Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 20

= February 20 =

Please Help!
Hello, I recently joined Wikipedia in order to ask this question. I tried to find it, but could not, and I need it to finish a report...

Why did Eric Arthur Blair used "George Orwell" as his pen name?

Pease help me! Knitemare217 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article George Orwell contains the lines

"He returned to teaching at Hayes and prepared for the publication of his work now known as Down and Out in Paris and London which he wished to publish under an assumed name. In a letter to Moore (dated 15 November 1932) he left the choice of pseudonym to him and to Victor Gollancz. Four days later, he wrote to Moore, suggesting these pseudonyms: P. S. Burton (a tramping name), Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, and H. Lewis Allways. He finally adopted the nom de plume George Orwell because, as he told Eleanor Jacques, 'It is a good round English name.'"
 * Algebraist 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that "George" was for the patron saint of England and thus quintessentially English, and "Orwell" was for the River Orwell in Suffolk, which was a place he held in some affection. I've done some googling and discovered several sites that agree with this (eg:  ), but none of them provide an authoritative reference for this assertion, so it should be used with care if at all.   Ka renjc 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Catholics
Vltava  68  00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What do Chinese Catholics do as regards to having children?
 * 2) Is the One Child Policy enforced on foreigners living in China?
 * 3) How does the Catholic Church in China address the first problem?
 * The one child policy (further relaxed in the last couple of years) has never applied to non-Chinese citizens, even alien-residents. The Chinese government has no control with that respect on non-citizens. Steewi (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many exceptions to the one child policy. It does not apply to ethnic minorities, for example. Some of these minorities, such as the Hui or the Jews, are generally at least partly defined by religion - though I don't think Catholicism is counted as an ethnic minority. A Chinese citizen of foreign extraction would, in the usual case, be an ethnic minority and thus not be subject to the policy. Chinese citizens who have previously lived abroad are permitted two children. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. How would this affect an ethnic-Han Chinese married to a foreigner?--KageTora (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The status of Roman Catholicism in China is complicated (see Christianity in China for an overview); Catholicism has been in China a long time due to Jesuit and other missionaries, but the PRC government regulates religion, banning sects it doesn't like and tightly controlling the rest. Hence Catholicism in China is officially controlled by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, rather than being under Papal authority.  The article on the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association says the CPCA approves of abortion and artificial contraception in contrast to Vatican teaching.  The Vatican seems unwilling to break ties with Chinese Catholics even if they obey the CPCA, but the Vatican doesn't accept the Chinese government's authority over Catholicism either. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack on Big Ben
Hi friends I read on 20minutos (Spanish newspaper) that terrorists whoa attacked London in 2005 also wanted to attack the Big Ben and the Buckingham Palace. My question is... if they achieved it, would any person die in the Big Ben?, Are people working there?. I read the article of the Big Ben but there's no mention about attempted terrorist attack in July 2005. Thanks and forgive spelling mistakes. Greetings all! --190.49.118.197 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Ben is in the clock-tower at the Houses of Parliament, so it would be an enormous terrorist attack and whilst it might be that it was low in terms of number of people it would be huge in significance - it would be an attack on an icon. Add in that depending on the 'time of day' there would be potentially thousands of tourists that could be injured/killed by falling debris etc. Of course to understand the terrorist policies you have to consider that they focus heavily on symbolism and the knock-on effects that an attack would have. You don't have to kill thousands to get the attention and spread fear to millions of people. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, depending on the nature of the attack, you might wipe out several hundred MPs - that would be a pretty successful terrorist attack. --Tango (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There would also be the knock-on effect of BBC Radio 4 losing the bongs before the news. AllanHainey (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, Radio 4 have used other bells before as stand-ins during building work, maintenence etc. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IT would also be very difficult to rebuild Big Ben to how it was, and the effect of an attack on the original buildings of the Houses of Parliament would also be irreparable.MarquisCostello (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on the scope of the attack and resulting damage, These Guys would have to find another Quarterback :) Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that dude's tough. He played the Super Bowl with a broken rib.  However, I don't even think he could take on a 747... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

