I saw someone say that
Spain is an angry drunk in canon. Is there any truth to that?
It’s canon. He’s scary
enough to change Sweden’s facial expression. Although, he gets “sentimental”
when he drinks wine.
Source: Hetarchive (Bamboo Thicket, eng trans., Oct 6th, 2011).
Have you done an in depth analysis of the
relationship between France and England? If so, would it be too much to ask you
to link it? ^^, If not, could you do one?
I have [x]. Next time, please go to my Post Directory. I don’t want asks like this to become a habit. All links are provided.
Um, this question might be kinda dumb but I’m
honestly not sure… Is Japan’s first name “Honda” or
“Kiku”? Because in fanworks I’ve seen it both ways and it’s a little
confusing.
His first name is Kiku. They address people by their last name first in Japan.
Do you happen to know why Turkey wears a mask?
At first I thought it was part of his Ottoman Empire outfit, but we still see
him wear it in modern day. Why is that?
I’ve already answered this [x]. It’s another Q & A, so I know it’s harder to find 🙂
It’s canon for personifications to change titles. The Prussia = East Germany connection has not explicitly been made in canon, but it is heavily hinted at and is very obvious.
Source: World Stars Chapter 1.
Ex: Prussia began as a Catholic Order, evolved into the Teutonic Knights, and then into Prussia. Hungary began as an equestrian tribe. Liechtenstein was originally Austrian nobles.
Update: I nearly roundhouse kicked my poor dog when all she wanted to do was come sleep with me.
One thing I’ve noticed is that fans approach and analyze
relationships between the nations from a human perspective. The problem with
this is that it doesn’t capture the elasticity and interchangeability of
titles of beings who are immortal– not mortal– go through. In other words,
aside from direct biological relations which don’t change, you can’t apply
words of human organization to immortal beings who routinely change how and who
they relate to.
For example, just because a nation lives with another
nation, doesn’t automatically make them family. In the case of a nation, they
don’t live with other nation(s) by choice but rather circumstance. Often
enough, it was the product of being conquered.
Some nations living together will choose to identify as a family,
as their bond as a unit most closely resembles one. Nonetheless, these
families, or households rather, are temporary.
Ex: Hungary refers to Holy Roman Empire’s household as a
family [x].
Ex: Having lived with France in Rome’s household
for some time, young Italy referred to France as big brother.
Out of respect, some nations will continue to refer to the
other nations they lived with as an older brother. In Japanese, “onii-chan” is
a term coined out of affection and adoration for a figure. It doesn’t mean
older brother in a blood sense.
Ex: France claims to be the older brother figure of the
world. Meanwhile, only Italy and Monaco choose to refer to him with this title
of affection [x]. Again, not to be mistaken with a relation.
A nation can be a guardian for several centuries and later
evolve into a companion, friend and/or mentor figure.
This is best seen with America and Canada, biological
brothers who temporarily held a family unit with their colonizers. Although,
they didn’t physically live together, settling for occasional visits instead.
For one thing, it’s important to distinguish the fact that biological relations are inherently sensed by the nations.
There’s a difference between Iceland, who senses Norway to
be his brother from birth [as does Norway]… [x].
…and England and France, who make America and Canada their
family [x].
Ex: America doesn’t inherently sense a brother among his
colonizers, Finland, France, and England.
Instead, they fight over who will assume the role of
America’s brother [x].
As mentioned, it’s difficult to apply human words for
relationships to capture relationships between immortal beings. It doesn’t
quite fit. Think of it this way: The nations have unique experiences that we as
humans will never have. So, why are we using words that describe our
experiences to describe theirs?
Respectively, England has trouble deciding what America
should call him.
Again, notice America’s choice of the word onii-chan.
Titles like guardian and older brother, two very different
terms, are loosely thrown around. Of course, older brothers can be guardians, but you’ll see what I mean by this muddled distinction in a moment.
It’s hard to make sense of a relationship
using words that don’t describe but instead confine and water down the
complexity of the colony-colonizer and simultaneous guardian-adoptive
relationship they’ve established.
This uncertainty and fumbling to find words that best
describe their relationship is seen again when America declares his
independence. Even he doesn’t know if what they had entailed a parent-child or
sibling relationship [x].
Nonetheless, he cuts off these ties and no longer views
England as this type of figure for him.
The point I want to emphasize is that due to political
circumstances, the nations’ relationships with each other are dynamic. It’s not
as rigid as human forms of organization; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to
approach these family-like dynamics from a human perspective. It’s like
comparing apples and oranges.
Lastly, to avoid falling into a trap of reasoning, there’s a
stark difference between conquering/ colonizing a nation and living together and
willfully forming a union [economic or political] and living together.
Ex: Switzerland adopted Liechtenstein into his household and
the two consider each other to be siblings. Because this is how they presently
identify and relate to each other, they are siblings.
Ellawritesficssometimes 