Talk:Imperial House of Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oldest[edit]

How can both the Japanese monarchy and the Danish both be "the oldest" in their respective articles?. A bit of clarification might be in order.--195.84.66.130 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends precisely how you measure it. I'm sure there is a particular way to define continuous succession that discount all claimants before Japan's, but it would certainly be contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.140.208.6 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

"Imperial Household of Japan" is so prevalently a concept that begins from Meiji Era, that I would restrict the article's substantial content to the past century and so. Earlier history is somehow so separate and seems a fragment of much more relevant content that is residing in clearly other articles. Do we have e.g Imperial Dynasty of Japan. Arrigo 18:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Akishino's Child[edit]

His Imperial Highness Prince of Akishino (born 6 September 2006) at 8:27 AM (2327 GMT) and weighed 5.64 pounds.

Is that weight correct? 5.64 pounds would be rather small. On the other hand, 5.64 kilograms would be rather large. Nik42 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage outside imperial family[edit]

I think this line from the article requires revising:

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 princes and princesses lose their status as imperial family-members if they marry outside the imperial family; and that the Emperor and other members of the Imperial Family may not adopt children.

If I am reading this correctly, then don't all imperial family members need to marry their sisters or brothers or cousins in order to remain within the imperial family? Also, Crown Prince Naruhito married Masako (not a member of the imperial family) but remains the crown prince, contradicting the above statement. Any explanations before I revise? -Sarfa 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That's an error. Princesses lose their status if they mary outside the imperial family, but princes do not. For example, the Emperor's daughter, the former Princess Sayako, is now a commoner named Sayako Nori, because of her marriage to a commoner. Nik42 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The former Princess Sayako assumed the name Kuroda Sayako upon her marriage to Kuroda Yoshiki on 15 November 2005. Nori no miya was her childhood appelation as the daughter of the crown prince (and from 1989, the emperor). --Duke of Yarmouth 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I knew that, I just got those two mixed up. Nik42 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation To Baekjae[edit]

Japanese imperial household and Baekjae do not have the marriage relation.

1.She is a daughter of "Clan naturalized in Japan" and "Japanese clan". Father of Takano no Niigasa(Emperor Kammu's mother) was Yamato-Fumi clan. And, mother of Takano-Nigasa was Haji clan. Haji-Clan is an aborigine in Japan. Yamato-Fumi clan was begun by the great-grandchild of child "Prince Sunta" naturalized in Japan of Muryeong of Baekje. Takano's father is Yamato clan's the sixth generation successor.

2. Historical grounds are low. Akihito that considered Korea spoke the episode of Takano no Niigasa. However, According to history professor Lee-Keun-Woo of Pukyong National University, Prince Sunta doesn't exist in the history book on Korea. Perhaps, To improve her authority, her family pedigree is fabricated.

(新笠が武寧王の後裔かどうかも明らかではない。続日本紀という史料には武寧王の太子淳陀後裔だと記されているが、韓国側の史料には淳陀という名は確認できない。 その他色々、非常に疑わしい。桓武天皇の出自を潤色するために行われた粉飾だったのではないか。- 李根雨・釜慶大学校史学科教授「現代コリア2005年6月号」より )　

Therefore, I delete this part if there is no rebuttal. --Princesunta (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for my opinion on this, but I have no knowledge of the imperial house. Sorry. RogueNinjatalk 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for my opinion too, but my knowledge about the period is so little that I have nothing to comment about this. Sorry that I couldn't help. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also asked for a comment. I have no idea about the topic because I'm not familiar with it. Around this period, many foreigners came to Japan from current China and Korea. They were hired by the Imperial Court, and gradually became Japanese. Everybody has so many ancestors, and often has one or more foreign roots. This topic only shows the fact "Everybody has so many ancestors". Why do we highlight such a trivia? The topic is described in Takano no Niigasa, and I think that is enough. The relationship between Baekjae and Imperial House is not a big issue for Imperial House. It was not a Marriage of convenience. Relationship with Fujiwara and Sekke is far more important.--Mochi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, here's my comment as well, based on the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:高野新笠 (Takano no Niigasa)... Emperor Akihito's statement is based on the accuracy of the Shoku Nihongi, which claims that Prince Sunta (純陁太子) was a son of King Muryeong of Baekje (百済武寧王). This claim remains controversial, because Prince Sunta (純陁太子) never appears in any Korean records. As this claim remains controversial, it may be notable enough for the article on Takano no Niigasa, but perhaps not for the Imperial House of Japan as a whole.--Endroit (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice. After 150 years the ruin of Baekjae, Emperor Kanmu was born. His mother was Yamato-Fumi clan. They had already been naturalized in Japan though her clan was Baekjae royal family's descendant. She was not a princess of Baekjae, and married the emperor as Yamato-Fumi clan's daughter. --Princesunta (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several concerns about Princesunta (talk · contribs)[edit]

