Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 July 5

= July 5 =

Shirley Williams's first marriage
Our article on Shirley Williams says her first marriage was annulled. Do we have a reference, other than her own claims, for this and the grounds for annulment? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would interpret the second reference (which seems to be a book review of Truth and Truthfulness by Bernard Williams) as saying that the Roman Catholic Church annulled the marriage, for religious purposes, but civilly the marriage is considered to have ended in divorce not annulment. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would interpret the second reference (which seems to be a book review of Truth and Truthfulness by Bernard Williams) as saying that the Roman Catholic Church annulled the marriage, for religious purposes, but civilly the marriage is considered to have ended in divorce not annulment. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would interpret the second reference (which seems to be a book review of Truth and Truthfulness by Bernard Williams) as saying that the Roman Catholic Church annulled the marriage, for religious purposes, but civilly the marriage is considered to have ended in divorce not annulment. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, that makes sense. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the distinction between divorce and annulment still applies in RL, because in the world of American soap operas there seems to be no such thing as a divorce. Apart from death, all marriages end by annulment. None of the usual conditions for annulment are ever present. The couple, or at least one of them, decide it isn't working any more (usually because they're now in love with someone else, most often their former spouse, or that spouse's child), so they "file annulment papers". Upon filing, they're instantaneously unmarried without any bureaucratic processing required, and are free to marry someone else (the same day if they want). Essentially, it's a case of "I'm not married anymore, because I say so". Marriages conducted without any celebrant or witnesses are also presented as perfectly normal. It's truly a wonderful world, one upon which our children should model their lives. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "I'm not married anymore, because I say so" is not unknown in real life. But I doubt that American soap operas have many main characters from the relevant cultures. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Usury laws in the Third Reich?
I have been having a hell of a time finding English resources on this, so I have come to my last resort.

Were there any usury laws in the Third Reich? If so, what were they? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not an expert on legal history, so you'll likely want to wait for someone else to chip in - but here's what I know: Even though the Nazis openly advocated for the death penalty for usurers before coming to power (cf. National Socialist Program, point 18), I can't find any indication that they actually changed the usury laws during their rule. In Germany, usury is regulated in the civil code (BGB), which was introduced in 1900 and kept by the Nazis (it is still the civil code of modern Germany). The relevant section there would be §138; you can find an English translation of it here. Looking at the revision history for that section on this page, it seems that the first time it was amended was in 1976 (and even that change seems to be more about making the language more modern than actually changing something of legal significance). So for most intents and purposes, it seems that the usury laws in Nazi Germany were essentially the same as they are today. However, the article is relatively vague, with paragraph 1 stating "Ein Rechtsgeschäft, das gegen die guten Sitten verstößt, ist nichtig." In the translation I linked above, this is translated to "A legal transaction which is contrary to public policy is void." - however, a more literal translation would be "A legal transaction which is contrary to [accepted principles of] morality is void." Considering that the judiciary in Germany was far from independent at the time, I would assume that this legal wiggle-room was used to enforce party doctrine. This Wikipedia article explicitly mentions this being the case, but sadly the relevant section does not include an inline citation, so I don't know how accurate it is. I hope this helps! Best, Blablubbs (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

1931 United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland


What's the significance of the black lines that run through three NI constituencies? (Even weirder, two of the three black lines don't appear in the 300px resolution that I'm using here.) I didn't see anything at 1931 United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland that seemed to address the subject, 1931 United Kingdom general election basically doesn't mention NI, and neither this map nor its sources (see description page, it's derived from two other maps) explained anything. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the article you linked in the header, "There were ten constituencies, seven single-seat constituencies with elected by FPTP and three two-seat constituencies with MPs elected by bloc voting". The three constituencies with the black lines running through are the three two-seat constituencies, Antrim, Down, and Fermanagh & Tyrone. THe black line indicates that the constituency has two MPs. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)