From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May | June | Jul >>	July 1 >

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.

Contents 1 June 30 1.1 Prince Philip a Prince and not a King? 1.2 Which language did Fuhrer and Duce used in their conversation? 1.3 Question About Marriage 1.4 Next generation 1.5 Fernando Santos Costa 1.6 Capital crimes in People's Republic of China 1.7 Dramatic Speech

[edit] June 30

[edit] Prince Philip a Prince and not a King?

Why is the husband of the British monarch a Prince? Shouldn't he be titled a King, as any husband of a queen would be titled? If Queen Elizabeth II is the queen regnant, then would it be logical to call Philip the "king consort", or would that be traditionally absurd?

I asked my mom about this, and she said that the King has more power than the Queen. However, this doesn't fit in to the rule of William and Mary. Can anyone help me make sense of this?--Romeo in love 03:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Prince Philip#Marriage and Prince Philip#Royal status describe the process and debate that led to his current title, on the accession of his wife to the throne. Rockpocket 03:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your mother is right, and neither Prince Albert nor Prince George of Denmark, previous male consorts, was granted the title of king. The example you have quoted is unique, because Mary refused to accept the crown as sole ruler, although this was proposed by prominent political leaders in the Convention Parliament, summoned to decided the status of the throne after the flight of James II. The only other 'joint monarchy' in English history was that of Mary I and Phillip of Spain. But Phillip only remained King of England until his wife's death in 1558, whereas William ruled in his own right after Mary's death in 1694. Clio the Muse 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But recall that William also had his own claim to the throne, although not as close as Anne's. Corvus cornix 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

True! Clio the Muse 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The general case in the UK is that a woman takes her husband's rank, title, and style, but a man doesn't take his wife's. So the Duke of Westminster's wife is the Duchess of Westminster, but Countess Mountbatten of Burma's husband isn't Earl Mountbatten. --Charlene 06:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which language did Fuhrer and Duce used in their conversation?

Because it is clear from the video material that they had no translators...

Thank you in advance

Dzoni1 04:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini spoke fluent German. Clio the Muse 04:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a fascinating show on US public television, in which lip readers had viewed silent movies of Nazis and then their speech was dubbed in. They gossiped shamelessly while the cameras were running. Edison 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Do you maybe know if Hitler spoke any languages besides his native? Dzoni1 05:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Hitler only ever spoke German. Clio the Muse 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct.martianlostinspace 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Did he speak with an Austrian accent? Corvus cornix 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine so, though I am by no means an expert on German accents. He did, though have a deep and guttural voice, if that is any clue. Clio the Muse 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question About Marriage

This is a legal question, not so much seeking legal advice ... but, moreso, posing a hypothetical situation ... and also inquiring if anyone has ever heard of this situation actually occurring ...

Say a man and woman get married. After the marriage, one partner (let's just say the woman) undergoes a sex-change operation and legally becomes a man. There has never been a divorce between the two. What would be the legal status of their marriage? Would there still be a valid marriage between a man and another man? If not, why not? Legally, what exactly would happen? This question assumes we are in a state that does not allow same-sex marriages.

Furthermore, has anyone ever heard of a case like this actually occurring? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Not giving legal advice, but.. If Jane Smith married Joe Jones, then Jane Smith had a sex change operation, with the breasts reduced, the ovaries removed, and the vagina transmogrified surgically into an imitation penis, and took injections of male hormones to lower the voice and cause more musculature, and got a short haircut and wore lumberjack clothes, until she sought to have a name change to John, whose business would it be? She would still be legally Jane Jones, the wife of Joe Jones. An episode like this was on CSI with several sex change variations. I was on a commuter train once where the monthly tickets were marked to indicate if it was for a man or a woman, to prevent the wife from using the husband's monthly pass. The conductor (guard, for Brits) questioned a woman who displayed a monthly pass coded for a male. She said she was undergoing a sex change. The conductor apologized and moved on. Jane/John, tomato/tomahto. Edison 05:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a situation would likely result in a legislator submitting a bill to legally define "male" and "female". The legal status of the marriage would then depend on whether those terms are defined according to external appearance or according to genetic makeup of a person's DNA. 152.16.188.111 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very speculative 152, it depends on the country and you might find the parliament isn't too worried! Mhicaoidh 12:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my question and to follow-up with User 152. My question assumes the scenario taking place in the USA within one of the states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. And, User 152, assume that the Jane Smith does not simply stay at home and engage in those activities, such that it is "nobody's business." In other words, assume that she does in fact go to City Hall to register a name change to John and, then, it does become somebody's business. Then what? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

And a follow-up question. Let's say that the government, practically speaking, does not want to endorse a male/male marriage. Can the government (in the above sex-change scenario) force / require a divorce? Or void / nullify a marriage? (JosephASpadaro 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

The first question would be, if the government recognizes the operation as a sex change. Actually the operation leaves you mostly as neither sex. You get some characteristics of your new sex and keep some characteristics of your old sex (but the effect is astounding!). This question is not hypothetical. Just ask someone who did a sex change operation whether the sex entry in their personal documents was changed or just the name.

