Humanities desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

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.

January 9[edit]

English roofing materials[edit]

I've noticed that many traditional cottage-style houses in England have a smooth or near-smooth roof. What is this material? You can see examples here and here. I am aware of thatched roofs but I thought they looked like this? --TKK! bark with me! 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're all thatched. The second example is taken in shadow, which might make the roof look as though it has some sort of tar added (it hasn't). The English examples are well made and weathered. The final example is a little more amateurish and it looks (to me, at least) as though its been patched up, with the addition of chicken-wire and a clay (?) ridge-line, rather than re-thatched. A bit of a bodge job! --86.183.79.28 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See our Thatching article. It's generally made of reed in the east of England or wheat straw in the west. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last example is in Spain, not England, and they will certainly use different varieties of reeds giving a different appearance, and probably different techniques. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently thatching in Spain is done with broom - see Thatching with Green Broom in Spain. The result looks rather scruffy to my eye, but to each their own. Alansplodge (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for this musical technique?[edit]

If you would, listen to a few bars of System of a Down's "Science" starting about 12 seconds is. Is there a name for this sort of rythymic punctuation (DAAA-da-da-da-da-da-da)? I mean, from a composing standpoint, not playing (i.e. palm-muting). Pops up a lot in thrash metal, but that article's not helping (me, anyway).

Figured this is a better question for Humanities (art) than Entertainment, but if I could tack on a Science follow-up, is there any known psychological reason this sort of phrasing sounds "intense" (or whatever you call it), while swing music "feels" swingy and The Rolling Stones seem to "rock"? If there's a relevant field of study, just naming it will suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite an ostinato, but that's a similar concept, I think. Music psychology might be a good starting point for your follow-up question. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this guitar how-to video, [1], but guy just calls it a "metal strumming pattern". You might find some info in "The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal" [2]. Here's someone's academic dissertation titled "Characteristics of Heavy Metal Chord Structures" [3], which seems pretty interesting, but doesn't have much about riffs or phrasing.

But really, I think the best you'll get is a phrase to describe this phrasing. Our own Heavy_metal_music#Rhythm_and_tempo says "The rhythm in metal songs is emphatic, with deliberate stresses... the main groove is characterized by short, two-note or three-note rhythmic figures—generally made up of 8th or 16th notes. These rhythmic figures are usually performed with a staccato attack created by using a palm-muted technique on the rhythm guitar." -- To my understanding, that describes the 12-20 second mark of the linked song pretty well. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also occasionally seen people use terms for metrical verse to describe song patterns. See Foot_(prosody). In this case, we'd have something like a "primus paeon tetrabrach", but I wouldn't expect many people to know what that means either (though it might make a decent name for a metal band ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers and links, thanks all. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semikhah: The authority from God of a teacher to judge and do much more[edit]

I am a Christian Pentecostal Minister; the more I study the scripture and Biblical things the more ignorant I find I am. Recently, I studied my belief that Jesus was in fact a Jewish Rabbi; in that study, I discovered the basics of the Semikhah passed from Moses to Aaron and the preists, and I would like to know more. I have read the Wikipedia articles on the subject. Is there some additional and more complete information on the authority from God Semikhah that is the one from God not a mere degree / graduation from a college? I do not speak or read Hebrew, but am so interested! Any and every detail is most important to me!

In the same study exploring the possibility of Jesus being a Rabbi, I discovered the amazing life of study one must undertake to become an ordained Rabbi. How does one study to be a Rabbi today? Since the relationship between student Rabbi and teacher Rabbi is so important with an eye toward the Semikhah, is there a commitment / covenant of some sort between the student and teacher?

Is there any evidence to support the idea that Jesus had to be a Rabbi and have Semikhah.

Why would Semikhah be passed from teacher Rabbi with Semikhah to student Rabbi making the student dependant on a man rather than on God alone?

Like the one asking for the following article, I too am interested in the mechanism of Semikhah.

I would most appreciate cited (if possible) authoritative information from a Rabbi with Semikhah from anywhere in the world, but I am happy to hear from any ordained Rabbi. Drpastor (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For others who are not familiar with the term: Semikhah. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm much of an expert, but as I understand it there is no particular relationship between being an Aaronitic priest (see Kohen) and being a Rabbi. One is based largely on descend, the other on teaching and instruction. Rabbinic Judaism developed as a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple and the Jewish diaspora, when the duties of the classical priesthood could no longer be performed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drpastor -- I'm not sure that there was much of a formal institution of Rabbinic ordination during Jesus' lifetime. The official leaders of the Jewish community in Judea at that time were the high-ranking priestly families who had control over the Jerusalem Temple. Others had no authority in the temple, and were basically unofficial (though sometimes very influential among the Jewish population). Jesus was well-known and well-respected enough in his local area to be called up in the synagogue to read from a scroll of Isaiah, but probably did not have any formal position as we would understand it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, what's the usual way a child would address a cousin of a parent?[edit]

I understand that a cousin of parent is technically a second cousin, once removed. Regardless of technical correctness, what's the usual/customary way a child in the US would address a cousin of a parent of his/hers? Are there regional variations? --173.49.17.218 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either Cousin Bob or Bob, and Cousin Marie or Marie. (In my family, Cousin Bob is the only such relative I address regularly, and while I call him Bob to his face, he is called Cousin Bob amongst me and my immediate family when he's not present. Very much like "Our Bob" I'd imagine in Britain.) My parents addressed them by first name, and introduced them to us as Cousin Fist Name. I haven't had the occasion, but am quite sure that if I were introducing my nephews to my cousins I would say "This is Cousin Ed, Cousin Karen, Cousin Rich..." There would be no pressure for them to use the honorific. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Our Bob" is indeed a Britishism, but it's a particularly regional and colloquial one. I have never heard it used in real life; I've only encountered it in fiction. (Though I'm sure it turns up in plenty of non-fictional sources too.) "Cousin Bob" reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character being dubbed (and at one point referred to slightly sarcastically) "Uncle Bob" in the movie Terminator 2. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Our X" is very common in parts of Northern England as a way of referring to someone who is, in some unspecified way, part of the family. I hear it used regularly where I live. "Our Bob" may be cousin (in some degree), son, grandson, brother, uncle, in-law or step-relative. He may even be the dog. It can be a way of referring to others or a form of direct address - "Hello, our Bob, how are you?". A Geordie speaker may both address and refer to his girlfriend or wife as "wor lass" (literally "our girl"), and his mother as "wor mam". - Karenjc (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize until I was at university that when most whites say "My cousin" they mean "My first cousin" by default. In black parlance, I never assume that when introduced to someone's "cousin" that means "first cousin". Whites often actually say "My Mom's cousin" when speaking of a first cousin-once-removed. I've never heard an African American use that locution. In fact, I'd probably be a little offended if a younger relative introduced me that way. In black American culture, I think that if someone isn't an ancestor, uncle or aunt but is known to share blood, they are a "cousin" and introduced as such, regardless of specific degree of kinship. Often, however, I do hear black folks refer to or intro someone as "My first cousin", "her third cousin", etc when that relationship is known -- but "removed cousin" is never used: a "first cousin-once-removed" is a "second cousin" and everyone gets moved back a degree accordingly, so when a "third cousin" is mentioned what is invariably meant is a second cousin or first cousin-twice-removed. "Cousin" is used when speaking of, not to someone. By contrast, especially but not exclusively in the U.S. South, uncle and aunt are very often used as prefixes to the Christian name: I would never speak to one of my blood aunts without it -- but I do refer to one of my 4 aunts-in-law without prefix, she being closer to my age than to my uncle's. When she first married Uncle Bill she introduced me as "my husband's nephew" until she noticed that it put me off (BTW, "aunt" is usually pronounced to rhyme with "taunt" among blacks outside the South, but in the South, it rhymes with "ain't" or, affectionately, "Aintee". "Ant" seems to be mostly pronounced by black Americans who speak a white dialect). PlayCuz (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "aunts-in-law" you mean aunts by marriages rather than actual in-laws (aunts of your wife)? If so, it seems that I am about to get into a similar situation. I still refer to my ex-aunt as Aunt [Name], even though I think rather poorly of her (as do her children, fwtw) to say the least. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a (first) cousin of your parent, to you, is a first cousin once removed. Regardless, the polite way I've usually heard (in my family at least) is "aunt" or "uncle". Even though that's not technically correct, they are in the same generation as my parents, aunts and uncles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A child of your parent's first cousin would be a second cousin, to you. And a child of that child would be a second cousin once removed, to you (and vice versa). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some contemporary Australian Aboriginal cultures, a cousin is a non-immediate relative who is a of similar age and an uncle/aunt is an older non-immediate relative, regardless of actual relationship. Hack (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse matters further, "uncle" and "aunt[ie]" are (or were) often used in the UK to refer to adults who are close friends of the family but not blood-related. In particular (though not exclusively) "Uncle X" could be a euphemism for a (divorced/separated/widowed) mother's lover. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will vary within the United States by regional, class, and ethnic background. I am white, of western European origin, and all of my great grandparents were born in the United States, as were most of their grandparents (so not much European ethnic culture remains). I come from a middle class background, and both of my parents, like me, grew up in the Northeast (though my mother's parents were from Missouri and Texas). Now, in my family, on both sides, it is normal for cousins, including parents' cousins, to address one another simply by first name, even if there is a significant age difference. We recognize that we have a family relationship, but we don't put titles in front of one another's names. In my family, cousins of any degree are treated much like siblings. On the other hand, aunts and uncles, as well as parents' aunts and uncles (great aunts and great uncles), are addressed as "Aunt So-and-so" or "Uncle So-and-so". Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with MP that while cousins of any type are referred to as "Cousin First-Name" but addressed simply by their first name, Aunts and Uncles are both referred to and addressed as Aunt First-Name or Uncle First-Name. This seems to arise from a four-way distinction of respect. Mom & Dad and Grandmothers & Grandfathers have titles and names are not used. Aunts & Uncles have names and titles, and both are used. Cousins are identified as family, but the title is only used in reference, not address. Note there are also elders who merit respect, but who are not blood relatives, yet merit the title of Aunt or Uncle. My favorite Aunt, Aunt Dorothy, is no relation, being my mother's best friend's sister-in-law. But she is and speaks Ruthenian like us, and went to the church where I was baptized, so she's an "Aunt". μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all the usual idiosyncrasies you find in families, I would think age and age difference are going to play a large role. Between adoptions, remarriages, etc. it's not at all uncommon for your aunt or uncle to be the same age or younger than you. Being roughly part of the same generation, it wouldn't make much sense to address them with "Aunt X" or "Uncle X"; those titles are deferential and would be out of place when addressing someone of the same age. Continuing on to second cousins and removals and so on, I think the age gap is going to trump any technical division. If my second cousin once removed is ten years older than me, I would probably call him/her by Uncle/Aunt, depending on how formal and familiar our relationship is. If we were of the same generation, I would probably only call them by their name, with the "cousin" bit only added during introductions to establish our relationship. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a centenarian first cousin, twice-removed (my father's father's cousin) who was about 70 years my senior, and who married into a rich industrial family. She was only ever "Aunt Eleanor" to anyone, including my grandfather. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Medeis's family refer to cousins in the third person as Cousin So-and-so, but my family doesn't do this, and I've never known anyone whose family did. So maybe that usage is current in a region and/or class other than my own. I've heard of that usage before, and to my ears it sounds vaguely southern. In my family, even a third-person reference to a cousin would be simply to "So-and-so" or maybe "Aunt/Uncle Such-and-such's son/daughter, So-and-so" if needed for clarity. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first person to have said that things I say sound vaguely Southern. A US Midlands accent sounds vaguely Southern to anyone with a northern accent--although I am not sure where you grew up. In any case, I have tons (dozens) of cousins, one of whom has the same first name I do. My father's father has three younger relatives of the same name. I have a cousin and two aunts on his side with the same given name. My mother's father has four younger relatives of the same name, so, five including him. That makes X, two uncle X'es, my cousin "X" or "little X" as he is called, and my sister X. And that doesn't even include my mother's cousins, uncles and grandparents. So a normal conversation will start out with the cousin referred to by title in the first instance, and then by the first name after. I would never address one of them as cousin or cousin X, however. Only by first name. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Statutes at Large[edit]

I'm just a little confused about the first Statute at Large, which is An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths. It shows that it is statute 23. My question is: what were the statutes before this? How come it starts at Statute 23 if this was the first law ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The article doesn't really explain unfortunately!

