Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 January 16

= January 16 =

What does this mean?
The phrase

Imperial representative at the Lower Saxony circle.

What does that mean. It comes from the Frydag article, down next to the bullet list: Haro Burchhard Also what does this mean: kurbrandenburgischen court in Berlin which is done at the bottom of the articles.

It encompasses German to English and German aristocratic history. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The imperial circles were administrative groupings in the Holy Roman Empire. The 'kurbrandenburgische court in Berlin' was the court of the Margraviate of Brandenburg which was a prince-electorate, or Kurfürst in german(Kurbrandenburg in this specific case then). 91.49.80.68 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The circles were grouped in the Imperial Diet, the main legislative/advisory panel of the Empire, during deliberation the circles would often meet as groups to discuss common administrative issues. The circles would also hold their own diets from time to time.  This organization was necessary given the hugungous number of constituent states of the HRE, of which there were often over 1000, and as many as 1800 at any one time, each of which had imperial immediacy, which means 1800 co-equal states.  With that many different states, some means of grouping them into more manageable smaller groups was necessary.  -- Jayron 32 15:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi User talk:91.49.80.68, Jayron. Thanks. That has answered a lot of questions. That's a part of history I don't really know. There is more work needing done on the Frydag article, to normalise it to English, and wiki it, as well. At the moment is it lumpy in terms of readibility and defintion, and needs additional explanations. Can you shed light some light on the following :

Beate Sophia von Boineburg a.d.H. Honstein

What does the a.d.H. Honstein mean?

I have searched high and low to determine what the acronym: a.d.H. means in relation to the individual.

scope_creep (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Took me a bit of searching but it would appear it means "aus dem Hause", 'of the house of' should be the translation for that. Less confident if the translation is on point but the original german seems very reasonable in context. 91.49.80.68 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And Honstein is, I believe, named after Hohnstein Castle, which would have been the original family seat. Naming families after the specific castle that was their "home base" was common in Germany (c.f. Habsburg Castle and House of Habsburg)  -- Jayron 32 16:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I found quite a few other persons with the a.d.H while looking for it as well. All female as far as i could see, so it may denote their descent added after the name taken from their spouse. Presumably she married into the von Boineburg family while being born into the von Honstein family. 91.49.80.68 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To add a tiny bit to what Jayron said, the families were indeed often named after their 'home base', or Stammsitz in german. There is a noted difference if they kept their 'home base' in the form of von (descending from) or zu (resident at) that developed over time though, at the latest during the Weimar Republic but before as well. There is also a hybrid of 'von und zu', for example the princes of Liechtenstein are 'von und zu' in german. 91.49.80.68 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We are getting down to the crux now. I would have never have found that, talk about byzantine. I think there is four or five or these types refs in the article. I'll fix the article, and collect a couple, or 4 of other questions, while I have you. scope_creep (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, being located in Germany google has results more towards anything german in regards to acronyms and the like, or pretty much anything really. So probably a tiny bit easier for me to find just because of how google works. And speaking the language probably helps as well of course. But it still was way more complicated to find out than i thought it would be, haha 91.49.80.68 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gail Halvorsen (Candy Bomber) during WWII
My question: What did Gail Halvorsen do during WWII? Did he serve as a pilot during war and which types of aircraft did he use? Did he serve as bomber pilot? --Manfred Hausmann (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the article about him: "Halvorsen joined the United States Army Air Corps in May 1942[3] and was 22 when he arrived in Miami to train with 25 Royal Air Force pilots at the No. 3 British Flying Training School, a branch of the Spartan School of Aeronautics.[3] After fighter pilot training with the RAF, he returned to the Army Air Corps and was assigned flight duties in foreign transport operations in the South Atlantic Theater". No mention of any specific aircraft type though. 91.49.80.68 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He talks about it in an interview on pages 2-3:


 * So your main base in those days was in Africa?
 * Gail Halvorsen: No, in Natal, Brazil. And then we flew out of there, up and down South America taking supplies in from the States. Wherever they wanted us, we flew those transport airplanes.
 * So you would fly transports out of Natal, pick up stuff.
 * Gail Halvorsen: Supplies.
 * And then
 * Gail Halvorsen: Deliver them to our bases up and down the coast and South Africa, and the Ascension Island halfway to Africa, it was a staging point for all of the aircraft going for the invasion. We kept that base supplied. Come up to the States to pick stuff up.
 * So you were flying into England to take supplies for the Dday invasion?
 * Gail Halvorsen: Just delivering the airplanes for that and then we'd turn around and which (sic) back and get another one.


 * A little late, he explained that he "flew goody (sic) birds at first before we got DC4, C54's later." "goody birds" is almost certainly a misheard "gooney birds", i.e. the Douglas C-47 Skytrain. (He flew a Douglas C-54 Skymaster during the Airlift.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

British monarch's personal political responsibilities
What personal politics-related responsibilities does the Monarch herself fulfill on the advice (constitutional) of the Government, as opposed to them being performed by other parties in her name? For example, she personally announces policy by reading the Speech from the throne that the Government writes (of course they're not her policies, but she's formally involved in the process), she personally commissions government ministers in the process of kissing hands, and she personally opens Parliament. However, most of the time she's totally uninvolved in ordinary legislation, since the formal granting of Royal Assent is normally given by Lords Commissioners or by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker — it's not like in many countries, where the monarch or other powerless head of state still has to sign all bills personally, and hoops must be jumped through in exceptional situations (e.g. Baudouin of Belgium with abortion) when the monarch won't sign a bill but isn't attempting to violate a constitutional convention.

I'm wondering about other situations on the first side of things: ordinary events (whether frequent or once-every-few-years) where the Monarch speaks or acts for the Government. For example, does the Government ever write newspaper editorials to which she appends her name on their advice? I'm excluding less-political or non-political things like granting knighthoods, and of course I'm also excluding the exceptional situation in which the reserve powers are actually used, e.g. appointing Harold Wilson to 10 Downing Street. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hoops must be jumped through" sounds like you dont take representing a country as serious as is commonly expected in the international diplomacy realm. Of course there usually also is a Minister or Secretary for Foreign Affairs who is part of the government. Its a question of political choice and tradition whether the head of state should be active member of a political party or a neutral representative who is instituted above "that game". If they are supposed to be neutral they cant really start writing newspaper editorials. But they can and do usually "address the nation" whenever needed and of course on traditional events like National day or New Year's Day.
 * Its also very practical in political crisis, when a government steps down or in case of a Dissolution of parliament, to have someone neutral and reliable beyond any ones doubt to manage everything. But again that is a question of political choice and tradition. Some high bureaucrat, army general or religious leader could take over that part as well and you can probably find some country where its actually done like that. --Kharon (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's completely off topic. Please read the question before you attempt to answer.  Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually read the complete question 3 times befor i wrote my answer, so please think twice befor implying facts you cant even know. --Kharon (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean appointing Alec Douglas-Home to Number Ten? Labour had a bare majority when Wilson came in for the first time and the second time (Feb. 1974) Heath tried and failed to form a government first. I don't think the Queen "speaks for the government"; in the Queen's Speech she speaks of "my government", preserving a separation. Can you give an example of such an event as you describe?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Douglas-Home, but the article seemed to disagree; maybe I misunderstood the article. By "speaks for the government", I'm meaning situations where she announces upcoming policies or other decisions that the government's made, regardless of whether it's "my government" or "the government" or anything else.  In short, anything where she personally does something on the government's advice (whether rubberstamping or announcing), as opposed to a situation where the action is performed by the people who actually make the decision.  Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are right about Royal assent; as I understand it, the monarch still has to assent but is no longer required to announce that assent in Parliament, although the Royal Assent Act 1967 says that "Nothing in this section affects the power of Her Majesty to declare Her Royal Assent in person in Parliament, or the manner in which an Act of Parliament is required to be endorsed in Her Majesty's name.". Refusal to assent has not happened since 1707 and "nowadays this does not happen" according to UK Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The granting of Royal Assent is announced in both Houses of Parliament.  Example:  (section 1(b) of the Act cited in the above unsigned post). 195.147.104.148 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry I messed up the signature above, now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, my point is that the queen has to actually sign the act with a pen, (see this article from the Scottish Parliament) whereas User:Nyttend seems to be saying that somebody else does it for her. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the correction. I was quite confident that she never even saw the original document unless she wanted to.  That's exactly the kind of thing that I was asking about — following the obvious advice from the Government to pass their bill, she takes an action without which the law doesn't take effect.  Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alansplodge, Nyttend is quite correct. From Royal assent: Officially, assent is granted by the sovereign or by Lords Commissioners authorised to act by letters patent. … When granting assent by commission, the sovereign authorises three or more (normally five) lords who are Privy Counsellors to declare assent in his or her name. The Lords Commissioners, as the monarch's representatives are known,  ....  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You might also consider that the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury is a political responsibility insamuch as that primate has a seat in the House of Lords. The Monarch chooses the name from a shortlist of two, written on parchment, by making a pinprick next to it and saying "La Reyne le veult" – The same declaration is spoken or written on her behalf by officials to signify Her assent to Government Bills, but in this instance (I believe) She actually says it herself. In practice She is advised by the Prime Minister which name to choose, but in theory could ignore his/her advice: the "list" is drawn up by a CofE committee called the Crown Nominations Commission. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those with long memories might recall that Margaret Thatcher was disinclined to appoint the radical David Jenkins to the post of Bishop of Durham, but found that her powers over the Church of England were more ceremonial than real. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)