Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 12 2017, @04:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the game-of-thrones dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Japan has passed legislation paving the way for 83-year-old Emperor Akihito to abdicate. The law sets the stage for the first abdication of a reigning monarch in two centuries, in a royal family which has a history stretching back 2,600 years.

[...] According to the 1947 Imperial House Law that regulates the line of imperial succession, the emperor cannot step down. The last Japanese monarch to abdicate was Emperor Kokaku, who left in favor of his son back in 1817.

Another issue the Japanese government will discuss is the continuity of the heirs, as women are not allowed to inherit the throne. Additionally, a woman from the imperial family who marries outside the family is then excluded. Akihito has another son, Prince Akishino, and a grandson, Hisahito, aged just 10. All the other members of the royal family are female.

Source: RT


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 12 2017, @04:58AM (9 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday June 12 2017, @04:58AM (#524125) Journal

    According to the 1947 Imperial House Law the emperor cannot step down.

    So that law was passes while WE still occupied Japan. WTF?

    I know that they asked to be able to keep the emperor, and the US wisely accepted that wish. But That guy (Hirohito) is gone. Why are we punishing this guy (Akihito) by making him sit on that wooden thrown all these years with not a single thing to do except count the flowers that bloom in the spring (Tra Laa).

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:38AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:38AM (#524135)

    Because of the looming threats next door, commies.

    • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @07:27AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday June 12 2017, @07:27AM (#524181)

      Because of the looming threats next door, commies.

      Also the reason Doug arranged for quite a few war criminals to not just go free but be set up in positions of economic power.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:47AM (#524140)

    It was just one of many changes made as a result of the post-war Constitution. But the U.S. did not directly make it so:

    Article 2 of the Constitution of Japan, promulgated in 1947 by influence of the U.S. occupation administration, provides that "The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial Household Law passed by the Diet." The Imperial Household Law of 1947, enacted by the ninety-second and last session of the Imperial Diet, retained the exclusion on female dynasts found in the 1889 law. The government of Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru hastily cobbled together the legislation to bring the Imperial Household in compliance with the American-written Constitution of Japan that went into effect in May 1947. In an effort to control the size of the imperial family, the law stipulates that only legitimate male descendants in the male line can be dynasts; that imperial princesses lose their status as Imperial Family members if they marry outside the Imperial Family;[11] and that the Emperor and other members of the Imperial Family may not adopt children. It also prevented branches, other than the branch descending from Taishō, from being imperial princes any longer.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @06:17AM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 12 2017, @06:17AM (#524147) Journal

    The flowers that bloom in the spring (Tra La) have nothing to do with the case.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @06:56AM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @06:56AM (#524158) Journal

    "the US wisely accepted that wish"

    I disagree with that. The US unwisely bestowed legitimacy on the next Emperor who dreams of world domination.

    • (Score: 2) by KiloByte on Monday June 12 2017, @08:00AM (3 children)

      by KiloByte (375) on Monday June 12 2017, @08:00AM (#524191)

      unwisely bestowed legitimacy on the next Emperor who dreams of world domination.

      Do you mean this [pinimg.com] longing [tomsk.ru] look [intmassmedia.com]?

      --
      Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @08:42AM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @08:42AM (#524208) Journal

        So, you've got a hardon for Putin? Not really relevant to this discussion. More relevant, is the fact that the US is pushing all of it's allies to take more responsibility for their own defense. Also relevant, is the Japanese controversy over altering their constitution to allow the Japanese forces to take that more active role in their own defense.

        Who knows what the geopolitical field might look like in 50 years, or 100, or 250 years?

        The fact is, the US legitimized the position of the Emperor, and the royal status of the Emperor's lineage. The concept of royalty is anathema to the US, it's constitution, democracy, and our way of life. Royalty is less incompatible with democracy than Islam is, but it is still incompatible. The UK and a few other countries manage to pull it off, reasonably well, but the concepts aren't really compatible.

        The US has never legitimized the royalty of Russia, of which Putin is not a member.

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 12 2017, @01:37PM (1 child)

          by butthurt (6141) on Monday June 12 2017, @01:37PM (#524380) Journal

          > The fact is, the US legitimized the position of the Emperor [...]

          Perhaps the U.S. legitimised the (monarchic) British Empire by allying with it in that same war?

          > The concept of royalty is anathema to the US [...] The UK and a few other countries manage to pull it off, reasonably well [...]

          I'm not aware that the U.S., aside from its own revolution. ever embarked upon an anti-monarchic programme. In the last century it seemed content to countenance monarchies in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Monaco, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nepal, Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Iran and perhaps a few other countries. Apart from Iran and Nepal, all those countries are still monarchies.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 12 2017, @06:05PM

            by frojack (1554) on Monday June 12 2017, @06:05PM (#524549) Journal

            Agreed. The US anathema for monarchies is strictly a Domestic one, and the US has never shown any animosity to figurehead monarchs in otherwise elected governments.

            Which is exactly what the Emperor was, and Is. The white gloves and top hat guy you trot out for ceremony.

            Why keep him around? It had nothing to do with a communist horde, or bestowing blessing on a monarchy. (And no, the emperor was not a war criminal. Even at that time, he was a pawn of the military).

            It had everything to do with gaining the acquiescence of the Japanese people so that instead of street by street fighting and snipers, there would be quiet acceptance because the Emperor said so.

            It was something of a masterstroke, if you ask me.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.