China
Would it be fair to say that the reason China has been united throughout most of its existence is because the ethnic and geographic layout of East Asia? 72.200.101.17 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the ethnic perspective, it depends on the time at which you take the snapshot of said layout. Historically, what is today "China" was inhabited by a whole range of diverse groups, most of which eventually became assimilated into the Han. Even today, there is great internal division amongst them. What has held the nation together is probably not so much their "ethnic" makeup as a cultural unity which has developed over the centuries and even today is incomplete. I would say the written Chinese language is one of the most important unifying factors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also say that the original premise is somewhat faulted. The idea that China has been united throughout its existance is a faulty premise.  Consider that Modern China includes territories which historically are not populated by the Chinese (Han) peoples, including Tibet, Manchuria, Uigur lands, etc. etc.  Also consider that for large amounts of Chinese history there have been competing Han Chinese states, including such time periods as the Warring states period, the Three Kingdoms period, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Southern and Northern Dynasties period, the Xinhai Revolution, the Chinese Civil War period, all represented times when there was no single monolithic Han Chinese state.  Just watch the animated gif titled File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif and you'll get an idea about the ebb and flow of Chinese history... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you define a core central China excluding peripheral territories, then you get a zone roughly equivalent in area to Europe excluding Russia and northern Scandinavia, or roughly equivalent in area to the Indian subcontinent -- yet over the past 2,200 years, this core China has been politically unified considerably more often than than either Europe or the Indian subcontinent, and in some respects is more culturally unified, too (in terms of having only one major written language, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cavemen in literature
When did the present stereotype of a caveman first appear? (By that I mean a group of people living in caves, wearing furs, carrying clubs and saying "Ug". Not meaning 'modern people' who choose to live as hermits in a cave.) In particular, would folk emigrating in the 1840s on the Oregon trail be familiar with the stereotype? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think they'd be aware of the sdtereotype because it doesn't fit at all well with Biblical beliefs - as practised by almost everyone on the trail, and probably to the characters to which you refer. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Neanderthal remains were the first real discovery of fossils significantly different from modern humans, but significantly more connected to modern humans than to apes; however, this wasn't really understood until 1856-1857 (and even then, some claimed that the Neanderthal skeleton was that of a "deformed Cossack" soldier from the preceding century!). Remains of fully modern humans from before the origins of agriculture (ca. 10,000 B.C.) weren't discovered until 1868 (Cro-Magnon). -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So do we have any idea when / where the stereotype evolved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conan Doyle's The Lost World was published in 1912 with ape-men fighting humans; Edgar Rice Burroughs copied this idea for The Land That Time Forgot in 1915. I can't find any references before about 1912.


 * IMDb seems to point to a genre of caveman movies in the 1910s, listing D. W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912) and Charles Chaplin's His Prehistoric Past (1914)as well as Brute Force (1914), The Cave Man (1912), and later Cave Man (1934). From the descriptions, Griffiths's characters can't talk (handy for a silent film), and use sticks and stones for weapons, while the hero of Cave Man acts like Tarzan, another source for primitive life, and fights dinosaurs.  Stills from Man's Genesis and His Prehistoric Past show the wearing of furs and grass, although Chaplin still has his bowler hat.


