Humanities desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

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.

May 5

Local sale of product restriction

In the city I live a law has been passed prohibitting the sale in addition to the use of electric fences. Is the purpose of such restiction intended to be psychological or "meassge conveying" since all one need do to purchase and electric fence or the components thereof is to find a store outside the city limits. If not what is the logic behind a law that can be so easily thwarted? 71.100.2.43 00:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that someone was recently electrocuted by one, and politicians saw an opportunity to make political points by passing that silly law. We end up with many completely unenforceable laws that way. Consider yourself lucky when they don't pass laws which are actively harmful to society, like Prohibition in the US. StuRat 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the specific shield shape of e.g. US highways have a name?

Highway signs in the U.S. highway system use a signs based on a shield shape with two sharp points at each top corner and two more at the top and bottom center, but with the bottom corners rounded. Very much the same shape is used for signs on the trunk highway system in Nova Scotia, Canada. And I have seen similar shields used for other purposes: the Union Pacific Railroad logo is similar, and so is the one seen in an old photo showing the front of Toronto's Royal York Hotel, although these differ in the treatment of the top center part. See here (you'll have to follow the link to see the last one):

My question is, is there a name specifically for this sort of shield shape with the upper corners doubled, or still more specifically for the U.S. highway version of it? Does it allude to something specific as opposed to just being one shape that a knight's shield might have used?

--Anonymous, May 5, 2007, 00:53 (UTC).

There seems to be a history of the shield including information on the shape HERE, an external link I found when reading the Wikipedia article U.S. Route shield, a page I found in my capacity as the Wikipedia Google Queen. There's also some interesting info in the History section of Great Seal of the United States. Anchoress 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, none of these cites relates to my actual question, as far as I can see. In particular, note that the shield on the Great Seal is a different shape. --Anon, May 5, 16:26 (UTC).

I think this is a type of "rococo" shield, which usually have a notch on the right side (from the knight's perspective) on which he would supposedly rest his lance. Although the absense of the notch in this case would seem to make the "rococo" label (referring to the asymmetry caused by the notch) technically inaccurate, the basic shape is the same. The arms of Connecticut also use this shape and refer to it as "rococo", so I guess that's the best word for it. Miremare 21:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anon, May 7, 00:09 (UTC).

Ramadan

In the Muslim holiday- I guess that's what it is- Ramadan (sp?), from what I gather, they are only allowed to eat before sun up, and after sun down (right?). My question is this- what about young children? A crying baby isn't going to wait until specific times at the beginning/end of a day to eat; Do they allow babies/small children to eat whenever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.84.67 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Muslims are only required to fast once they reach the age of puberty. Also, they may be exhemted if they are sick, travelling or too old/weak.Cuban Cigar 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women who are pregnant or who could be pregnant may also be exempted, depending on the local Imam's interpretation. --Charlene 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan. puberty. Islamic Jurisprudence.--Kirby♥time 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jacobite rebellions

i need som information on the jacobite rebellion. Why did the first fail so soon after dundee's death. Did the rebellion of 1715 have any chance of success? 84.201.163.98 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Jacobite rising? The rising Jacobites in 1715 must themselves have believed they stood a chance of success. I'll leave it to others to muse whether, in light of the insights offered by hindsight, that assessment was correct. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link between both of these events is one of leadership, both good, bad and indifferent. Over the years the Jacobite cause threw up leaders with a wide range of talents; but John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount Dundee was, in several respects, the greatest of them all. Although he was a Lowlander by birth and upbringing, he had an intuitive understanding of the Highland mentality, and how best to make the most effective use of irregular troops, on which his rising of 1689 depended. It was this ability that led him to victory over the much larger army of General Hugh Mackay at the Battle of Killiecrankie in July 1689. His death at the height of victory was a serious blow, because command of the rebel army then passed to the far less competent Colonel Alexander Cannon, a professional soldier sent over by King James from Ireland. His great error was to use the irregulars in an entirely conventional manner, in a fashion that Dundee would surely never have attempted, in fighting a street battle against a far smaller force of Cameronians at the Battle of Dunkeld in August, with predictable consequences. The Highland army fell back, seriously demoralised, convinced, in the words of one cintemporary account, that "...they could fight against men, but it was not fit any more to fight against devils." (R. C. Paterson, A Land Afflicted: Scotland and the Covenanter Wars, 1638-1690, 1998 p. 291) Although the army dispersed soon after for the season, it is not quite true to say that the rebellion failed altogether. It continued into the following year, under the equally disastrous leadership of Major-General Thomas Buchan, whose army was routed in comic-opera fashion at the Battle of Cromdale in May 1690.

