised foelds of monarchical succession and genealogy. Shilkanni (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"which is currently limited male of imperial family" - perhaps the intention was to refer to the male line of the imperial family.

"...was passed on under the rule of Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture" - no, it was never so. The part "cognatic" means that sons of a female member of the dynasty would be allowed to inherit. I am aware that some editors have made dog's dinner from some of those concepts in WP articles, but it is no reason to repeat their mistakes. And THIS conceptual mistake cannot even be base on any such mistaken edit in those articles. The Japanese old system has no systematical name. There is no other name for the system of females being eligible but not their children, than just "the old Japanese succession model".

"...with partrilinear lineage.." - it is NOT patrilinear, contrary to delusions of some. This is not some German or other mongrel language. The correct term is "patrilineal" in proper English.

"..to the first emperor, Jinmu Tenno.. can be an emperor." - this defies historical knowledge. I require proper sources to back up this claim, which in effect tries to say that the Minamoto and the Taira would have been eligible to succeed to the imperial throne. There was a real meaning when earlier emperors made some of their patrilineal kinsmen as regular subjects, demoting them from princely status, see Genji.

"... preference is given to older male offspring..." - historically it was NOT so. Only since Meiji succession law. Younger sons and their branches had, in total, a tad better likelihood to succession.

"... followed by brothers of emperor, followed by any male relative including uncle to distant male cousin..." - no it was not so. Primogeniture was not historically a preference. Rotation was.

"...remarriage or polygamy in ancient Japan, there always were male relative who can take over the throne" - polygamy and remarriage are no bomb-sure guarantees for "always exist a male". Such may improve the odds, but it does not mean a certainty.

"... partricial line..." - do I need to say it again.

temporarly take over the throne until the child mature.

"...any family with sir name (samurai or nobility)..." - would this try to mean something like "above commoners" or what. Better to say "any male of samurai nobility or kuge nobility".

"... New rule mean that only the direct relative of the current emperor (sibling, parent or children) could be part of imperial family. When the throne is passed on, uncle or cousin of the new emperor would lose status of imperial family and automatically loose claim to the throne...." - afaik, brothers of Hirohito remain in the line of succession although Akihito has already ascended. The definition offered for the imperial family is not the same as in the authentic law, which accepted and continues to accept all male lines from the late Taisho tenno.

"...current system, which is an extremly strict form of absolute agnatic seniority..." - oh no. No. old, traditional system resembled agnatic seniority, this new Prussian model currently in use is agnatic primogeniture. They are different things, and cannot be used interchangeably.

"Those on the Right advocate change to agnatic seniority where previously excluded male relative are brought back to imperial household..." - firstly, it is not agnatic seniority, it is agnatic primogeniture. Secondly, the thing they support, is the new, post-1880s model, and contrary to all historical Japanese system of imperial succession. Which only shows that the conservative Right has got used to one reform, the one which was done a tad over a century ago (a tad longer than any of them have been living - but their grandfathers, if conservative, may have scoffed at such novelty), and is now eager to preserve it, at the expense of historical precedent. (And because conservatives overall will get used to a reform sooner or later, it would just be best to do a reasonable reform, without listening to them, and then wait a few decades. They will get used to it.)

"...Those on the middle would advocate re-adoption of Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture..." - incorrect concept. And any primogeniture was not the old system, therefore it cannot be re-adopted.

"... that is female can succed the throne as long as she hold the seniority..." - succeed. And, better to research what was traditionally the prerequisites for female's accession. Seniority was not necessarily one of such.

"... patricial lineage" - patricians lived in ancient Rome. No observations of their existence in Japan. Would this have been intended to say again "patrilineal", but this time with a new erroneous rendition.

"... that is female can succed the throne as long as she hold the seniority in term of patricial lineage..." - this is no guarantee for continuing dynasty. If only patrilineal lineage is eligible, the dynasty goes extinct as certainly as it so does with purely agnatic system. Only, the last female MAY live a tad longer (some decades) than the last male.

"Adoption of equal primogeniture permit unmarried or widowed female descendants in the male line of the Imperial House to inherit the Chrysanthemum Throne, but also allow something unprecedented: making it possible for married princesses and princesses' children whose fathers are not descendants in the male line of the first emperor, Jinmu, to ascend the throne." - it permits also married, non-widowed females to inherit. I cannot fathom where the restriction "Unmarried or Widowed" comes from to this term. Nor can I understand what the word "male line" is doing in that idea, because equal primogeniture opens the door to all lines, not only male line - or, only to matrilineal lineage, either. All lines, also mixed ones.

- and, pray tell me, how can anyone prove a male line descent from Jinmu. No historical records. Only myths. And Jinmu was a mythical character, not historical. Keitai tenno himself would not be able to prove satisfactorily his (probably non-existent) male-line descent from Jinmu. The best any could do, would be to prove male-line descent from Keitai, I think.