 * Caveman, Category:Fictional prehistoric characters and Category:Prehistoric people in popular culture may have some more information. There seems to have been a genre revival in the early 1960s: The Flintstones began in 1960, two years after B.C. (comic strip).  One Million Years B.C. was made in 1966.  --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if caveman stereotypes might be influenced by circus strongman imagery, particularly as regards the brute strength and one-shouldered fur costume; but I can't find anything earlier than the early 20th century, e.g. Abe Boshes in an undated image, so the circus performers may have been influenced by caveman movies. The Circus Historical Society would be the place for research. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been heraldic "wildmen" or "woodwoses" in European iconography for a long time, often shown as bearded and carrying huge clubs, but they're not uniformly depicted as brutishly subhuman (in fact, often they're shown as fine physical specimens influenced by classical depictions of Hercules), and they have no real association with caves, that I'm aware of... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I recall, the idea of "cavemen" specifically dates from the mid-19th century, coinciding with the widely-reported discovery of Neanderthal remains in Europe. Europeans of that period were fascinated with the idea that even "civilized" people like themselves had a pre-civilized, "barbaric" stage of life where they were essentially brutes. Tracing the evolution (har har) of this particular trope would be quite interesting, as it is one of those things that everybody "knows" today but nobody really knows why they know it, but it was well-established by the time people like Darwin and Galton were writing on the evolution of men. Darwin in particular draws on this idea in Descent of Man as a way to counter the accusations that Europeans and "savages" from other parts of the world were not the same species (he shows that civilization is just a layer over the basic barbaric frame). I don't think Americans in the 1840s would have been aware of the idea, though. I imagine it made its way into cheap Victorian literature a lot earlier than the "classics" described above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited some of the fruitful thoughts above into Wikipedia's weak article Caveman. Anyone interested might want to improve it further. It needs your help--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks wetman. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a stereotype - see Cerne Abbas giant 89.241.159.20 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stereotypes can be based on real difference, rather than just imagined ones. Just because some images show this type of 'caveman' does not mean it isn't a stereotype, because there are bound to be cavemen that don't ift into that group. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a piece of seventeenth century graffiti relevant here? Algebraist 10:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession
Duchess of Saxony, yes or no? This should be a title for the pre-Windsors, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Victoria was a Duchess in Saxony. All British royals descended from Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, including Elizabeth II but excluding her descendants, would've also been Dukes and Duchesses in Saxony if George V hadn't renounced all German titles for himself and his descandants. If The Duke of Edinburgh hadn't renounced his princely titles, Elizabeth II and her male-line descendants would've also been Princes of Greece and Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So why doesn't Wikipedia mention this in their styles, only casually glance over the issue in relation to WWI? Surely, some standardization is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Victoria never used the titles of Duchess in Saxony and Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because she acquired them when she was already Queen of the United Kingdom. She used her highest, monarchical title instead of courtesy titles acquired by marriage. Her children rarely (if ever) used the titles of Duke in Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha because their British royal titles ranked higher than their German ducal titles. We can mention that they held those titles, but they surely didn't use them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wanting to see all titles, not just regnant, but even the honorary. HM the Queen today has all of these articles about her wonderful titles and positions, but you'd think we'd see this title included for the Albertine period of the BRF, what with the inclusion of all the French titles for the government back in the day, as they are listed on Wikipedia. I myself know much less about the German titles and situation, the whole present establishment descended from Sophia of Hanover. It would help me and others less familiar with this brand of the modern Monarchy. I know the title is in her article but the circumstances of the German dynasties with respect to their Continental holdings, are all rather hazy. I know much more about the French dynasties and their Continental connections with England, but maybe it's just not that interesting in this case. I don't know why Victoria inherited when there was a legitimate male heir to the throne. This is bewildering. The same thing happened to the Windsors, with Elizabeth instead of some male Windsor. It's like Parliament is increasing the Royal turnover rate for dynasties, so none of them are dyed in the wool elements of the establishment. Consequently, it is rather tiring to cultivate sympathy for nobodies on the throne, although I'm a hopeful monarchist.
 * There are some articles which list all titles of a deceased British royal - List of titles and honours of Mary of Teck for example. Why did Victoria succeed? Victoria succeeded because her father was the eldest of the younger brothers of William IV and William IV had no children at all. Since Victoria's father was dead and she was his only child, she was the representative of him and his line. Ernest Augustus of Hanover was younger than Victoria's father and so Victoria was "older" than him in the eyes of cognatic primogeniture. Since the throne of Hanover was restricted to men only (just like the French throne), Ernest Augustus succeeded there as William IV's closest male relative. In the United Kingdom, however, women can succeed if they have no brothers - this has been a rule since the 12th century. Victoria and Elizabeth had no brothers and therefore they were both rightful heirs to the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Female succession was accepted from the 12th century, but it was not the rule – in the sense that Victoria definitely preceded her uncles and male cousins without controversy – until much later. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The male line was still in existence and still is today. It's quite strange to hear tabloid reports of the present heir to Hanover in Germany, instead of acknowledge that a male heir is desired to prolong a dynastic hold on the throne. It's not like the Tudors here, in this situation. What becomes of all the male Hanoverians and Saxons? This is just Parliament's stranglehold on the Monarchy and they've been doing it since they booted Jamie from the Throne, so there is no intention of a change any time soon? Is there an actual stipulation or clause written somewhere, that forces each dynasty to do this, a contract of Constitutional Monarchy? The Throne is divorced from reproductive pass/fail, but is wholly arbitrary? It couldn't go either way, could it? I want to know if this is as official as the ban on Roman Catholicism.
 * Yes, but cognatic primogeniture doesn't care about the strict male line. Agnatic primogeniture does. The UK follows and has always followed (just like it's predecessors followed) cognatic primogeniture: if a person has no sons, then that person is to be succeeded by the eldest daughter. The parliament has not plotted against the monarchy or whatever you're trying to say and I hope you won't edit the article to reflect your opinion. Let's continue this discussion here please. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you want to say Parliament had nothing to do with forcing Henry Tudor onto the nation by marrying Elizabeth of York, even though there were viable claimants in both Houses of Lancaster and York that were of the Plantagenet dynasty? You're saying Parliament didn't interfere and demolish the Plantagenets by skillful use of the Tudors? I'm not necessarily addressing the Commons on this issue of royal right, but the Lords want concessions out of the Crown and will only get it for so long as they dictate the succession. What I'm getting at, is that England very clearly was an agnatic primogeniture succession country until the "solution" to the Wars of the Roses. I could not imagine any dynasty handing over their power so easily, unless the parliamentary establishment put handicaps on the succession. There is no law of the land that could prevent agnatic succession in the UK before the Williamites redefined the Monarchy and the natural desire of a Royal Family is to prolong their own kind for as long as God allows.


 * Oh, I hate conspiracy theories so much. England has not practiced agnatic primogeniture since the Norman conquest. You forgot that Matilda was designated heir of Henry I and that both Stephen and Henry II based their rights on their mother's succession rights. The parliament doesn't dictate succession, nor does the Cortes in Spain (and Spain practices and has always practised cognatic primogeniture). The throne is not held by a dynasty, it's held by the rightful heir. Henry VII was not forced to marry Elizabeth of York. He was monarch by the right of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth simply strenghten his children's succession rights. The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really not sure what you mean by that last sentence -- Parliaments in the British Isles were involved a number of times in resolving disputed claims about noble heirships, and what are the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 if not parliamentary acts? AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean that Parliament doesn't change the succession law to suit a particular dynasty. Anyway, what's disputable about Victoria's accession? What's disputable about Elizabeth II's accession? Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that you would have Francis II instead of Elizabeth II if the Act of Settlement 1701 hadn't been passed by parliament, as well as the fact that if the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 hadn't been passed, then a lot of the illegitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers might have been legitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers ... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP was asking why Victoria ascended when there were males from the House of Hanover and why Elizabeth II ascended when there were males from the House of Windsor. Jacobites were not mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Female succession in Spain goes back quite a long way, but since the Bourbon succession it has been excluded at least sometimes. —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Every Bourbon King of Spain had a male heir, except for Ferdinand VII, who was succeeded by his eldest daughter Isabella II - therefore, agnatic primogeniture was not applied in Spain since the Bourbon succession. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you are telling me that dynasties willingly abdicate their power to other people? That's not the English history I know. Monarchs wouldn't even give in to their own blood, much less one not in their family! Whig history tends to besmirch those who refuse to give up their power to new people they could control, but it is telling that Parliament owes the Magna Carta to the French and yet, Parliamentarians like to rewrite our history to make it seem like the Dutch are the fountainhead of freedom, since William of Orange and the Bill of Rights. Did you notice how both the Catholic and Protestant English hated the Stuarts? The Catholics tried to blow up the King and replace him with his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who would be married to somebody they liked better, while the Protestants themselves used the very same daughter to promote Sophia of Hanover. The via media Anglicans were willing to use a Caroline descendent like Mary or Anne, so long as they were married to a husband they approved of. They did their damnedest to get rid of a native dynasty with a foreign ideology, only to import a foreign dynasty with a native ideology. Above all, they would not abide by a Royal Family of legitimists who would have a canonized ancestor like Charles the First. This is Parliament's intervention in the Monarchy. You are obviously reading some other country's tradition.

