Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 25

= November 25 =

Musing about nonconsecutive terms
As a resident of California, I was struck by Jerry Brown's election to a third term as governor, following his first two terms that ended before I was born. I wonder, how many politicians have been elected to nonconsecutive terms in major executive office (governors, presidents, prime ministers, etc.)? What is the longest interval between terms? Perhaps this topic deserves some kind of list article.

Of course, I know about Grover Cleveland. A quick Google search turned up pages and pages about Cleveland, but nothing else relevant. I then searched Wikipedia and discovered Edwin Edwards, who managed the remarkable feat of serving as governor of Louisiana for sixteen years over a twenty-four-year period. (However, this is still shorter than the twenty-eight years that have elapsed since Brown's most recent term ended.) So, what other major politicians have done repeat performances?

--Smack (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In Canada, this has happened a few times with the Prime Ministers: John A. Macdonald (1867-1873, 1878-1891), Arthur Meighen (1920-1921, 1926), William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-June 1926, September 1926-1930, 1935-1948) and Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979, 1980-1984). I think it has happened numerous times in the UK as well (Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, most notably William Ewart Gladstone, Prime Minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, February–July 1886 and 1892–1894. Churchill's span as PM only covered 15 years (1940-45, 1951-55), although he was Home Secretary as early as 1910.  Harold Wilson was first a Cabinet member in 1947, and PM 1964-70 and 1974-76.  List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom gives info on all the others.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * George Wallace comes to mind, although his was a special case, to put it mildly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The lists of rulers at www.rulers.org conveniently tag non-consecutive terms with "1st time", "2nd time", etc. (a person reelected to the same office is not counted as a separate time). Of course, these "times" don't necessarily mean a new election each time; in parliamentary systems, for example, the leadership can easily change in between elections.

Anyway, the highest "time" number shown in this way on that site is the "12th time", and that honor belongs to Domenico Fattori of San Marino. Now, that country uses a rotating-dual-leadership system, where the Grand and General Council elects two people (from different parties) to serve jointly as captain-regent for a 6-month term. So although Fattori held the position 12 times, non-consecutively, over the period 1857-1914, all those times added up to only 6 years in total; and he was only a joint leader.

If that's not considered to count, then the next highest number is "10th time", achieved by two people. The site shows ex-king Norodom Sihanouk as prime minister of Cambodia 10 times over the period 1945-62, as well as holding several other leadership titles over the years. And Alexandros Koumoundouros is shown as prime minister of Greece 10 times over the period 1865-82. In both cases, Wikipedia does not detail all these terms of office.

The next highest is "8th time". This is given for 8 additional people on the site, from four countries and one colony, and I have not looked them up except to see if they have Wikipedia entries. (The ones not linked don't, unless they're under alternate forms of their names.)
 * Iran: Mirza Hassan Khan
 * Iraq: Nuri Pasha as-Said
 * Lebanon: Bashir ibn al-Qasim ibn Umar; Rashid Karami
 * Netherlands: François Ermerins; van Haersolte, heer van Staverden
 * Pitcairn Island: Thursday October Christian II; Charles Richard Parkin Christian

--Anonymous, 08:05 UTC, November 25, 2010.


 * Thursday October Christian II. Now, that's a name to reckon with!  He's already my all-time favourite politician.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He was a son of Thursday October Christian I, who married his girl Friday. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. But read the article!  Thursday October Christian I was known for a while as Friday October Christian I, before resuming his original name!  --Anonymous, 05:18 UTC, November 26, 2010.

It's a lot easier to go in and out of office in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system like that of the U.S. In a parliamentary system, you can lose the prime minister's title but remain the leader of your party and be recalled to office if the new governing coalition breaks up. In the U.S., you actually have to be re-elected personally by the public to the office you lost. In addition to the above-mentioned people, Bill Clinton was elected, un-elected and re-elected governor of Arkansas before becoming president. Edwin L. Mechem served three non-consecutive terms as governor of New Mexico. A. Harry Moore was governor of New Jersey three times. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

