Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 19

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.

March 19

Being approached by a child street prostitute

What should one do after the fact? Is there any child protection agency, not the New York City police, one can contact? Thanks. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

DCFS possibly. If they aren't the "correct" people to call, then they could direct you to who are. Dismas|^(talk) 03:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Contact the police directly - Child Protective Services don't really have the skillset or authority to deal with pimps or criminal activity. they usually step in at the request of police or judges after it's determined that a child needs to be monitored or removed in a given situation. There's no reason not to contact the police (a minor's record will be sealed and/or expunged, so nothing from this will follow him/her into adulthood), unless you think the police are connected to the crime or unwilling to investigate. in that case you should contact a non-profit child welfare advocacy organization (there are dozens of those) and seek out their advice.--Ludwigs2 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unless you think the police are connected to the crime"????? In a developed country? You are joking Ludwigs, please, please tell me you are joking. Do you not have cross-agency working in the USA? Surely someone can quickly report this to whatever agency is closest to hand and be absolutely 100% sure that it will be pursued? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been police corruption in some U.S. cities, such as cops taking bribes to ignore certain criminal activity. I would hope that no cop would be so cold-hearted as to let child prostitution slide. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still alarmed in that you phrase this in terms of the action of one individual cop. There should be systems in place so that a cop would know that it was imperative not to ignore such a thing. In the UK there has been huge public outrage about child abuse, particularly about social workers not doing their jobs properly, but also cases where the police, doctors and schools have failed to notice abuse. We do have some police corruption; there are currently allegations of spying on behalf of the tabloid newspapers. But if there was the slightest suspicion it could affect child protection, the public storm would be massive. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Judith: I wasn't really making that implication overtly, but rather trying to address the OP's reticence to contact police, in a scattershot manner. The only reasons not to want to do that are because you don't want the child involved in a police investigation or you don't trust the police. Most cops in the US are moral sticklers about law and order (sometimes to an unpleasantly aggressive extent), but there are plenty of jaded cops - particularly in urban areas - for whom one more child prostitute is a disagreeable-but-insignificant reality of life, and a few bad eggs who are not above turning a blind eye for the right price. The real problem in the US is that police are extraordinarily cliquish and tend to protect even bad cops from public censure. One has to be fairly determined about being evil to get one's fellow cops to take notice. --Ludwigs2 14:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"one more child prostitute is a disagreeable-but-insignificant reality of life". Any other rich country where that could be said? By way of comparison, London is gearing up to the Olympics and people are starting to warn that there will be a massive influx of prostitutes. Police are being asked to get the problem of human trafficking under control. We know that, for example, young women in eastern Europe are tricked into coming to Britain on the promise of jobs, and then virtually enslaved. But no-one is saying that under-18s will be significantly involved. The risk of getting caught is not worth it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That has to do with the peculiar way class distinctions evolved in the US. It's an irony that the US - because it lacks the overt, structured class distinctions that exist in Europe - is utterly blind to implicit class distinctions determined by wealth and poverty, and is much more callous about them. The child of a wealthy family being approached by a stranger is a terrifying outrage that calls for an immediate and strong police response; the runaway child of a poor family ending up as a prostitute is just one of those things that happens to those kinds of people. As an American, I often find my fellow country-people stupid, bigoted, and arrogant; unfortunately, I haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it, and I refuse to resort to the spluttering incomprehensible grunting and growling that passes for political dialog here. fun as that might be... --Ludwigs2 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Child prostitution and sexual abuse happens everywhere, along with adult prostitution. It just tends to be better hidden. And cops will ignore it, for various reasons, as in the following case, where drug users were involved. My brother witnessed repeated child prostitution of very obviously underage children near his work in Cardiff, Wales, about 10 years ago, and kept reporting it, to no effect. Finally, he managed to get hold of a higher ranking officer, who promised to deal with, and it was then sorted, or at least it was no longer happening right by his office. I also know social workers who have commented on its increase, mainly due to children getting addicted to harder drugs. This is still relatively uncommon, but it definitely goes on. I think sometimes people are so shocked, they like to pretend it doesn't happen. Snorgle (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A rather vague question

I remember reading (somewhere) about an inscription that was discovered upon renovation of a large medieval cathedral. I believe it was on the spire or roof. I can't remember what it said, nor where this discovery occurred. I would be very happy if someone remembers what I've forgotten, that is, what was written, where it was, or both. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you told us when you heard this. Was it recent, or years ago?AerobicFox (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I read it within the last two years. As to the subject matter, I believe it had something to do with the construction of the cathedral and how the laborers would never see it completed. Hopefully this helps narrow things down. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, medieval cathedrals sometimes took centuries to build - for example, Wells Cathedral took over 300 years to build. A more modern example is Sagrada Família in Barcelona which has been under construction since 1882. It is not surprising therefore that those involved in the early construction phases would often never see the building completed. Judging from a suitable Google search, it seems inscriptions are found during many renovations. Without additional details, it might be very hard to track down exactly the one you are thinking of. Astronaut (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The cathedral that underwent the renovation is in (western) Europe. Google still doesn't seem to be offering any real assistance in the matter. Thank you again. Vidtharr (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My awesome boyfriend pointed me towards this.http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/news.php?id=463..Hotclaws (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Economics of fundamentalist polygamy

How does a community like Bountiful, British Columbia survive economically? Winston Blackmore has 25 wives and 100 children. I don't think fundamentalist Mormon religion gives the women much opportunity to work. It sounds like a farm designed to produce the most unwanted waste product on the planet - humans. From the documentary I'm watching, they have modern buildings, kitchens, vehicles, own large regions of land. Where does all the money come from? Wnt (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You consider yourself to be a "waste product"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any country in the world that wants people, as opposed to cash (or occasionally, cheap short-term competition to drive down wages in skilled occupations)? Wnt (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's about as cynical a viewpoint as I've seen, and it doesn't answer my question anyway: Do you consider yourself to be "waste"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea about British Columbia, but in the 1960s and 1970s some groups in certain U.S. states notoriously manipulated the welfare system. As for a subculture of thriving agricultural population growth, see Hutterites, Old_Order_Amish#Population_and_distribution, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on The Latter Day Saints, but I think that some sects believe they must create their own paradise become The Return of Christ. Having many children and a self-sufficient community would be fulfilling the commands at Genesis 1:28 and Isaiah 65:17-25, respectively. The answer to your question is two-fold. First thing that comes to mind is the promise of Jesus at Matthew 6:33:

“Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these [other] things will be added to YOU."

— Jesus, Book of Matthew

Additionally, this particular British sect of The Latter Day Saints may adhere to some form of Primitive communism. What is the name of the documentary? It sounds interesting. Schyler! (one language) 13:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not British, they're Canadian (although they are originally American). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A big mistake on my part. I just read British... does Wikipedia have an article about the group in question and/or the documentary? Schyler! (one language) 16:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Wnt linked to them in the question (Bountiful is the name of their settlement). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While women may be discouraged from working outside the home, there's plenty of opportunity to make money while working at home. Farming, weaving, crafts, art, etc., could all be forms of income, although I assume that the husband would go into town to sell them. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Raising children is roughly as much work as a full-time job -- but you don't get weekends off. --Carnildo (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Early human migrations from India

I don't know what exactly Michael Wood means when he says (in The Story of India)that "all non-Africans on the planet can trace their descent from those early migrations into India. The rest of the world was populated from here -- 'Mother India' indeed.". Early human migrations does not present such a simplistic view. What is the scholarly opinion about this statement. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While not strictly true that all non-African humans descend from the earliest settlers of the Subcontinent, India does have a role in the early pre-history, see Indus Valley Civilization, which was one of the earliest civilized areas of the world, on par with the Fertile Crescent in terms of being presciently settled and civilized. --Jayron32 12:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the map I've added indicates (taken from Recent African origin of modern humans), that idea does not accord with the available data. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that map is rubbish when it comes to the early Australian population, unless they were awfully good swimmers. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the map is meant to portray exact routes, and being so undetailed it omits many of the islands still existing, let alone areas now submerged by post-glacial sea-level rises, through which the ancestral Australian Aborigines island hopped, presumably using early boats or rafts. {The poster previously known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.165 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when watching the program, too. Perhaps he was referring to the earlier theory that the "Aryan race" originated in northern India and then spread to Europe  ? Unfortunately, many science/biography/documentary shows on TV seem to lack rigorous fact-checking. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wood's statement is certainly going to surprise those who settled into the Fertile Crescent, and those who moved from there to Europe or Central Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan: America's second greatest ally in the world?

