Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 12

alcohol and artificially sweetened drinks

according to this helpful guideline for healthy beverages is there any or no specific alcoholic drinks or artificially sweetened drinks they are saying are ok or bad to include if you want to be healthy diet and lifestyle wise? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks-full-story/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.63.111 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both alcohol and sweetened drinks are mentioned in that article. It uses slightly different terms, such as "calorically sweetened drinks" for basically sugar and "non-calorically sweetened drinks" for artificial sweetener. There's a graphic of a pitcher that lists recommendations for daily consumption of those items. In general, if you read that article, or any guidance at all anywhere from every reliable source, alcohol and sweetened beverages are NOT required for a healthy diet, and if you choose to consume them for pleasure, you should do so in very limited amounts as they introduce a variety of negative health concerns. --Jayron 32 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think most experts now say that the less alcohol one consumes, the better it is for your health. Not that long ago the consensus seemed to be that one alcohol consumption a day was better for healthy adults than none, so I cannot predict what they'll say a decade from now. Also, the sugar intake of the average health-savvy American is still too high; much of it comes from the high-fructose syrup added to almost everything (bread, soups, sauces), so not adding to that through your drinks may be best. Artificial sweeteners appear to also be quite unhealthy, based on statistical data. --Lambiam 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually a misinterpretation of what the consensus is on the matter. There's some evidence that some alcoholic drinks (red wine is often floated as an example) are less bad than others because they contain nutrients that may provide some health benefit, but what news sources and pop-sci reviews of this often gloss over is that those nutrients are able to be obtained in other foodstuffs (like eating the grapes instead!) without the deleterious effects of the alcohol. Alcohol itself is not recommended in any amounts, but insofar as people are going to drink, the health-minded imbiber is often advised to choose less bad options. --Jayron 32 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate summary. There was a considerable body of opinion that alcohol itself was protective against some sorts of cardiac events. That may still be true; the problem is that you have to balance it out against other risks. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should've probably clarified a bit better what I meant to ask was in the end the website link has offered a summary as a guide of how much intake of certain beverages is recommended. In the part for alcohol it says no more than 1 to 2 alcoholic drinks for men and no more than 1 for women. What do they mean exactly? And as for diet artificially sweetened drinks what is meant in the part in brackets when they say (this is adapted from the Beverage Guidance Panel’s original recommendation of up to 32 ounces per day). Also what do they mean by ideally zero diet drinks but up to 1 to 2 glasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.63.111 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the coin

(edit conflict)Re this question:

Following on from the 25 September discussion, the "Application form for university transcript", Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra [1] says at Q.8:
"Mode of Instructions (English/Hindi) ________________________________ If English, please see instructions backside (Point No. 8).
Is the word before the bracket often used in anything other than an anatomical context? The reverse of the form begins:

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the applicant Mr./Miss/Mrs. ____________________________________ son/daughter of Shri ______________________________________________ has signed the application overleaf in my presence & whose Photograph has also been attested by me is the same person who got through the examination under particulars mentioned overleaf.
This word Shri is the equivalent of "Mr" or "Ms" but is gender neutral. Do any other languages have gender neutral forms? 2A02:C7F:A66:F500:2D88:9AD6:4E53:B4AE (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Nguyen Thanh Yen, Tieng Anh trong Phong Van (Ho Chi Minh, November 2006) says at p. 190:

On the front side, the seven white and six red stripes on the shield represent the thirteen original states...The reverse side of the seal shows an incomplete pyramid of thirteen steps above which is a burst of light with an eye inside a triangle, symbolizing "The Eternal Eye of God".

Vietnam (a non-English speaking country) does not (in this situation) use this word which also has an anatomical meaning but India does. Why? Re this question:

Nil Einne's link introduces this Supreme Court judgment [2]. This appears to support this comment:
Having read all the questions and answers it appears that the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the President and Vice-President coming from different parties.
- 92.8.176.35 16:44, 9 October 2020

What do the constitutional experts say on the matter? 194.53.184.26 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The book lends credence to this theory on page 204:

48. Q: How are the electors chosen?

Ans: Each state choses a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators plus its Representatives in Congress. It is customary for each elector to vote for the candidates of the political party that elected him to the electoral college [but it's the voters who choose the electors, either on a "straight ticket" or on a "split ticket", right?] The candidate with the highest number of votes in each state wins all the electoral votes of that state.

49. Q: What is the electoral college?

Ans: The electoral college consists of the electors who meet in their respective states to vote for President and Vice-President.

On p. 254 the book says:

Yes, each city has a system of "checks and balances" consisting of the mayor or city manager, the city council and the municipal courts.

What is a "municipal court"? 92.5.224.199 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 208 the book says:

57. Q: Can foreign-born citizens of the United States ever become President of the United States?
Ans: No, foreign-born citizens of the United States can run for any office except that of President or Vice-President of the United States.

58. Q: May a child born in this country of parents who are aliens or naturalised citizens become President?

Ans: Yes, any native-born citizens may become President of the United States.

I think the problem here is the use of the phrase "native-born". I've seen it on a few occasions recently, but isn't the actual phrase "natural-born"? 146.200.241.105 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Duncan's comment of 14:55, 15 October 2020 (below) I have to agree with you. 92.5.224.199 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Why do the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden have such a large mean wealth per adult to median wealth per adult?

The table on List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult shows that, whereas most countries have a mean-wealth-per-adult to median-wealth-per-adult ratio of between 2 and 4, these countries have ratios of over 6:

 COUNTRY      	MEDIAN	   MEAN	 RATIO
 Germany      	35,313	216,654	 6.135
 Thailand     	 3,526	 21,853	 6.198
 Sweden       	41,582	265,260	 6.379
 United States	65,904	432,365	 6.561
 Ukraine      	 1,223	  8,792	 7.189
 Russia       	 3,683	 27,381	 7.434
 Netherlands  	31,057	279,077	 8.986

The USA and Russia have reputations for having large inequalities, but why do countries with high Human Development Indices such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have such large values, in particular the Netherlands, far above all others?

P.S. Why are Ukraine's values so low, comparable to those of least developed countries?

Thanks,
@Cmglee: τaʟκ 00:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a very accurate measure of overall societal inequality; it would probably be better to use something devised for the purpose, such as the Gini coefficient... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AnonMoos. I don't claim that it's a measure of inequality, but wonder what causes the means and medians to be so different compared to other countries. Any ideas? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the gap between the mean and median of any set of averages indicates that there is a small sample size which has a very large value. In each of these cases, it means that the richest people are individually VERY rich, even if there aren't many of them. --Jayron 32 18:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden, billionaires are surprisingly popular - The land of ABBA and Ikea has high wealth inequality. Alansplodge (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron32 and Alansplodge. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, nominal wealth is relatively low, because it does not include the value of earned state-system retirement pensions. These pensions are substantial (on average around EUR 1000/month), and are paid lifelong (around 15 years on average), so they are worth around EUR 200000. These make up the bulk of retirement preparations for most people in the poorer 2/3rds of the population. People that are more well-off typically have more substantial private investments - which increases the average, but not the median. I would assume a somewhat similar effect in Sweden and the Netherlands, which also have strong state-run social security systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinating Vladimir Lenin before 1917?

Just how easy would it have been to assassinate Vladimir Lenin in Switzerland before 1917? Also, what would the penalty for Lenin's assassin have been? Futurist110 (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can expect a referenced answer to that, but if you had suitable weaponry at your disposal and were willing to be immediately apprehended and executed, then I would say dead easy. If not, not so easy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, between 1879 and 1941 only certain cantons in Switzerland (the article doesn't say which ones) had capital punishment, so the risk of execution would have depended on where one carried out the assassination. Proteus (Talk) 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Presiding Officer of the United States Senate on 19 July 2007?

According to our article, it was Dick Cheney. However, this speech by Senator Robert Byrd is addressed to "Madame President". Was Robert Byrd going senile? Was he trolling Dick Cheney? Was there a female Presiding Officer of the United States Senate that has been erased from history? Enquiring minds want to know. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for the VP to take a day (or longer) off, perhaps to attend official functions out of the country. In such cases, a deputy is appointed to fill the role. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in modern times the Vice President rarely presides over the Senate, only doing so when it's expected they may need to cast a tie-breaking vote or on special occasions. This is mentioned in our article with a link to this source [3] (check the Vice-Presidential Duties section). The President pro tempore has the right to preside in their steed, but this isn't a temporary position since 1890. In modern times the oldest senator from the party with the Senate majoriy is appointed to this position, although unlike the non-temporary part, this isn't something even written in the rules, just tradition. [4] But, and this is something I didn't know until now, the President Pro Tempore (who was Byrd himself at the time) doesn't actual preside over the Senate much either. Instead they appoint/name someone else, [5] evidently normally a junior senator who is the one who mostly presides. This is mentioned in our article, which also explicitly mentions that the list doesn't include such people. As RudolfRed said I'm sure you can find it somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to [6] which is from 2008 so probably reflects how things were during 2007 "As a result, the duties of presiding officer are routinely filled by a rotation of junior and first-term Senators of the majority party who preside for approximately one hour at a time." So no surprise our article doesn't try to cover such people. One thing I was going to mention but didn't because wasn't sure if it mattered but it seems it does, the person the President Pro-Tempore names can themselves name someone else, hence how this rotation can happen. And it seems likely you'll need to know what time Byrd's speech was to work out although it's possible there was only one female in rotation on that day this being the US Senate in 2007. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the Congressional_Record for that covers that day. Perhaps it will have the detail of who was presiding over the Senate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the record for that date [7]. The presiding officer at the time was Mrs Amy Klobuchar. 95.151.24.100 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Always so nice to see a best of the Refdek thread – this one now has it all: the answer, information about how it was found, and fascinating background context to explain it. Thumbs up team! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MS. Klobuchar", technically - Senator from Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Beaverbrook, Lloyd George, and signposts