Update

This article should be updated as it has been 3 years since the last information on the subject was included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems nothing relevant has happened since - see e.g. [2] from early 2012. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline has been updated to include the current government hearings. Will continue to update throughout the year as more information becomes available. Will also be adding references shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santapaws (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for updating! However, I think that's actually a bit too much detail for the 2012 events, it may need some trimming now. (But better too much info than too little.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely understand what you mean by: “too much detail”. But the problem is that the issue is sensitive which means that the Japanese press will usually be very cautious with making comments. The Western press, in turn, is not sufficiently concerned as to produce more than a random report here and there. If you take a close look at the details I have provided, you will notice two main points: 1) The government is constantly minimizing the extent of the reform in order to avoid trouble with the conservative minority and 2) every step backwards is making the much-needed reform less effective.

The problem is that I cannot produce a quote that would effectively sum up those main points. I can just point out the details and hope that people will see “the bigger picture”: 1) First the government refused to act upon Haketa´s request for years, in order to avoid trouble. Finally, last autumn, they started talking about revising the law (status of the princesses short-term, succession middle- to long-term). But when conservatives made clear that they were as resolved as ever to oppose the changes (Hiranuma), the government dropped any plans to address the succession at all, even long-term. Then there were two expert hearings that went well, but the government was still concerned, obviously, what the conservative experts of the third hearing would say. A few days before it took place, the government promised of their own accord that they would limit the female-headed branches to one generation. But the peace offer was not accepted: the conservative experts at the third hearing still refused to endorse the establishment of female-headed branches and even opposed the princesses being allowed to keep their royal status. Instead, they again made their favourite proposal of bringing the members of the disenfranchised imperial branches back. That is completely unrealistic, though, as everybody knows since Koizumi´s attempt because the vast majority of Japanese find this option very uncomfortable because, though the former royals are (remotely) related to the imperial family through the male line, they have been born into commoner families and are plain Mr Takeda and Mr Kitashirakawa or whatever. That is what the government official meant when he said that the idea to bring the former branches back had come as a surprise – of course, the idea was not new at all. But the government had hoped that they had sufficiently appeased the conservative camp by the major concessions they had made and were amazed and disappointed that this was obviously not the case. Still, the government again gave in and made another step back by saying that letting the princesses keep their titles but not their status might be a compromise if the discussion "remains inconclusive."

2) But, and this is the second point, it makes a notable difference if the princesses are allowed to keep their status or not. For example, if Hisahito should fall ill during his reign as emperor (if even but with a severe flu), his cousin or his sisters could step in as regent and receive state guests, open the Diet etc. in his stead if they should still be royal. But if they do not keep their status, there would be but Hisahito´s wife (if he manages to get one) to cover his official duties, and considering that she may be have been sitting in the same car (in case of an accident) or be 8 months pregnant or whatever, this is not a very comforting prospect. I do not want to go into further detail here as I did with point 1), but the situation is really completely impossible in many respects. The point is not if, for abstract reasons of gender-equality, princesses should be allowed keep their status, as people who are not familiar with the matter, usually think. Unfortunately, as a matter of fact, there is really the normal functioning and maybe even the very survival of the monarchy at stake, if no reform takes place. That is why I have included the Japan Times editorial and the comments of professor Jones and also the comments of IHA officials about the urgency of the changes.

If you have an idea how the whole thing could be shortened without making the mentioned facts 1) and 2) completely invisible, I´d be very interested.

Incidentally, there has been no English coverage of the latest hearing that took place May 21, so I cannot update the article for a lack of source. (But I know from a Japanese native speaker that it is going on: at the latest hearing, one of the experts, Prof. Shima, opposed the establishment of female-headed branches and proposed a male member of the former cadet branches to be adopted by the imperial family and to be given succession rights. Former Supreme Court Justice and lawyer Itsuo Sonobe who is leading the hearings was very unhappy about Shima´s statement as “he did not expect the succession issue would be discussed at this particular hearing”. If they go on like that, they will never get anywhere...) ChiaraC talk 27 May 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Japanese succession controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060209032140/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,5744,18078161%255E2703,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18078161%255E2703,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another branch of former royalties, Kobetsu Setsuke

There is an article about descendants of former royal members who became heir of families of Fujiwara clan, and thus aren't regarded as royalties nor considered to have imperial succession rights for centuries, but members descended from these family are indeed agnatic descendants of Imperial House of Japan. I basically use Chinese and knows little Japanese, though the topic may not be directed related to this article, but I think we can mention it, and there is a Japanese version of the article ja:皇別摂家, and Chinese version, zh:皇別攝家. Any opinions? - George6VI (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of engagements and marriages of princesses who were never in line for the throne?

The succession crisis (the official topic of this article) and the question of whether princesses should be allowed keep their titles on marriage to commoners are basically two separate issues. They are related only in that a hypothetical empress-regnant who couldn't produce legitimate heirs with a husband would not actually solve the succession crisis, but that's a really abstract relationship. I'm wondering if we should keep things like Princess Noriko and Princess Mako's engagements out of the increasingly bloated list of recent developments. That's why I'm not adding Princess Ayako's engagement. If others disagree, then Princess Ayako's engagement should probably be added for consistency. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Former branches

If the old imperial branches were reinstated, and using the patrilineal rules, who would be the next in line after the current three persons in the list? Hektor (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)