I was listening on the radio yesterday about the disaster in Japan, and this host (I don't remember his name) said that Japan has become America's biggest ally after Great Britain. Is this host right? Willminator (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Define "biggest". Japan has the second- or third-largest GDP, higher than the UK. They're way down the list of military size. They're pretty high on military spending, but the UK, France, and Germany are all higher. Canada, Brazil, Australia, and others have them beat handily in size. The political aspects don't really have an objective form of measurement, but I don't think there's a clear-cut hierarchy that puts Japan second. — Lomn 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By asking if Japan was our "second greatest ally," I was intending to ask if Japan was our second closest friend (Great Britain currently being the first). Is Japan currently America's second closest friend? If not, where would Japan be today on America's friendship scale? I keep hearing President Obama and others saying that Japan is one of our closest allies, which is something I've heard before the Japanese disaster, and is true. The radio host I heard yesterday said that Japan was America's second greatest (closest) ally. That's the first time I've heard that claim, so I'm wondering if that claim is true. Willminator (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all rather subjective (opinion). The US does, however, have major military bases there, so that's a sign of their usefulness to the US. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So, since it's subjective to rate Japan or some other country as our second closest ally in the world, would it be also subjective to rate Great Britain as our closest ally in the world? Willminator (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would argue that Canada is, due to a massive amount of trade between the two, and amazingly few border squabbles for two nations which share one of the longest borders in the world, and miltary co-operation such as NORAD and the DEW line. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say who is exactly the closest, but the Japanese are definitely in the top 2-3 of the closest allies(in a lot of ways I would consider them the closest). We do have an article Japan – United States relations, but that doesn't outline cultural aspects.AerobicFox (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the OP asked on the talk page there before coming to the ref desk. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I already erased my question on the talk page now that I'm getting answers here. No one replied to my question on the talk page, so I decided to erase it when I got answers here. Willminator (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please stop now. It's a very silly discussion. There is obviously no precise definition of degree of closeness of alliedness. It's language used by diplomats and politicians, and we know they consciously avoid precise definitions. If we ever really need words here, "A close ally of..." is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder about this sort of thing. Does Wikipedia have a policy on vacuous statements made by reliable sources? I suppose the thing to do would be to write "Politician X said this", with an implied "(whatever that really means)". 213.122.34.134 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could come up with a definition of "closest ally", say the one to which you have the most dollars in trade ? However, as no definition is used universally, there's no way to apply this to establish the "truth" of statements about "closest allies" from politicians. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian politicians like to say that America has no stronger friend in the world than Australia, and it would be undiplomatic for US Presidents to disagree. Julia Gillard spoke to the US Congress recently and went on emotionally about how Americans can do anything; I've never heard her or any other Australian politician tell Australians anything remotely like that, so that's quite some praise. Obama has been scheduled to visit Australia ever since he came to office, but at least 2 visits have had to be put off due to other emerging issues, and I'm not aware there's any visit at all scheduled at present. It's in the "We'd love to come Down Under when time permits" basket, which has a commitment value of zero. So, what that all says about the closeness of the US-Australian alliance, I'm really not sure. We have to be content with Oprah and her excessive (even for her) perorations of naked abject lust for all things Australian. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of affection, Jack. But you know, Japan is our regional counterweight to China. When New Zealand starts giving us trouble, you can bet Australia will be higher on the returned-call list. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a no-fly zone?

