Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 13

= March 13 =

Friday the 13th superstition around the world
Which countries around the world have the superstition around Friday the 13th? The article mentions some countries, such as the US, UK and Netherlands. I'd be interested to know if it has a foothold in Africa, Asia, South America... --Richardrj talkemail 09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Triskaidekaphobia has some info on fear of the number 13 in general. There was an episode of "Stuff You Should Know" from How Stuff Works that aired around Feb 13 that was fairly informative (don't have a link, sorry). Tomdobb (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Abdication letter.
I was looking at this letter - it was posted with an unrelated question over on the computing desk (someone wanted to know what font it was written in, of all things!). It's the letter used by King Edward of Britain, abdicating the throne. A resignation letter, if you like - but from one of the most important jobs in the world at the time.

I'm struck by how...um...scruffy it is...for such an earth-shattering document. Just a regular sheet of headed notepaper with nothing more than a crest on the top - typewritten and signed. I'm surprised it's not on some kind of fancy parchment, hand written in gorgeous calligraphy with a big wax seal and ribbons and such. Was it done in some terrible hurry - or in a place where such niceities would have been unavailable?

Secondly - if you actually read it - he goes to some pains to explain that he's not only resigning his own claim to the throne - but also that of all his descendents - in perpetuity! That's not very nice! Did he even have the right to do that? (Well, evidently so because at the moment he signed it, he was the king - but it seems wrong to me). I recall that he abdicated 'in favor of his brother' - but did that cut someone else out of a shot at the throne? Weren't they just the teensiest bit upset about that?

SteveBaker (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Edward didn't have the right to abdicate for himself, let alone for his descendents. The succession to the British crown is controlled by the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1707, and can only be altered by further act of parliament. The Statute of Westminster 1931 extended this requirement to a requirement that the act be passed by all commonwealth parliaments. Thus from a legal point of view that letter was just Edward's request that the UK parliament pass His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 (and other parliaments pass similar acts). I assume this is why the letter is worded as a declaration of determination and desire rather than as an executive order.
 * In any case, Edward had no children at the time of his abdication or later, so this never became much of an issue. Algebraist 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Nope, he didn't "cut someone else out of a shot at the throne"...his younger brother Albert (George VI) was the next in line to the throne. References to his brother were probably to end any rumours that the Duke of York (Prince Albert) should be skipped due to incompatability (he had a stammer). The letter is indeed rather "scruffy" however bear in mind that the entire Instrument of Abdication (the "letter") was not legally binding. Edward remained the monarch until he gave his royal assent to the Declaration of Abdication act of 1936. The Instrument of Abdication is really only hot air but you have to remember abdication has no precedent in the United Kingdom. Another thing that sticks in my mind is the fact that the younger brothers also signed. This also indicated their acceptance of Albert assuming the throne.

Also, the document was signed at Fort Belvedere and not Buckingham Palace (Interesting side note: The calligraphers at Buckingham have been made redundant as of the year 2000! Knighthoods are now printed!). Edward's descendants had to be excluded or they could have (at some later point) claimed to be the rightful monarchs... As you rightly said, Edward couldn't resign his descendants claim to the throne by merely by signing the Instrument of Abdication. Parliament included this condition in section three of the Abdication Act (see here). Hope that helped, ;) --Cameron* 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that the younger brothers "indicated their acceptance of Albert assuming the throne" by signing the Instrument, as the question of the immediate succession is not mentioned in it. According to the text of the Instrument they are merely signing as witnesses. In general I suppose the main reason for excluding his own descendants from future succession is to prevent the possibility of someone turning later to claim the throne, say on the death of George VI. After all, Edward was (presumably) still perfectly capable of producing offspring in the future, even if not through Wallis. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By law, if Edward was disqualified, then Albert was king whether he and his brothers liked it or not. If the brothers agreed to exclude Albert as well as Edward, then the letter would presumably say so. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (back to the first, scruffiness, question) - I don't think anyone is proud of this kind of instrument, so they just get the job done in a workmanlike fashion and move along. Compared with Nixon's resignation letter, Eddie's letter is positively gushing. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except, Nixon was leaving in shame; Edward was leaving to marry the woman he loved. Quite a difference. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember that back in the 1930s there were no word processors or printers. All they had for private use were typewriters, and relatively rudimentary ones compared with the typewriters that were available up to the 1980s, and there usually wasn't any choice of fonts.  You got what was built into the machine.  I've seen many old typewritten documents of very great historical moment that wouldn't be acceptable from the most junior office clerk today, but they probably wouldn't have given it a second thought back then because that's what all typewritten documents looked like.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, if an important document looked like that we might well infer that it was drawn up in an emergency. Hm. I wonder what the Act of Parliament looks like. —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the question of abdication as an unprecedented event in England/Britain... it wasn't really. Both Edward II and Richard II abdicated, though in each case it was under considerable coersion. Edward II was essentially driven out of office by Parliament and his Mother, in favor of Edward III... it was probably a good move as they replaced one of the worst Kings in English history with one of the best. And Richard II was of course defeated by Henry Bolingbroke and imprisoned in the tower of London. In both cases however, each king officially tendered his resignation to Parliament, who merely "accepted" it. Of course, this was a legal fiction, since Parliament in both cases essentially threw the king out on his ass; however in the 14th and 15th century, Parliament had no authority to do so, so it had to look like it was the King's decision. How interesting that 400 years later, it legally had to go the other way, since by then King Edward had no legal power to abdicate, and he had to wait for Parliament's formal action to remove him from office. Also as an intersting aside, one cannot legally resign from the House of Commons either, but one can be offered and accept a *beep* job that disqualifies one from keeping their seat. The British can be so weird when it comes to this stuff... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two were deemed to have abdicated, but it happened against their will. Edward VIII was the only one who voluntarily abdicated.  (The British would also insist on saying "... disqualifies one from keeping one's seat", another "weird" example where a pronoun can't be used to refer to the entity first named, which is what pronouns are for.) --  JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "One" is a pronoun in this usage. It's the American style where a different pronoun is used for subsequent references (and apparently Australian too) that's surprising if you think about it. --Anonymous, 01:08 UTC (edited 20:08), March 14, 2009.
 * I wouldn't accept that it's usual Australian style to say " one ... his". I'm sure you'll find examples of it, just as you'll find examples of many things that are not sanctioned by style manuals. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were saying that "one...one's" was only British and seemed unnatural to you as an Australian. --Anon, 03:20 UTC, March 15, 2009.
 * No, not at all. I was just giving the British the credit for this construction, but it extends all the way to the antipodes. That is, when it's used at all in Australia, which is not very common these days.  It has an air of toffee-nosedness about it that most Aussies find repugnant.  It's far more common to hear people at every level of society talking about the impersonal "you" than about "one".  A politician who wanted to increase his/her standing in the community would be well advised never to use this type of "one", whether associated with "one's" or not.  John Howard was known to use it occasionally; and Philip Ruddock used it a lot when he was in power, but every one of his utterances is so unnervingly, bureaucratically, bone-crunchingly, brain-witheringly correct to the zth degree of pernickitiness that I've often wondered if he's actually a human being.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're being picky about grammar, I think you'll find it's "ones", not "one's". Possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. I agree with Anonymous, "one ... ones" makes far more sense than "one ... their" - "one" really is a pronoun. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That actually reads as if you're agreeing with me, Tango. (I wasn't being picky, btw, just adding to the list of things the British do in a way that some people consider "weird".) --  JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the exclusion of an apostrophe from "one's" seems to be a hypercorrection. Fowler has many examples of "one ... one's", and they all have apostrophes.  Yet another example of a weird exception to the general rules.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just because "one" can be either a noun or a pronoun and inflects the same way in either...um...case. "If one has two spellings to choose from, and the first one's acceptance is greater than the second one's, one's choice should usually be the first one."  --Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, March 15, 2009.

