Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 November 20

= November 20 =

Greatest time difference between a father's death and his child's birth
What is the greatest time difference between a father's death and the birth of one of his or her children? For now, I have found Henri, Count of Chambord, who was born about 7.5 months after his father's death/assassination. Is there anyone else (either famous or not famous) who you can find who beats Henri's record here? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you including frozen sperm and artificial insemination? Dismas |(talk) 01:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for this question. Futurist110 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Checking out the details at Posthumous birth might bear some fruit (but not fruit of the womb). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alexandra Tatarsky was born five years after Andy Kaufman died. The asterisk beside that record is enormous, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * She appears to be a fraud. See here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/actress-in-andy-kaufman-hoax-675432 Futurist110 (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind WP:BLP issues here. From what I can tell, the link doesn't support it being a fraud. It suggests it may be a hoax or prank of some sort, possibly as part of some sort of performance art. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Be it fraud, hoax or prank, it falls under the same umbrella of "humbug". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Oldest time difference"? --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the oldest time difference between a father's death and the birth of one of his children. This question of mine excludes things such as frozen sperm, artificial insemination, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Be nice, I'm guessing English is not Futurist110's native language. You know what he means. Marco polo (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, English is not my first language. What is the correct term to use here instead of "greatest time difference"? (I just noticed that I sometimes accidentally used the word "older" here instead of "greater", which is incorrect.) Futurist110 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Largest" or "greatest" work fine. "Oldest" would be Abel's posthumous child. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The longest in Posthumous birth appears to be 7 months. Rupert Inglis says: "He was the youngest son of Sir John Eardley Wilmot Inglis (1814–1862) (who died 8 months before Rupert was born)". According to the dates it was 7 months 21 days. Statistically there should be lots of cases with around 9 months. http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/womeninpower/Womeninpower1800.htm says: "Marie Ernestine (1803-72) (born 9 months after the death of her father)". The father was Kraft Ernst at House of Oettingen-Wallerstein. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This old legal text mentions a baby born nine months and twenty days after the death of its father, and a claimed one born eleven months later, which was judged to be illegitimate - decisions of legitimacy likely to be a problem with any claimed record. Warofdreams talk 02:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As you ask for the the greatest time difference between a father's death and the birth of one of his children, and not for the greatest recorded time difference, it is statistically obvious to me (from the sheer number of people that live and have lived on this planet), that once in a while a man will die during intercourse, shortly after an ejaculation that leads to the conception and subsequent birth of a child. Hence, the answer to the question will be the in the upper range of the possible duration of a pregnancy, counting from the intercourse (and not the last period), which would be approximately 40 weeks (average 38 + 2 SD = slightly more than 40 weeks). --NorwegianBluetalk 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Oops, I see PrimeHunter already has pointed this out. --NorwegianBluetalk 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of this kind of gesture?
I have seen many images where men holding an authority and/or prestige position grasp the edges of their coat (those edges that are brought together when the coat is buttoned up) in their hands, or if they are not wearing a coat, grasp their suspenders in their hands. This gesture seems to have been especially prominent in the 19th century American Old West. It's invariably men who do this, and seems to be a gesture of authority and/or prestige. What is the origin of this kind of gesture? J I P &#124; Talk 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may simply originate in a technological problem. In early days, photography needed very substantial exposure times. Holding on to something with your hands makes it easier and less strenuous to keep the pose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that in paintings also. It may have been thought to make them look more dramatic. (Think Napoleon). Although your theory might be the real reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the need for holding a pose was even greater for painted portraits than for photos. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This pose is descriptively called "hands on lapels". I'm having trouble finding much information on it on the internet, but it seems to be agreed that it is considered to communicate confidence (judge for yourself the reliability of that site). The internet is inundated with information on finding stock photos of men striking such a pose, and works that simply describe someone taking such a pose, so it's a little challenging to find something that actually talks about the pose itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But if we bought the idea that this was to relieve the pressure to keep a pose for painting and old-time photography - then people in general would get the impression that this is how people in authority stand...because only people in authority would be able to afford a painter or photographer to make a formal portrait of themselves. So this may be a chicken-and-egg argument. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that pose originated when the subject had a nice new coat, and they were proud of it and trying to show it off. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry StuRat, I couldn't resist adding the picture. Alansplodge (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the angel on the right (Justitia?) wearing a cloche hat? I didn't know they were fashionable in Gladstone's time.  If not, what sort of hat is she wearing? Tevildo (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a helmet (maybe a sallet?) to go with the breastplate. If you click the image to zoom in, you can see that it has a visor. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True, of course. Thanks for the name of the helmet. I just found the idea of an angel wearing fashionable clothing, especially fashionable clothing of a future decade, rather amusing. Tevildo (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt that the bolt-on boob-domes on her armour are ever going to catch on, although I well remember that dress in Barbarella ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It has just occured to me that this posture is commonly used by English barristers when presenting a case in court. I couldn't find a real barrister doing it (no photography in court) but here's a picture of the fictional Rumpole of the Bailey. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)