Chan Jen Nam's loyalties if he knew that Princess Chang Ping was still alive?

[Ken Cheng]

One of the reasons that Chan Jen Nam was so loyal to the Cheng Family of Taiwan (Coxinga and his descendants) was his belief that, absent a legitimate descendant of the Chu royal family of the Ming Dynasty, the Kingdom of Tungning was the closest thing to a legitimate heir to the old Ming Dynasty.

Chan Jen Nam, however, never met the One-Armed Nun, who was in fact Princess Chang Ping of the Ming Dynasty. By the time of her appearance in DOMD, Princess Chang Ping was likely the last survivor of the Chu royal family. If Chan Jen Nam knew of her existence, would his loyalty (and that of his Heaven and Earth Society) have gone to her instead? As an actual blood descendant of the Chus, Princess Chang Ping had a more legitimate claim to the Ming throne than the Chengs did.

[Ian Liew]

I think he would have stayed with the Zhengs for two reasons. He said that he owed a lot to the Zheng family, and he seemed to indicate that without the Zhengs he wouldn't be where he was today. Secondly, Chang Ping was a girl, and most likely wouldn't be suitable as an heir to the dynastic throne.

On a side note, there was another Ming Dynasty descendant who appeared later on in Jin Yong's books - the courtesan Yuk Yue Yee (without whose help Chan Kar Lok would never have been able to kidnap Qianlong) from the Book and Sword was generally taken to be Ming royalty, although she might have been descended from the Southern Ming warlords rather than Chongzhen himself. She just coyly answered that her surname was Chu.

[CFT]

I agree with Ian. Chen would have been loyal to the Zhengs but they in turn should pledge allegiance to Chang Ping despite her gender.

[Ken Cheng]

I agree with Ian. Chen would have been loyal to the Zhengs but they in turn should pledge allegiance to Chang Ping despite her gender.

Chang Ping was aware that all of these various factions (Heaven and Earth Society, Muk Family, Tungming Kingdom, etc.) were fighting to restore her family's fallen regime. I wonder why she never emerged to take command of them. She...just kind of let them do their thing while she went and did her thing.

Like I've said before, those Ming loyalists were so unfocused on their goal that I really don't think the Ming Dynasty deserved to continue ruling China by that point. None of the would-be Ming revivalists had the competence or focus of K'ang Hsi.

[Ian Liew]

To be fair to the loyalists, life prior to Kangxi was quite hell. The regime under Dorgon and Shunzhi did not do much for the Han Chinese, and there was a distinct and conscious effort to kill Han culture too. By the time Kangxi had taken over relationships were horrible, and this racism on both sides would carry on to Yongzheng's rule, when the Manchurians were still opposed to Han Chinese taking high-ranking positions in court.

If Kangxi had taken over directly from Chongzhen (or even Wanli) I'm sure he would have been more accepted by the common man, but the false hope of Li Zicheng, the betrayal of Wu Sangui, and the pathetic struggle of the Southern Ming to hold off the foreign invaders over 20 years (which ended with Wu Sangui chasing the last Southern Ming emperor to Burma and strangling him with his bow as Wei Xiaobao delibrately mentioned) created some sympathy for the Ming bloodline. There was a lot of blood, oppression, grief and death which followed the Manchus into China, and which also contributed to a lot of Han hostility to Manchurians, much less Manchurian rule (this even carried on until the end of the Qing dynasty, when Han Chinese slaughtered Manchurians on the streets out of anger for over 200 years of colonisation). That Kangxi eventually overcame much of this prejudice with his wisdom speaks volumes for the great man.

[Trien Chieu]

this even carried on until the end of the Qing dynasty, when Han Chinese slaughtered Manchurians on the streets out of anger for over 200 years of colonisation.

Do you have any back up for this?

[Ian Liew]

I read about it in some books a long time ago. I can't remember which one, but found this via wikipedia, which is even more detailed than the entries I read before.

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=...page&q&f=false

[Trien Chieu]

Thanks Ian for the information. It was merciless and no doubt that most of the victims were innocent. However, what can they expect? When they were in power, they were just as merciless if not worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangzhou_massacre
They ask for mercy but did their ancestors have any mercy for the Han? I wonder how would Nurhaci, Huang Taji, Sunzhi, Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong, JiaQing, Daoguang, XianFeng, Tongzhi, Gwangxu and Puyi feel if they knew the Manchu were slaughtered like dog by the Han Chinese. I wonder whether they regret the invasion of the Ming Dynasty.

