Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 5

= September 5 =

Chicago Today
Are any articles from the old Chicago Today digitized? I’m looking for one from 1971. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be on Newspapers.com. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're most likely to find such information from a local public library. I would be surprised if someone from the Chicago Public Library couldn't help you find your answer better than anyone here.  There is an "Ask a Librarian" service here, and that page has a phone number as well.  There is also a "contact us" page Here.  -- Jayron 32 17:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure the original poster knows already, Chicago Today was the successor to several other titles such as Chicago's American, The Chicago American and The Chicago Herald-American. If isn't already doing this, he or she might use web searches, chatbots, database searches and/or library catalogue searches to seek the desired information. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do, but a cursory search suggested that all of the archives were offline. Hopefully, I’m wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, just because they aren't available online doesn't mean they aren't available. If you use the "ask a librarian" service or call the library; they may have them archived on microfiche/microfilm, or they may have them digitized, but not online.  -- Jayron 32 12:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The newspapers I search for from the public library, are available on-line provided you have a library card. At least with the Chicago Tribune. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC).
 * I'm from Chicago, and I use the Chicago Public Library to access Chicago newspaper articles from the 1960s. Particularly the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Defender, and Chicago Sun Times. You can filter in the time frame by year/month/date etc. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC).

Can we all agree?
'' Posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) ''
 * One of the reasons why Henry VIII broke away from the Papacy was so that he could rewrite the rules on marriage. So… no, we don’t all agree. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not many people know that Henry VIII married his late brother's wife, Katherine of Aragon. You may thus mourn the monarch who never was, King Arthur II. The English Reformation merely substituted one despot for another. Or is this about the tangled tale of members of the cringeworthy current minor British monarchy? MinorProphet (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not many people know that Henry VIII married his late brother's wife" -eh? Anyone in England that did history at school has been told that, maybe 90% of the population.  Whether the fact stuck is arguable, but it certainly has to be a great deal more than "not many".  Unless, of course, the people you are talking about are not English, in which case it is perfrectly reasonable that they are not aware of the details of English history. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like Paddington, I was addressing the world in general. Pass the marmalade sandwiches. MinorProphet (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The book continues:

"The Pope declared Henry's second marriage to Anne Boleyn illegal, because the King was still married to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon." "Henry, as head of the new Church of England, declared in turn that his first marriage was invalid on the legal ground that a man could not sleep with his brother's widow. The King cited the Old Testament, which he claimed as 'God's Law', whether the Pope liked it or not." "...Henry annulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn just before he had her executed for adultery. This was somewhat illogical:  if the marriage had never existed Anne could hardly be accused of betraying it."

The marriage treaty between Henry and Anne of Cleves was signed on 24 September 1539. The princess landed at Deal on December 27 and Henry met her at Rochester on 1 January 1540. Having second thoughts, he made an attempt to prove a pre-contract with the son of the duke of Lorraine, which failed. The nuptials took place on 6 January but did not lead to a relationship between the couple and Henry impugned Anne's honour. On 9 July the marriage was declared null and void by convocation and, subsequently, by an act of parliament.

The oldest statute on the roll is the Statute of Merton, 1235, which dealt with ecclesiastical law. The canon law of the Church says that a priest must not solemnise holy matrimony without observing all the prescribed preliminaries. Because marriage is a sacrament, if he doesn't observe them that doesn't affect the validity of the ceremony. Solemnisation of matrimony is simply the exchange of vows witnessed by a priest. A statute of 1753 raised the possibility that it might not be valid in the case of marriages not involving a member of the royal family.

Do the actions of Henry VIII have any bearing on the matter? His law change of 1540 (which was reversed in 1548) did not affect the sacramental nature of the ceremony. This source explains:

"What many people do not know, though, is that the medieval canon law was carried over into the new dispensation. Attempts to reform it were frequently made, but they failed, and the provisional canons passed in 1604 became definitive for the Church of England."

So can we agree that while Harry and Meghan's marriage date was challenged by their enemies for political reasons (it proves that Camilla is no more than a Lady of the Garter) when they gave the date as 16 May 2018 they were speaking the absolute truth? 2A02:C7B:215:EF00:C5D0:F36D:F27E:330D (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Have any Commonwealth countries issued stamps or coins with the head of Charles III?
There's been nothing here, apart from one-off issues. Yesterday's newspapers extensively covered events marking the anniversary of the Queen's death  In the Daily Telegraph, royal reporter Victoria Ward's byline was over several stories. There was nothing from Camilla Tominey, unsurprising given her unfortunate revelation on 28 August that "It is understood Andrew is being re-integrated back into the family after the scandal of his friendship with late U S paedophile tycoon Jeffrey Epstein."

There was also plenty of comment on how things seem to be falling apart (unsurprising since the government has put the court case to determine Camilla's status on ice), the breakup of the Commonwealth, and the removal of the monarch's head from Australian banknotes with a republic referendum planned for 2025. It took me back to 1974 when I was living in Portugal and caught similar reports at night on the BBC Home Service which broadcast on medium wave from London. Back to the present, after a magical day weatherwise we were invigorated in the evening by the Last Night of the Proms, ,. On a November evening in 1974 I was walking past the Portuguese equivalent of a pub. The television was on and the programme title Ultima Noite dos Proms appeared on the screen, so I went inside and watched the whole thing on RTP, much to the bemusement of the regulars. Although I occasionally listened to the Catholic radio station Radio Renascença, I wasn't tuned in at 10:55 PM on Wednesday, 24 April when the DJ announced Falta cinco minutos às vinte e três and played the Eurovision Song Contest entry and a banned protest song.   This was the prearranged signal for the start of the Carnation Revolution. 91.125.11.81 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What is coronavirus?
Essay sample @ 202.165.198.38 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think you might have been infected already? If so, we can't answer medical questions. Also, we don't answer homework questions. Sorry. MinorProphet (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, feel free to read the coronavirus article and check out the sources and links therein. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that "coronavirus" is a far broader category than COVID-19, which is just one of many types of coronaviruses. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although, with all the publicity, COVID-19 has become rosy - the queen of Coronavirus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Jokes like this should be against the law. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's what the Mama saw. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bugs and Julio should quit with the schoolyard jokes. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yah, but otherwise the ref desks would become unbelievably tiresome. Most of the time they (the ref desks, obvs.) perform a wholly admirable and valuable service. MinorProphet (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 is the disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. —Tamfang (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . 91.125.11.81 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)