Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 August 4

= August 4 =

Western Wedding Customs Question
My friend is getting married, and I'm in the wedding. These are Midwestern Americans who are christian (Baptist I think). I'm an usher or something like that. Anyways, they're making us pay for our tuxes. Is the father of the bride supposed to cover that, or is he just being cheap. Or am I just bitching about having to pay $140.00 to rent a tux for a day? Here7ic (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the father of the groom cover that? I've been an usher quite a few times in days gone by and never saw a bill. I can't imagine having to pay for one's own tux rental. In the end, you pay for the company you keep. Shouldn't cheap weddings be barefoot in meadows followed by a picnic with Cold Duck or something?--Wetman (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's different in the USA, but over here the ushers and groomsmen pay for their own tuxes and shoes (if they don't have black ones already), and the bridesmaids pay for their own dresses and shoes. The bride's father pays for the reception.  The groom's father seems to get off scot free, apart from a handsome wedding present.  But it's not set in stone, and where the father of the groom is considerably better off than the father of the bride, he may come to the party with all sorts of costs.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In North America, the customs vary. A lot depends upon who can afford what, much more so than even 50 years ago when the rules were hard and fast. If the wedding is being paid for by the bride's parents (which has been the tradition) that cost does not usually include the bridesmaids' costumes, or those of the groom's party. If the costs are being shared among the various parents and, especially when the couple is older, the couple themselves, there are few rules.  In general, it has been my experience that all those in the bridal party, men and women, pay for their own clothes, and a kind bride and groom do not ask for more than their friends can afford. I have known the very wealthy parents of a bride, who was also an only child, pay for absolutely everything, even hotel costs and travel costs for the whole party, but that is rare. It is not an honour, in my view, to be asked to do something that is more than you can afford. The groom's parents, in the traditional wedding, paid for the rehearsal dinner, usually held the night before the wedding, which would include the entire wedding party, the "inner families" and all out-of-town guests. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would only be happy paying if I was the one choosing what to wear (within a given dress code). If the couple wanted me to wear something specific (other than just a very strict, but standard, dress code) - presumably something matching with everyone else, then I would expect them to pay. Depending of circumstances, I might offer to pay, but I would expect them to assume that they're paying. Although, I'll point out (because I'm something of a pedant), you shouldn't be wearing a tux at all - weddings are done in morning wear, not evening wear - that means you should be in top hat and tails, not a tux. --Tango (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Weddings are done in morning wear" - even for an admitted pedant that's going too far. Morning wear is rare these days, and weddings are in fact done in all manner of styles of clothing.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I should have said "traditionally done", but nevertheless, morning wear is more common than evening wear at weddings in my experience (in the UK). People either wear a lounge suit or a morning suit, black tie would be strange. Often only the groom and groomsmen wear morning suits and everyone else just wears a lounge suit. --Tango (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here in the American Midwest, I did my share of wedding duties back in the days when my friends and siblings were walking the plank. As was customary, I paid for my own clothes almost every time. However, as an usher I didn't need to rent a tux—only groomsmen were expected to wear the matching monkey suit, while ushers (who didn't stand up front with the wedding party) could get by with the suit you wore at grandma's funeral. Everyone loses if the tux rental is too expensive, because it means less money for the wedding gift and for, um, "adult entertainment" at the bachelor party. —Kevin Myers 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the scale of the wedding and the wealth of the people getting married. If you have been asked to be a part of the wedding and that to be Usher costs you X in suit-hire then you have two options. Pay for the hire and get on with your life, or decline the invitation to be usher. JackOfOz... having been usher on 5 ocassions I have worn a morning-suit on 4 of those ocassions - I guess it depends on the couple as to what you are asked to wear but seems popular to wear morning-suits in the Uk, at least from the weddings i've been to and been involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure about rental versions. If anything is bought for someone involved in the ceremony and is more than a single use (for example, a suit, top hat or bridesmaid's dress/shoes), these days the person wearing it is expected to buy it, or make a healthy contribution, because they will have use of it afterwards. One off things (like bridesmaid's hair and make-up) are a part of the wedding costs. Rentals are a different question. For the groom's party, I would suggest a 50/50 split, but for an usher, I'd have thought they would simply wear a suit of their own, rather than a rental tux. It must be a big traditional wedding. I'd politely raise the possibility of a 50/50 split, explaining your financial situation. Steewi (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Free historical trading data
Does anyone know where free historical stock, etc. data can be found? I'd like to have the open, close, low and high for each day, or even the graphs for each hour etc. if possible. Thanks, --Rajah (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All manner of share-trading firms offer historical graphs and charts on stocks. It depends which stock exchange you are wanting the information on. If you tell us the market you are interested in it would help. In the UK places such as www.iii.co.uk allow setting up of free-accounts that can access a decent level of data some of which is exportable to excel. Barclays stockbroking has plenty too but you pay an 'inactivity' fee if you haven't made a trade in x number of months (I think every quarter) so that's not quite 'free'. Alternatively if it is a specific firm you can usually find their investors-relations site and be able to access a wide array of information and data on their share-price and performance. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm interested in US, European, and Asian markets (which covers most, I guess). How would I export this to excel: http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?type=chart&display=chart&code=cotn%3AVOD.L&it=le&timeframe=1y&index=&versus=&linetype=line&overlay=&overlay2=&overlay3=&overlay4=&indicator=&indicator2=&indicator3=&indicator4=&chartwidth=500&Go=Plot ? Or do i have to register first to get that capability? --Rajah (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would United States help Australia in a War?
If a foreign country tried to conquer Australia, would United States take action by sending military to help Australia. A war would bring many U.S. soldiers' causalities and certainly wouldn't benefit the U.S. Would United States help Australia or would the U.S. leave this international affair alone? Simon81 05:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The United States and Australia are still cooperating in the ANZUS treaty. I think it highly likely that the U.S. would come to Australia's aid.  If the aggressor were the People's Republic of China, it's a mortal certainty that the U.S. would help Australia. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But there would be protesters chanting "No blood for Midnight Oil!" —Kevin Myers 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There wouldn't be too much bloodshed. The U.S. navy and air force are far stronger than any other potential enemy or combination of enemies in the region and could just interdict the waters and airspace around Oz. Without any way to get resupplied, an invasion force would be relatively easy to mop up (especially by the Australian rules footballers). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this would be the case in the unlikely scenario of a Chinese invasion of Australia. True their military strength is not great but their potential if they used their manufacturing capability would be huge. Fortunately they have enough useless stretches of desert of their own ;-) -- Q Chris (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, US military has it's airforce and the aircraft carriers. However, american military has a serious weakness - the Army. Basically, there are too few foot soldiers and they are not well trained, not well equipped and their morale isn't too high (meaning they are not brainwashed enough). In any kind of serious combat on land this is going to show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese superiority in army numbers would only be an issue if the Chinese could deliver those soldiers to Australia. As stated above, they could be stopped before they arrived.  The real problem with a Chinese invasion would be in areas bordering China.  Taiwan is one possible area of concern, as China very much wants to conquer it.  There is a small stretch of water between China and Taiwan, but that might not be enough to protect it. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the near total lack of an amphibious capability, the PLA would have a very tough time delivering a division onto the island of Taiwan. Since the Taiwan Strait is some of the roughest water in the world, military circles call this strategy "the million man swim." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But when invading a country where they are on the same side as the population, and therefore fighting with resistance forces and militia instead of against, they wouldn't encounter many of the problems which have been of serious concern in Iraq and Afghanistan. Philc 0780 11:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention China would be an invading country. It could be a muslim country that wants Australia. Why would United States want to help Australia and what would that benefit the U.S.? Does Australia have oil? Does Australia give lots of free money to the U.S.? My point is what U.S. going to get out of this war when many U.S. soldiers would sacrifices their lives just for saving Australia. Simon81 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.110.93 (talk)
 * Politically, it would be impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy. The U.S. would lose an immense amount of prestige. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And militarily it would be impossibly embarrassing to allow a nation under the US's protection to be conquered by an enemy that had already (magic, perhaps?) sneaked past the world's strongest navy. Algebraist 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Australia would describe their alliance with the US as being under US protection... --Tango (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Clarityfiend: "Politically, it would be impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy." I add: Politically, it would be even more impossible for the President to abandon a longstanding ally and fellow democracy where most of the people are white, are Christian, and speak English.  I'm not offering this cynical assessment as a defense of our inaction in Darfur; I'm saying only that this is how the politics of it would play out. JamesMLane t c 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just that. Australia given it's location is an excellent strategic ally of the US which is important to help them counter the rise of other countries in the Pacific like China & Indonesia Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If history is any guide, the answer is that the U.S. would go to great lengths to protect Australia from a threat of invasion. See Military history of Australia during World War II. That article says that Australia was very weakly defended when war with Japan started, due to forces sent to the European conflict, and the U.S. forces arrived in "great numbers" and went on the offensive. The first U.S. forces arrived in early 1942 and over 1 million passed through Australia during the war. The ANZUS treaty remains in effect. Edison (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First reason: Australia fought with America (et al) in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and some smaller conflicts. Second reason: Assuming Australia is attacked, the US has a long history of supporting those who are attacked, if only to ensure that their credibility as a deterrent force remains current. (If the US wouldn't back Australia, why should Japan believe they would be treated any differently? That leads to a nuclear armed Japan, which is against US interests.) Third, all suspects in this "Australia attacked!" scenario are nations with fewer / weaker personal, political, diplomatic, military, financial, familial and religious links to the US. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe that the US would launch an all out counter attack. Assumptions in this analysis: One of the countries near Australia is the attacker/Strong or historical ally not the attacker/China not involved/State-sponsored nuclear weapons not involved.
 * Americans have an amazingly intense sense of solidarity with the countries we are allied with. This is helped by the fact that Americans have a strange attraction and liking for Austrailia. In addition, we long for a worthy cause and someone to help who wants our help. I guess that kind of makes us bloodthirsty and bigheaded...for which I have no apologies.  The current Iraq War is a major problem in this picture.  However, any actual mass invasion is vulnerable to air and sea attack, which I think is not a huge problem at the moment.  The problems would be mopping up the enemy troops left. However, any occupation of a country with no support or supply lines would probably be taken care of by the Autrailians themselves.  I'm not sure how many own guns.
 * I would love to hear what others have to say on this subject. --mboverload @ 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on what the various countries had done lately. While America does tend to feel a strong sense of solidarity with those countries it is allied with at the time, it can also be rather fickle and easily angered by what it perceives as rejection or a snub (assuming by 'America' we mean some sort of gestalt of the American people judged by the opinions and views expressed through the media, bumper stickers, the internet, advertising, etc. and which is required to be behind any major, obvious military action) See, for example, America's relationship with France. 79.66.32.107 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Great points. Although quite a few people really do dislike France for some reason the rest of the people just make jokes about hating France. No clue why, they are just easy to pick on =P.  However, if France was invaded I think we would respond there as well, assuming that the British could not take care of it.  (Sorry - I'm not well versed in the current military buildups in Europe)--mboverload @  17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we now have a great test case. We have presumed that the US would aid Australia in a war because Australia has helped the US in Korea, Vietnam, etc. Now Russian tanks are in the former Soviet republic of Georgia,  which sent 2000 soldiers to aid the US in the "Glogal War on Terror"  by foghting in Iraq. If the U.S. is a country which stands by its allies, it will provide military aid immediately to its ally Georgia. If the U.S. merely votes for U.N. resolutions "deploring violence," and sends an ambassador to negotiate, then that is the only assistance any other ally might expect if they were invaded. Edison (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * False analogy. There are no "test cases" in international relations. Each situation has unique considerations. Dealing with a nuclear power, for example, is quite different from dealing with a tinpot dictator. The US response to an invasion of Australia would obviously be shaped by who was invading and why. —Kevin Myers 03:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed
Is it true that the only prophet of Islam had intercourse with a nine year old girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what Wikipedia has on this, see Aisha and Criticism_of_Muhammad. Some current-day Muslims have cast doubt on the validity of the relevant Hadiths, but Muslims didn't seem to have any real qualms on the topic until it started  to become an issue in the modern era of Christian-Muslim controversializing (ca. the early 20th century).  By the way, it was nine lunar years (not solar years), which could have been as little as 8 years 8 months and 23 days old in terms of the Gregorian calendar... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst this is doubtlessly trolling - consider this much: Just because that age seems outrageous now doesn't mean that it always has been. Age of consent will have varied over history and varies by country, and what is considered socially awful today may have been normal at some stage in history. It is difficult to look at history without comparing it to our current culturally produced ethics and morals, but we should try to remember that our idea of right and wrong is as much influenced by our current culture and society as theirs were, so we should refrain from being too judgemental of things that now appear wrong - for we will, in the end, potentially be looked back on as living unethical/immoral lives. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but ultra-relativism won't convince many people who weren't already predisposed towards ultra-relativism in the first place. When we hear about a six-year-old boy being married to a four-year-old girl, then we may consider such customs to be quaint and picturesque (though we don't choose to live that way ourselves) -- but when we hear about a twelve-year-old girl being married to a forty-year-old man, then our reaction is much more likely to be one of disgust... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are we trying to convince? This is a reference desk.... --mboverload @  02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but Muhammed also had a magical flying donkey and talked to angels, so the whole business probably needs a pinch of salt. --Sean 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're saying you think her age is just a myth, I don't agree, as marriage at those ages was common back then. I see no reason to doubt the truth of the claims of her age. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine was a little young in those days. . . but not by much. Ever heard the crude saying "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"? Although the average age of menarche was somewhat older in past centuries (today it's twelve, but nine isn't unheard of), it's possible that this nine-year-old was in fact menstruating and therefore would be considered marriageable in much of the world at that time. Even if she was still in the early stages of puberty, she would have been considered only a couple years shy of womanhood, not little more than an infant as many of us today think of a nine-year-old when it comes to sexuality. And although women throughout most of written history got married in their early to mid-teens (often to men much older), it wasn't necessarily unheard of for a man to marry a younger child (remember, historically marriage was often as much about politics, economics, family connections, or some other strategic advantage as anything else), and the marriage to remain unconsummated until she was of age (say, fourteen or fifteen maybe). - Aletheia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTWm Muhammad is not the only prophet of Islam. Islam has many prophets such as Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus) Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Karen Armstrong, Aisha was married to Muhammad at a young age, but it was more like an adoption than a marriage(if I recall correctly, she was an orphan, and Muhammad was known for his concern for orphans and widows). There would have been no sex until she hit puberty, at least. 207.233.87.121 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like the Woody Allen version of "adoption". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Karen Armstrong's book on Muhammad is wonderful; I recommend it. Women and girls of that time had no rights and no property of their own.  An orphan would not only have no parents but no security and no clear identity; she'd be a non-person.  Adoption or marriage of an unattached female would be an act of compassion and honor.  It is also my understanding that Aisha would not have had intercourse until puberty.Quakerlady (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic choral piece
I had this piece of music in my head which I was certain was Orff's O Fortuna. It wasn't, from what I heard on youtube. I'll try to describe part of it, and the description will be horrible, but singing it would be even worse.

Choir, ascending, on the 2 and 3 of a 1-2-3 rhythm:. da da. da da. da da - daaaaaa! (long held note, at which point there is a flurry of notes from someone in the orchestra)

It's a famous, rather dramatic piece, probably used in lots of soundtracks and such. I'd like to get the name right. Thank you! iames (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That description sounds like it would fit the very end of O Fortuna. But if it isn't, some other very famous dramatic choral movements you might try are the Dies Irae from Verdi's Requiem and the Kyrie and Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem. Strad (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I can see how the end sounds like my description. Probably why I thought Orff in the first place! It's not the fragment I had in mind, though. iames (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In your "transcription", are the dots before the "da da"s rests? If they are, I think I know what that song is, but, of course, I can't remember the name (and no, it's not O Fortuna).  And now it's stuck in my head!  Is there some groovy way to do musical notation on wikis?  If not, let me get to my keyboard, and I'll at least figure out the notes to what I'm hearing in my head, and we can see if we're thinking of the same thing... Dgcopter (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A fine transcription, isn't it. Yes, they were meant to be rests, and the orchestra plays a descending kind of run under the choir's held note, and that whole phrase is repeated a number of times. We're probably thinking the same thing. iames (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's sounding more and more like this. Strad (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I get why you'd think that ... in fact, the piece in my head (and, I'm assuming, Iames' head) does sound kind of like the Verdi, but it's definitely not. I made a crappy .midi file of what I'm hearing.  My feeling is it's something Russian, but I can't place it.  Here's the link to the aforemention crappy (and probably horribly mangled, but good enough to get the general idea) midi file:  http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=39541a9e07a1dc511686155677bb26850721e0f3f870dea1 Dgcopter (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the Polovetsian Dances by Borodin to me. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. One of the more lyrical themes in the dances was made into the song "Stranger in Paradise" (or, if you prefer the alternative words, "Take my gland, you're a strange looking parasite").  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you, that's exactly it! My "transcription" would begin at say 3:30 of this: iames (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto! Dammit, I even looked up Polovetsian Dances before I did that midi file, and I thought, "nah, can't be that". D'oh! Thanks, all! Dgcopter (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The melody you describe is indeed theme D from Polovetsian Dance #17 from Alexander Borodin's opera "Prince Igor". Thomprod (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