There is actually a broader question posed by this first Jacobite Rebellion. That is, would it have succeeded had Dundee lived? It is almost impossible to answer imponderables like this with any degree of accuracy or consensus; but on balance it seems highly unlikely. The base of support for the Jacobite cause at the time was narrow enough in Scotland, confined largely to the west Highlands: it was non-existent in England. Dundee may very well have advanced into the Lowlands, but it is almost certain that he would eventually have met the same fate as his distant kinsman, James Graham, Marquis of Montrose, at the Battle of Philiphaugh.

The 1715 rising, in contrast, had real prospects of success, with extensive support over much of northern Scotland, and parts of England. The Jacobite cause had moved beyond its narrow political confines, and was increasingly identified in Scotland with growing hostility to the Union with England, which had yet to show any real benefits to the country. Soon after the Stuart standard was raised at Braemar in September 1715 by John, Earl of Mar, thousands of men came out in support of the cause. But Mar, as politician, a strategist and a soldier was a disaster. He hesited when decisive action was necessary; and although he heavily outnumbered his main rival, John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll at the Battle of Sheriffmuir, the only major encounter of the whole campaign, he failed to press his advantage, retreating back north with a demoralised army, that soon after was to fade away altogether. Maybe things would have been better under a different leadership, a sentiment expressed when one man exclaimed in disappointment at Sheriffmuir, 'Oh, for an hour of Dundee.' His hour, and that of the Jacobite cause itself, was past. Clio the Muse 09:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal maladies

Reading the above question on mad king Louis reminded me of the movie The Madness of King George. What other examples are there of royal maladies having an impact on domestic and international politics? 86.131.244.244 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one that springs to my mind is the Tsarevich Alexei of Russia. His hemophilia (passed on through Alexandra from Queen Victoria) enabled Rasputin to have access to Empress Alexandra, and the whole course of Russia's involvement in WWI was changed, not to mention affecting the factors that allowed the Bolshevik revolutions to occur when they did, and the rise of the Soviet Union, which lingered till 1991 and caused immeasurable grief and death to multiple millions of people both in Russia and elsewhere (phew!). JackofOz 07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack that one of the best, and most recent examples, of a royal malady impacting on history has to be the hemophilia of Alexei; and the relationship of the royal family, particularly the Empress Alexandra, to the disreputable Rasputin, inevitably exposed some serious weaknesses in the whole Imperial system. But I honestly believe far too much tends to be made of this. Nicholas himself was not quite as enamoured of 'our frend' as Alexandra, and was often quick to dismiss his attempts at interference when it came to military matters and questions of state policy. It is almost certain that the Revolution would have come even if Rasputin had never existed. Rasputin was merely a symptom, not the disease.

Clio, I did say "... affecting the factors that allowed the Bolshevik revolutions to occur when they did". They were always going to happen eventually. :) JackofOz 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, beyond this example, two others come to mind, the first so closely linked to one another that it impacts on the wars and politics of two adjacent countries. The madness of Charles VI, as I indicated elsewhere, gravely weakend France at a crucial point in the nation's history, leading to the renewal of the Hundred Year's War by Henry V. Henry's success in this war led directly to the Treaty of Troyes, by which, amongst other things, he married Charles' daughter, Katherine of Valois, the mother of his only child, the future Henry VI. Unfortunately for England, Henry inherited not his father's fighting ability but his grandfather's madness, which, in time, would bring about the Wars of the Roses.

One even more significant example for Europe as a whole is that of Charles II, the last Habsburg king of Spain, arguably one of the most unfortunate monarchs, and certainly one of the most unfortunate men, ever to have lived. Better known to history as Charles the Sufferer, or Charles the Bewitched, he was the disastrous consequence of years of royal inbreeding. Unable to have a child of his own, and with no agreed successor, his death in 1700 led directly to the War of the Spanish Succession, in many respects the most brutal conflict of the whole of the eighteenth century Clio the Muse 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, although not mad, was a leper, which affected his own rule (he was unable to marry and produce heirs), and led to a sort of international and domestic competition to marry his sister and inherit the kingdom. Adam Bishop 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also:

Joanna of Castile's madness (possibly schizophrenia), which after the death of Philip the Fair allowed the Spanish monarchy to come under the control of courtiers, who enriched themselves at the expense of the state;
Alfonso XII of Spain's sons' hemophilia, which weakened Alfonso's ability to hold onto the throne in the face of Franco et al.;
Catherine of Braganza's infertility, an indirect cause of the 1689 Glorious Revolution;
Mary I of England's malady, thought for centuries to have been a phantom pregnancy and associated psychiatric troubles, but which might have instead been a complete molar pregnancy followed by choriocarcinoma (her symptoms were almost textbook). If the symptoms of her condition caused Mary to intensify her persecution of Protestants, it could be a partial cause of the creation of Anglican England;
Edward VI's illness and slow death, which allowed the Duke of Northumberland to bully Edward into naming Lady Jane Grey as his heir in his will;
Henry VIII's possible syphilis, which would explain not just the changes in his personality but also some of his physical ailments. --Charlene 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting additional examples, Charlene, though I'm not sure that I would place the same weight that you do on their specific importance. For instance, I think James II's political incompetence had far more to do with the outbreak of the Glorious Revolution (which dates to 1688, incidentally!) than Catherine's infertility. Also Anglican England was a political compromise by Elizabeth I between Catholic and Protestant elements in the English church, rather than a response to the Marian persecutions as such. I won't cross Henry VIII swords with you, though I will say that the syphilis thesis is highly speculative. However, what puzzles me most is your statement about Alfonso XII, who died in 1885, and thus had no contact with Franco. Forgive me for being obtuse, but is this perhaps a reference to Alfonso XIII? Was he a haemophiliac? Even so, Alfonso's loss of the throne had nothing to do with any physical ailment but his close association with the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera, which led, in 1931, to the creation of the Second Spanish Republic. From exile he later declared his support for the military uprising of 1936, but Francisco Franco, made it clear that the Nationalists would never accept Alfonso as king, for the simple reason that he was too badly compromised and, even more important, a large part of the rebel army was made up of Carlists, determined opponents of the political legitimacy of the descendants of Isabella II. Clio the Muse 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point about Catherine's infertility was that had Catherine had a surviving child, James II would never have been king. Now he might have been Regent, but replacing a regent is much easier than replacing a king! --Charlene 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How abut Henry VI of England? He was at best mentally unstable, if not insane, and not a particularly um, strong leader. Corvus cornix 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's already been mentioned, Corvus, along with his grandfather, Charles VI. Have a look at the second paragraph of my first contribution above. Clio the Muse 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaa Never mind. Corvus cornix 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirov and the Reichstag fire

Thanks to those people who answered my previous question on Russian history. I have one more. Is it possible to draw a comparison between the political outcome of the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933 with those that followed the assassination of Segei Kirov in Leningrad in 1934? . Fred said right 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. Hitler used the hysteria caused by the Reichstag Fire to consolidate his dictatorship; Stalin used the murder of Sergey Kirov to begin the Great Terror, eliminating virtually all of the Old Bolsheviks, and establishing his own dictatorship on an unparalleled basis. Incidentally, there is another interesting contrast between the two events, which shows how much more careful the Russians were in arranging these matters than the Germans. The Nazis blamed the KPD for the destruction of the Reichstag, putting on trial, amongst others, Georgi Dimitrov, a leading Bulgarian Communist. This was in the early days of the dictatorship, and the courts were not yet under the complete control of the state. The trial proceeded with a high degree of fairness, and Dimitrov, conducting his own defence, was even able to embarass in cross-examination Herman Göring, who appeared in his capacity as Minister-President of Prussia. In contrast, the Moscow Trials of leading Communists, like Zinoviev and Kamenev, were competely stage-managed, a piece of political theatre rather than a serious judicial process. Clio the Muse 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused that you can use the word "unparalleled" while drawing a parallel. —Tamfang 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They just keep on truckin'! Mukden_Incident.--Kirby♥time 11:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews funding Hitler

Several notable persons (including George Galloway) claim that some jews funded hitler early on in his political career, is this True? If so who? how many and how much for how long? hotclaws 12:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at a guess any political party is likely to be funded at some point by donations from all manner of religious and ethnic groups. Especially if you're talking about Jews as an ethnic group, it is highly probable that at some time, somewhere, a Jewish person donated to the Nazi party. On specifics, however, I don't know. Try German central government past financial records if you're really interested. 86.146.74.206 13:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly more than casual contact between Hitler and the Jews but unlikely it would have taken the form of financial donations to his political campaign or party since his grandfather is said to be his grandmother's Jewish landlord, who in the absence of cash, was paid with sexual favors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.2.43 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Alois Hitler. That claim seems to be bogus. Corvus cornix 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an unusual conspiracy theory! The questioner seems to believe that the Jews are the root of all evil and even gave the world Adolf Hitler. Dr Zak 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It it too much to ask to assume good faith on the questioner's part, rather than to go making unfounded accusations of anti-semitism? Mentioning Jews whilst not being an anti-semite is, after all, possible. Miremare 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of military units

Lots of strategy games have generic types of units for use on the "battlefield". Is there a good list of such units e.g. Infantry, Medium Tank, Anti-Air, Destroyer, Bomber etc. anywhere? I'm not looking for a specific game, just for some ideas on such unit types (not commercial or legal or anything). Thanks. 86.146.74.206 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll vary heavily by game type. One might just be infantry/armor/air/naval, another might subdivide artillery into mortars, self-propelled guns, field guns, and converted anti-aircraft guns. Still others might break down formations to squad level and represent the quality, equipment, and morale of individual soldiers. What sort of scale do you have in mind? — Lomn 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite general. For instance, the whole field of armoured vehicles could just be Light and Medium Tanks. I'm just looking for some units that stand out so they could fulfil a special purpose. 86.150.14.21 08:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I really meant by "scale" was the quantitative level of representation. Is a unit analogous to a corps, division, regiment, company, squad, or what? I would think that, for deciding what units you represent, it's far more important to know if one armored unit is one tank or 100 rather than if those tanks are Shermans or Pershings. Anyway, should you run across this, feel free to continue the discussion on my talk page. — Lomn 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Limitations on Murder

