From yesterday’s editorial in Taiwan’s One-China Post:
Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times. In the seventh century, princess Wen Cheng, daughter of Emperor Tang Taizong was sent to Tibet, then called Tufan, to marry a Tibetan king in a political marriage aimed at cementing ties between suzerain China and the faraway dependent state.
I was going to write a snarky comment to the effect that Gordon Brown should start insisting France is British territory, because back in 1420 Henry V happened to marry Catherine of Valois, the daugher of the French king of the time.
But then a bit of fact-checking revealed:
Princess Wencheng … was a NIECE of the powerful Emperor Taizong of Tang of Tang China … [emphasis added]
So, was she the emperor’s daughter as the China Post claims, or his niece? The sources I checked on Google seem to disagree, so I’m from Missouri on this one.
However, the Post‘s claims that the marriage was "aimed at cementing ties" seems a half-truth at best. Again, from Wiki:
In 635 – 636 the Tibetan king’s forces attacked and defeated the ‘A zha people, who lived around Lake Koko Nor in the northeast corner of Tibet, along an important trade route into China. After a campaign against China in 635-6 (OTA l. 607) the Chinese emperor agreed to marry a Chinese princess to [Tibetan] king Songtsän Gampo as part of the diplomatic settlement.
Wikipedia also states that a large quantity of gold "accompanied" the princess to the Tibetan court.
And the China Post says THIS was a "political marriage aimed at cementing ties between suzerain China and the faraway dependent state"? Balderdash! The Chinese were defeated in a series of military campaigns — and chose to sue for peace by sending WOMEN and GOLD to the throne room of the victor.
Obviously, my initial sarcastic reaction was completely misplaced. Perhaps instead, Nicholas Sarkozy should start asserting FRENCH sovereignty over Britain. In this, he could follow the China Post‘s lead, arguing that 600 years ago, the English were forced by their SOUND DEFEAT at Agincourt … forced, into giving Henry V’s hand to the daughter of France’s triumphant Charles VI!
Tibet and China were both headed by monarchs claiming the title of “emperor”–at a time when, according to the general understanding, there could only be one emperor. An emperor would never pay tribute, or engage in trade–though he might bestow “gifts” upon, or receive tribute from, his grateful and submissive subjects. Not uncommonly, a transaction would be described as a “gift” in the records of one court, and as “tribute” in the records of the other.
Incidentally, another bride, Bikhrutidevi, was from Nepal, but the Chinese never talk about her. In Tibetan legend she and Wen Cheng were the emanations of Green Tara and White Tara.
Of course, socialism has put to flight such feudal vestiges as dynastic marriages!
*
*
Ahh – thank you, that’s very cool to know. As for the Nepalese wife, I completely overlooked that angle. Heh – maybe Nepal should put in it it’s own claim.
By the way, I think it’s not just socialism, but modernity itself which has rendered the notion of dynastic marriages obsolete. For hundreds of years, Europeans engaged in them, but modern Westerners (of virtually all political stripes) would laugh at the idea that a state’s territorial claims can be justified by nuptials that occurred 600 or 1300 years ago.