Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 1

World's oldest religions

What is the oldest religion we currently know of (not counting Neolithic religions and those that have had to be reconstructed), and what is the oldest religion still practiced today?99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how you define 'oldest' and 'religion.' Some would say Buddhism is a religion, but as it lacks a god, others would contend it is merely a spiritual philosophy. Of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism would predate the other two, which are splinters of Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hinduism says that because it is rooted in the Historical Vedic religion, it is the oldest. Also see Urreligion for other information on the claims that Zoroastrianism and Judaism has (if you count it starting with Abraham, as opposed to Moses). —Akrabbim^talk 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on very much on what degree of substantial continuity you would require in order to call something the "same" religion through time, and also on the vagaries of surviving historical records (which give us detailed knowledge of religious practices in ancient times only in very limited areas of the world). Hinduism and Judaism are good candidates, yet there's evidence of definite differences between what could be called the first attested major historical stage of Hinduism (practiced by animal-herders roaming the Punjab) vs. the second attested major historical stage of Hinduism (practiced by settled agriculturalists along the valley of the Ganges) -- while Judaism as we know it today also emerged from ancient Israelite religion after a series of reforms under Josiah, Ezra, the post-Temple-destruction rabbis etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that modern-day Judaism is a different religion than what existed prior to Ezra is like saying dentistry is a new profession after the advent of implants. It may be advertised as such, in a sort of sensationalistic fashion, but I would hardly consider it a new entity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was any one critical break-point; I said that there was a series of successive reforms/transformations. For example, before the development of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the temple at Jerusalem was the one center of Jewish worship, and the leading priestly families (or "Sadducees") were the official religious leadership of Judaism. After 70 A.D., Judaism had to accomodate itself to the overwhelming fact of the loss of the Temple, and the whole prior higher leadership was now completely discredited or irrelevant. Also, according to the text of the Bible itself, before the reforms of king Josiah of Judah ca. 640-610 B.C. a large number of Israelites were polytheists in their worship. There certainly had been loud prophetic voices demanding reforms, and these did receive some degree of support under certain monarchs (such as Hezekiah), but many Israelites were still polytheistic in practice much of the time during that period (or most Israelites most of the time in the northern kingdom of Israel before its fall in 721 B.C.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of inaccuracies or simplifications in there, but I assume that's for space. For most of Jewish history there were polytheistic Jews, but they were not practising Judaism. It's like you're arguing that because some modern day Catholics use birth control, Catholicism has changed its stance on condoms. On Jerusalem, we know there were places of worship other than Jerusalem in convenient places - it's just that sacrifices (as opposed to prayer) were supposed to be offered only in Jerusalem. Even that was subverted by a political desire by the Northern kingdom to break Jerusalem's stranglehold. Etc Etc Etc. Yes, modern Judaism is somewhat different, but to try to argue it's a different religion is an incredible stretch. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was a different religion; I just said that it's gone through a series of successive reforms, which meant (for example) that the post-Talmud Judaism of the 6th-century A.D. and later had very many altered characteristics with respect to the pre-Hezekiah Israelite religion of the 8th-century B.C. and earlier (which were separated by ca. 1,500 years). And I think you underestimate the overwhelming importance of the Jerusalem temple before 70 A.D. Jews could certainly pray anywhere, but the temple was at least as important to the Jews of the time as the pilgrimage to Mecca is to Muslims now. If (after the reforms of Josiah) you denied the pre-eminence and exclusivity of the Jerusalem temple, you could be a Samaritan, or a far-flung benighted half-heathen like the ethnic Jews of the Elephantine papyri, but you were considered to have cut yourself off from the mainstream Jewish community... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then we agree. To this day, Jews are focussed on the pre-eminence of Jerusalem. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For some ancient Israelites who vigorously contested the prophets' and reformers' definition of Israelite religion, consult verse Jeremiah 44:17. AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why religions originating from the Neolithic period should be excluded, but Shamanism dates back to the Paleolithic Era. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Shamanism is a general classification or style of spirituality / religious practices, rather than a specific set of doctrines or persisting affiliation. Shamanism is on a level with other general terms (such as "monotheism" etc.), but not really comparable with specific religious traditions (such as "Judaism" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is one of the old ones - the article is vague about how old. 78.147.2.230 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So little is known about important periods in the history of Zoroastrianism that some of the main developments of Zoroastrianism over time before the Arab conquests remain very obscure. For example, part of the impulse of Zoroastrianism at some periods was quasi-monotheistic, yet during the Arsacid (Parthian) dynasty and part of the Achaemenid and Sassanid dyanasties (all of which adopted Zoroastrianism — or at least reverence of Ahura Mazda — as an official state religion) there were government-supported temples to Anahita as a goddess etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This question has definitely been asked before, but I can't seem to make the archive search engine work (it finds no hits for the word "religion", which is bizarre). --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to defend the suggestion of a form of shamanism or animism as the oldest religion. Certainly, shamanism or animism as categories are no more religions than monotheism. However, there are examples of animism whose roots probably go back further than Judaism or Hinduism. The roots of those two religions go back no more than 5,000 years. We all agree that Judaism and Hinduism have undergone substantial evolution from their earliest known forms. So, the evolution of animistic traditions over time should not disqualify them as very old religions. Archeological evidence suggests that some peoples with animistic traditions have had a continuous record of cultural continuity in a region for more than 5,000 years. Examples include the Puebloan peoples or the Igbo people, among many others. Their indigenous religious traditions are probably older than those of Judaism or Hinduism. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the article at the moment (which is driving me crazy!) but it mentions that there has been loads of evidence that points towards jewdism as being the first religion..... i think i spelt that wrong! Blasted spell check!