Just so you know, the reason why Matilda was heiress, was because there was no legitimate male of the Norman dyansty, so they'd obviously have a husband from another dynasty come in, but the Londoners wanted Stephen because Normandy didn't like Anjou, so they were trying to keep Geoffrey Plantagenet out of the picture. You are misreading the situation. It is obvious that one would have to rely on a maternal right of succession, if there were no paternal one to speak of! Henry Tudor was a conniving Parliamentary aristocrat who took over the Throne and ran it like a public office. He had the full backing of other Parliamentarians who were tired of fighting French wars for a dynasty which facetiously used a maternal succession right as justification for a century of war, when it was really just retaliation for not having autonomy over French territories, the Crown wanted to be held in right of the King of England, rather than in homage of the French Crown. This very same Angevin dynasty of Plantagenets fought amongst themselves for power and their conflicts were defined by the relation of their fathers to Edward III, although the ultra-Parliamentarian Yorkists also invoked the maternal succession from the Mortimers to Lionel of Antwerp. The Lancastrians were moderate Parliamentarians, only enough to depose Richard II's absolutism and regain the power John of Gaunt held. In a sense, the Yorkist succession was of the same type, that of regency and ultimately of usurpation.

@Surtsicna: The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title - that's not strictly true, as the case of George VI succeeding Edward VIII shows. Had the UK parliament not decided that Edward had abdicated (they get to decide, or at the very least confirm/agree/approve, because British monarchs cannot unilaterally abdicate), then Edward would have remained king until his death in 1972, and only then been succeeded by Elizabeth II. And, of course, parliament could theoretically change the succession laws tomorrow (subject to the Commonwealth Realms' concurrence). Parliament and parliament alone has that right. No monarch does. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, besides succession to the throne (which follows law set by parliament), Parliament is the only means by which succession to a peerage title can be changed. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I wasn't clear enough. Yet I don't understand what the IP wants to know. Succession is cognatic rather than agnatic. Fullstope. The parliament doesn't change the succession law every once in a while to suit someone. Do you think that the Parliament conspired to change the dynasty when it gets too powerful or whatever the IP tries to say? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stating that the succession must be cognatic only by duress from Parliament, to eliminate the concentration and entrenchment of Royal power in one family. The Monarchy has traditionally tried to run its affairs in the French manner, which means Salic Law. Of course, Edward III purposefully made this an issue for his own succession in France, but that was because he wanted to even the odds. The same tactic was chosen by Richard, Duke of York in his deposition of Henry VI's rights in favor of his own by invoking both male and female lines to his own benefit. The natural form of an hereditary monarchy, is to deplete all legitimate males when all efforts have been made to secure a male inheritance, then move onto a female of the most recent generation. Electoral monarchies rely on aristocratic intervention and caveats on who can succeed, whether the Throne will go to a male or female, or this or that new dynasty, from inside the country or a foreign choice. Surtsicna, you must have little understanding that England was once an hereditary kingdom, but became an electoral oligarchy over time, so even as the Monarchy was invested with central powers, Parliament had the trade-off of counsel and direction behind the establishment, for the choice of the Stuarts and subsequent rejection of them is a prime example of this. On the royal.gov website, the transition from Olde England to Great Britain is done with James, so they admit it just as well. The Monarchy had already been debased to being possessed by "New Men" in the form of the Tudors, who rose as "favourites" of the "corrupt" Lancastrians. The Tudors went from simpletons to royal majesty in less than a century and their record as leaders betrays these humble origins.

Anyways, I was hoping for more coverage of the Germanised establishment which prevailed since the Stuart twilight. I know but a little, that it mostly consisted of mercantile class connections and a few foreign dignitaries held in high regard. The process began under the Stuarts, with the Palatines and then the Dutch and onward. Mary of Teck was Swabian and her retainers came to Britain, but I confess to know rather little about these people in the "New Monarchy", even whilst learning much more than I used to about the old French establishment. I guess it's because the French have been absorbed into the English, but the new German establishmentarians are still too close to the Monarchy for their sort to mix and mingle with the English commons. The original point of discussion, was to find more exposure on the relationship of the UK to post-French Continental holdings of the Monarchy (her being Duchess of Saxony is one example of this). I think we all take it for granted about the knowledge we have on the Angevin Empire, but as to the Principality of Orange, for instance, I know next to nothing in its relationship to the UK in the time of William III, but I suspect Louis XIV tried to annex that territory for France. As I said before, this is all vague for me and I bet for most people who aren't related somehow to the present establishment of Great Britain, because they identify by default with England alone. One would probably have to be part of the new in-crowd to relate with the concept of Great Britain and its remade Continental relationship. We might all connect with Britannia, but that was so long ago. So by now, you see that German electoral monarchism is the norm for Great Britain, but the old hereditary establishment died with England.

Oh right...the first instance of Parliamentarians unrelated to the Monarchy dictating the succession in their favour, rather than engineering it in the case of the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, was when the Duke of Northumberland made the dying Edward VI pass over his own two sisters in favour of Lady Jane, so that Guilford Dudley would eventually be made king. While Edward's father Henry VIII stipulated (with a notorious male preference) that the Throne would first go to Edward, then Mary and Elizabeth, followed by a descendant of Henry's own younger sister Mary, he explicitly forbid the Scottish succession of his older sister Margaret. Parliament overrode this restriction and invited James VI of Scots anyways, but eventually regretted it and that is why the Civil War happened. Parliament has been Kingmaking in some form or another, ever since the Wars of the Roses, but it's only been a legitimate power of theirs upon the election of James Stuart, because they did not have a Royal Writ and didn't need one. Now, Parliament does it all the time, even where Royal Consorts are concerned. Their first interference in choice of consort, was removing Anne Woodville's family, followed by engineering any number of Henry VIII's marriages, then protesting Philip II of Spain and eventually Henrietta Maria of France was objected to and part of the reason for war with their king. Then, as mentioned, Parliament made William of Orange and George of Denmark their favoured husbands of the hated "legitimist" dynasty of the Stuarts, but you can already see that, despite the seniority of Margaret Tudor, the Stuarts were only as legitimate as the Tudors were at Bosworth. Parliament objected to Maria Fitzherbert and Wallis Simpson. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on Mrs Fitzherbert, but I doubt the bit about Wallis Simpson is true. It wasn't the parliament that objected to her, it was the government, and the PM, Stanley Baldwin, in particular.  Baldwin told Edward that his choice of wife would never be accepted by the British people.  That was what put the kibosh on him marrying her if he wanted to remain king.  Afaik, parliament per se never expressed an opinion on the matter, one way or another.  That would have been a waste of parliament's time in any case, because they don't get to approve or disapprove a monarch's choice of consort, well, not these days anyway; so objecting to it, or, for that matter, agreeing with it, would have had no effect.  But they were happy to rush through the legislation altering the succession laws, allowing him to abdicate rather than continue to reign without "the woman he loved".  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The PM and all related bureaucracy are Parliament.


