Jeffrey Taliaferro's material ( http://www.geocities.com/jtaliaferro.geo/showa.html ) mentions that Nobuhito, then 8 years old, was granted Takamatsu-no-miya following the death of Takehito Arisugawa:
"Following the death of Prince Arisugawa (Takehito) without an heir on 6 July 1913, Emperor Taishō granted Prince Nobuhito the title Takamatsu-no-miya (which had been the original title of the Arisugawa-no-miya house)."
[Henry Soszynski, not always reliable, however places Arisugawa's death two days earlier, same year: "He died spm 4th July 1913 in Tokyo, when this branch of the family became extinct."]
Elsewhere in the Taliaferro material is a date for Nobuhito's creation: "cr. Takamatsu-no-miya, 14 Jul. 1913", in other words, a week or so after last Arisugawa's death, be it 4th or 6th July.
I have an inkling that emperor Yoshihito 'Taisho' tenno had already during the lifetime of Takehito Arisugawa, informed the old (or, rather, middle-aged) sonless shinno about such intentions.
Which can be seen as designation of heir to the miyake during the predecessor's last years. Mentioned sources speak against an interpretation that the young Nobuhito were yet so created, when the previous holder was still alive.
Adoptions were forbidden by the new dynastical law as Hamish informed us; and I gather Takehito Arisugawa never actually adopted Nobuhito. The emperor's designation of the heir, and informing Arisugawa of it, probably meant to replace the legal act of adopting, to have the intended succession still in keeping with shinto succession patterns, which clearly were those intended to be continued by the designation.
I can see no propriety mistake in describing Nobuhito as 11th Takamatsu-no-miya.
However, it really depends on Japanese customs, as applied to the situation where adoption had recently become forbidden. Perhaps some would want to highlight the fact that adoption was no longer possible, by mentioning Nobuhito as 'first' Takamatsu; and possibly others would see him as 11th of the continuous miyake.
One can always take whatever happens to be the IHA official record of that detail; or take what was the most common interpretation, in royalty publications and such; or take what the long-time Japanese custom (as opposed to the novel prohibition of adoptions) would mean; but any of them really may just reflect one of the two stances to the matter, without being necessarily totally correct.
I guess, were I to write it into some text intended to be a work of reference, I would mention both interpretations of the ordinal.
« Back to index