Jedi surely,a long time ago ,in a galaxy far, far away.....88.96.226.6 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian International Students

How many Indian international students go and study abroad in Canada each year? Sonic99 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, there were 47,639 Indian foreign students in Canada at the end of 2007. Here's a full table listing the number of Canadian student visas issued by country, 1999 to 2008. India averages 2,500 per year, but the trend is growing (2008 was over 3,000). --Xuxl (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

classical music song

There is a classical music song (may be an opera aria, not sure; may have been written by Beethoven, not sure). I remember the tune pretty well can can try to type in some representation if necessary. The only words I remember are "violetti graziosi" (maybe misspelled) which recur many times and may be enough to identify the piece, but googling fails. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.145.149 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Le Violette by Alessandro Scarlatti. The words you needed to google were "violette graziose". Here are the lyrics, and here's a half-way decent recording, by Carlo Bergonzi. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a favorite encore of Tito Schipa.--Wetman (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to find a good recording by Schipa, because his rendition is the best I know of. But the utubular Schipa recordings are execrable. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to listen to the youtube versions soon (can't do it from here). I'm a bit surprised about Schipa since I thought of the piece as a soprano composition. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be because you've only ever heard it sung by a woman, but both types of humans can sing it. I'm sure Luciano Pavarotti did a recording, as did Victoria de los Angeles and Teresa Berganza, among various others of each sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the 'Muslim Demographics' video, a popular youtube video, where does he get this piece of information?

"No culture has EVER reversed a 1.9 children per woman fertility rate". What is the source of this information, and what examples of cultures have declined in such a way historically?--4crassandchmp (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would ask if any historical culture is actually known to have had such a low figure before the present era: if not, then the statement would be trivially true but irrelevant, since it would only describe ongoing situations whose future cannot be firmly predicted. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is a no true Scotsman situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are birth control restrictions in China for long decades already. However, 1.9 average is low fertility rate in any case (meaning that the new generations size is smaller as the average is lower than 2).P.S. about 70% of Iranian population is under 30 years old, meaning that a culture can reverse a sharp shrink in the population size. However, Iranian economy is not a real modern one and the implications of such fertility rat are different then it would have in modern economies--Gilisa (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how this is a no true Scotsman situation — while I see the factual problems that other commentators here have noted, I don't see anything subjective in the claim. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The US total fertility rate rose from 2.0 in the late 30s, to 3.7 in the late 1950s (source: Total fertility rate). I'm not exactly sure what the quote means, but if the US rate can nearly double from 2.0 in 20 years it seems unlikely that 1.9 is necessarily a staging point on the road to extinction. See also Demographic-economic paradox and Birth control#History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That type of statistics pretty much didn't exist before the 19th century, so I'm not sure on what basis he's generalizing to all centuries of human history preceding the 19th... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] says Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau have all had fewer than 1.9 live births per woman since 1990. Moreover, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Cook Islands and Niue each had smaller absolute numbers of people in 2007 than in 1990.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of information, the replacement fertility rate is actually 2.1 in a developed society (by which I don't mean Western, I just mean lowish child mortality and other death rates) to account for the small number of children who won't survive until childbearing age. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that France has seen an increase in birthrates, claiming generous maternity laws and child tax benefits are to thank. This may have pushed it across 1.9, but it seems like a pretty arbitrary number. Why not 1.8 or 2? A better number would be the self sustaining number, which I think is 2.1 or so for most developed countries. TastyCakes (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction rates in the EU countries

