Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 December 19

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

December 19

British Royal support for America

Please note I'm not requesting any types of predictions. But since the latest arrest in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, is it possible Charles III may send his support to the United States of America? (The tragedy happened above United Kingdom soil. Elizabeth II was also alive at the time.)2603:7000:8100:F444:40AF:9ACA:7C8E:728B (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "send his support"? ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There were two royal visits to the crash site at the time. [1] Not sure what you expect 33 years later? Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By "send his support", is it possible The King could stay informed about updates of any trials in the most recent suspect connected to the tragedy? Or he could revisit the crash site?2603:7000:8100:F444:40AF:9ACA:7C8E:728B (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am sure he will be kept informed. As for what he might or might not do… you did say you were not looking for predictions. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that the American republic can only survive with the support of British royalty. Victoria was sadly distracted between 1861 and 1865, and look what happened then! DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We were denied the Royal Presence until 1939 and even then it was just tagging along with Mackenzie King! fiveby(zero) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's right, I wasn't looking for predictions.2603:7000:8100:F444:D3BE:468D:F1EE:60BC (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible? Sure, it's possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtably His Majesty will be personally interested in any further developments in the case, as will a large proportion of the British population. However, as the Monarch, current-day protocol forbids him to comment or act in ways that could be interpreted as an intervention in legal, political or diplomatic procedures (in the UK, or other countries), which is why he has had to give up the environmental campaigning he pursued when 'merely' Prince of Wales.

Expressing sympathy for the victims, perhaps by revisiting the crash site (where, remember, 11 UK citzens were also killed), unveiling a memorial and the like, would be fine: commenting in any way on the ongoing prosecution of an individual suspect would be considered scandalous. This is (one might argue) because in theory he is ultimately in charge of the UK's Law, Government and Diplomacy, so his intervention would be very powerful, but in practice all that is delegated to (or via) Parliament, which in turn is subject to the People (by means of elections).

The Monarch could exercise one significant intervention, after which that power would be removed by Parliament (and possibly the Monarchy abolished), so it would only be used if (in the Monarch's well-advised view) the country were in existential peril. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

400 Auserlesene Chemische Process

The article Hennig Brand mentions this book as inspiring Hennig to heat up urine in a retort. I found the book mentioned in a modern book, The shocking history of phosphorus:

Eventually, in the summer of 1678, Brandt journeyed to Hanover, and there outside the city he set up his apparatus, and with Leibnitz’s help he made some phosphorus. Leibnitz was duly impressed with its quality and properties which were exactly those he had witnessed when Kraft had put on his demonstrations for the Duke. When he asked Brandt how he had discovered phosphorus, Brandt told him that he had first made it in 1669, and said that he got the idea from a book by F. T. Kessler of Strasbourg called 400 Auserlesene Chemische Process (‘400 Selected Chemical Processes’), published in 1630, in which there was a recipe for turning base metals into silver using concentrated urine, alum and saltpetre.

So I assume that's a real book, but is there another reference? Does Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz mention it in writing somewhere? Does it still exist? Is F. T. Kessler otherwise unknown? (There's Franz Kessler, alchemist, active in 1630, but living in the wrong German city, so I guess that's somebody else.)  Card Zero  (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's an updated version from 1641: [2]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

F.T. Kessler is de:Thomas Kessler, around 1580 to 1650. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The later version of the book title was useful, I found an online 1713 edition and wedged it into the article. Thank you.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article on Brand is rather more tentative about Kessler's influence: "Brand may well have been influenced by Thomas Kessler's 1630 book 500 Auserlesene Chemische Process..."  --Lambiam 10:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The Howards

I'm working on the Coronation of George III and Charlotte, and trying to find whether Edward Howard, 9th Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal and Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Effingham, his deputy, were related in any way? It's making my brain hurt. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not willing to work out exactly how. The Howards of Effingham descend from William Howard, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham, who was the ninth son of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk. I'm pretty sure that any titled Howard is kin to all the others. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I had some time, so here you go. The paternal ancestry can be traced back via the wiki articles, though at one point on the Effingham side you have to make a leap of logic – would appreciate someone checking if I made that leap correctly. (If any maternal links would be way more complicated and I didn’t try.)

• Edward Howard, 9th Duke of Norfolk was third son of

Lord Thomas Howard (no article) who was second son of

Henry Howard, 6th Duke of Norfolk (offended his entire family) who was second son of

Henry Howard, 15th Earl of Arundel (inspired a change in the laws about wills) who was second son of

Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (grabbed Greek sculptures now in the British Museum) who was a son of

Philip Howard, 13th Earl of Arundel (canonized by the Pope) who was only child of

Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (first person executed by Elizabeth I) who was a son of

Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (last person executed by Henry VIII) who was eldest son of

Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk (uncle of Anne Boleyn) who was a son by the first wife of

Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (made an earl for battling the Scots).

• Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Effingham who was eldest son of

Francis Howard, 1st Earl of Effingham (army career) who was second son of

Francis Howard, 5th Baron Howard of Effingham (a colonial governor) who was a son of

Sir Charles Howard (no article) who was a son of a “first cousin of both Charles Howard, 2nd Earl of Nottingham and Charles Howard, 3rd Earl of Nottingham”, which I believe would make him a great grandson of

William Howard, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham (a lord Admiral and uncle to Catherine Howard) who was the ninth son of

Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (made an earl for battling the Scots). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, many thanks. So a very distant cousin. The 9th Duke was the hereditory Earl Marshal, responsible for organising coronations, but was debarred because he was a Catholic. So he appointed Effingham as his deputy, but he was useless, forgetting all sorts of important items and didn't bother to hold a rehearsal, so nobody knew what to do next. When King George complained, Effingham replied that he would make sure that the next coronation would be organised properly (when of course, the king would be dead). George was highly amused by the answer and made Effingham repeat it several times. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they were 5th cousins 3 times removed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolved