Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 July 8

= July 8 =

Illegitimate royal children who were the designated heirs to a throne
Which illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) were there who were the designated heirs to a throne? For the record, I am not talking about an illegitimate royal child conquering a country and installing himself as the king or queen based on the sheer power and force of his or her troops (like what William the Conqueror did in England). Rather, I am talking about illegitimate royal children (or people who were descended from an illegitimate royal line) being the designated heirs to a throne--as in, the existing monarch would designate them as his heirs. Which cases of this have there been throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The House of Trastámara "were an illegitimate cadet line of the House of Ivrea".
 * Did they come to power with the support of the previous monarchs or did they seize power by force, though? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And Joanna la Beltraneja was considered heir by part of the realm. --Error (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good example--though ultimately she never actually became Queen of Castile. Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at her Wikipedia article again, I'm now less sure about her. After all, she doesn't actually appear to have been illegitimate if one places value on legal paternity. She might or might not have been illegitimate in the biological sense, but not in the legal sense since legally speaking, she was the daughter of a married royal couple and her married father claimed her as his daughter. Futurist110 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Louis II of Monaco adopted his bastard daughter Charlotte so that Monaco would have an heir and remain under the Grimaldis. She abdicated her right in favor of her son Ranier, who eventually ruled - Nunh-huh 02:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England were born legitimate, Mary became illegitimate when the marriage between her parents was invalid and Elizabeth became heir persumptive. Elizabeth became illegitimate when the marriage of her parents was annulled. Mary and Elizabeth were made legitimate by Third Succession Act. During Elizabeth's reign, the Pope made Elizabeth illegitimate. Sleigh (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth mentioning that, at least by Catholic canon law, the children of a marriage later annulled are legitimate. The succession after Henry VIII's death was more a matter of power than right or principle (improvisational law, as it were). - Nunh-huh 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that, by any Christian canon law, you just cannot annul a marriage when there are children (unless --not even sure -- they are proven bastards and the wife a cheater. In which case, when powerful enough, you probably just sentence her to death instead, and that's it). So such an annulment would be improvisational law. On the other hand, without children, no problem (I am thinking of a case where the marriage was dissolved because the husband manhood was found useless upon examination by witnesses...) Gem fr (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be pretty sure, but you're still wrong. The Catholic Church grants annulments to people with children all the time. As for legitimacy, see this explanation. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although Catholic canon law had no force in England after the Act of Supremacy 1534 which established Henry as Head of the Church of England. The legislation that made Mary illegitimate was the First Succession Act (1534), both Mary and Elizabeth in the Second Succession Act (1536) and they were restored to legitimacy by (you guessed) the Third Succession Act (1543). Henry died in 1547 and was succeeded by his son, Edward VI of England, who tried to alter the succession by means of his will, but on Edward's premature death, Mary led a successful coup deposing his appointee, Lady Jane Grey. Alansplodge (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is none: you just cannot be the designated heir to a throne if you are illegitimate. You'll need to be legitimised before. This is one of the reason Louis XIV of France did that. Gem fr (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Louis XIV's action was swiftly reversed by the parlement of Paris after his death, though. Thus, Louis couldn't actually make his decision in regards to this stick. Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

P. de los Iudeos in Baja California Sur
In [https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/california-an-island-meet-cartographys-most-persistent-mistake#rebelltitem2 California, an island? Meet cartography's most persistent mistake], I find this map (at the collection as well), Granata Nova et California, by Corneille Wytfliet, [Louvain, 1597]. I noticed around the 255, 35 coordinates the text P. de los Iudeos. I am not sure if P is puerto or punta, but by the shape I guess it is puerto ("port"). Iudeos could be a copy error for judíos ("Jews") or indios ("Indians"). So my questions are: Was there a "port of the Jews" in Baja California Sur? Where did it get its name from? I realize that the map is not very realistic, I couldn't match the bay with an actual feature. So it all may be error upon error. --Error (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a "port of the Indians" instead? Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that is not very exciting. --Error (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's significant, but I read that label as P. de los Iudeas (not Iudeos). Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/zg757qy1937 I zoomed and see a clear separation between o and s. --Error (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the approximate latitude is 25, not 35 degrees.

