Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 19

= February 19 =

Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam
Immediately following the overture, the curtain opens at the beginning of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg to reveal the conclusion of a worship service, with the congregants singing Luther's hymn "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam". What's the origin of the tune: was it authentic to the 16th century, or did Wagner write it, or did it come from somewhere else? I've looked through a score for Bach's setting of the text, but I can't find any spot in which the words match the tune sung in the opera. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This source: states The available sources are unclear about this [earliest date]. (1541?) It also has a section: 'Use of the Chorale Melody by other composers', but doesn't mention Wagner.  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This says the text is a paraphrase of the original, and this is also interesting, without being definitive. But this strongly suggests it was Wagner's work, albeit inspired by "the aura of a past epoch". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article, Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know: that's why I linked it above, and it's through that article that I got the link for the score. Thanks for the helpful links, especially the Alan Roy Anbari book.  Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Obituary
Today, I was reading an obituary on the website of a local funeral home. It listed the person's name, date of death, and all of the typical obituary information. It also included a photo. However, it also stated: "Birth: Private". This is the first time that I have ever seen this. Can anyone think of some reason for which a family would go out of their way to exclude a person's date of birth from his obituary? It seems quite odd to me. As the person is deceased, clearly he has no concern to "hide" his age. And I can't really think of any security / identity theft issues related to this. So, can anyone imagine some reasonable explanation for such a deliberate and affirmative omission? By the way, this was a young, college-age student (which could be gleaned from the photo and the obituary details). In other words, it was not a scenario such as "some old (vain) woman in her 90's or 100's, who was trying to keep her age a big secret from all her family and friends" -type of deal. I can include a link to the obit, but I don't think that's necessary. Again, I have never seen this before. Is this something that is common? Or becoming more common? Or some new trend? I am perplexed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Local": do you mean somewhere in Connecticut, or somewhere else? Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Local, in Connecticut, yes.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen it but then I don't make a habit of reading obituaries. And it might actually be to avoid some sort of identity theft.  Though, it's fairly weak protection.  Dismas |(talk) 05:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think either identity theft, some sort of special situation—such as adoption, or perhaps just a mistake. Funeral services can of course be "private", and perhaps a misunderstanding crept into the information. Perhaps you can phone the funeral home and express interest in this terminology: "Birth: Private". You could just say that it piqued your curiosity. A virtue to that would be that it is completely honest. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that this action might be some attempt to avoid identity theft. But, the entire rest of the obituary had tons of identifying information: date of death, town names, all relative names and their locations and relationships, schools attended, degrees received, places of employment, etc. etc. etc. (typical obituary information).  So, why "hide" this one piece of info, yet give a very detailed biography throughout the rest of the paragraph?  Makes no sense.  (It's not like the entire obituary, in total, was a "bare bones" one, skimpy on detailed information.  Quite the opposite, in fact.)  So, I abandoned my "identity theft" theory.   And came to this Reference Desk Help Page.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also "knock down" your other theories. In cases of adoption (in today's modern world), I am sure that dates of birth are well known and recorded.  (Or perhaps I am not understanding your point on this issue?)  And, in this case, it certainly wasn't a private funeral.  The obit made that clear.  I just may call the funeral home, but I doubt they will be helpful.  They will offer some stock / generic answer ("It was at the request of the family" or some such non-helpful reply).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems rather odd. Can you post the link here, or is that by itself a little too invasive? If so, you could do some other research: See if the deceased has an entry in findagrave.com, or better yet, once they've done the actual burial (which might be a while), and if you're nearby, you could check out the tombstone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, here is the link: . I am not particularly interested in his specific date of birth.  I was just curious about the "Date of Birth: Private" notation, something I had never seen before.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They're being coy about the burial also. I have no clue why they would hide his birthdate. Have you checked other obits from that funeral home? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you say "coy"? That part went over my head.  Did I miss something?  No, I didn't really bother to check other obits.  I did call the place; he gave me the anticipated response ("At the request of the family").  But, he did say this.  He said that whatever the family writes down, he keeps it verbatim and doesn't change anything at all.  