Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 28

= November 28 =

why do latin americans like spain so much?
It's confusing. I hear a lot about the leyenda negra and all the hatred towards the colonizers and imperialists, but most latinos I know admire Spain. This seems to be a common thread, for example, the President of CONMEBOL called Spain a "mother country". So why do is there admiration towards Spain vs. resentment? That is, what are the cultural and political reasons? hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe some of those of strong Indian cultural background are not so enamored of Spain, but they are not usually the ones running the governments or the universities. To analogize, there have been two wars between the U.K. and the U.S., and lots of Anglophobia among certain groups in the U.S. at various times (a notorious Anglophobe, Joseph Kennedy, was even appointed ambassador to the U.K. in the 1930s), but we still have Masterpiece Theatre running on PBS... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as the American Indians are likely not all that crazy about the white man even now. But as you suggest, Americans and Brits have a strong cultural tie, just as Brazil and Portugal do, and the rest of Latin America has with Spain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For some thoughts on the changing Mexican attitudes to their indigenous heritage, and thus by implication the other, Spanish conquistador side, see La Malinche. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Spain is (it must be said) politically and economically impotent, and has been for ages, so there's very little to plausibly resent. In modern parlance, the Spaniards fucked up their own shit so badly that they became impossible to hate. Their glories lie in the foggy past, like those of Greece. Add to that that they have a tiny population (there are more Spanish-speakers in the USA than in Spain) and a political culture that is introspective, unambitious, and Balkanized. They're about as far as you can get from the politics of grandeur. This reduced stature allows hispanophones to invoke "Spain" as a metonym for a shared language and culture, a nostalgic gesture, more condescension than cringe. English-speakers can't do that with Britain because Britain, relatively speaking, still has loads of money and power, a respectable share of the language's population, and lots of fresh grudges. Britain is too visible and actually relevant to fade away into a vague touchstone of Anglo-Saxon culture. L ANTZY T ALK 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Identity according to Palahniuk (Fight Club)
If "...you're not how much money you've got in the bank. You're not your job.  You're not your family, and you're not who you tell yourself.... You're not your name.... You're not your problems.... You're not your age.... You are not your hopes." Then what the hell are we? (according to Palahniuk) Quest09 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For who we (and here I am assuming you mean humans, and in general) are, see Human biology. Anything else is opinion, and not appropriate to the Ref Desk. Bielle (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * He's asking relative to a book and film. It's totally appropriate. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tyler Durden was something of a nihilist, in my reading (and according to our article). You aren't much in his worldview. Note that one should not conflate Durden with Palahniuk himself — I'm sure there are some differences then. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Palahniuk is not Durden, but everything inside the novel Fight Club are views of Palahniuk. I suppose, if his view is nihilist, we (or the character in question) are nothing. But, who is this nothing fighting with himself for the control of himself? Is that a contradiction? Quest09 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I would not speak of Durden's views are if they are verbatim the same as the author. In my reading of it (which is some years old now, so I might be remembering things wrong), Durden, the character, is an expression of extreme nihilism and anti-social anarchism. "Bob" or whatever the protagonists' name is, is an "everyman" who is exposed to the seductions of nihilism but is eventually repulsed by its dangers and its callous disregard for human society and life. The fact that Tyler's views are actually latent within the everyman in a literal sense makes it for me an argument about the contradictions within all men — something like the H.L. Mencken quote, "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." In the end, or one of the ends (I remember the movie ending more vividly than the book, but remember that they differ significantly), Tyler "loses out" to Bob, if I recall. Unstructured nihilism, though tempting, is ultimately empty and unfulfilling. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked the question in a rather confusing manner. I should have asked: "what the hell is 'Joe' according to Palhniuk? If he is not all of the above, then what? What does he become in his fight?" Note: the narrator of the book, the equivalent of Edward Norton in the film, has no name. Some call him Joe. Bob is a different character; he is the big fat guy in the film. Quest09 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All the things in your original question are things you have, not things that you are, so that you are not those things is true of everyone. Except for "what you tell yourself you are", which may in a sense actually be who you are according to our Identity article.   Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  03:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The philosophical movement Existentialism may be relevant here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hearing the Virgin Mary
