Talk:Sayako Kuroda

Goo Pei Ling@Goh Fong Ling

Can somebody tell me what the hell this means?? This was put as the Japanese reading of her former title as an imperical princess. This is not Japanese but sound like Chinese or some other asian language... Lynnette 01:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NEEDS TO BE EDITED IMMEDIATELY

I am sickened by those abusers leaving racial slurs in the place of current event articles. I don't know if it would be more help now to replace the replacement with a benign text or wait for some restoration of the original article, any hints?

I have understood that nori no miya sayako naishinnō denka's translation would be: Sayako, female prince (=princess) suo jure of princedom Nori. (As far as anything can be translated fully.) Am I correct in trusting that the abovesaid Japanese wording is in use of her in Japan? (or, why is it mentioned in the text??)
Based on this, my proposition for her article heading is Sayako, Princess Nori 217.140.193.123 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

Birth rate nonsense

"Sayako has quit her job as an ornithologist in order to focus on her family life and potential motherhood, a decision commonly encouraged in Japanese society due to its falling birth rate." Due to its falling birth rate?? Tradtional values maybe. If this is an official statement from Kuroda or the Imperial family please say so. Otherwise, get rid of "due to its falling birth rate".

Well Japan's shrinking population is a fact, and the idea that Japanese women are encouraged to forgoe professional careers in favour of motherhood is not total conjecture either. This was the article that motivated me to add that, just to be clear: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p06s01-woap.html --Clngre 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's studied Japanese in Japan, that claim is not total nonsense, but it does not belong in this encyclopedic article. In particular, it oversimplifies Japanese culture. So, I have removed it. --LostLeviathan 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good point, I agree. --Clngre 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"left the Imperial Family"

What does it mean that she "left the Imperial Family"? -130.232.65.174 16:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Because she married a commoner, she is no longer in the line of succession. --Golbez 17:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It means that she must forfeit her royal title, forfeit her right to a royal allowance, and leave the royal palace. At this time, women are not permitted to assume the royal throne in Japan and therefore she was never in the line of succession.

Is she still allowed contact with the Imperial Family, and perhaps attending the occasional Imperial event? --Madchester 18:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, she will not "openly" contact the Imperial Family but occasionally may attend events when invited. This contact issue is a result of the current constitution that basically forbids the Imperial Family from taking a political position. Suppose her husband (or herself) runs for a seat in congress (unlikely but possible) and reveals his political view a day (or week, month, year, decade, even century) after she met with the Imperial Family. It will be impossible to argue that there was no discussion of politics. Japanese will then be inclined to support his view out of respect for the Imperial Family (compare with how a Catholic in general would support Pope's view) and arguing against would be impossibly hard. Anyway, except for occasional events when a chance encounter is possible, she will not have contact that we will know of. -- Revth 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So she can't contact her family? Or just not in publie? Shadows and Lace (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. If she has a son, will he be considered outside the royal line of succession? --Brasswatchman 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, current laws will keep anyone who does not retain the title to be outside succession. -- Revth 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, because if that were true, than it should apply to males who married too. Also if that law didn't exist than she wouldn't be able to run for office anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.62.52 (talk) 10:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"the Imperial Family"

Was she to marry within the Imperial Family, or is there more than one Imperial Family in Japan? This does not seem fair to me. We all are people of God, what right is it that some demand to be imperial to others. Like bush. Is she still allowed to go to family functions and holidays? I guess some people (her husband) are not allowed to move up in the world.

And of course someone has to pull the "People of God" crap. She probably left on her own accord, seeing as how the article doesn't mention any hoopla being thrown by her family. I think they normally marry members of government, diplomats or people higher on the social ladder.--Kross | Talk 18:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

One other possibility that occured to me reading this article: is it possible that this is just the way that the Imperial Family works? That daughters are considered to "marry out" of the household, while sons stay in the same household? That would fit with what I know of some traditional Asian cultures. I would appreciate it if someone who knew more about traditional Japanese culture would weigh in. --Brasswatchman 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, according to this, they lose their titles as soon as they get hitched.--Kross | Talk 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

.........I smell a Disney movie plot. All it needs is a talking animal played by a black comedian and it'll be perfect. Keaton | Keaton 7:32PM 11/15/05

So true, Keaton, so true... LOL! Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's because he's a commoner or not?

The sentence "These changes in her status are demanded by a 1947 law that requires female members of the Imperial Family to relinquish their birth position, official membership in the royal family, and allowance upon their marriage." makes it sound like any marriage would mean that the women would have to leave the Imperial Family. So just to make sure I understand this, is it because she married a "commoner" or is it because she simply married anyone that she has to leave the Family? Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1947 Imperial Household Law states that if a female member of the imperial family (a naishinnō or an nyoō) marries anyone other than the emperor or another male member of the imperial family, she will automatically lose her status as a member of the imperial family. The issue of princess marrying within the imperial family has not arisen since the 1947 law went into effect because the membership of the imperial family was effectively limited to the male line descendants of Emperor Taishō. Only two of that emperor's four sons, Emperor Shōwa and Prince Mikasa, had children and grandchildren. There simply is no pool of potential husbands among the current imperial family members (22 people).

Chapter III, Article 14 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan states, "Peers and peerage shall not be recognized." There are only two classes of Japanese recognized by this constitution: (1) the members of the imperial family, and (2) all other Japanese citizens. Therefore, even the descendants of the Meiji era kazuko (peerage) and the miyake (imperial collateral lines) are legally commoners. User: Jeff 07:25, 16 November 2005

So wouldn't it be rather incestuous for her to marry one of the Imperial Family? Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The imperial family is huge. All royal families have long traditions of marrying distant (and not-so-distant) cousins. When you have a single imperial family tree that has lasted for two millennia, you have a lot of branches. --Golbez 21:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, one of you says that the Imp. Fam. is 22 members strong, the other says it's "huge" with lots of branches. I'm still confused.... Dismas|^(talk) 19:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong. Shrug. Ask them. --Golbez 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, the Japanese Royal Family did have collateral branches. If you'd read Jeff's earlier post, you'd know that these lines lost their royal status after 1947, as well as the former peerage (nobles like dukes, counts, barons, etc.). A woman traditionally takes the status of her husband upon marriage, which would mean that an Imperial princess must marry of equal rank to keep her title.

Unless she marries into one of the other royal families of East Asia, which would require adopting a whole new culture and language, it is easier for an Imperial princess to marry commoners and lose their status. There is no nobility in Japan and there are no other Imperial princes to marry short of commiting incest. In short, unless a person is a legitimate male-line descendant of Emperor Taisho (and unmarried for women), they are a commoner. -- 65.92.149.147 04:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Due to revolutions and the rise of Communism and various other events, including European colonialism and the end of such colonialism, the number of royal families and monarchs may well have declined. The 1947 law came into effect when Japan was under occupation by American forces after losing the Second World War. America has an anti-monarchal and anti-nobility tradition that dates back to the American Revolution, when the control of the 13 Colonies by King George III and the English Parliament was overthrown. Thus, it was natural for the occupation to go about promulgating a law that stripped nobles of their titles. Perhaps that was a mistake, given the rules of succession that traditionally surround monarchies. --Rickyrab | Talk 16:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Rickyrab. I concur that the rise of democracy and Westernisation over the last 200 years has led to a decline in the monarchical government worldwide and Eurasia in particular. Despite this there are still some crowned heads in East Asia (other than the current occupant of the Chrysanthemum Throne). As examples I present the kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan, and Cambodia. I recall one member of the Cambodian Norodom dynasty, a granddaughter of HM Norodom Sihanouk, married an American a few years ago. (The groom was unaware of his fiancee's royal status until after he'd proposed.) As Japan is a prominent figure in the global market, it would make sense that these smaller states would be lesser known or overlooked. -- 65.92.74.227 22:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

A japanese princess has married a commoner

Hooray! -Patrick Beverley

Someone vandalized the article again.

Princess category

Should we remove Sayako from the Princesses category? As she is no longer a part of the imperial family (opinions not stated, just facts) and she is not longer a princess, she should be removed. Would appreciate any input. Prsgoddess187 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, she was born a princess, and only recently married and had her royal status changed. I say we leave her in the Princesses category until the new year, when people are more accustomed to the fact she's a commoner, and then remove her from the list. Is it possible to put her married name, followed by her birth title in brackets, until then? -- 64.229.254.229 01:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I will take care of it. Thanks for the input.Prsgoddess187 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be located at "Kuroda Sayako?"

She is known in Japanese as Kuroda Sayako, so shouldn't we respect that custom and name her article as that?

No, the practice is to name such Japanese articles as how English speakers would say the name. If you switch this article, you'd have to switch EVERY Japanese person who has an article here, and it's safe to say that would cause a little insurrection. Mike H. That's hot 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)