relevant link:Talk:Sea_of_Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21

1. First off, who are you? You're obviously socking per your account creation (you registered yesterday) and history of this article. Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)(ips are confirmed as his), Amazonfire (talk · contribs), 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs)(just blocked today) have been so eager to erase the content. If you're sock (aside from meat dolls from 2channel), why would I waste my time here to talk to you?

2. 純陁太子's name is not directly recorded in any existing Korean history document so far. However, Japanese history book like 続日本紀 mentioned his name and his rank in Baekje. According to Samguk Sagi, a son of King Muryeong or 元子 (crown prince) became King Seong and his death date was unclear and believed that his was Sunta.

3. The controversy itself is notable enough to be included. Almost notable theories are included in Wikipedia such as Goguryo related articles. Why do you want to delete it?

4. The interview with Akihito is not arbitrary because one of his uncle secretly visited to South Korea to serve a Japanese traditional ceremony for ancestor. I assume you can read Korean (If you're Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs) or Cvcc (talk · contribs), the confirmed socks, you should find a good translation tool), so read the article.

It is later discovered that Asakanomiya, an uncle of Emperor Akihito visited to the tomb of King Muryeong in Gongju, South Chungcheong Province to worship the king.[1]

  1. ^ Sohn, Gyu-seong (손규성) (2004-08-05). "일 왕족 무령왕릉 참배" (in Korean). Gongju, South Korea: The Hankyoreh. 아사카노미야씨를 안내한 이 전 부여문화원장은 "백제 무령왕의 후손인 일본 왕족들의 무령왕릉에 대한 관심이 매우 크다"며 "이들의 무령왕릉 방문은 일본내 여론을 의식해 비공식적으로 이뤄졌다"고 말했다. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

5. The contents has been addressed for over 8 months added by Jjok (talk · contribs), so wait for his opinion. --Appletrees (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. Please discuss whether the Yamato-Atai clan is a Baekje royal family. --Princesunta (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't confuse unlike you. You're the one who revet the revision to have been here for 8 months, so you need to clarify your true idenity, odn.user[1] --Appletrees (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your important historical ground is not our important historical ground. You should explain the reason for important historical ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.118.162 (talk)
Well, your statement does explain nothing but denial without your ground, so why explain why it is not your minor historical fact. I already provided the above citation. --Appletrees (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You presented only "Slander to the user" and "Ear duster without the source". Please explain "Historical value" concisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you, dion ISP user prove yourself to commit such the horrendous "ad hominem" attack on me. --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

important historical ground[edit]

Please explain historical value of Takano no Nigasa. If she has important value, we should write her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk)

Oh, I missed the same argument without any reason. I added my comment right below the thread. She is not only a Korean descendant in Japanese house. --Appletrees (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese complex? Korean complex?[edit]