How common is it for adults in these countries (espcially in Frence, UK and Germany) to choose not to having babies?--Gilisa (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK Office of National Statistics says:

Childlessness has been on the increase in recent years. One in five women born in 1963 remained childless, compared with one in eight women born around 1933. [2]

--Tango (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, the link does not provide information on childless rates today or about what it define as women who remaind childless (is she a 30 years old women? a no longer fertile women?).--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried our article on Demographics of the European Union for a starting point? There are also articles on the individual countries, such as Demographics of France, or Demographics of Germany. Searching for fertility rates will also yield you many newspaper articles on the topic, such as here. The basic answer is rare, but getting more common - all European countries currently have fewer babies being born than the replacement rate, so we are doing our bit to fight global overpopulation... --Saalstin (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fighting overpopulation is one of humanity great challenges. However, the decision not to bring a baby (even one for a couple)is personal and I guess that it's not motivated mostly by one's (or two's :)) feelings towards earth. Also, even if European population decline to 0 world population will still continue to raise because of other countries which share none of the responsibility.--Gilisa (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalism is one of the many reasons people choose not to have children. In industrial countries (esp. United States, but also Europe), even a single child dramatically increases the amount of CO² in the atmosphere, for example, if you factor it over their entire lifetime. A child in the U.S. consumes many times more resources than a child in, say, Africa. Which is not to say that voluntarily avoiding having children is the key towards environmental sustainability (it isn't, by itself), though having LOTS of children (e.g the quiverfull people) in an industrialized country does certainly have a detrimental environmental effect. The amount of net environmental resources a child consumes DOES matter a lot depending on where it is born. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you google "childfree france", "childfree germany", etc., you get better results than looking at raw fertility rates. What you are interested in is the number of people who are childfree, not the number who just don't happen to have children (which can be for a variety of reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great article 98! (however it does not seems to give precents).--Gilisa (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Choosing not to have children, for whatever reason, makes those folks part of a social experimentation in extinction. Namely, their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you consider "extinction" to be something that runs in immediate families, which isn't usually the definition of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Extinction in the sense that you've removed two more entries in the gene pool of those who want children vs. those who don't. The stuff about not having children due to their "environmental footprint" sounds like something out of The Onion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. The long-term ecological effects of unrestricted reproduction is something to take seriously, once you are willing to get past the sentimentality people have regarding their own offspring. (And I doubt that wanting kids/not wanting them is genetically transmissible for the most part, so there isn't likely any significant gene pool effect.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Humans have had a large environmental footprint from the very beginning. If you don't want kids and don't have any, that's the end of the line for your genetics. Others who do want kids will continue to produce them, and thus will continue that particular genetic line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about individual genetics, even from an evolutionary perspective... and not everyone thinks a blunt evolutionary perspective is the best way to view either personal or global decisions. Anyway, we have gotten well outside the scope of the Ref Desk on this—if you want to debate endlessly, there are better places for that. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There have always been people who have chosen not to have children, for various reasons. What distinguishes some countries in modern Europe currently is the number of people who choose not to have children for reasons which could be considered rather dubious, and yet which are somewhat supported by the surrounding culture -- such as men wanting to stay at home and have their moms continue to cook for them and do all their laundry into their thirties, and women dreading the fact that you can't wear skin-tight jeans when you're pregnant. (These have been alleged to be contributing factors to the decline of the Italian birth rate...) AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the latter example is necessarily the driving force here. It sounds like a parody of the childfree people. In my experience, the people who don't want to have kids have usually given a lot more thought to the question than those who do, but I'm saying that as a member of the former group. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a claim that . It wouldn't surprise me people have made that claim in fact I seem to remember something like that possibly coming from the Italian government or the Catholic church or some such), but that doesn't mean it has any basis in fact. I would say there's evidence it's the opposite. In the past, people often got married and then had kids because they felt it was what they were supposed to do (due to social, religious etc reasons). There was great social stigma particularly attached to an unmarried woman and to a less but still relevant extent to a couple who decided not to have children (again particularly the female). In a number of traditional societies of course, taking a second wife (or divorce as mentioned in the other discussion below) was not unheard of if you didn't have children (or in some cases male children) with the first (regardless who was at fault which couldn't easily be determined in those days) [3]. This ref partially supports my second assertation at least in Australia although it's not a particularly unbiased source [4]. While this stigma still exists e.g. [5] (but then again also to someone who does have children for different reasons) it's drastically reduced in much of the Western world. Also the greater acceptance of divorce means there's probably fewer people having children to try to save their marriage. Taking all these together, in other words a far bigger factor is probably far fewer people are having children for 'dubious' reasons then the opposite. I'm pretty sure there's a well established correlation between education and reduced fertility which would seem to me to further suggest the point. (Of course I would question whether not having children because you want your mother to do your laundry or so you can wear skin-tight jeans is actually a dubious reason, it sounds to me like these are precisely the kind of people who should not be having kids. Perhaps they could be regarded as a bit 'selfish' but then so are many other kinds of people and its ultimately their choice.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Divorce rates in the USA

