Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine' but I've always had a soft spot for the Japanese Imperial family. Their unbroken reign dates from before written history and in all that time they've never had a lick of political power. Traditionally the Emperor's job was to make the sun rise, the rice grow and judge royal haiku contests while collecting an allowance from the shogun.

About the only decision of consequence I can think of for a Japanese emperor was surrendering in 1945 which I think we can all agree was the wise choice.

So I'll drink a toast to the sunset of Emperor Akihito and the Heisei era and to the new Emperor Naruhito and the Reiwa era. Plus it'll be a lot easier to remember what year it is in Japan for a little while.

What year is it in japan??

 Argive wrote:
What year is it in japan??

2019 and your amount of days + 1

 Argive wrote:
What year is it in japan??

1.

They still use the ancient practice of recording the year by "Xth year of X monarch's reign" system that was basically how everyone reckoned time till the Gregorian calendar was introduced. Of they use it too to avoid confusion.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
in all that time they've never had a lick of political power.

Not remotely accurate. The Emperor was largely a powerless figurehead/puppet during the Shogunate (1192 to 1867), and has been explicitly politically powerless since 1947, but was the ultimate authority in Japan for most of the rest of the time. The idea of the Japanese Emperor always having been some harmless spiritual/symbolic figure with no political authority is historical revisionism (usually promulgated by nationalists who deny or play down Japan's WWII atrocities).

 Argive wrote:
What year is it in japan??

Ironic.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine' but I've always had a soft spot for the Japanese Imperial family. Their unbroken reign dates from before written history and in all that time they've never had a lick of political power. Traditionally the Emperor's job was to make the sun rise, the rice grow and judge royal haiku contests while collecting an allowance from the shogun.

How much 700-1000 period of japanese history you have read? At least what I have read from there they had plenty of influence. Along with plenty of internal fighting with emperor, retired emperor and emperor's who became priests simultaneously fighting for that power etc.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine' but I've always had a soft spot for the Japanese Imperial family. Their unbroken reign dates from before written history

There's a rather obvious flaw in that line of reasoning ...

Like the British royal family, it's perhaps easier to accept them when the monarch just looks like someone's elderly grandparent.

We tried explaining this to Kyoto Secunda and her clone sister Kyoto Secunda Prime.

Their conclusion seems to be that I got to kidnap mommy from Japan because Japan lost a war with America.


We may have to revisit the subject at some point.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine' but I've always had a soft spot for the Japanese Imperial family. Their unbroken reign dates from before written history

There's a rather obvious flaw in that line of reasoning ...

Like the British royal family, it's perhaps easier to accept them when the monarch just looks like someone's elderly grandparent.

the only good emperor is a Habsburg, and insofar only when he has no power over your country.
(yes this is a joke about the fact that the Habsburgs, which are swiss btw, nearly united europe thorugh marriage, until some moutnain peasants begann trolling them)

tneva82 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine' but I've always had a soft spot for the Japanese Imperial family. Their unbroken reign dates from before written history and in all that time they've never had a lick of political power. Traditionally the Emperor's job was to make the sun rise, the rice grow and judge royal haiku contests while collecting an allowance from the shogun.

How much 700-1000 period of japanese history you have read? At least what I have read from there they had plenty of influence. Along with plenty of internal fighting with emperor, retired emperor and emperor's who became priests simultaneously fighting for that power etc.

Emperors of that era usually abdicated in early middle age to be free of the amount of ceremonial duties they had, and became an actual power behind the throne.

This means that the retired emperor was often the most important one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This means that the retired emperor was often the most important one.

Ah, straight out of the old Grand Vizier playbook.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This means that the retired emperor was often the most important one.

Ah, straight out of the old Grand Vizier playbook.

Nope, grandvizirs are actually in the case of the ottoman empire the second in command and often slaves to the porte, e.g. stateslaves.
Also mostly they came out of the balkans were convertet christians (like you always had to do for a job in ottoblob burecracy) some italians and even a french dude.

Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine'

'Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!'

Going from family history on my end, the only good emperor was Le Emperor.
Prussian poo poo heads...

 Frazzled wrote:

Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine'

'Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!'

Going from family history on my end, the only good emperor was Le Emperor.
Prussian poo poo heads...

Old man, are you now showing Dementia in one sentence?
Napoléon has to be regarded as a traitor to the cause of the Revolution and as a tyrant.
Secondly there are only 2 prussian emperors, one of which was a colleric cripple (Wilhelm II) and his relatives on the russian throne was off equally questionable calibre.
But the french two certainly weren't better.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine'

'Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!'

Going from family history on my end, the only good emperor was Le Emperor.
Prussian poo poo heads...

Old man, are you now showing Dementia in one sentence?
Napoléon has to be regarded as a traitor to the cause of the Revolution and as a tyrant.
Secondly there are only 2 prussian emperors, one of which was a colleric cripple (Wilhelm II) and his relatives on the russian throne was off equally questionable calibre.
But the french two certainly weren't better.

Don't make me go all TriColor on you you elderberry eater you. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

 Frazzled wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Now like most Americans my thoughts on royal families have typically been between 'ignore' and 'guillotine'

'Libertie! Egalitie! Fraternitie!'

Going from family history on my end, the only good emperor was Le Emperor.
Prussian poo poo heads...

Old man, are you now showing Dementia in one sentence?
Napoléon has to be regarded as a traitor to the cause of the Revolution and as a tyrant.
Secondly there are only 2 prussian emperors, one of which was a colleric cripple (Wilhelm II) and his relatives on the russian throne was off equally questionable calibre.
But the french two certainly weren't better.

