Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 November 28

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< November 27 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 29 >
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.


November 28

edit

How expensive was owning a car in World War 2?

edit

Were fluids and tires and things more expensive? How far could you drive without using up your ration? Were used cars more expensive since many (all?) manufacturers switched to military vehicles? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, "motor vehicle travel fell dramatically during the war years. Cars that had been nursed through the Depression long after they were ready to be junked were patched up further"[1] [and] "The national maximum Victory Speed was 35 miles an hour, and driving clubs or carpools were encouraged."[2] Interestingly, the U.S. Office of Price Administration mandated "no new-car sales to nonmilitary personnel, price limits and mandatory indoor storage of unsold new cars" (of which there were 532,000).[3] However, none of these sources directly answer your questions. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5BE:8B3:6285:3518 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagittarian Milky Way:, according to the article Rationing_in_the_United_States, the normal ration for gasoline was 3-4 gallons per week. More was allowed if you were performing work critical to the war effort. You could look up the milage for cars of that era, along with the 35mph limit, and deduce how far you could go. RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 gallons a week? Big deal. In the UK, from 1942 to 1945 you couldn't buy the stuff at all. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • [UK] Very cheap. It was difficult and expensive to operate one. Many cars were simply laid up in garages 'for the duration'. Many such owners sold their tyres to those who were still running a car.
But there was also a trade, especially towards the end, of buying up old cars (especially high-end cars) that had been stored and planning to open a garage selling them after the end of the war. The difficulty then was that post-war petrol become quite widely available, and batteries could be obtained from government surplus, but rubber tyres in civilian car sizes were very difficult to get hold of for some years. There was a strong trade in second-hand cars post-WWII, because purchase tax on new ones was deliberately high (new cars were intended for export, not local sale). There was also a large trade in stealing their wheels! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Automobile History - Facts & Summary". HISTORY.com. A+E Networks.
  2. ^ "World War II Rationing on the U.S. Homefront". www.ameshistory.org. Ames Historical Society.
  3. ^ Jesse Snyder (October 31, 2011). "No new cars, but that didn't stop U.S. automakers, dealers during WWII". Automotive News. Crain Communications, Inc.
Another way of beating petrol rationing was a gas bag, or you could make your own coal gas as you drove along with a miniature towed gasworks like this. Wikipedia seems to lack an article about this (unless you know better). Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wood gas generator. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thanks WegianWarrior. Somewhat confusing title as the gas in question (in wartime Europe at any rate) was coal gas. Also, users could fill their bags direct from a tap in the gas main at special filling stations, so no generator required. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of wood gas powered cars in wartime Europe as well, in particularly in the countries where town gas were not common (such as Norway). AFAIK the conversion of the engine is similar, even if I have no ready sources for that.
A bit more wood in Norway than London I suppose :-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest body called "Senate"

edit

What was the smallest legislative body ever called a "senate"? The Senate of Belize has 8 members, and the Delaware Senate had 9 in the 1800s...so are there even smaller ones?!—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Legislative Council of the Isle of Man (which is not called a senate, but serves a parallel function to the senates in various legislatures) had 8 elected members and 2 ex officio ones from 1980-1990, according to our article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about ever, but a good place to start to look for candidates would be the Wikipedia article titled List of legislatures by number of members. --Jayron32 12:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That list, and the Belize article, indicate that Belize has 12 members in its senate, not the 8 suggested. The list shows Palau and the Northern Mariana Islands as having senates with just 9 members, though the Palau article disagrees. It looks as if the Northern Marianas may hold the current record, and I can't find any references to anything smaller. Wymspen (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, the Northern Marianas has 9 senators by statute, but currently one seat is vacant, which means there are currently 8 members of their Senate. --Jayron32 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate of Liberia has two senators from each county, and at the country's independence, there were just four counties. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Royal conundrum

edit

To this US mind, the following from the BBC doesn't make sense:

...Lady Diana Spencer was never officially Princess Diana. She was the Princess of Wales and, after her divorce from Prince Charles, she was Diana, Princess of Wales

— "Why Prince Harry's wife will not be called Princess Meghan". BBC News. 28 November 2017.