This is a serious question: how does the Vatican deal with people claiming to hear Virgin Mary's voice? How do they tell apart the lunatics from the real apparitions of her? I mean, being Catholics implies that she (or whatever other deity) could show up to some believers. Quest09 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They have miracle investigators and exorcism investigators whose job it is it to try and separate the "genuinely supernatural" from mental illness, etc. Here's an article relative to how they do it for canonizing saints. Here's a recent New York Times article regarding their re-embrace of exorcism. Note in the latter that belief that you are encountering supernatural phenomena seems to be correlated with modernity and education: "But he said that there could eventually be a rising demand for exorcism because of the influx of Hispanic and African Catholics to the United States. People from those cultures, he said, are more attuned to the experience of the supernatural." As you may infer, I take a rather cynical view of all of this, but that's the procedure. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When someone sees the face of Mary in the patterns of a grilled cheese sandwich, that voice cries out, "Eat me!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Vatican conspicuously endorses some apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, and refrains from endorsing or supporting others, such as Medugorje. Not sure what leads the Vatican to officially ignore some apparitions and actively condemn and suppress others.  The main article is Marian apparition... AnonMoos (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * she (or whatever other deity) — it is certainly a long way from RC doctrine to claim that Mary (or anyone else other than the Almighty) is a deity. Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. When an apparition is called "divine" that means "by the power of God" - meaning a miracle. It doesn't mean that Mary herself is divine. In Catholic belief, God may, and has, performed miracles THROUGH saints and holy people -- but the source of the miracle is still God; no created being has the power to perform miracles. 165.91.166.218 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It bears mentioning that in the case of Our Lady of Fatima, thousands of eye-witnesses were involved, and yet still the endorsement from the Church is only "[a]fter a canonical enquiry the visions of Fatima were officially declared "worthy of belief" in October 1930 by the Bishop of Leiria-Fátima". In the case of Our Lady of Lourdes, the position is "we remain convinced that the Apparitions are supernatural and divine, and that by consequence, what Bernadette saw was the Most Blessed Virgin.", but that is (again) not actually declaring it necessarily 'true' or a required Catholic belief, and that statement came after several verified miracles. The Church doesn't actually consider belief in any of these apparitions or miracles to be a necessary part of being a Catholic. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the Queen Greek?
Carrying on a thread above, the History of British nationality law is very complicated, but the Queen certainly qualifies for U. K. citizenship. As she doesn't need to exercise any of the attributes of it (she doesn't vote, she doesn't need to carry a passport, and so on) it's rather an academic point. Here's another thought which may be more meaningful, as the Duke of Edinburgh was born in Greece, is he a Greek citizen and is the Queen entitled to the same rights? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it's usually claimed that Philip renounced his Greek citizenship before he married Elizabeth, this discussion thread (which I confess I haven't read right through) seems to suggest that the picture is not as clear-cut as that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From it seems that as she doesn't live in Greece she can't gain citizenship by virtue of marriage as although it was before 1984 it wasn't I presume a "Greek Orthodox Marriage" Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans Christian Andersen
I have a plaque commerating Andersen. It shows a cameo of him surrounded by his name and the dates 1805 (his birth) to 1930. What significance is 1930. I believe the plaque came from Odense as this also was the birth place of a close family member. Any help would be appreciated in gaining knowledge. Thank you2.121.62.170 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the plaque itself actually date from 1930? That would have been the 125th anniversary of his birth year. Baseball Bugs (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Law
In UK Law, is it prohibited for a person to issue verbal threats of violence against another person, or intimidate them in other ways? I am not seeking legal advice here, I'm just curious about this area of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.213.51.219 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should it be allowed? Quest09 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the matter at hand, do you think it's a good idea to begin by asking whether something should be allowed, rather than whether it should be forbidden? Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quest09: your mother probably had you when she was 14 or 15, so that's why you never had the opportunity to become a better human being: I'm sorry. Ive just purposefully tried to offend you with something I know is false.  Why should that be allowed?  There is NO reason that "should be allowed".  Lucky for me, laws dont work based on a list of things that are allowed.  Laws consist of crimes, not allowances.  The qustion is not: What?  How could he do that?? Under what allowance???  Its either: thats illegal.  Or: that oughta be illegal. Or: what a douche.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.216 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The crime of assault (not battery, which with it is often confused) is normally described like "any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful and personal violence" or similar. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested in the offences of affray, violent disorder and harassment, alarm or distress. ╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. Public Order Act 1986. Standard warnings about this not being legal advice. Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or in old-fashioned terminology, "Fightin' words." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

History
Who is Annie Christmas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbauer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She is a character in African-American folklore, there is some information here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and here. However, the figure has been described as "fakelore". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you stop and think about it, all folklore started as "fakelore". Apparently the difference between the two is how long they've been around. For example, the current American "traditional" image of Santa Claus is only vaguely related to St. Nicholas, and derives largely from 19th-century imagery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

when does the trololo guy say "trololo"?
