Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 16

= February 16 =

Italian Monopoly on Papacy
How come all Popes between 1523 and 1978 (for 455 years) were Italians? Was this a coincidence, or was there something more to it? Does the fact that the Papal Residence is very close to Italy (and previously, to some Italian city states) have anything to do with this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For much of that period, the Papacy was a political power as well as the head of the Church. As such, they had all the usual problems, like needing to avoid wars with their neighbors, which other states accomplished through intermarriage, etc.  One way for the Papacy to do so was to appoint a Pope from a neighboring city-state, which would certainly help to prevent war with them.  Later on, having an Italian Pope just became a tradition.  StuRat (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Italy was also highly overrepresented in the number of its Cardinals, to the point, I believe, of having a majority in the conclave--but I am not sure where to find this information, so take that as reference needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it's an outright majority any more, but it's definitely a plurality of the eligible-to-vote cardinals. I believe the article I saw said 28 Italians are eligible to vote for the Pope, with something like 11 Americans as the next-most-powerful nation voting bloc. &mdash; Lomn 03:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Help me here please. The word plurality is not a common word where I come from, although I know I've seen discussion of it somewhere here on Wikipedia, and suitably forgotten. What's it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Use the search box, or see Plurality (voting). says: "Only cardinals below 80 years old can vote and be voted upon in the Conclave, set before Easter. That makes only 29 Italians attending, 24 percent of the 119 total." College of Cardinals has unsourced percentages at eight times in the 20th century. It shows Italian majority in the first half. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Plurality could be considered as the Mode (statistics). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ...meaning it's the largest group. So, here it means that Italians have more votes than anyone else, even though they don't have more than half the votes. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is entirely because the seat of the papacy was in Rome. Of course, prior to the middle 1800s, there was no Italy; there was a plethora of states on the Italian peninsula, and they spoke a variety of languages and had a variety of cultures.  But the fact that all Popes came from near Rome is entirely understandable, if for no other reason than the Pope was the ruler of a large country known as the Papal States, and inviting some foreigner in to rule was not, at the time, seen as a good idea.  After all, it didn't go so well for Poland when they did just that.  The Italian Papacy was pretty much secured by the results of the Western Schism, which was a controversy over whether Rome or Avignon (in France) would be the seat of the Papacy.  It is no coincidence that the Avignon Popes were almost all French.  After the Great Schism, the power in the Papacy returned to Rome, and Rome was committed to keeping it that way.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and it is, after all, described by many as the Roman Catholic church. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't right to say that prior to the mid-1800s, there was no Italy. It is absolutely true that there was no single Italian state, and Italian regional identities were stronger, but from the time of the early Renaissance at the latest, all of Italy shared a common standard language and literary culture as well as a coherent economy. The careers of the great early modern Italian artists and writers show a lot of geographic mobility among the various city-states of the peninsula.  This shows cultural and economic coherence in the absence of political unity.  In this context, an Italian from outside the Papal States would not have been seen as a foreigner by residents of those states.  By contrast, a French, Spanish, or German pope might have had more difficulty ruling the Papal States.  Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Itschory - Itsyursk - Itsiursk
I wish to pin down the location and current name of the place called Itschory, the birth place of Vasily Safonov. All we're told there is that it was in the Russian Caucasus. A google search for Itschory just turns up a few thousand hits for Safonov, where his birth place is just parroted mindlessly.

Another variant I've seen is Itsyursk, but a google search again gives me many hits about Safonov and nothing about the place itself.

My 1954 Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians renders it as "Itsiursk, Terek, Caucasus". Google gives me no hits for Itsiursk at all. Grove's goes on "He was the son of a Cossack general living in a village in the northern Caucasus, on the banks of the romantic river Terek, sung by the poets Pushkin and Lermontov". But whether the first mention of Terek was a reference to the river or to either of the localities mentioned at Terek, Russia, I could not say.

Since Safonov's birth in 1852, there has been rather a lot of political and military activity in this whole region, and what Itschory - Itsyursk - Itsiursk was back then is almost certainly not what it is today. It might have been swallowed up in some larger conurbation. It might have been wiped out in some conflict. It could even be in Georgia.

