Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< July 23 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 25 >
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.


July 24

[edit]

Coolness

[edit]

Is it correct to define 'being cool' as being 'popularly unique', meaning to make oneself unique, and to be popular for it. The result creates negative feedback, where an increase in popularity inherently decreases the uniqueness of the cool-causing factor, forcing said factor to be continually evolving into something different from before. Imitators of the cool are never cool in themselves, since they are always lagging behind, only catching up to what was once cool. Is it then correct to define such imitators as hipsters? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool as post WW2 slang originally meant playing it cool, cool as a cucumber, not stressing or spazzing out etc, keeping it mellow... not necessarily unique... I don't know what it means today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a video of Cool (West Side Story song) from the movie, that should explain it... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of linking: cool (aesthetic) and hipster (contemporary subculture). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking specifically about the definitions which I gave. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know... to really grasp something though, you have to trace it from its roots to see how it developed into what it is now... Cool may mean 'unique' for teens today, but not others? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's only part of it. Uniqueness (or distinctiveness) may lead to coolness, but coolness is no guarantee of uniqueness. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The kids (self-)defined as cool at the high schools I've been involved with don't rate uniqueness highly at all. They tend to all wear similar clothes and hairstyles. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just the definition of 'common' or 'ordinary', mistakenly identified as 'cool' by those late to the scene; arising from the interpretation: if one does not conform to what is common or ordinary at the time, then they are uncool, and thus no middle ground? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using 'uniqueness' as a relative term, not an absolute. Meaning, that a few within a large social group can imitate and still be unique relative to the whole group. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can already see the beginnings of that definition in "the Time" song "c.o.o.l." that came out ca. 1984 - the singer says he is "cool" because he wears diamonds on his fingers and toes, and 'all the perfume money can buy'... this song was somewhat popular, but relatively few of its fans actually started literally wearing toe-diamonds and perfume... it just seemed cool as unique randomness. As for the second question, is it proper to define imitators as 'hipsters'... who gets to decide what the 'proper' definitions of slang words are? There is no Sorbonne of slang, it is always changing. As I recall the slang word for 'imitator' as you are describing for a long time was 'wannabe'. So it sounds like 'hipster' may be the new term for wannabe. Which is ironic, because that means it has come full circle - in 1959, 'hippies' meant the wannabes who were imitating the authentic 'hipsters' according to the record 'how to speak hip'... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist 21 - Massachussetts

[edit]

In Federalist papers, #21, we read:

A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law; while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the Government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine, what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Cæsar or by a Cromwell?

What is this situation Hamilton is referring to?--108.202.177.21 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shays' Rebellion, according to the Cliffnotes at [1]. RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, that's very helpful. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Younger than one's Wikipedia article

[edit]

The son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was born "at 16:24 BST on 22 July". His Wikipedia article began existence "at 06:36, 27 June 2013". The time interval is 25 days 9 hours 48 minutes. Is any other person younger than his or her own Wikipedia article?
—Wavelength (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was previously a sentence in that article (Which I took liberty to remove) that made a similar observation, something along the lines of, "The royal baby is the first person to have a wiki page before he is born". To be youunger than your wiki page requires you to have been born before it was created, yes? If so, assuming the above removed sentence is true, then the answer to your question no. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be youunger than your wiki page requires you to have been born before it was created, yes? - Well, no, actually. Quite the reverse, actually. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, I meant the opposite :P ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 05:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well a dead infant doesn't age and we have plenty of articles whose age are older than the figure when they died. Like John I of France.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. Everything ages, all the time. Google still celebrates Shakespeare's birthday every year. His bones are still getting older, as are the memories of him. The age of death will never change but the age of the person does. Just an observation... ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15th Dalai Lama was started on 15 March 2011 and the individual is not likely to be born for a few more years. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he is ever to be born. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely unlikely that someone won't be declared the 15th Dalai Lama. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Chinese Communist party extended its control into the realm of metaphysical theology with the famous "reincarnation decree", it seems very likely that there will be two claimants to be the next Dalai Lama... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which I linked in my opening post is now redirected to "Prince George of Cambridge" (George Alexander Louis).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica of St Denis

[edit]