I read on the BBC that French jets have begun enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya. I don't quite understand why they have "destroyed a number of tanks and armoured vehicles". Were they trying to prevent the tanks from flying, or is the no-fly zone misnamed? 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we should be referring to No-fly zone, but it doesn't suggest that destroying tanks is part of it. Maybe the media doesn't understand either. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Any hostile action from ground forces towards the planes enforcing the 'no fly zone' (including just locking on radar) would be met with an immediate response. However, from the terms of the UN resolution I believe it also allows any action to prevent harm to the civilian population short of landing ground forces. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Those Libyans can be very sneaky... best to play it safe.

OK, seriously, the UN resolution that the international community is now enforcing calls for more than just a "no-fly" zone. It also calls for a halt to ground attacks. The French strikes are designed achieve that. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan no-fly zone explains, though. WHAAOE! Thanks. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can be the first to come up with a better name for this style of operation.... HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's call it a ten foot pole operation. 213.122.34.134 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, really, the old-fashined term for this is balance of power, where in this case the UN is using its forces to counterbalance the extreme equipment advantages the pro-government forces have over their own people. Balance of power has historically been used as a perverse stabilizing influence - making victory questionable enough so that governments hesitate to engage in conflict.

Plus, that way we can use the ultra cool term: it's a BOP-zone! --Ludwigs2 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think confusing names on Wikipedia are a bit of an issue. If anyone else agrees, especially about this one, maybe continue discussion at Talk:Libyan no-fly zone#Rename. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The mention of preventing tanks from flying made me laugh, but it's worth mentioning that sometimes tanks have indeed been known to fly; see Winged tank. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wealth of the Windsor family

If they were no longer paid public money, and had to leave all publicly owned property, how much income and capital would they have left?

From the amount we pour into them, they must realy be on their uppers. 92.24.178.214 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking this as a serious question, the Duchy of Cornwall made £16 million last year (all those biscuits, presumably). It makes a lot of difference how the "Windsor" family were privatised; the Duchy itself is automatically in the control of the heir of the monarch. I have a feeling, though, this is another of the monarchy-bashing civil list questions we had a while back. It's impossible to answer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The "heir of the monarch" being currently Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. I just mention this because it's become flavour of the month in the media to refer to Charles's son William as "heir to the throne". William does not, however, have that distinction. He's in the line of succession, and in the ordinary course of events he will become heir when his father becomes king, and then succeed his father - in about 30 years time. But his father's still waiting patiently in line himself; he might get to become king when he's in his 70s, the way his mother's going. If she lasts as long as her own mother, Charles would not get to become king till about 2026, when he'll be 78. William would then be 44. He might not get to become king himself till he's about 66. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

...unless Charles realizes that he's quite a good Prince of Wales and steps aside for a young king, retraining his title and the Duchy...--Wetman (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If William were to have children, and Charles stepped aside in favor of him, Charles would no longer be the heir to the throne, and therefore no longer eligible to hold the titles of Duke of Cornwall or Prince of Wales. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But why would Charles step aside, and why should he? The history of the British monarchy contains no precedent for such a thing (Edward VIII is not a comparable case). The people of the Commonwealth do not want another Richard Nixon. He's been preparing all his life to become king. It's not a popularity contest. The Parliament might just have the teensiest opinion on such a matter, by the way; at law, it's not even Charles's decision. Anyway, it wouldn't depend on whether or not William had progeny. If he were childless, Harry would become heir. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I completely don't get the Nixon ref. Who was the first Nixon the people of the Commonwealth didn't want, or at least don't want another of? Was it the actual Nixon, who I don't see what he has to do with this, or Edward VIII, whose connection with Nixon is obscure to me, or someone else, or some other kind of metaphor altogether? --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was thinking Edward VIII and Richard Nixon are the only people to have resigned voluntarily from their roles as head of state of the UK and the USA. Just as the USA would not welcome another presidential resignation, the UK and the Commonwealth would not welcome another abdication (or whatever it's called when the heir to the throne decides he does not want to succeed and passes the baton to the next in line). I confused matters when I excluded Edward VIII up front (on the grounds that his abdication as king is not the same thing as the resignation of the heir to the throne from the line of succession), but then implicitly included him as an example of an abdication in more general terms. Don't quite know what I was thinking there. Warning: The foregoing may be no clearer than before, in which case, I'm again sorry. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, now that's clear. I didn't make the connection because Nixon's resignation was under shameful circumstances, whereas Edward's abdication was not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But Miesianical (below) reminds me that it's not even possible for an heir to the throne to "de-heir" himself (barring becoming or marrying a Catholic). Well, it's technically possible, but it would require the concurrence of the UK Parliament and the parliaments of all the other 15 Commonwealth realms to make any change to the law concerning the succession to the throne. If Charles became a convicted rapist or a serial killer or bank robber or was declared incurably insane, then maybe they'd consider he'd lost the plot and it would be best if he were removed from the line - but barring such extraordinary circumstances, it just ain't gonna happen. It certainly isn't going to happen just because people generally seem to like William better than Charles. So, all this speculation we keep hearing is just ill-informed gossip-magazine stuff. Whether anyone including Charles likes it or not, Charles will succeed Elizabeth unless he happens to die before her. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that historians 'today' see Edward VIII's actions as shameful. They see him as having been a quitter. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what else he should have done. Should he have thumbed his nose at the government's threat to resign, and married Wallis anyway? Or should he have sacrificed his happiness to carry on in the family business, a meaningless job that no one had ever asked him whether he wanted?

Granted, the story's not perfect; it would have been better if he'd made a clean break with royalty and gone and found something to do with his life afterwards. It would also have been better if he hadn't given people reason to suspect he was pro-Nazi. But neither of those things led to his abdication. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest that that in itself was shameful. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is speculation that Charles might decline to be King if Camilla is not made Queen. Whether that speculation has any basis in fact is another matter. Ultimately the speculation is fun, but pointless... We will find out when Elizabeth II dies. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. If Charles becomes king, Camilla or whoever he's married to at the time (barring a same-sex partnership) WILL BE queen. But HE has made the decision, at least for now, that when he becomes king, she will not be CALLED "Queen" but "Princess Consort". It's entirely in his hands. When the time comes, who knows what will happen. If he has to wait another 15 years, there'll be a whole pile of his subjects who've never even heard of Diana, so the whole point of the alternative title for Camilla will have dissipated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jack says, the wife of a king is a queen. It's part of the definition of the word "queen", really. Where there is some leeway is in what style a particular individual uses. That would be a decision for Charles and Camilla to make (perhaps with the advice of ministers and courtiers). It's the same as the decision for Camilla to be styled "Duchess of Cornwall" rather than "Princess of Wales". She is the Princess of Wales but she doesn't use that title. --Tango (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In these days of gender equality, is it fair the "the wife of a king is a queen", but " the husband of a queen is a king" doesn't hold? Dbfirs 08:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But it's also not symmetrical. That is, Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is not considered to be a "king". I suspect that the reason is that, historically, if there was a king and a queen, the king was presumed to have the most power, with the queen in a secondary role. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Windsor wealth is slap in the face to democracy. They're getting paid for being who they are (royalty). As for the succession? the 16 Commonwealth realm Parliaments decide, not the monarch or anybody within her family. So far, Charlie is still heir-apparent. Legally, Elizabeth II is the heir, as heir means to be in possesion of 'or' in succession to - i.e. Elizabeth II is the 'heir' to George VI. GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Windsors" are not paid public money. Those in the Royal Family who carry out official duties on behalf of any of the Commonwealth realms have the expences incurred by those activities paid for by the relevant state, just as it is for any other government official. These funds are controlled by the various parliaments; the monarch hasn't held the purse strings for more than two hundred years. (So much for a "slap in the face" to democracy!) How they earn money as private individuals depends on who it is we're talking about; as has already been noted, Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall, the Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster and investments. But, how much the family is collectively worth, in that sense, I've no idea. Just like any other individual, its their private business.

As for Charles: the question of his "stepping aside" in favour of William is hardly worth pondering; he cannot willingly abdicate his place in the succession. He must have the approval of all the parliaments of the 16 Commonwealth realms (plus each of the 10 provincial legislatures in Canada and perhaps the states of Australia) to do such a thing. It's technically possible, but is such a complex matter he'd likely be dead before it was finally done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchies got go. They're a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Catchy. But wrong, as proven by all the democracies that incorporate monarchy. Plus, history tells us monarchy probably isn't going anywhere; its too flexible to go extinct. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Too archaic, it's gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that democracy is some new invention and ancient and modern are inherently incompatible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We're in the 21st century, time to stop playing the 'princess in the palace' fairy-tale stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not really relevant to the "monarchy is archaic and thus incompatible with democracy and thus must go" argument, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

British, Australian, Canadian etc, don't get to choose their Head of State. They don't even get to choose their head of government, the Monarch has that choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the reference desk is a debate forum. Corvus cornix_talk 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mies & I will cease. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The queen inherited billions of pounds of investments including billions of pounds of rent-yielding properties in London. The royal family needs to continue to be exempt to death duties to preserve the value of their investments.
Sleigh (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that really true? They have never paid death duties? That's a disgrace. 92.15.23.133 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In 2001 Forbes.com valued her wealth at $420 million but compared to Beatrix of the Netherlands who was supposed to be worth $3.2 billion, Elizabeth needs to get the begging bowl out!. However The Times newspaper in 2005 valued the Royal Family at £6 billion--that's pounds, not dollars mind--if they were to be floated on the stock market. However they can't be so they finally came to the conclusion that their net worth was £300 million. That's not a million miles from Forbes estimate. -Bill Reid | (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...and that means that Bill Gates could buy them out 100 times, and he does not have several rustic tourists attractions to maintain. Puts things into perspective... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gates worked hard and deserved some at least of his money by making computers available to almost everyone. What have the Windsors done, apart from continuous PR displays to preserve their own positions? 92.15.6.157 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Gates was primarily responsible for "making computers available to almost everyone." What makes you think that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Outlook for the USD

What is the outlook for the USD against the other major currencies over the next few months? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not too bad, but you never know. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant, but with currencies, bond yields, stocks, whatever, you're usually going to have about as many people thinking they should go up as think they should go down. If it were obvious the dollar should be higher, it would already be there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Over the next few months the yen will be falling, so the USD will be doing better compared to that. Apart from that it is faring as usual.AerobicFox (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows. See Efficient markets hypothesis. If they think they know, they are either extremely clever and as a result very rich or, and far more likely, gamblers or charlatans selling financial snake-oil.

On second thoughts I think the best forecast for the USD is its current value, and weighted into the future by the comparative interest rates of the currencies it is compared with. This is what the EMH implies. There must be an article about that but I cannot think what it would be called. Edit: Interest rate parity.

If the OP is thinking about whether to buy foriegn currency now or later, then buying half now and half when needed would reduce the psychological regret. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@AerobicFox, the Yen won't necessarily fall. Japaneses are bringing money home from abroad. That means selling Euros and Dollar and buying Yens. Quest09 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That has already been taken account of in the current value of the yen. In other words its too late to anticipate what Quest09 has described. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all price movements are speculative. Sometimes people buy stuff because they need it. Speculators would never ever be able to know in advance how much more Yens will be flowing to Japan in the next months. They are just what they are: speculators trying to guess. Of course, economists will provide you a theory about why everything is like a clock in economics...212.169.189.144 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Future known movements are already reflected in current prices due to Temporal arbitrage temporal Arbitrage. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are very careful not to offer legal advice, and react in horror at the thought of using these pages to offer medical advice, why oh why do people persist in offering financial advice? Please, people! Leave it to the professionals, and discourage this sort of question! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...or the astronomers, who sometimes are equally skilled to predict market developments as economists... --Soman (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Or monkeys, dice, or flipping coins. The latter in particular have an impressive 50% success rate, and portfolios chosen by monkeys often beat those of experts. See for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242575/Lusha-monkey-outperforms-94-Russia-bankers-investment-portfolio.html and others. 92.15.14.45 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)