would someone take being cheated on any better if the person their spouse cheated with was ALSO married?
would someone take being cheated on by their spouse any better if the person they cheated with was ALSO married? (my reasoning is that it would make it more credible if the spouse makes the argument that it was just sexual, they had no deeper feelings or long-term plans for each other... this is harder to believe if the person they cheat with does not have someone else in their life that they are emotionally and long-term attached to.)  thanks for any insight you may have in this matter. 188.174.80.195 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would depend entirely on the individual, so it's not really an answerable question. If you go to Google, you might be able to find some surveys on the matter, to see what the probability of various reactions would be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Italy this is usually the case, as regards the cheating husbands, seeing as most single girls are interested in finding a husband of their own so rarely go out with a married man. Married women, on the other hand, will cheat equally with married men (in many cases the spouses of their best friends) as well as single guys (usually much younger than themselves).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The same sort of question is sometimes posed in relation to married guys who have a fling with another man, and whether this is better or worse than if it had been with another woman. I've known cuckolded wives in this situation who've gone both ways: So, there's no way of knowing how people are going to react to that sort of thing. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * from - Well, at least it wasn't another woman; I couldn't have dealt with that
 * to - If only it had been another woman; I could at least have dealt with that.
 * Yes, better keep infidelity a secret from one's spouse at all costs. See: Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, Laura Lanza.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that in Anne Boleyn's case, she was not the one who was being unfaithful (and particularly not with her own brother, as claimed!) - Henry himself was the guilty party here, having an affair with Jane Seymour (not the actress) while married to Anne, yet she got the chop for it. What hypocrisy! Of such tawdrinesses are churches built on.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Anne was not guilty. It was a clever nasty ploy on the part of Thomas Cromwell to paint her as an infamous whore giving Henry the means to get rid of her yet sparing his manhood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea - UK's obligations?
With all the sabre-rattling in Korea, no-one in the British media has mentioned whether the UK has any obligations to help defend the South. Does anyone know if the UK made any commitments under the terms of the Armistice? Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The full text of the armistice is available at Korean Armistice Agreement. A quick glance through doesn't show any section under which the UK could make any such commitment, although I may have missed something. Warofdreams talk 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the UK involvement covered as part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 which was to provide assistance as part of the UN forces? MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think the UK voluntarily sent 12,000 troops and about a dozen ships to help the UN forces in Korea. There was and is no formal obligation. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew! Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar issue came up in Canada (missing words: "Korea, according to"?), one of your Commonwealth countries. However, in the currently-unlikely event of an all-out war (warning: pure speculation), NATO countries may be on the alliance against North Korea. See Conscription in the United Kingdom. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Longest gap in service
Following on from the question above, what it the longest gap in service someone has had in an elected office? For example, Simpson Gibson recently returned to the Northern Ireland Assembly, having previously served in the 1982-86 assembly, a gap of 24 years. The O'Gorman Mahon (an interesting character) was a UK MP in 1830, then from 1847 to 1852, 1879 to 1885 and 1887 to 1891 - a 27 year gap in there, and 57 years from the end of his first period of office to the start of the final one. Can anyone beat these? Warofdreams talk 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the U.S. record is Cecil H. Underwood, who had a 36 year gap between his terms as West Virginia governor. The current Governor-elect of California, Jerry Brown, will, when he takes office, have a 28 year gap between his terms.  -- Jayron  32  14:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The longest I found was only 23 years for William Cutten who resigned both times. says it's the longest for the Parliament of New Zealand. Alexander Dubček is a famous comeback case with special circumstances. He was out for around 20 years depending on what you count him out of. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lewis Nott had a break of 21 years (1928-1949), a record for the Australian parliament. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also Simeon_II_of_Bulgaria who abdicated as Tsar of Bulgaria in 1946 and came back 55 years later as democratically elected prime minister. 86.162.106.18 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes nicely with Norodom Sihanouk, who I mentioned in answering the earlier question. --Anonymous, 05:20 UTC, November 26, 2010.
 * Interesting, thanks. Looks like Underwood holds the record. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you suffer from dislexy
do you believe in dog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.188.173 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, most people believe both in dogs and bad jokes. Warofdreams talk 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What if you are a dyslexic atheist? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Woof. Is the inability to spell "dyslexia" one of the signs of dyslexia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * eh, a dyslexic atheist is just a titeash... -- Ludwigs 2  15:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Partly serious comment)Is this a reference to "I'm that dog who saw a rainbow" in Kate & Leopold? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
Well it's that time of year again! Except it isn't because in Canada it was celebrated over a month ago which is frankly ridiculous. The holiday has the same purpose and has already been moved in the past so why doesn't Canada stop making this an issue and just share the date with the US. 300 million people already accept the established date so why take something so simple and make it a big cultural debate? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite so, it really is appalling that people who aren't American don't celebrate American holidays, and do you know, they don't pledge their allegiance to the American flag either? Goddam pinko liberal foreigners, nuke 'em all! DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bloody colonials arguing amongst themselves again? Time to send the redcoats back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, that will make them easy targets. Did you know Canada has a Fourth of July? Except they celebrate it on the 1st. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good God. I hope they at least celebrate Cinco de Mayo like every true American! —Kevin Myers 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Every day's a holiday somewhere. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, what we should do is Franksgiving-plus, i.e. move the date to the Canadian date. Thanksgiving is too close to Christmas, and in fact it's a lot like Christmas (being a family gathering), minus the tree and the deficit spending. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We also celebrate Flag Day in February! Except no one actually celebrates it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Festivus. For the rest of us. Rimush (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I celebrate Holiday myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Winterval. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm going to be BOLD by suggesting that Bastille Day should be made an American holiday in recognition of the help the French gave the American colonists during the Revolutionary War. Vive la France --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it King Louis XVI of France who helped you out? The Revolution gave him a pain in the neck. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A capital idea. Maybe we should honor the French Revolution by dispensing with lethal injection, the noose, the chair, etc., and replacing them all with the guillotine. A nice bit of historical nostalgia. ("This execution has been brought to you by Gillette...") ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey BB, don't you mean "brought to you by Jeanne boleyn?" After all, it's my idea not Gilette's --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Today's decapitation sponsored by Gillette, makers of the new Jeanne Boleyn razor; and by Pepsi, makers of Diet Slice." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * hey, a whole new world of 'theme' executions. veterans day with military-style rifle corps executions, Thanksgiving would be good old Puritan 'burnings-at-the-stake', the anniversary of 1920's stock market crash with defenestrations, etc...  Easter should be fun.    -- Ludwigs 2  03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Canadian Flag Day, if you really don't want to celebrate a holiday in Canada, scheduling it for February is a good choice. Our Flag Day is June 14, but it doesn't get a lot of attention, especially with July 4th coming up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving, of course, is a harvest festival, and the last week of November is more appropriate for an snow festival in much of Canada. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have an actual get-a-day off holiday in February now, called Family Day (at least in Ontario), and which happens to coincide with Flag Day anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it coincides with Presidents Day &mdash; deliberately, I'm sure, since it was first adopted in Alberta. Since National Flag of Canada Day is not a holiday, it's not constrained to Mondays. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, November 26, 2010.