So, if the family doesn't put a birth date, he does not intervene in that decision.  (Aside:  I also noted just now that they also left out his age altogether, independent of the date of birth.  Wow, they really don't want anyone knowing, I guess!)  He just said that sometimes people like to keep their age/date private.  He actually cited an example much like I did above, with the "vain" women in their 90's or such.  But, no real insight given.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have another reason to suggest, for leaving out the date of birth: it is too harsh. Reading through the obituary, it becomes clear to me that there is an intention to remember the texture of the life lost. Allow me to call your attention to the sentence: "Requested dress will be white tee shirts and jeans if you are feeling casual." What that suggests to me is a desire to steer clear of harsh facts in favor of remembering the inchoateness of the life lost. This is a young person without the fully formed accomplishments and station of life that an older deceased individual might have. Note the accomplishments cited: "He hiked the Catskill Mountains and the West Highland Trail in Scotland and also enjoyed fishing and hunting locally, and in the Catskill Mountains." Perhaps the intention was to remove the date of birth in favor of other facts that are felt by loved ones to be more in keeping with what is intended at the moment of the person's funeral. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insight. Perhaps that is the case.  I myself was surprised a bit by the "t-shirt and jeans" notation.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What takes place in "in today's modern world" doesn't have to be universal. I'm not suggesting it was a "private" funeral. I'm suggesting the person typing up the obituary had on their mind two cases at once, one of which was a "private funeral". It could be just a meaningless mistake. I have seen the word "internment" substituted for the word "interment" in funeral notices. This would seem to me to be cruel and unusual in a sense. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I have to knock down your theory. This is on the Internet.  If it was a clerical error, surely someone noticed it (either family or employee).  And, they would have had it corrected on the website (which takes 2 seconds).  Also, if it were indeed a clerical error, what are the odds that in making this clerical error, they would type in "private" in the space clearly marked "Date of Birth"?  Perhaps there might be a typo (as your "interment" example).  But in a field entitled "date of birth", one would normally type in an actual date.  In an error, perhaps type in the wrong date (January 1 instead of January 11).  But, one would never type the word "private" (as an error) in a field delineating a date..  That would be like typing the word "ice cream" or some such.  Makes no sense.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would assume this was to prevent identity theft. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is some interesting information: 5-steps-to-stop-identity-theft-of-deceased. For instance: "Short Obituaries. Make sure that you don’t include too much identifying information when you write the obituary. Identity thieves use this information (mother’s maiden name, address, ancestry, occupation, birth date, death date) to set up new accounts, licenses, etc. in the deceased person’s name. It is important to honor the person, just don’t give away all of their personal information." Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's part of my question. The rest of the obit is quite detailed, and violates all of those "rules".  The birth date is the only omission.  If they were trying to thwart identity theft, they would eliminate the birth date ... and keep the rest short and sweet, bare bones, without too much personally identifying info.  To do one, but not the other, seems to defeat the whole purpose.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding from reading books such as "How to Disappear Completely and Never be Found" is that birth date is the single most important piece of information you can have when it comes to stealing an identity: almost everything else you want to get or look up will require it. People who died young are much more desirable targets for theft of this kind because the perpetrator needs to have a reasonable base to start from and it does them no good to steal the identity of a 90-year-old, as that will be highly suspicious. Matt Deres (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the prevention of identity theft is the most likely scenario, but there could also be some embarrassing concerns for the parents, like that she was born before they were married, or perhaps they had lied about her age to get her in school early, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I had considered those scenarios also. But, the obit certainly does not come out and state in black and white the actual date of the parent's wedding, so that some nimble-minded reader is going to be able to do some "quick math" computations and conjecture illegitimacy.  As far as the school records, that would be ancient history.  No one would care about keeping such an innocuous fact secret, nor would anyone fear any reprisals 25 years down the road from that "lie".  And, in a son's time of death – unexpected death, no less – the last thing parents are going to worry about is misrepresenting a 4-year-old as a 5-year-old to gain early school admission some 25 years prior.  Even if that did happen, that fact is so innocuous as to be long forgotten.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, presumably some of the people who attend the funeral also know the wedding date of the parents, and could tell if the birth date was prior to that. And, if the deceased had used an incorrect birth date all their life (perhaps unknowingly, based on what their parents told them), all their friends would know that date, and wonder why the published date was different.  So, it might be easier just to keep it secret, and, if anyone asks, say it's not given out to prevent identity theft. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a plausible explanation.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Identity theft