Huh? Was she a "Princess" or not? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6511:82F:F02B:9988 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Titles_and_styles clears this up, with reference. She was the Princess of Wales, she was a Princess of sorts, but she was never formally, technically, narrowly and properly titled "Princess Diana" (simply, verbatim). See also Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom, Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom, and Royal_Style_and_Titles_Act. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Geesh, thank God for the Revolution)   2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6511:82F:F02B:9988 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As that article points out, even the queen's husband Phil was only the Duke of Edinburgh until Lizzy granted him the title of Prince, in 1957. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. He was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark from birth until February 1947. See List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he disowned all his foreign titles when he became a UK citizen. The then Princess Elizabeth married a commoner. An ex-prince, but still a commoner. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, until February 1947. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But they married in November 1947. Whatever he may have been prior to that was now an irrelevancy. Bugs' point correctly said that he was not a prince at the time of his marriage, and he remained a non-prince for the next 10 years. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that is torturing the English language a little too far. He did not mention "at the time of his marriage". DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the details from the article: "...the Queen's husband Philip married into the royal family, and yet he is a prince. When he married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947, the then British King, George VI, created him Duke of Edinburgh. He only became Prince Philip in February 1957 when the Queen accorded him the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, Jack of Oz. She married "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh". He was granted the peerage on the morning of the wedding, making him a lord rather than a commoner under British law. Strictly speaking, it was the Duke who married a commoner. A princess and heir presumptive to a kingdom, but still legally a commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Elizabeth a commoner? I don't think so. See Royal family. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be difficult to comprehend, but the British law is clear: if you are not a peer (or Sovereign, of course), you are a commoner. She could have stood for the House of Commons but not for the House of Lords. King George III had to make his son, Prince William, a peer to prevent him from standing for the Commons. A blog is not exactly a reliable source, but this sums it up nicely and was available after a quick search. Of course, the more common meaning of the word "commoner" is different but also less clear (was someone called "His Royal Highness" really a commoner?). Surtsicna (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty and commoner at the same time? Bizarre. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She could have stood for the House of Commons but not for the House of Lords - not sure why you mentioned the Lords there, Surtsicna, as it is an entirely unelected body. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She was not able to sit in the House of Lords, then. You still get my point, I hope: the popular meaning of the word "commoner" does not quite correspond to the legal meaning and whether "His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh" was a commoner is debatable to the point of questioning which of the newlyweds was actually a commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is multiple definitions of Commoner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the above discussion is British royal family#Status, the title of Prince or Princess is rigidly defined by British law (in this case, by Letters patent rather than by Act of Parliament, but law nonetheless), as well as the use of the Royal last names of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor. Prince is a title but it is not a title of peerage, so that's why Princes are not automatically Lords (though many princes are eventually grated peerages such as Dukedoms or Earldoms). In many ways, it is not unlike the title of Baronet, which is a title of nobility but not one of peerage. --Jayron32 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Prince Harry promised the title Duke of Sussex (Feb 2013). Not the most reliable source, but it would follow the precedent of Andrew, Edward and William. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake honey from fake bees?

edit

There's an advert on British television at the moment for an American sweet alcoholic drink, which makes a point of it containing "real honey from real bees". Is fake honey from fake bees a thing in America, so that they have to trumpet echt honey when it is used? DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the ads for kids' "healthy snacks" or whatever, that proudly and breathlessly trumpet the almost unbelieveable claim that they contain "X per cent real fruit". I always respond, "Eat an apple. That's 100% real fruit". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google "artificial honey" and you'll find plenty of references. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that looks like a reliable source to me. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here[2] is a Walmart product called "Honey Tree's Sugar Free Imitation Honey". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a European invention, and Victorian. "Invert sugar" is another term for it. Chemically it's a process of converting plant sucrose (from cane sugar in the UK, sometimes beet sugar in mainland Europe) into glucose and fructose. These taste sweeter and more 'honeyed', but they're also more stable for storage and in use for some industrial processes such as baking.
Originally it was termed "artificial honey" as a simple explanation of how it appeared at first taste. As food purity regulations toughened, a more distinct term was required and it was also better marketing to hide terms suggesting artificiality.
Today it's widely used as invert sugar, because of its technical advantages. Less so in the US, where high fructose corn syrup is the cheap industrial sugar of choice. However honey is now getting expensive, owing to increasing scarcity, and (of course) that encourages adulteration. So honey is rarely fabricated from scratch, unlikely to be sold as "artificial honey", but there is a problem (particularly in the US) with adulterated honeys, extended by the addition of this invert syrup. In Europe the faking is still mostly for diluting expensive honeys with cheap honey (Anything labelled Manuka is a prime target). In the US though, the impending extinction of bees (fostered by both pesticides and idiot policies like trans-state mass shipping of bee populations and the resultant epidemics) is likely to change matters fairly soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, there's plenty of British Sugar from beets. Rojomoke (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only because of the EU and the CAP. It's not otherwise economic. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 
The fake honey scam

On a related note... (I thought it was honey too until someone told me.)

See also: Commonscat

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a large market in illicit food products; honey,[3] maple syrup,[4] and olive oil[5] are all commonly solid as real when much of it is faked with cheap alternatives. Honey, in particular, is third on the list of foods which are mislabeled as genuine but which are really aren't (in this case, just corn syrup and a little artificial coloring/flavoring). Olive oil is the worst, it is estimated that something like 80% of the worldwide supply labeled "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" is not, in fact that, some being cheaper olive oils, and a bunch which is just some canola oil with some green stuff thrown in. --Jayron32 14:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adulterated food is a business as old as humanity. Most countries have harsh laws against this or generally against producing, trading and selling fake products. Honey is by definition a 100% pure natur product. --Kharon (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "artificial" disclaimer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial honey is to honey as Mock turtle soup is to turtle soup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Baseball Bugs, don't say that so loudly; you'll offend the mock turtle. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I might get trampled under its hooves - at very slow speed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone mention Manchester?? At least no-one's suggested fake hives yet! I'm pretty sure they're outlawed in many states. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_November_28&oldid=813928735"