 * Agreed. I suggest you call up Barack Obama and the US Congress and tell them to stop beings so silly and change the date to October. I could try myself but I don't think they'll care about the views of a Malaysian/Kiwi. As others have pointed out, this makes it further away from Christmas and also has the advantage that the black whateverday sales are earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw The Matrix!
Wow, what a film! I just saw the Matrix, but I just have one question. How come when they awake from the simulation, the person who wakes up looks EXACTLY like the simulation?? If these people have been raised in a pod from birth, it doesn't make sense that the robots would program exactly that "look" into a simulation. I would expect the pod-body to have no resemblance to the simulation-body. It would have been a better film if it were true. Like in Avatar. Also, why didn't they go in deeper, like in Inception, with a matrix in the matrix, and a totem to see if you're in a matrix or not? It would have been more interesting. 84.153.212.127 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of the justfiication is that one's self-image in matrix needs to have some connection to one's actual self outside of the Matrix so that the mind-body connection is preserved somehow; if not the body would basically die which would make humans useless as batteries for the machines. (this is in the Matrix universe, its not supposed to make sense in the real world, I know that) Not to give too many spoilers, but if you watch the sequels (Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions) and the sideproject the Animatrix, you get additional information regarding the Matrix and its history; I don't know that they cover this directly, but they do go into some important details which you do not get in the first movie.  -- Jayron  32  14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important to keep in mind that (1) the film came out 11 years ago, and a lot of stuff has happened since then; and (2) it's fictional, and we weren't its authors, so "why didn't they" as pertains to a movie can be hard to pin down. The most important aspect of that movie might well be technical, as it pushed the envelope on concepts of fast and slow motion in cinema. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a good storytelling reason that the people looked exactly the same: it would be really confusing for the viewers to have to match up two different actors and identify them as the same person. (The TV series Dollhouse involved mind-transplantation, and so it was pretty confusing that way, even though typically only a couple people were involved per episode.)  Regarding recursive matrices, there was some speculation that that was going to be revealed to be happening in the third Matrix movie.  Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened; the third movie made no sense and was terrible.  I suspect that they thought that it would've been too "obvious".  Paul (Stansifer) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was confusing enough in Oklahoma! when they had a dream/ballet sequence with dancers that looked kind of like the main players but not exactly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TVtropes.org has an article on this trope: "Inside a Computer System", which supports some of the comments made above in that much is done "to make things easier for the audience". Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I once saw an episode of The Simpsons on a streaming site. The episode included quite some reminiscing, so the story unfolded in three time lines: when Marge and Homer first met, when Bart was a toddler and Lisa had just been born, and in present time. It was all pretty straightforward, run-of-the-mill stuff, you just had to look at hairstyles and/or the size of the kids to figure out which timeline you were in. And yet, about half of the comments under the video were about how terribly confusing the ep was and how it was hard to follow. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it, and I have to chime in with Socrates: the youth nowadays is terrible, the world is screwed. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The third movie of the Matrix made perfect sense, though getting that sense might not be easy. Ask yourself: in the first Matrix, how would Neo's ascension look to the people who stayed behind?  Then consider the opening sequence, showing worlds within worlds within worlds, even using recognizable fractals for artwork.  In the third Matrix Neo ascends another level, but you see it from the perspective of those left behind. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't ever compare that movie to Avatar. The Matrix was an interesting breakout movie by a pair of brilliant brother-directors after an amazing film noir film Bound, full of philosophy and amazing special effects, weaved into an interesting story. I [obviously] don't like Avatar, but the comparison between the two is insulting. The Matrix series, no matter how bad the third one was, is so much better than anything in the Cameron / Spielberg sci-psy after that movie. Shadowjams (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's likely that movies made after the Matrix were at least partly influenced by its concept, in which a semi-simulated reality is entered. However, in Avatar the humans enter their 'avatars' in the same dimension as their real selves, so that the two can interact although one's consciousness can only remain in one of these domains. Avatar contains many philosophical references as well, and the list would simply go on forever had I had to describe them all (sorry, Shadow, but we all have our own opinions). ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