Second, the letters I and J were used interchangeably until relatively recent times (discussed rather briefly at J), so Iudeos is the same as Judeos. I don't know what the word for "Jews" was in 16th century Spanish, though. (Side comment: I hate it that I see Wikipedia and most other web sites in sans serif fonts. Until I started composing this reply, I thought the original poster had misread the word on the map as ludeos!)

I'm guessing that the actual feature corresponding to the place is the little bay at 25.685 N 112.09 W. Google Maps doesn't know a name for it (it's not nearly as good on names of small bodies of water as it is on street names), but if you zoom in all the way, the name "Las Animas" appears on the water. That bay. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 76.69.117.113 -- If you set up a Wikipedia account and logged into it, then you could customize Wikipedia's appearance with a CSS command such as "body { font-family: serif; }"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am not interested in doing that. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fraternal Brotherhood
Does anyone know anything about an organization called simply the "Fraternal Brotherhood" that existed in the U.S. in 1909? We have the photo shown here; https://www.historylink.org/File/8461 indicates that they gathered at the A-Y-P Exposition on July 23 of that year (though https://www.ebay.com/itm/FRATERNAL-BROTHERHOOD-DAY-Ribbon-1909-Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Expo-Seattle-AYP-AYPE-/113694168818 suggests strongly that it was one day later), so that is presumably when the picture was taken. Articles like and  seem to make it certain that the organization was simply called "Fraternal Brotherhood" which of course if very hard to search on and not get 100 other "fraternal brotherhoods". - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an organisation confused about the meaning of "fraternal". Brotherly brotherhood? HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * According to this reliable government source, J. A. Batchelor was the "Supreme President", and H. V. Davis the "Supreme Secretary" (snicker) in 1915. The same source states it (unclear if this refers to the organization as a whole or the "Supreme Lodge" in Los Angeles) was incorporated in 1896 and had a hefty year-end balance of over $1.35 million. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone find anything about a founding date, or what became of the organization? Where a headquarters was? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a substantial 1908 Los Angeles Herald article about a Fraternal Brotherhood, its purpose, membership and other interesting details. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this newspaper article about them. It seems it was primarily an insurance company operating under the guise of a fraternal order.  Not uncommon during the Golden age of fraternalism. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done a stub article, using the sources mentioned here: The Fraternal Brotherhood. If anyone's interested, I also worked out what became of the organization. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

H. F. Verwoerd
Did H. F. Verwoerd write any books? If so, please direct me to a list of these. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * He wrote this, and this, and maybe others.  Dbfirs  12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Six books listed here: 2606:A000:1126:28D:48F3:EC22:BDAE:8519 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848?
Did the people of New Mexico and Alta California (as in, the Mexican Cession) prefer Mexican rule or US rule in 1848? Futurist110 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know they preferred either? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They preferred independence? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also why would you think that the "people" would all think the same way about either. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the majority of them. Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the likelihood of there being any public opinion polls? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * About zero, but has anyone attempted any guesses in regards to this? Perhaps by informally trying to detect the public mood in these territories during this time? Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe in Tejanos, Neomexicanos, Californios. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean to look at all of these articles? Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- as has been discussed here before several times, the territories that later became California, Arizona, and New Mexico were rather sparsely inhabited by non-Indian Mexicans in 1848, except in the northern New Mexico area. Most of the Indians probably favored whoever would leave them alone... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what about the few non-Indian Mexicans who lived in the Southwest in 1848? Do we have any idea as whose rule they preferred? Futurist110 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do read the articles suggested by Kavebear above... Opinions were mixed... and the opinion of Hispanos in New Mexico were not always in sync with the opinion of Californios in California .... some saw the government in Mexico City as a corrupt dictatorship (while fictional... think of the Zorro legend) and saw annexation by the US as a good thing. Others were patriotic Mexicans who saw US annexation as a bad thing. Some (especially in California) wanted independence from Mexico, but not annexation by the US. Most probably just wanted to be left alone by all factions. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll definitely make sure to take a look at all of these articles! Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)