Would it be possible to identified and separate the royal remains desecrated by the French Revolutionists at the Basilica of St Denis with today's technology? To what physical extent was the descration? The article on St. Denis said they were thrown into a pit and dissolved with lime. Did adding lime dissolve the bones? And how large was the ossuary which was build to contain all the scattered bones?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check with the science deskers. When I googled "quicklime forensic" I found sites saying it does not decompose bodies (in fact, it acts as a preservative) and bone and hair survive [2] [3] [4], although I haven't found any discussion of bodies buried in quicklime for 24 years, as these were before being removed to the ossuary. NB, some of the bodies were no more than dust, according to the French wikipedia article [5], which also gives numbers: 42 kings, 32 queens, 63 princes, 10 servants of the kingdom, 30 abbots.) Presumably DNA analysis of some sort would be possible, now that Louis XVI's DNA has been identified, but I don't know if it could do more than say yes, some of these remains are of the royal family. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be a bit complicated; it's mt-DNA that survives burial conditions best, so comparisons would have to be made to the maternal lines, rather than simply identifying a single paternal Y-DNA signature. It was, for example, by comparison of the Pelletan heart with the mt-DNA of Marie-Antoinette's hair follicles that the heart of the dauphin was identified, and the claims of Naundorff disproven. - Nunh-huh 18:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden and Treason

[edit]

The Constitution defines Treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Edward Snowden is being called a traitor for leaking NSA information to the american public.

Does that mean that the american public is the enemy? --Agatha Bauer (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If and only if there is no other person, government or organization that received the information, and if and only if Mr Snowden were charged, tried and convicted in a court of law of the crime of treason.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Presumably people making that argument will say that the leaked information makes it easier for real enemies of the United States, like Islamic fundamentalists, to circumvent US spying. I don't think it's a convincing position, but the Reference Desk is not a place to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of any opinion. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just did ("I don't think it's a convincing position"). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least get the basic facts right... Snowden didn't leak the information "to the American public"... he leaked it to a foreign news agency. That does complicate the issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more precise, Snowden gave the information to a journalist working for The Guardian, a British national daily newspaper, after first trying to get it published in The Washington Post. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the British have been known to attack and destroy government buildings in Washington DC, such as the White House. Edison (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be the making public of classified military secrets, not the making public to Americans per se of classified government secrets that would be treason. Snowden has been charged with espionage, not treason, although pundits use the latter term sloppily in the press. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can identify treason. Until they have done so, then, no, he isn't guilty of treason. And I'd have to think that for them to say "Edward Snowden committed treason by ..." then that would be not only a bill of attainder, but an ex post facto law, and therefore both would be unconstitutional. RNealK (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congress doesn't try or convict for treason, or even "identify it" whatever is meant by that. It passes treason law. Whatever treason law was in place at the time of the acts for which he has been charged would matter. And he has not been charged with treason, but with espionage. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say try or convict, but it does identify. The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine what constitutes treason. RNealK (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with the constitution's Treason clause:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

the USA has construed "treason" quite narrowly - see Treason#Federal - in particular, Constructive treason and taking mere intents as treason has been eschewed, since the Burr Conspiracy cases. Cramer v. United States[6] (1945) considered the "primary question here is the meaning of the Constitutional provision". It held that there has to be an overt act ( of aid and comfort) where "... the defendant not only must intend the act, but he must intend to betray his country by means of the act." (adhering to its enemies). Along with the newer difficulty of identifying the enemy, the whole history of treason law in the USA makes prosecution under treason unlikely, conviction even less, IMHO.John Z (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice originally researched research legal opinion. Edison (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the infamous Julius and Ethel Rosenberg case, they (as with Snowden now) were charged with espionage, not treason, although the prosecutor described them as "treasonous". So terms like "treason" and "traitor" are more like colloquialisms and points-of-view nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of ancient literature survives?

[edit]

I look for a book who discuss about the percentage of ancient literature literature survives. I found out that 10% of ancient literature survives but didn't found a source. --84.108.6.126 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could you know how much hasn't survived? You'd get some titles mentioned in surviving works, but that wouldn't be all of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I do know there are some assumption. I look for a book that explains this subjet.--84.108.6.126 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends of course on what kind of "ancient" civilization you are thinking of. There are many ancient civilizations that must have had literature but from which nothing at all survives. If you are thinking of the Greek and Roman classics, whose survival rates are probably among the highest, I'd guess it would be still well below 10 percent. Think only of classical Athenian drama: several fresh comedies and tragedies were produced and performed at the great festivals every year for many decades, but what's come down to us is only a handful, and only by a handful of authors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sophocles wrote 123 plays, of which 7 survived in their entirety. For Euripides it was 18 or 19 out of about 92; for Aeschylus, 7 of 70 to 90. For Aristophanes, who wrote comedies, 11 of 40 plays survive. But for all the other classical Greek tragedians, of whom as FPS says there must be dozens (multiple tragedies were produced every year for roughly a century), no complete plays at all survive. (Phrynichus (tragic poet) is an example). These were immensely famous men, and knowledge of their works spread all across the Mediterranean - the known world - even in their own day; that such a small amount survived shows how fragile the routes to survival were. (Looking at Plato#The dialogues gives an idea of how complex it is for a text to survive thousands of years.) Although the ancients didn't write things down quite as much as we do (Socrates, for example, never wrote anything at all as far as we know), they would have written a great deal, and very little has survived. Perhaps less than 1%. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that survival of orginal manuscripts (very rare) is different from survival of original texts through multiple copies down through the years (surprisingly less rare). Here are three interesting discussions for you:
See also List of destroyed libraries.--Shantavira|feed me 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Emijrp/All human knowledge/Further knowledge#Destroyed knowledge.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the standard books on the subject is Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature(LG Reynolds & NB Wilson). It's a few years old - third edition 1991 - but that's not so much of a problem in this field, and it's very good at describing how material survived (or didn't) from the classical period. I don't recall if it has numeric estimates, but I wouldn't be surprised. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A walk through the Loeb Classical Library collection of Greek and Latin works shows how small the entire major corpus and even collected surviving minor works is, it fits on two cases on the top floor of the Union Square Barnes & Nobles. What has been lost is implied by the gaps hinted at in the corpora written by the playwrights mentioned above--but they were famous and their works were more likely to be preserved than say, Emperor Claudius's grammar of Etruscan, known to have been lost. Anything in Etruscan would have been viewed as gibberish, perhaps to be written over palimpsest but not recopied. There are all the lost memoirs that existed in only one copy, all the lost letters and reports from military and dignitaries posted in foreign lands. Almost all Pagan religious texts and commentaries are gone. There are all the works that we know existed because they were quoted in other texts. Very little writing of the philosophers exists except in fragments, for which see Diogenes Laertius who is the sole source for dozens of authors. Of literary/scholarly quality works, well under 1%, and far less for other works that might have interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 July 2013
Jehovah's Witnesses have published information at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009808?q=ancient+documents&p=par, citing the National Geographic and Kenneth Kitchen and the book Roman Military Records on Papyrus and The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of Alexandria had as its mission "collecting all the world's knowledge." Copies wee made of books on all ships passing through, and books were purchased or borrowed and copied from foreign libraries. Its collection at its largest point would be a good surrogate for "ancient literature"of Europe and the Middle East, at least for several hundred years BCE to 30CE or so. The literature of India, China, and Japan, perhaps less so. Our article says it had a goal early on of 500,000 scrolls, though several scrolls might comprise a book and there might be duplicate copies. The story is that Mark Antony gave Cleopatra 200,000 scrolls to add to the library. The article mentions 70,000 scrolls surviving in the 3rd century CE. Our article says there is no surviving index of the holdings. I don't find reference to it in Wikipedia, but the "Plautine scholium" written around the 13th century said there were 400,000 volumes, with 310,000 of them duplicates. There was apparently information available to that writer about the library and its collections which is not available to scholars currently. So taking even 300,000 as the number of "volumes," and each of these being several scrolls comprising a book, what would we have, as the "worldcat" of 30CE? Perhaps 100,000? And how many survive today from Western Civilization of that era? Perhaps the low thousands? Of course those low thousands include ephemera, random surviving letters and mundane reports which might not have qualified as the "books" the librarians of Alexandria sought. Edison (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England and Japan -- most polite?

