Live data from Hacker News

Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

nytimes.com

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we should disambiguate the two: factoid, brief fact. Infactoid, brief seemingly true fact that is not due to repeated use. It's not literally as bad as the figuritive misuse of literally, where literally has come to mean figuratively and literally... This one I fight all day long.

Well it is just a fairly recently invented word, sure, but it is rather telling that it was apparently CNN that jumped on the word and used it to mean 'trivial fact'

Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like.

Ironically, maybe this was the intention of the way this word was derived. It seems like it should mean a brief/small fact, but in fact it means an untrue fact, therefore serving as a perfectly recursive example of itself.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it is just a fairly recently invented word, sure, but it is rather telling that it was apparently CNN that jumped on the word and used it to mean 'trivial fact'

Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like. Ironically, maybe this was the intention of the way this word was derived. It seems like it should mean a brief/small fact, but in fact it means an untrue fact, therefore serving as a perfectly recursive example of itself.

> Well, it was a reporter inside CNN, just a person like us, who through repeatedly hearing factoid assumed that it meant what it sounds like.

"Factoid" does mean what it sounds like (that is, it is a simple application of the common suffix "-oid" to the root "fact", both in their usual senses.)

The use CNN latched on to is not what it sounds like.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#173
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia voted against the chance to replace its constitutional monarchy because of ambiguities and uncertainties about these questions. People know what they are getting with the existing systems and the constitutional monarchs have no real power. If you're changing that you have to be very careful.

Judging by the results of the last election, the Queen is probably more popular in Australia than any of the party leaders. But I suspect that Australia, and many other commonwealth countries, will vote to become republics after Prince Charles becomes king.

Political figures with little real power are almost always more popular than those who do wield real power.

Even the same person can see a big difference depending on the popular perception of their power--see Hillary Clinton's favorability rating after she resigned as Secretary of State vs. now when she is running for President.

If Charles, as king, tries to stick his nose in things, he will be unpopular. But if he remains a distant figurehead, I bet he will still be more popular than the elected politicians in Australia.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first. I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to thei…

Regarding 'no real power', This is often said but its not true. There have been occasions the monarchy have used their power but it goes largely unreported. One such occasion is 1975 in Australia where the government was thrown out using the monarch's power. The monarch hardly uses this power but it does if things go awry. Also the 'consuming public tax dollars' argument is incorrect. The monarchy of the UK pays net…

I'm familiar that some monarchs technically still have some ability to influence government. But they use it very rarely, because they know if they overuse it, it will be taken away. You mention Australia, but Australia did try to leave the commonwealth in 1999, perhaps in response to that. The only reason they didn't is because the vote was split on exactly what system of government to replace it with.

I've heard the argument that royalty is a net gain in taxes. My point was that they aren't universally popular and there are movements to remove them. Anyway the fact they own lots of land is silly, since it was inherited from centuries ago, when it was originally taken by force. There is nothing stopping the government from cutting them off and continuing to use their land.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy. You get all the benefits from democratically chosen representatives without the downside of the 4-year moodswings. The monarch will always choose what is best for the country instead of what is best for the currently ruling party. It looks at long-term vision instead of just the 4-year term. It takes care of continuity instead of the "this will not be my problem in 6 mont…

I live in a constitutional monarchy. But my Queen and her family don't even live in my country, and she is rather more attached to the one she does live in. I'm sure she chooses what is "best for the country", but it's not always clear which country that may mean.

Canada? Australia? NZ?

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#176
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. He divorced and remarried which makes him ineligible for the crown.

I thought Henry VIII did a thing to make divorce permissible for kings and prices? Is there an official place where the succession is listed and laws detailed?

Henry VIII was primarily concerned about himself and producing an heir. He did what he did solely to remove the obstacles that he faced to achieve this goal. All his actions dealt with his marriages on a case-by-case basis, and did not establish some sort of divorce legal precedent.

His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question.

When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders.

Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife.

His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard.

The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died.

So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#177
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick FYI - factoid: a false fact that is repeated often enough to become accepted as true.

Your little factoid is an example of the definition of factoid you're describing. But there are other definitions of factoid and I suspect the most common one is along the lines "small tidbit of information".

-oid is a suffix indicating falseness, e.g. an android is a false man, and asteroid is a false star — and a factoid is a false fact. 'Factlet' would be the right word for a tiny fact.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#178
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I am cynical but are you sure they didn't vote against it because they like "traditions", pretty parades and hand-waving and think princes and princesses are quaint and fun and secretly in their hearts they wish they could be one? I do live in a 1000-year-old constitutional monarchy after all and that's the pro arguments I tend to hear. "Good for tourism" is another one.

> "Good for tourism" is another one. Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.

Maybe Australia should add a hereditary upper house, then.

Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#179
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, consider the example of France. The fourth republic had a symbolic president, and the fifth republic has a very powerful president, because DeGaulle demanded executive power as a condition of assuming the presidency during the Algerian crisis of the late 1950s. That's why the fourth republic ended and the fifth republic began -- DeGaulle had a new constitution written. The situation in Japan is pre…

As you yourself say, the situation in Japan is pretty stable. The events in France you mention was during wartime, in the lead-up to what could be called "colonial collapse". Hardly comparable. It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not. I don…

> It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not.

Why should society be egalitarian? Nature isn't.

Why shouldn't society recognise the heirs of great men specially?

I think that the ideal government has voices for the great mass of the people; for the magnates; and for a monarch. The U.K. system — until Tony Blair destroyed it — was good for exactly this, although the removal of the Lords' ability to block legislation, and the addition of life peers were recent mistakes.

Re: Emperor Akihito of Japan Raises Possibility of Leaving Throne

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. These days head of states in parliamentary systems don't do their jobs One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.

Do you honestly believe that the Queen should have stepped in? That would have been totally undemocratic, and it would have undermined constitutional part of constitutional monarchy.

If Queen Elizabeth truly believes that her government is in error, it is her sworn duty to refuse Royal Assent to erroneous laws, and use all her reserve powers to correct it (when asked, 'Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?' at her coronation, she answered, 'I will').

Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything.

I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.

Post reply on HN