I would have to imagine that the entire sex-change process has multiple components and considerations (e.g., physical, hormonal, psychological, cosmetic, practical, sexual, social, etc., etc., etc.). As such, I would have to think that there are legal considerations as well ... which would naturally involve the legal procedure of changing from a female to a male, or vice versa. I guess my point is that if someone goes to all that trouble, they would naturally / presumably want to be (legally) considered as their new gender. Your suggestion to my question was: "Just ask someone who did a sex change operation whether the sex entry in their personal documents was changed or just the name." Well, yes -- we can do that. But their response to that question will in no way address the marriage / divorce question. Right? (JosephASpadaro 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

What country is this? I doubt it would be a problem at all in Canada, for instance. --Charlene 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I said, in one of my above posts, let's assume USA. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

OK, I think that the time is right for speculation, since no one has given anything definitive. Joseph, I would say there is a reason why lawyers become so rich, and it is because things like this pop up all the time. Legal systems never seem to cover everything. As a result, there are many legal cases where, effectively, both sides are right. The lawmakers just didn't see it coming, and that's where lawyers come in. In such cases, there is no real telling what the actual outcome might be. Even so, there are some typical principles that would be of interest. I'll try to answer on the basis of the facts, assuming that same sex marriages are banned, but sex changes are formally recognised.

Two things are (in my understanding) important guides. The first is the law of precedent. I don't know what might constitute a precedent in this case (doesn't happen every day you see) so I'll leave that there, but note that if there were any relevant ones, they would probably vary according to the particular jurisdiction. The other interesting legal fact, at least in Australia, and I assume elsewhere, is that when two laws are in conflict, priority goes to the most recent. Marriage laws have been around a while, but sex changes are fairly new. So there might be a case that the sex change law takes priority over the marriage law, and the marriage might have to be recognised. But in any case (similar to 152.'s point) legislators would quite possibly step in to fix things. Let's face it, this would be on the news, so there would be public agitation to sort it out. Then I would guess that a state that doesn't allow same sex marriages would be unlikely to allow sex changes followed by a same sex union.

Also, really this question has the look and feel of something out of a good law tute. Given your other questions here and on the language desk, and your proclivity for following up the issues you raise, you might make a good lawyer yourself. If you also like money, you would enjoy it as well :). The Mad Echidna 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input ... and for your comments, which I will take as a compliment ... Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Next generation

What is the official name of the generation of people born in the 2000s after Generation Y? --144.131.177.186 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New Silent Generation? See Generation Z. None of this seems to be "official".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Beware generational labels. First, they're retrospectively applied. After the "60's" generation, marketeers discovered that generation tags sold. If you can label a whole generation, profile it, and then convince it that it should conform to the profile, you can move a lot of units. "Generation X" was coined by Douglas Copland, and it was about the people of his own generation, but, of course, after the 2 years of delay for writing and publishing and year of media hype, it was stuck to the generation after his. "Y" and "Next" seem to have come from no one even pretending to be sociological, but purely from the commercial impulse. Could tens of millions of people ever have a horoscope-like set of characteristics? Can their feelings and responses ever be predicted? No? Then put no stock in labels. (As for my own generation, Paul Westerberg said it best, "We've got no war to name us." It's most likely that this particular generation in the west and middle east will be the Iraq War Generation.) Geogre 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd call them the cell-phone generation because they all freaking have cell-phones. Well, that actually includes kids born in the late 90's. Maybe I'm thinking of generation Y. The Jade Knight 23:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "Generation X" was coined by Douglas Coupland. Billy Idol was in a band called Generation X some fifteen years before Coupland used the phrase. 64.236.80.62 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fernando Santos Costa

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Fernando Santos Costa Please consider contributing

A member of the Salazar government in Portugal, and the head of the pro-Axis faction durung the Second World War, is anything more known about him? I looked through various pages, but nothing has come up. Secret seven 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Santos Costa was a close political associate of Antonio Salazar since they met at the University of Coimbra in 1917, where they were both members of a Catholic student organisation, the Academic Centre for Christian Democracy. Santos Costa went on to join the army and, as a second-lieutenant, took part in the abortive royalist uprising against the Portuguese Republic in 1919. Still later, he was involved in the 1926 coup, that by degrees turned Portugal into an entrenched right-wing dictatorship. The decisive moment came in 1928 with the appointment of Salazar as Minister of Finance. Salazar went on to become Prime Minister in 1932, and established a Mussolini-style corporate state, governed by 'non-party' specialists. One such specialist was Santos Costa, who became Deputy Minister of War in 1936, even though he still only held the junior rank of captain in the army.

