tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post6792144789737851861..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Loyalist Holdouts of the Great MingMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-79208375863013264862016-10-26T15:30:43.455-05:002016-10-26T15:30:43.455-05:00It was the custom to grand noble titles to members...It was the custom to grand noble titles to members of previous dynasties overthrown in China. The Zhou dynasty overthrew the Shang dynasty and then granted a member of the Shang royal family the title of Duke of Song. Confucius himself was a descendant of the Dukes of Song and therefore his descendants, the Dukes Yansheng, were descendants of the Shang royal house. Mencius himself was a descendant of a cadet branch of the Zhou dynasty. The Mongol Yuan dynasty granted titles to Song royals after conquering the Song. The Song royal Zhao Mengfu painted for the Yuan royal court. A lot of the hereditary nobility in China was in essence, the accumulated descendants of former dynasties which were overthrown. The Qing dynasty nobility consisted of descendants of the Shang dynasty (Confucius's descendants ), Zhou dynasty (Mencius's descendants), Yuan dynasty (Mongol Princes), Ming dynasty (Marquis of Extended Grace).<br /><br />There is a somewhat well known monarchist in China today. Jiang Qing promotes the revival of Confucianism to replace Marxist thought. He advocates for a "trilateral parliament" system with a sort of House of Peers equivalent called- "House of Cultural Continuity" with hereditary positions filled by the descendants of Confucius and the descendants of previous overthrown dynasties along with Buddhist, Daoist, Muslim, and Christian religious leaders. One would assume that it would include representatives of the Qing, Ming, Yuan, Song, Tang and Sui dynasties as well as the hereditary Daoist Celestial Masters. He suggests Confucius's descendants, the former Dukes Yansheng, be appointed as "King" to preside over this house. <br /><br />His vision is outlined on pages six and seven of this article.<br /><br />http://www.academia.edu/4357458/Jiang_Qing_China_s_New_Traditionalist<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing_(Confucian)<br /><br />Jiang Qing is the one of the only vocal monarchists making his opinions known in China.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-46158066865936052142016-10-26T15:29:48.667-05:002016-10-26T15:29:48.667-05:00The Republic of China after 1912 was supported to ...The Republic of China after 1912 was supported to retain the Qing Emperor in the Forbidden City like the Pope in the Vatican, and retain the entire system of Chinese nobility. The Republic of China initially retained most of them- Uyghur nobles like the Khans of Kumul and Khan of Turfan, various Mongol Princes in Inner Mongolia and Qinghai, various Tibetan princes in Kham, the Eight Manchu Qing royal Aisin Gioro "Iron Cap" Princes, and Han Chinese nobles like the northern Confucius branch of Duke Yansheng and the southern branch of Confucius descendants who had the title "Wujing Boshi" as well as descendants of ancient Chinese philosophers like Mencius, Yan Hui, Zengzi, who also had the title "Wujing Boshi" and finally the Ming Marquis of Extended Grace. They were all to keep their hereditary titles and receive stipends from the government of the Republic of China. (The reason that there were two noble titles granted to different branches of the Confucius family is because of the Southern Song and Jurchen Jin dynasty appointing different brothers as the Duke Yansheng which split into different cadet branches)<br /><br />The Beiyang warlord government from 1912-1927 kept most of the noble titles intact. However the agreement at the Forbidden City didn't hold up as we all know because of the brief restoration in 1917. Most of the noble titles were terminated after the Kuomintang seized power in 1927. The Marquis of Extended Grace didn't receive his pension for years and his title got terminated in 1933. The Uyghur hereditary Khanates at Turfan and Kumul got the boot and were terminated in 1930. The last holders of the Aisin Gioro Iron Cap peerages like Zaizhen, the Prince Qing, were allowed to hold their titles but after their deaths in the 1940s, their titles were terminated. Tibetan and Mongol Princes lost their titles after 1949.<br /><br />The Republic of China only retained a grand total of four hereditary noble titles when it evacuated to Taiwan and downgraded them- Confucius's northern branch descendants holding the Duke Yansheng were downgraded to Sacrificial Official to Confucius, and the Wujing Boshi titles granted to Mencius's Yan Hui's, and Zengzi's descendants were downgraded as well to Sacrificial Official.<br /><br />The Republic of China government on Taiwan in 2008 stripped the pension paid to the four Sacrificial officials and turned them into symbolic titles with no payment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-86982313544765281742016-06-24T23:50:58.904-05:002016-06-24T23:50:58.904-05:00Peasant revolution is not anything new in the land...Peasant revolution is not anything new in the lands what we now occupied by China. Pre 250 B.C. all populations were classified into 5 casts - the lowest being peasants and slaves without casts (which is by default the 6th and 7th casts). Qin Dynasty (a short dormancy that lasted 14 years) was a harsh time and her demise started with direct revolts by 2 minor military officers. The other old time noblemen wanted to revive the 5 casts system and however the war was fought against another low ranking peasant by the name of Liu. Peasant wins and all the 5 casts system was not carried on. The pre Qin-Han noblemen and casts were survived by the family names now used by the Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and some Japanese.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07614514348748384592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20512607983030547742016-05-18T16:47:23.244-05:002016-05-18T16:47:23.244-05:00"Some might object to or be repelled by the n..."Some might object to or be repelled by the notion of monarchists being associated with a major force in organized crime such as the Triads but such would be rather selective outrage... After a certain point, most obviously when the pursuit of criminal enterprises overtook or entirely replaced efforts to restore the Ming Emperor, such activities can be soundly condemned. However, hardly anyone can be entirely untainted by association with those deemed 'criminals' by the powers-that-be, particularly during a period of 'regime-change'."<br /><br />This reminds one of the origins of the word "Tory" in English politics- from Irish Gaelic "toraidhe", meaning "pursued or hunted one; outlaw". Also known as Rapparees, Tories were originally supporters of James II who turned to banditry and highway robbery after their defeat. Like most party epithets, it entered politics as a term of abuse aimed at those believed by their enemies (probably falsely) to harbor crypto-Jacobite sympathies.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11127509110274044130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-63016663279741238582016-05-13T12:38:50.672-05:002016-05-13T12:38:50.672-05:00I said not "substantive" because none of...I said not "substantive" because none of my reasons have anything to do with the Qing being objectively "better" at anything compared to the Ming or any other Han dynasty. It is purely a matter of superficial taste. I like the horse-culture of the Jurchen, the style of dress, the organizational structure and things like that. It is mostly just a preference of style and not of substance.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-37870895877423836282016-05-13T06:23:08.762-05:002016-05-13T06:23:08.762-05:00May I ask what your not "particularly substan...May I ask what your not "particularly substantive reasons" are for being partial to the Qing Empire? Just out of curiosity. Full disclosure: as an ethnic Han, I have inherited a non-substantive dislike of the Qing. On substantive terms, I admire their realising the Middle Empire as multi-ethnic. But I have significant reservations about their having done so by employing different theories of sovereignty for different regions of their Empire.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06196908489615218424noreply@blogger.com