Talk:Tokugawa Ietsugu

Died of natural causes?

Did Tokugawa Ietsugu die of "natural causes" at age seven or was it an illness or something?

ANSWER:

When I first encountered this Wikipedia text, the phrase "natural causes" had been written by some earlier contributor. I let it stand without further editing My understanding, such as it was, comes from Isaac Titsingh's 1820 French text in the New York Public Library's rare book collection. A 2006 re-working of the 1822 English translation of Titsingh's work informs my edit of this specific article -- that is, I rely on Timon Screech's Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh and Japan, 1779-1822. At pages 97-98, the Screech-edited text explains:

• "Minamoto no Ietsugu, son of Ienobu, was not of an age to govern when he succeeded his father. As he had no title on account of his extreme youth, he was called Nobumatsu kimi. The government was placed in the hands of counselors of state during the minority of the prince. At the beginning of the sixth year of Shōtoku (1716), the prince fell dangerously ill. Orders were immediately issued that public prayers should be said in the principal temples for his recovery, but they proved unavailing. The most skillful physicians also employed all the resources of their art, to no purpose. The young prince died on 30th of the fourth month of the same year [Shōtoku 2]. The whole empire went into mourning. He was buried near the temple of San'en-ji, and he priests gave him the name of Yūshō-in.

Ietsugu died of an illness or natural causes. In other words, he was not assassinated. --Ooperhoofd 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Succession box

An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns. Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.

Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats. In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied. Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.

Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box. This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)