Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 September 21

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< September 20 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 22 >
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.


September 21

edit

Question about royal titles after marriage

edit

Looking at the different royal titles princes and princesses in the UK get after marriage (in particular royal dukes/duchesses), I'm confused as to why the standard format for men seems to be:

HRH The Duke of Cambridge

But for princesses, it becomes:

HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh

In other words, why do royal princes become exclusively known formally as the 'Duke of XYZ' while princesses become 'The Princess ABC, Duchess of DEF'?

113.196.51.134 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, these titles are at the whim of the reigning monarch. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 03:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II was heir to the throne from the Abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, and she married in 1947. William, Prince of Wales married in 2011 and only later became heir to the throne (just this month). William is now also The Prince of Wales, while before his marriage he was Prince William of Wales. The version without "The" was a courtesy title. --Amble (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small technicality (which doesn't contradict anything you say): Elizabeth was Heir Presumptive, because George VI could theoretically have produced a son to supplant her. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
113.196.51.134 -- There's also a traditional British rule that a title which a woman has because of her marriage is never directly prefixed to her first name (forename). So "Diana, Princess of Wales" was correct, but "Princess Diana of Wales" was incorrect (I assume it's the same for Kate now). This was also the original reason for "Mrs. John Smith" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensively discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 May 21#Need someone who REALLY knows how British royal titles work. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If husbands could acquire peerage titles by marriage, then you might well see "Prince Richard, Duke of Wifestitle". But that is not now the custom. — In pre-Tudor England, most peerages could be inherited by women, and were usually exercised by their husbands (Neville the Kingmaker had an earldom from his mother and another from his wife). I don't know how, or exactly when, that changed. Nearly all Scottish peerages (created before 1707), I believe, can still pass to daughters. —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer (hinted at by some of the answers above) is that "HRH The Duchess of X" could be someone who has merely married into the Royal Family, whereas "HRH The Princess X, Duchess of Y" is unambiguously someone who was born into the Royal Family, and this is presumably felt to be something that needs to be indicated. The issue doesn't arise with men because "HRH The Duke of X" is (with the exception of consorts) always someone born into the Royal Family. Similar considerations at a lower level are what has led to female life peers often being known as "Baroness X" instead of "Lady X", as the latter could be someone who has acquired the title by marriage (and indeed could even by the wife of a mere knight - the horror!). Proteus (Talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

easements right.

edit

doesn't the easements right pose a free riders problem? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is quite unclear. If you gave us a hint of 1) which meaning of "easement" you are referring to, and 2) what you mean by a "free riders" problem, somebody might be able to give you an answer. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easements do not arise randomly and arbitrarily. While such rights can be created in many ways, these are based on grounds that are generally deemed reasonable and equitable. A free-rider problem arises when people avail themselves of benefits in a way that is generally considered unreasonable and inequitable. Thus, the two tend to be mutually exclusive.  --Lambiam 11:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link easement (see Lambiam's first link). If there is abuse of a privilege you may be able to take action under the law of nuisance. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes correct, but when lets say a portion of property is shared under mutual benefits of specific parties for making way of a hindrance in the name of easements, don't you think there could be a possibility of others(public) who could be free riding who weren't a part of the mutual agreements of the specific party circles in the first place? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an easement to have free riders. Unless someone's property, say a swimming pool, is actively guarded, people may come and enjoy a free dip to which they have no legal right. They may camp and picnic without permission on someone's private meadow, or fish in their private pond. Perhaps effective guarding becomes more challenging when multiple parties are involved that hold rights, a practical issue. But I don't see how having an easement situation makes the potential problem more pressing.  --Lambiam 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits

edit

Who is the historical character in this painting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Sir Out-of-Focus? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be a Spanish noble or king. Can you find it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.75.134 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The attire, specifically the millstone collar, makes this a person from the mid-16th to mid-17th century, not necessarily from Spanish nobility, but a European gentleman of some importance. For many similar portraits, the identity of the portrayed character has been lost to history, and they are now catalogued as just "portrait of a gentleman"; e.g. this one, this one and this one.  --Lambiam 11:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this Portrait of a Gentleman, where the pose is very similar. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, this page at the Detective Conan Wiki identifies it as Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. (But I have a feeling that you already knew that.) I'm not offhand finding a potrait of Charles V that matches it, however. Deor (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the OP's similar question last week, it may well just be a generic figure based on what was a common style of portrait painting in the 17th century. The fact it's out of focus makes it even more likely it's not based on a specific painting that could or should be recognized by viewers. Xuxl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The figure may be wearing a collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which is consistent with the theory he represents Charles V, who was head of the order. Most portraits of the Emperor in his forties and fifties also have a similar head shape, with the beard masking his excessively elongated jaw. But the image appears not to match any of the many contemporary portraits of Charles V.  --Lambiam 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Excuse me, but can you help me also for this Biblical portrait: 1, 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.9.15 (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The colors and style seem to be from the Rococo period about a century later. I can't place it, unfortunately. --Jayron32 11:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Calypso and Odysseus", Joos de Momper (1564-1635) [1][2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Future Perfect at Sunrise. About this which I've asked before, can you find something? And about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.162.236 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thematically and stylistically, it bears a lot of resemblance to the work of Caspar David Friedrich, but I alas, I can't find a specific painting like this. --Jayron32 11:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, possibly Andreas Achenbach or his brother Oswald Achenbach; though Andrea's style is a bit more "violent choppy waves" than your example. Many, (but not all) of the German Romantic Landscape painters are associated with the Düsseldorf school of painting; perhaps that will give you some more leads. Or maybe not. --Jayron32 11:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many KJVs?

edit

How many King James Version bibles have been printed? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean number of editions or number of copies? 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Number of copies printed in book form (i.e. millions?).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found a number, but this website says; "With more than 6 billion copies published, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, and the King James Bible is the most published Bible translation". Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to also says about the King James Bible specifically that "an estimated 1 billion or more copies have been published". --Antiquary (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is: All of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them have necessarily been printed - some may exist only in electronic format. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-written? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's head

edit

I'm wondering if there's even a rough count of all the individual coins, banknotes and stamps from all the Commonwealth countries that have ever featured a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. Obviously it's "billions", but can we get a more precise count?

This is your homework for the weekend. Extra points for sources. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The linguist Robert M. W. Dixon claimed (perhaps incorrectly) that the counting systems of most Australian Aboriginal languages don't extend beyond "one, two, three, many". [3] On that basis, I'm going with "many". Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or "several". But seriously, we regularly crow about our much-vaunted WHAAOE. This so-called Wikimapedia thing is obviously hopeless when it comes to the crunch, and I wouldn't give it the time of day. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Dollar a day...

edit

There is a quotation one sees attributed to John Maynard Keynes - "Whenever you save five shillings you put a man out of work for a day". I have been unable to verify it. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes, John Maynard (1931). "Inflation and Deflation". Essays in Persuasion.
@Fiveby: Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Keynes was writing in 1931, a time of severe deflation. In 1928, or 1948, his advice would have been quite different. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2022_September_21&oldid=1112965067"