Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 November 13

= November 13 =

Vice President of the USA - What happens if there is a vacancy?
If Kamala Harris leaves office -- for whatever reason -- who becomes the new VP? And how do they get that job, by what process?

Also, is there the same answer/process -- or a different one -- depending on whether Harris leaves the Administration, period ... versus if she rises to a vacant Presidential position? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Under the 25th amendment, the president chooses a new VP, who must be confirmed by Congress. That's how Gerald Ford became VP. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How about the second part of my question?  Say Biden dies.  Harris becomes President.  Then what?  Harris herself, as the new president, nominates a replacement VP?    32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The process is the same in both cases; Gerald Ford automatically became President when Nixon resigned, and he picked Nelson Rockefeller as VP. See also . --Lambiam 04:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * At the time, it was commented on that Nelson Rockefeller's accession to the Vice Presidency was extremely remote from the usual election process -- Gerald Ford hadn't been elected as VP or president, so that Rockefeller was not only not elected, he was appointed by someone who hadn't himself been elected... AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also extremely unusual circumstances, given that Nixon's VP Agnew resigned before Nixon did. A side note, given the extensive financial holdings of the Rockefeller family, a comedian at the time said he disagreed with Nelson merely being vice-president: "Someone who owns something should be president of it!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

For more complex scenarios, such as "Thanos snaps his fingers and everybody dies", see United States presidential line of succession Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Reminding me of an unrelated constitutional question: if the seas rise and Florida drowns, does it keep its two seats in the Senate? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be up to Congress to decide, and could depend on who, if anyone, survived such a cataclysm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This point memorably featured in Allan Danzig's 1963 SF story 'The Great Nebraska Sea', which described an analagous situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Just as a historical note, before the 25th amendment took effect, the vice-presidency simply remained vacant until the following Inauguration Day. For example, Harry Truman had no vice-president from 1945 until Inauguration Day of 1949, and Andrew Johnson (since he was not reelected in 1868) never had one. If one of them had not completed his term, the line of succession would have determined the new president. --174.89.144.126 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's because prior to the 25th amendment, replacing the president on their death was a kind of ad hoc process. Other than the vagueness of the original constitution text,  which states only "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President" &c, it was unclear exactly what that meant.  The process by which that occured only happened the way it did from the first time it happened, on the death of William Henry Harrison, until the 25th amendment, was because John Tyler, Harrison's VP, just kinda decided that's how it was going to work.  When Harrison died, he just started calling himself the President, and while some people objected and said he should only be the "acting President" or some such, Tyler refused that, and just started being the honest-to-God President, and the U.S. just did it that way each time after that.  There was no grand plan, no obvious way it was supposed to work, just Tyler and a whole lot of hubris that established a precedent.  And it worked that way for well over 100 years, through the deaths of several Presidents, before they finally got around to formalizing the process.  -- Jayron 32 17:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Three Sunflowers in a Vase
This painting is in a private collection of an US millionaire from 1996. Are there any information about his identity? -- 09:15, 13 November 2022 82.56.62.96
 * See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_Van_Gogh_-_Three_Sunflowers_F453.jpg --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That page doesn't give any more information than what is in the OP's question. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article from The Art Newspaper says only "an unidentified private collector", while The Times (of London) says "an unidentified private collector via a New York gallery". Google Books has nothing that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Same as a wikilink: c:File:Vincent Van Gogh - Three Sunflowers F453.jpg. --CiaPan (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * OP, see the book The Sunflowers Are Mine: The Story of Van Gogh's Masterpiece (2019). It has the full history of the painting (no other source has that) and it will give you some pointers. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeanne de La Motte
There is a version that she didn't die in London in 1791, but in Russia in 1826. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.178.210 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A version of WHAT? Please cite your sources! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither is true. She is alive and well, coasting in space in a UFO together with John Fitzgerald Kennedy. --Lambiam 08:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to same historical documents, she disapeared in order to bury her past. Her death in London in 1791 was a sham. Under the name of Comtesse de Gachet, she began a new life in Russia, where she died in 1826. She separated from her husband. Can you search it, and maybe if she was repented for her crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.44.22 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "historical documents" are entries on a genealogy website, to which any user can add details whether true or fictional – the very definition of an un -reliable source. This has every appearance of being a hoax (which might form the basis for amusing historical fiction). Wikipedia does not conduct or host Original research, but feel free to provide citations to actually Reliable sources if you can find any. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously a hoax, debunked | here if you can read French. - AldoSyrt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The link does not work for me. But the theory is mentioned in: Vincent Meylan (2016, reprinted 2021), Christie's: The Jewellery Archives Revealed (ISBN 978-1-78884-137-5) p. 44, as follows: "Certain historians and biographers of the nineteenth century propose a different theory. They assert that Jeanne de Valois disappeared in order to bury her past. Her death in London in 1791 may have been a sham. Under the name of Comtesse de Gachet, she began a new life in Russia, where she died in 1826." The book was published by ACC Art Books and should count, under our rules, as a reliable source for the existence of the theory. It does not reveal who these historians and biographers are or where they published this history. --Lambiam 20:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's 's link and at . Here's the pseudonymous account of Louis de Soudak "l'Heroine de l'Affaire du Collier" part 1part 2part 3. Is there any way we can issue more green cards to fr:Wikipédia:Oracle editors? fiveby(zero) 21:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, with those sources, you can explain it in detail on her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.161.162 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that according to Louis Hastier (follow "my" link on jstor) the story of Louis de Soudak, who is a novelist not an historian, is not based on any fact, any evidence; it is a compilation of hearsay. Is it worth mentioning it in Wikipedia? Not all information is equal (my opinion)- AldoSyrt (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Was she repented for her past crimes, and loyal to the Russian tsarist government? Can you find these information? Thank you. --80.117.104.100 08:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What prevents you from consulting the Russian Wikipedia? It provides the answer to your query. Ghirla-трёп- 12:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not very well with Russian language. Can you consult it, or search in other sites, and write an answer to me here? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.233.51 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)