It seems that most of the educated guesses to the above question center around the prevention of identity theft. And that does make some degree of sense when the deceased is so young. So, a follow up question. Since identity theft is such a "hot button" issue and concern nowadays, why isn't this practice much more common, widespread, advertised, etc.? (That is, the practice of not revealing birth dates in an obituary.) Now, perhaps us "regular folk" would never think of this. But, certainly, funeral directors and those in the industry must be "in the know". No? And, as such, one would think that we would see this starting to happen much more frequently. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I find here that "In most cases, a funeral director will report the person's death to SSA" and "The SSA generally receives reports of death from a family member or a funeral home." ("SSA" = Social Security Administration.) Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How can one determine if a death notice has been filed with Social Security? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the input above. Very helpful. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide depression data set
Hello, I'm looking for depression rates (e.g. % with depression, age-standardized DALYs per 100,000) for each country in the world (or at least most countries). To make it more complicated I'm looking for it to be split by gender. There was one data set I found that was from the WHO, but it wasn't separated by gender (and it was from 2004). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Vidtharr (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't expect accurate data to be available outside the developed nations, as such a diagnosis is less likely to be made in a developing nation. Also, even within developing nations, differences in rates may reflect different diagnostic standards rather than actual differences in rates. (There do seem to be some trends though, like nations with less sunlight, especially in winter, suffering from higher rates of depression.)  StuRat (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you know of a dataset that has self-rated happiness or life satisfaction? (So, replacing depression rate with happiness rating, for both genders). Thanks again. Vidtharr (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Satisfaction with Life Index and this Forbes report: . Note that clinical depression is more about abnormal brain chemistry than depressing life circumstances.  Indeed, many people who are clinically depressed have every reason to be happy, but aren't.  As such, the rates of clinical depression may not vary much by nation, unless there's a genetic component more common in certain gene pools than others.  (There are, however, others who are clinically depressed, at least in part, due to their life circumstances.)  StuRat (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Identify this 1840s woman
Does this image portray world famous opera singer Jenny Lind (1820-1887)? There is a similar photo on commons of Jenny Lind in this pose but their faces look different. Is the castle and the river in the background recognisable or are they just imaginary objects painted there by an artist? Actually, hard to tell if this is a photo or a painting? --M96hardh (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Closest I can think of is Stolzenfels Castle on the Rhine, but the river, drive, towers etc aren't quite right, although the castle was being rebuilt around this time. Maybe artistic licence? Maybe somewhere else? Ericoides (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought of Clara Schumann, but seeing her page I'm not so convinced now. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I googled Jenny Lind images. It certainly looks a lot like 99% of the images there. DanielDemaret (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, found her memoirs in googlebooks, it seems she visited Stolzenfels in August 1845 invited by the king of Preussia to sing for the guest Queen Victoria of England. However another soprano was also there, mademoiselle Staudigl, so I would need to rule her out by finding pictures of her. /M96hardh (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Was there? The texts I found always only speak of Mademoiselle Lind ("at which Mademoiselle Jenny Lind, Staudigl, Pischek, [...]" using the title in its singular form, or even "neither Mdlle. Lind, Herr Tichatschek, nor Herr Staudigl,"). I think Josef Staudigl is meant (he had also been an accomplished boy soprano before his voice broke and became a bass, so you will find him referred to as soprano occasionally). And it sure looks like Jenny Lind at Stolzenfels fits. Great castle-spotting by Ericoides! ---Sluzzelin talk  22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a sister of Staudigl? Obviously he was married, since his son (same given name) was born in 1850, why is his wife and family never mentioned? Yes, couldn't have done it without you, Ericoides! /M96hardh (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a different proposal: Elisabeth Ludovika, Queen Consort of Prussia. After all, King Friedrich Wilhelm IV had court architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel rebuild the ruins of Stolzenfels Castle between 1836 and 1842 precisely as a summer residence for Elisabeth and himself. This portrait shows an especially strong resemblance, both in facial features and attire.--Jdsteakley (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are any pre or inter-war German MPs still alive?