how much is divorce rate in USA. Is it like 60%? Since at English class the teacher mention divorce rate is going up, and trifolds from 1960. Was divorce rate like interracial marriage that low or is it much higher? I though divorce rate now is less than 40%.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two (somewhat redundant) articles which cover this, to a point. See Divorce (United States) and Divorce in the United States. The first one has state-by-state marriage rates and divorce rates. You could get a rough estimate of the number of marriages ending in divorce by dividing the marriage rate by the divorce rate. A quick glance at the statistics at Divorce (United States) shows that some states show significantly more than .50 divorces/marriage, while other states show a LOT less than .50 divorces/marriage. Of course, even these statistics end up meaningless when you consider it is only counting the marriages performed in the state, not the marriages of residents of that state. You are more likely to be married out of your home state, but more likely to be divorced where you live. Just look at the marriage stats for Hawaii and Nevada for a comparison. --Jayron32 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Historic divorce rates are also misleading. The "Divorce law" section of Divorce in the United States goes into detail, but basically, prior to the 1970s, divorce had to be "for cause": adultry, infertility, abuse, and so on. As a result, there were many couples who were still legally married, but living as if they were divorced. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason is what Alan King once said about the old days, that "divorce was a luxury that few could afford." So it's a mistake to conclude that the U.S. is "less moral" now because the divorce rate is higher than it was 50 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to conclude that it is not less moral too based on that information. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read in this morning's newspaper, that, as a backlash to Proposition 8, a California activist is circulating a petition to outlaw divorce in California in order to "protect marriage". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession to the British throne: Protestant descendants of Catholics

Let's imagine a delicate situation: If William marries a Roman Catholic, he will lose his place in the line of succession and will be replaced by his brother Henry. However, if William has Protestant children with his Roman Catholic wife, those children will have succession rights. That would mean that, in this situation, Henry would never be able to be Prince of Wales as he would never be heir apparent (his position would be threatened by the birth of a nephew/niece). To complicate the matters even more, what if Charles dies before William has Protestant children? Henry would become Henry IX and then suddenly his older brother has a child who is the rightful heir according to primogeniture. Would Henry cease to be a monarch immediately as Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch had her aunt given birth to her uncle's posthumous child?

