Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 April 15

= April 15 =

Is there even such a thing as flying water tankers?
Is there even such a thing as flying water tankers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Trump is probably thinking of Aerial firefighting aircraft.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] Yes, see Aerial firefighting. Obviously he also thinks that in a backward place like France, the professional firefighters of the country's capital city would not have considered the possibility and assessed the practicality of such an approach without the advice of a foreign polymath like himself.
 * For those puzzled by the correction, it relates to a remark the US President made earlier today concerning the currently ongoing disastrous fire here. {The poster formerly known as 87.981.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's give Trump some credit for at least caring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Along with at least 15 (and counting) other Heads of State already listed in the article (linked by Akld guy below). It would be remarkable if he hadn't said something, but I doubt if any of the others proffered firefighting advice. However, I think we've now answered the OP's query and don't need to pursue this sideline any further.
 * By the way, kudos to all those responsible for getting up an excellent article in under six hours. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP's point aside, the problem is when "caring" means you override the opinions and plans of experts who actually understand how to fight fires. Even when you're not making the fire worse or damaging stuff (as according to most experts, would have happened here), you're still at a minimum wasting resources and diverting attention. See for example this blog post [//www.jwz.org/blog/2019/04/air-tanker-drops-in-wildfires-are-often-just-for-show/] quoting this old story [//www.latimes.com/local/la-me-wildfires29-2008jul29-story.html]. (And before the MAGA crowd gets hot under the collar note that while the blog post is in reference to the tweet, the LA Times story it relies upon is from before even the Obama presidency so clearly nothing to do with being anti-Trump.) Since the fire was in Paris, this wasn't a risk here from Trump. And to be fair I think it's rarely something any US president does simply because they don't get involved at that level especially as a lot of fire fighting is on state land anyway and under their purview. But it does illustrate why "caring" can be harmful if it results in more than dumb tweets. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frank: "Do something! Anything!" Hawkeye: "I agree with Frank. Let's do anything!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Or switching from M*A*S*H to Yes, Prime Minister... Sir Arnold: "He's suffering from Politician's Logic." Sir Humphrey: "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it." --76.69.46.228 (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notre-Dame de Paris fire <-- link to the fire article. Akld guy (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump does seem to show an interest in fires. Perhaps we should put his comments on the Notre Dame fire together with his ones about that the Finns controlling forest fires by raking their forests clear ;-) Make America Rake Again Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)




