Talk:Chrysanthemum Throne/Archive 1

The content on this page overlaps greatly that of Emperor of Japan. Merging is needed. --Menchi 08:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A user said Emperor Jimmu founded the empire of Japan in Korea. Is there a citation for this? If so, why was Korea not part of the Japanese empire until much later? Or was it? --Golbez 21:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Early Japan did have some control over parts of Korea. There are those who believe the Imperial Family were originally Korean. I'm not sure how much, if any, evidence there is for this view. - Nik42 06:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

the last sentence, refering to the throne's legitimacy is biased and should be removed. no monarchy can be legitimate because no monarcy is appointed by the people and no monarcy is representative of the people. MaximusNukeage 18:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely the view that "no monarchy can be legitimate" is biased as well towards a pro-democracy view ... :-)

Surely! Needs to be read in context of monarchies regardless. ;-) Khirad 02:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

In the following:

"Despite the fact that there had previously been eight female Emperors (in Japan only the wife of an Emperor is called an Empress), under Japanese Imperial law (promulgated by the Imperial Household Agency and the Privy Council) women cannot reign since the middle of the 19th century."

I feel cannot could be changed to have not been able to. The wording just sounds funny to me as it is, but no big deal either way. :-) Khirad 02:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

They should inlcude something about the recent discussion of whether to let women become monarchs. This is very important.

---

I changed "... since the middle of the 20th century" to "since the late 19th century" beause, while the current Imperial Household Law does date back to the post-War era (1946, if I'm not mistaken), the ban on women on the throne was simply carried over from the Meiji-era law, which in turn merely canonized a strong taboo, the female emperors were still theoretically possible pre-Meiji. And, judging by the above comment, it had originally been "19th century" as well Nik42 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oldest continuous lineage?

Is there a controversy over whether the Japanese monarchy is the oldest continuous lineage? Is it about whether it is the oldest or whether it is continuous? I did a little web searching and the sites I found didn't mention any dispute. TRWBW 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some controversy over whether the lineage is continuous. Historians agree that Emperor Jimmu was probably a mythical figure or that, at least, he did not live in the 7th century BCE. The controversy, as I understand it, mostly revolves around how one defines "continuous lineage." If the definition is merely that there has been an unbroken line of emperors/empresses, then the claim is most likely true. If, however, the definition means that the imperial line has remained within a single family since its inception, then the claim becomes much more controversial. Adoption, for example, was a common practice throughout Japanese history, especially for families that had no sons/children. Is an adopted son still part of the same family line? I think that is open to debate.-Sarfa 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption in the Imperial Family was, however, only *within* the Imperial Family. That is, the Emperor might adopt a nephew or a cousin, but not someone outside of the Imperial Family. Thus, it remained within the family, although it was frequently not a strict father-son line Nik42 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Status

Under the provisions of the current Constitution of Japan, the Emperor is a "symbol of the state and the unity of its people"; he has no real political power but is regarded as a ceremonial Head of State and constitutional monarch.

The above line was awkward. Being 'regarded' does not clearly state that he 'is' the head of state and a constitutional monarch. Those roles are not a matter of opinion or viewpoint (i.e., red is regarded as a color). Just removed an inappropriate term.Gary Joseph 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to Replace the Picture

This is silly - I kept staring deep into the picture of "The Breast Star of the Order of the Chrysanthemum", thinking that was an exquisite throne.

Is it possible to obtain a photograph of the throne itself ?

Perhaps, the current picture can be moved further down in the article and resized smaller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.44.251 (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Off topic

This article had exactly one sentence about the stated topic, the rest being about the monarchy that sits on the throne, not the throne itself. I have removed the off-topic material. If anyone has any information about the actual throne, please add it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)