Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 January 9

= January 9 =

Captain Kirk uniform
What is this type of shirt called and is it ever used in real-life uniformed services? It has always looked goofy to me. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:80FC (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crossover tops are common in womens fashion. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * this calls it a "wrap". Wikipedia, by the way, has a rather in-depth article called Star Trek uniforms.  WP:WHAAOE.   -- Jayron 32 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Star Trek fandom, I've always heard it called a "wrap-around tunic" (aside from a few less than flattering nicknames).--Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayron's pdf also calls it a "surplice" though WP's article surplice is about something different. "Crossover wrap" was a good search term though, and found good info.  I notice on ST:Enterprise, T'Pol wears something similar, though its purpose seems to be to show off her curves, fitting in with the scriptwriting being even worse than ST:TOS's. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't say such bad things about TOS if you had been around at the time it was new. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a bit before my time, but it just happens The Omega Glory was on TV here a couple of nights ago. I have to wonder what kind of excitement the 1960s audience might have felt seeing Kirk lead the Yangs and Kohms in the pledge of allegiance to the US flag.  Or Spock's Brain, another famous one ("Brain?  What is brain?").  Srsly, TOS was groundbreaking and all that, and it had some great episodes, but the conventional wisdom is right that the studio didn't know what it had and ST was headed into the toilet by the 3rd season.  The sequels (TNG, the federation becomes a big bureaucracy), DS9 (Babylon 5 wannabe) etc. never did anything for me.  B5 killed off the last of my interest in Star Trek and it's mostly stayed that way since.  Ellison was Ellison but his book-length ST rant had its moments as well. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Trek always had kind of a cult following, and not everyone was into it. Star Wars had much broader appeal. TNG started out kind of clunky, but became much better as time went on, including some episodes that were extraordinary. However, any series of any genre is going to have some episodes that are better than others. I don't recall what the broader public had to say about "The Omega Glory", if anything, but in our home we thought it was rather silly. They can't all be winners. "The City on the Edge of Forever", the one Harlan Ellison had a hand in, was probably the best "serious" episode of the entire series, even with D.C. Fontana having pared Ellison's treatment down to make it work as a TV episode. And for lighter subject matter, everyone loved "The Trouble With Tribbles". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or is the Enterprise crew more extroverted than earlier ships? I haven't seen every episode, not even close, but I have this hunch. Also they seemed to pander to things conservatives or liberals care about like pro-life or religious extremists are crazy yo and overused current events metaphors. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've only seen a few episodes (it is on nightly here now, and someone else in the house watches it so I also see it sometimes) and I mostly hate it. Captain Archer seems to put the ship and crew at risk for completely stupid and unnecessary reasons every night.  Even the TOS smeghead Kirk was nowhere near that dumb.  I can't blame Archer himself since he's only a fictional character, but I wonder if there is a way to court-martial the scriptwriters.  I do like Dr. Phlox and T'Pol though.  Right now they seem to be showing the early episodes, and the article T'Pol gives some hope that things might get more interesting in the later ones.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Queen's Counsel in two reigns
Our article Nathaniel Micklem (politician) says he "took silk in early 1900 becoming Queen's Counsel as Victoria was still on the throne. He was one of only two men to be Queen's Counsel in two reigns as he was still living at the accession to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II in 1952". Who was the other one? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Scottish Law Review and Sheriff Court Reports, Volume 69 (1953) says: "Called to the Bar in 1881, Mr. Micklem took silk in 1900 and is one of the two men living who have been Queen's Counsel in two reigns (the other being Viscount Cecil)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Splendid, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added this to the article, in case anybody else is curious. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Side question from a curious American: will all QCs automatically become KCs when the current Queen dies?  (Asking about both the honorific and the procedure). Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They will change from QC to KC at the instant of succession, no procedure required. Not the best source perhaps, but I found this Time article] which says "In London’s High Court, King’s Counselor Harold Shepherd had just finished cross-examining a defendant when the news came. The court adjourned. Ten minutes later, the lawyer resumed the floor as Queen’s Counselor. Painters at another London court set to work painting out the sign “King’s Bench” and replacing it with “Queen’s Bench.” DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obligatory nitpick: it might theoretically happen that that Prince Charles, his son Prince William, and his son Prince George all predecease the Queen. In that case William's daughter Princess Charlotte becomes the new queen, and as she's only 4 years old, it may be a very long time before there are any KCs. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They might think twice about inviting Uncle Harry Sussex to step back into the family as Regent. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A more direct and dare I say life-affirming way would be for Charles and Andrew to both come out as transgender, so Charlene(?) (née Charles) would become Elizabeth's successor as Queen. They would both have to transition for this to work, because otherwise male-preference primogeniture (still in effect for those born before 2011 per the Succession to the Crown Act 2013) would give Andrew precedence if only Charles transitioned.  173.228.123.190 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to say "the feminine form of Charles is Carol" but apparently they are legion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temerarius (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your speculation violates BLP rules and should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an observation about an outlandish theoretical possibility, like the fertile octogenarian (the idea that Queen Elizabeth might have further children, even at her age). The UK's inheritance laws take the fertile octogenarian into account but I don't know if they consider the possibility of gender changes.  I asked about this last night on Talk:Heir apparent so maybe someone there knows something. 173.228.123.190 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I found it fairly unlikely that this was not dealt with somewhere. Although the possibility of a transgender heir or reigning monarch may be remote enough that they decided not to worry about it, the UK still has 814 Hereditary peers where this could arise, along with other inherited titles List of barons in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (or are these the only ones, not sure). Indeed Gender Recognition Act 2004 says "" and a look at the legislation [//www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7] (big page) shows Well 15 is not particularly relevant but I included it for completeness. Anyway IANAL etc but my read of this is that Charles will always be King no matter what. He could abdicate or ask for a law change, and it's possible as a courtesy she will be referred to as Queen in some circumstances if she says she is female, but otherwise as things stand, in the UK there's currently no recognition of a gender "change" when it comes to monarchs. (I use "change" here only because Prince Charles is currently legally recognised as, and presenting as male.) I don't know the situation in any of the other Commonwealth Realms.  P.S. In some ways the current stance is also "let's not worry about it". But my point was that at least considered the matter and dealt with in the legislation to try and establish what will happen if it does arise.  Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW in case people miss it, the GRA2004 article it's mention that the case which set the older precedent in the UK was Corbett v Corbett involving Arthur Corbett, 3rd Baron Rowallan who had his marriage to April Ashley annulled although he was aware she was a transgender woman when he married. The case is also mentioned at [//www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs]. Note that despite what this person said [//www.bbc.com/news/uk-42182747], it's not clear to me if amending the peerage but was ever really actively considered. Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thanks, that helped. What is "the appointed day" in section 15? Fwiw there is an English lawyer who has a habit of pointing out weird edge cases in UK law and they sometimes have to patch the holes because of him. I don't remember his name but he was mentioned here in the past year or so, iirc. 173.228.123.190 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * '“the appointed day” means the day appointed by order under section 26' which says 'Commencement... this Act does not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland'; in other words, “the appointed day” means the actual date of commencement of the act as law. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, in case people miss it, the Tatler source also mentions the case of Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet. It's an interesting somewhat counter example. I'm not totally sure if the Gender Recognition Act would prevent a similar outcome at the moment, or it might still be possible (and whether it might make a difference if the person born before or after the act). Nil Einne (talk)

I disagree that the law says that a gender-reassigned Charles would still be King. It says that reassignment does not affect the "descent" of a dignity, but that just means that the line of succession doesn't change. In other words, you can't move up or down by changing gender. (Or, in the case of a peerage which is limited to heirs male, you can't add or remove yourself from the line of succession by changing gender, so a woman who is ineligible to succeed to such a peerage cannot make herself eligible by becoming a man.) That doesn't mean that the appropriate gender-specific form of the dignity should not still be used once succession has occurred. A woman who succeeds to the Crown is a Queen, regardless of the mechanism by which she does succeeds. Proteus (Talk) 10:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Crown is not a peerage. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) But that means you are affecting the descent of a dignity or "title of honour". The next in line for Queen Regnant is currently Princess Charlotte, not Princess Charline..... Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "line of descent" for "Queen Regnant" (if that's even a title), it's not heritable. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)