http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5040036/site/newsweek/
Sure, some people are going to say that the Crown Princess was old enough to know what she was getting into. But from what I have read I would guess that the damned Imperial Household Agency left out a few details.
Kudos to the Crown Prince for defending the princess. He seems to care about her. But he’s still letting their life be managed in such a way as to let his own wife become seriously ill. He needs to grow a stiffer spine and tell the IHA, and his father, to back off and keep their promise to let Masako do her thing.
Why would anyone live that way? So what if it’s the world’s oldest royal house. Serves 'em right, implying that a woman just isn’t good enough.
I should have added that of course I know that Japan is now a constitutional monarchy, and the the Emperor reigns, and does not rule. But the woman still has received a raw deal.
Royalty is such a disgusting and barbaric tradition. Not only for the implicit evil of the notion that political power should be granted via birthright, but for the asinine machinations that such a position necessitates. It’s been clear for some time now that the Crown Princess is essentially a slave.
I regard all forms of this tradition, even those in democratic countries, as an embarassment to the human species.
OK, but I still don’t think that Americans, on the whole, understand how constitutionial monarchy works. A constitutional monarch is a strictly apolitical figurehead, with no power or influence over the day-to-day or even year-to-year running of the country. Indeed, if such a monarch ever got it into his or her head to meddle in the running of the country, that country would probably convert to a republic in short order.
But most of those countries are happy to stay as they are, with vestigial monarchies, perhaps for sentimental reasons, but possibly also because they see advantage in a system which prevents people becoming head of state merely because they are rich, attractive or influential. Better to choose heads of state by the accident of birth, groom them for the job,and severely limit their powers, is the thinking. It’s a bit of a raw deal for the poor sods involved, but they get very well paid, and can always opt out if they really hate it.
Japanese imperial household is pretty strange. Health problems of the spouses crops up. I remember when the empress was striken with some “unkonwn” disease that left her unable to speak for a period of time in the early1990’s.
To the OP, one of the key differences of a constitutional monarchy is that citizens can be supportive of their monarch yet be opposed to the leader of the country. Now, if one thinks that patriotic americans should take to the streets against Pres Bush and co, that anger can be directed toward both the President and the country. However, in a gross generalization, English may be up in arms against Blair, but still retain respect for the monarchy.
There are also cases such as Thailand where the King is highly respected. Although no formal powers he stepped in and stopped the killing in the streets in 1993 (?). Hard to forget the live TV coverage where the head of the military and head of the opposition both on their knees crawling to the King, where viewers could see them getting a right royal talking to. Killings ended that day.