[edit]

I was reading the Wikipedia article on politeness. I stopped at the sentence that talked about England and Japan's being the most polite. The article went into detail of how Japan was especially polite (i.e. it is considered impolite to say 'no' in Japan; so, when Japanese people say 'yes' and do nothing, they really mean 'no'). Whose opinion is this, anyway? Who exactly considers the Japanese people and English people to be especially polite? Sneazy (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a guess how the Japanese Emperor described the destruction Nagasaki and Hiroshima by atomic weapons in 1945? Nope, try again. A war circumstance happened which is not necessarily to our advantage.

The Definitive Guide to Body Language by Allan and Barbara Pease gives the following example as best I can remember: When two Japanese businessmen discuss an proposition, if one says 'yes, that's a good idea. Perhaps we could talk about this the next time we meet?' He really means 'this sucks, go home and forget about it.'

It's just culture and the way the Japanese talk, same way as Americans are patriotic. A police officer told Reese Witherspoon to get back into her car. She replied 'I am an American citizen, I have a right to stand on American ground.' American or not is irrelevant; the point is she refused to do as she was told. It just happens to be that, to argue with an American cop, you don't just rant at him, you have to say something about being American, which seems to be an excuse for anything. The Japanese might say 'perhaps officer, if I stay here with your kind permission, I would make your job easier?' In Germany or Ireland you would just tell him to fuck off. You're still getting arrested in any case.

92.17.0.133 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy - I just looked at the politeness article. I cannot see a sentence speaking of "England and Japan's being the most polite". In fact the word England or English is not in the article at all. Where did you get that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the View Source, and I noticed that Saddhiyama already removed the unsourced claim. Sneazy (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, too quick for me. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I meant to post here afterwards, but was distracted by other things and just clean forgot to. The ref desk certainly is a good venue to attract attention to a problematic article, but I think the standard procedure is to place "citation needed" tags in the article itself and/or make a post on the talk side of the article about the problem first. It is indeed a very poor article with loads of unsourced claims, but who knows, perhaps standard procedure would have worked? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English certainly have a stereotype of politeness and civility, even as they go about their often-ruthless business. Christopher Hitchens, who should know, once said that the English throughout history have been "absolutely brutal", only "they're so bloody polite about it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High ranking Red Army officers punished in summer-automn 1941 after Operation Barbarossa began ?

[edit]
"Honest, I'd have minded my own liver : I had been looking for 3 hours on WP for some forgotten Soviet generals, and just out of despair I asked a question about them on their Ref. Desk, & in no time they rushed in & grabbed me, & hung me to a rail, saying "Come for a good pull, you gandKWAAAAAAAKH..."

Hello Learned Ones ! Staline's Order No. 270 (august 16, 1941) mentions 3 high ranking officers (2 Lieutenant- Generals : Katchalov & Ponedelin, and 1 Major-General Kirillov) who, having surrendered at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, deserved capital punishment as deserters. Were there others Red Army high officers charged and punished (along with their families, of course) for alleged treason or inefficiency in the summer-automn 1941  ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From memory someone by the name of "Pavlov" was charged with "treasonable actions" (Losing a battle). ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a gander at Purge of the Red Army in 1941. Pavlov would probably be Dmitry Pavlov, executed on July 22, 1941, "rehabilitated" in 1956. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Lord & Fiend ! Arapaima (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article before first birthday

[edit]

Besides Prince George of Cambridge and possibly the 15th Dalai Lama, has any person had his or her own Wikipedia article before becoming one year old?
—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2013 births (and probably Category:2012 births) should answer your question. (Note the recurrent theme: people in lines of succession) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those categories have four members besides Prince George of Cambridge.
I checked Category:2011 births and I found three additional examples.
I checked Category:2010 births and I found one additional example.
I checked Category:2009 births and I found three additional examples.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: Has anyone other than Prince George of Cambridge had an article before his/her birth?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably we should limit the question to real people, and exclude fictional characters such as James T. Kirk, who "was born on March 22, 2233, in Riverside, Iowa". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article for the presumed heir of William of Cambridge. There was no article for the actual child until he was born, and then the previous article was moved to cover him. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Princess Athena, the Danish princes' and princesses' articles were actually created before their names were publically known (they're only announced at their Christening), the original versions of their articles refer to them as "Prince NN of Denmark" and "Princess NN of Denmark" (NN = 'nomen nescio'). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's blame shifts: Can you show us all the scenes where he blames everyone else for the problems that he started?

