Risou no Himo Seikatsu - Vol. 18 Ch. 76 - Departure

[AnotherDuck]

What's the problem then?

I never mentioned a feudal system. You're also asking for a definitive example, which would exclude any example that isn't precisely known.

If that is the case, then I'm having a hard time understanding what makes you think that any of them had a system in which royalty and nobility were the same class... Care to elaborate on that?

This is also a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that royalty were part of nobility, not that they were the same. And yes, Sweden.

Also, am I to understand you need me to prove a negative here? Or are you somehow unconvinced about the royal-noble situation having been the norm as I've described it? What exactly do you want evidence for?

Am I to understand you have nothing to prove your argument? So far, your claim is "trust me bro," while you're demanding me to show exact and verifiable evidence. You see how I don't exactly want to engage in a discussion like that.

 

[frogxdor]

I thought the daughter's name is Juana? Oh well.

Juana is her name chosen by her mother. Yoshino is probably her middle name and was chosen by her father.

 

[Yazas]

missed opportunity to named her "mary juana"

 

[finalm]

I never mentioned a feudal system. You're also asking for a definitive example, which would exclude any example that isn't precisely known.

I did though, from the very beggining. Any example of a non-fuedal system simply does not make sense - you need enforced social classes before you can argue whether any group belongs to one or not.

Wait, I honestly don't get what yoy mean by "any example that isn't precisely known". Are you saying that since it can't be proven that such a system never existed anywhere on Earth (much like you can't prove vampires don't exist...) then it's acceptable to leverage that as an "non-definitive" example?

This is also a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that royalty were part of nobility, not that they were the same. And yes, Sweden.

I don't see how that changes the point of that paragraph, but alright. So, will you help me understand why you think Sweden is/was a good example for the "royalty being part of nobility" statement?

Am I to understand you have nothing to prove your argument? So far, your claim is "trust me bro," while you're demanding me to show exact and verifiable evidence. You see how I don't exactly want to engage in a discussion like that.

Since one can't prove the nonexistance of something, would you be satisfied if I pointed to some source that outright states that royalty and nobility were different classes? I could do that, though it seems a waste of time to select something, when even comparing Wikipedia's articles on "nobility" and "royalty" should not leave any doubt. Is that enough? If not, then what exactly is your standard for doing this? Should I even persue this angle, or are you still dead set on seeing a proof of nonexistance?

You see how I don't exactly want to engage in a discussion like that.

I'm sorry, but not really. So far you've come across as simply evasive when pressed for details. I honestly don't understand why, it's not like this is some world-changing issue we're discussing and I'd be genuinely interested if you actually came up with a real counter example.

 

[YamiRi]

very nice chapter, and something we have waited for so long for Lucrezia.
Having her openly stating her goal in front of Zenjirou and Aura will be important and decisive for her.
Now that we all know what she wanted, it will explain everything she will do better.
Good luck, little girl.. you are clearly still a child but you have a big dream.

 

[xyzzy]

It’s always sort of funny when an LN goes “hey the MC became a father… but instead of focusing on that we gotta do another plot point lmao” (I know that he had a son before, but the point still stands).

Also about a month old but somewhat topical

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928560719143784663

 

[Meowzilla]

I'd heard an anime adaption was coming out, but hadn't heard about the AI thing. That's really disappointing.

 

[Pyras]

He'd have to spend over 2/3 of the year in the north. He's not taking a return trip by ship, after all.

That's true. There's no reason for him to take the ship back. When all is done, he would just teleport back..... or actually the first night he arrives there, he could just quickly return to report as well.

 

[finalm]

That's true. There's no reason for him to take the ship back. When all is done, he would just teleport back..... or actually the first night he arrives there, he could just quickly return to report as well.

Even better, there are all the reasons in the world not to go back by ship, given how dangerous it is. I'm interested what Freya's going to do on that matter. One one hand, letting a princess make the return trip by a highly risky method is crazy if there's an instant, safe alternative. On the other, that ship is part of the identity she built for herself and I can't imagine she'd be willing to leave it behind in the north.

 

[AnotherDuck]

I did though, from the very beggining. Any example of a non-fuedal system simply does not make sense - you need enforced social classes before you can argue whether any group belongs to one or not.

You don't need anything enforced. You just need it to be socially accepted. But it seems like you're talking about something very specific that I don't, so I don't think our arguments apply to each other.

Wait, I honestly don't get what yoy mean by "any example that isn't precisely known". Are you saying that since it can't be proven that such a system never existed anywhere on Earth (much like you can't prove vampires don't exist...) then it's acceptable to leverage that as an "non-definitive" example?

History isn't always absolute knowledge, so there are many examples that are believed to be one way, or that have popular theories that differ. It's not about some unknown potential.

I don't see how that changes the point of that paragraph, but alright. So, will you help me understand why you think Sweden is/was a good example for the "royalty being part of nobility" statement?

