Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 28

= November 28 =

Euroscepticism in Northern Ireland
Why are most parties in Northern Ireland eurosceptic? I can understand that —more or less— in the context of British politics for conservative, right-wing unionist parties such as the Democratic Unionist Party or the Ulster Unionist Party, but according to its article, Sinn Féin is eurosceptic too. --Cerlomin (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are lots of reasons for being against European integration: weakening of the nation state, bureaucracy, undemocratic centralism, and recently the predominant German role on European affairs. You don't have to right-wing or conservative to be eurosceptic. Quest09 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at their website, I have no idea whether they're Eurosceptic or not - "We have supported EU ... measures that promote and enhance human rights, equality ... promoting a basic level of rights protection in all member states ... we have also never been afraid to stand up against EU measures that are damaging to Irish interests" is the sort of fudge that everyone can sign up to, wherever they stand - an inspection of things like Bairbre de Brún's voting record might be more helpful here in determining both position and reasoning. As an aside, I find it amusing that Quest09 says you don't have to be right-wing to be eurosceptic, in qualification of a list of rather right-wing reasons & claims --Saalstin (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Saalstin: only the first reason is typical right-wing. Reasons 2-4 could perfectly be liberal, democratic, whatever. 88.9.215.192 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who lives in Italy I can sympathise with Northern Irelands euroscepticism. For starters, I have much less money in my wallet ever since lira was changed into euros; buying a new item of clothing or a book is now a luxury when it used to be par for the course.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe things got much expensive with the Euro. From my experience in more than one euro country, I know that cheap things like a coffee were rounded towards €1.5, €2, or whatever, making them maybe 10% more expensive. But big things were not influenced by it. Some, specially imports, even got cheaper. Quest09 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The first is typical right-wing, the second is simply wrong and a claim that usually comes from the right (we have one set of bureaucracy and standards rather than 27), the third is a typical right-wing claim/excuse (EEA is undemocratic, EU means we get Commissioners, Ministers, MEPs, Members of the CoR writing our law), the fourth is just... offensive. Germany's the largest country and economy in Europe, it would be a very strange world in which they weren't predominant, indeed they punch under their weight against what you'd really expect, in large part due to historical concerns over what happened last time they didn't. --Saalstin (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At least we agreed on 1. 2. I don't see how we get less state intervention (i.e. a classical liberal demand) putting a further layer of government on our national governments. 3: if demanding direct real democracy, and not that set of indirectly appointed 'representatives' in the EU, is right-wing, then, being right-wing is the only acceptable choice for me. However, I dispute that you have to be right-wing to be democratic. 4. How can being against Germany be offensive? It's just a position. You don't want a foreign country interfering in your affairs. Be you NI or GB, you want to set your own set of values, independent of the economical situation. Quest09 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have pointed out that the CoR, that you referred to in your post, is an example of duplicated work. Quest09 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Before everyone piles in to advise you on how you are wrong, please note the top of the page: "Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, this thread is starting to get soapy. Anyway, there is also no need to discuss further, since I'm right. Quest09 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian Paisley, former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, has claimed that the EU is an evil Catholic conspiracy led by the Pope (who is the Biblical Antichrist) with the intention of enslaving Europe in a new Roman Empire. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I wonder who chooses such lunatics for party leaders. Perhaps it's an requirement. Flamarande (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doubt that Paisley came up with that on his own -- it was a central tenet of the old Armstrong Church of God (see 1975 in Prophecy!), which had a very strong international publishing and propaganda arm for many years... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do they waste champagne at the end of motor races?