changed the title by "alphabet order" for equality. --Appletrees (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changed the title by "Korean complex". Because there is no explanation about the Japanese complex at all. --Princesunta (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"J goes before K" as usual for your party's insistence. Your "insistence" itself proves the Japanese complex more than enough. I already provided you that an uncle of the emperor secretly visited to the tomb of King Muryeong in South Korea in order to serve a ceremonial worship for their ancestor. He said he worried about Japanese public who are very sensitive at anything related Baekje, ancient kingdom of Korea. Thus that is Japanese complex. If you don't like the subtitle named as "Japanese complex" then, play fair. Who put Korean complex in the title first? You! --Appletrees (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to JoongAng Ilbo(big three newspapers in Korea) To recover from the modern mortifications received from the imperialism of Japan, Korean people relates Japanese imperial household's origin to Korea. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.129.55 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Kamosuke or Azukimonaka-like comment. However, I understand your "alergic reaction" like tatoo according to the source. JongAng Ilbo owns "big tree newspapers in Korea"? Wow, the company is really gigantic newspaper company. --Appletrees (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page explains Japanese imperial household's system. The part that you forcibly inserted will give the reader a strong sense of incompatibility. --221.243.158.122 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all your rationale for your "insistence" to remove the important historical ground? That is your POV, so please give a plausible rationale. Besides, if I'm the only one to include the info, why Jjok (talk · contribs) inserted the contents and continuous edit warrig occurred even though when I was out? --Appletrees (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
important historical ground? Please explain what influence you gave to the history of Japan (history of Imperial House of Japan ). Emperor Saga's grandmother is Chinese Japanese. What of Takano no Nigasa and her is different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somebody added a very interesting information on Yayoi period but it was blanked by Amagase (talk · contribs). After checked on the source, the latter is partially right on the point that the content does not fit the Yayoi period but Heian period or this article. Shinsen shoji roku (新撰姓氏錄), the royal genealogy book proves that Japanese imperial house is indeed rooted from the Baekje royal house. "日本の神話を考える" (ISBN 4094600655) written by a noted Japanese historian and emeritus professor at Kyoto University, Ueda Masaaki (上田正昭) presents such claim. He is also famous for his analysis on Chiljido, one of evidences for Wa of Japan was a colony of Baekje (倭国の世界 (1976年)). You know that Shinsen shoji roku was written by commission of Emperor Kammu, whose mother was a Korean descendant. With the book, the 30th emperor Bidatsu was also a Korean. The section has many potential to be expanded indeed, so what is your rationale? --Appletrees (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that Appletrees edited it based on such history knowledge.
Ueda Masaaki introduces the difference point and the common feature of the myth of Korea and the myth of Japan. [3]
"The Bidatsu emperor is Korean" is one of the ear dusters that the South Korean tried to make popular. [4][5][6] "大原真人 出自謚敏達孫百済王也" is translated into "Ohara no mahito takayasu is Bidatu emperor's king grandchild's Kudara descendant.". However, South Koreans misinterpreted it. "The grandchild of Bidatu is a royal family of Baekje. Therefore, Bidatu is South Korean." 百済王 is a name of a person. The Baekje coming from is written 出自百済國. For instance, father of Takano Nigasa is written like this. "和史乙継 出自百済國都慕王十八世孫武寧王也" --Princesunta (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You regret? www That's a good one. You visit here with the ID as I'm getting to almost forget this matter. Your appearance always draw my attention back to the ancient history of Japan. Yeah, I'm studying it hard. I have to take a nap, so see yeah soooooooooon--Appletrees (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Queen of Japan ?[edit]

Is it possible, that Aiko marries her cousin Hishato, when they are adult ? So she become Queen of Japan, from her own right and her cousin was the King, from his own rights, after his grandfather and his uncle (Aikos father).

What do you say about this ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She could not possibly be Queen. She would have been Empress if such situation arises. Anyway, it's an interesting possibility. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could someone please create a family tree for the Imperial Family? Thanks. --Woodelf 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? It's already in the article. Oda Mari (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an interactive family tree, like the one I have now created myself. (~.^)--Woodelf 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. But is it possible on Wikipedia? Anyway, I cannot create it. Oda Mari (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you don't have to: I have already created one in the article. Scroll down to where the family tree is to see!! --Woodelf 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoo ?[edit]

女王 is じょおう jooo and means queen. Any reference for Nyoo?

'Nyo' is a somewhat archaic reading of '女'. Look it up in any reasonably comprehensive Japanese dictionary. 67.180.80.178 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiko, Princess Hisa[edit]

Princess Sachiko died as a child, she never married and thus remained a member of the imperial family her life, yet her name (or number !) on the family tree is in italics. Is there a way to fix this ? Thanks in advance ! --Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree[edit]

The following family tree shows the lineage of the current members of the Imperial family. Some of these people in the family tree are long deceased and have no descendants in the royal family (Takamatsu, Chichibu, Katsura households). I see no reason for their inclusion in the tree or former princesses too for that matter. See British Royal Family for example, they just list current members, and deceased members are only included to show connections between the living ones, thus some royals like Princess Margaret, Prince John etc. are not included. I propose removing some people on this family tree as well. --Killuminator (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, British Royal Family's family tree included the names of deceased members but now they're removed. I see no problem in removing Chichibus, Takamatsus, Katsura and former princesses. But for example Prince Tomohito of Mikasa or Prince Takamado should stay to show the connections. Keivan.fTalk 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Imperial Household Agency website has removed the names of former princesses and some deceased members like Princess Sachiko from its family tree. Keivan.fTalk 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a newer, updated tree based off the one used by the British Royal Family page: Imperial House of Japan family tree. Please let me know what you think. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfect ! Just what I had hoped for, thank you. Your work is most appreaciated. Could you do something similar for some other notable current royal families (Norway, Sweden etc.). It shows the relations between the current members better than some dull list. Cheers ! :) --Killuminator (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really appreciate that. I'll do my best with the others, as well. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial House of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. - checked Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title and first line of the article[edit]

Gryffindor made a edit changing the first line of this article. I disagreed with him and changed it back. He has since reverted it again back to his preferred version without any discussion (outside of a "this is the way it is" post on my talk page). Obviously there is some disagreement here. Please chime in on what should be the proper introductory line(s) in the article.

Please note the similar discussion taking place over on Talk:Emperor of Japan. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest a non-bolded "of Japan" follow the bolded "Imperial House" and "(kana)". If no objections, I will make such an edit in a day or so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) - Struck; On reflection, and following things through to their (illogical?) conclusions, I'm not yet seeing a reason to move from Imperial House of Japan, which appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As similar, though, I suggest changing the title back to the "Imperial House of Japan". The full name is used for pages of other royal and imperial houses, including the British Royal Family, the Dutch Royal Family, the Liechtenstein Princely Family and the Swedish Royal Family. 119.74.14.132 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear Liechtenstein Princely Family is actually at Princely Family of Liechtenstein. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the more correct name of the article should be "Japanese Imperial House". Any thoughts? Gryffindor (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Japanese Imperial House would be fine. It's technically the same thing as the current title, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gryffindor, could you elaborate on why Japanese Imperial House is "more correct"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the naming format of the other royal families mentioned above. Also "of Japan" does not exist anywhere in the term kōshitsu, so in order to get as close as possible to the correct translation and term, "Japanese Imperial House" seems to be more correct than the current one. It would also help us alleviate the discussion on the intro formulation. Ps: the "Princely Family of Liechtenstein" is an incorrect format and should be moved. Ruling houses should be named "House of x" such as "House of Windsor" for example, therefore "House of Liechtenstein". Gryffindor (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The English title doesn't have to be a correct translation of the Japanese title. In fact, they are frequently different for Japan-related articles. That's when you do something like Imperial House of Japan (皇室, kōshitsu, lit. "Imperial House"). It gives the most common English language name for the topic (which should also be the title of the article), then it gives the Japanese, the Romanization of the Japanese, then a literal translation. It's concise and clear in that format. Another example would be The Adventures of Milo and Otis. That's the common English name of the film, but the original Japanese name is different. So, we have The Adventures of Milo and Otis (子猫物語, Koneko Monogatari, lit. "A Kitten's Story"; alternate English title, The Adventures of Chatran) at the beginning of the article. The point is, contrary to what you seem to believe, the English title does not have to be the same as the Japanese title. It often isn't, and that's perfectly fine. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese language title states, "The Imperial House is the term given to the Emperor of Japan and family." When I read 'Imperial House'(皇室) in the Japanese language, I fell it means the Japanese Imperial House. In Chinese 皇室 is used only for Japan and 王室 is used for European Royalty, Thai royalty and other Asia royal families. Leveni (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree scope[edit]

The following family tree shows the lineage of the current members of the Imperial family (living members in bold). This is the first sentence and it describes who is depicted on the family tree. The tree is fairly large and it could use some trimming. What is the scope of this family tree. Should we remove Prince Katsura who is deceased and whose lineage ended with his death? Also, regarding the daughters: should we remove daughters who married to commoners and subsequently lost their status or perhaps just the deceased ones? Summa summarum - who belongs on this family tree as described in the first sentence? --Killuminator (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato dynasty?[edit]

Despite some IP address continued effort at finding a proper reference for the term "Yamato dynasty", where exactly is this term coming from? If this is to be mentioned in the introductory lines, it needs at least three different references. Gryffindor (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I do not sure why you continue your change edits to remove "of japan" in title. Why you do not follow the talk section above? Most users above disagree with your edit to remove "of japan" in title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.46.80.111 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial House does not have a "of Japan" in its name, we need to be as correct as possible with the terms. Gryffindor (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of the Yamato Dynasty ever. The Yamato are a race of people, the Japanese people. The Yamato is not a Dynasty. I went through the entire Japanese Language version (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9A%87%E5%AE%A4) and never once was the Imperial Family referred to as the Yamato Dynasty. Also, the reference for the Yamato Dynasty is from ONE tabloid book, it is not from any reputable source. Delete the reference. Leveni (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the source citation needed. Either this finally gets properly sourced by multiple sources, or it needs to be removed as this is original research. Gryffindor (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find these sources, not necessarily good enough but something to start with: 1, 2, 3 and 4 (the 124th Emperor of the Yamato line, so far the only royal house that has ever ruled. Japan and believed by all Japanese to be). The oldest one is from 1928. --Killuminator (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these newspaper or blog sources state "House of Yamato", it only says "Yamato dynasty" or "Yamato line", and it seems to be used more as a descriptive term by journalists as opposed to a proper term coined by historians or even from the official side. If there are no official or historiographical sources then the sentence will have to be changed to remove this. For the last source is there an open version, otherwise it's not possible to verify? Gryffindor (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The imperial has been around longer[edit]

There is evidence that the imperial family ruled in 400 AD and 300 AD.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1RcFEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT80&dq=Yamato+clan+history&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q=Yamato%20clan%20history&f=false

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Voyages_in_World_History/VckaCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Yamato+clan+history&pg=PA238&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kata/64HQAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yamato+clan&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover

CycoMa (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"but there is firm evidence for the hereditary line since Emperor Kinmei ascended the throne 1,500 years ago.[3]"[edit]

Isn't it literally uncontroversial & universally accepted fact that there was a complete rupture in the 1300s, with the prior hereditary line being replaced by the Northern Court? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source please.CycoMa (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I linked to the article on the Northern Court, so I think you should be able to find this information, which once again is not contested by any party and is the uncontroversial simple history of Japan. It's pretty cleanly recorded and sourced right here on Wikipedia, in any article related to that period and those events. Just click --> Northern Court. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Court emperors were descended from the prior hereditary line, so the line was not ruptured. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess then I'm left wondering what the semantic content of each word in " oldest continuous hereditary monarchy" is. What are the criteria for "continuous" and "hereditary" such that the Northern Court period doesn't break it? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rumours that the current house have Y-haplogroup D add to this possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.47.191 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Nintoku is considered a historical emperor. He has a large Kofun tomb in the city of Sakai. So it should be counted from Nintoku, not Kinmei as the earliest. -Artanisen (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue has been like a sore point on the page for quite some time at this point. The infobox in particular seems to suggest that Kimnei is the founder of the dynasty, which is a bold claim with tenuous links to what the sources are saying. He is the first emperor with exact and believed to be accurate dates but the founder of the dynasty is another thing entirely. I'll try to implement an interim solution until a proper discussion finds a long-term remedy. --Killuminator (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_House_of_Japan&oldid=1202926363"