For one, we've had many kings who were chosen from nobility, or the equivalence before the currently noble titles were invented. This includes the current lineage. It's also been a thing that royalty takes noble titles. Point is, they're not completely inseparable.

I'm sorry, but not really. So far you've come across as simply evasive when pressed for details.

You've not provided any details, yet you claimed I was wrong. It's on you to provide details.

I honestly don't understand why, it's not like this is some world-changing issue we're discussing and I'd be genuinely interested if you actually came up with a real counter example.

As I said, I'm not interested enough to go through that effort for someone who won't return the favour. So this is it for me, unless I feel otherwise.

 

[finalm]

You don't need anything enforced. You just need it to be socially accepted. But it seems like you're talking about something very specific that I don't, so I don't think our arguments apply to each other.

Feudal social classes weren't just status or solidarity symbols, like today's constructs. Those in the lower ones were literally treated as less human than the people of upper ones. How do you expect any modern society to accept an idea like that? But alright, let's say we go by today's standards, how does that change things exactly?

History isn't always absolute knowledge, so there are many examples that are believed to be one way, or that have popular theories that differ. It's not about some unknown potential.

None of history is known for absolutely sure, because it's based on surviving materials that might be incomplete, not entirely truthful or just contain errors that can't be pinpointed due to lack of context. We accept this fact, since there's no alternative. Why would that make believing something unsubstantiated reasonable?

For one, we've had many kings who were chosen from nobility

Electing monarchs was common all around the world, especially in the waning days of monarchies. The whole point of doing so was because the previous royal family had died out, was ousted or otherwise lost their status and claim to the throne, so they needed to establish a new one. If anything, this only makes the distinction between royal and noble stronger, otherwise why even go through all the trouble, rather than just have the dominant noble family just sieze power? As for the candidates being nobles (before becoming royals, if triumphant), who else would they be? The royals were already gone, so the next most powerful class is them.

or the equivalence before the currently noble titles were invented. This includes the current lineage.

What equivalence are you talking about?

It's also been a thing that royalty takes noble titles. Point is, they're not completely inseparable.

I think you have some things confused. When a prince (for example) is given the title of duke of something, he is not taking a noble title. He is taking a fuedal lord's title and still remains a royal. He needed that title to be able to possess land, as it was tied to it.

It's separable on a individual's basis. As in, you're either part of one class or the other. A royal would be offended at being considered nobility and a noble has no claim to royalty, since it's birth based. That's it. I already admitted that there were families that contained both royals and nobles, due to marriage.

You've not provided any details, yet you claimed I was wrong. It's on you to provide details.

I did ask you what kind of "details" you'd like to see and even suggested something. You haven't even deigned to address this, so it should be obvious to everyone that you're not really interested in that. You seem to just want to be able to go "no u".

As I said, I'm not interested enough to go through that effort for someone who won't return the favour. So this is it for me, unless I feel otherwise.

Well, it's hard to "return the favour" when you outright refuse to render it in the first place. I asked a simple question, rather than anwser it and put an end to the issue, you chose to do this silly back and forth and act as if I have some ridiculous demands. I'm sorry to say this, but this is MAGA level deflection. It would have been fine to admit that you don't have a fitting example. Far more respectable than this.

 

[AnotherDuck]

I'm sorry to say this, but this is MAGA level deflection. It would have been fine to admit that you don't have a fitting example. Far more respectable than this.

So I was right to ignore your demands. You have nothing but insults to come with. You didn't get what you wanted, despite not offering anything at all, so now you resort to insults. This is why I don't bother with people like you. Off to ignore you go.

 

[finalm]

So I was right to ignore your demands. You have nothing but insults to come with. You didn't get what you wanted, despite not offering anything at all, so now you resort to insults. This is why I don't bother with people like you. Off to ignore you go.

Looks like I hit the bullseye, eh? Just like MAGA you are simply incapable of admiting to any mistake or even being wrong on the most banal of topics. I can say this with a good degree of confidence, since this is not the first time you engage in this sort of gammon behaviour, both with me and others. Well, if you're too pigheaded then ignore all you like, but I'll still call out whatever bull you'll sling in my sight. For the benefit of others.

 

[Dzrian]

I’m not here for the unnecessary arguments, but I’m of royal descent myself, so I want to share my insight. This is based on my own understanding of my lineage’s history without looking up about royal systems. So I welcome anyone to discuss about it.

Royalty is part of nobility

You’re technically right, but that’s an oversimplification. Royalty and nobility differ in terms of bloodline status, hierarchy, duties, roles, and privileges, etc.

Basically, Royalty are not simply nobles, but they can be. While nobles can’t simply be Royalty unless they have blood, or start their own royal house due to circumstances where the initial royal line ends. At this point you can even say outsiders and commoners can be royalty.