 * Experts deride Trump's Notre Dame firefighting advice as 'risible': "Releasing even one load from a Canadair water bomber used to fight forest fires on Notre Dame would be “the equivalent of dropping three tonnes of concrete at 250 kilometres per hour (155mph)” on” the ancient monument". Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Did any monarchies have age limits for inheriting?
What happens to the line of the guy who was skipped for age reasons? Can they get it back later? I can see why they invented regents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You answered your own question. As far as I know, hereditary monarchies go in a strict order of succession. If the next in line is too young to competently rule, a regent is appointed to act on his (and it usually was a he) behalf. The regent would only be a caretaker, not the actual ruler. Regents could be replaced. And regents were disempowered when the monarch came of age. --Khajidha (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Elective monarchies tend to have age limits. A prince of Andorra cannot be younger than an 18, as that is the age of candidacy for the office of President of France (an ex-officio prince). The other prince is the Bishop of Urgell, who has to be at least 35 to become a bishop. As far as I can tell, there is no minimum age for papacy as, technically, any Catholic male can be elected. Hereditary monarchies do not have age limits. One can become a king at birth (e.g. John I of France, Alfonso XIII of Spain, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the story on Swaziland's monarchy? GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Pope have to be made a bishop before becoming Pope, if he is not a bishop already? That would seem to make the minimum age for the papacy the same as for any bishopric. --Khajidha (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A newly elected Pope is made a priest and bishop if he is not already. I'm no expert on canon law, but I would expect the election by the College of Cardinals to override any age limits.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference: . The ecclesiastical office held by the Pope is simply "Bishop of Rome", so this makes sense: the person is elected bishop and therefore becomes one even if not already one. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, any male Catholic can be elected Pope. They need to be a priest in order to be installed as Pope (i.e. actually take the job), but the order of events doesn't matter, so long as everything is done before they take the job.  Which is to say, one could get elected Pope first, then be ordained as a priest, then be installed as the Bishop of Rome (which is the actual job one takes as Pope).  I can't think of anyone that happened to recently (as in for several centuries) in that particular order, but it is possible, in the list of dozens and dozens of Popes, that it happened that way a few times in the past.  In terms of current tradition, generally Cardinals always choose one from among their own number, and basically all cardinals were bishops when elevated to the College of Cardinals.  (Note on terminology: Within the College of Cardinals are three ranks: Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon.  These ranks are distinct from the roles of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon within the clergy of the Catholic Church, and all modern Cardinals were Bishops when elevated.  Terminology can be confusing).  The important distinction here is what are the College of Cardinals legally bound to do and What do the College of Cardinals always do.  They are not legally restricted on whom they can elect Pope, by the rules of the conclave.  In practical terms, they are always going to elect a current Cardinal as pope, AND in practical terms, all Cardinals were already Bishops.  In this way, the conclave mirrors the historical Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire.  Legally, they were free to elect anyone they wanted as Emperor.  What they did just about every time was just confirm the scion of the Habsburg Dynasty as the next emperor.  -- Jayron 32 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So was the election of Pope Joan valid, but her installation not? (as she could not have been a priest). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote the very article you cite "most modern scholars regard it as fictional." I think nothing more relevant could be said on the subject.-- Jayron 32 02:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See also tanist, where the heir is chosen from among eligible dynasts who were of age. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This appears to be about minimum ages. Is there a maximum age? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently not in Britain. We have some material on that situation here. Chuck would be the oldest if/when he ever gets the fancy chair. Matt Deres (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A little discourse on the history of European monarchies in general may be in order here. We tend to get the sense that more modern monarchies tended to be elective, while more ancient monarchies had strict inheritance rules, perhaps because of our sense that democracy is a more enlightened government system than absolutism, but historically it worked the other way around.  For most of what we call the Middle Ages, and especially in the Early Middle Ages, most European Monarchies were elective in nature.  When the prior monarch died, some sort of conclave or meeting of all of the important nobility in the realm met and had an election to select the new monarch.  Whether it was the moot, the thing, the witan, or whatever it was called at the time and place, these advisory boards of local nobles functioned as the parliament of the day, and one of their most important functions was to elect a new King when the old one died.  These elections were, as one suspects, often corrupt and often disputed, and as a result there were frequent fights over who the results of these elections, often breaking out into frequent civil wars.  We see this in the history of most European countries in their early history.  The notion of primogeniture was an innovation 12th-13th centuries or later.  It started out with kings getting their eldest sons elected in their own lifetimes (see, for one example, Henry the Young King from British history) so that the succession would be secure.  Overtime, these elections just stopped as the notion of absolute monarchy took hold, and the role of these advisory boards and parliaments simply went away.  It became assumed that the eldest son (or next heir, however defined locally by law if the eldest son didn't exist) would simply inherit the role of King, and coincidentally Kings started either ignoring their parliaments, or simply stopped calling them.  The notion that Kings would be bound by law of any sort had to be re-introduced to European politics through revolt and revolution over the several centuries of the early modern period.  AFAIK, the situation described by the OP, where there was some sort of statutory limit on what age someone could be in order to become Monarch, has never existed, at least in the European tradition.  Either the King was elected freely by the parliament of the realm, or the King simply passed his throne on to his next heir, or sometimes named his own successor if not to be the expected heir.  Age has never come into it.  -- Jayron 32 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Where's the button to upvote Jayron's answer? —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)