Santos Costa was set to become one of the leading figures of the New State, the style adopted by the Salazar dictatorship, responsible for the reforms intended to improve the fighting efficiency of the army. After the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, he was also strongly associated with the faction in both the state and army that desired a German victory, even though this went against the good relations that Portugal traditionally enjoyed with England. Although far more right-wing than Salazar himself, and something of a dangerous political maverick, he was finally appointed full minister of war in 1944, because of his skill in ensuring that the army remained an effective prop for the dictatorship.

After the war Santos Costa was among the more reactionary members of the government, resisting all attempts at liberalisation. Following the death in 1951 of General Carmona, the nominal head of state, he pressed for a return of the old Portuguese monarchy, though Salazar, aware than monarchism was effectively dead in Portugal, continued with the existing forms of the New State.

In August 1958, in a surprise move by Salazar, Santos Costa was finally dropped from the government, along with Marcelo Caetano, from the more liberal wing of the New State apparatus. Neverthless, he remained politically active, supporting his old boss at one moment, only to plot against him at the next. His ambitions to replace Salazar as premier were well-known, causing one member of the opposition to remark "If it is inevitable that we are going to have Santos Costa, we shall say mass every morning that the good Lord preserve Salazar." Clio the Muse 23:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clio, the breadth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me. Corvus cornix 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Muse thanks you. But you should know, Corvus cornix, that she has access to some superb research facilities! Clio the Muse 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Clio's information was split from this page and preserved for posterity as Fernando Santos Costa. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And as of 8 July, is featured on the Did you know section of the Main Page :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital crimes in People's Republic of China

Are pornography and bigamy capital crimes in People's Republic of China? What are capital crimes in the Peolple's Republic of China? Please control if the source is recent. --Vess 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but since no one else has yet responded can I ask whether you have you studied our article on capital punishment in the People's Republic of China? It reads as though they apply capital punishment to whatever they choose.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently bribery is and dereliction of duty is. I would imagine quite anything is a capital offense. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatic Speech

So there's a certain type of dialogue or monologue I really enjoy in which a character says something like (for example) "I will be the wind. I will be the trees. I will ride a crystal chariot and walk among the stars." Very simple and imagistic and usually somewhat Biblical-sounding, like an epic. In the Mahabharata, Karna says, "I like the sun, when it wraps me in its warmth, when it scorches me. Every evening, when shadows lengthen, I feel cold, I look behind me, I sleep badly. But when the first rays touch me, my strength returns intact, the sun kills night's terrors and darkness takes flight." Arjuna adds, "I climbed onto the immense chariot. Drawn by a prodigious force, it bore me to the regions of light, which the earth calls stars. Yes, Karna, I saw thousands of fiery spheres, making music in endless space. I saw bodies glowing with their own light. Spirits streaked and dissolved before my eyes."

And in Ray Bradbury's novel From the Dust Returned, the characters approach themselves with a dignity and seriousness worthy of Shakespeare and Melville at their best: “I will be,” says Cecy, “like someone who sows the winds to put down a seed of flower at some future time.” And the voices of the October People echo in reply, “We are in the Twenty-one Presences, an occult summing of the various tributaries of leaves blown off far ten thousand mile trees to settle in harvests here.”

Is there a name for this, or is it just a convention of playwriting and closet drama? More importantly, where can I find more examples of such?

Thanks, all! MelancholyDanish 19:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

It sounded initially like you were talking about personification (actually, maybe I shouldn't link to the article, because personification is not the simple "calling the night" but also the subsuming of an abstraction into a person), but you're looking at someone impersonal discourse. The people speaking in your examples are not really speaking to their companions, but rather speaking and being or speaking and becoming. Their speech is a reflection of an ongoing metaphysical action rather than an idea. You then go back to identification. In some epic literature, we get that: "I am the crow. I am the small cries of the morning. I am the stroke of the axe and the whistle of the iron in the forge." Those are identification speeches. It's not a particularly Romance or Hebraic quality, but you find it by the bucketful in Celtic literature (esp. see the Finniad material in the ... I think it's in The Book of Taliesin but it may be in Book of the Dun Cow). It's stuff that was parodied hilariously by Flann O'Brien in At Swim-Two-Birds. Geogre 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's poetry, not prose, but Walt Whitman immediately came to mind--especially Song of Myself. "I am he that walks with the tender and growing night, I call to the earth and sea half-held by the night. Press close barebosom'd night, . . . mad naked summer night." As for a term to describe it, I don't know, but the term "purple prose" springs to mind for bad examples.--Eriastrum 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ah! Then it makes perfect sense that I love Celtic literature and Whitman to distraction. That passage from "Song of Myself" is gorgeous. MelancholyDanish 22:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish