Talk:Kazoku

Count or Earl?

I'm quite familiar with European peerage systems. The title of Count is not British. The title of Count is, however, found in many peerage systems in continental Europe. The title of Earl is the British equivalent title of a Count. Note that while males hold the title of Earl, their wives (or, far less frequently, women who are peers themselves and not spouses) are titled Countess. Someone more familiar with the development of the Japanese peerage may want to clarify the origin of this title and its use in the Kazoku system. Stampedem

A little question

Prince or duke (kōshaku) Marquis (kōshaku) Are the two rank's titles identical or is there a mistake ? Chris CII 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

華族

Is "flowery lineage" the best translation for "華族"? I would have said something like "magnificent lineage". Incidentally, 華族 could also mean "Chinese ethnicity", but that is probably not what is intended here. - Nat Krause 13:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Flower lineage" is not a good translation at all. "Magnificent" or "exalted" would be a closer translation. Looking up individual kanji characters and calling that the literal shows a rather limited understanding of how kanji works.--24.5.188.180 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Kuga not Koga

Kuga is the modern Japanese pronunciation of the name. Koga is also another surname in Japanese, unrelated to Kuga.

I'm Japanese, but I've never heard that they changed the pronunciation. They are still listed as Koga on Japanese books about Kazoku. Can you prove your theory? --1523 09:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The name is Kuga (久我) and I am Japanese and I know the name. Anyone who can read Japanese knows the pronunciation of the name. Check the source Above the Clouds by Takie Sugiyama Lebra for the name. It is not Koga; the name Koga uses different kanji. Even at a non-Japanese surname site, ancestry.com, one can find this entry for Koga: "Japanese: ‘old river’; variously written, with one ancient variant of imperial descent pronounced Kuga; other alternate readings are Furukawa or Kogawa and are derived from a village named Koga in Shimōsa (now Chiba prefecture). The most common Koga name is mostly found in Kyūshū, and is descended from the Takeda family. The name is also found in the Ryūkyū Islands." Kuga is the name of the noble family and Koga is a non-noble name. You can also check this source: In Name Only: Imperial Sovereignty in Early Modern Japan by Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi in the Journal of Japanese Studies.Imperial78

I don't know why you're interested in 久我家, but please, don't spread a wrong theory.

1. 岡野友彦: 中世久我家と久我家領荘園（チュウセイ コガケ ト コガケリョウ ショウエン）続群書類従完成会, 2002, doctoral dissertation, ISBN 4797107383
2. 中世の貴族 : 特別展観 : 重要文化財久我家文書修復完成記念 (チュウセイ ノ キゾク : トクベツ テンカン : ジュウヨウ ブンカザイ コガケ モンジョ シュウフク カンセイ キネン 國學院大學久我家文書特別展示開催実行委員会編 東京 : 國學院大學, 1996
3. 橋本義彦: 源通親(吉川弘文館人物叢書)附録「久我源氏中院流（こがげんじなかのいん）家領と通親」1992

Those are all academic sources, and every author calls 久我家 as Koga-ke. --1523 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I searched the National Diet Library in Tokyo for the books about 久我家, and I found every academic book about 久我家 was registered as Koga-ke, not Kuga-ke.

1. 通誠公記. 第1 / 久我通誠〔著〕 ; 今江広道,小沼修一校訂　久我, 通誠 (1660-1719) ∥コガ,ミチトモ
2. 日本農林統計読本 久我通武編 東京 葵出版社　1964　久我, 通武 (1910-) ∥コガ,ミチタツ
3. 通兄公記. 第6 / 〔久我〕通兄〔著〕 ; 今江廣道,平井誠二校訂 久我, 通兄 (1709-1761) ∥コガ,ミチエ

In short, the situation is so simple - The authors Imperial78 mentioned are not the specialists in kazoku, so they made a mistake.--1523 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all hereditary

Not all kazoku were hereditary.--24.5.188.180 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? I am not aware of "life peers" among the kazoku except in cases where there was no male heir. --MChew (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood

What is the closest Japanese equivalent to a knighthood (in rank rather than function)? Samurai are often mentioned, but they made up ten percent of the population, so are clearly not an equivalent rank to a knight. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC) They kind of were honestly. Japan just had a lot of them, but Japan also had extraordinarily large cities also by historic standards, the population had attained 1 Million in the city predating Tokyo, Edo.Anymouse (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Abolition?

The statement that the 1946 (American) Constitution of Japan "abolished the kazoku and ended the use of all titles of nobility or rank outside the immediate Imperial Family" is misleading. The use of the titles was abolished, officially. The families were not extinguished, and the titles are still used by many. So the statement that "Nonetheless, many descendants of former kazoku families continue to occupy prominent roles in Japanese society and industry" is completely meaningless. The paragraph as written would only have been correct for a Communist-style abolition - i.e. a massacre.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The paragraph is written correctly and is referenced - nothing wrong with it as-is.50.111.3.9 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)