[edit]

I've heard or read that Hitler blamed the problems that he caused on everyone / everything but himself. I'd like to see scenes in every film showing him, where he does just that. (It can be movies, and it can even be newsreels if there are any showing that.) Thanks. --75.39.142.86 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practically any speech ever by Hitler will feature him blaming every conceivable problem that has ever existed on the Jews. Examples should not be difficult to find, you could start here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only, but also the Bolcheviks, communists, Slavs and "inferior" races. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the "problems he started" part... Not sure what is meant, the blaming of his generals and troops for losing battles and the war, or the times when he blames the other countries and the Jews for causing the war he started. Ssscienccce (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a monarch's regnal name

[edit]

Scenario: Prince Charles and Prince William are blown up by a terrorist bomb, and Prince George becomes first in line. A year later, the Queen dies, and baby George becomes king, as George VII. A regent is appointed till he turns 18. During his early years, he shows a definite preference for his second given name Alexander, and likes to be called Alex by his family and friends.

Question: When he turns 18, would it be open to him to change his regnal name from the one decided for him when he was a tiny baby (George VII), to one he would have preferred had he been given a say (Alexander IV)? Or would his existing regnal name be considered set in stone? Are there any precedents for a monarch changing their regnal name in mid-reign? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many Pharaohs changed their name in mid-reign, sometimes several times But since this is a public forum you shouldn't say anything about living people you wouldn't want them to read here themselves, which is quite possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MacCormick v Lord Advocate would suggest that, specifically in Scotland (the differences between the Scottish and English constitutions being relevant) the regnal number is solely the royal prerogative; that would suggest that regnal name is too. If that's true, then said king could call himself Henry VIII on Mondays and Wednesdays and Empress of Blandings at the weekend. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that might make for an interesting wikipedia page-name title dispute! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any cases of a British monarch changing his name, but an important historical example is the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, with which George V changed his style from "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas" to "King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas", due to the establishment of the Irish Free State. A similar act could easily be passed to change a monarch's regnal name. See Style of the British sovereign and Royal Style and Titles Act. Tevildo (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the full formal styles and titles: When a monarch dies, the new one is asked what their regnal name is, and I thought that was the end of the matter. Are you saying that, when the Queen dies and Charles becomes king, there will need to be a new RS&T Act even if the only change is the name of the monarch and from Queen to King? And that if such an act is not passed, Charles's formal regnal name will be "Queen Elizabeth II"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A RS&T Act would not be required to change the name, but I think Tevildo's theory is that if they wanted to change their name, a similar Act would be a cast-iron way of doing it. Personally, I can't imagine they ever would, but "this is a very silly hypothetical" is rarely a popular answer ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note however while it may be cast-iron, it's actually far less simple than it was in 1927 with many of these upstart 'Dominions beyond the seas' now being independent Commonwealth Realms and having their own constitutions, laws and legal processes as the attempt to change the succession rules have shown with some countries like Jack's Oz not having completed the process yet. While similar stuff has happened before with the numbering, I'm not sure if having King Muhammad Elvis of the United Kingdom aka King George VII of Australia would be considered ideal. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I knew of those cases, but they never changed their regnal names. What I'm on about is someone who begins their reign as, say, King Nicholas IX, and some time down the track decides he wants to be King Cedric VI instead. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have caught the distinction. (My ault I was kinda surprised you hadn't thought of those examples.) μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khasekhemwy, Nebhepetre, and Amenhotep IV are the main examples that come to mind... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good guess might be a pagan European King baptized into the church. Germans, Prussians, and Lithuanians might be good candidates for that, or Vajk of Hungary who probably took Stephen as his regnal name only after the Pope recognized him, although that is speculation. I have searched, and the protestant doctrine "you are a king" is interfering with getting anything good out of google. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the famous Angolan queen Zingua whose name became Ana de Sousa upon conversion... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's going to have to remain in the realm of the hypothetical as far as young George is concerned, because there are no British precedents. Thanks for the replies, one and all. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_July_24&oldid=1174461434"