lyon-77

Tbh it's more that they're not a *Maoist* state. Chinese ideology has, the last 1400+ years, emphasized continuity of the nation above all. This means denying that any previous endogenous regime was 100% illegitimate. So: Cultural Revolution a tragic error, but Mao was a Lion.

Not just forgot I straight up did not know this. I thought it was kinda strange that European royalty were such a transcultural layer and often had such weak ties to the people they ruled. I just figured it wasn’t a problem. But it was a problem. Created a crisis of legitimacy. “Everyone forgets that the French Revolution villainized the monarchy for being alien to the French nation. King Louis XVI was 80% ethnically German/Austrian and his wife was 100% Austrian. In his trial, charges 9, 19, 20, 28, 31, and 33 were all concerning his foreignness to France which led to his treasonous collaboration with the Germans/Austrians fighting France at the time.”

Very true! The Eastern Zhou period would be the most similar to medieval-19th century Europe, likely with even less loyalty towards one's state of birth. Not only did aristocrats routinely go on exile, intellectuals travelled around different states to market their philosophy of governance and hegemony to different dukes and kings. Men were expected to change their patrilineal last name (氏) to the location where they finally established themselves. There was also the interesting 质子 (roughly translated to "hostage prince" though those were not actual princes) system where one sent their heir apparent to a dominant or adversary state as hostage to show loyalty or commitment to peace agreement; despite the inherent safety risk, if the heir successfully returned to his home state, it was considered a great diplomatic success and link, and would grant him greater legitimacy to succeed to the title. I would say that the national identity (or more accurately, state identity) among intellectuals, one step below the aristocrats, was even weaker than in medieval Europe. Somewhat in parallel to the late Roman Empire, people still remembered their shared political entity (Zhou) and used the same language developed in the Shang Dynasty. However, unlike vernacular Latin, natural divergences in old Chinese were then re-standardized during the short-lived Qin Dynasty and re-inforced by the Han Dynasty. History then took very different turn.

They never could because that's not how the Chinese political system worked. Imagine there were a consort of foreign origin in the palace. The emperor would still not exile to her country in the moment of crisis. My take is not about the ruler's personal courage and virtue, but rather how the political context historically shaped the relationship between the Chinese rulers and the Chinese states, so that the expectation diverged from what's typically seen in European monarchs. The OP discussed the modern emergence of nationalism and the transnational nature of European aristocrats. I would argue that nationalism emerged much earlier and developed through a different trajectory in China. The point is exactly that these are two very different political contexts and orientations. It matters today because I still see Western-educated intellects struggle to understand the perceived and expected duty Chinese rulers have towards the state, as well as the Chinese national identity not explained by the modern concept of ethno-national state as developed by the Europeans.