Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 19

= April 19 =

Do illegitimate children have succession rights to the British throne if they've been subsequently legitimized?
Do illegitimate children have succession rights to the British throne if they've been subsequently legitimized by their parents' marriage? Futurist110 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It depends on what parliament says in the relevant law. See Katherine Swynford... AnonMoos (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What does the relevant British law say right now? Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Futurist110 -- there would be a separate specific law for each case of legitimization (and conversely, for each "declaration of bastardy", see Titulus Regius). AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember reading some kind of guide for romance fiction writers, that emphatically said this couldn't happen, at least in the historical milieu of interest (the Jane Austen world, basically). A quick web search couldn't find it, but we have an article Illegitimacy in fiction. 2601:648: 8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that even in Jane Austen's time, there was a provision in Scottish law that a child born out of marriage would be retroactively legitimated for many purposes if his/her parents subsequently married, provided that the parents would have been free to marry each other at the time that the child was conceived or born (neither was married to other persons and no other impediment). However, I'm not sure how this interacted with noble stuff, and it didn't apply in England... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No. The Legitimacy Act 1926 and the Legitimacy Act 1959 stated that legitimized children could not succeed to any title, including the Crown. Thus the Hon. Benjamin George Lascelles, eldest son of the Earl of Harewood and great-great-grandson of King George V, cannot succeed to the earldom or the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What was the reasoning behind these two acts in regards to this specific issue? Futurist110 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Was... was that pun deliberate?--Khajidha (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No; it wasn't. Now, are you going to answer my question here? Futurist110 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What pun? ["Issue" as in "having children"?] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Both those acts have been repealed. What does the current law state? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The same. It's the Legitimacy Act 1976. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1: "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne." Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Spain & the Italian unification
From 1859 to 1861, through military backing from France, the combined armed forces of Savoy-Piedmont-Sardinia and Italian nationalists marched from the Po Valley down the Italian Peninsula with the clear intention of unifying it and the surrounding islands under a single state. As a result, much of modern Italy with the exception of Latium and Venetia was annexed by the House of Savoy extinguishing a few Habsburg and Bourbon states in the process. Austria put up a quite a fight in the war but Spain completely remained on the sideline iirc. Why was this the case? Why didn't Queen Isabel II have her government militarily intervene to save her dynasty's states that they used to fight the Habsburgs so hard to defend during the 18th century, especially her mother's homeland? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, puzzling. Perhaps – warning: pure speculation – Spain feared that a serious clash between the Spanish forces and the irredentists plus Savoy could lead to Habsburg gaining the upper hand, as in the saying "two dogs fight for a bone, and a third runs away with it". The risk may have outweighed the possible gains of what anyway would have been a costly operation. Historians must have developed explanations; perhaps someone can find some pointers. --Lambiam 20:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that the Habsburgs has long completely given up hope of acquiring Parma and Naples and has been on good term with the Bourbons ever since the Diplomatic Revolution in 1756. In addition, fear of more revolution and uprising would have prevented either of them from trying to upset the balance of power set by the Congress of Vienna. Austria fought hard against the Savoys and the French but it just seems to me that Spain made no effort whatsoever especially when threatening war with France or sending in reinforcements to the Austrians had pretty good chances of reversing the outcomes of the Second Italian War of Independence, imo. If I recalled correctly, Spain was not even occupied with another event at the time and after the loss of Parma, you would think the Spanish would have sent in an army to reinforce the position of the Two Sicilies. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Expedition of the Thousand stated that José Borjes was a Spanish general who fought for the Sicilians. Some searching indicate that he was a Carlist supporter. Seems Spain was pretty politically unstable at the time and was in no place to fight a distance war for a cousin branch. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed: Spain "The Napoleonic War left Spain economically ruined, deeply divided and politically unstable. In the 1830s and 1840s Anti-liberal forces known as Carlists fought against liberals in the Carlist Wars. Liberal forces won, but the conflict between progressive and conservative liberals ended in a weak early constitutional period". Note that at that time, Spain had ongoing military expeditions in alliance with France in the Cochinchina Campaign (1858-1862) and the Second French intervention in Mexico (1861-1867), and also on her own in the Hispano-Moroccan War (1859–60). Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not particularly unique to post-Napoleonic Spain among European countries. The 19th century was a very turbulent time for many countries.  France, for example, after Napoleon went through the Bourbon Restoration, the July Monarchy, the Second Republic, the Second Empire, the Paris Commune, and the Third Republic all in the space of less than 70 years.  Rapid and disruptive political shifts pretty much typified Europe in the 19th century.  -- Jayron 32 18:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, now that you mentions the Carlist threats, Spain did experienced two relatively minor uprising by the Carlists in that time period, one in 1855 and another in 1860. In addition to that, the two liberal forces, the Moderates and the Progressives, have been locked in a long at times violent political struggle for the past decades. So, Spain was definitely experiencing quite a lot of political instability at the time. However, I have a lot of doubt about it actually affecting its foreign policy. As mentioned by Alansplodge, Spain was in fact fighting foreign wars at the time and will be sending a naval expedition to South America in 1864. Even so, I am still puzzled by the lack of Spanish action in the fall of Parma and the Two Sicilies. Surely, it should not be hard for Spain to exert diplomatic pressure or send in some troops for a nation of its size. Moreover, the annexation of the Two Sicilies was not part of the agreement France had with Piedmont-Sardinia and was only possible because Sardinia was able to occupy the territory after Expedition of the Thousand had taken place. So, there was definitely room for Spain to act to at least save the Two Sicilies. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Spain in alliance with Napoleon III at that time? Napoleon was driving Italian unification to give the Austrians a hard time, if I understand correctly. Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The island of Sicily experienced three popular revolts between 1816 and 1848, including one in 1848 which removed Bourbon rule for 16 months (see Two Sicilies). Maybe Spain saw the Thousand's revolt as just another one of those revolts Two Sicilies was used to and only realized the outside influence when interfering would have been too late? After all, a few months passed between Garibaldi landing in Sicily in May and arriving unopposed in Naples in September but the Sardinian army only arrived in October (Battle of the Volturno). Regards So  Why  16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Phone directories and privacy
Back when telephone directories were widespread were there any privacy concerns due to disclosed personal information and possible prank calls? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * People who had privacy concerns, such as celebrities, could have an unlisted number. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Prank calls were fairly widespread, but were pretty much looked on as just childish fun. They were usually just silliness of the "Is your refrigerator running? Well, you better go catch it!" type. Actual harassment, threats, and such did require law enforcement to step in, though. --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In Australia, you used to have to pay for an unlisted number. To save money, you could use a false name when you took over the phone bill. I appeared in the book as Ducat I --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine would on say April 19, 1988 (4/19/1988) call local number 419 19 88, and if the call was answered, he'd congratulate the people with their phone number's anniversary. --Lambiam 19:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny and harmless. And if they have caller-ID, they can screen out those goofy calls. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the prank calls started long before caller ID was invented. Prank calls are probably almost as old as telephone service in general --Khajidha (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. And now we have better options for dealing with them: caller ID, answering machines, call blocking, etc. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Khajidha -- in the earliest days of telephones, the telephone exchange lady picked up your wire (and knew exactly which household you were calling from) and manually patched you through to the household you were calling. I bet the possibilities for prank calls were greatly expanded with inventions such as the Strowger switch... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The use of operators didn't seem to prevent such things: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2222406/lan-wan-history-s-first-prank-phone-call-was-way-back-in-1884.html https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/first-prank-call-ever --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The most classic mid-20th century phone prank gag (at least in the U.S.) was probably "Prince Albert in a can"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or in the can, implying he's locked in the bathroom. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 21:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the modern world, most people are on their phones in the can... -- Jayron 32 17:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We live in the Too Much Information Age. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Simpsons has maintained the tradition of prank calls. See Wikiquote HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There used to be horny weirdos who would call a woman from the telephone book. That's why they started using their first and middle initials instead of their first name. Temerarius (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)