Hmmmm - interesting stuff! Thanks everyone! I was pretty sure he didn't have any actual 'descendants' - which is why I was so surprised at that clause in the letter. But I guess it makes sense to be perfectly clear about it in order to avoid future grief if any "royal bastards" (in the nicer sense of the phrase) popped up in the future. I was also surprised that he'd have the right to deny heirs their "rightful" place on the throne - but if parliament decides all that stuff anyway - it probably doesn't matter. As for Nixon...wow...terse! "I quit. -- Dick" SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bastards (in the nicer sense of the phrase) are excluded anyway. Again, he didn't have the right to exclude his hypothetical descendants any more than to exclude himself; he asked Parliament to send him a bill to change the law to such effect, and Parliament, seeing that to deny such a request would probably not be in anyone's interest, did.  —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The descendants clause raises an amusing possibility: if a (hypothetical) descendant of the duke of Windsor should someday marry an heir to the throne, would the issue of that marriage be disqualified? Now imagine that this happens a thousand years from now, when nearly everyone is descended from him ... This problem (and perhaps others that I haven't imagined) could be sidestepped if the legislation were to adopt a legal fiction that Edward was younger than his brothers. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Her Majesty's reduced circumstances
Have any recent British monarchs publicly discussed their opinions on not having any of the power they would have had in earlier times? --Sean 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There haven't really been any "recent monarchs": there is the current one, Her Maj, and the previous chappie, who died almost 60 years ago, when the world was a different place. If you mean the former, ask for her by name or title; if you mean the latter, he was Emperor of India and King of Ireland (!!!) and a lot has changed since then.  But British monarchs have been having their powers curtailed since that nasty King John upset the barons, and they had to have a picnic on the Thames to sort it all out.  If they got too uppity, they ran the risk of losing their heads. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous chappie wasn't even claiming the Crown of France which his ancestors had claimed, so his circumstances had expanded in one part of the world, and retracted in other parts. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while concepts such as Absolutism took hold on the continent, especially in France, through most of the 1600's and 1700's, it never really got much traction in England. While guys like Louis XIV were busy establishing the idea that the King's power and reach was boundless, they were busing in England trying to prove that the could get along fine without a monarch at all. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These days I'm pretty sure the Queen would be convention-bound not to discuss an issue like that, and Liz (we're on first name terms) is pretty damn strict on protocol and public service. Considering that her role is largely ceremonial (and unelected/accountable) the Royal Family is supposed to keep firmly away from politics. Might be useful to see Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

prepaid (anonymous) credit card II
How can it be possible that in some country repeatedly assaulted by terrorism (UK, US or whatever), is it still possible to have anonymous funds? Isn't it a huge security flaw? --Mr.K. (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, but remember that you still need to have bought the prepaid card in the first place. To make the card really useful, the potential terrorist would need to have a substantial fund on the card which would need to have come from somewhere.  Also, since prepaid cards are usually aimed at people who have difficulty getting credit and usually have an upper limit, trying to buy a prepaid card with £10,000 on it is bound to bring unwelcome attention.  Astronaut (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it any more of a security risk than cash itself? --140.247.250.160 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above - plus what arms dealer would have card processing set up in order to accept money - they will deal in cash and cash only... Gazhiley (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose the issue would be the mass purchase of potentially problematic things—those items that fall somewhere between the labels of dangerous and safe, like nitrate fertilizers. But presumably things like that should be just themselves tracked. --140.247.250.160 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a higher security risk than cash, because someone can buy this card to transfer money from the UK to whatever country making a bogus purchase of whatever. And the terrorists don't have to have 10,000 on one card, they can split it into several. Anonymous banking is a security risk, higher than cash, since it is easier to move money through a card than moving cash itself. It is also easier to save money since the terrorists don't need the card physically, they just need the card number. So even if some get caught, another terrorists of the same organization could use the funds --Mr.K. (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the movies they use diamonds when they don't want to carry large amounts of cash. That works pretty well, I'd think. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help..ANYBODY
How and where do i find the information about the people who fled Burma (now Myanmar), to be precise Rangoon the capital during the aerial raids in the second world war, as i did try everywhere to find some information about my Grand parents during that time...Anyone?please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article on Operation Dracula gives some background. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Herman but did they have any kind of attendence or counting system of the people registered and where they were deported by the occupying british army.???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have that the wrong way around. Burma was a British colony that was captured and occupied by the Japanese. The British recaptured it only near the end of the war. Our articles on Operation Dracula, Burma Campaign and Japanese conquest of Burma do not discuss bombing of the city. The Yangon article simply says "Yangon was under Japanese occupation (1942–45), and incurred heavy damage during World War II." Most of this damage appears to have been from when the British burnt the city port and oil terminal when they retreated from the Japanese attack. The city was retaken from the Japanese by the British forces without much fighting. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