Our article David Lloyd George includes a quotation from Beaverbrook - "There were no signposts to guide Lloyd George". Unfortunately it is not sourced. Instances of it on Google appear all to be cribs from our article. Can anyone help find the source? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote appears in one published book that I can find: Access to History: The British Experience of Warfare 1790-1918 for Edexcel Second Edition (2015) by Alan Farmer. But it's not cited. It's possible to find similar sentiments expressed in other terms. In the Octobet 17 1923 issue of The Nation, there is this quote: "Remember that there are no precedents by which to judge him, for no statesman of any age, and none other even of this age, has had so many times to act as quickly at awful risk amid so many complications." LANTZY ^TALK 17:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, after posting I found the Access to History book, it's a "how to pass your GCE" book, and I rather suspect they lifted the quote from us. We certainly can't use it as a source. I can only see a small snippet of the article in The Nation. I feel sure I've seen something like the alleged Beaverquote somewhere before but damned if I can place it! DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this is a better snippet view. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I can just about read that! I'll see if WP:RX can supply the article - by the looks of it from the time of his lecture tour. Still no joy with the Beaver. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Bruce1ee: at WP:RX I can share a link to the whole article at Hathi Trust - here. Doesn't answer my original question but of interest anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got it:

Lloyd George led the nation to victory though confronted by desperate perils. He faced a terrible task when full command of the nation came to him. He had special difficulties. There were no road signs on the journey he had to undertake.

It's in Beaverbrook's The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George (1963). I like that phrase "when full command of the nation came to him", as if it had drifted into his hand when he wasn't looking. --Antiquary (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiquary: Brilliant! Thank you - and it's what I'd seen but couldn't bring to mind. Thanks also to @Lantzy: and @Alansplodge: for the other interesting article. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that "full command of the nation" had been wandering around looking for anyone to take it since the beginning of the War. Asquith coveted it, but fuddled by drink and high society he could not grasp it, Law could have had it but knew he wasn't up to it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another covid 19 question

I'm not sure if this question can be answered but here goes: America has over 210,000 deaths related to covid 19. America has 10 times the population of Canada but more than 20 times the number of covid 19 related deaths. Canada's approach to covid was very different than America (as was other countries). If America had followed the same processes as other nations (i.e. masks, social distancing, etc), is there any way to guestimate how many Americans would have died under those conditions? 142.46.150.122 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. Each time I was watching a queue for services from the TV there set in the US, those last past six months, they were lining, and a lot much better distancing than they are doing here in France, where I was watching at them from, home. Take a look at that Life expectancy imagery perhaps. A number of specific underlying conditions ( conditions which may be known to patients before they became exposed to the virus ) are said to weigh on lethality regarding covid. --Askedonty (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is going to be very difficult to model out. China has four times the population of the US and has only had 4,634 deaths (per ref at COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China). You're going to have wildly different outcomes depending on what you want to use as the baseline. Matt Deres (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

142.46.150.122 -- You asked only about individual failures, but government failures are also very important. Any U.S. president other than Trump would at least have put in place a national testing strategy months ago! According to The New England Journal of Medicine, "although it is impossible to project the precise number of additional American lives lost because of weak and inappropriate government policies, it is at least in the tens of thousands": [8] -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also difficult to compare countries where factors such as population density and an ageing demographic are markedly different. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrants to the United States of America lying about their education and/or their work experience

What percentage of immigrants to the United States of America lie about their education and/or their work experience when they apply to immigrate to the US? For instance, creating fake/forged documentation that indicates that they previously got an education somewhere and/or previously worked somewhere even though they actually didn't? Futurist110 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my question here sounds offensive (it really shouldn't be, considering that I myself am an immigrant to the US), but this question was motivated by this one Trump supporter telling me how we shouldn't trust documentation from corrupt countries for fear that this documentation might be forged. Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is he trying to argue that the USA is not corrupt? And if not, based on what evidence? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 04:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a she, for what it's worth. Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- if you want people to refer to you as "she" (or as "he"), one thing to start with would be to declare the corresponding gender in your Wikipedia user preferences... AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the Trump-supporter whom I talked to about this is a she (woman); I myself am most certainly NOT a she (woman)! Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start by asking them for examples of such forgeries. Temerarius (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distinct possibility. When in China several years ago, I walked through a market and one of the stalls sold exclusively University Diplomas. These came from almost any university you can name, from UNISA and Cambridge to Yale, Harvard and Nottingham. The selection of degrees was also extensive. I don't speak Chinese but I would imagine that he was able to make up any qualification to order. I did think about picking up a few PHD's for fun, but funds were short and I am too honest to use these in real life and would have had them as a joke. But, it is possible that such things are faked. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.105.98 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dishonesty is and always has been a thriving industry. The specific type you're talking about falls under fabrication, though we don't seem to have a well-developed article on that specific topic. Anyone may choose to fake their qualifications. One of the things that restrains people is the concern of getting caught, but that risk is obviously reduced when the institution is in another country and/or is managed under a different language. On the other hand, immigrants tend to have fewer networking options, making academic credentials a more important part of their job hunt, increasing the incentive. Which is all well and good, but the question is about how often it actually happens and that's gonna be a tough thing to report on. For one, fakery usually only gets reported if it's caught; it's not like murder where you can have a corpse with no known killer. For another, the company may choose to not publicly disclose the details to avoid embarrassing themselves (since they apparently did not perform their due diligence). I guess what you need to find is a poll that asked that specific question and hope that it's accurate enough for your purposes. Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if one has fake employment credentials or a fake diploma and try to immigrate somewhere else, the country that you want to immigrate to could inquire in regards to your claimed (former) place of employment and/or claimed alma mater in order to see whether or not they indeed have records for you (and if they don't, then you could be assumed to be lying). I suppose that one could try bribing some employment places/companies and colleges/universities to create fake records for you, but this isn't always actually going to be successful (because not everyone can actually be bought) and in any case you're probably going to need some really serious money for this which most people probably don't have. Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the allure of anecdata. The problem is, the world is such a large and varied place that, among any sizable group of people, you're going to find at least one exemplar of any concept you wish to invent in your mind. Can we find one person who tried to get into the U.S. using forged documents? The answer is undoubtedly yes. The more important question is "among ALL people, is the number of persons doing so of a high enough proportion to matter in policy decisions?" It's like the voter fraud issue. Arguing it exists is not the same thing as arguing that it matters. An anecedote is not a data point. And policy decisions that affect millions are not helpful to be based on individual anecdotes. </rant> --Jayron 32 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask this Trump-supporting woman of some examples of this--such as Russian gangsters and/or fraudsters coming to the US using forged records/documents (she specifically talked about bad apples moving to the US from Russia, which makes sense given that she's originally from Ukraine and not a big fan of Russia). She hasn't responded to me so far, but we'll see if she will eventually. Anyway, though, I strongly suspect that 99% of all Russian immigrants to the US--perhaps even as high as 99.9% of them--are not gangsters, fraudsters, and the like but are instead decent, hardworking people who simply want to make a better life for themselves and their descendants. So, Yes, you are absolutely correct that one needs to see whether this is indeed a genuine problem on the statistical level or whether such bad apples are very much huge exceptions to the rule in regards to the immigrants who come to the US from extremely corrupt countries. I know that, in regards to terrorism, Diversity Visa Lottery immigrants who commit terrorism very much appear to be the exception to the rule in regards to this: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cheap-assault-immigration-visa-lottery (The Cato Institute certainly has an agenda in regards to immigration; however, I haven't actually seen any evidence that the data that they present here is actually inaccurate. So, I am going to treat this data as being presumptively valid and accurate unless it will be proven otherwise, which I think is a reasonable approach to take in regards to this data.) Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders how many natural-born citizens of the good old US of A ever lie about their education or work experience? Without the answer to that, we really can't say anything meaningful about the answer to OP's question even if we knew it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a way to slander immigrants and fuel prejudice, such as saying they're mostly all murderers, rapists and other types of street criminals. Though it's hard to imagine any intelligent person saying that, let alone buying into it. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the view that you and I imagine to be true is correct. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Francis, Duke of Châtellerault's coat of arms

Does anyone here know if Francis, Duke of Châtellerault had any coat of arms of his own and, if so, where exactly I can discover an image of them? I can't seem to find any portraits of him and also any images of coats of arms for him, which is really sad. Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a cadet version of the arms of Bourbon-Montpensier, France modern, a bend engrailed gules. I'll see if I can dig out Ottfried Neubecker's Heraldry which has a tree of Capetian cadet arms. I expect to find (if anything) that he charged the bend with something argent, like a number of other Bourbon cadets. —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François de Bourbon, duc de Châtellerault (in French) is burried in Souvigny (Alliers), more precisely in the "chapelle vieille" of the "Prieurale Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul" [9]. Unfortunatly, I cannot find a picture of his grave, where the coats of arms are usually engraved. May be his grave was destroyed during the French Revolution. - AldoSyrt (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tamfang's suggestion, it is indeed in Neubecker (on page 101, halfway along on the extreme right of the 6-page fold-out chart comprising pp 98–103): for some reason, the name is there spelled "Chatelberault". It's shown in black and white, but extrapolating from other linked arms shown in colour, it appears to be:

Quarterly, 1st and 4th France ~~Ancient~~ Modern, a bend Gules (as in the arms of his father here);

2nd and 3rd [field Argent or Or], a cross formée [colour unknown] between four eagles displayed Sable(?), and at the fesse point an ecutcheon bearing the arms Quarterly, 1st and 4th [metal] a lion rampant [colour], 2nd and third barry of eight [metal] and [colour]. (The escutcheon is so small that details such as field pattern may be omitted.)

Hopefully others can follow up other references and fill in the missing details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be asking too much for you to upload an image of this coat of arms onto Wikipedia--even if it is in black-and-white? Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to make a 600dpi scan of the relevant part of the page, saved as a jpeg (I think – this is not my area of expertise). I've never uploaded any picture or other document to Wikipedia before, so I'll have to research this and get back to you later it'll take some hours because of Real Life :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how you upload files--including images--onto Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Once you'll get the relevant file onto Wikimedia Commons, I myself can personally put this file on Wikipedia in the relevant article. :) Futurist110 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that procedure requires a login, and for reasons of personal philosophy I do not have, nor want to have at this time, a Wikipedia (or related) account. In fact, I studiously avoid having any internet accounts that I can possibly avoid.

Subsequent to my previous post, I've created a magnified, cropped and filtered version of the original partial page scan showing only the relevant arms and caption (for identification purposes), with background colours and chart line removed. If this does not obviate any copyright problems, any competent artist could re-draw the arms without affecting the validity of the resultant image (since, as you probably know, heraldry is not specific about details of style or exact hues of tinctures, the written blazon in a Grant of Arms is the definitive version of them.)

Incidentally, in the process of the above, I've noticed a further detail I previously omitted: the bends in the 1st and 4th quarters of the overall arms are charged with a dauphin label at their upper ends, aligned with their slant, much as Tamfang predicted above.

I'm open to suggestions of how to convey the image to you, given the circumstances. Alternatively, Tamfang will surely be able do so as well or better than I when he has time to consult his copy of the book. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Anyway, I wonder if it would be most prudent for me to ask @Tamfang: if he could upload the relevant image onto Wikipedia once he will find his copy of this book. Futurist110 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(How many heraldry nerds frequent the RD?) Your confidence is touching! but may be more justified if you nudge me in a week. (I'm in the middle of moving across town.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily view myself as a heraldry nerd. ;) I just couldn't really find a better image for his Wikipedia article. (I used a picture of Francis I of France for the time being and explained why, but I think that the coat of arms would be better.) Anyway, I'll ping you in one week--if I won't forget about this by then! :) Thank you very much for your help and good luck on your move! Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A man with many wives

Besides Henry VIII (who has had six wives), are there other famous men who have had many wives? 86.128.175.75 (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Manville had 13 marriages to 11 women. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe had 29 marriages.

I'm somewhat stunned that we don't seem to have any sort of list or category for multiply-married people. I created List of people who remarried the same spouse, but you only need to have been married twice to make that list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about people who remarried a different spouse? --Lambiam 23:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many second weddings have the same officiant as the first. —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They would belong to the general list, were there one, of people who had multiple marriages. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using 2017 data downloaded from the IMDB, I found just one person with 10 or more marriages listed: Bonnie Lee Bakley with 10. There were 5 people each with 9 marriages listed: Vinicius de Moraes, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Kenneth Harlan, Jennifer O'Neill, and Norman Selby. Selby married the same woman twice according to the IMDB (three times according to Wikipedia), so he only had 8 different wives. But de Moraes and Harlan do each seem to have had 9 differen wives, so now you only have to decide if they are famous enough.

The same source lists 14 people each with 8 marriages, of which Alan Jay Lerner, Mickey Rooney, and Artie Shaw were married to women and each certainly qualify as famous to my mind. The others are: Eddie Barclay (Wikipedia lists 9 wives for him), Lina Basquette, Nick Bollettieri (Wikipedia only knows about his most recent wife), Mary Fahrney (1910–74, unknown to Wikipedia, IMDB only has one acting credit), Douglas Fowley (Wikipedia only knows about 7 marriages), Ty Hardin (Wikipedia does not list all his marriages), Sabah (singer), Espartaco Santoni (1932–98, unknown to Wikipedia), Elizabeth Taylor (who of course married the same person twice), and Lana Turner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.48.182 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon. --Amble (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no-one mentioned Muslim kings. Omidinist (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the OP is interested in serial rather than polygamous marriages. I could be wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, but still: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their ilk. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Manville situation led to one of the best lines from the Guinness Book of World Records. The writers opined that, "Manville made his fortune in asbestos, which he unfortunately could not take with him." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump must be fairly high compared to other US presidents. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan was married twice. He may have been the first divorcee elected president. (Maybe one or two of them had second marriages after their first wife had died.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data assembled here: Reagan and Trump are the only divorced people to become president. Five presidents were widowed and remarried. Theodore Roosevelt is the only one to remarry before he became president; Tyler, and Wilson did it while they were president; and Fillmore and Benjamin Harrison did it afterwards. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahryār. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:741D:9D39:EF51:1FDC (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutions that prohibit amendments