Can someone give me a link with the youtube video of the trololo guy, right before he actually says "trololo"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.216 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, Edward Khil, the trololo guy, doesn't actually say anything like it. The viral video is of him doing a vocalise, which by definition doesn't include any lyrics of any kind. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure as hell includes the vocalization la and ye (as well as ho), so where does it include the vocalization tro, wise guy? 84.153.230.216 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read over our policy on personal attacks and bear in mind that this Desk is staffed by volunteers. ╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdrew my brash, unwarranted personal attack. I apologize to both TomorrowTime and any bystanders.  Sorry.  84.153.230.216 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

King of England
How exactly — and by whom — is it decided as to whether Prince Charles or Prince William will become the next King of England? Is this a decision that Queen Elizabeth makes on her own? Or Parliament? Or what? The only way that I see Prince William "leap frogging" over Prince Charles (to become King) is if both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles agree to this arrangement (along with Prince William). Is that correct? Thanks for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC))


 * Two answers: 1) There are no Kings of England any more.  There are Kings of the United Kingdom.  2) The monarch's personal decision has nothing at all to do with the law of succession.  It's defined by an act of Parliament (specifically, the Act of Settlement 1701).  Even when Edward VIII wanted to abdicate, it took Parliament saying he wasn't the king any more to make it so. Marnanel (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So how does that Act address the potential issue of William leap-frogging over Charles?  Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC))


 * The Act of Settlement says (in effect) that Charles will become king upon the Queen's death. There is no provision for skipping him, even if the Queen or Charles themselves would want it— and I haven't heard anything to indicate that they do.  As far as I can see, there are only two ways in which Charles, assuming he didn't want to be king, could disqualify himself.  Firstly, similarly to what was done for Edward VIII, he could try to get a separate act passed in the parliaments of all sixteen Commonwealth realms saying that William was the next in line.  (It would need to be all sixteen: the Statute of Westminster requires this for any legislation touching the succession.)  Secondly, he has an easy get-out: he could become a Roman Catholic, thus disqualifying himself from the succession under the Act of Settlement.  But I don't see that happening any time soon. Marnanel (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well another slightly more difficult option is to divorce his current wife and then marry a catholic (this could be his current wife if she converts before their next marriage). Note that the Act of Settlement only talks about marrying a Catholic so even if his wife converts now, he's probably? (see Katharine, Duchess of Kent) not disqualified although it's likely to be controversial. On the other hand, he could convert to Islam and then enter into an open civil partnership with his atheist gay partner and he'll still technically qualify AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The trivial way is the Prince of Wales could predecease the second in line. Sleigh (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's often remarked that a Catholic cannot become king, but a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist or voodoo witch doctor can. My reading of the succession rules is that, while Catholics and their spouses are indeed excluded, it's not enough to simply not be a Catholic.  The monarch must be a Protestant, that is, a member of one of the Christian churches other than Catholicism - and if not Anglican, must come into communion with the Church of England.  Is this not so?  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That definition of Protestant is surely problematic, in any case. To me a Protestant is an adherent of some Christian tradition that traces back to the Protestant Reformation.  For example, Eastern Orthodox and Copts are definitely not Protestant, no matter how you slice it.  I would probably not include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or Seventh-day Adventists.  Borderline cases are Anabaptists (i.e. Amish, Mennonites), Quakers, and Anglicans themselves.
