In the Presence of Mine Enemies[]

I just read the part where the Emperor sent his regards and I think it reasonable to assume that the Emperor is Akihito, with a lit comm added to say there is no obvious reason for it not to be him, as done with several other historical figures in this wiki.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:15, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the exchange of nuclear weapons in the Third World War might be a very good reason. We do know that Germany was actually hurt rather badly by that war. We have no idea how Japan was affected. Akihito might be radioactive dust for all we know. TR (talk) 22:43, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
We already have an unnamed Emperor of Japan here: [[Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government in In the Presence of Mine Enemies]], along with a half dozen other rulers. We also have several named rulers we treat as fictional. I don't see any reason to equate them with historical figures, nor to add Lit. Comms. on the matter although the E of J footnote does mention the possibility of Akihito. ML4E (talk) 22:52, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
The footnote is probably good enough given what we know. TR (talk) 23:28, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see anywhere saying Japan was nuked. The only thing I gleaned about WWIII is that the USA was trounced. Is the other idea coming from the same source as the MLK crap?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 17:53, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
Buckliger says that that Germany was lucky the Americans didn't do the GGR more harm during the war. I can't recall if the US had nukes or not, but based on that, it did hurt Germany. If the US could hurt Germany, it could probably hurt Japan, the consequence of which we cannot say for certain.
Moreover, HT doesn't give us any details as to the identity of the emperor. If he broadly hinted it was Akihito (a reference to age, education, some other detail), that would be one thing. But he doesn't. Remember, too, we have two other monarchs (Umberto and Henry IX) who don't appear to be based on historical figures. While the royal family of the UK probably could be altered under German rule, the Italians realistically shouldn't have been, meaning that the current titular pretender, Vittorio Emanuele, ought to be king. But it isn't, or at least, we have no reason to think Vittorio Emanuele took Umberto as a regnal name. TR (talk) 19:12, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
I assume that Umberto III is VE4's son. In OTL his son's name is Filiberto but that could easily be butterflied. As for why VE4 isn't still ruling, it could be that he abdicated either due to old age or pressure from the Duce. With HT's fondness for Tolkien, I'm surprised he doesn't include appendices in most books showing lists of kings. He showed us freaking election results in the back of Guns of the South.
Did you draw your assumption from the same source as the MLK crap? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:08, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
I do not like this assumption and do not approve of your changing the Lit. Comm. to reflect it. I believe there is not enough information in the novel to draw such conclusions and the Lit. Comm. is not to engage in such speculation. We do not want it in the body and I think you are abusing Lit. Comms. to get around this.
This! ^ Turtle Fan (talk) 21:08, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
As for lists of kings, it is not important for his story and doesn't need it. Tolkien had engaged in an enormous world-building exercise for his own amusement so could add appendices without much trouble. The elections in GotS were significant plot points so he had calculated the tables beforehand. A list of Kings, etc. in ItPoME was unimportant and so not generated. He could name them or not since they were incidental to the plot and themes. ML4E (talk) 20:53, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
Since the list of unnamed kings is pretty obscure on this wiki, I think Akihito's own page should say something like "Akihito may also be the reigning emperor (in 2010) referenced on page 72 of ItPoME, but there is not enough information to be certain."
It shouldn't. Can't you see you've already lost this round? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:08, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
Alternately, we could presume it's Akihito with a lit comm that there's some room for doubt.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:53, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
More lit comm abuse. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:08, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
We have [[Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government in In the Presence of Mine Enemies]] as a redirect to that section. We could add "Emperor of Japan (ItPoME)", "Caudillo of Spain (ItPoME)", etc. as redirects to the same sub-section to make it clearer. Since, the Emperor of Japan is an unnamed and undescribed character, we should not assume he is Akihito and I do not agree to any addition, including a Lit. Comm. to his article. Remember, we have Kurt Haldweim and Charlie Lynton which are joke names on historical figures but we are not to assume they are those figures even if they share backgrounds. ML4E (talk) 21:02, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
I was going to mention Haldweim and Lynton. In this book HT went out of his way to avoid naming or even hinting at any living people. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:08, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
He did hint at Vaclav Havel--he described the playwright in detail, making it clear who it was supposed to be, but he didn't give him a name (probably because Vahel isn't a Czech name.) But he's the lone exception. TR (talk) 02:26, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
Back on track--for all the forgoing reasons, I see no value in stating Akihito is the reigning emperor. TR (talk) 02:37, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

Current events[]

Looks like we'll be adding Akihito to the "Monarchs who abdicated" pile soon. [1] TR (talk) 15:05, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully that will be the case. Given he is 83, in poor health and the predicted abdication wouldn't happen until late 2018, he might leave the throne by conventional means. ML4E (talk) 16:34, June 9, 2017 (UTC)
I remember the controversy about male-only emperors rearing its head a decade and a half ago, before the younger prince had a son. Seems odd given the nature of the dynasty's origin myth.
On the other hand, a quick look at the line of succession in the UK should show how unwieldy a royal family can become without some aggressive form of pruning. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:31, June 9, 2017 (UTC)