Skip to comments.
Forget Empress, Let's Have Concubines, Says Prince (Japan)
The Telegraph (UK) ^
| 11-4-2005
| Colin Joyce
Posted on 11/03/2005 7:41:01 PM PST by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
1
posted on
11/03/2005 7:41:02 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
2
posted on
11/03/2005 7:44:33 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
"Even more controversially, the prince suggested male members of the royal family could once again take concubines to ensure a supply of sons." Uh, ok. And if that is extended to other males, the population numbers might pick up a bit.
3
posted on
11/03/2005 7:48:03 PM PST
by
Enterprise
(The modern Democrat Party - a toxic stew of mental illness, cultism, and organized crime.)
To: blam
How long until Masako-sama goes COMPLETELY NUTS?
Takers?
4
posted on
11/03/2005 7:49:12 PM PST
by
gaijin
To: blam
The prince outlined ways to preserve male succession by bringing distant cousins of the emperor back into the line of succession either by adoption or the creation of new royal houses. And that convoluted solution would be better at preserving the royal "line" than allowing females would be?
5
posted on
11/03/2005 7:54:30 PM PST
by
saquin
To: blam
As obscure as this might seem, you have to remember that absent a male in the line these guys would have to back up to find a line that had a continual male line down to the present day.
Odds are the current claimant under those conditions is a fellow who was born and raised in Minneapolis, MN.
6
posted on
11/03/2005 7:58:56 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: blam
Looking at the chart, if princess sayako had a son wouldn't he be eligible, time to be fruitful and multiply
To: muawiyah; gaijin
Judging by his picture I'd guess Tomohito is the wild card of the bunch.
8
posted on
11/03/2005 8:04:15 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: Shermy
And Katsura's got one mean lookin' brow.
9
posted on
11/03/2005 8:06:42 PM PST
by
July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
To: muawiyah
To: aspidistra
Sure, MN tends to "blueness", but this guy's family recalls having been tossed into concentration camps by the Democrats so they generally don't favor Democrats for public office.
Had to do with Fort Snelling and the Army Intelligence School during WWII ~ they were relocated from the camps to just East of the Mississippi.
11
posted on
11/03/2005 8:14:50 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: saquin
And that convoluted solution would be better at preserving the royal "line" than allowing females would be?
Because it keeps it male.
12
posted on
11/03/2005 8:19:28 PM PST
by
festus
(The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
To: muawiyah
The French had the same rule when they were ruled by kings--the descent had to be entirely in the male line. When Charles X was forced to abdicate in 1830, and they didn't want to hand the throne to his young grandson, they went to the nearest cousin who went back entirely in the male line, and he became King Louis Philippe. (He was descended from the brother of Louis XIV.)
Shakespeare has a passage in Henry the Fifth, Act I, Scene II, where this rule is discussed:
"In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant,"
"No woman shall succeed in Salique land"
To: festus
Because it keeps it male. Obviously. I realize that. I'm questioning the whole idea because if gender trumps bloodline (a distant male cousin, adopted into the line, is preferred over a direct female descendant) than why bother with a royal bloodline at all?
14
posted on
11/03/2005 8:24:52 PM PST
by
saquin
To: Verginius Rufus
I think they have to go back about 1200 years unless somebody has a boy real soon.
Whole big bunches of the royal lines ran out in the 1800s. I've looked through the primary genealogies, and it looks like they were all hit particularly hard by tuberculosis.
15
posted on
11/03/2005 8:26:09 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: blam
Japan is very sexist. Women are expected to quit for work after marriage. Their jobs become solely taking care of their husbands and their family.
To: blam
Concubines would fit in perfectly to the social climate. In fact, I thought it was the accepted norm the world over? Silly Prince.
17
posted on
11/03/2005 8:32:12 PM PST
by
Whitewasher
(Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: muawiyah
I'm not sure if you are referring to Japan or France. The French royal family had a lot of members who died young, and tuberculosis seems to have been a major reason. There may be descendants of Louis Philippe around (I think Charles X's grandson, who would have become Henry V if they had restored the monarchy after the fall of Napoleon III, died childless).
King Juan Carlos of Spain is also descended from Louis XIV but perhaps his ancestor renounced any rights to the throne of France for his descendants, when he became Philip V of Spain in 1700.
To: LauraleeBraswell
Japan is very sexist. Women are expected to quit for work after marriage. Their jobs become solely taking care of their husbands and their family.
You've done it. You've finally found the one part of Japanese culture that is better than the west ! ;-)
20
posted on
11/03/2005 8:42:54 PM PST
by
festus
(The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson