Humanities desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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.

October 21

How old

For those who believe in God, how old would they say he is?--Light current 00:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which God? --The Dark Side 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets assume there is only one entity that all religions call god, Allah, etc.--Light current 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the Christian One. My guess is that if someone said His age, He would smote them for some reason or other. XD Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The christian god is eternal, so he is infinitely old. -THB 01:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everything have to come from something? Did God (Christian) just appear one day out of nothing and make the universe as we know it? --The Dark Side 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that can be countered by asking where the material that preceded the Big Bang came from? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The christian god didn't "appear one day". He's always been. He's eternal. God created everything. He didn't need anything to create it out of because he's God. Before he created it, there was nothing. -THB 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what sort of nothingness can God exist?--Light current 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same nothingness in which the bounded cosmos exists. Poof. Wasn't, then was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B4 the BB there was nothing at all. Not even nothingness existed. ie a big fat 0. Nothing outside this nothingness could exist for God to live in. THe bounded cosmos creates and exists in its own space. no mass --> no space--> nothing at all (not even nothingness).--Light current 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian God doesn't have any mass, He is a spirit, according to their teachings. He technically could live in nothingness if He is "nothing". | AndonicO Talk 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think he would have to be nothing if he existed in nothingness! I think youve just prove he doesnt exist!--Light current 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By jove, you're right! Get the pope on the line! -Elmer Clark 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God was in eternity; or, in Himself, if you want to put it a different way. Whether "eternity past", as it has been so-called, had time passing, the Bible isn't terribly clear. Trying to think about things in this way though, just in terms of what can be seen/touched etc., is always going to lead to a wrong conclusion when we're talking about God. Like trying to see in 4D. BenC7 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK where does he exist in 4D? 8-?--Light current 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS When is WP going to sort out this f****** stupid indentation protocol? --Light current 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exdenting at LC's suggestion: This indenting protocol is usually only a problem with any question about religion, politics and sometimes sex. --hydnjo talk 07:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's facetious to say that nothing existed before the Big Bang - the big bang is primarily a mathematical/theoretical event where our theories start to break down. We simply can't predict what the universe was like "before" the Big Bang. Look into gravitational singularity. Also, your interpretation of "god" seems to be rather limited and 3-dimensional. Does any modern religion claims that gods are fully corporeal? sthomson 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe in a god, but if there was one, i think the actual age would be Damn Old.Lrpelkey 11:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S presidents who did not have a ship named in their honour

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was always wondering, why don't Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon have a warship named in their honour ? I could somewhat understand for Nixon... but Johnson ? Matt714 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of these three men only Gerald Ford's name has been considered for a ship name; if congress aproves the recomendation, his name will grace the as-yet-to-be-named carrier CVN-78. TomStar81 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did this practice start? Is there some poor ship out there named after Warren G. Harding (a garbage scow maybe)? Clarityfiend 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old tradition going all the way back to the time of the contenental Navy. As for Warren G. Harding, no there have been no ships named after him, but there have been two ships named USS Harding. As far as the names of people on ships there are several examples here on wikipedia that you can check out, among these are the list of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans and the George Washington, Ethan Allen, Lafayette, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin series of ballistic missile submarines, all named after politicians. Collectively, these submarines comprised the "41 for Freedom". TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"41 for Freedom" ... or Fight! Tesseran 09:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ethan Allen equipped with sturdy, well-built wooden furniture ? :-) StuRat 11:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The news satirists will have a field day should the USS Gerald Ford ever accidentally crash into the dock. 192.168.1.1 11:44, 21 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Actually, Ethan Allen was a drunkard. | AndonicO Talk 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with being a bit sauced all the time? --Drunk Cow 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that they only named ships after deceased presidents. --The Dark Side 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be. They just christened an aircraft carrier after George H.W. Bush. Clarityfiend 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. From the list of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans article:

The United States Navy has a long tradition that no vessel is named for a living person, and an equally long tradition, stretching back to the Continental Navy, of breaking it from time to time. The number of U.S. military ships so named constitute a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands have been commissioned.

In a sense I was right too. --The Dark Side 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Navys around the world have long standing traditions of naming ships after people, dead or alive. Usually the honor of having ones name considered for as a ship name comes about under one of three possible headings:

The person in question was a great leader to his or her country. In the US our leader is the president, so if the president was excpetionally good at his job during the 4-8 years he held office his name may be considered for a ship. This was the case with Ronald Reagan, Harry S. Truman, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, all of whom have had navy ships christened in there honor. The United Kingdom had a long standing tradition of naming their battleships after the royals, such as HMS King George V and HMS Queen Mary. The Germans named the battleship Bismark after Otto von Bismarck, who engineered the unification of the numerous states of Germany.
The person in question was a political friend of the navy. Senetor John C. Stennis was such a man, his names now graces an aircraft carrier in the US Fleet.
The person in question was an excelent military commander. Chester Nimitz and George Washington were two such people, both have had ships named in their honor. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a school in the Washington area in 1906

I am trying to find a school that my Mother-in-Law's mother attended back in 1906. She was in the eighth grade taking a home economics class and her teacher was Ms. Gore. The school was called the Corcoran School. Everytime I put in a search for that all I get is the Corcoran School of Art. Unless that was a public/private grade school in those days it is not the one. If anyone out there can help I would appreciate it. The closest reference I have found is (Corcoran School (historical)somewhere around Olive,28th & M. St. NW Washington DC)from www.hometownlocator.com

sewinteacher :-) 7:41, 22 October 2006

You may want to try contacting the Washington, D.C. public library reference desk. See [1] for contact information. --Metropolitan90 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mich Andersen & Son M.A.& S.

I have a ceramic Male and a Female Bust with markings [M.A. & S., Bornholmsk Keramix] Numbers 3934/2 and 3935/2 Can anyone tell me anything about these pieces, or the Artist Thank you, JimJim Costanzo 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettin' Busy

I have heard from a couple sources, including Jay Leno's monologue, that more people are born on October 5 than any other day of the year. The reason? Do the math. Is this true? Does Wikipedia have an article which presents such information? 66.213.33.2 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this he's right. At least for the United States. ~~The article on birthdays mentions it too.~~ I just noticed that the Wikipedia article uses the same reference I just gave. Dismas|^(talk) 16:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most common birthday in Sweden is allegedly nine months after midsummer... =S 惑乱分からん 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the math doesn't work out. The average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks when dated from the mother's last menstrual period (LMP), which is two weeks before the actual conception occurred. A pregnancy lasts 38 weeks when dated from conception. 38 weeks after January 1st is September 24th. 40 weeks after January 1st is October 8th. Someone has naively used the 40 week figure in their calculations, when the 38 week figure is the appropriate one for calculating conception. 38 weeks (266 days) before October 5th is January 12th. - Nunh-huh 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once I found out my mother was born EXACTLY 9 months after the repeal of Prohibition, I never looked at grandpa and grandma quite the same again. :-) StuRat 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a party, I would never be one to spoil a perfectly good anecdote by overanalysis. But at the Reference Desk, I am otherwise compelled. If Mom was born exactly 9 months ( = 36 weeks) after repeal, she was most likely conceived two weeks before grandma and grandpa could get it on with a legal snoot full, since the average time from conception to parturition is 38 weeks). - Nunh-huh 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But 9 months is not 'exactly' 36 weeks. The cumulative difference between 28 days (4 weeks) and the number of days in actual months is probably very close to the 2 missing weeks. Anchoress 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be depending on how the calculations were done. The point is: pregnancy's average duration is 10 (lunar) months = 280 days from LMP, or 9.5 (lunar) months = 266 days from conception. "Exactly nine months" doesn't enter into it at all. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who means "lunar months" when they say months ? I meant calendar months, which average 30.4 days each. So, 9 calendar months = 274 days = 39 weeks, which puts us right in the proper range. StuRat 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar months are what people who describe the duration of pregnancies actually use. The length of an average pregnancy is 280 days from LMP, or 266 days from conception. Not 274. - Nunh-huh 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't buy it that people use lunar months when talking about pregnancy. Also, gestation periods are not precise, to the day, but rather a fairly wide range. 274 days is well within that range. StuRat 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're entitled to your beliefs, but the fact is that people do indeed use lunar months when talking about pregnancy. [2] [3] etc. And yes, I know these things are not exact: you were the one who emphasized "exactly" nine months. And if you want to use an erroneous method for calculating the most likely date of conception, go right ahead, but the facts are this: The length of an average pregnancy is 280 days from LMP, or 266 days from conception. On average, conception occurs 266 days prior to birth. Not 274.- Nunh-huh 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source supports what I said, that most people mean "calendar months", when talking about pregnancy (or anything else, for that matter):

"While most people talk about pregnancy being 9 months long (divided into three trimesters), most health care providers refer to a pregnancy as being 40 weeks long, starting with your last known menstrual period. You might like to know that this is also equal to 280 days, or 10 Lunar Months.

BTW, you really know how to suck all the fun out of a humorous remark, with nitpicking. StuRat 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but I did warn you up front. What "most people" mean isn't the issue. If you want an accurate calculation, you will use what "the people who know" (i.e., doctors) say. Which is 10 lunar months = 280 days from the LMP. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you were going off what I said, which was 9 months, which you somehow misinterpreted to mean lunar months. StuRat 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually understood what you said. "Exactly nine months" of any sort is not an accurate duration of the average pregnancy, and using it as a basis for calculation will result in a mistaken estimate. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, your conversion of my statement of nine months to 36 weeks shows you took it to mean lunar months. Calendar months are 4 1/3 weeks long, so 9 convert to 39 weeks. StuRat 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and 39 weeks is still incorrect. - Nunh-huh 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But still well within the normal range. StuRat 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, after first discussing the birthday paradox, gives a table of average daily birth frequencies by month in the United States for 1978-1987, which I reproduce here together with a crude, hand-plotted graphical representation. (*'s farther to the right indicate higher birth rates; of course, the axis for this graph is far off to the left).

   MONTH     DAILY FREQUENCY         GRAPHICALLY         9TH MONTH BACK
   January      .0026123          *                        April
   February     .0026785             *                     May
   March        .0026838              *                    June
   April        .0026426            *                      July
   May          .0026702             *                     August
   June         .0027424                 *                 September
   July         .0028655                       *           October
   August       .0028954                        *          November
   September    .0029407                           *       December
   October      .0027705                  *                January
   November     .0026842              *                    February
   December     .0026864              *                    March

So October is past the peak. The highest rate of conceptions that lead to births is clearly during the months when the weather is getting colder, not when it's at its coldest; and conversely, it's lowest in April, not midsummer. Note incidentally that this could be for reasons other than the obvious one: there might be seasonal changes in fertility levels, in multiple births, in miscarriages, in abortions, even in contraception usage.

I also have here a table described as a "frequency distribution of birthdays from 481,040 policies at a US insurance company", but no record of where I got it from, although it must have been from some Usenet or Internet source. I'm not going to post it here, but I am going to comment on it. There's too much noise in the data to accurately pull out variations at the level of individual days, so even though the data set includes numbers separately for each day, it doesn't answer the question of which day has the most births. It does generally fit the pattern shown above, with the same three top months. (The pattern isn't exactly the same, which is not surprising since this data set would be drawn from a different population, older and including some immigrants.) For what it's worth, in this data set October 5 ranks 13th, most of the higher-ranking dates being in August and September.

--Anonymous, 05:32 UTC, October 22, 2006.

This has me giggling—that's my birthday! Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Theist and an Atheist

Is not the difference between a Theist and an Atheist the difference in the definition they assign to God? 71.100.6.152 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Check out theism. 惑乱分からん 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relating one's definition of God to their belief. If one defines god as nothing, i.e. not existing, then are you saying that he can still believe in God? 71.100.6.152 19:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist in your right to redefine every term as you please you risk that nobody will understand you any longer. Simon A. 19:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid! That's like saying "Is not the difference between a Santa Claus believer and an Atheist the difference in the definition they assign to Santa Claus?" Atheist does not depend on the definition of God, merely that it is not rational to believe in fairy tale concepts (aka superstitions). The main difference is that Atheist see religion as (a collection of) hyper sophisticated fairy tale concepts while the religious believers see God as self evident truth. 211.28.178.86 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The definition they assign to God" — no. Atheists and theists can have the same definitions of God, but they can have different beliefs about whether or not the definition exists in an ontological sense or not. Atheists do not define God as "nothing", for another thing. If all you are trying to say is that atheists and theists differ in that they don't agree as to whether God exists or not, that is not a novel reformulation but rather the exact meaning of those two words. --Fastfission 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking is if a person characterizes thenselves rather than the devine or supernatural entity they define by their definition. 71.100.6.152 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say they do, although that doesn't seem to be your first question... 惑乱分からん 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an atheist point of view, atheists does not defined themselves as athiests anymore than normal people defined themselves as normal. No one goes around saying "I'm define myself as normal". The term "atheist" is given to atheists by the religious believers. 202.168.50.40 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've usually seen atheist used as a specific term of self-definition; much more so than "theist" (no one says "I'm a theist" as its inspecificity about belief makes it almost useless as a term; it is almost always used in contrast with "atheist"). Lots of people go around saying "I am an atheist" when asked, there are entire organizations of such people around. And from a purely statistical point of view it is far more "normal" to have some sort of belief in a deity than it is to avow any possibility of a deity whatsoever. --Fastfission 01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Atheism is not a mere "passive lack of belief in anything supernatural". Quite the contrary, Atheism is a rather "active" belief that there definitely, positively, absolutely is no God. If you're looking for the most "passive", "I don't know" position, agnosticism would seem far more appropriate, and far more "natural". Loomis 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that any "Atheist organization" is in fact a political organization and might claim to represent the Atheist POV but in fact represents its own political ideas. Flamarande 09:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! The strong atheism versus the weak atheism debate. Only strong atheist is a real atheist, weak athiest is a false athiest. No. no. no. Weak atheists is the only real athiests, strong athiests are ideology bigots. 211.28.178.86 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to difer, too many believers are convinced that their belief is the only right one, and that everybody else will burn in Hell. Talking about ideological bigots... Flamarande 09:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that most fervent believers in some religion or other frantically want to brand aetheism as another form of religion, and therefore to "smear" it in the same way as they feel they have been smeared. In a similar fashion, religionists want to brand evolution as a religion.--Filll 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fola

−Good day:

I am translating a late 19th Century French poem and have come across a reference to "Fola". which I assume is someone's name. I can't find any references whatsoever. Can someone help?

Thank you so much,

Linda Hollander

Do you have more information about the poem? (title, author) Context would help. -THB 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about family courts?

I'm looking for information about the specific legal/court proceedings in a child abuse/neglect situation when the child(ren) is/are removed from their (former) guardian's care. I know that an initial hearing is not always held (as per this [4] secondary source) but I need to know what goes on at the later hearings and when an initial hearing is held--the typical events, the people involved (defendant(s), social workers, lawyers (?), etc), and any other possibly relevant information. Thanks! Moriane 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedural details and people involved depend on the state (or country). Ask your lawyer if you really "need to know". alteripse 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually another question (in addition to the one I posted on the miscellaneous desk) relating to the novel I'm working on. I've done some poking around on US federal sites and on the Maryland site, but I find government sites impenetrable and will probably have to go elsewhere for my information. Anyway, thanks for your help with both questions. -Moriane 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get an answer here, but IMO the best resource for this kind of stuff is your local librarian (or the librarian in the region you are researching). They absolutely LOVE to help aspiring writers, and they are usually very familiar with the kind of research you are doing. Or they will happily find it out for you/direct you to where to look. Anchoress 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What interesting family relations in monarchies are there?

Hello,

I just discovered that (thanks to Wikipedia!) that the current Spanish king Juan Carlos I of Spain and the current Belgian king Albert II of Belgium are both direct descendants of Louis XIV of France.

An earlier question of mine here pointed out that the current British Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a direct descendant of William I of England.

I also read that the British king during the first World War (George V of the United Kingdom) and the German emperor William II were cousins!

It also appears that the current Dutch queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is a direct descendant of William the Silent.

This is pretty amazing, none of these things were ever pointed in my history class. So my question is : are there any other interesting relationship that you can think of?

I would also be interested in famous/and or still alive descendants of Charlemagne or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.

Thank you very much, Evilbu 19:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in William the Silent, Father of Europe, where you can see William's descendants and in Genealogics, where you can trace such things out for other nobles and rulers. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two items that may or may not amuse: George Washington was a 12th cousin of King George III of Great Britain (by common descent from John of Gaunt); King Henry VIII of England was 5th cousin of Pope Paul III, who excommunicated him, (by common descent from Nicola Orsini). - Nunh-huh 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you might know, marriage was a most important political tools to form and strengthen alliance between the European rulers. Hence, it is no surprise that they are all related to each other in some degree. For your question on Charlesmagnes the answer might surprise you: There are many millions of his descendants alive today. Think about it for a moment:You have 2 parents, 4 grabdparents, 8 great-grandparents etc. Charlesmagne lived 1200 years ago, that is roughly 48 generatations. Now, you, and everybody else has , naively calculated 2⁴⁸ = ca. 10¹⁵ (thousend million millions) of greatgreat...grandparents. But where never as many people in the world, hence most of the family trees overlap heavily. This means that of the people who lived many centuries ago, each one has either millions of descendents in today's world or none at all. Recently, several studies were published (Rohde, Olson, and Chang, Nature 431 (2004) 562) that calculated how long a ago the most recent person lived that appears in the ancestry trees of all people alive today, and they concluded that this person lived between 1700 and 2500 years ago (if I recall correctly). So, there should be plenty of descendents of Charlemagne around. This discussion estimates bewteen 100 million to 1 billion. Taht would be even more than Gengis Khan who lived considerable later but was sexually so active that he seems to appear in the familiy tree of one quarter of all mongolians. (See here for the story.) Simon A. 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty are expected to marry royalty so the royal families of Europe have intermarried for hundreds of years. It's quite a tangled web. See nobility for basic info. Something you might find interesting: Haemophilia in European royalty. -THB

I remember reading somewhere that Prince Charles of England (to become Charles III?) is related to every English king except James II and another Charles. I might be wrong though (most probably). If you really want a good royal family then check out the Bourbons.

Not exactly. Charles is related to every monarch that's been on the UK (or before 1703, English) throne since at least 1066, but there are quite a few he isn't descended from. You can be related to someone without being descended from them - a distant aunt or uncle, for instance, would be your relation but not your ancestor.

It's true that Charles I and his sons Charles II and James II are the only monarchs who left descendants that he's not descended from. However, there are a passel of monarchs who didn't leave any descendants whatsoever, even illegitimate (Edward V, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, William III, Mary II, and Queen Anne come to mind - there are likely more) and naturally Charles isn't descended from them either.

As to relations of various monarchies, remember that up to a century or so ago most royals *had* to marry other royals pursuant to the laws of their home countries. This wasn't the case in the UK, but it was in many European countries. If they married a commoner or even a nobleman/noblewoman they lost every penny they had, they lost their place in the line of succession (a BIG deal when the king actually ruled, instead of simply reigning), and their children wouldn't inherit their titles. More importantly, in many countries their children wouldn't even be legitimate even if the marriage was otherwise regular. Some German houses had laws stating that any marriage to a lower rank of royal was invalid. --Charlene.fic 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles' royal antecedents go back well before 1066. The Anglo-Saxon link was kept alive by Margaret of the royal house of Wessex, who married Malcolm III of Scotland. Their descendants would later ascend to the throne of England. Clio the Muse 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a line of descendance for Beatrix of the Netherlands from William the Silent. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this site which shows her descent. Rmhermen 04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The missing link on Wikipedia is that the mother of Henry Casimir II of Nassau-Diez, Albertine Agnes of Orange, was a daughter of Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange. Is it just me or is that site ridiculously difficult to use, forcing you to a peephole slit of a few lines at a a time through which to peer at these long scrolling galleys where the genealogical tree structure is given by indentation. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur

I am doing a project on king Arthur and i can not find the information that i am looking for

What information are you looking for? You do know he's fictional, right? - Nunh-huh 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional but might be based on a real person. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you start with King Arthur? -THB 19:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know about King Arthur, simply read Le Morte d'Arthur by Mallory and The Once and Future King by White. Those are the two novels that most Aurthurian legend is based upon. As for the "real" Arthur, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to different people around the 5th century - but nothing strong enough to claim that there was a single person who the Arthurian legends were based upon. As a suggestion, I wrote my English thesis (34 pages) on the Christian influence of sin and punishment in the Arthurian legend. I chose it because it is rather simple. Arthur sins and the product of that sin kills him. Lancelot sins and the product of that sin weakens him and eventually causes his demise. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, there. Arthur starts in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regnum Britanica, then gets a makeover in Layamon's Brut, then gets another in Wace's Roman de la Rose, then gets another in Mallory. Mallory integrates a number of versions of a number of stories and recasts everything in an acceptably chivalric mode. Arthur begins as a Celt driving out Anglo-Saxons and Romans and he becomes, eventually, a fairly Anglo-French guy (with French wife Guinivere, French knight Lancelot du Lac, and Welsh boogey-man/sage Merlin). The legend is based on Geoffrey, but the modern tellings are from Mallory. Geogre 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, I was stating that anything that is not included by Mallory or White is not considered common knowledge in the modern Arthurian legend. I used all the books (and movies - including "The Holy Grail") for my thesis. I intended on hunting down a French book (long forgot the title) about Lancelot before his story was sucked into the Arthurian legend. I'm sure there are many stories that aren't even considered Arthurian that also got sucked up into the mess. --Kainaw ^(talk) 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could read all of List of books about King Arthur and meditate on King Arthur in various media. Better still you could write about how all those stories including a time travelling Arthur have it right as he is really a man out of time, continually re-imagined for every age (including here). Although making up your own story about Arthur may be most in keeping with the legends it may not fit your project. BTW Wace also wrote a Brut , Roman de la Rose was written by others and Artus is only briefly mentioned. MeltBanana 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. (My girlfriend at the time was working on an obscure translation of Historia Regnum Britanica and the insertion of a variant on the Prophecies of Merlin. The Prophecies of Merlin was an independent literary work that floated about and goes back a good bit before Geoffrey. He had been a prophet in the Old Testament sense: his "prophecies" were rewritten to refer to current events, generally, and localizing those prophecies and the events they refer to is a very difficult project.) I meant, of course, Chretien de Troyes. Geogre 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Julian of Moraime

I am trying to fill in a few holes in the article on Muxia. One of the prominent features of this Spanish town is a building that used to be Monastery of Saint Julian of Moraime (if I have translated correctly; San Xiao de Moraime in Spanish). I am not quite sure where Moraime is or was (named for Queen Moraima, wife of Boabdil?), although I gather it is the name of a harbor but I have not managed to verify this from a map. I also have not been able to find a Saint Julian in the list of Catholic Saints. Was this one of those Saints that lost their sainthood? Any ideas?--Filll 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the years, roughly? There are any number of Julians to choose from, and the by-name is likely to drop or change in other language's calendars. It can be tough getting to a master list of saints, as there are over 10,000 official saints, and there are local saints that are referred to by the title without getting official canonization. I don't find a Julian of that permutation in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and my various Golden Legend variants don't list alphabetically. Geogre 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12th century, apparently, so probably before canonization became quite so standardized. My Golden Legend has an index, and lots of Sts. Julian, but none seem to fit this one. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monastery, apparently with that name, was functioning by the early 1100s, so I presume he was canonized before that. When, I cannot say.--Filll 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian of Toledo, Julian the Hospitaller, and Julian of Le Mans are three St. Julians who have articles on Wikipedia. All are from before the time the monastery you mention was built - it wouldn't be unusual to name a monastery after a long-dead saint. I think "Moraime" might describe the location of the monastery. You see that sometimes with Roman Catholic religious buildings - Notre-Dame des Neiges is in Quebec, St. David of the Mountains is up in the Rockies, etc. "Xiao" looks Galician, not Spanish - wouldn't it be Xulián in old Castillian? --Charlene.fic 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can find references to both Xulian and Xiao in the literature. I do believe Moraime is the name of the harbor near the Monastery. I wonder if Moraime is related to Moraima, the wife of King Boabdil.--Filll 05:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]