Are there constitutions that prohibit any amendment, i.e. set in stone? In Constitutional amendment my reading of "Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure" is that most constitutions allow some amendments anyway. So non-amendable constitutions may be in minority. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically speaking, a constitution can refuse to have any amendment procedure at all, if that's what you're asking. If so, changing any part of it would require the adoption of a new constitution. Alternatively, a constitution can make only parts of it unamendable--though even so, the judiciary can subsequently "discover" additional implicit limits on the amendment power later on. Our Unconstitutional constitutional amendment article, created and largely written by myself, discusses this trend among some national judiciaries in pretty extensive detail as well as the reasoning and rationales that are being used to justify this trend. Futurist110 (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not" [10] Alansplodge (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional Islamic societies, only unchanging divine law (shari`a) was supposed to exist, but various interpretations and parallel systems crept in over the centuries, so things were not as unchanging in practice as they were in theory (see 'Urf etc). But some Muslim visitors to Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries were a little shocked by the concept of legislatures -- freely and publicly admitting to enacting human-written laws (often without reference to religion) seemed kind of brazenly shameless to them... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that none of these legal systems based on tradition or religious doctrine are constitutional systems. Constitutionalism is supposed to trace back to the Magna Carta in some sense, though the modern concept of a constitution is not very old. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all constitutions descend from the Magna Carta. The Constitution of San Marino, for example, has no known connection to it. The Iroquois Great Law of Peace also has no connection to it. --Jayron 32 12:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of no constitutions that expressly prohibit any amendment. There are surely some that do not provide an amendment process, though I suspect those may have been early in the history of constitutionalism. As Futurist110 notes, a non-amendable constitution may still be replaced by a new constitution, though strictly speaking the process would be unlawful and, at least in legal terms, be tantamount to the secession of all the former government’s territory to a new government created by the new constitution. Indeed, the amendment process for the Articles of Confederation was not strictly followed when the United States Constitution was adopted, and so in theory some continental congress could come into existence. But at some level this becomes little different than monarchical succession disputes and similar problems. And as has been argued, there are arguments that even the supposedly entrenched clauses of the United States Constitution were amendable when they were in force. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, which has an unwritten constitution, one provision is that "no parliament can bind its successor". Is it the same in the U S? If it is, Congress can do whatever it wants. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:6CEF:8139:AE0C:E0A (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Cities of Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal

Is there a website that lists the cities that are situated near the following bodies of water: Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal? Some of the articles regarding the cities and towns near these bodies of water are confusing.Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donmust90. The answer to your question depends on the definition of the word "near", which is too vague to be useful. For example, I live about 70 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean. I see that big ocean once or twice a month on average, but nowhere near daily. Some people who own cars might say I live near the ocean but others who travel on foot or on public transportation might conclude that I Iive a very long way away. Does "near" those bodies of water include cities "on" those bodies of water? If not, how far away do they have to be, and who draws the boundaries? It's all too vague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how big does a settlement have to be to count as a "City"? The definition is also not precise. Any decent map will have major cities on it. You can use something like Google maps and look at the area yourself, and just make your own list with a pen and paper. That will let you set your own criteria. --Jayron 32 06:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, according to most definitions, the Bay of Bengal is part of the Indian Ocean. Our Indian Ocean article has a list of "settlements" in its infobox, though some seem dubious (Kuwait City is on a body of water separated from the main Indian Ocean by straits which are narrow compared to the overall scale of the Indian Ocean, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for example, cities of the Arabian Sea are Karachi, Mumbai, and Surat; cities of the Mediterranean Sea are Marseilles, Beirut, Alexandria; Persian Gulf cities are Dubai, Bandar Abbas, Doha and etc; Indian Ocean cities are Colombo, Kanyakumari of India, Maputo of Mozambique and Bay of Bengal cities are Chennai, Chittagong, Trincomalee and etc. These are the cities but I want to know more. Donmust90 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron said, you could go on Google Maps and see what settlements fit your own criteria for sure. We also have Lists of ports. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not visited any of these places but they appear to be actual ports. As Cullen points out, the key word here is "near". From Bugs' link you will see, for example, that Fremantle is the port but Perth is the city (a few miles up the Swan River, although it's all one big conurbation).2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:E9DB:6543:7C9E:A34F (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why the definitions here are so confounding. Local political geography is very different from place to place. For example, where I grew up, in New England, the local political geography with its organization into fully incorporated New England towns, is VERY different than one finds almost anywhere else in the U.S. (it's more like the Communes of France than anything else in American political geography) and there are lots of different ways that things like "city" are defined. Do we use each local region's political definition of "city"? Do we use some more abstract but universal definition of the concept? I mean, under one definition Fremantle is a different city than Perth, but under the other it may be considered to be part of the same city. These things are important to define before we make such as list as the OP wants, and without such definitions decided ahead of time, proceeding with such a meaningful list is impossible. --Jayron 32 09:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Francophone countries with "permis de conduire" on driving licenses

