Succession and Membership Issues

[Next Star]

Females That Carry The Family Line

Well, as I see it, succession is about tradition, not equality. And really, men carry the family line further, not women. It's not that women make worse monarchs. But the thrown should go to the person, who should have it according to tradition.

There are three examples of females carrying a family line in the 21st century (Queen Elizabeth II Of Great Britian, Queen Marageth II Of Denmark And Queen Beatix Of Netherlands. And may I say their doing a good job.

 

[Emmily]

There was a new prime minister elected in Japan. Will that have any bearing on whether the succession will change?

 

[Furienna]

There are three examples of females carrying a family line in the 21st century (Queen Elizabeth II Of Great Britian, Queen Marageth II Of Denmark And Queen Beatix Of Netherlands. And may I say their doing a good job.

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

 

[UserDane]

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

Why on earth shouldn't they be able to do that??? Had QMII been a man, met a nice French girl by the family name of Lamborde de Monpezats, would their two boys then be more Oldenborg-Glückburgs than Lamborde de Montepezats than Frederik and Joachim are now??
Why are Elizabeth II's descendant not 'pure' Windors. Is Elizabeth II herself of 'pure' Windsor blood because her father was the king, whereas her own children are not because she is the mother, not the father?
I sincerely hope I have misunderstood your meaning.

 

[Lillia]

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

So that would mean that the dutch CP W-A, Denmark's & CP Fred and Prince Charles of England are not really part of the 'family dynasty, because their mothers according to the statement, are just that -- women. Their royal genes have been 'diluted somehow? These women have not had royal 'pure' offspring, you think? Even though these reigning Queens have done a good job, that's all they've done, right?

These men, the current crown princes, have all been fooled into thinking they are part of the dynastic family somehow while the plain truth is that they are not 'pure', as you say? And this would also be the arguement that the IHA has used to hold their position on the issue.

hmmm, I think this word 'pure' that has slipped into the conversation is sounding suspicious...:dry:

I agree with UserDane, I hope something got lost in the translation (even if it did not, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt).

Well, I think traditions can and do change, like people do (eventually) and hopefully for the better, because we can all probably name certain beloved institutional 'traditions' that were not so beneficial (but only to a few and very harmful to others) but were deeply entrenched in their respective societies. Not all, but some.

I think one reason why this very conversation is probably because there are some people who are so bent on upholding a certain institutionalized way of thinking (like Henry VIII was) that they never question anything about it, they fight tooth and nail for it and cannot possibly see anything else. While others do at least ask the question and talk about how to keep the institution in tact but modify what might be thought of as some of the more harmful parts.

In any event, I don't think there's anything wrong with people making some progress in their thinking on certain areas. A change in the IHA policy could prevent the problems that Michiko and Masako have had to live with.

JMO.

 

[Furienna]

I meant QEII's children aren't "pure" Windsors in the meaning that their last name is not Windsor, it's Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor, I don't remember which, but it's not only "Windsor". They don't belong to the same dynasty as the queen, because you belong to your father's dynasty, not your mother's. It's the same thing in Denmark. Frederic and Joachim don't belong to their mother's dynasty, they belong to their father's dynasty. It's just like the fact, that my sister and I can't carry our family line further, only our brother can. You make it sound like I don't think women are worth anything. Of course we are. But we can't carry on a dynasty.

 

[UserDane]

...It's the same thing in Denmark. Frederic and Joachim don't belong to their mother's dynasty, they belong to their father's dynasty. It's just like the fact, that my sister and I can't carry our family line further, only our brother can. You make it sound like I don't think women are worth anything. Of course we are. But we can't carry on a dynasty.

I most strongly disagree. Who says that women cannot carry on a dynasty?

​

 

[Furienna]

Well, it can only happen, if the children have their mother's last name instead of their father's. But I have yet to see any royal children having their mother's last name, even if the mother is a queen. I'm not saying, that a woman's heirs aren't as good as a man's heirs. But if there's a man avaible to carry a dynasty further, I don't think a woman should have the thrown. For example, it just feels weird, that Victoria's children will have the Swedish thrown one day, so that the Bernadotte dynasty will be pushed away, when we have Carl Philip.

 

[Lillia]

Well, it can only happen, if the children have their mother's last name instead of their father's. But I have yet to see any royal children having their mother's last name, even if the mother is a queen. I'm not saying, that a woman's heirs aren't as good as a man's heirs. But if there's a man avaible to carry a dynasty further, I don't think a woman should have the thrown. For example, it just feels weird, that Victoria's children will have the Swedish thrown one day, so that the Bernadotte dynasty will be pushed away, when we have Carl Philip.

but it seems that it really is being said that a Queen's heirs are not as good as a man's.

unless again, something is getting lost in the translation.

Even though by all legal means possible, certain families that have been mentioned have carried their dynasties forward thru the women in the family -- like in the House of Orange with QBeatrix and QJulianna before her-- and the royal family lines have continued (and the JRF may do the same on day but maybe not in the next 50-100 years), they really are not 'pure' as you said?

Certainly the brits, danes and dutch royal families have had a number of male cousins, uncles and so on, but they had no problem with the idea that their power, position or royal heritage would not end with the women standing in place.

and imo the very term 'pure' and it's implication seem suspect...

 

[Emily]

There was a new prime minister elected in Japan. Will that have any bearing on whether the succession will change?

Emmily -- I asked this not too long ago but I can't remember which thread I wrote the question on. At that time, whoever answered said it was thought that a more conservative Prime Minister would succeed Kozumi. Do you know the name of the man elected?

 

[Lillia]

he is named Shinzo Abe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/ap/business/mainD8KCG4FO0.shtml

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html

 

[UserDane]

Well, it can only happen, if the children have their mother's last name instead of their father's. But I have yet to see any royal children having their mother's last name, even if the mother is a queen. I'm not saying, that a woman's heirs aren't as good as a man's heirs. But if there's a man avaible to carry a dynasty further, I don't think a woman should have the thrown. For example, it just feels weird, that Victoria's children will have the Swedish thrown one day, so that the Bernadotte dynasty will be pushed away, when we have Carl Philip.

Let me state just for the record how strongly I disagree with your views that 'if there's a man available....' - it makes me feel very uncomfortable I must admit. I look forward to seing a queen Victoria in Sweden, still hope for an empress Aiko in Japan, cross my fingers for a queen Leonor in Spain - and - although I adore wee prince Christian - had hoped fervently for a princess!

By the way, it's news to me that eg. Frederik and Joachim are now referred to as Montepezeats and not Glücksburgs

 

[Next Star]

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

Okay you say that none of their descents carry their names your wrong they do have part of their names for example Queen Elizabeth II 's descents are Mountabatten-Windors. They may not be full Windsors but they still have apart of the Queen's name. I still think that female can carry a family line without their husbands' names even being included.

 

[Emily]

he is named Shinzo Abe.

And an AP report today says "Off to a fast start in setting up his cabinet, Abe stocked the new government with conservatives on every issue from the economy and foreign affairs to defense and women's rights. Even his minister in charge of gender issues, Sanae Takaichi, is known for her right-leaning outlook. She's against a dual-surname proposal that would let married women keep their maiden names."

Where does this leave the succession issue? Not sounding too good, IMO.

 

[BMC]

And an AP report today says "Off to a fast start in setting up his cabinet, Abe stocked the new government with conservatives on every issue from the economy and foreign affairs to defense and women's rights. Even his minister in charge of gender issues, Sanae Takaichi, is known for her right-leaning outlook. She's against a dual-surname proposal that would let married women keep their maiden names."

Where does this leave the succession issue? Not sounding too good, IMO.

I think with the birth of the new little Prince, the succession issue will not be revisted until he marries. The IHA has gotten its male heir, so the succession is secured for one more generation at least. Bummer

 

[Furienna]

Let me state just for the record how strongly I disagree with your views that 'if there's a man available....' - it makes me feel very uncomfortable I must admit. I look forward to seing a queen Victoria in Sweden, still hope for an empress Aiko in Japan, cross my fingers for a queen Leonor in Spain - and - although I adore wee prince Christian - had hoped fervently for a princess!

By the way, it's news to me that eg. Frederik and Joachim are now referred to as Montepezeats and not Glücksburgs

Do you know what make me feel very uncomfortable? That you seem to hate men. You come across as if you don't want a male monarch anywhere!

And when has Frederik and Joachim been called Oldenburg-Glücksburgs? They're Lamborde de Montepezats.

 

[Elspeth]

This thread is about the Japanese royal family, not the European ones. Please could we get back on topic. Thanks.

Elspeth

Japan moderator

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well, it can only happen, if the children have their mother's last name instead of their father's. But I have yet to see any royal children having their mother's last name, even if the mother is a queen. I'm not saying, that a woman's heirs aren't as good as a man's heirs. But if there's a man avaible to carry a dynasty further, I don't think a woman should have the thrown. For example, it just feels weird, that Victoria's children will have the Swedish thrown one day, so that the Bernadotte dynasty will be pushed away, when we have Carl Philip.

Is it so difficult to accept that different countries have different laws and that these laws are not written in stone for all eternity but can be changed if the appropriate body decides that it's time for a change? I'm afraid Furienna, even though you're from Sweden, you don't represent the Swedes and thus it's not your right to decide what will happen in Sweden. You don't represent Japan either so while it's your right to state your opinion and there is a good chance that many Japanese voters agree with you, that's not proof of the fact that you're right.

AFAIK the Japanese Imperial family has no family name, so the next in line doesn't bear either father's or mother's family name. He is just in line because that's how the law in Japan works and if they change the law, then the heir probably keeps his place in the succession but it could happen that he looses it. That's legal then and we all who are interested in royality should accept that, even if we believe that the law might be wrong. But that's the way it is.

 

[Next Star]

That's sad Japan has all of those female descents and none of them are included in the line of succession why? Can't they change the law and allow both a female emperor or male emperor there are two ways they could do this by primogeniture going by the eldest male descent of the monarch the male descents would still have a stronger claim to the throne than female descents because they only way a female would inherit the throne if no legitmate male descents or cognatic primogeniture meaning the eldest child would be the heir to the throne regardlees of sex.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

? Can't they change the law and allow both a female emperor or male emperor

Yes, they can change the law - I just read that the new prime minister plans to change parts of the constitution of 1946, so it's obviously possible. Will they do it? probably not as the Japanese view the world in a different way from us and probably don't see now the need to change the rules of succession. But if the new prime minister is so ultra-conservative as was stated here and in the online papers, then maybe he will take the step to reinclude all those Imperial princes who have been kicked from the line of succession in 1946. Thus, they won't need to go via the female line because they have enough mal heirs and could even marry their princesses to princes, so their marriage could strenghen the bloodline. Who knows?

 

[Lillia]

Yes, they can change the law - I just read that the new prime minister plans to change parts of the constitution of 1946, so it's obviously possible. Will they do it? probably not as the Japanese view the world in a different way from us and probably don't see now the need to change the rules of succession. But if the new prime minister is so ultra-conservative as was stated here and in the online papers, then maybe he will take the step to reinclude all those Imperial princes who have been kicked from the line of succession in 1946. Thus, they won't need to go via the female line because they have enough mal heirs and could even marry their princesses to princes, so their marriage could strenghen the bloodline. Who knows?

I agree with most of your point. it is well said, Jo.

IMO, it is always useful to at least discuss how an institution can be changed for the better.

Institutions and the traditions bind them are created and upheld by people. If people are (please pardon the expression) harmed by certain parts of the institution, then change is useful. Again, that is just my humble opinion. Change does not mean that anyone despises the way that things are done or the complete end of anything special.

It also amazes me how sometimes women themselves are the ones who will fight the hardest against the very idea of changes taking place that could make a positive impact in the distant future. We're just speculating about what could occur, and that could have some very positive long term impact for women in Japan. I still am amazed that any woman would be so narrow minded and limited in their thinking (imo) that they are completely repelled on the suggestion of a woman on the throne anywhere and actually accuse others of hating men for supporting it. Bizzare, imo.

Anyway, not that anything like a reform of the IHA's position would ever happen in the next 75-100 years. It is an internal matter for Japan to decide.

IMO, if they did change that rule about how the princesses names are taken from the records (I think that's what it is) and the one about succession of women to the throne, it's just a tiny step but what a good positive signal it would sent to the daughters of Japan about how important and how valuable and capable they are! I don't think any man in Japan should or would ever feel threatened about it in any way (it's not that they are, I do not know).

But now I have a question: what is this thing about Imperial Princes being excluded from the royal line of succession in 1946?

Could someone please explain that further?

 

[monica17]

But now I have a question: what is this thing about Imperial Princes being excluded from the royal line of succession in 1946?
Could someone please explain that further?

I think it had something to do with the collateral branches of the Imperial Family reduced to commoners. In the past, should the main branch fail to have a legitimate heir, the succession can be passed on to other branches of the family. There were 11-or was it 9?-branches of the family before WW II who could provide for a heir, in addition to the main one. These branches were called princely houses, I think, and the males were all princes, no matter how distant their relation from the emperor. And should a branch lack heirs, then it can be taken over by a relative (as directed by the emperor), who will continue that line.

 

[mandyy]

Abe's close ally says imperial law should be revised in time
Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hakubun Shimomura, a close ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, said Saturday an imperial law should be revised "not so far in the future" to ensure a stable male-line succession of emperors.
"The tradition of male-line succession will not be safe without revising a law just because Prince Hisahito has been born," Shimomura said at a rally in Tokyo celebrating the prince's birth in early September. "We are now in an important period when we must begin thinking about law revision in parliament not so far in the future," he added.................
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060930/kyodo/d8kf3m3g0.html

 

[Skydragon]

Oh dear, one step forward, two steps back! Japan is so modern in some things (electronics etc) and so 'old fashioned' in others.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Oh dear, one step forward, two steps back! Japan is so modern in some things (electronics etc) and so 'old fashioned' in others.