I thought there was no such limitation in almost any jurisdiction world-wide. However, I read today on the CBC news site that the lone Canadian rounded up in the Bonanno/Massino family RICO trials in New York, name of Rizzuto, was not charged with the murders because "the statute of limitations had run out on the crime." [[1]]. There is, I understand, a 10-year statute of limitations on racketeering, but I did not think that it also included murders related thereto. Does anyone know for certain if there is now a limitation on murder, what that limit is, and where it holds true? --Bielle 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I could find – apart from the CBC news article to which you linked – agree that there is no statute of limitations on murder in New York. Other news sources I looked at offered various explanations for the prosecution's acceptance of the plea deal, none of which involved statute of limitations. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the case that Mr. Rizzuto would have faced charges for felony murder and that the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying felony had run out (the wording of the CBC article is sufficiently imprecise to support this interpretation) but that still doesn't necessarily clear him of the murder charge. Therefore, it seems appropriate to question the accuracy (or at least the precision) of the CBC article itself. dr.ef.tymac 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser, as well as unusually poor writing for the CBC. Thanks for your thoughts and research. Bielle 02:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article at findlaw.com, no U.S. state has a statute of limitations on the crime of murder. But I have my doubts whether that is completely correct, as this news article suggests that Louisiana has a statute of limitations of two years for second-degree murder. Murder as a federal crime does have a statute of limitations in certain circumstances, according to a report I found in a Google search. The Congressional Research Service has a report called "Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview". The 2007-04-09 version, found here, says that federal capital crimes have no statute of limitations[2], but not all murder is a capital crime. As far as I can tell, under U.S. federal law there is no statute of limitations for first-degree murder (a capital crime), and generally the statute of limitations for second-degree murder is five years (see 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)). However, as I read 18 U.S.C. § 3286(b) there would be no statute of limitations for certain types of second-degree murder referred to as "terrorism offenses" and listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), and those types of offences might well include a very large percentage of federal prosecutions for second-degree murder. As for Rizzuto, this 2006 blog entry about Rizzuto's extradition from Canada mentions that Alan Dershowitz gave expert testimony on the statute of limitations issue. In a decision of August 6, 2004 at paras. 38-39, the Quebec Court of Appeal explained it like this:

In the instant case of an offence of conspiracy breaching RICO, the statute of limitations can be invoked after five years. The situation would be different if the charge were murder, since the State of New York has not imposed a statute of limitations on that crime. However, the state has not brought murder charges against the appellant (perhaps because the rules of evidence are more difficult to satisfy, making the case less favourable to prosecution), and only RICO (under federal jurisdiction and forming the grounds for the extradition request) is relevant.

What must be determined is whether the statute of limitations begins running in 1981, the date the underlying offences of murder were committed, or in December, 2003. In other words, the question is the following: in the context of a request for judicial interim release, does the available evidence show that the appellant was still a part of the conspiracy infringing RICO in 2003, as the respondent maintains, or did his participation in this crime come to an end in 1981, as argued by counsel for the appellant?

If I'm wrong about any of this, I hope someone will correct me. --Mathew5000 08:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as statute of limitations on murder, at least two southern states (Georgia and Louisiana) have (or had) statutes of limitations on second degree murder, but you might want to check if any state currently has such for first degree murder. Additionally, your research into the judicial interim release pleadings of Mr. Rizzuto further substantiates that the CBC article is (at best) "imprecise" as it does not distinguish between the seperate charges under RICO, conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, and murder (the latter charge apparently never even prosecuted). dr.ef.tymac 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was no such limitation in almost any jurisdiction world-wide. There is a statute of limitations for almost any crimes in France, save for rare exceptions (crimes against humanity, e.g. genocide). I would not be surprised if it was generally the case throughout Western Europe. David.Monniaux 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyin

In what words the "q" in Pinyin is proununced "q" and in what "j-ch"? --Vess 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by 'pronounced "q"'. According to our article Pinyin, there is only one pronunciation associated with the letter q in Pinyin, which is [tɕʰ], similar to "ch" in English "church". I could imagine, though, that, for example, a name like Qantas retains its spelling, in which case the letter "Q" is, presumably, not pronounced Pinyin-style by people who know the Australian pronunciation of that name. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worried. I would say in what word the letter "j" in pinyin is proununced as "q and in what as "j-ch". --Vess 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost a bit what you mean. The letter j in Pinyin is pronounced as [tɕ]. It is an unaspirated version of the sound represented in Pinyin by q. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of note: in pinyun, each letter has one and only one sound associated with it. This is confused a bit when hearing a Cantonese speaker pronounce a Mandarin word with an accent. It isn't that the pinyin has two pronunciations. It is that not all Chinese pronounce Mandarin perfectly (similar to English pronouncing "the" as "thee" and "thuh"). So, any question asking when a pinyin letter has one sound and when it has another is faulty. Pinyin letters never have one sound and then another. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Don't you mean phoneme instead of "sound" or allophone? --Kjoonlee 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been an excellent question for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Christ by some Jews