Other than former Soviet republics, are there any non-Francophone countries that have "permis de conduire" written on their driving licenses? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, also Laos and Lebanon, per the images that come up on a google search for "[name of country] drivers license". List_of_French_possessions_and_colonies might suggest some other countries to check. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romania is now part of Francophonie but not in the 1970s.

--Error (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driving licence in North Macedonia, Driving licence in Poland --Amble (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Dutch driving licences. --Lambiam 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind (though you probably know) that French was the international language of diplomacy for centuries, up to the last one, so documentation with international applications from many countries included French translations of at least part of the text, and traces of this have lingered. For example, my current British passport (issued 2016) includes French translations of a few words and sentences; the oldest expired one I have, dating from 1989, has a good deal more; and as far as I recall the one I had previous to that contained even more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another French language traffic-related term is Convoi exceptionnel, which 'has been widely accepted and adopted by most countries as the recognised umbrella term for anything “Wide, Long, High or Heavy” that moves by road across the European mainland'. [11] Alansplodge (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TIR (Transport International Routiere, I think) has become tir, the Romanian word for trailer truck. Same with Turkish tır. --Error (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "GB" plates, some Scottish drivers fitted a plate bearing the word Écosse. They may still do. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:6CEF:8139:AE0C:E0A (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States Ram Fleet

The above article begins The United States Ram Fleet was a Union Army unit of steam powered ram ships during the American Civil War. The unit was independent of the Union Army and Navy and reported directly to the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. Is this a contradiction or am I missing something? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a contradiction, and the same contradiction is in the linked article on the later Mississippi Marine Brigade.

One of the linked references, Under Two Flags by William M. Fowler, says:

More bothersome than the matter of the boats was the issue of rank and command. Ellet was under command of the secretary of war, and as such he was outside naval authority. Technically, of course, all gunboats, although manned by the navy, were under army command. But that arrangement was proving troublesome. Naval officers disliked being part of the army chain of command and wanted more independence. Many in the Navy Department were pressing for greater control over riverine operations. Stanton insisted that Ellet hold rank and conferred upon him a full colonelcy.

Stanton was the secretary of war. So if this passage is accurate, it sounds as though they were technically navy ships, but under army command like ordinary gunboats of the time, but not under the normal army chain of command either. Clearly they were trying to perplex Wikipedia contributors. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction is not in the Wikipedia description of the situation, which is accurate and simple and easy to understand. The contradiction is in the confusing command structure around the ram ships fleet, which as you rightly note, was confusing by its very nature. The Wikipedia text is an accurate reflection of that and could not be written much better than it is. --Jayron 32 09:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this was a Union Army unit independent of the Union Army? I must confess this is less easy for me to get my head around than it is for you. --Lambiam 10:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. I say "contradiction; reword". --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give that much credit to the whole of such an interpretation of William Fowler's. The colonelcy was basically acquired. The DayBook, Civil War Navy Special Edition-Technology (https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/hrnm/resources-daybook-special.html) has it, after Ellet was made a colonel, : "While Ellet and the U.S. Navy’s local commander, Flag-officer William C. Davis, argued over future strategy, the Confederates took the initiative." --Askedonty (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ( note their pdf will not link, but it's somewhere on google by the title. ) -- Askedonty (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want a ram ships unit existing before that it was created. I've read a Phillip K. Dick novel once mentioning Stanton. I guess the Mississippi was the craddle. --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The development of ram ships is already discussed in the article; they were initially used by the Confederacy in the first months of the war. More information at Naval ram#Steam rams. Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Parody of Kipling's "If--" attributed to Churchill

Here is a parody of Rudyard Kipling's "If—", attributed to Winston Churchill:

http://www.greatthoughtstreasury.com/winston-churchill-fully-sir-winston-leonard-spencer-churchill/quote/if-you-can-start-your-day-withou ,

similarly attributed here in this animated short by Hanna Rybak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DLB-T6A9jM ,

but which doesn't appear in Wikiquote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill .

Churchill was a fan of Kipling and had a good sense of humor, so such a parody from him wouldn't surprise me, but the tone doesn't sound right for Churchill and "sexual orientation" in the penultimate line sounds anachronistic. Who wrote this parody, and how did it become misattributed? -- ToE 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your query, but as an ageing Brit (who remembers watching Churchill's state funeral on TV), I concur that this does not have the feel of his writing. In a couple of places it is quite ungrammatical and/or unidiomatic, as if it has been translated (badly) from another language, and for me has hints of US English (beyond spellings like "color"), and of postdating his life. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many anachronisms, the use of "sexual orientation" (oops, didn't notice that this was mentioned in the question) in the last line is enough for me to rule it out as Churchillian. I would date it as no earlier than the 1990s. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ngrams show that "a loved one" and "deal with stess" were rare until the 1970s. As you say "sexual orientation" hardly occurs before 1970, and does not start to pick up until after 1980. And it is incoherent in places. Unbelievable as his work. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Jack Kornfield's book A lamp in the darkness: illuminating the path through difficult times (2011). It's also in The Gospel Unhindered by Dan Bouchelle (2005) [12]. Jack is on Twitter [13], so if you have a Twitter account you could ask him where he got it. 92.31.142.178 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up the original poem. It contains the famous line

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...

Dan Bouchelle is on Twitter too [14]. 92.31.142.178 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! Thanks, those are great leads! -- ToE 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Churchill famously breakfasted on Scotch whisky and a cigar, [15] so I'm not sure that morning caffeine intake would have been of much concern to him. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was quite partial to lapsang souchong. Smoky things! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands

I asked this on the talk page of Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands last year but it seems no one really watches that article, so I'll ask here: Did this colony exist? In the act creating British Columbia in 1853, it states the colony "shall include Queen Charlotte's Island". That not only contradicts the article saying the colony existed until 1863, but also, there's the general fact that this is the only official mention of any kind of colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii that I can find. Which makes me wonder if this article is, not a hoax, but an incorrect synthesis of info. --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article you linked includes a Google Books link mentioning a British government letter. It appoints James Douglas lieutenant-governor of the islands; it says it "conveys... no power to make laws or constitute a regular government", but it gives him "a position of authority as representing Her Majesty's Government in the district". That sounds as though the islands were considered unorganized British territory and not a colony. (I note in passing that the British Empire once included quite a lot of territory that was not constituted as colonies.) --174.89.48.182 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could raise this at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board which is very active, or at least post a link to this query. Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Other cases of insignificant royalty and/or insignificant nobility acquiring a royal throne?

What I find interesting is that--as per the map on the right--in 1477, the House of Bourbon-Vendôme (descended in the male line from James I, Count of La Marche) controlled only a small amount of French territory (centered around the French city of Vendôme), with even a more senior branch of the House of Bourbon (descended in the male line from the Count of La Marche's elder brother, Peter I, Duke of Bourbon) controlling much more territories (including the Dukes of Bourbon castle at Montluçon in the Bourbonnais). However, just 112 years later, in 1589, Henry IV of France became the first French King from the House of Bourbon-Vendôme--indicating quite a massive shift in the fortunes of this royal cadet branch in just slightly over a century. (This occurred as a result of all of the more senior Capetian branches dying out by 1589, leaving the House of Bourbon-Vendôme as the senior-most Capetian branch.)

(For reference, the senior branch of the House of Bourbon, the Dukes of Bourbon, died out in 1527 with the death of Charles III, Duke of Bourbon at the Sack of Rome. However, the Bourbon-Vendome branch did not inherit Charles III's vast lands after his death due to them being confiscated by the French crown due to Charles's treason.)

Anyway, which additional cases have there been of insignificant royalty and/or insignificant nobility acquiring a royal throne? Futurist110 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine the Great of Russia (a) had zero Russian blood, being a minor German/Prussian princess, and (b) had zero claim to any country's throne. She merely married into the Russian royal family, then wangled her way onto the throne herself by forcing her husband Peter III to abdicate and name her as his successor. Hardly a regular procedure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good example! Futurist110 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two very obvious ones - Carl XIV Johan, neither royal nor Swedish, and Napoleon, a member of an obscure Italian noble family from Corsica. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples! Futurist110 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And of course William the Bastard. DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example! Futurist110 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles XIV John was one of Napoleon's marshals before being chosen as king of Sweden. -- Calidum 01:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he was mentioned by User:DuncanHill earlier here. Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, the Johan threw me off. -- Calidum 02:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House of Orange-Nassau, the Principality of Orange was 280 km². Fgf10 (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Stuarts and the Carolingians originally came from "supporting" roles (Steward and Mayordomo). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Ludwig, Elector of Hanover, became George I of Great Britain in 1714, a substantial promotion. Alansplodge (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Tudor, a minor Welsh noble with little significant landholdings to speak of, became King Henry VII of England because his army Killed the last guy to hold it. Similarly, Henry Bollingbroke, Duke of Lancaster deposed (and later had killed) his predecessor to become king. Now, at least in Henry's case, he was probably one of the largest landowners in England at the time, but "Largest landowner in England" is still less than "all of England." --Jayron 32 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 19