California's name change by usage method
California is a state that allows individuals to do a name change by the "usage method"; that is, by using the desired new name in ALL contexts, a person can claim that as his or her legal name. Does anyone know how far the usage method may be taken to extend? For example, if a person who has changed his or her name by usage wishes to have a state ID card issued in his or her new name (which requires the presentation of a social security card and birth certificate), would the Department of Motor Vehicles be obliged to respect that person's wishes if he or she could prove that he or she had consistently and exclusively used the new name for a period of several years? (If so, what sort of proof would be necessary?) Or would this person still be required to go through the courts to obtain a "legal" name change in order to get his or her name changed on the social security card and birth certificate first? (Is it possible to use the usage method to change the social security card and birth certificate as well? And if not, just how valid is the so-called "name change by usage" anyway?) - Aletheia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about Californian law, but it seems like a very odd way to change a name - surely you can't use your new name in all contexts without it being your legal name, otherwise the phrase "legal name" is meaningless... --Tango (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Supposedly California law allows this method, but not so far as to change the birth certificate and social security card. So, for example, an individual could be known to family and friends and do business by her chosen name and be able to claim it as her legal name, but would still have to have her birth name on her driver's license, school registration, insurance papers, etc., unless she went through the courts. I think this is an inconsistency on the part of California law. By the way, it is possible to use one's chosen name even in contexts in which indicating one's birth name is called for, by using an "aka"; for example, one could sign one's name "Chosen Name (aka Birth Name)," and as such be able to claim the "use in all contexts" required by the usage method. - Aletheia

Did George VI ever have a coronation portrait?
Most monarchs seem to have lavish coronation portraits. Did George VI have one also? If Elizabeth II coronation portrait was painted in 1953 why is it not public domain? Surely the 50 yrs are up? --217.227.90.214 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if George VI hadn't. As to the copyright status, paintings are creative works, and as with most such things are copyrighted for the life of the artist plus seventy years. Elizabeth II's coronation portrait certainly can't be public domain, in this case, unless it was painted by someone twenty years dead! Shimgray | talk | 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This site claims that Jean de Botton was "the official painter at the coronation of H.M. King George VI in 1937." (By the way, the crown copyright article suggests that for items covered by letters patent, the reproduction rights in the copyright never expire. Not to say that's necessarily the case with a royal portrait.) OtherDave (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, excuse my "copyright ignorance", but I still can't find the portrait in question...Surely the portrait is widespread? [Elizabeth II]'s portrait is after all very famous...even if it isn't allowed on wikipedia ; p --Cameron* 09:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I have no idea whether an official portrait would be covered by letters patent. My side point was that copyright protection varies from country to country.  As for George's portrait, I have no idea why you can't find it.  One possibility is that it's not very good.
 * I also have no idea if this portrait is de Botton's, but I wouldn't want it in my living room. OtherDave (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That picture is by Gerald Festus Kelly. See . DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think it is a state portrait, rather than a coronation portrait (it is very similar to the state portrait of Queen Elizabeth done at the same time, and His Late Majesty is not wearing his crown, nor is he in coronation robes). DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks alot! I think that could just be it. It is certainly in similar fashion: holding the sceptre, with the crown placed nearby! Thanks! --Cameron* 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) At the risk of being pedantic, the first portrait of Queen Victoria was painted in the 1850s, and is not her coronation portrait. :) PeterSymonds (talk)  15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I stand corrected; I merely wished to illustrate the similarity between the portraits. I really mean coronation/state portraits :). --Cameron* 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ismene
Does she appear in anything else besides the Three Theban Plays? Does anyone ever write down how she dies? Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to see Ismene and Three Theban plays. According to these, Ismene appears in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes. Keilana | Parlez ici 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)