If you want to talk about bloodlines, many monarchies, are tracked through the male line. Especially in patrilineal succession systems. Typically, direct male descendants of a crowned monarch are considered royal: sons, grandsons, and so on. If a monarch has no sons, the throne may pass to a brother or nephew, still preserving the male royal lineage.

In systems where female succession is not recognized or limited, royal daughters may retain noble titles, but don’t pass royal status to their children if they marry outside the royal family. Their descendants may still be of noble birth, but not royal. This is where one of the line is drawn.

That said, fiction often takes creative liberties. A character might be called a “rightful heir” even if descended through the female line especially if they’re the last of the bloodline.

In real world cases, like someone mentioned, when a royal line ends or becomes ineligible, another royal house or branch with shared ancestry, such as a cousin line, may take over. This happens especially in monarchies that prioritize bloodline purity and male succession.

What that person mentioned was something similar to what had happened for my lineage’s history as well.

I saw you’ve questioned where the line is drawn and what if the royal lineage ends. So I hope this answers. Truth be told, I’m not sure if a line is even drawn for the parts where the descendants still fit the requirements or I could have missed out some of my own lineage’s history.

Otherwise, it’s usually just a matter of whether they will be relevant.

 

[AnotherDuck]

You’re technically right, but that’s an oversimplification. Royalty and nobility differ in terms of bloodline status, hierarchy, duties, roles, and privileges, etc.

You can also say that the top management differs from the middle management, who differs from the workforce, but they're still all part of the same company. But I mean, it's a one-line sentence; of course it's a simplification.

I find it more true than saying royalty and nobility are two completely different things. It doesn't mean royalty isn't special compared to the rest of nobility. I would say, "even taking all of what you said at face value", but it's more or less my understanding as well. And as I've mentioned, it differs a lot depending on where, when, and in what situation you're talking about. Even if you limit it to Medieval Era Europe.

That said, fiction often takes creative liberties. A character might be called a “rightful heir” even if descended through the female line especially if they’re the last of the bloodline.

The last part is to my knowledge used (not sure if common) in history as well. If the male bloodline died out, they would consider the female line instead. And generally, the weaker the claim, or the lower on the succession order someone was, the more likely it was for others to not accept it or try to take it for themselves.

I saw you’ve questioned where the line is drawn and what if the royal lineage ends. So I hope this answers. Truth be told, I’m not sure if a line is even drawn for the parts where the descendants still fit the requirements or I could have missed out some of my own lineage’s history.

Technically it was a rhetorical question, as I more or less knew the answer, but I appreciate the explanation nonetheless.

 

[IdidNineEleven]

After the name Juana has appeared, it is clear that the choice of transliteration/translation of "Wallentia" instead of "Valencia" is a mistake. The same is true of "Bilbo" instead of "Bilboa." Thankfully, though, it doesn't matter. Another thing that doesn't matter, on page 31 the list "to be of national interest, understanding from the populace /.../, beneficial /.../, and feelings /.../" is mistaken English. "beneficial" does not fall within the same genus as the other things (it is not a thing, but a description of a thing) so it reads stiff and is grammatically incorrect (but I am opposed to formalism). Better would be "to be beneficial to me" or "beneficience/usefulness to me." "Beneficience" is of course even stiffer despite being grammatically correct. But it doesn't matter! tsun tsun

 

[RonBWL]

After the name Juana has appeared, it is clear that the choice of transliteration/translation of "Wallentia" instead of "Valencia" is a mistake. The same is true of "Bilbo" instead of "Bilboa." Thankfully, though, it doesn't matter. Another thing that doesn't matter, on page 31 the list "to be of national interest, understanding from the populace /.../, beneficial /.../, and feelings /.../" is mistaken English. "beneficial" does not fall within the same genus as the other things (it is not a thing, but a description of a thing) so it reads stiff and is grammatically incorrect (but I am opposed to formalism). Better would be "to be beneficial to me" or "beneficience/usefulness to me." "Beneficience" is of course even stiffer despite being grammatically correct. But it doesn't matter! tsun tsun

I can't really speak for other nuances, but when it comes to name, we've come to accept that there is no perfect TL that'll salsify everybody. The reason is simple: Unless author-san make an official Glossary, there'd be a dozen of way a "name" can be interpret, with background and reason from every language available. When we make obvious mistake, such as the correction of Uppsara to Uppsala, it's easy since that's how it's literally spelled. Wallentia... this is actually the second suggestion I've received (1st is Vallentia), at this point we're simply unable to just go and history check all of the options and "guess" the correct one (ESPECIALLY if at some point in the future author-san may decide how they WANT the word to be spelled). So we're simply sticking with the safe option: Just follow the raw if there's too much ambiguation.

 

[Baddtraxx]

Here's to a new arc of even more politics

 

[vergotear]

I thought the daughter's name is Juana? Oh well.

Carlos Zenkichi Capua and Juana Yoshino Capua.

 

[dextersTomato]

The first blunder of Lucrezia...... flat....

Its obvious MC likes mountains.!!!