I read this morning in a paper that the last surviving MP from Great Britain's 1945 election has turned 99 today. It set me wondering, with only a few more years (and a young political career) there could be someone alive who voted on the Enabling Act in 1933 in the German Reichstag. Anyone know if there is, or where I could begin looking for that information? Bear in mind I don't speak German. 93.191.34.98 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also be interested in similar things for other countries. Are any US Congressmen or Senators who voted on the motion to go to war with Japan still standing, for example. 93.191.34.98 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Josef Felder (1900 - 2000) was "the last surviving legislator who voted against the 1933 law" (nytimes). Not sure he was the last surviving Reichstag-parliamentarian in general. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For your second question, the effective (but tedious) approach would be to skim through 77th United States Congress looking at individual pages for death dates. Unfortunately, the US political articles don't have the handy trick that the UK ones do of categorising by session (see, eg, Category:UK MPs 1945–50), which would allow us to look for living ones more easily - this database query looks for any WP articles on politicians from the 45-50 parliament who are still alive. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for both of these responses. I have checked all the senators (oldest couple made it to the Clinton administration, none left though). Might do Congressmen tomorrow. 93.191.34.98 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you know: List of the oldest living members of the United States House of Representatives tells us that there are two ex-Representatives first elected in 1953, though the oldest living former member was first elected 1959. List of living former United States Senators tells us that there is one former Senator who was first elected in 1963 - again, a long way from being the oldest. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is getting a bit messy, but: I think the answer is no. The German Wikipedia (de.wp) does not have a category "Living people". It does, however, have categories for year of death. Running a search on the intersection of "Kategorie:Reichstagsabgeordneter (Weimarer Republik)" and "Kategorie:Person nach Todesjahrhundert" (people by decade of death) shows 1596 entries, the same as the number of entries in the first category. This tells us that of the 1596 Weimar Reichstag members listed on the German Wikipedia, all are known to have died (though 79 are "Gestorben unbekannt" and do not have an exact date of death, such as de:Franz Doll - it is probably unsurprising that a lot of Communists and Socialists vanished between 1933 and 1945. It is possible that there are Reichstag members without articles on de.wp who are still alive, but I suspect any who're still around would be marginally more notable than average and so more likely to be listed. The 1933 membership list at de:Liste der Reichstagsabgeordneten der Weimarer Republik (8. Wahlperiode) is all blue links, suggesting there's not any absences. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Checking that last list - it doesn't have birth-death dates for everyone, but of the ones it does have, the youngest was born in 1907 and would be at least 106 today. Plausible but not probable, I think! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The German article on Felder says “Josef Felder was the last living Reichstag deputy from the time of the Weimar Republic.” = Josef Felder war der letzte lebende Reichstagsabgeordnete aus der Zeit der Weimarer Republik. --82.83.75.39 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sociological Effects of the "New Rich"
I'm working on a research project into the effects that new rich have on society. I imagine that there must a a number changes that these people present to society because of their different outlook and attitude towards their wealth as compared to "old money." I'm thinking these new rich mush change some social dynamics because of the political causes they support/oppose, charity organizations they endow, investments they fund, leisure spending they engage in, etc.

I'm looking at a time period from the industrial revolution until now. I remember watching a documentary about some early video game developers (1980s) and how they spent their money wildly (unlike many "old money" millions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfDigest (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One common difference is that the "new rich" are said to be less traditional. So, for example, while the "old rich" might have kept their daughters hidden away until their "coming out", and then used chaperones to ensure their honor is protected until marriage, the new rich might allow them to party all over town.  Of course, these days, even the old rich have a hard time keeping the kids in line, like Paris Hilton.  (The threat of disinheritance is less effective if they can get rich just by doing a TV show.)  StuRat (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Revolutions of 1848. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Name changes and married names among the nobles and et cetera
Among nobles, do women take the names of their husbands or keep their birth names? King Henry VIII is notoriously known for his six wives. Did each wife have to take the name of the husband, or did they just keep the birth family name?