You all know what I mean. Those images of motor bike or car racers spraying champagne all over everybody at the end of races. Where did this tradition come from? I've always thought it was a waste of perfectly good champagne, but maybe they use crap imitations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the G. H. Mumm web site, "The legend began on 13 May 1950 when the preeminent championship was created: Formula 1. The first Grand Prix race took place on the Silverstone Circuit in England, with the same distance as today’s events, slightly over 300 km. The tradition of paying tribute to the winner with a bottle of champagne began that same year at the Reims-Gueux circuit in the Champagne region of France. But it was actually 16 years later when the prize-giving ceremony on the podium took the form that we now today. Jo Siffert, after winning his category of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, unwittingly enriched the tradition. On the podium, the cork popped out of his overheated bottle of champagne, showering the onlookers below. The following year, in 1967, Dan Gurney celebrated his victory by deliberately spraying the crowd, a gesture that is now a Formula 1 ritual." For tangentially related material, you may want to see sabrage and Gatorade shower. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about racing, but it's traditional in US pro sports for teams to spray champagne all over each other after winning championships, pennants, division titles, etc. This apparently is an old tradition; the New York Times article from the end of the 1970 World Series says "jubilant players were doing everything with the champagne but drinking it." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at least ten years older than that, as this famous picture following Bill Mazeroski's walk off, game-7 winning homerun in the 1960 World Series. -- Jayron  32  14:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13 May 1950? They must have been celebrating the birth of Stevie Wonder.  And why not?  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, they don't use a "crap imitation". Moët et Chandon is an F1 sponsor and provides the champagne used in the podium ceremonies. --Xuxl (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the above link, isn't G. H. Mumm the current and I'm pretty sure sole champagne sponsor for Formula One and has been for a number of years (over 10 according to the main part of the G.H. Mumm site). Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, Mumm replaced Moët et Chandon as main champagne sponsor in 2000 . It's still high-quality stuff, though. --Xuxl (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have recently acquired a son-in-law who is a motor bike racing aficionado, and am being educated in the ways of that sport. Similar spraying ceremonies happen at the end of all their major races too. I can now see the way a tradition like that comes about, but to someone who enjoys a good wine taken orally from a glass, and is new to the sport, it does seem an awful waste, and a pretty silly ceremony. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A good wine, sure. But champagne?  I always thought champagne was a waste of wine in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect you haven't been drinking the right champagne then ;) --Jac 16888 Talk 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be, but I sort of doubt there's any champagne I'd prefer to a good cabernet. I'm not even sure there's a champagne I'd prefer to a Two Buck Chuck cabernet. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly in my experience the nicer champagne is generally extremely expensive stuff. Also I kind of see the point of spraying champagne, but this? madness--Jac 16888 Talk 19:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Veuve Clicquot Yellow Label is a very nice champagne and a good value at about $40 US/bottle (less if you shop carefully). - Nunh-huh 21:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question, it is because they are stupid.85.211.153.242 (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They do occasionally drink part of the champagne though. &#x2013; b_jonas 09:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What caused the spike in US t-bill bonds in the 1980s?
I noticed that the yields went much higher than anything currently happening in greece or italy and am curious why they went up and why they came back down. 70.122.115.221 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They were part of intentional monetary policy in order to control inflation. I can't find a specific article of ours talking about it exclusively, but this section in Paul Volcker is a good summary. I heard in school that Volcker received death threats at the time and was the first Fed Chairman given Secret Service protection. I don't know if that was, or still is true, but it sums up the unpopular aspect of it at the time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That section is talking about the Fed's deposit rate (that is, the interest rate the Fed pays on the money banks deposit there). The OP is talking about the T-bond yields (ie. the interest rate the government pays on its debts). While they are related, they aren't the same thing. Not everyone can deposit money in the Fed, so it's not impossible to have T-bond yields that are lower than the deposit rate. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article Early 1980s recession describes the high inflation that prevailed during that period. Investors in US Treasury bonds did not want to see an inflation-adjusted loss on their investment; therefore, they demanded interest rates that would cover the expected inflation during the term of the bond.  The U.S. government was unable to raise money without offering a rate that would compensate investors for the expected inflation.  Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks a bunch for the info folks my curiosity is sated 70.122.115.221 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War
In the American Civil War, how many regiments would typically be in the average infantry brigade - on either side? I know that Barkdale's Brigade at Gettysburg had four, but some seem to have more, and others less. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Infantry in the American Civil War says an average of 4.71 for the Confederates, 4.73 for the Union. (I wonder what gargantuan rebel brigade had 20.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent - cheers! And twenty? At full strength (20,000 men) that single brigade would be bigger than the entire Union army at the start of the war! I'll look around to see who it was..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the North, there were generally strong incentives for recruiting new regiments, but no incentives to recruit individual men to bring existing regiments up to strength. The result of this was that, over the course of the war, attrition would cause a regiment to shrink from its paper strength of ten hundred-man companies, with some regiments falling to platoon strength or smaller.  If the South had similar policies, that twenty-regiment brigade would probably have had fewer than 3000 men. --Carnildo (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Higgins knee operation in 2004?
Recently-elected Irish President Michael D. Higgins broke his knee in Colombia in 2010, but when he was seeking the Labour Party nomination to contest the Presidency back in September 2004, a contemporary RTÉ news report stated, "'There's been speculation for months about whether Michael D Higgins would run for the Presidency. Today, he told Labour TDs and Senators that he was willing to do so, that his recent knee operation wouldn't prevent him, and that it would be good for the party and for the presidency to have a contest.' — Youtube recording"

Does anyone know anything about this knee operation in (circa) 2004?
 * 1) Why did he need the operation?
 * 2) Did he acquire a limp as a result of it, or did he only begin to limp in 2010?
 * 3) Was it the same knee that he broke in 2010?
 * 4) [Bonus question] If it was the same knee, have the 2004 operation and the 2010 fracture combined to make him limp so much nowadays? — O'Dea  (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You already asked that... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Rudyard Kipling ever meet Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi?
Did Rudyard Kipling ever meet Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? If so, I think it would have been a very interesting meeting, with Kipling's staunch Britishness combined with a love of India. I expect if it had happened after WW1 he'd have had some sympathy for Gandhi's pacifism too. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kipling doesn't seem to have been to India since 1889 1891. Gandhi visited George Bernard Shaw during his 1931 visit to Britain, but I suspect that there was little common ground between Gandhi and Kipling. Kipling's anger over WWI was (as I understand it) almost entirely directed at elected politicians and he tried to promote the idea of governance by a kind of military junta. Interesting thought though. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again: please take that comment about Kipling's military government with a pinch of salt - I can't now find a reference for it. One of those things that I thought I knew. Alansplodge (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered if you were referring to his Aerial Board of Control or to non-fiction writing. -- 203.82.66.204 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting link, but not what I was thinking of. I believe it came from a TV play (not My Boy Jack (film)) but I'm not sure now. However, this article about his poem Gehazi gives an insight into his post-war political views "The Radical Right group, of which Kipling was an active member, despised any form of political pragmatism because it negated the duty to serve the nation and the Empire in the way that Kipling himself had immortalised in his Indian canon." Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian groups that do not believe that Jesus was crucified?
I was reading the article Dispute about Jesus' execution method, and in the introduction (specifically, in the first sentence), it is mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified, but was instead executed using a torture stake. However, no other denominations are mentioned and in fact one section was about evidence supporting the theory that Jesus was crucified. Also, the people quoted in this section (under "Stauros" interpreted as stake only) are Jehovah's Witnesses writers. Are there other (modern) denominations that share their opinion, or are the Witnesses alone in this opinion? (Which would not be surprising, knowing their views on blood transfusions and nationalism)

-Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's such a basic tenet of Christianity that anyone who doesn't believe he was crucified can almost safely be said to be something else. Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones, I think, who believe in the stake hypothesis, but in that case he was still executed and died and ascended and all the rest. The Islamic view of Jesus' death for example sometimes follows the crucifixion story, sometimes not, but in either case Jesus did not actually die on the cross. There is also the "swoon hypothesis" where he didn't die, he just passed out and looked like he was dead. The idea that the crucifixion was somehow an illusion goes back almost as far as Christianity itself, as it was a tenet of Docetism. (Also, somewhat irrelevant but interesting, aside from the dispute over the shape of the cross/stake, there is also another dispute about the date; some Protestants think a "Friday crucifixion" is too Papist, and believe instead in a "Wednesday crucifixion".) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder why the particular shape of the piece of wood some guy was nailed to about 2000 years ago has achieved such importance. I cannot see any important doctrinal implications of one or the other (although one is slightly more open to Freudian interpretation...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "particular shape of the piece of wood" was the means by which the Christians believe that he died for our sins and ascended to heaven. Such shapes/symbols have a way to becoming important. Flamarande (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's weirder than that. While Christians often use the cross as a symbol, and in imagery, there really isn't any special theology attached to the shape. People use the familiar imagery in phrases like "arms opened wide to save", but it really wouldn't be a big deal to Christians for Jesus to be crucified on a different shaped piece of wood. It would be weird, as we have a good chunk of early Christian writing and imagery that refer to this shape, but it wouldn't actually change anything. Jehovah's Witnesses (who are the only people who find the 'stake' thing convincing, and the only ones who think the 'Tammuz' thing is convincing, but not sadly the only ones to find 'Constantine invented the Catholic Church to appease pagans and destroy Christianity' convincing) often present the issue of the shape of the cross as vitally important, as if it deeply matters, whereas it is really completely irrelevant to standard Christian belief. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, almost all sects, cults and religions find and focus themselves upon some relatively minor issue as vitally important. This way they can separate their guys from the surrounding world. This way religious leaders can impose their rule over the faithful. It goes more less this way: We do this this way and the others don't. They are different from us as we are to them. We shouldn't mix. It is GOD who decided such issues. Flamarande (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sometimes claimed that the ultimate was the homoousianist vs. homoiousanist dispute "over a vowel" (however, though it was rather esoteric, it was not actually about a vowel as such)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In early Christianity, some Gnostic or Docetic groups thought that Jesus had never been crucified at all, but rather only his eidolon appeared to be crucified. This idea is pretty much extinct among Christians (though Muhammad incorporated a version of it into Islam).  The JW thing is unique to them alone, as far as I'm aware.  It can appear to be supported by somewhat superficial perusal of a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek (note: the New Testament was written in Hellenistic Koine Greek), but everything else we know about Roman execution customs and the history of early Christianity contradicts it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Galatians 3:13 (http://mlbible.com/galatians/3-13.htm) uses ἐπὶ ξύλου, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the wood"), in quoting from Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 (http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/21-23.htm), which uses עַל־הָעֵץ, meaning "on the stake" (literally, "on the tree").
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And why don't those words mean "wood" and "tree" in those places? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One has to be a little careful with the word cross. In English, a cross has to have something that crosses, but this is not the original meaning of the word crux, which meant the execution device.  A crux simplex is just a pole to which the victim is affixed; it's a cross, so to speak, without a crossbar.  So at first glance I don't see why you would say the Witnesses don't think he was crucified &mdash; apparently they think he was on the cross, but without a crossbar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some sects believe that Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus was the one actually crucified on the cross.  He  iro 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus died on a cross, and insist it was a "stake." But then they are not considered Christians by many Christian denomination. Edison (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly for other denominations to pronounce on whether the JWs or any others are not Christians. If the JWs say they follow, in their way, the teachings of Christ, that ipso facto makes them Christians.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  08:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * JackofOz -- That may sound logical, but unfortunately it goes against about 1,700-1,800 years of history, and would define Muslims as being "Christian"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do believe that they are Christians, they just worship God differently. But my question is, are there other Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was executed using a stake or a method other than crucifixion. And is there any evidence for (or against) the stake theory? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "differently". There's a reason there are so many different Christian denominations - they each differ from all the others in some significant way.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In their beliefs and ways of worship. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Compared to what? --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Narutolovehinata5 -- The main "evidence" is looking up the word σταυρος in a dictionary of Classical Attic Greek, and overlooking that the New Testament is written in Hellenistic Koine Greek. Just about everything beyond that which has been alleged in favor of the stake hypothesis is somewhat strained or irrelevant... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Name in Buddhism for different ways of not being indifferent
One thing is having preferences (but still being happy for getting something) and another is to get a fixed idea about what you want. What's the name of that? Quest09 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Attachment? Pfly (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you want Dukkha: basically, the state of being attached to the presence or absence of something (as opposed to the something in itself). -- Ludwigs 2  18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, both answers seem to be on the right direction. But, is there a name for "having preferences, but it's OK". Buddhists are not indifferent to stuff, even if they accept that things go wrong sometimes, they have preferences (for example, they prefer not to break a leg, but accept that it happens). Quest09 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe something to do with the Noble Eightfold Path--right view, right intention, right effort, etc.? Pfly (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is Upekkha in Pali. It means equanimity. Rabuve (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the cost of leaving a tv on standby
