Talk:Emperor Go-Momozono

Emperor's death at age 22

Although it may seem reasonable to conclude that Go-Momozono (1758-1759) died at the age of 21, that figure isn't entirely accurate. In this historical context, it is more precise to construe this Japanese sovereign's age at the time of his death as 22-years-old because that is how his subjects and his successor would have construed the Go-Momozono's age.

For a fuller explantion, see Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu#Inaccuracy of dates or see East Asian age reckoning. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go-Momozono vs. Momozono, the second vs. Momozono II

User: Gryffindor -- Your recent edit changed something minor -- suggesting that somehow the formulation "Momozono II" might work better than "Momozono, the second." In this context, I was persuaded that the wording was better the way it was before Perhaps your reasoning might convince me that my perspective was a little too narrowly focused. As you may have noticed, a variation of this paragraph is incorporated into the articles on several emperors; and if your way of parsing the elements of this issue is compelling, then I would want to alter the others to conform ....

At this point, I think that "Momozono, the second" is less elegant, less expected, less crisp than "Momozono II"-- which is exactly why I think that this non-standard usage becomes a better choice in this unique context. Although not necessarily relevant here, it happens that I do actually remember seeing something like this two or three times in early-Meiji sources -- not specifically having to do with Go-Momozono, I think, but with some other emperors ....

I would have thought the logic which we adopt in the case of French kings (Louis I-XVI, for example) or English kings (George I-V, for example) would represent a generally accepted, conventional, standard formulation -- which I would construe as arguing for the use of "Momozono, the second et al.," as a stylistic way of indicating a deliberate non-standard usage.

Do you see my point? What do you think? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Konnichiwa Ooperhoofd,

I changed "Momozono, the second" because I remember a book that I used where the Go-emperors were listed with Roman numerals, thus "Momozono II". If there are books that refer to him as "Momozono, the second", then we can obviously leave both versions, I don't mind. The wording could be something like "Older books refer to him either as "Momozone, the second" or "Momozono II"." or something along those lines. sincerely Gryffindor 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, of course. Yours is the obvious solution. Wny didn't I see it? Thanks. I'll make changes in the articles about other emperors later today and tomorrow. Good working with you. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)