Opinion is divided over the question as to which imperial line Emperor Go-Hanazono(r.1428‐1464)succeeded. since he was born into the Sukoin Line(Fushiminomiya Palace), but was adopted into the heirless Go-Kogoin Line.
The key to solving this problem lies in the imperial decree of 1447 bestowing the title of Go-Sukoin on Prince Fushiminomiya Sadafusa, requiring further study of such topics as the kinship relationship between Sadafusa and Go-Hanazono, and Sadafusa’s abdication of his title. The present article is an attempt to shed more light on the problem by focusing on the political situation at this epoch of the Muromachi period.
It was in the 5th year of the Eikyo 永享 era(1433)on the death of his step-father Go-Komatsuin that then Go-Hanazono, although reaffirmed as the successor to the Go-Kogoin Line, found it difficult to cut all ties to the house of his birth, the Sukoin Line, issuing the imperial decree of 1447 bestowing the title of retired emperor(joko 上皇)Go-Sukoin on Sadafusa, raising the question of whether the title was to be conferred on the grounds that Sadafusa was his “biological father” (genshin 厳親)or his “elder brother” (boshin 傍親)in a collateral line. When the conferral was made on his “elder brother” , is became clear that Go-Hanazono considered himself to be the true heir to the Go-Kogoin Line.
Since there was no change in status even at Sadafusa’s funeral in 1456, Sadafusa’s title decree can be seen as a milestone determining Go-Hanazono’s imperial line. In addition, although Sadafusa had submitted a petition renouncing the title and there is no evidence that he was persuaded to withdraw it, he still remained ranked as a retired emperor standing with the emperor and the lord of Muromachi.
It was in this manner that an apparent contradictory move was made to rank Sadafusa(Go-Sukoin)and Go-Hanazono side by side as heads of collateral imperial lines, but closer study reveals a compromise between Go-Komatsu’s posthumous order that Sadafusa as Go-Hanazono’s biological father must not be conferred with an imperial title and Lord of Muromachi Shogun Ashikaga Yoshinori’s political strategy of treating Sadafusa as such. Consequently, the Fushiminomiya Family, while continuing to be made imperial princes in the role of adopted sons of the Go-Kogoin Line, retained the right to succession as princely heirs of Sadafusa, the retired emperor of the Sukoin Line; and Go-Hanazono, while helping avoid a break in the line of succession of the Go-Kogoin Line, was able to preserve the Sukoin Line(Fushiminomiya), thus bringing an end to the dispute over legitimacy between the two lines that had continued from the past century, and achieving integration and coalition within Japan’s imperial institution.
The present article attempts to answer the question why after continuing education for working youth（hereafter youth academies）was made compulsory in January 1938. no improvement was shown in school attendance.
To begin with, 1938 was also marked by revisions made to the Ministry of War’s Military Conscription Act, under which all privileges pertaining to shortened periods of enlistment were abolished, while youth academy graduates were granted 1) one-year furloughs to complete the academy curriculum and 2) exemptions from being drafted for educational purposes. Although such privileges were designed to motivate students to attend youth academies, the continuing war in China had made it almost impossible for any reductions to be made in military service, resulting in student apathy towards the measures.
Although in its efforts to improve attendance by making youth academies compulsory the Ministry of Education took great care not to interfere with the working conditions of academy students in urban areas, it was unable to convince employers, who were worried about discontent rising among their young employees concerning their places of work. In other words, making youth academies compulsory for urban youth meant having to impose rules and regulations to that effect on their employers. Therefore, not being able to attract students to the academies in the first place, imposing rules on employers was ineffective in improving attendance.
Although it was crucial to create a curriculum that would attract students and win the understanding of employers, in order to increase attendance, effective measures could not be found, resulting in no improvement in youth academy attendance even after it was made compulsory.