At least they are doing something! If the Japanese believe that their emperor should be a direct descendent via the male line from a former emperor, why not elevate all men whose bloodlines comes via the male line from an emperor to princes again? Thus, there is a chance that princesses Aiko, Mako and Kako can find a suitable husband according to tradition.

I believe they must do something and fast to keep the Imperial family founded in the conscience of their people and to enlarge the Imperial family is a sure way to do it. Just think of all the interesting events that will happen once there are more princes and, of course, princesses. There will be discussions about a suitable civil listfor each of them (billed by the taxpayer, of course!), there will be news reports about their conduct, their weddings, marriages, divorces, deaths, funerals....

I'm convinced that this view into a possible future alone might get some not so conservative politicians to start thinking again... Because re-introducing ex-princes back into the public eye may well cost the conservatives a lot of votes. Japan's economy is not what it used to be and a lot of people are thinking about how to spent the money from a potential sale of the Imperial palace. Enlarge the Imperial family and you'll open Pandora's box for the government. Well, that's their problem.

 

[Toledo]

I'm checking out several news wires that just came out during the past few hours related to royalty. This one is from Japan's succesion story:

72 percent support female emperor: Mainichi poll
Mainici Interactive News
September 30, 2006

 

[Elspeth]

I strongly suspect that whatever happens - whether they decide to allow females or whether they reinstate the minor branches to royal rank or even if they decide to let princesses remain royal after marriage - it'll be done too late to make any difference to Aiko. Naruhito was a bad boy and criticised the Pooh Bahs in public, and I think his reward will be to see his branch of the family sidelined as far as possible. But we'll see.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I strongly suspect that whatever happens - whether they decide to allow females or whether they reinstate the minor branches to royal rank or even if they decide to let princesses remain royal after marriage - it'll be done too late to make any difference to Aiko. Naruhito was a bad boy and criticised the Pooh Bahs in public, and I think his reward will be to see his branch of the family sidelined as far as possible. But we'll see.

Elspeth, somehow I see it as fortunate that Aiko probably is spared the "job" of becoming empress. Since WWII first the American victors and then the politicians of Japan have tried to cut down the influence of the Imperial family to close to zero.

It is tough enough in a male dominated world to be a national symbol or puppet as a man - would you really want that kind of position for a female?

IMHO what happens now is that the political powers start to rethink their view on the Imperial family. We don't know yet where that might lead the family in question but at least for me any move is better than none. That fact that there is a princess growing up who should be the heir of her father instead of her not so much younger male cousin will be a signal in itself. This constellation does more for a future change than any other I could imagine.
Because there will always be the "image" (in all aspects of the word) of deprived princess Aiko in the media.

IMHO there need to be a reason for a real change in a strict society like Japan. Otherwise change is very, very slow. But just imagine Aiko marrying a man whose father or grandfather via the male line has been an Imperial prince? Then according to current law she and her children are reduced to becoming commoners, even though she is the future (or then already) emperor's only child and her children are descended via the male line - even ultra-conservative polticians must realize that this is a reason for a change. Or what if they re-introduce the "princes of the Imperial blood" and Aiko marries one of them, then? Wouldn't this scenario further the pressure on the government to introduce a change?

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, somehow I see it as fortunate that Aiko probably is spared the "job" of becoming empress. Since WWII first the American victors and then the politicians of Japan have tried to cut down the influence of the Imperial family to close to zero.

It is tough enough in a male dominated world to be a national symbol or puppet as a man - would you really want that kind of position for a female?

Not particularly, but I don't like the way females are tossed out of the royal family when they marry. It makes them look thoroughly expendable and somewhat less than a valued human being, to put it mildly. I just have a feeling that whatever they're planning to update things will not be done until Prince Aksihino or his son succeeds to the throne, in order to sideline Prince Naruhito and his family as much as possible. This is one case where I'd love to be proved wrong.

 

[Emily]

Not particularly, but I don't like the way females are tossed out of the royal family when they marry. It makes them look thoroughly expendable and somewhat less than a valued human being, to put it mildly. I just have a feeling that whatever they're planning to update things will not be done until Prince Aksihino or his son succeeds to the throne, in order to sideline Prince Naruhito and his family as much as possible. This is one case where I'd love to be proved wrong.

I agree with this -- but what I don't clearly understand is, in the general society, aren't females "tossed out" of professional positions once they marry? Does Japanese society have respect for females? Or is this a very male dominated society?