[Ace High]

Thanks Ian for the information. It was merciless and no doubt that most of the victims were innocent. However, what can they expect? When they were in power, they were just as merciless if not worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangzhou_massacre
They ask for mercy but did their ancestors have any mercy for the Han? I wonder how would Nurhaci, Huang Taji, Sunzhi, Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong, JiaQing, Daoguang, XianFeng, Tongzhi, Gwangxu and Puyi feel if they knew the Manchu were slaughtered like dog by the Han Chinese. I wonder whether they regret the invasion of the Ming Dynasty.

So, if someone's ancestors killed innocent people, then its okay for the victims' descendant to kill the killers' innocent descendant too as retaliation?

[Trien Chieu]

So, if someone's ancestors killed innocent people, then its okay for the victims' descendant to kill the killers' innocent descendant too as retaliation?

No, it's not OK but it's instinct. After almost 300 years of suppression and being second class citizens, people wanted to get even.

[Ian Liew]

No, it's not OK but it's instinct. After almost 300 years of suppression and being second class citizens, people wanted to get even.

Doesn't make it even remotely justifiable, not unless some people are judged differently from others.

[Trien Chieu]

Doesn't make it even remotely justifiable, not unless some people are judged differently from others.

I did not say it's justifiable or right thing to do. However, that is how people felt at the time and they acted accordingly.

[Ace High]

One of the reasons that Chan Jen Nam was so loyal to the Cheng Family of Taiwan (Coxinga and his descendants) was his belief that, absent a legitimate descendant of the Chu royal family of the Ming Dynasty, the Kingdom of Tungning was the closest thing to a legitimate heir to the old Ming Dynasty.

Chan Jen Nam, however, never met the One-Armed Nun, who was in fact Princess Chang Ping of the Ming Dynasty. By the time of her appearance in DOMD, Princess Chang Ping was likely the last survivor of the Chu royal family. If Chan Jen Nam knew of her existence, would his loyalty (and that of his Heaven and Earth Society) have gone to her instead? As an actual blood descendant of the Chus, Princess Chang Ping had a more legitimate claim to the Ming throne than the Chengs did.

The Kingdom of Tungning supports the last of the Southern Ming pretenders, the Prince of Ningjing Zhu Shu Gui as the legitimate claimant to the throne. In 1664, in support of the legitimacy of the Ming Dynasty, Zheng Jing invited the Prince of Ningjing to Taiwan. He built a residential mansion for the Prince in the district of Xidingfang, adjacent to Fort Provintia in the city of Chengtianfu (now Tainan City), and provided him with a yearly stipend. His death in 1683 marked the end of Ming Restoration movement.

Despite being the biological daughter of Chong Zhen, Princess Chang Ping has no claim to the throne whatsoever, because the patriachal succession rules. Only the male descendants of Prince of Lu, and Prince of Tang, Prince of Gui and Prince of Ninjing will be considered as legitimate claimants.

Moreover, the Zhengs of Taiwan never claim the throne for themselves.

[Ian Liew]

I did not say it's justifiable or right thing to do. However, that is how people felt at the time and they acted accordingly.

You just rationalised it. It should be just an unconditional condemnation in the way you frequently condemn the Mongols and Manchus for their atrocities. If it was Mongols being debated here the response would probably have been less understanding.

Much under the sun has evil in it, it's when we sympathise with some and unreservedly condemn others that we lose our objectivity.

[Trien Chieu]

You just rationalised it. It should be just an unconditional condemnation in the way you frequently condemn the Mongols and Manchus for their atrocities. If it was Mongols being debated here the response would probably have been less understanding.

Much under the sun has evil in it, it's when we sympathise with some and unreservedly condemn others that we lose our objectivity.

I did not rationalise it. It's wrong to kill the innocent Manchurians and it's equally wrong when the Manchurians killed the innocent people of Yangzhou. I stated the reasons why the Hans killed the innocent Manchurians at the time, I did not say it was the right thing to do.