Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 27

= April 27 =

About James Robert Porter (agan)
Id nobodody knows his mother´s name, ¿anybody knows which was his father´s name? Thnaks.

Daniel; April 27th, 2016. ≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.51.245.163 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search threw up this. "Born in South Carolina, USA on 1868 to Phillip Aaron Porter and Harriett Freeman. James Robert married Etta Childress and had 2 children. He passed away on 28 Jun 1954 in Easley, Pickens, South Carolina, USA." Of course, there are many people with the same name, and unless you provide some more detail about the one you mean, we have no way of knowing if we have got the right one. "James Robert Porter" doesn't actually mean anything to me - it isn't a name I recognise from any particular context. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Findagrave.com has an entry for the one you're describing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is still about James Porter (Catholic priest), his Findagrave entry is merely a placeholder, with no information about family. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article from 1992 has the answer.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's citizenships
Is she a citizen of Canada, Australia, Belize, and so on? Otherwise, those countries would have a foreign queen, which is kind of strange. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This Q was asked before. I seem to recall that the answer was that the sovereign is "beyond citizenship", just like you don't ask if the CEO of a company is an employee.  So, by virtue of being their Queen, she is sort of a "super-citizen", with all rights a regular citizen has, and then some. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The analogy is defective. Of course the CEO is typically an employee. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_November_10 is one related Q. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_February_15 is also related. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think either of those items answers the question of whether the queen has any sort of personal ID, such as a driver's license. Though that question also may have been asked before. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * She doesn't need ID. She just carries a £5 note around with her. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 05:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The queen is a monarch who has subjects. Citizens are different. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that the citizens of the UK are called "citizens". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it says "British Citizen" on my (British) passport. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to (a spin-off from what Bugs linked), you're a British citizen if you were born before 1983, in the UK or a qualifying territory, and your father was neither a non-UK diplomat nor an enemy alien in occupation (you were not born in the Channel Islands during WWII). It makes no exception for royalty, so it would appear from this UK government site that the queen is indeed a British citizen. Loraof (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But such general advice sites are rarely the law and they often make it clear that the they are intended as general advice and you should defer to the various aspects of the law where needed. In certain cases, a court may take them in to account, but that's likely to be restricted. For example, the site may help if you vote in the referendum based on it you shouldn't have because you aren't a British citizen. It's far less likely to help if you want to claim citizenship which you aren't entitled to. (I must be blind. I somehow thought that site was related to the referendum but looking again it doesn't seem to be. However I still think your chances of convincing the court your a British citizen based on the site when all aspects of the law disagree are slim to none.) A notable point is you're right, it mentions no exceptions other than those two. Yet AFAIK, it's possible to renounce British citizenship including that gained by the circumstances outlined, if you meet some criteria (the basic one would be having some other citizenship) British nationality law [//www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality/overview]. It's also possible for such citizenship to be revoked in certain circumstances (again the basic one is you need some other citizenship). Neither of these seem to be addressed there. Incidentally this may be somewhat relevant since AFAIK, and as per the previous discussions, the queen probably was a British citizen before she became queen (albeit the concept of citizenship was different then). Just as William and Charles are now (with passports and everything). So if she isn't one now, that's probably because she "lost" it when she became queen. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The UK Constitution is a many-headed beast so it's hard to know, but certainly in Australia, the monarch is an intrinsic part of the Parliament of Australia, which consists of the Queen, the House of Representatives and the Senate (see Constitution of Australia). The notion that the Queen must vote in Australia (where voting is compulsory), by virtue of some supposed Australian citizenship, is absurd (the law does make some exceptions, but the queen is not among them).
 * We know for certain that Prince Charles and Prince Philip are not Australian citizens, because special amendments to the Rules of the Order were necessary in each case to make their appointments as Knights of the Order of Australia substantive; as non-citizens, they would otherwise would have qualified for honorary appointments only. But then, Prince Philip is on record as having refused an honorary appointment to the Order of Canada, on the grounds that, as the spouse of the monarch, he is a citizen of Canada (and thus of each and every one of the 16 Commonwealth realms) and was entitled to a substantive appointment.  Read the whole story at Order of Canada. Australia did in 1988 appoint him a substantive Companion of the Order of Australia without going through any of the rigmarole that was deemed necessary when he was knighted in 2015.  So he was apparently regarded as a citizen of Australia in 1988, but by 2015 he was no longer a citizen.  I've been pondering this weirdness for some years but am yet to make any sense of it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the Queen is an Australian citizen. However, I don't know about the other Commonwealth realms. "All Australian citizens are subjects of the Queen, but you can’t be a subject of or to yourself" AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be slightly impossible for her to be a citizen of one or more, but not all, of the CRs? Surely it's all or none.  In particular, none.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only circumstances I can think of is if the governments of any of the realms have granted her citizenship but I can find no evidence of such an occurrence. The article on the Monarchy of Canada claims "the sovereign and those among her relations who do not meet the requirements of Canadian citizenship law are considered Canadian, which entitles them to Canadian consular assistance and the protection of the Queen's armed forces of Canada when they are in need of protection or aid outside of the Commonwealth realms" AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Monarchy of Canada article is slightly bonkers and the sources for those statements in that article are all a bit suspect. From a quick browse, the most reliable one, the court judgment, is not squarely on point as it is about allegiance of Canadian armed forces to the Queen, and it does not show that Prince Charles is regarded as being a Canadian citizen under Canadian law. In any case, the situation in Australia is certainly different. The Queen's family members are certainly not Australian citizens, which is why Prince Charles and Prince Phillip would not have qualified for awards of (non-honourary) Australian knighthoods if it were not for specific amendments to the Order's constitutional documents. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Queen was an Australian citizen and obliged to vote in Australian elections, she'd have an "out" because she is normally resident in another country and is therefore permitted not to be enrolled on the electoral roll, which means she is excused from having to vote - just like any other expat Australian who chooses to do so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As to Canada, the Citizenship Act does not contain the word "monarch" and does not contain "queen" in a relevant context; and neither she nor her ancestors that I know of were born here. It would require a legal interpretation, which we don't do here, to conclude that the Queen of Canada is therefore not a citizen of Canada; but it seems to me that that's likely the case. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we do interpretation here? Anyone is allowed to read and interpret a statute, we just don't give legal advice here - e.g., if the Queen came along to ask whether she was a Canadian citizen, we would not give her a formal advice that she can rely on in a legal sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea of the Queen coming to the WP Ref Desk to enquire as to Her status, rather than have recourse to Her army of advisers, is a bit rich. I mean, we all know that She edits the Ref Desks anonymously in Her spare time, and I'm reliably informed She is the real identity of "Marjorie Prentiss of Bexley", the well-known serial correspondent to The Times (usually about the latest outrage from Whitehall), but undisguised appearances as an active participant in public discourse are not really in line with protocol.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