Does anyone have any clues about this place? Thanks. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're probably just being foiled by the vagaries of RU->EN transliteration. ru.wikipedia says he was born in ru:Ищерская in the Terek Oblast, which Google Maps and other English language sources transliterate as "Ishcherskaya". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, vagaries indeed. I must be losing the plot, because it never occurred to me to check in ru:WP.  Thanks for the quick detective work, Mr McWalter.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sesquialtera
The Spanish baroque composer Gaspar Sanz wrote some pieces entitled "Sesquialtera", and I was wondering how these pieces are supposed to be played/interpreted. I cannot find any information about this kind of piece (suppose it must be a dance, as most pieces by Sanz were); and just going by the tablature and score I have, I'm not really sure of how to play them. I searched in some musical encyclopedias, only finding stuff about organ stops, and even Wikipedia doesn't give me more. The pieces contain some strange harmonies, making them quite interesting. Anybody able to help? MuDavid (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Favorite pastime of the Eskimo (also known as Inuit)
What's the favorite pastime of the Eskimo (aka Inuit)? Is it playing games, like cat's cradle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdillon87 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Inuit culture may shed some light. --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Eliot Avedon Virtual Museum of Games - Inuit (Eskimo) Games is a quite detailed resource - espedially the menu grid at the bottom of the page. Also Traditional Inuit Games which has been compiled by Inuit schoolchildren. Video clips of some more athletic games can be seen at Arctic Survival Skills: Traditional Inuit Games, and Inuit Cultural Online Resource - Inuit Games. I also found Allunaariaqattaarneq – Inuit rope gymnastics. A present day Olympic sport which was directly inspired by the Inuit is kayaking, although for them it primarily a means of transport and for hunting. The Inuit Kayak says that competitive kayaking is popular in modern Inuit communities. Finally, everything you wanted to know about String games of the Eskimos but were afraid to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

raytheon stock
why does our article says raytheon has revenue of $24Bn, assets of $25Bn, but yahoo finance says its whole market cap is only $17bn (just a few months of revenue)? am i making a mistake or looking at two different companys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.32.82 (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're confusing revenue with profit. Raytheon's revenue is $24.8 billion, but its profit is only $1.8 billion.
 * Secondly, you're confusing assets with net assets. Raytheon has a total asset of $26.7 billion, but it also has $19 billion in total liabilities. Thus its net assets is $26 - $18.7 = $8 billion; this number is also called net worth or book value (and for our British friends, Net asset value). The market cap must obviously be larger than the net assets. Dncsky (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Raytheon's net income (profit) (=revenues minus expenses) is $1.8 billion; its revenues are higher. The market capitalization represents investors' expectations about the present value of all present and future profits, which may differ substantially from its book value. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, corrected my answer.Dncsky (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Law of Unclean Things
In accordance to Jewish Law, are alive cats and dogs unclean? Are these animals forbidden to be touched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Only their carcasses are considered unclean in Judaism. See here. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

jewish law
What if a woman unclean for seven days touched a public object(for example, a keyboard in an internet cafe), and it happened that I touched the object without knowing that it had been touched by an unclean woman and it was not cleaned according to the law, did I sin? Do I have to ask everyone if a public object is touched by an unclean person so I can be safe from uncleanness? What about the case of objects touched by thousands of people before me touching it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think any serious teacher of Jewish law would hold that accidentally contracting ritual purity constitutes a sin in the traditional sense, nor are all modern rabbis (even Orthodox) of the opinion that such laws need be fully observed in modern times. Also keep in mind that no impurity is of an indefinite duration (with the possible exception of, IIRC, impurity from contact with a corpse, absent the red heifer ritual), so there would be no concern about the "thousands of people" before you. I also am not certain that merely touching an object such as a keyboard in the public domain is enough to transfer ritual impurity (though sitting in the same chair very well may be). You might try asking a rabbi about this if it is a practical concern for you. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Niddah... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of dignity of Anne Boleyn
Apparently, one of the first public acts passed during the reign of Elizabeth I of England was Restoration of dignity of Anne Boleyn. I have not been able to find out anything about this act. What is it about? Where can I read about it? Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a thorough Google search didn't find any more than is in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was presumably related to the installation of Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth on the throne in 1558, after the death of Mary I. Was it to retrospectively restore the title of "Queen" to Anne Boleyn?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the title. In fact, I cannot imagine what it could be about. Mary I had her parents' marriage declared (or confirmed) valid and herself a legitimate child. Elizabeth I, as far as I know, never did anything to that effect; had she declared her mother's marriage to her father valid or implied that it was valid by restoring Anne's title, she would have undermined the newly-formed Church of England. Reportedly, during her entire life, she only mentioned her mother's name twice. So what was that act about? Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, why would declaring her parents' marriage valid have "undermined the Church of England"? Declaring it invalid certainly would have done so, since the marriage only went ahead bacuse pappy Pope was out of the picture. I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this was an act of Parliament, not an act of Elizabeth. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was declared null and void by the Church of England in 1536, Paul B. Of course, it was an act of Parliament, but I doubt the Parliament's decision to pass the act in 1558 had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Elizabeth ascended the throne a couple of weeks earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Our article says that it was Cranmer who personally declared the marriage void, and this declaration was made the night before Anne's execution, more in order to protect Cranmer than for any other reason. So the voiding seemed not to have been Henry's idea, because surely he would have arranged that much earlier.  And if it wasn't Henry's idea, then maybe Elizabeth was acting accordingly.  Failing that, might this restoration of dignity have something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly from Anne of a Thousand Neestons she was executed for treason, not as a method of divorce. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, after May 1536, Henry always insisted that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was not valid. It is quite possible that it had something to do with the Marquessate of Pembroke. Perhaps Anne was retrospectively declared innocent and the marquessate was declared to have been hers up until the moment of her death (as opposed to merging with the Crown on her marriage or being forfeited)? Then again, it could be something completely unrelated to the marquessate. Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone say on what ground? He could have executed her as an incestuous traitor (as he did) without having Elizabeth implied a bastard. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it was a bit less shocking to have your mistress executed than to do the same to your lawfully wedded wife the Queen. You can read about that here. I don't think that is relevant here, though. The only question is what the 1558 act was about. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm actually quite surprised that there isn't a public database of all the laws ever passed by the parliaments of Britain, showing their history, including details of all amendments and their current status. This one may not be a current statute, but it was once, and if people were expected to obey the law, there must have been some way of telling them what the law was.  Even before the computer age, people would have needed this information in some form.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For current legislation, there's Halsbury's Statutes. In ye olden days things were less organised: this page details the relevant sources. HenryFlower 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Thanks, Henry.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Legislation that had not been fully repealed (rather than amended) before 1991 is viewable online at The UK Statute Law Database which is administered by The National Archives. The only legislation for 1558 that is included is the Act of Supremacy 1558; "An Acte restoring to the Crowne th'auncyent Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, and abolyshing all Forreine Power repugnaunt to the same." (They don't write them like that any more). I suspect that transcribing all the many tens or hundreds of thousands of redundant acts onto a database is a skilled job that would take many decades to complete and be of great expense and very limited utility. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the foregoing, I found; Journal of the House of Commons: volume 1: 1547-1629 (1802), entry for 16 February 1559 (p.54) "Jovis, 16o Februarii Queen's Restitution in Blood. L. 1. - The Bill for Restitution in Blood of the Queen's Highness, for the Attainder of Queen Anne her Highness Mother." "Restitution in Blood" was apparently to restore full legal rights to those whose ancestors had been convicted of treason.Geoffrey Rudolph Elton,  The Parliament of England: 1559-1581 Cambridge University Press 1986 (p.303) So perhaps such an act was required to fully legitimise Elizabeth's reign? Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds very interesting, Alansplodge! Since Elizabeth ascended according to the Third Succession Act and through her father (rather than through her mother), I am more inclined to believe that it has to do with the Boleyn inheritance after all. Whether it's her mother's marquessate or her maternal grandfather's earldom (see Mary Boleyn, second paragraph), Elizabeth obviously had a reason to seek connection to her maternal legacy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Norway have native actors in the 18th century?
I remember once to have read an essay regarding travelling theatre companies in Norway in cirka 1800, which were described as being native and not foreign. However, I have found no examples of Norwegian actors in Norway prior to the establishment of the Johan Peter Strömberg (later Christiania Theater) in Oslo in 1827: this is described as the first permanent professional theatre in Norway. Where really all the travelling theatre companies that performed in Norway in the 18th century Danish or Swedish? What about, for example, the theatre of Martin Nürenbach in Oslo in 1771-1772? Or were they actually no Norwegian actors until 1827? Thank you. --85.226.41.14 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi salute
In our article Nazi salute, there's a person crying in the picture. My question is, was this person forced to give the salute? It seems like she's a gipsy, was she a target?. Thank.Kotjap (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gypsy people were targets, yes, so she might have been trying to protect herself by showing loyalty. Or, maybe she isn't a Gypsy but is of German origin, and is genuinely happy that the Sudetenland  has been annexed by Germany.  People do sometimes cry when happy. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with your second point StuRat. The image was taken in the town of Cheb Eger which is a town right on the border with Czechoslovakia. It sat in a German-speaking area called Egerland which had been Germanic from 807 AD and part of Bohemia (latterly in the Austro-Hungarian Empire) from 1322 to 1919. When the German-speaking townspeople found out that they had been excluded from German-speaking Austria and included in the new Czech state, there were demonstrations which were put down with force by the new Czech army. "...involving 54 deaths and well over one hundred injuries." It wasn't just losing their nationality that they were upset about; "In 1919 the [Czech] government confiscated one-fifth of each individual's holdings in paper currency. Germans, constituting the wealthiest element in the Czech lands, were most affected. The Land Control Act brought the expropriation of vast estates belonging to Germans. Land was allotted primarily to Czech peasants". The manifest unfairness of the treatment of the Sudeten Germans was one of the factors in Britain and France deciding to appease Hitler and allow him to annex the Sudatenland - Germany and Austria were unified by then.


 * So, the women in the picture is probably very happy and relieved rather than upset. Her embroidered waistcoat is typical of German and Austrian national dress, just wearing a headscarf doesn't prove that she's a Gypsy. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a rather famous picture depicting the fact that the locals were required to come out and give the Nazi salute as the occupiers paraded by. There's no indication she's anything other than a Czech, perhaps a shopkeeper.  People who cry when they are happy usually smile, however distortedly, not grimace as this woman is doing. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the public service announcement on TV in the US now, featuring a school girl who is surprised when her father comes back from war and shows up in her class ?  She is overcome by emotion, cries, and doesn't smile. StuRat (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but what would be the motivation of a German official photographer taking a picture of somebody who was upset by their arrival? Also, the great majority of the townspeople were ethnic Germans. That was the point. The caption which follows the line that you suggest was added by the East German Communists and has a label on the Commons page saying; "This description has been identified as biased or incorrect: propaganda." Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Exhibit A in the case for the defence m'Lud. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's actually a cropped version of the crying woman here. The Nazi's captioned the picture "A Sudeten woman, overcome with emotion, pays homage as the Wehrmacht enters the Sudeten border town of Cheb" The American NARA captioned it "The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been 'won over' to Hitlerism by the 'everlasting use' of ruthless force." Ryan Vesey 21:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So you can make your own decision, but for my money, the circumstantial evidence is on the side of Nazi propaganda and against US and East German variety. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably we'll never know, in this life at least. But it might be worth pointing out that "crying for happiness" is ambiguous in the best of circumstances; the cryer is feeling pain of some sort, even if it's pain brought on by the contrast of this moment with the everyday, or anticipated mourning of the loss of the moment.  In this case the woman may be happy at some level to welcome the Germans, but at another level have an intuition of what could be coming.  Anyway I don't have any more evidence than anyone else (though there have been studies on the "pain" point, which should probably be mentioned in the crying article), but it's a fascinating ambiguity to speculate on. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit more light is shed on the subject when we see the whole photograph, especially the rather jolly lady on the left. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We have no way of knowing whether these two women had similar views or attitudes. --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, there's the context that the local occupied people were forced to turn out for the Nazi occupation parades whether they supported it or not, look at the crying people in the http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212881/crypar.jpg famous Parisian picture] as well. Second, there's the fact that this woman is clearly grimacing, cover her face above her nose and look at just her mouth.  That is not the sign of someone crying in joy--and she's certainly not crying in surprise. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Medeis, you forgot to sign, and that link says "Permission denied" when I try it. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I changed it to another link, here are the crying Parisians again: . μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No Nazi salutes on that picture. And you have provided no sources for anything about people being forced to turn out for Nazi occupation parades, so we don't have the slightest reason to believe there is such a "context". And Alansplodge made a very good case for the argument that it was indeed a Sudeten German that was crying out of happiness. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see this ref desk thread regarding that particular picture. He was crying watching French troops departing for North Africa after the German victories. No forced appearance at German parades on that picture. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good catch on the French picture, and certainly explains the lack of salutes. I am not quite sure how Alansplodge has argued away that fact that the crying bride picture shows a happy mouth (cover up the eyes and look) and the surprised daughter has an open mouth with no grimace. (I have to admit the bride picture looks posed, though.) μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, in response to the caption above, the camera often lies, unless these tourists really were holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa: . 22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the camera is not lying there. The only lie is a part of your brain telling your conscious mind that those people are holding up the tower, but that's immediately countermanded by another part of your brain saying that such an interpretation is contrary to plausibility and there must be another explanation.  Cameras don't lie, and computers don't make errors.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Camera never lies" comment was intended to be ironic, in that you can make up whatever lies you like about a picture (especially if you chop bits off). Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * About all we can say for sure about that picture is that they are holding up their right arms; and that one is crying, one is smiling, and the one in the middle is a neutral expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Flourish. Exeunt Omnes. FINIS. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a neutral expression Bugs; even though she isn't jumping for joy like the woman to her right (your left) it's pretty clear she is welcoming of the Nazis. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a non-expression, so you can't read anything into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