 * The only completely clear "Protestants" are Lutherans and Calvinists. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely all those denominations which descend from English Dissenters would count as Protestants? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not an expert on this subject matter, but I looked at the Act of Settlement's text and didn't see anything that lays out that the eldest son becomes king upon the death of the monarch. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in that act, but comes from common law. See Succession to the British throne.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input and feedback ... much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Queen of England
There has been some discussion about the royal title that Camilla Parker Bowles will take if Prince Charles becomes the King of England. There is some debate as to whether she will be called "Queen" or "Queen Consort". What is the difference? Who cares? Why is this a matter of controversy? Thanks for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
 * There was this idea of Camilla being addressed as the Duchess of Cornwall, or some other title other than as Queen whilst Charles was on the throne, because it appeased people who were concerned about the fact it was a second marriage; and possibly also that Diana was being replaced (being rather more popular with the public than with Charles). The abdication crisis was not altogether dissimilar. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any similarities with the abdication crisis, Jarry. Edward only ever had one wife, and it was it his desire to marry her that caused the crisis.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the perceived unsuitability of Camilla at the time one of the reasons he married Diana instead only for that to fall down? So while the current situation may not be the same, perhaps we arrived here partly for similar reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I didn't mean to say very similar, but just that the monarchy itself could be under threat when the validity of the monarch (in this case the monarch's wife) is questioned (as in our article "religious, legal, political, and moral objections were raised"). We're not in the same place over Camilla, but we know there will be objections if she becomes "Queen" in name. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me. The wife of a king is a queen consort; calling her "Princess Consort" or the Tooth Fairy or Fairy Godmother doesn't alter that fact.  Surely any objections would not be to whatever title they decide to call her once they're married and he becomes king, but to her marrying Charles at all.  But that horse bolted 5 years ago, so ... As for the monarchy being under threat, that's just so much over-dramatised journalistic twaddle.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it will be interesting to see public reaction if he tries to insist on her being called Queen - especially if he himself becomes any more unpopular, for any reason, between now and then. Actually, it's remarkably easy to think of scenarios under which the monarchy manages to self-destruct.  If there comes a time when the family has no popular members, the public simply won't accept it.  At the moment it has Elizabeth, William, and..... umm..... Anne?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think any such discussions would be held behind very tightly closed doors, not in public. Kings don't like it when they're widely seen not be getting their way, so they'd never risk such a perception being created in the first place. But what do you mean by "the public simply won't accept it"?  If some catastrophe occurred and Anne became the Queen, what could anyone do about it?  Seriously.  If they didn't like it, they could go and live in Timbuktoo.  Do you envisage huge crowds carrying torches, storming Buckingham Palace, crying "Down with Anne!"?  That seems extraordinarily un-British to me.  And there's the not-so-trivial matter of the other 15 Commonwealth realms, whose opinion is of equal weight with that of the UK in succession matters.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the Commons, and thus the people, are in charge. If the monarchy becomes unpopular enough that a manifesto promising a republic will get Labour back in power, you can bet your life that Labour will make the promise. Marnanel (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If that were to happen, that still doesn't mean the monarchy is under threat. It wasn't under threat when we Australians had a vote in 1999 about whether or not we wanted to remain subjects of the Queen, because there would have been 15 other realms that continued to have the monarchy.  Same would apply if the UK became a republic.  The only way the monarchy itself could be under threat is if all 16 realms unanimously agreed to dispense with it.  It's not just a British institution anymore, it's owned equally and collectively by 16 separate and independent nations.  People keep on seeming to forget that.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the rest of you pay her salary? If the Brits sack her, who's going to pay her?  Not that she'll be on the street, I'm sure.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got nothing to do with the constitutional position. --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's not just a British institution anymore, it's owned equally and collectively by 16 separate and independent nations." Dream on.  If there's a constitutional crisis in the UK, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to think that it would not have knock-on effects in other realms.  Or, the family could just up sticks and move to Australia.  