 * No, they're not. The individual members of the government, including the PM, must be members of the Parliament, but the government and the Parliament are different entities.  The Parliament makes its decisions, the government makes its.  Normally, the government has some control over the parliament by sheer weight of numbers, but it is not necessarily the case.  As for the bureaucracy, that term usually refers to the government and all its employees, civil servants, etc.  Civil servants are members of neither the government nor parliament, but are simply private citizens paid to do a job.  --  JackofOz (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement on this, but in the perception of the same thing. So, a better and more simple way of putting it: Government is half Parliament (central authority of hereditary and elected officials), half Civil Service (devolved authority of appointed officials). Inasmuch as the succession goes, only the Parliamentary half would be involved to any degree. The Commons should have no part in this, but they have insisted upon it, through their voice in the PM. Only the Lords, if anyone other than the Royal Family, should be a party to Royal Marriages, Alliances and Successions. It really is a no-no for most government officials, should be even off-limits for Lords with Life Peerages to broach in discussion. Therefore, it should be restricted to the BRF, but perhaps members of the Privy Council, or closely related Dukes and maybe Marquesses. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pamphleting cars
Does anyone know of any locale that penalizes the placement of pamphlets on vehicles' windshields? Is there any reason passers-by may not remove such pamphlets? Thanks in advance. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Targeted littering. Remove at will and recycle.--Wetman (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the pamphlets from windshields and dropping them on the ground would probably not be an acceptable alternative, however. But you could remove the pamphlets and toss them into the nearest trash can.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Commedian Mitch Hedberg said it best when he noted "Whenever someone on the street hands you a pamphlet, it's like he's saying to you 'Here, you throw this away'..." --Jayron32. talk . contribs 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Seven of the top 20 millionaires in the Sunday Times Rich List owe their fortunes to online gambling"
Or so says Roy Hattersley, a British politician, in The Guardian newspaper. Yet a quick look at said list http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/ shows that nobody in the top twenty five has any mention of gambling. How can the big difference between what a reputable politician says (and whose party I incidently support) and the reality be explained? 78.146.66.185 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Hattersley say which of the top 20 he was referring too? MarquisCostello (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above quote was all the detail he went into. He did not mention any names. 89.241.159.20 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "top 20 millionaires" is rather odd too... the top 20 are all billionaires (strictly speaking, a billionaire is a millionaire, but you would normally use the more precise term). It sounds like he didn't have the faintest idea what he was talking about. When and where did he say that, by the way? If it was at a time when he wouldn't have been expecting to discuss the topic, he may just have said what he thought was true and hadn't fact checked it. Rather irresponsible, but perhaps not malicious. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Tango: the "when and where" are both in the column linked. // BL \\ (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What column linked? The only link I see is to the rich list... --Tango (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Tango. I was so certain that the link had been there (though you are quite right that it is not) that I searched the history looking for the elf who had made the switch. Forgive my aging brain cells. I must have done a search and found it that way. Here is the link, with my sincere apologies. // BL \\ (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * People lower down the list like Anurag Dikshit (94th=), Russell De Leon and Ruth Parasol (97th), Vikrant Bhargava (289th), have made their fortune from online gambling, but Dikshit at 94th is the highest.  Branson, who runs virgingaming.com (and bit for Britain's National Lottery), is the only one in the top 20 I can find with gambling interests, though many own large property portfolios which may include casinos; Philip Green is a keen gambler and Sean Quinn plays poker with a £5 maximum.  Hattersley's elderly, eccentric, and often a little bit confused.  To be charitable, online gaming has suffered over the past year or 2, with US authorities clamping down, so if Hattersley had looked at a list of say new billionaires in 2006 you might have seen more internet gambling millionaires.

Saw question on conjoined twins and had a thought
If there was a pair of conjoined twins, and one of them committed a serious crime (say physically punching someone), is it legally possible that their twin would have to go to jail simply because they are inextricably connected to their twin? I mean one could make an argument that they were there and thus an accomplice, but its possible they were physically unable to prevent the crime despite trying.

Please note that I am not asking for legal advice, this is a purely hypothetical legal paradox. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Chained for Life. If a movie director can't decide, I wonder what chance the rest of us have.// BL \\ (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to be crass or insensitive, but if they're conjoined isn't the question immaterial? I would conjecture that, like the film hints, this is uncharted legal ground and would amount to a precedent-setting decision or two. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at the refdesk before. See Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_August_21.  (There are links in that discussion to 3 earlier related discussions, too.)  Ka renjc 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Identify the crown
Could somebody identify this crown? I found it during a google search and didn't recognise it. It's the one in the top left corner (it's no use clicking for the larger image as it comes up as an error). It is presumably British due to the fact that it links to the website of the British monarch's site. The monarchy have relaunced their website and this image is not to be found among the crown jewel gallery... Thanks so much for any help! ;) --217.227.116.32 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a similar google search for 'crown of wales' and i believe this is the crown of King George I of England, dated 1715. A google image search for 'crown of king george I' brings up this picture. MarquisCostello (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that opinion; this seems to be the State Crown of George I. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)