Also, is there a pattern for family names among gay and lesbian married couples in the 21st century, or are the family names chosen randomly (randomly as in no pattern among the population of gay and lesbian married folks or correlation between same-sex couples and the choice for the hyphenated last name or the adoption of the child's birth name by its birth parents)? What I mean by pattern is what statistically normal behavior happens in the population of interest. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As for Henry VIII, the fact that he married 3 Catherines, 2 Annes and a Jane rather complicated matters. If he'd remained married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, I have no doubt she'd be referred to these days as "Queen Catherine", just as the wife of Edward VII was "Queen Alexandra" and the wife of George V was "Queen Mary", and the wife of George VI was "Queen Elizabeth" (till she became a widow and had to be distinguished from her daughter Queen Elizabeth II by becoming "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother").  Each of Henry VIII's wives was "Queen ___" at the time, but that won't do now for obvious reasons.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine she'd still be known as "Catherine of Aragon", as the maiden-name reference is usual for historical consorts. Her predecessors are generally known as "Anne Neville", "Elizabeth Woodville", "Margaret of Anjou", "Catherine of Valois", etc., despite their husbands having only one consort. The "Queen Alexandra"-style reference only seems to be commonly applied to much more recent consorts (I suspect Prince Albert is the cut-off point: he is generally so called, but his predecessor is generally "Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen"). And of course at the time each of these women would have been simply "the Queen". Proteus (Talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Anglophone world, until about fifty years ago pretty well all married women, noble or not, took their husband's name; and not just his surname. If Joan Smith married Ronald Jones, she would become Mrs Ronald Jones, if she married Sir Hugh James she would become Lady James, and if she married Lord Charles Clark she would become Lady Charles Clark. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The media would have us believe the former Catherine Middleton and the former Sarah Ferguson have retained their maiden names. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are, of course, going to be exceptions, but historically European royals do not follow standard European naming conventions, and do NOT take surnames. Among the British Royal Family, for example, I'm pretty sure anyone who is either the child or grandchild of a sitting monarch does not have any official surname; further degrees of separation from a reigning monarch may take the Royal house name as a surname.  Royals may have convenience surnames; for example for military purposes Prince Harry uses the surname "Wales" as a convenience (i.e. the paperwork/computers kinda require it, etc.) but he is officially "Prince Henry of Wales" and his full legal name is "Henry Charles Albert David" with no surname.  Harry's future children, being the third generation from the monarch, would lose status as a Royal Prince, and thus would take a surname Mountbatten-Windsor per official policy on these matters.  Descendants of the monarch closer than that may use said surname as they choose, but AFAIK, none has made it an "official" name, though some (as Harry has used "Wales") have used it for convenience sake when a surname is needed; other have used other princely titles as surnames (like York for the children of the Duke of York).  Another famous example was the way that Louis XVI of France was referred to by the revolutionaries as "Citizen Louis Capet".  Louis did not have an official surname, because he was the King, he didn't need one.  By calling him "Louis Capet", the revolutionaries were specifically and directly dissing him, treating him as no different than any other citizen.  He was a member of the House of Capet, which is where they got the name from, but as with Britain, the House Name is NOT the monarch's surname.  Monarchs have no surnames.  -- Jayron  32  00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Descendants of George VI who do not have any particular title are entitled to the surname "Windsor", while descendants of Elizabeth II ditto for "Mountbatten-Windsor"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is certainly the case now, but I'm not convinced it was the case in the period in question. I suspect Henry VIII would have thought you rather odd if you'd suggested his surname wasn't "Tudor". Obviously he didn't use it (he was simply "the King" or "King Henry"), but then neither did (or do) peers. And it might not have formed part of his "legal name" as we understand it ("Henry VIII, by the Grace of God, etc."), but I don't think that would have had the same relevance to a Tudor monarch as it does to us. I rather suspect the "royalty have no surnames" idea came in when the Throne passed to continental dynasties who had traditionally never had surnames (as they had never needed them). Proteus (Talk) 10:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The rules for who's royal and who isn't are looser for descendants of an heir-apparent than for those of his siblings; though I don't recall details, I wouldn't say so surely that Harry's children (if born before Charles succeeds to the throne!) will not be HRH. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lady Franklin's Travel
Could someone list all the places that Jane Franklin visited personally? She travelled in Australia and Hawaii but where else (not in Europe). --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The DCB (linked in the article) mentions New Zealand in the 1830s/40s, and in 1860-61 New York and much of eastern Canada, sailing around the Horn to California and British Columbia (so possibly various stops in South America en route). On return, she passed through Hawaii then Japan and India, and then "during the rest of the decade, Lady Franklin frequently visited Europe and made a long tour of India". In 1870 she visited Canada and the US, heading as far as Sitka in Alaska, and travelled across the country by rail on her way back - meeting, of all people, Brigham Young. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Postrace
A recent Gallup poll found that 96% of Americans would vote for a black president if well qualified. Does this mean the US is a post-racial society? Pass a Method  talk  20:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. For example, many might think that no black candidate will ever be qualified, for whatever reason.  The birthers, for example, who made up the myth about Obama being born outside the US so they could have a legitimate reason to disqualify him.


