Zompist Bboard Again

Flaminguses?

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:54 pmGot named after the Greater and the Common Flamingos. Flamingoes? Flamingi?

Flamingines. (Third declension.)

People who have some knowledge of world history have usually heard about the very limited contacts and relations between Japan and the West during the era of the Tokugawa Shogunate. But what about the relations between Japan and China during the same era? Somehow, we in the West seem to hear very little about that topic.

I understand them to have been also fairly limited. Much Japanese borrowing of Sinitic vocabulary and cultural elements would've happened centuries before.

Okinawa was largely immune to the restrictions against foreign trade, and trade between Okinawa and the main islands also happened, creating a sort of "back door" into China.

Thank you both, interesting!

If memory serves, there were some formal relations between Japan and Joseon Korea at the time.

Checking the book on modern Japan I'm reading: contact with China was limited too. There was a good deal of trade, but it all went through either Nagasaki or Okinawa. (The latter wasn't officially part of Japan; Satsuma was the entry port for Chinese goods going to Okinawa. Nagasaki was also the only place where the Dutch could trade.) Trade with Korea went through the island of Tsushima, which is near Busan. Private travel abroad was prohibited. Diplomatic ties were pursued with Korea and Okinawa, but not China, as China insisted that all diplomacy acknowledge its superiority.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:08 pm Checking the book on modern Japan I'm reading: contact with China was limited too. There was a good deal of trade, but it all went through either Nagasaki or Okinawa. (The latter wasn't officially part of Japan; Satsuma was the entry port for Chinese goods going to Okinawa. Nagasaki was also the only place where the Dutch could trade.) Trade with Korea went through the island of Tsushima, which is near Busan. Private travel abroad was prohibited. Diplomatic ties were pursued with Korea and Okinawa,

Thank you, interesting!

but not China, as China insisted that all diplomacy acknowledge its superiority.

Yeah, to some extent I was wondering about how two political systems that each saw their own emperor as the rightful ruler of the entire world were handling each other.

In 1802 (or so) George III finally agreed to stop pretending that he was technically the King of France through his relation to Edward III (the grandson of Philip IV of France). By then, of course, "King of France" wasn't even a thing, so it was moot. But what about the other claims?

There are three main ones in question: Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, and Duke of Aquitaine. The Queen still holds the title of Duke of Normandy, but it's not clear to me what that means legally. The duchy was divided in 1259, so "Duke of Normandy" could be synonymous with "Duke of the Channel Islands" (i.e. with no claim to land in mainland France). She does not claim to be the Count(ess) of Anjou, or the Duke or Duchess of Aquitaine. Anjou was lost in 1259 and British Aquitaine was reduced to a stub in 1389, but both were reconquered by Henry V. His descendants ultimately lost the war with France, but there was no formal treaty. So as far as I can see nothing would have stopped subsequent English monarchs from claiming that they were still "Duke of Aquitaine," just as they continued to claim they were "King of France." Were these also relinquished by George III?

Anybody willing to be a pen pal/language buddy for someone trying to learn Polish? Willingness to tolerate the basic conversations and topics at first (since I’m starting the book) is a huge plus.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:26 pm There are three main ones in question: Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, and Duke of Aquitaine. The Queen still holds the title of Duke of Normandy, but it's not clear to me what that means legally. The duchy was divided in 1259, so "Duke of Normandy" could be synonymous with "Duke of the Channel Islands" (i.e. with no claim to land in mainland France). She does not claim to be the Count(ess) of Anjou, or the Duke or Duchess of Aquitaine. Anjou was lost in 1259 and British Aquitaine was reduced to a stub in 1389, but both were reconquered by Henry V. His descendants ultimately lost the war with France, but there was no formal treaty. So as far as I can see nothing would have stopped subsequent English monarchs from claiming that they were still "Duke of Aquitaine," just as they continued to claim they were "King of France." Were these also relinquished by George III?

I don't know, but I would guess yes? But if you're going to have fantasy titles at all, might as well use the best one, no? That is, why bother to call yourself Duke of Aquitaine if you can also call yourself King of France?