So far as "discussions in public" are concerned, I suspect you may be greatly underestimating the power of the UK press.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "If there's a constitutional crisis in the UK, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to think that it would not have knock-on effects in other realms." - how is this at odds with what I said before? It seems to confirm it.  Btw, I'm not concerning myself with the trappings of the monarchy, which are undeniably and thoroughly British in character and history, but the monarchy itself, which is now just as much Papua New Guinean, Solomon Islander or Belizean it is British.   --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   09:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You seemed to be suggesting that, if there was a crisis in the UK, the monarchy could continue elsewhere. Technically true, but unlikely in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is about technicalities. People often bandy about the word "crisis" as if it were synonymous with "catastrophe". It doesn't mean that and never has. It means "opportunity".  The abdication "crisis" was never even remotely going to result in the end of the monarchy.  Baldwin was always going to get his way if Edward persisted in his desire to marry Wallis; that's how the system is set up to operate, the PM has more power than the monarch.  Nor would Camilla the queen being called "Queen Camilla" lead to such an outcome.  Can you give me an example of events or circumstances that could realistically spell the end of the UK monarchy?  And I'm not talking about the people gradually becoming disillusioned and disenchanted to the point that they just don't care for it anymore, I'm talking about something in the nature of what people might describe as a "crisis".  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   10:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plausible scenario: (1) All leading members of the royal family become personally unpopular, for whatever reason - sexual scandal, political scandal, arrogance, etc. etc. - all sorts of possibilities.  The next in line to succeed becomes particularly unpopular, again for whatever reason - creating the point of "crisis".  (3) There starts to be widespread public discussion along the lines of "We don't want that one to be king/queen....  We should decide, we're a democracy - it should be someone else".   (4)  One or other major UK political parties takes up the thread with a manifesto commitment - not to elect a "head of state" / "president" with any substantial powers, but someone who commands national respect, to be the representative of the whole country.  (5) A commission is set up to explore possibilities for the UK - leading to a recommendation for an elected non-political head of state (or, possibly, one appointed for a fixed term by an elected body).  (6) Referendum in the UK (all the while assuming that the royal family and incumbent themselves remain personally unpopular).  (7) "Yes" vote to establish a new system and pension off the royals.  (8) In the meantime, the other realms do whatever they want to do.  It would take a few years, but it could happen.  The "crisis" would set off the process.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think a true "crisis" would arise if, for example, the king or queen were discovered to have been engaging in activity of some kind that was harmful to the nation, such as being a secret agent for SMERSH or something. But even then, wouldn't that merely result in the monarch being forced to abdicate, and the (hopefully honest) successor brought in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, monarchs may be above the law in many ways, but the monarchy itself is more precious (for those who believe) than any particular monarch. Not sure if your example is particularly realistic, but I agree with the outcome.  The monarchy would survive that case.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus"> ... speak! ...   10:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My example is in the realm of James Bond, but there have been rumors that the abdicated king was a little too friendly with Hitler. Whether that was true and/or whether it influenced the process of his abdication, I have no idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * She will necessarily be the queen consort; she will be known as the Princess Consort, according to Clarence House. They haven't explained why they're doing this.  It may well be connected with the similar decision that she be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, a lesser title of hers, rather than the Princess of Wales (although she is in fact the Princess of Wales).  This in turn may be connected with the public's perception of the late Diana Spencer as Princess of Wales.  I have not heard that it is a matter of any controversy. Marnanel (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, sections of the press tried to make a controversy out of it last week when Prince Charles was asked about it in an interview. To many of us in Britain, it doesn't matter a damn. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I meant by a (potential) controversy brewing. As Jarry1250 stated above: "we know there will be objections if she becomes "Queen" in name."  Thanks for all of the information!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
 * This article gives a sense of the state of public opinion in the UK. Apparently, "a poll commissioned by the Daily Mail last week revealed only 14 per cent support the idea of Queen Camilla, while more than half oppose it."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Daily Fail is hardly a reliable source for such things. They're not quite as virulently anti-Charles as the Excess, but they aren't far behind. DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting it was a "reliable source". I was suggesting that, as one of the most popular papers in the UK, it provided readers outside the UK with a guide to one strand of public opinion.  Like it or not, several million more people buy the Mail than actively support republicanism.  Sad, but true.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But what has "actively supporting republicanism" got to do with people's opinions as to the title Camilla should use when Charles succeeds to the throne? DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just commenting that personal opposition to the Mail's policies shouldn't lead to you discounting the fact that it represents a significant strand of public opinion in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a republican. It's the Fail's combination of xenophobia and homophobia that really get my goat. That and the "Will the housing market recover before you die of cancer?" articles. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with second marriages. The problem is both the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were divorced. Sleigh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the above posts. They were very helpful. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Side question about the Queen
In Helen Mirren's film, there is a scene in which ERII drives out into the countryside, alone, and observes a deer at close range while pondering things. Presumably that intriguing scene is fictionalized. What I'm curious about is, how likely is it that the Queen would go driving by herself out into the countryside? No bodyguard, no nothin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with this, she owns vast tracts of the countryside in her own right, especially around Sandringham and apparently (I can't remember where I saw this one) drives a Range Rover around quite frequently. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even now, in her 80s? That's excellent. So while that particular scene may have been fictional, it wasn't unrealistic. I guess I'm also curious what Brits thought of that film. I was impressed. Mirren's performance evoked some empathy, whether it was deserved or not. The picture I got was that while the Queen may be old and set in her ways (and the ways of her ancestors), she's not a robot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern, though, is what if she were to head out on one of her solo jaunts and was never seen again? What happens then? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A Regency until such time as she turns-up again or her fate became known. I suspect that a fair amount of police time and effort would be expended on the case. Back to the question - the scene was, IIRC, supposed to be on her Balmoral estate, which at 26,000 hectares, has plenty of room to drive around in. For obvious reasons, they don't tell us how the boundary of the estate is secured, but I don't think HM could just drive out of the gate without anyone noticing. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or more to the point, abductors or assassins going in through the gate. I just find it interesting that the Queen would actually go out solo, on her own personal version of "walkabout", to relax and think about things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember a TV documentary in the 1960s that showed HM driving alone around one of her estates, in an old Rover P5 saloon (except for the film crew obviously). Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Royal family once had a bungalow on the north Norfolk coast, apparantly. 92.24.176.72 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Muslim marriage
How do you get married at a mosque? Is it a legal marriage? ScienceApe (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the USA, there's separation of church and state. If a marriage at a mosque were ipso facto not a legal one, so would be a marriage in a church.  Why would it be non-legal in a mosque as opposed to any place else? 63.17.43.56 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that that largely depends upon the laws of the country where the marriage is performed. The article Islamic marital practices seems to be the proper place to look. Flamarande (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the second part of your question, Nowadays "legal marriage" isn't really about the ceremony and the vows. (In USA at least) It's really about filling out the proper government forms. (Brief discussion from Cecil Adams on the topic here : ) APL (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In many parts of the Muslim world, you don't get married at a mosque anyway -- it's more of a contract between two families than a religious sacrament as such... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two facets of marriage, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). There is the spiritual aspect, and the legal aspect. They are often bound together, as with a normal church-style wedding, or a civil ceremony conducted by a judge. There have also been same-sex "marriages" and polygamous "marriages" for a long time in the US. Those are of the "spiritual" variety, and in general have (or had) no legal standing. The current debate about same-sex marriage concerns strictly the legal aspect of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this, you can in England and Wales (Scotland has a seperate legal system), provided that the mosque is "registered for the solemnisation of marriages" and it is your usual place of worship. Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sartre wanted prize money anyway?
