Talk:Succession to the Chinese throne

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Is this "line" really relevant?

"Normal" lines of pretenders assume that there is someone actually claiming (at least semi-actively) the throne. In this case, is there any evidence there was ever a claim by anyone of this family? I have a feeling wikipedia is inventing pretenders that have never pretended. DGtal (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my opinion as well. If we use traditional concept of the Mandate of Heaven, the Qing dynasty lost it in the 1911 Xinhai Revolution and it is the Republic of China that succeeded it. This could be proved by the event that the Puyi restoration attempt in 1917 failed. The notion of pretender looks Western in the sense that it is argued the Mandate of Heaven never left the deposed dynasty, which isn't true in Chinese historiography (for example, the Eastern Han succeeded in restoration, so technically that pretender talk was valid).

Besides the Mandate of Heaven issue, another thorny point is we still have the descendants of Song, Ming, and Tang dynasties etc. Who decides they can't be the line of succession to the pretense Chinese throne? --JNZ (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks citations to prove that "pretenders" have been actively involved in claiming the title of Chinese emperor. Thus I added a few lines to say they are only potential pretenders --Baojie (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it even agnatic male line primogeniture? When in power Qing succession doesn't seem to have worked like that (examples: Yuyan's line descends from a son of the Daoguang Emperor born in 1831 (Yicong). Puyi descended from a son of the Daoguang Emperor who was born in 1840 (Pu'an Yixuan); the Guangxu Emperor succeeded the Tongzhi Emperor, even though the Guangxu Emperor's father was still alive).

Rather, as I understood it, the Qing Emperors chose their successors from any of their children by designating them Crown Prince. Assuming this holds, the primogeniture model presented here is therefore complete misinformation, which even now is being spread across the internet as if it were fact. User:Furius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.106.37 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuyan

In response to DGtal's comment above: For Wiki's purposes it makes no difference what the subject himself might have claimed or not claimed. We follow our sources. Pujie was the brother of the last emperor and a public figure in China. The RS applied various phrases to him that suggest pretender status, including "emperor-in-waiting", "heir to China's throne" (Chicago Tribune), and "ending dynasty of the Manchus" (New York Times). The Yuyan story comes from a travel adventure book called The Empty Throne (1993). It did not get any coverage in more mainstream sources. I have rewritten this article accordingly. Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR added concerning Manchukuo

I don't see any basis to believe that the title of Manchukuo pretender exists, even as a concept, off-Wikipedia. None of cited sources say anything about Manchukuo. The article in The Age is titled, "Heir to China's throne celebrates a modest life". If there really was a line of succession to the Manchukuo throne, that would not belong in this article anyway. Pujie is portrayed as Puyi's heir in various news accounts and other mainstream sources. The only English-language source for the Yuyan story is Scotland's account. (Yuyan's memoir was published in Chinese. I assume the story is given there as well.) This account is quite fringe and certainly not, "the commonly accepted theory". Not only that, but Scotland doesn't say anything about Manchukuo either. The idea that Puyi's claim to one throne was inherited by one person, but his claim to another throne was inherited by a different person is WP:OR and makes no sense. Wiki does not have authority to interpret succession law. From the way Puyi's autobiography is written, he obviously does not want the reader to think of Yuyan as his heir, and there is no documentation to show that he ever was. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I was concerned but didn't have the time to follow it up. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince" Yuyan & Hengzhen

Should either Yuyan or Hengzhen be referred to by the title prince in the third paragraph of the lead. Neither officially held the title or had it acknowledged by any real source. Hengzhen doesn't even claim the title for himself.108.46.147.132 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article is misinformation

I suggest that this article should be deleted, because none of these "pretenders" showed any will to return to the throne. - George6VI (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see earlier disscusion in which I made a similar claim but was rejected. DGtal (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the claim the page is irrelevant was already made years ago (by me) and answered in talk page. It might be suitable for deletion but not without due disscussion. --DGtal (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I have considered more about this issue. First, there are so many dynaties of China (as seen in Dynasties in Chinese history), and theoretically there are many royal houses that can have pretenders, though may not bein modern times. The succession rule of Qing dynasty is not absolute primogeniture (the most known method is zh:秘密建儲制, by which the heir is known once the emperor is dead or he abdicates), though in later period, empress dowager chose the next she liked. Back to this article, the law used in it is from that of Manchukuo, so it may decrease confusion if the title is named like Line of succession to the former Manchukuo throne, because as mentioned above, there is more than one former royal houses in China and there's often no connection between dynasties. - George6VI (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of another dynasty around after almost 400 years seems a bit unlikely, but everything is possible, so on the unlikely case we find evidence of such a pretender dynasty we can add it. I wouldn't change the article so quickly. DGtal (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a news story about the Tang pretender or the Ming pretender, we can add that. That is not a reason to rename the article.
The convention for pretenders is to base succession on the "latest agreed upon rule of the house." Several major English-language papers published stories acknowledging Pujie's status as Puyi's successor. This is based on a succession law that Puyi issued in 1937. Qing custom was for the emperor to designate his successor in an edict or will. That logic also suggests Pujie as pretender (as opposed to Yuyan). Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion

Sorry for my previous comment, I didn't notice the previous ones. I know there's an article, zh:二王三恪, which can be a close article to Chinese pretender, since it is about the noble titles that was given to former dynasty members by the reigning dynasty. I don't know anyone here knows Chinese well enough to translate the article, but at least this Chinese article can be a reference, and we can put the current "Chinese pretenders" down to the Manchukuo section, which can be a better option - George6VI (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are Puyi's successors?" and "What do we call them?" are two separate questions. As far as the succession goes, the 1937 law provides that half brothers can succeed in the absence of closer relatives: "Among the Imperial brothers precedence shall be given, in the same degree, to the descendants of full blood over those of half blood" (Article 8).
So what should we call these people? Here is an article from The Telegraph about Jin Yuzhang, the current pretender: "The Chinese man who would be emperor." It is all about how he "might well now be Great Emperor of the Qing Dynasty." There is no mention of Manchukuo. If you can cite any source off Wikipedia that refers to "Manchukuo pretenders," or "heirs to the Manchukuo throne," please do. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1937, Qing dynasty was no longer existed while the law was made when Puyi was the Manchukuo monarch. As to the succession rule of Qing dynasty, which I mean here is the time before 1911, is known as zh:祕密建儲制, mentioned above. That's why I regarded the 1937 law can't apply to Qing dynasty, therefore the pretender of whole Chinese empire. I will rewrite the whole article because it's not enough to mention Qing dynasty only. - George6VI (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to any of the points I made. Nobody in the published English-language sources calls Puyi's relatives Manchukuo pretenders, heirs, royalty, or anything like that. What you are proposing is WP:original research. Whiff of greatness (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on some more contents with more ancient resources, and you can see them in my sandbox, User:George6VI/sandbox. With those books, I can say I'm not making original research, though it does take time to make it perfect. I have to say that Qing dynasty didn't make a line of succession because Yongzheng Emperor made a method, which can be seen Yongzheng Emperor#Death and succession, the second paragraph. - George6VI (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are improving the article by adding material about Manchukuo. Only a small percentage of readers will know what Manchukuo is. Manchukuo law is defunct, so it cannot give anyone a valid claim to anything. The 1937 law is relevant because it is an edict of the final Chinese emperor. That it is also Manchukou law is incidental. Whiff of greatness (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not usual for a Chinese Dynasty dynasty to transition so smoothly into another, as is depicted in history timelines, since dynasties were often established before the overthrow of an existing reign, or continued for a time after they had been defeated. This isn't even grammatical. If it means what I think it means, it's not relevant. Whiff of greatness (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Qing dynasty and Manchukuo is defunct. Manchukuo was a part of the Chinese history, not popular in English world isn't my fault. As I said, there's no official line of succession of Qing dynasty, the last recognized dynasty of China, so it's safe to say that there's no current pretender to the Chinese throne; though Puyi was the Qing emperor and than the Manchukuo's, the law he made more concerned at his empire at that time. In fact, his nephew now regards himself as a titular head of Aisin Gioro rather than a Chinese emperor. As to my poor-grammared edit you mentioned, it was from another article Dynasties in Chinese history; the purpose of that statement is for me to add more claimants existed throughout Chinese history (which means the title will be like "Pretenders to the former Chinese throne") and I'll put the current content down to the section "Qing/Manchukuo" - George6VI (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can write your own article. The namespace Pretenders to the Chinese throne is available. The "former" in this title suggests the article's focus needs to be post-1912. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem of your article. Without former, it would be like China were still a monarchy, and I said, no official line of succession exists, so I will rename the article. - George6VI (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I'm following you. "Head of the former imperial clan" might be a better title. But the "pretender" usage is quite well established, at least on Wikipedia. On the top left of this article, there is a box with more than 50 links to Wikipedia's other former monarchy articles. You can compare their usage to this article. I don't know what you mean by "official". I added a People's Daily article to show that the Chinese press also portrays Jin Yuzhang as a would be emperor -- in Wikipedia terms, a pretender. ("If the dynasty had not been ousted in the revolutionary storm in 1911, Jin...may have ascended the throne and become an emperor.") Whiff of greatness (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That title is indeed a better one, thank you. In fact, I guess I will exclude this article out of the template, reasons I mentioned above. "Official" means that it requires to have a law or document to support the line of succession, which Qing dynasty never had (even if the emperor had a alive brother, any of his nephew can be chosen as his heir, just like Emperor Guang Xu passed the throne to his nephew Puyi). The article gave confusion to Chinese themselves when they look deeper in the case, and I will fix them to enhance the reliabities. The format may be like Pretenders to the throne of Parma. - George6VI (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to put a new article in new a namespace. You have destroyed a perfectly good article and replaced it with another article on a different topic. You proposed a similar rename at RM. No one else expressed support. The old version represented consensus for many years. I can't say this new version is an improvement. Whiff of greatness (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put the new material at Head of the former Chinese imperial clan. After reworking the article as Head of the former Chinese imperial clan George6VI remove this article from the former monarchies template.[1] This article was created to be China's entry on the template. If the material George6VI wrote does not merit a link on the template, we still need the old version of the article. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the article with references, although Puyi made the succession law in 1937, it doesn't mean that it is the line succession of the former Chinese throne, just because Puyi was the last emperor. In fact, he made the law when he was emperor of Manchukuo, not China; in Qing dynasty, no line of succession was made. You don't know anything of Chinese history, but I do, because Chinese is my first language, and you don't ever edit Chinese Wikipedia... only if you can read Chinese, then you may get what I mean. (How can a collection of news can be reliable than the law?...) - George6VI (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus for changes. You already proposed an RM to resolve this issue. You are supposed to await the outcome and abide by what the closer decides. It's bad faith to bypass your own RM. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia policy is the follow the WP:RS on naming, not defunct laws. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just wait until more users to comment? If there is more users comment about the article, then the thing can be more clear. - George6VI (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to opening

The opening now reads "Historically, the Chinese throne would be succeeded by a member of the ruling clan (i.e. from the same dynasty) upon the death or abdication of the monarch."[2] That's just how monarchy works, but the phrasing makes it sound like this is some weird Chinese custom. Here is the earlier version: "Historically, a Chinese emperor would pick one of his many sons to succeed him. So it was not usually possible for an individual to gain recognition as the heir to a dethroned dynasty." 99to99 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]