Speaking of people who called themselves King of France, there was a dude named Jaime who did, and he named his son Gonzalo as Duke of Aquitaine in 1973. Jaime was also apparently really the Duke of Segovia, but also called himself Duke of Madrid and Duke of Anjou to support various claims. So that actually might be a reason for someone to use a lesser title: the world at large wasn't going to call Jaime "King of France", but he could get in the papers under one of his duchies.

(Jaime wasn't a random dude; as the 2nd son of Alfonso XIII, he had a better claim to the Spanish throne than Juan Carlos, who was son of Alfonso's third son. Wikipedia says he renounced his claim in 1933, but somehow claimed to be both head of the House of Bourbon and of the Carlists.)

There are two reasons why I ask this question:

1) Of course the monarchs care about lower titles. The Queen is still literally the Duke of Lancaster. She is also a knight of the Order of the Elephant, Defender of the Earth, and colonel-in-chief of the Canadian Army Reserve. She has multiple ribbons and honors just from Slovenia. Caring about this shit is, like, 90% of your day as a royal.

2) As we've seen with the Duchy of Normandy, the royals can lose a fight eight hundred years ago and still not give up. Before the securely nation-stated version of France we all know and love, this could have huge implications. One of the pretexts of the HYW was Edward's claim to Aquitaine. Saying "who cares, that's part of France so it's France that matters" only makes sense in a modern context. Here's an example of how this could be important in a conworlding perspective: imagine the English never vacated île aux Oiseaux when they lost northern Gascony. The Queen today might still be calling herself "Duke of Aquitaine." You could have a server farm in the middle of a bird sanctuary selling andrenochrome to pedophiles or whatever it is people do in Jersey.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:36 am 2) As we've seen with the Duchy of Normandy, the royals can lose a fight eight hundred years ago and still not give up. Before the securely nation-stated version of France we all know and love, this could have huge implications. One of the pretexts of the HYW was Edward's claim to Aquitaine.

Of course, but as you yourself pointed out, the Brits claimed to be kings of France. Way past the end of that war. The Brits are... slow to acknowledge that the world has changed in any way.

I mean, I totally agree that they could have continued to style themselves Duke of Aquitaine. Obviously, however, they were well able to fight wars with France for hundreds of years without doing so.

Plus, Channel Islands aside, surely one reason for the Duchy of Normandy is sentimentality? It was William's fief after all. And the title didn't prevent the French from using the exact same title when they felt like it.

I think there are, currently, at least two Dukes of Anjou. One is the current légitimiste pretender to the French crown (and if I get my wacky royalist cranks right, the grandson of the aforementioned Jaime). The other is a Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, who is I think a cousin of Jean d'Orléans, the orléaniste pretender (who by tradition holds the title of Comte de Paris.)

Indeed no one in their right mind is going to call any of these dudes 'king of France', but they do get people to call them Count of Paris or Duke of Anjou.

(If you're curious: both sides are a bunch of fascist nuts.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 6:03 am(If you're curious: both sides are a bunch of fascist nuts.)

I would say that goes without saying if not for the example of Carlos Hugo in Spain, who was somehow both royalist and socialist. (Incidentally, Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, one of your Dukes of Anjou, is also a rival claimant to the throne of Spain, because who doesn't want a personal union of the Spanish and French kingdoms?)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:47 am (Incidentally, Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, one of your Dukes of Anjou, is also a rival claimant to the throne of Spain, because who doesn't want a personal union of the Spanish and French kingdoms?)

Oh, is he? I though that branch of the family had quietly dropped the idea when Franco told them to.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:47 ambecause who doesn't want a personal union of the Spanish and French kingdoms?)

All the powers who fought against the Bourbons in the War of the Spanish Succession?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:47 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 6:03 am(If you're curious: both sides are a bunch of fascist nuts.)

I would say that goes without saying if not for the example of Carlos Hugo in Spain, who was somehow both royalist and socialist.

I may probably be misremembering, but haven't there been a few countries that were socialist while also retaining a monarchy? (Thailand comes to mind...though i may be conflating it with something else)

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:01 pmI may probably be misremembering, but haven't there been a few countries that were socialist while also retaining a monarchy?

How do you class Nordic societies?