Many thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, it's Statute 1, but is on page 23 of the cited reference.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a standard citation format that is used for the Statute at Large: 110 Stat. 3035 refers to Volume 10, page 3035.[5] Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11 is correct: The statute has its citation because it begins on page 23 of volume 1, United States Statutes at Large. Pages 1 through 22 contained the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and amendments to the Constitution. John M Baker (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Letsbefiends (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secure sites[edit]

I've always thought that secure or controlled areas with checkpoints should check everyone including security who work on the checkpoint (by other security staff who don't work with them) and even law enforcement. This could be in the airside area of an airport, a military base or even a major sports stadium etc. However, I've heard of and even seen security or law enforcement personnel walk straight through such checkpoints? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a checkpoint? Clover345 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because these people have gone through a completely different set of checks, which are presumed to be more reliable than a bag-content search. --Lgriot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed members of such organisations should indeed have been security-checked as part of their employment, but unless the checkpoint actually checks a uniformed individual's (provably authentic) ID, how can it know that he/she is not an imposter? – it's not beyond the wit of malefactors to disguise themselves.

Of course, it's possible that the "strollers through" Clover 345 saw were personally known to and recognised by the checkpoint staff. I myself have worked in controlled environments where this was tolerated. However more stringent security regimes would not permit this: a friend of mine who is a long-serving security industry employee was required by one employer (IBM) always to demand the requisite ID, even if the individual was well known to him as a senior IBM employee on his site. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed that there are sufficient controls over the issue and checking of ID passes that anyone who has entered the airside area or military base must by definition be bona fide. --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle initials[edit]

Is there a reason that Americans (and other nationalities perhaps) include their middle initial when stating their names? For instance, the names of those killed in the Pave Hawk crash in Norfolk have been released as "Christopher S Stover", "Sean M Ruane", "Dale E Mathews" and "Afton M Ponce". I don't imagine it's to distinguish Afton Ponce from any other Afton Ponce, and it seems commonplace. It's certainly not something we usually do in the UK, in fact that report and the BBC report remove the middle initials in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always thought that it was because of the greater prevalence of inherited first names in some areas of the USA. Quoting full middle initials as the norm avoided confusion (see George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for example). Blakk and ekka 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think it is to help distinguish people with the same first and last name. Maybe this is because the United States has a larger population, so such pairs are more likely to occur? I have a common first name but a less common surname. Even so, there is a person (without any known relation to me) in my professional field who shares both names. I am careful to use my middle initial so that I won't be confused with that person (who fortunately has a different middle initial). Including a middle initial is conventional in the United States (though not done in every instance), so even a person with an uncommon first name like "Afton" might be listed with a middle initial to follow the pattern. Marco polo (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The elder Bush was never known by his middle initials H W until his son George W became a public figure. It was always just plain George Bush. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any authoritative answer, I have always supposed that it is purely a matter of fashion. I observe that I have never encountered a reference to John Q. Adams, which suggests to me that the fashion appeared after his time, but that conclusion may not be warranted. -- ColinFine (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2014‎