 * Then there's tokenism, where a few blacks are allowed to succeed "to show we don't discriminate", while the vast majority are still held down.StuRat (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But tokenism doesn't make sense unless all the private companies, and government agencies somehow have their employing tactics interlinked. This could only be possible if a majority of whites in influential positions were privately racist, and i think thats probably untrue. Pass a Method   talk  21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris Rock - Colin Powell black president Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall something Chris Rock said to the audience in a standup club: "There's not a white person here who would change places with me - and I'm rich. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This editorial to my mind indicates two things. One is that racism is still alive in America. But the other, more hopeful sign is that this bizarre story is at least considered newsworthy. So things are better than they were 50 years ago, but we're not "post-racial" yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) You'll need to define what you mean by "post-racial America". Which statistics do you find relevant for measuring how strongly a society distinguishes and discriminates by race? How decisive is US-Presidency in your evaluation? The country I live in got its first female Federal Council (the highest federal executive position) in 1984 (13 years after women's suffrage was introduced in Switzerland). Was Switzerland then a post-sexual society? Is it now? Erm, well, ahem, cough cough ... Regarding 96% at the polls, see also the Bradley effect. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that a question was asked that involved people's skin colour, one of the silliest deciders of race, whatever it means, suggests that there is a long way to go yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking don't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * America will never have a black man as president, no matter how unqualified. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK I'll bite. What colour is the current president of the United States of America? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My statement was ironic. It's the OP's question "would vote" that implies they haven't already. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't imply that at all. Some people who've previously voted Democrat would still vote Democrat, and some would not.  Some people who've never voted Democrat would vote Democrat, and some would still not.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. The claim has nothing to do with anyone winning by 96%, given we're historically a two-party system where people vote on principle, not skin color.  Obama did win by a majority in both elections, and Herman Cain was at the top of the pack in the last Republican race until various allegations were made without proof, and he dropped out.  The poll is old news, has been for decades. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a related article. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Happiness
Aren't conservatives by definition happier because they want things to stay the same? Pass a Method  talk  23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, because some are afraid that things won't stay the same, while others don't really want things to stay as they are to day, but to go back to how they (actually or supposedly) used to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that "conservatives … want things to stay the same". You can find some definition of conservation indicating a resistance to change but I don't think this fully explains what makes the conservative tick. Even resistance to change is not the same as wanting things to stay the same. Thoughtful change can be contrasted with change that might be characterized as careless. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best definition of "[a] conservative" that I've seen is "A man who saves his money (even before women and children)." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For some peculiar definition of 'best'. —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the logic. If conservatives want things to stay the same and things are not staying the same, wouldn't that make them less happy?  Never mind that humans have a wide variety of reasons to be happy or sad, and political views are only a fraction of those reasons.  --Bowlhover (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your confusion is that the term "conservative" used to mean thrifty, cautious, stable, etc. Politicians have hijacked the term to mean adherence to a very specific laundry list of ideological positions, some of which are polar opposite of true conservatism. (And I hasten to add that the same type of complaint is often made about "liberal".) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't lettuce faster by definition because it is a head? μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're channeling Spike Jones now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Was that one of his bits, User:Baseball Bugs? My grandfather always repeated it with the punchline "but the tomato will ketchup."  Interesting article, I had heard of Jones but would never have known he did Mairzy Dotes, which my father also used to sing us as... kids. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like one of Doodles Weaver's comments in the William Tell Overture / horse race bit, and was probably old then: "Banana's coming up to the bunch... Cabbage is second by a head... and now here's Girdle in the stretch..." That kind of thing. Here's an edited version of the recording, with some appropriate stock footage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The only way to be happy is to accept that everything changes.--Shantavira|feed me 08:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And speaking of channeling... Roger Miller: "Everything changes a little, and it should; good ain't forever, and bad ain't for good." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)