Don't make me go all TriColor on you you elderberry eater you. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Monthy Python, a man- dog of culture. the last time you preposterous Deodorant abusers tried to go full TriColor ended with a depressed empereur and a lot of burnt down stuff.
"la suisse n'éxisté pas!!!"

 Frazzled wrote:

With or without genéva convention old man?

Congratulations to Emperor Naruhito, may his Reign be a happy one.

Of course 'Emperor' is a bad translation of Tenno.

I remember in one of James Clavell's books a European explains that Japan has a pope who lives in Kyoto and an Emperor in Edo, which confused me till I figured out he meant Tenno/Emperor and Shogun.

I mean, OK, maybe somewhere in the 600s AD the Imperial family unified a bunch of chieftans and 'kings' into a Yamato Empire, but that's kind of like declaring yourself Emperor of Ireland. An Empror should be a king of kings, and I don't think the prefectures of Japan rise to the level of kingdoms. And the Tenno never really had the kind of administrative power you'd expect from the title Emperor.

But as it happens Naruhito is the last ruler on Earth to use the title since Queen Elizabeth ceceeded the title of Emperess of India.
So there's that. Here's to the last Emperor!

Depends on what you think an Emperor is. Europeanly it started with the Roman Emperors, and their title of Imperator, reflecting how Octavius Augustus united several public offices with his fabulous personal wealth (and hence loyal legions) for unrivalled political power after the Battle of Actium. He was specifically everything but a King, a Consul, a First Citizen, Pontifex Maximus, etc. Plenty of would-be emperors in the following 1500 years styled themselves after the Caesar cognomen (Tzar, Kaiser, etc). Emperor came through French, I think, and at least it isn't quite as ridiculous as calling oneself the High Hairy One.

The Chinese Emperors were historically what the Roman Emperors wanted to be, and what the Roman Republicans feared those Emperors would be, but probably had a more exact Chinese term for what exactly their political position was. It's kind of interesting to see how that term gets applied to similar political positions despite ante-dating them.

Even the Kings and Queen of the Kalmar Union didn't title themselves as Emperors or Empresses, despite being literally monarchs of three Kingdoms at once. Similarly, the British Monarchs were only ever Emperors and Empress of India, never of the United Kingdom, despite being Monarchs over several Kingdoms at once. What constitutes an Empire is more than a little fuzzy.

Not Online!!! wrote:
the only good emperor is a Habsburg, and insofar only when he has no power over your country.
(yes this is a joke about the fact that the Habsburgs, which are swiss btw, nearly united europe thorugh marriage, until some moutnain peasants begann trolling them)

Oh, they would have fallen on that marriage stuff eventually as inbreeding was rampant. Like Charles II (the Bewitched) of Spain, who was often too ill to rule and couldn't produce an heir either. There were some issues caused by his parents being uncle and niece, making Charles their son, great-nephew and first-cousin respectively... Next stop: Spanish war of succession.

Spetulhu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
the only good emperor is a Habsburg, and insofar only when he has no power over your country.
(yes this is a joke about the fact that the Habsburgs, which are swiss btw, nearly united europe thorugh marriage, until some moutnain peasants begann trolling them)

Oh, they would have fallen on that marriage stuff eventually as inbreeding was rampant. Like Charles II (the Bewitched) of Spain, who was often too ill to rule and couldn't produce an heir either. There were some issues caused by his parents being uncle and niece, making Charles their son, great-nephew and first-cousin respectively... Next stop: Spanish war of succession.

I mean, there is a whole condition for a chin defunction named after them, so i ain't surprised

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Even the Kings and Queen of the Kalmar Union didn't title themselves as Emperors or Empresses, despite being literally monarchs of three Kingdoms at once. Similarly, the British Monarchs were only ever Emperors and Empress of India, never of the United Kingdom, despite being Monarchs over several Kingdoms at once. What constitutes an Empire is more than a little fuzzy.

I think the logic in the is that the 4 kingdoms 'willingly' united (yes the Irish are famously fond of the union with England) while an Empire requires conquest.

That being said if QE2 wants to style herself emperess of Wales I'd be cool with that.

Spetulhu wrote:
There were some issues caused by his parents being uncle and niece, making Charles their son, great-nephew and first-cousin respectively... Next stop: Spanish war of succession.

Gotta love tthose family trees that are more akin to a family web

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Even the Kings and Queen of the Kalmar Union didn't title themselves as Emperors or Empresses, despite being literally monarchs of three Kingdoms at once. Similarly, the British Monarchs were only ever Emperors and Empress of India, never of the United Kingdom, despite being Monarchs over several Kingdoms at once. What constitutes an Empire is more than a little fuzzy.

I think the logic in the is that the 4 kingdoms 'willingly' united (yes the Irish are famously fond of the union with England) while an Empire requires conquest.

That being said if QE2 wants to style herself emperess of Wales I'd be cool with that.

it may also be because before 1707 the King of England, King of Ireland and King of the Scots (it's a subtle difference in wording, but rather important in substance) were different titles, even if they were held simultaneously by a single person.

Depending on who you ask, one reason for the creation of the title "Empress of India" was that so Queen Victoria wouldn't become outranked by her own daughter, who was married to the heir to the German Empire (as an aside, the reason why the Kenya/Tanzania border has a kink in it is that the German emperor complained that Britain had two mountains (Kenya and Kilimanjaro) and the Germans had none; the border was redrawn to give the Germans Kilimanjaro ).