Please, don't say that they would make something up like forcing William to give up succession rights for his children. How would this situation be handled under current law? Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the current list of succession has such a case. One of them married a Catholic and converted but his children are brought up in the Anglican church. He was removed from the list but his children are in it. Please notice that I might be wrong in some of details. Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) On personal note I want to point out that religious discrimination in the Western world seems to be slowly declining but changing the rules of royal succession can be only be done by all-too lazy politicians.

You are right, there is a similar case, but you haven't answered my question. by the way, please don't turn this into a discussion about religious discrimination. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch". She was the heir to the throne at the time of the king's death and that is what matters. Rmhermen (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Parliament gets to decide who becomes the English monarch in every situation and at all times. The succession law currently on the books could be amended, repealed, or modified at any time should Parliament feel the need to. If there was an apparent succession crisis of the nature described by the OP, Parliament would merely need to pass a bill stating "So-and-so will be the next King/Queen" and that will suffice. --Jayron32 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No they can't. No act of parliament takes effect until it has received royal assent and that can't happen if you don't know who the monarch is. Changing the law would require them to anticipate the problem before the current monarch died, if they didn't do that the problem the OP describes would still be a problem. --Tango (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How would they be caught by surprise on this issue? The only conceivable way that could work out would be if the heir apparent converted to Catholicism and the current monarch died within a very short time of each other. Prince William isn't going to just wake up one day and decide he's a Catholic. If he were to convert to Catholicism, the Parliament would likely have ample time to consider ammending or clarifying the succession law to decide how to handle it. They could repeal the ban on Catholics, specifically exclude his children as well as himself, specifically name Harry as heir, they really could do any of that. As the Monarch is forbidden from ultimately withholding royal assent, the whole issue is only of practical concern in the unlikely event of simultaneous death of the monarch and conversion of the heir apparent. The rest of is nonsense. --Jayron32 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The OP explicitly asked what would happen under current law. And the monarch isn't forbidden from withholding royal assent, it is just generally accepted that if they ever did there would be a (very peaceful) revolution and the monarchy would cease to be (or, at least, would cease to have the de jure power of royal assent). Conventions are extremely important in British politics, but they aren't law. Any violation of political conventions are dealt with through political means, not through the courts. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, in this case it's not just the British Parliament (which by the way includes the monarch) which can decide. The Statute of Westminster commits members of the Commonwealth to seeking a joint solution to changes in the Act of Succession; so Parliament would have to orchestrate a joint change throughout the Commonwealth. (That said, I'm not sure how this would play out in an emergency.) Also, Harry would not become Prince of Wales, since the title is reserved for the Heir Apparent, not an Heir Presumptive. Harry would not be the Heir Apparent since any (Protestant) children of William would supplant him in the line of succession. (Oh, you did say that, didn't you; sorry.) Elphion (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As for succession after Harry becomes Henry IX (assuming he takes that name), once Henry is king no new child of William's could dislodge him, and I think the Act is pretty clear that Henry's direct heirs would come before any others. The interesting question is whether William's children would still precede any other future heir of Charles's. (One presumes the answer is "yes", but I don't what the law actually says about that.) The question of a posthumous child might be interesting; England has never had a case where the succession might have depended on a posthumous child (and again, I don't know whether the law addresses this -- the Act of Succession assumes there is an heir to inherit immediately upon the previous monarch's death). But France has: when Louis X died in 1316 they had to wait to see whether his posthumous child was a son (it was) and then wait for the infant John I to die before Louis's brother became Philip V. Elphion (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that they're likely to know this will be a burning issue in addition when William's wife becomes pregnant (presuming he/she's already converted). You can come up with rather implausible cases I guess, e.g. William annouces he's converted to Catholicism, his grandmother dies of a heartattack on hearing the news and then his father dies of a heart attack upon hearing his mother died then his wife goes into premature labour upon hearing her grandmother-in-law and father-in-law died. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it fortunate we now live by the Rule of Law? Could anyone seriously imagine a Civil War in the United Kingdom, along the same lines as the Barons' Revolt, or any of the other numerous such scraps that Merry Olde Englande's flesh was heir to in less enlightened days? Back then people, whether well meaning or not, were ruled by their passions, such that to them authority was represented by the size of your army - or at least by that of your "Warwick", if you had one. Charles I wrecked it for everyone else by asserting his own rights, which biblically he did have, but in addition by not considering everyone else's, which the Bible also commands. True authority, that is, the recognised right to rule, has to lie in something that is the same and inviolate. Some may say that at least such tricky questions as these were avoided in the old days by simply railroading the parties concerned into doing what you wanted, if you thought you were king ( re Henricus Octis ), or invading and killing your rival claimant and libelling his memory by rewriting history ( Henry VII - his daddy ), or entering Parliament with the sole intention of arresting five or six flies in the ointment - probably the reason to this day why Her Majesty may not enter the House of Commons to this day, over 360 years later. I have said before, that problems can be avoided by anticipating them, and taking proper precautions, not by moving the goalposts mid game. This is interesting, because has not HRH Prince Charles, the future Charles III, if he decides to take that name, gotten away with what was denied his own great uncle? It seems, if the standards change, how will anyone know where they stand ? I guess the difference here is that maybe they have barred any possible issue from this union from claiming the crown. I know that when Edward VIII abdicated, he renounced any claim on the throne for himself and any children he and Wallis might have ( they didn't ). But again, imagine this had occurred in 1436, not 1936, with a teenaged Henry VI, choosing Margaret of Anjou, that " tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide' and Parliament or the Council said no, but not necessarily because she was only six at the time. Of course, back then, Kings of England were not forced to do anything, so if in THIS alternate history he actually had a spine, he may simply have demanded what he wanted, arrested his protectors, and made good use of the chopping block in the Tower. Henry Tudor, Jr., would have. Of course, back then the English looked for any excuse to start a civil war, so we might have had it nearly twenty years earlier. Thankfully, even though it did take about a thousand years, people began to realise that the kingdom could not be ruled by the caprices of its monarchs. Ideally, the monarch should actually be the ruler, with Parliament, not just a rubber stamp, because that is their birthright.The Russian.C.B.Lilly 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

According to my 1999 Whitaker's Almanack, Prince Michael of Kent, a grandson of King George V, and the Earl of St Andrews, a son of Prince Michael's brother the Duke of Kent, gave up their position in the line of succession by marrying Roman Catholics. However, their offspring, so long as they remain in communion with the Church of England, retain their places.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a precedent for Parliament just chopping off the head of a monarch who displeases them, and appointing some random politician or general as "Lord Protector?" See also WP:IAR. Edison (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a precedent, but somehow I doubt it's legal now. This question keeps turning up, though. Is there a viable "threat" that Prince William is going to marry a Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok (let me strain my brain). Let's just assume that everything happens as Surtsicna proposes and the parliament doesn't change the succession laws (all extremely far-fetched...). We end up with 'King Charles and William married to a Catholic'. Henry will become the next king. William has a protestant child before Charles dies? The child becomes the next King or Queen after the death of Charles. William's wife has a child after the death of king Charles? Tough luck, because Henry is king already and he doesn't lose his kingship. Surtsicna, can you please explain the: "Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch had her aunt given birth to her uncle's posthumous child"? I don't think that would have worked (at the least, it wouldn't be legal). Flamarande (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall the stuff about Catholics and succession was abolished a few years ago. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If so, the Succession to the British throne article has not been update to reflect that fact. (edit: You may be thinking of the Prince of Wales's comments in 1995, talked about under Succession_to_the_British_throne#Changes.)-- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still there. There has been talk about abolishing it for years, but it hasn't happened yet. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch according to our own article, the proclamation of her accession (notice the part: saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV which may be born of his late Majesty's consort) and several other sources (eg. The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860). It makes sense because her uncle's child couldn't be disqualified just because he/she wasn't lucky enough to be born before his/her father's death and because the child would have been the senior heir according to primogeniture. According to this precedent/provision, Henry would lose his crown in favour of the heir who is senior according to primogeniture and not disqualified by anything. Jayron, I am sure they would amend the law if this situation happens, but I'd like to know what would happen if they didn't amend the law. Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good old-fashioned civil war? Seriously now, you seem to have stumbled upon a vague issue. Assuming that 'William marries a Catholic woman and King Charles dies', Henry inherits the throne. Sometime later William and his wife have a child which is baptised not as a Catholic but as an Anglican. Victoria's precedent (where the hell did you find that?) indeed suggests that King Henry would lose his throne in favour of that child. However we do know that precedents are one thing but the supreme power of the Parliament is another. Flamarande (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One becomes religiously ineligible for the throne by being "reconciled to or holding communion with Rome", or by professing "the popish religion", or marrying a papist. It's not clear that being unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic priest fulfills any of these exclusion principles. One is, after all, baptised a Christian, not a Catholic or an Anglican. It's likely that some action as a reasoning human being (i.e., as a more-or-less adult) would be needed to exclude one from the succession - such as receiving the Roman Catholic sacrament of communion. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes and no. Baptisms for both Anglicans and Catholics are both sacraments and rites of admission to the church. Someone baptised into the Catholic church is not necessarily a member of the Anglican church, and vice versa, and would have to go through some additional process to be admitted - though not another baptism. However it's hard to imagine how someone could be "unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic". Is the priest masquerading as an Anglican? In the Catholic church the intention would be considered important. If you thought you were being baptised as a Catholic, then it's a valid Catholic baptism. Again I p[resume vice versa too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, baptism is an admission to Christendom and not to any particular sect of Christianity. And one is "unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic" if one is baptised by a Roman Catholic priest when one is an infant. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You understand what I said but let's imagine that the parliament is extremely lazy and doesn't want to bother doing anything about the issue or that everything goes like Nil Einne said (William annouces he's converted to Catholicism, his grandmother dies of a heartattack on hearing the news and then his father dies of a heart attack upon hearing his mother died then his wife goes into premature labour upon hearing her grandmother-in-law and father-in-law died); in other words, let's imagine that nothing is changed and that the situation mcan be handled only by the current laws. It is indeed far-fetched, but it's nevertheless possible (just like a fertile octogenarian and the unborn widow example).

Where the hell did I find Victoria's example? Well, as I said: Wikipedia, credible Internet pages and books concerning British constitution. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As in Utopia,

by our Constitution we are governed by a Despot who,

although in theory absolute--is, in practice, nothing of the

kind--being watched day and night by two Wise Men whose duty

it is, on his very first lapse from political or social

propriety, to denounce him to me, the Public Exploder, and

it then becomes my duty to blow up His Majesty with

dynamite

Which is to say, it's all practicality and custom. I think it seems more and more likely that the old joke is true: the Queen aims to outlast Charles so that he is never king, taking us straight from Elizabeth II to William V (or whatever he goes by). Oddly, this seems more okay, to the extent that I wonder if there is some contingency to pass over Charles if necessary (have him abdicate?). In which case, an emergency conversion to Catholicism could work nicely. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though we might have to wait a bit longer for a change in the law, even IF Mr Brown stays at No 10[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legality of using someone else's unsecured network in UK

Are there any precedents on this? What about the practice elsewhere in Europe? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We have something at Legality of piggybacking#United Kingdom --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of swim trunks inner netting

I've notice men's swim trunks have an inner mesh lining with elastic leg openings. What's the purpose of this "mesh underwear" built into swim trunks? Other swim shorts (like Speedos) don't have any mesh lining. I don't think womens' beach wear has any mesh lining either. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably to preserve what little might be left of your modesty. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In trunks, it has two purposes. Firstly, it provides a measure of support for those who prefer briefs to boxers. Secondly, as Baseball Bugs implies, it holds a man's bits in. Should the trunks rise up, as they are prone to do in water, particularly in waves, there won't be a surprise appearance by man-bits. This isn't necessary in speedos, because the brief and elastic nature of the speedos (in theory, at least) holds the genitals within, and there is less chance of a free peep-show, even if the speedos mean that everyone's seen it all before. Steewi (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And I theorize that it is netting so that sand does not get stuck inside. Googlemeister (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like the old joke explaining the CND symbol; "Y-Fronts prevent Fallout!" Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The inner netting is made of netting to let the air out when you enter the water and to let the water drain out when you exit the water. Astronaut (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)