British Monarchy
I can't seem 2 find WHY, when the Prince marries, his wife will Bcum Queen when he Bcums King, yet the Queen's husband is NOT titled King!
 * This question was asked a few days ago. Basically the present Queen Elizabeth II is the queen regnant, i.e. the monarch. In order of precedence, the title King takes precedence over Queen, so her husband could not be the King, as he would then be the monarch himself. Is this clearer? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like they could invent a title such as "King consort" that would rank below "Queen regnant". But presumably the Brits like things the way they are. During the 1950s, when ERII was expecting, if the press then were as cheeky as they are now, they might have headlined it, "Queen Regnant Pregnant!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queen's first pregnancy was in the 1940s, and her last in the 60s. Only the middle two were in the 50s, and those only partly. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The wife of a reigning king, such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, becomes Queen consort. The husband of a reigning queen, such as Philip Mountbatten, is a Prince consort.  Ain't no sense in it - that's just the way it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's even more senseless than that, because in 1952 the powers-that-be wouldn't give poor old Philip the title of Prince Consort - he was understandably annoyed. He may be a prince consort but he's not The Prince Consort. There's only ever been one; Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mary, Queen of Scots was foolish enough to make her husband, Lord Darnley king. It didn't go down too well with her Scottish subjects, so they first took him down; then Mary, herself was brought down. Far better to keep the husband a Prince consort and stick him in the stud farm, like Victoria's Albert and George of Denmark.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the word you're looking for is usually spelled "become", not "Bcum". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was dictatin'! 84.153.212.127 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the way things work throughout the British honours system: when a man is knighted, he becomes Sir Bob and his wife becomes Lady Wilma. But when a woman is knighted, she is Dame Gladys while her hubby remains plain old Steve. Equally, the wife of Lord Smith is Lady Smith, but the husband of Baroness Jones is Mr Jones. Seems sexist, but I can't quite get my head around how: just odd, basically. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely sexist. Men are rated higher than women -- any explanation that leaves that aspect unclear is inadequate.  Another sexist aspect is that any son takes precedence over any daughter, even if the daughter is older.  Until the reign of Mary it was unclear whether women could become monarchs at all -- in France they couldn't, because of the so-called Salic law. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Empress Matilda was never allowed to become Queen Regnant, though her son wound up as King.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, Sir Bob Smith's wife is plain Lady Smith, not Lady Wilma Smith or Lady Wilma. But the point remains: a knight's wife is a lady, but a dame's husband is still a nobody.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that all this fuss over a royal wedding, no doubt much of it from folks who adore the system of royalty, is bringing to the surface again all those things that are wrong, unfair and illogical about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's far better than it was in the days when the monarchy really counted for something. If Brits want to spend all that money to maintain their theme park for tourists, I suppose that's OK.  It does irritate me a little that the Canadians are still officially part of it, though.  That sort of thing should stay on the old continent. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the place, folks, for a debate on the merits of the monarchy. That wasn't what the question was about; and it's been answered. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was talk of changing the succession rules to the throne a couple of years ago. Did any of that ever go through?  I'm finding several news articles where people are saying it's going to change, but none about whether it did or not. Buddy431 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing came of that, and I can't see that anything will in a hurry. The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires all the realms to change the law of succession unanimously.  There are currently sixteen of them.  This would require a feat of international co-operation beside which the Olympics begin to look like a kick-about in the park. Marnanel (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And it gets worse. An English High Court Judge is automatically knighted by HMQ so he becomes Sir John (off the Bench - with his wife becoming Lady Jane), but on the Bench he is addressed as My Lord or Your Lordship, but his wife stays as Lady Jane. But in Scotland, a High Court Judge is NOT knighted by HMQ, though he is appointed by her, and thus he cannot call himself Sir John, on or off the Bench. But he automatically assumes the honorific title of Lord, both on and off the Bench, with his wife becoming Lady Jane. And yes, it's true that the husband of a lady High Court Judge gets nothing. Confused? It's designed to keep the masses in the dark.92.30.10.122 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There actually has been a sort of exception. When King Philip II of Spain married Queen Mary I of England in 1554, he was declared king of England as well. However, they were joint rulers (like King William III and Queen Mary II in a later century); she didn't remain as the sole monarch. On the other hand, his equal status was not permanent; when she died, his claim to the English throne expired automatically. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, November 26, 2010.
 * And he's since been written out of most history books as if he he were never a king of England at all. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   05:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You've never been to Belfast or Glasgow, have you? He's held in high regard there (more's the pity, some say). Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we were talking about King Philip II of Spain (who married Queen Mary I of England). That photo is of King William III. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The one known in some circles as "Philip the sap". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - wrong end of the stick! Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may be only Will Cuppy that called him that. But it seems to fit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that Philip II was extremely unpopular in England and spent precious little time in the realm. I believe he only returned periodically in an attempt to impregnate Mary; his efforts were of course, futile.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese
In China I know schoolchildren traditionally memorize a variety of ancient Chinese poems. About how many does the average Chinese child memorize ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know about China, but in my 1960s childhood in the UK, memorising large chunks of poetry was part of most people's primary education. I can still quote many of them. Of course, it was anathema to the educationalists of the 1970s, but "it never did me any harm"! Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much depends on the school and the parent and the child - poetry contained in text books do not necessarily need to be memorised, and conversely many poems outside of text books are often memorised.
 * According to this answer on Baidu, which reproduces each poem, there are 73 classical poems in primary school text books. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)