UK Parliamentary select committee composition
I was looking at UK select committees and I count at least 4 (Defence, Home Affairs, Scottish, Welsh) of them which don't have a majority for the government parties. Is there any reason? Isn't it counterproductive to do this because the government won't necessarily be able to get a majority on committee votes (obviously assuming no-one rebels)? User:SamUK 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll note that they are meant to be chosen "independently of the party whips, as chosen by the Select Committee of Selection" per Select_committees_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom. In theory they are meant to offer some degree of independent scrutiny of different aspects of the work of the parliament, and are not there to follow party lines. Often in many cases members will bring some special personal expertise to the work of the committee.  Perhaps it is a fiction, but my impression is the committees take their job of independent scrutiny quite seriously and are often noted to come up with recommendations that the government might not be happy with. --nonsense  ferret  19:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the logic in that. But wouldn't the majority party (parties) want a situation where they have maximum influence. Obviously when one party has an overall majority in the HoC, it is simpler; but even with the current makeup, wouldn't the Conservatives and Lib Dems have something to gain if they had a majority between themselves. For the Conservatives, they would have exactly half the committee seats, meaning they can block if the Lib Dem member votes with Labour MPs. And for the Lib Dem it would give them balance of power. At the moment, the opposition members on the committees I named can block the Cons and Libs. User:SamUK 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the content of this speech quite interesting from the Speaker of the House of Commons - - he puts forward the view very strongly that given the purpose of the committees is to be a check and balance against the unfettered exercise of power by the executive, then it should be removed as much as possible from the influences of the main party machinery. This is I think very much the traditional view, and has broad support across the benches.  The Government of today will be the opposition of tomorrow, and that is something they will probably bear in mind.  In some countries there is a clear written constitution that sets out the clear checks and balances that must be adhered to, and the processes of scrutiny.  That isn't really the case in the UK, but it would be a mistake to think that there are no effective checks and balances. It is a fascinating subject, thanks for asking the question. The Government of the day tend to recognise that some of these long-standing 'conventions' are worth having, even if sometimes it seems to get in the way of doing what they want to do. --nonsense  ferret  21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

House of Hanover
At the time of Queen Victoria's accession to the British throne, who was her nearest heir? RNealK (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See History of the British line of succession. It was her uncle Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. Hia10 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had thought of that, but I didn't know if there were any females or female line descendents in between.  RNealK (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deheubarth
What was the geography of Deheubarth when King Henry III granted the homage and lordship of Maredudd to Llywelyn for the payment of 5,000 marks on 30 August 1270?
 * There are two outline maps in our Deheubarth article. I suspect, given the quality of medieval cartography, that you're not going to find anything better than that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to prove myself wrong - here's a better one but a bit on the tiny side. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alansplodge.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Interested in the topography - mostly of what it may have looked like in 1270 (land features).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very rural. Hills and valleys as at present. No canals; river courses would not have been straightened or embanked, at least not so much as today. Probably more woodland and heathland than today. Small settlements, and there is a distinctive Celtic field pattern. Dry stone walls and hedgerows. Lots of sheep and cattle, some cereals. Castles and abbeys. Others may know more. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the impressions. In this document it says A major campaign to control Llywelyn ap Gruffydd of Wales began in 1277 and lasted until Llywelyn's death in 1282. I'm not familiar with Wales, so don't know its land features. I'm getting the impression the land controlled by Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was perhaps mountainous or hilly? It perhaps then was also a partial grassy area by your description of the distinctive "Celtic field" pattern?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Deheubarth is broadly the area now covered by Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, and Ceredigion, and looking at information on those areas will give you a general picture. The areas won't have changed that much over a mere 700 years or so.  So, it had a long coastline, backed with lowlying marshes and dunes in the south, hilly rather than mountainous elsewhere, and, as has been said, very rural but with fishing and farming villages and small market towns.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Although some of the hills are quite big by British standards, the Brecon Beacons, and the Black Mountains for example.
 * Sorry, I was misreading the map I linked you to - the Preseli Hills is a better link. I have an idea that the today's bare hills and moors are a product of the intensive sheep grazing introduced in the 19th century, and that it would be much more heavily wooded in the middle ages. Woodland would be Sessile oak, ash, hazel and alder - apart from a few yews and junipers, there were no conifers in Wales until the 17th century. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 32 of this source indicates that deforestation took place in pre-Roman times, so the prevailing landscape during the Middle Ages would already have been the grassy uplands and heaths that exist today. There would have been some woodlands, mainly on the steeper slopes and deeper valleys.  Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input. I have a good idea what it was like in the 1270s now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)