I'm not sure who you are, but I think you are right that the middle initial is essentially a matter of cultural preference or fashion (though it is understood as a means to distinguish among people with similar names). I suspect that its origins are in the second half of the 19th Century. Actually, its popularity in the United States may be due to military practice, per this source. Americans do not generally introduce themselves with their middle initial. That is, we say, "Hi, I'm Jarvis" or "Hi, I'm Jarvis Smith", not "Hi, I'm Jarvis Q. Smith." The middle initial occurs mainly in writing and especially in military sources such as the one cited in the original question. Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the way that US Presidents are recorded - everybody knows about John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon but I have no idea what Tony Blair or David Cameron has as a middle initial. A previous thread from 2009 - Presidential Middle Names - brought up the exception of Winston Churchill whose books were always published under the name of Winston S. Churchill after an agreement with the other Winston Churchill, who was in print under that name first. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there the famous three-named-assassin trope, obviously meant to avoid naming an innocent person as a murderer, there's also the fact of surname extinction. I am certain I have read that there are far fewer distinct individual English-origin surnames in the US, than in Britain, although I couldn't find a source with a quick google. In my own life, I have personally known or known of three people with the name Chris Lee. That doesn't include Saruman, the NY Politician, or any of the other famous Chris Lees on this list. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are probably tens of thousands of John Smiths in the UK, but I seldom, if ever, hear of British people feeling the obligation to disambiguate themselves from other John Smiths by placing their middle initial in their name in formal address. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's because U.S. natives usually only have two names, referred to as first name or (Christian name) and middle name, whereas Britons often seem to have several names in addition to their surname, one of which they (or their parents) use for short, but none of which is considered their "first name" by default and the others aren't considered "middle" names. Therefore it makes no sense to list the initial of one and not all, so all but the preferred one is dropped. U.S. Americans normally only have two names, and the one listed first is almost always the name primarily used (discounting nicknames). Since we only have one "middle name" it is common (though not prevalent) to allude to it. Traditiionally, women who assume their husband's surname usually thereafter drop their own middle name and substitute their birth surname for their middle name. PlayCuz (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's pretty common, though there are exceptions. One of my favorites is a 1950s-60s pitcher named Calvin Coolidge Julius Caesar Tuskahoma McLish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're right about Britons having several middle names. It may be the thing amongst the aristocracy, but more than one middle name would be seen as a bit pretentious for us plebs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodie. When I changed my name formally a few years ago, I ditched my existing middle name and chose 2 new ones instead. I always knew there was blue blood in there somewhere. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What! You mean to say that your middle name isn't "Of"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. My real user name is Jack d'Oz but I've anglicised it for the benefit of you plebs. I have not exvulged my inner names. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with Alan, the vast majority of the people I know (myself included) have just a single middle name. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in Mary Darby Robinson's poem "Male Fashions for 1799"[edit]

In Mary Darby Robinson's poem Male Fashions for 1799, can anyone identify what the word is in the third stanza which is written as "G-----"? I wondered whether it might be "German", but if so I couldn't see any reason for it not being written in full. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"German" doesn't really make sense in that context. I think it is more likely to be "Gentle" -- "Gentle race" = women. This sort of pseudo-redaction was common in prose and poetry at the time. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I'll be reading the poem aloud so if there's no documentary evidence, I'll just have to substitute something that makes sense. "Gentle race" seems a very likely candidate in the context. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, any ideas about the second line? Was a "whisper" some form of clothing? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texts of that particular turn-of-the-century era (of which this is a stunning example I am grateful to OpenToppedBus for bringing to my attention) usually would employ that convention as a substitute for an obvious obscenity; therefore I think the missing word should be goddamned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such missing words are common at this time, often they are names "Mr R.... B...." etc. This seems to be a deliberate parody of that convention. I doubt it's intended to be anything as harsh as 'godammed'. It seemingly does refer to women, so "gentle" seems likely. Perhaps its a joke that it's supposed to be a "secret" that the men are trying to impress women. However, the contrast with the "million" in the next line, seems to suggest it's referring to the genteel class. Whispers = "whiskers". That is a long beard like Moses. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, come to think of it it could be "gallant", which meant a man of fashion. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not necessarily mean women. I saw it in contrast to "French" in the preceding line, since most in her literate circle would have known the French called the English "goddams"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find that rather strained. Is there evidence of that for 1799? The sentence is "Worn the G----- race to please, but laugh'd at by the million." The French postillion is in the previous sentence. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK got looking for refs. An 1826 song book has a song called "The Fashions" with nearly the same lines with a few slight variations, said to be sung to the tune of "Yankee Doodle" and in place of the mysterious word it has "lofty"... [6] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also most versions of Robinson's original poem I could find have "lofty" for "G___" and "whiskers" for "whispers", etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was first published in the Morning Post and Gazetteer in 1799 and then she slightly revised the text in a later edition from 1806. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found an account of her writing it as a "companion" to another poem in her biography here: [7] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a female fashions poem that goes with it. They can both be read in editions of her works which can be accessed via the Internet Archive [8]. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder if "Whispers like Jew Moses" shouldn't be read quite literally. The overt subject of the poem is clothing. Most tailors of that period were Jews, and even in the most enlightened societies there was always an undercurrent of toleration of Jews rather than outright social acceptance. So this line could be referring to the male fashion of having a personal disregard for the Jewish tailors whose services they had little choice but avail themselves of, and taking every opportunity to note the fact of their Jewishness. In this light, the G word could well be Gentile.

Who is the anecdote about "only 3 faithful women" attributed to?[edit]

I remember an anecdote, possibly about a French poet or philosopher, (at least 19th century or much older), where on a royal banquet he once happened to say to a friend, that women are so unfaithful, he thinks there are not more than 3 faithful women in the whole country. To his misfortune, the queen overheard it, and asked who those three women are. He was in trouble, as there were more than 3 women (and/or more than 3 husbands) around, from the highest aristocracy, and naming any 3 would upset the rest. So he said "those three are your Majesty, my wife, and the third one I won't tell".

Who was this person, and what is the exact wording of the anecdote/story? Maybe he wasn't French, but he was 100% in a European court. --5.15.56.226 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long term Relationships[edit]

People often complain or moan about the opposite gender and long term relationships so why do humans still desire it? Is there a specific human need that only a long term relationship with the opposite gender can fulfil? Do any animals form long term relationships? Clover345 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famously, swans (see Swan and [9]). Pair bond and affectional bond, with their associated "see also" links might also be of interest. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some animal species form "harems", while others mate one-on-one for life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that long term relationships among humans are not always with the opposite gender. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and same-sex relationships also have their share of arguments, fights, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to your question, but I think an alternative approach might shed some light on it. Try reversing the question: People desire long term relationships and contact with the opposite gender (or attractive individuals of the same gender), so why do humans often complain about them? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People most often complain about something they care about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major Parties in each Caribbean and Europe nation[edit]

Who are the major parties in the Anglophone Caribbean nations, left and right wings and who are the major parties in European nations, left and right wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.174 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of social democratic parties. List of conservative parties by country. --Viennese Waltz 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English noble titles - can someone explain?[edit]

I've wondered for a long time how English aristocratic titles and names work (I'm English, by the way, and still don't understand it). For example why is it "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" but "Lord Peter Wimsey" (I'm aware that the latter is a fictional character but why not "Lord Alfred Tennyson" or "Peter, Lord Wimsey"?). Why "Diana, Princess of Wales" rather than "Princess Diana of Wales"? "Princess Michael of Kent" is married to Prince Michael of Kent which almost makes sense, but since her name appears (per WP) to be Marie Christine why is she not simply "Princess Marie of Kent"? And if there's any logic there why (prior to her divorce) was "Diana, Princess of Wales" not "Princess Charles of Wales"?

This stuff appears to matter (in a sense; I seem to recall some controversy about "Diana, Princess of Wales" as opposed to "Princess Diana of Wales" before she died) but is there an idiot's guide out there somewhere? As I say, I'm English and I still have no idea how it works or what "X, Lord Y" as opposed to "Lord X Y" means.

I'm limiting this to English titles as Scottish titles like this are completely beyond me.

Can anyone throw some light on how names such as this are supposed to work? I'd search WP, Debrett's and Burke's Peerage but I have no idea what to start looking for. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Peter Wimsey is the son of a duke, and is thus referred to as Lord [Name] [Surname]. His wife would be Lady Peter Wimsey. Alfred, Lord Tennyson is a baron, an actual peer; he is properly referred to as "Lord Tennyson" (with no reference to his first name). His wife was "Lady Tennyson". Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury can be called "the Earl of Shaftesbury", but is much more commonly referred to as "Lord Shaftesbury". So:

All peers except for dukes and duchesses can be called and often are called Lord/Lady [Something].
Sons of dukes and marquesses are called Lord [Name] [Surname] (Lord Henry Somerset).
Daughters-in-law of dukes and marquesses are called Lady [Husband's Name] [Husband's Surname] (Lady Randolph Churchill).
Daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls are called Lady [Name] [Surname] (Lady Diana Spencer). Surtsicna (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, "Princess Diana of Wales" would be the title of a daughter of the Prince of Wales. During her marriage, Diana was "the Princess of Wales". She was not "Princess Charles of Wales" because that title would belong to a daughter-in-law of the Prince of Wales. So, you have "the Prince and Princess of Wales". Their daughter is "Princess [Name] of Wales" (like the Duke of York's daughter is Princess Beatrice of York). Their son is "Prince [Name] of Wales" (Prince Henry of Wales). Their daughter-in-law would be "Princess [Husband's Name] of Wales" (Princess William of Wales). Marie-Christine gained the princely title by marrying Prince Michael of Kent; she is thus Princess Michael of Kent.

I really hope this was easy to follow. Not only am I not English, but English is not my first language! Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or Madam (your name and userpage give no clue), thanks for that. I'm still not entirely sure about "Princess Michael of Kent" (few are, it seems) but I'll wander off and look at some family trees given your valuable input. Thanks very much. One thing, though – you say Alfred, Lord Tennyson is properly referred to as "Lord Tennyson" (with no reference to his first name) any idea as to why he's always referred to in the UK as "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" rather than just "Lord Tennyson" while we never say (for example) "George, Lord Byron". It's not as though there are another 6 Lord Tennysons who were famous for their poetry so we need to distinguish between them! Your English, by the way, is better than that of many people I meet. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not English, and I don't normally pay attention to this sort of thing, but I was curious to see whether I could follow the explanation. What I'm inferring is that how a person's title is rendered depends entirely on whether the title is inherited (or perhaps bestowed by the monarch) on the one hand, or acquired through marriage on the other. A woman who acquires a title through marriage must bear her husband's name after the title. That's why it's Princess Michael of Kent. A woman who inherits a title (or who is entitled to a title through inheritance) gets to put her own name after the title. Similarly, Diana could not be Princess Diana of Wales, since she is "of Wales" only by marriage. (Though I don't understand why, if a woman can become Princess Michael of Kent by marrying the Prince of Kent, Diana could not be Princess Charles of Wales.) Marco polo (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation as to the difference in convention between "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" and "Lord Byron" (no George) has to to with the nature and timing of their elevation to the peerage. Tennyson received his peerage later in life, it was created for him as a result of his fame as an author, and he was published as merely "Alfred Tennyson" before his elevation. He was already poet laureate under the "Alfred Tennyson" name years before he was given his earldom, which was created specifically for him at age 74. Byron, on the other hand, inherited his peerage at age 10 from his great uncle, William Byron, 5th Baron Byron. Byron was basically already merely "Lord Byron" years before he was ever published. So, while both were "officially" merely "Lord (surname)", we conventionally keep Alfred's name at the front because most of his work was written when he was still merely "Alfred Tennyson". --Jayron32 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo: Princess Michael of Kent is not married to a "Prince of Kent". There is no such title. Her husband is a Prince of the United Kingdom known as "Prince Michael of Kent" because his father was a Duke of Kent. The "of Kent" in their case is somewhat like a family name; Michael's sister was "Princess Alexandra of Kent" until she married and became "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy". On the other hand, the titles of Duke of Kent and Prince of Wales are substantive titles. Their holder are known as "the Duke of Kent" and "the Prince of Wales", never as "Duke Edward of Kent" or "Prince Charles of Wales". Their wives are thus "the Duchess of Kent" and "the Princess of Wales". Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Surtsicna's answer is excellent, I would say I was under the impression that Diana was "Princess Charles", in exactly the same same way that the wife of Prince Michael is Princess Michael. In general married women are formally known by their husbands' names and styles, even down to the everyday "Jane Smith" is "Mrs John Smith", and never "Mrs Jane Smith". Of course these rules are hardly ever observed outside the titled ranks these days. Rojomoke (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana could only have been Princess Diana had she been descended from a monarch. She was styled HRH Diana, Princess of Wales (though Princess Charles of Wales would not have been incorrect). Hack (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana was "Princess Charles", but not "Princess Charles of Wales", much like Charles is "Prince Charles", but not "Prince Charles of Wales". Diana was never "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales"; she went from "HRH The Princess of Wales" (during her marriage) to "Diana, Princess of Wales" (after her divorce). Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a distinction I hadn't considered. Thanks Surtsicna Rojomoke (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (who is still, despite her marriage to Will, often referred to by her maiden name Kate Middleton) could be "Princess William of Wales"? Why does that title not outrank her Duchess title? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw a thought in here, Kate Middleton was a commoner whereas Lady Diana Spencer was of noble descent and therefore carried her own title. I wonder if that has made a difference? Also note that the Queen's other son who is currently married bears the title of the Earl of Wessex, and his wife is never referred to as Princess Edward but Sophie, Duchess of Wessex - and she was also a commoner before marriage. Ah - now I think of it, Princeness is something you are born with as the child of a monarch, whereas the other titles (Duke, Earl, Baron) are conferred by the monarch and therefore is what you are addressed as. (Sorry to think aloud here - I'll have a look for some references in a while, unless someone else wants to in the meantime. Just popped in while having a cuppa.) --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All titles (except these days some Barons are inherited, so that's not the distinction. Lady Diana Spencer's title was only a courtesy one (Unlike some European systems only one member of a family has a 'real' title). I don't think that would have affected anything. Rojomoke (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge ... could be "Princess William of Wales"? Why does that title not outrank her Duchess title? I am no expert (though I thought Jack was!) but I think it's because her full title (or is it "style"?) is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge (see announcement here), and similarly for William (and Andrew and Edward, for that matter), to whom a similar question could apply. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive peerages are considered to outrank princely titles (hence why HRH Prince William of Wales became HRH The Duke of Cambridge when he was given the Dukedom of Cambridge). The same principle applies to the wives of peers. Courtesy titles, on the other hand, do not (which is why the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester were HRH Prince Edward of Kent and HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester before succeeding to those titles rather than using the courtesy titles Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster (which their sons, who do not have princely titles, do use)). Proteus (Talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but not quite. It isn't that "substantive titles outrank princely titles", it is that royal titles outrank noble titles. Most people think of "royal titles" as king, queen, prince, princess. But if the recipient is royal, the title is treated as royal, if not, not. Royals always outrank nobles, and they "uplift" their titles. So "Duke of Cambridge" and "Earl of Wessex" are royal titles because they were conferred on princes of the blood royal: Contrary to popular opinion, a "royal dukedom" is no different than a noble one, except that it is borne by a prince (this was not always thus: "dukes of the blood royal" once-upon-a-time were a distinct rank, with specific precedence assigned to them and their children above noble dukes and theirs, but this practice has fallen into desuetude, so nowadays once a royal dukedom is inherited by someone not entitled to the style of Royal Highness -- say someone who is only the great-grandson of a British sovereign -- its precedence drops down below all dukedoms created previously) Thus, when Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife married Prince Arthur of Connaught in 1913, who did not live long enough to inherit his father's royal dukedom, her ducal title (being inherited from her non-royal father) was submerged and she was known as "HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught". Her non-royal son, Alastair Windsor, however, used his mother's subsidiary title, Earl of MacDuff, as his courtesy title, until he succeeded his paternal grandfather as non-royal Duke of Connaught and Strathern (but didn't outlive his mother to succeed to the Dukedom of Fife, which would have been submerged in his royal dukedom anyway). FactStraight (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my statement was entirely correct. The best counter-example to your theory is the one you've provided: Princess Alexandra was known as "Her Highness The Duchess of Fife" before her marriage to Prince Arthur, her "non-royal" title not being subsumed beneath her own princely title because substantive peerages are considered to outrank princely titles. Her choice to take the female version of her husband's title after marriage was just that: a choice. Formally she was the Duchess of Fife (Princess Arthur of Connaught), and was named as such in formal notices. Proteus (Talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that Alexandra was a peeress in her own right as Duchess of Fife, so of course she retained that title legally: the question is, was the ducal title used to refer to her at the Court of St. James's? Can you provide sources for the contention that Princess Alexandra would have been known as "Duchess of Fife" after marriage and that it was a matter of her personal choice that she be known, instead, as "Princess Arthur of Connaught"? Otherwise, I don't see how this marriage demonstrates anything other than that her non-royal ducal peerage was subordinated to her husband's royal princely style. Her use, pre-maritally, of the ducal title after inheriting the dukedom, rather than the princely title, isn't convincingly relevant because her only two options at that point were to continue to be known by (the same style as her younger sister) "HH Princess Alexandra of Fife" or become "HH the Duchess of Fife". In the cases of other British princesses who marry non-royal peers, they continue to use their own royal prefix (i.e. "The Princess Royal" or "Princess Firstname") dropping only their maiden suffixes in favor of their husbands' title, viz. Mary, Princess Royal (wife of the Earl of Harewood), Princess Alice of Albany (wife of the Earl of Athlone), Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom (wife of the Earl of Snowden). But wives of princes (whether he is a peer or not) lose their "Princess Firstname" distinction, henceforth being referred to at court only by their husbands' title, e.g. HRH Princess Marina of Greece became "HRH the Duchess of Kent", not "HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent". FactStraight (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]