I remember reading on Wikipedia a while ago that even though Sartre refused to accept the 1964 Nobel prize, he still asked for the prize money later. I looked today and couldn't find that statement; is it true? I couldn't find anything on google about it. Thanks! ? EVAUNIT 神になった人間 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some websites suggest Lars Gyllensten made this allegation in his autobiography, but there are a little few and far between to even confirm Gyllensten even made the accusation. [In every case, Sartre is refused the money; if he had got it, I am confident people would know.] - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to prove a negative, unless you have a "debunker" cite. But I am certain it is NOT true.  Sartre was very consistent in his principles.  During the last 16 years of his life, he lived comfortably (on royalties) in an apartment in Paris.  It is all but impossible to imagine him "asking for the prize money" during the period 1964-1980, and there is no reference to such an act in his writings or interviews or in Beauvoir's. 63.17.43.56 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks
How has Julian Assange committed any crimes? Doesn't one have to owe allegiance to the US to commit treason against it? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you give us a reference to somewhere where someone is making this allegation? His article doesn't mention it. Marnanel (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What jurisdiction? In the United States, it is extremely hard to prevent the publication of classified information.  See Prior restraint, as well as Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States.  However, it may be possible  for the government to prosecute press agencies that publish classified information, but to my knowledge this is still a pretty untested area of the law.  As a practical matter, Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden, and Assange doesn't live in the United States, so it's hard for the U.S. to prosecute either.  However, the government has little trouble charging Bradley Manning (a member of the U.S. military) with "misconduct" charges, including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source". Buddy431 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 75.33.217.61 -- Treason is defined very narrowly according to the Constitution of the United States, but espionage is quite another matter... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Whoever leaked the info, if they're within the reach of the US government they would almost certainly be tried for espionage. The constitutional test for treason is very narrow and specific, and hence is seldom used. But there are other illegal activities that are effectively treated as equivalent to treason but without using that word. A charge of treason would open too big a can of worms. Not so with activities such as espionage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Brian Manning article that I linked? He was perfectly within his rights to access the data; he wasn't doing any "spying".  Rather he was charged with several counts of "misconduct" for transferring the information to someone who wasn't supposed to have the data. Buddy431 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it had already be established here, more than once, that US courts prosecute anyone anywhere for any reason they choose even if the person involved has never been to the US and is not a US citizen. 92.24.176.72 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Most US classification regulations are concerned with "supplier side" enforcement — they are meant to be a deterrent to giving away secrets by people who have legal access to them. There are only a handful of laws that actually affect what the government can do to people who get access to secrets illegally and then try to publish them or give them away (the main ones are the Espionage Act, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Patriot Act). "Treason" and "espionage" are hard charges because you have to prove intent to damage the United States or to enrich the position of an enemy, neither of which are clear in the Wikileaks case. The easy thing to do would be to prosecute (harshly) the people who leaked the information in the first place, because in order to get access to their "secrets," they had to sign away all of their rights to free speech, more or less. But for people and publications that have not done this, it becomes quite difficult to overcome the First Amendment, even in times of war, if you can't prove specific espionage as the intent. This is my understanding of it, anyway, and is certainly not legal advice for would-be leakers! --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The right doesn't seem to know what "treason" even means. Sarah Palin, for one, is calling it a "treasonous act", no matter that Assange is not an American, and WikiLeaks is not an American website.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we all know that Sarah Palin is not well known for her knowledge of geography. -- <font face="Freestyle Script" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any Human Heart vs. Earthly Powers
Reading the article Any Human Heart, about the book by William Boyd, it struck me that the book appears to be rather similar to Earthly Powers, by Anthony Burgess. Have any critics commented on this? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean pretty similar like plagiarism or just same structure and topic? Quest09 (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same structure and topic. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably correct that they have a similar topic. The fact that the topic is a pretty big one mitigates it somewhat.  Blakk   and ekka  13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps conceit would be more in line with what I mean. Writer, life spans defining moments of the 20th century, interactions with real historical figures, that sort of thing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)