Former singer, teacher and—oh, yeah—possibly next in line for the Korean throne Prince Yi Seok made the WaPo with his plans for a signature campaign to bring back the old Joseon monarchy.
I’d love to see it happen, although I don’t think it stands a snowball’s chance in hell. Perhaps as consolation, however, MBC will run a second season of “Gung” beginning in January.
18 Comments
Yeah, make him the king–I’ll show him my sijo collection and he’ll make me the Royal Poet
(or the court jester, whichever pays better)
It should be pointed out that Yi Seok comes from the ‘resistance’ line rather than the ‘tainted by dirty dwarf pirate blood’ line. He also has a pretty good bio, including service in the Vietnam war. IF you were to make someone a constitutional monarch (BTW, also eliminating the office of president and making Korea a parlimentary system), he would be a good one.
Now this is something the U.S. should dump money into. Support this guy, dig up all the roads and cover them with dirt from North Korea, leave the country, and everything will be back to the way it was in good ol Domokgol.
I think the motivation for all this is just wanting to get in Lee Jun Ki’s pants.
Well, this should be something the Korean nationalists could and should support. I guess that would really make Kim Il Sung’s family a usurpers line since he doesn’t have the proper papers.
I like it, I think it’d be cool. I like Japan’s monarch the way it is, existent only as a symbol of what Japan was/is, but no political power. No reason Korea can’t have the same thing.
The complications that face it though are bound to be similar to the problems that face Japan. Who pays for the family, and how big is the family…
“But when he talks of his eight suicide attempts”
Jesus, if he can’t even do THAT, how the hell could he run this country?
I’d rather see South Korea purchase aloe toilet paper for their conscripts than create a Korean version of Puyi.
Weren’t Korean nationalists trying to overthrow the monarchy, but were beat to it by the Japanese?
Yes. the Joseon Dynasty failed, in the time-honored way that all dynasties eventually fail, and very few Koreans want it “back” even symbolically — it just represents tragedy now. If the did get a renewed monarchy, it’d have to be a fresh new start, founded by a Hero — how about the Samsung family?
Why would anyone support a move that would just further increase social inequality here…? Each king would have to marry somebody from another family, and that creates an aristocracy; nobody wants that to return, in its unbenevolent Korean form.
I’ve met Yi Seok a few times, at the royal-tinged ceremonies we both like to attend (the 1st time was the Gyeryong-san Mountain-spirit Festival!) — him being an Officiant lends realism & prestige to them. We talked about all this (his English is good). He presses his case, but i sense he knows it’s hopeless, but feels he HAS to try it, to avoid having had a worthless life. Well, at his age, what ELSE better has he got to do with his time?
I was going to ask a question that Sanshinseon has already answered: how to Koreans view their (ex) monarchy? Sure, some earlier kings—most notably Sejong, obviously—are still revered, and it’s possible that shows like Gung or Daejanggeum are igniting some kind of royal nostalgia. But one scholar told me something quite similar to what Sanshinseon said, that because of the corruption and factionalism of the late 19th century, the Joseon dynasty overall is not now remembered with very much fondness, unlike the Thai, Japanese, or British crowns in their respective countries. (Okay, in the latter case, the fondness only seems to extend to Her Majesty herself, the late Queen Mother and Diana, plus William and Harry, but that’s another story….)
Regarding the idea that a monarch is only a figurehead, that’s true, but in countries that still recognize Elizabeth II as head of state (the UK and Canada, for example), the crown still plays a critical constitutional role, insofar as she or her viceroys must sign off on all laws, dissolve parliament, etc. Even though it’s only a symbolic role, it lends a sense of continuity and stability to the parliamentary process.
Hirohito did a nice job. How ’bout giving his son, Akihito, a chance?
As the decendent of Jimmu, who many Koreans claim to be one of their own, Akihito’s ascension of the Korean throne would bring the imperial line back. A re-unification of sorts.
Sewing, Queen Elizabeth 2 ’symbolically’ signed over her constitutional rights in 1982, yet she’s still our head of state? That’s pretty messed up, isn’t it? I guess things will never change as long as there are so many old farts who long for the heydays of the British Empire.
Well, prior to 1982, I think the British Parliament still had the ultimate say over Canadian constitutional law, and/or certain cases at law could be appealed beyond the Canadian Supreme Court all the way to the UK House of Lords or Privy Council. The ending of that dependency—and the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—seem to have been the main changes of substance with the “patriation” of the constitution.
According to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, the British “dominions” were accorded equal status with the UK, and the crown became equally the head of state of all independent ex-colonies, not just the head of state of the UK with power over the ex-colonies. (As it happens, that wasn’t entirely the case.)
But I get your point. I for one don’t have any hankering whatsoever for the old days, and despite the romanticism with which the old British Empire is sometimes portrayed in popular culture, the UK was just your standard, run-of-the-mill colonial power, lording it over its subjects. (Just ask the Americans, who revolted 200 years ago!) But through an accidental quirk of history, we’ve evolved to the point where we have a benign head of state who happens to be a monarch…anyhow, as it’s “constituted” now, it seems to be a half-decent system.
…Oh, apart from the minor detail of Trudeau’s doing all this over the heads of Quebec, leading to Meech Lake, Charlottetown, the rise of the Bloc, and ultimately the Sponsorship Scandal!
I’m pretty sure that most (if not all) of the Americans who revolted 200 years ago are now dead, so it’s going to be rather difficult to ask them.
But yeah… kings are bad news. I suppose they might not be so bad, if not for the inbreeding (seems to be a lot of retardation and insanity in the European royal circles), but even so, at least they do make a convenient target for beheading when things finally reach the breaking point.
Don’t forget the Canadians who revolved in 1837. Oh, and you’d be surprised how many Canadians long for the ‘heydays’ of the British Empire. Never heard of the Anglo Society? They claim to represent Anglophones, but what they are really after is the removal of bilingualism in New Brunswick in the hopes of assimilating the Acadians.
Of course, Sewing, I am a HUGE supporter of the Monarchy! I have a question that you can help me with. When I was a high school student, my history teacher told me that the UK differed from the other colonial powers in one important respect: it gave local authorities greater say in government. I guess that would be after the American revolution. This was the reason he gave for why the UK lost the bulk of its empires later than most of the other European colonial powers. There’s no doubt that England has committed great injustices in its time, just as every other major power has, but I still think there’s a lot to celebrate about the country and its role in Canadian history.