Do some Jews beleive that Jesus Christ is merely the object of Joseph having been cuckold and if so is Jesus Christ rejected on those grounds even though the cuckler is claimed to be God? 71.100.2.43 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you begin a question with "Do some Jews believe" then I'm sure there's some lunatic Jew out there who would believe such a thing. But if you're asking if that's a premise shared by any stream of Judaism I'm aware of, the answer would be a clear no. Lewis 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few Jews accept Jesus as their christ. They number only a few thousand in the whole world. Also see 'Syrian Christian' in wikipedia.

I find this a disturbingly strange question. If you mean "Jew" as a religion, then of course Jews reject the claim that Jesus is the only Son of God (in the Christian interpretation of that term), otherwise they would be Christians and not Jews. If you mean "Jew" in an ethnic sense, what does that have to do with anything? People who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, presumably also do not believe in the Virgin Birth and would assume his natural father was Joseph, making the whole question pointless. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Yeshu about a figure in classical Rabbinic literature who may or may not be Jesus. Dr Zak 14:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat minders in history

hi - I was wondering if any historians present might provide some contemporary accounts of servants employed to mind cats, if there were ever any such - was it ever an official position? Strange question, I know, but there have been offices just as strange in royal courts etc. I'm particularly interested in European history here - Louis XIV's court for instance - anything 18th century and earlier.

Thanks in advance.

Adambrowne666 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if anyone can tell me aught about any servants employed to mind any royal animal whatever, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not sure about people employed to look after cats (although it's not a strange suggestion that a royal would get someone to attend to their favoured pet), but I think that Q. Elizabeth has people looking after her Corgis... --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the servants who look after the Queen's corgi's aren't employed specifically for this reason, but do so as part of their more general household tasks. Miremare 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would look into Egyptian history...I don't have time to do any research right now but the Ancient Egyptians were quite fond of cats. Gradvmedusa 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm sure you're right - what I'm hoping for is the name of that position...

I don't know about cats, but England had the Master of the Buckhounds, Master of the Harriers, etc. See [3] for a number of animal-care-related offices in the Royal Household after 1660, although they generally seem to relate to hunting. Choess 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter managed to pet Clinton's cat, minded presumably by the Secret Service, on a White House tour. Edison 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am able to determine, there was never a specific office related to the care of royal domestic pets, though there were for many others, including some of astonishing intimacy. Does anyone wish to know the function of the Groom of the Stool? For once I think silence might be best! Clio the Muse 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like it would be the person in charge of polishing the royal turd? Which would in turn appear contrary to an old adage I've heard, but leave it to royalty I guess... -- Azi Like a Fox 07:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even closer than that, Azi, as you will discover if you read the page on the Groom of the stool. Clio the Muse 08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I'm still eating lunch...Ok. I certainly did not expect to read the words, "The position was highly prized", in an article with that heading. I shudder to ask, but, was there a prescibed methodolgy in carrying out such an important duty, or was it more of an improvise as needed type of a job? -- Azi Like a Fox 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say. But the position was valued because it gave one access to the 'ear' of the king, as well as the other, more fundamental, part of his anatomy! Clio the Muse 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes, I realize the unparalleled and exclusive access such an intimate relationship might afford, but on reading the particular wording in the article I could not help but picture the actual physical "position" such a job must have entailed. I imagine the Stool Groom's would have been quite conscientious in executing their functions, with all that implies, because, after all, when dealing with a monarch one never wants to do a half-assed job. -- Azi Like a Fox 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very belated thanks to you all! Adambrowne666 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]