Why is Japan the only Asian monarchy to have survived?

Why is Japan the only Asian monarchy to have survived?

MacArthur let them.

Because the Emperor has once again been relegated to the status of a figurehead

ummmm Thailand, Brunei

>thailand and brunei are no longer monarchies or asian

Chinese monarchy was manchurian so people didn't care much to keep it in place

Because are msons now

Cambodia has a king still

I meant East Asian style Emperors or Huangdi.

Thailand has a Maharaja

Brunei has a Sultan

Hirohito was a good boy

So if you solely meant China, Korea and Japan why did you say Asia? Also the ME is Asia and the Gulf States have monarchies out the ass.

this

Korean monarchy lost legitimacy after failing to reform the government and cooperating with the Japanese. The last Korean scion with a chance of being raised to a constitutional monarchy because of his personal charisma and stalwart patriotism got blown up in Hiroshima.

It isnt there are plenty of asian dynasties still there.

Cambodia also has a king, and the royal family has been crucial in its modern history (if mostly for the worse).

BTW Cambodia's form of government has to be the more bizarre going: "Unitary dominant-party parliamentary elective constitutional monarchy" (according to Wikipedia)

Because the Emperor doesn't really DO anything that actually affects the country.

Born to look dopey.

They have the biggest hats. That's why

It didn't survive WWII.

You may be on to something there.

First post best post

I can only identify Japan, can someone tell me the others?

By being so unimportant enough that people ignored their existence.

Also
>Ming Dynasty
>Having a flag.
Cringe.

bhutan and thailand

From left to right:
China(Ming), Japan, Korea(Joseon), Ryuukyuu, Vietnam(Nguyen)

>

Lookin crisp af

He certainly was crisp

Don’t trust this guy with the cavalry

>Semantics.

Because MacArthur needed a puppet to keep post-WW2 Japan under control

It's not just semantics. They represent different civilizations.

Thank you

The shift from a feudalism to capitalism is naturally fatal to pretty much all monarchy. Nearly everywhere in the world it's been the same. And I think it's mostly random which countries have monarchies that manage to "survive".

Those that did make it, outside of randomness, I think show signs of being the most conciliatory and adaptive to the times, if not already weakened and partially reformed (as was the case for Britain). Strong traditional monarchies that tried to hold on to their powerful near absolute position, i.e. France and Russia, ended up getting fucked over the worst.

Japan is unique in Asia in they willfully, and successfully, rode the wave of industrialization/westernization. And they did it early. So people were modern, but not so modern that they were used to not having a monarch as at least still a figurehead. A good fit for constitutional monarchy. Plus, due to the Shogun situation, the democratizing modernists of Japan during the radical liberal days were actually culturally allied with the traditional monarchy as a useful legitimizing face for their power.

Usually the situation is the modernist rebels are making reform demands of a monarchy that keeps telling them "no". Monarchy vastly underestimates the tides of change and ends up headless for their arrogance. In Japan's case, the Tokugawa Shogunate took that role.

Theres christian masons too, and deist ones

/thread

He lives in a lavish palace though. Who pays for that? I always wondered about that in England too.

The queen of England gets her money from the state, but she also pays a lot in taxes to the state because of a land deal they made back in the 19th century.

kek

Same reason it took to industrialization so well.

island = enhanced security plus a motivation to invest in a modern navy
temperate environment = good grain production and high urbanization

Their transition was smoother and they avoided the large social upheavals that befell other asian countries.

At least young Prince Hirohito was kinda handsome

It's his palace he owns it.
He's a net contributor to the economy, and so is the Queen, you retarded republican asswipe.

>japan
>unimportant

>In Japan's case, the Tokugawa Shogunate took that role.

Shogunate change to Tokugawa had nothing to do with modernism and was almost the opposite as Tokugawa kept Japan pretty tightly shut. Even after Meiji restoration the emperor was fucking useless. He did have the final word in war but never did things on his own. The only reason Japan surrendered in WW2 was because the war council was split and had to call for the emperor.

What are Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Nepal, and probably more irrelevant kingdoms I can't remember

They exterminated the competition.

Wew, lad. I was just asking. I'm not a repub; that's even worse than being a libertarian. I just wanted to know. I had a feeling it was something along those lines and just wanted to be sure. I know in a lot of country where old nobility existed, that at least some of them became successful business owners by making smart investments.

>Once again
He wish. The emperors of japan have been cucked since the first shogun, the most they achieved was to become constitutional monarchs with Meiji

That's not what republican means in this context. I'd be snarkier, but you're clearly trying to learn things.

Juche is a pseudo-monarchy and is closer to Show Japan than modern Japan is.

I mean people who support republics, not members of the American Republican Party.

The Emperor is so powerless he has to ask the parliament if he wishes to participate in literally any political stuff

The monarchy, not the country, dingus.

Based on the pic I think OP meant East Asian or specifically sinosphere-style monarchies. Those you mentioned are all historically more Indian-influenced.

The United States didn't excute the Royal Family and go full Republic with Japan.

>Chinese emperor.
>Ends at 1646
Han nationalists are fucking retarded.

>tfw Nepal’s monarchy recently collapsed and Maoist rebels took over
>and no one cares

In Europe, even in thoroughly republican countries like France there’s a latent, sometimes barely conscious want for a king. Though it doesn’t always translate into outright monarchism. In the case of France, politically, monarchism is dead, however polls show that a large part of the population wouldn’t be opposed to a king and believe it would be positive for France, it’s prestige and national unity, but basically they wouldn’t go out of their way to restore the monarchy. You can see similar sentiment in other countries, at various levels of support (Romania, Serbia, Russia, even Germany has 1/3 of young people who want a monarchy, Georgia has outright 79% of people who favor monarchy).

So my question is, is there any similar sentiment in Asia? Even outright monarchism? I can’t imagine it would be too tolerated in China or Vietnam, but what about other countries? Does anyone know?

Should monarchism return, should a nation select a previously-ruling dynasty? A new face among the remaining old blood, or whoever seems up to the task of founding an entirely new bloodline? Could monarchy ever return through a referendum, or only through some manner of societal upheaval? Would a nation accept a foreign dynasty for some measure of legitimacy, or will they instead opt for a Mandate of Heaven affair?

Chinese royalty literally doesn't work on "muh blood" autism.

Its always established by a Chad who won the traditional interdynastic wars during dynastic declines and after restoring peace and order declares he has Mandate.

While descendants of previous dynasties were honored with titles of nobility, they nonetheless lost legitimacy to rule.