forgive my ignorance though the main question does remain unanswered.Thanks again mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that Rangoon faced an heavy bombing campaign like many German or Japanese cities. There was a Japanese air raid directed at the dockyards during their attack which killed 2000 civilians, many of whom had come out to watch it, there is a mention of a Allied air raid on the docks on 8th November 1943 which destroyed an important pagoda and an Allied air attack on Japanese positions south of the city during the British recapture which accidently killed some of their own paratroopers. This link gives a personal history and mentions some refugees from Burma who fled the Japanese. [This link mentions the flood of refugees who fled the Japanese attack, leaving the city mainly empty when they arrived. Certainly not an orderly process. Were your grandparents Burmese or Europeans or Chinese or Japanese? Would they have fled the city to the Japanese side (Japanese during the British recapture or some Burmese during the Japanese capture) or to the British side (Europeans, some Chinese? and some Burmese during the Japanese capture - many of whom would have tried to get to India) Some Chinese troops retreated to India and later tried to get back to China with high casualty rates. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."    - Benjamin Franklin
I've no idea if it was correct in Benjamin's time but is it now? AFAIK in today's society you get absolutely nothing even if theoretically you knew absolutely everything. It's all a bureaucratic process that holds formality over reality. Am I correct or not? Is the quote applicable or not? 94.196.142.45 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends. Applicable knowledge is valuable. Inapplicable knowledge is of questionable value. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Several things. "in today's society you get absolutely nothing..." is obviously an extreme statement designed to elicit a response. If you know how to do something useful you are clearly going to earn more money (on average) than someone who doesn't. The people who make huge amounts of money doing things that are not useful are fewer than you might think. For every dumb pop star earning big bucks there are millions of musicians earning a pittance. I also suspect that Franklin wasn't thinking entirely in monetary terms. The benefits of education and knowledge can't only be measured in dollars and cents. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there have been studies into things like quality of life as it relates to a variety of factors. Take Tal Ben-Shahar's Happiness studies at Harvard.  It turns out that if you look at material wealth; things like money and posessions, there's a plateau of the effect of money on happiness and personal sense of well-being.  It turns out that money can only buy happiness until you reach a level of comfort where you have all of your basic needs met; the poor are less happy than the middle class.  However, additional money has no effect on your happiness beyond the basic needs; thus the rich are no more happy than the middle class.  However, there ARE positive correlations between education level and happiness, though on a secondary effect.  this page on Happiness and Education notes that while education in-and-of-itself does not directly correlate to increased happiness, insofar as Education provides access to other things, such as increased access to meaningful work, and increased access to meaningful social relationships, then education IS important to gaining access to those things that DO make us happy.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we just look at income correlation with education level, those with the most education do, indeed, make the most money. You'd have to get up to people who are lifetime students and never actually get a job to find a level of education which no longer correlates with a higher income. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The best part of having enough money is not needing to worry about not having enough money." Wish I knew if somebody famous actually said that; it may be from nothing more than one of those silly-quote-a-day calendars.  --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Franklin may have been 100% right in his time - but these days, simple straight-line knowledge - the ability to pull facts out of your head on command - simply isn't enough. Back in his time, it was still possible for a well-educated man to know pretty much all of science and technology.  That was a valuable skill because amassing that much information in a library was a costly business.   Now, things have undergone a total reversal.  Almost all of human knowledge is about three mouse clicks away and it's available to pretty much everyone - what gets you into the big money is the expertise to FIND the things you need - to JUDGE the good stuff from the bad and to APPLY that knowledge in a practical manner.  In the context of his time, you could probably use the word 'education' interchangeably with 'knowledge' - so we may be permitted a small adjustment to "An investment in education always pays the best interest" - then I agree with him. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being able to see the context makes it rather interesting. Everyone appears to have answered based on the idea of obtaining knowledge for yourself but he may have been talking about investing in the knowledge of others. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that almost all of human knowledge is about three mouse clicks away and it's available to pretty much everyone
 * is insufficient. Otherwise, why does the ref desk get so many questions? You also need to:
 * a) Realize there is a lack in your own knowledge,
 * b) Conceptualize that lack sufficiently to be able to formulate a question,
 * c) Know where to click.
 * Note that these skills are most easily obtained through education. Phil_burnstein (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the better ref-desk respondants will tell you - almost all questions can be answered with information that's three mouse clicks away (well - approximately). If you read the rest of my comment, I went on to say that: ...what gets you into the big money is the expertise to FIND the things you need - to JUDGE the good stuff from the bad....  Our questioners VERY often simply lack the rather special 'search' skills to find the information.  It's there - it's three mouse clicks away - but unless you know which terms to search on and how to quickly skip the junk and zero in on the good stuff - you're screwed.  There can be a huge difference in which precise words you type into Google or the Wikipedia search box.  OP's very often tell us that they searched for ages without turning anything useful up - where we find it immediately - it's a skill that can be gained through practice - but I know of no way to teach it.  SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I recently got a resume that said, as a bullet point under skills : "Knows where to find documentation on the following techniques " and then a whole long list of basic items like 'Quicksort' and 'Linked Lists'. I laughed. Instead we hired someone who had an cool-looking demo.APL (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You said : "It's all a bureaucratic process that holds formality over reality"
 * Someone from your IP range has complained asked about this a couple of times recently.  If you're not able to find a job because of your lack of qualifications, you're going to have to do something to prove how awesome you are.  Preferably by getting involved in some major project with a high level of complexity.
 * You can't just assume that people will magically know that you possess all this knowledge. How would employers tell you apart from the zillions of people who don't know what they're doing, but claim to anyway? I imagine it was very much the same in Franklin's time. I'm sure if Franklin was hiring an assistant you couldn't just go up to him and say "Hi. I'm applying for the assistant Job. I have lots of knowledge." And then expect Franklin to say "Knowledge? That's just what I'm looking for! You're hired!" APL (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting education-vs-salary graph at http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/ . Salary peaks at the middle education level--MBA's make more than multi-PhD's.  75.62.6.87 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Prime Minister
I was wondering, does anyone know who the first Scottish Prime Minister of the UK was? I assume it can't be Gordon Brown, but can't think of anyone else... How about other PMs born outside England? Have their been any born outside the British Isles? TastyCakes (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for all your answers. John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute and Ramsay Macdonald were Scottish.  Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh.  Bonar Law was born in Canada, and there have been a couple of PMs born in Ireland, including the Duke of Wellington.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) However, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute appears to have been the first British prime minister born in Scotland. Ka renjc 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I corrected that while you were edit conflicting, so your comment does reflect what I had said at the time you read it. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, does anybody know where William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire was born? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I've found one site that seems to think it was Belgium, but there's no citation to back it up, and the URL is blacklisted so I can't give the link.  It may be a confusion with his death, which did occur in Belgium.  Worth a bit more delving.   Ka renjc 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even the PM's official page at number10.gov.uk doesn't say. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neat, thanks guys. TastyCakes (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason to suspect that it wasn't Chatsworth House?--TammyMoet (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One may suspect all one likes. The Peerage doesn't even mention his birth place, which suggests it wasn't recorded on his birth certificate, and we may never know now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry to be picky, but they didn't have birth certificates in those days! They were brought in in 1837 in England.--TammyMoet (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I was getting at was that The Peerage doesn't give his date of birth (8 May 1820), just "1820". So, wherever his birth was recorded, and whatever details may have been recorded there, they haven't yet been accepted as fact by The Peerage, other than the year.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The LDS Church database indicates the 4th Duke was born in Hardwick, Derby. That is probably Hardwick Hall. Records from the same source indicate all his siblings were also born in Hardwick, Derby. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We had this come up as a quiz question-the only foreign-born PM.Our team went for Andrew Bonar Law but some seemed to think Devonshire was Belgian,so he'd qualify? ISetRodentsOnFireForFun (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've found nothing on the Internet to deny the 4th Duke was born in Derby. There should be letters written by the 3rd Duke or the Duchess about the birth, but nothing appears to have published.  He was the heir presumptive to an enormous fortune (heir in fact as his elder brother died as a child).  There should also be some description of the family circumstances in the newspapers of the day (this was many years before The Times).  Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Progressives
What exactly are the beliefs and principles of progresives or progressive ideas? I am having a hard time finding a straight answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.146.223 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Progressivism has pretty much got it covered. SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblical bread
I would like to know the shape of Biblical bread. Was it flat, as in a pancake? Was it shaped into loaves as we make them today? I am teaching a lesson on Jesus feeding the 5000 this Sunday to young children and would like to know what it looked like. I have a recipe (without yeast) and it says to roll out. I assumed like a pie crust. Thank you for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.96.100 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it would be flat was because the bread was 'unleavened' - un-risen - no yeast making the little bubbles that make the bread light and fluffy. Our article Flatbread explains that the bread of ancient eqypt would have been up to a centimeter or two thick. Something like a pita bread or a naan. SteveBaker (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt some bread during the course of the couple of thousand years that may reasonably be referred to as 'Biblical' was unleavened; but according to the passover story, it would appear that bread was normally leavened many centuries before Jesus. It doesn't say anything about its shape though. --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * see: 'Bread', Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, especially page 318.&mdash;eric 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They kind of look like crackers the premium crackers only bigger--Dlo2012 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)