First, Mirabel, let me apologize for always lacking behind. I do it (and will continue to do it) because if I comment at all I usually want to give at least some of the reasons for my opinion. That leads to my posts being rather long ones which means that it takes time to write them and also, depending on the case, to find the sources I want to include. Of course, some people will simply ignore even sources when they do not happen to back what they prefer to think. But, judging from my own taste, I like to have sources because so I can see where people come from and get the chance to check “first-hand” if the source sounds credible to me. Of course, that does not mean that any source would be some sort of holy writ but, basically, I try to give what I like to have myself.
I would like to add that this does not mean – of course not! - that I am asking for sources when we are talking about mere opinions which is inevitably rather often the case in this forum and also in my following post. It is only in cases when we are talking about facts that are more or less known.
But I am not only talking about my present post here, I just wanted to say, once and for all: Never be surprised if I answer three weeks too late.
At this stage, I really don't think it matters whether Masako is a victim or a malingerer.
I am familiar with this line of argumentation and that is exactly why I have taken the “little children” example. (See
my post 647 in this thread.)
Suppose for a moment, you come to a school as the new headmaster and you find out that in this school, no rules are applied to, except: the stronger one wins. The older and bolder and stronger constantly bully the smaller and weaker ones who, accordingly, are much too frightened and intimidated to concentrate on their learning, so their knowledge is way below average. I assume that we all agree that in such a situation we, as the new headmaster, would not have the weak learners leave the school because they are “unable to adjust”. We would say: “Now we all are going to get a new set of rules and to learn about fairness and team-play.” Maybe two or three years after we have changed the school rules, there are some of the bullied ones who in spite of the warm and reassuring environment they are now learning in, still cannot get over their past experiences and cannot get to a level where they would be able to adequately respond to the challenges that they should, according to their age. You will probably do everything to get them help, but maybe at one point you will have to say that they will have to leave the school because they cannot make it and because it is a useless torture for them. You will admit that it is not fair because without that early bad experience they might have done very well, but you know that there is not anything you can do.
O.k., but what if you find out that in the class of one of your “incurables” the bullying is still going on, without you having been aware? I suppose you would not send this “incurable” away, too. I suppose you would think that he deserves a fair chance to see if, in a healthy environment, he can recover if he is given some time. You would be aware that although a lot of time has passed already since you changed the rules, for this one child it has not been time without bullying.
So, yes, it does make a difference if Masako is a victim or not. Imo, for her, the bullying is still going on and she deserves to be given a chance to recover in a healthy environment. Mobbing is nothing anybody can adjust to. That is basically also what her doctors have said. How can she be expected to recover if she is still in an environment where she is being harassed relentlessly?
Mobbing is defined as
...an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created [...]
mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication".
Victims of mobbing use to suffer from:
adjustment disorders, somatic symptoms (e.g., headaches or irritable bowel syndrome), psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression [my bold]
(Source)
We may not agree in that the princess is being mobbed. But I am not convinced that it would not make a difference to you if she were. When you say that Masako “cannot cope with royal life“, you clearly do not see her as a victim. You do not describe her as guilty either, but definitely as somewhat deficient.
However, I would answer to that: Princess Masako cannot cope with being mobbed, agreed, but there is probably nobody in the whole wide world who could do that if it lasts that long. And it remains to be seen if in an environment that she (or her husband) have more control over she would not make a recovery. Maybe yes, maybe no. But imo she deserves a chance. Royal life as an empress may be much different from what royal life as a crown princess is for her.
Either Naruhito must perform all duties by himself, or he should abdicate. I really do not see any other alternative.
I think it would be far better for Masako if he chose the latter; in private life she could adopt the lifestyle she wishes, without criticism.
But I think he will not do this because he is more concerned with his own status than with supporting his wife. By now he knows Masako cannot cope with royal life, at least not to any great extent. So just how is he supporting her?
I know many people view him as the epitome of a devoted husband, but I don't. I find him very selfish.
Concerning Naruhito, we again have to make an assumption in order to be able to decide if you are right in your judgment. You assume that Masako would be happier if she could live in private, without imperial duties. If you were right, I might agree with you in that Naruhito is being selfish. But as it happens I do not share this assumption of yours. I do not think that Masako wants to retire or to live abroad. The young Masako has been described as someone who loved her work and who wanted to serve her country, even more so maybe because she had to pass a long time abroad during her infancy and youth, and even if the life which she could have led abroad, in the US, for example, might have been much easier. She never seemed to be very fond of parties or holidaying - which is, incidentally, the reason why I have never believed the “ritzy-dinings”-articles about her. There is nothing wrong with loving parties or holidays, nor with the contrary, it is just a question of temperament. But I, for one, happen to not be overly fond of parties, too, and I do not think that you ever get over that. For me, parties are not a temptation and will never be one. To my taste, they are way too crowded. I prefer to see ONE friend or maybe three or four. I do not have fun in getting drunk, and you would have to pay me if you wanted me to stay up the whole night. I might do this for duty, but most certainly NOT for fun.
So, judging from who she was, I would suppose that Masako does not want to retire to a country cabin. I think that she wants to do what she is doing: stay where she is and fight it through. Maybe she will win, maybe not. I doubt though that she would be grateful to her husband if he forced her to give up “for her own good”. Imo, that is the very reason why they are such a
success as a couple. They have
a vision together, and they would give their lives to realize it. In fact, that is exactly what they are doing. If it will be sufficient, time will tell.
Besides, there seem to be lots of US-Americans here around who would never get a chance to comment on ANY royals if this rule were applied to. Do not you think that would be a bit cruel? 