looking for the source of a quote attributed to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The quote:

"There is almost a sensual longing for communion with others who have a large vision. The immense fulfillment of the friendship between those engaged in furthering the evolution of consciousness has a quality impossible to describe."

This is attributed to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in many places on the internet, but no one includes the source of the quote. I don't see it on Wikipedia either. Does anyone at Wikipedia know the source or if it even should be attributed to de Chardin?

Thank you.

22:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.20.41 (talk)
 * It does not seem to be in my e-copies of Christianity and Evolution, Science and Christ, The Future of Man, The Phenomenon of Man, or Toward the Future. It is also not listed on Wikiquote, despite its popularity: which usually means that the author never said that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * what does the quote mean, anyway? I know all of the words, yet ... But I totally see why it's attributed to TdC, who was a proto-New Ager, of sorts. Asmrulz (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking about how to explain it made me think that it might not be by him at all. Given what I've read of him, the "almost sensual" bit doesn't sound right since he was still a hard liner for chastity and all that.  He defined love as the exchange of information, and so the important part of any tactile or sensual affection was the non-verbal message, not the delivery (rendering meaningless sex a type of falsehood).  Something "sensual" would not exactly be lofty.  This quote also seems to be presenting friendship as the goal and result of developing the Noosphere ("furthering the evolution of consciousness") instead of love being the means to and reward for developing the Noosphere.  However, the quote may simply be conflicting with my understanding of de Chardin on this matter, rather that with de Chardin himself.
 * Granted, I've really only read The Phenomenon of Man as part of an all-nighter and casually skimmed a few other works, but this really sounds more like someone who thinks saying je ne sais quoi is somehow more enlightened and sophisticated than just admitting "hell if I know" took the Cliffnotes for Phenomenon of Man, skimmed for keywords, and tried to mold it in the shape of Romanticism's desire to shag everything. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ah, not everything. just those with a "large vision" :D Asmrulz (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * HUUUGE... vision! Something vaguely spherical at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

On popes resigning and returning
If a pope abdicates,are they free to return when their successor dies?Because of the conclave system,I assume that-age limits aside-there would be nothing to prevent them deciding to elect him for a second term?Benedict IX had three cracks at it,but those weren't so much resignations as being driven out when his side was doing badly and returning when they were doing well Lemon martini (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law: "A resignation can be revoked by the one resigning as long as it has not taken effect; once it has taken effect it cannot be revoked, but the one who resigned can obtain the office by some other title.", which I think means Benedict XVI could (in theory) have another crack at it ( although he'd presumably have to become a cardinal again first ). Smurrayinchester 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Does a pope cease being a cardinal once he has assumed the papacy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. In theory, any Catholic man in good standing may be elected Pope. You only have to be a cardinal in order to vote. And while it's vanishingly unlikely that a non-cardinal would again be elected Pope, the Pope Emeritus is still a more likely candidate than most people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In The Pope Must Die, a parish priest is mistakenly elected as Pope. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The William Eckert of Popes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The rise of the Canadian dollar
Why is the Canadian dollar suddenly going up?   Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Capital is draining from the US to Canada?--Scicurious (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Scicurious, you may be right. I actually just thought of searching using the word "rise" instead of "going up" and I get news about oil going up as the reason. So, is oil going up because more people want it, or because there is lower production, or what? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently Saudi Arabia reduced it's oil production, so that might be a cause for a higher income. --Scicurious (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Okay, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)