for a year in UK? Kittybrewster &#9742;  18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If your TV satisfies the latest "Energy Star" requirements for less than one watt in standby, then you can run it for 1000 hours for the cost of one unit (perhaps 10p in the UK, depending on your tariff). One average year is 8766 hours during which time your TV will use 8.7 Kwh (units), so the cost is likely to be less than £1, though tariffs are rising rapidly.    D b f i r s   20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of prefix "my" for British nobility
Why did people (and not just the sovereign) in Elizabethan etc times refer to eg "My Earl of Derby", "My Earl of Leicester" and so on. Why "my"? Ericoides (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on Madam states that the term comes from mea domina, meaning my mistress of the house. When a subordinate refers to his lord it is "My lord."  So, to someone living in the Earldom of Leicester they would refer to their earl as "My Earl."  Not so important now, but when your lord owned the land you lived in when you were a slave/serf, it might have been important. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But people who are not subordinate to Leicester – either because they are not within his earldom or because they are his sovereign (ie Elizabeth) – also use the term "my" when referring to him. Ericoides (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without claiming definite knowledge, I have always taken this to be just another instance of the formerly widespread etiquette practice (common, for example, in China and Japan as well as Europe) of equals in an exchange each behaving and speaking as if the other is the senior, or those in a nominally subordinate position exaggerating that subordination, hence antique letter salutations like "I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient servant" from civil servants and others, or the spoken "Your servant, Sir" used between gentlemen in the Stuart period. In English the use of "My lord" was sufficiently common that French and Italian speakers took "Milord" to be an actual English title of nobility. [Sorry, too rushed to dig out proper references.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but again a little quibble; the us of "my" occurs even when the person so referred to is absent, eg, "I was discussing with my Earl of Derby the matter arising from etc". Ericoides (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If "My Earl of Derby" was used, it was much less common than "My lord the Earl of Derby". I can look into this, but my immediate guess is that the possessive pronoun was transferred from the everyday use of Norman French and Medieval Latin by the upper classes of England... cf. "monseigneur", &c. (By the way, there was no British nobility in the 16th century!) Moonraker (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, re British, my mistake (although it could be construed as being a question in general about English and British nobility)! I'll try to find instances of my Earl of X; I'm sure I've read some recently. Ericoides (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've never seen "my Earl of X"; it's normally "my Lord Earl of X" or, more commonly, "my Lord of X" (so you'd say "I was speaking to my Lord of Derby" rather than "I was speaking to the Earl of Derby"; this form occurs in Shakespeare). It seems that it was just seen as a more respectful way of referring to someone, which presumably developed from the more respectful way of addressing someone directly. A similar form still exists to a certain extent in the courts: if a judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales wants to refer to one of the other judges he is sitting with he will say "...as my Lord, Lord Justice Smith, said...", or simply "...as my Lord said..." if it's clear who he's referring to. Proteus (Talk) 12:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed: "my Earl" is wrong. See Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester; "I see not her Majesty disposed to use the services of my Lord of Leicester." (Francis Walsingham). Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. One contrary example hardly proves the non-existence of the Earl form. See, for instance, Sir John Gilbert to Sir Robert Cecil: "As to my Earl of Cumberland having the greatest part in the Watt's adventure, the case standeth thus."; or [A. Gorges (?)] to Lord Carew: "I am desirous to hear of your welfare, and by a few lines to let you know of some bruits that I hear of, that may concern the State, that if you think fit it may be related to my Earl of Salsburye."; or Montagu: "nor my Earl of Leicester with any of the favourites of Augustus" etc. etc.  Ericoides (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not to disagree completely with my first comment, but the "my lord" construction does also appear in Old English. For instance, in Genesis B, Eve calls Adam "frea min" (my lord). Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)