Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17

What if they hadn't refused a title?

So Peter Phillips is in the news because he's getting married, and as it says in his article, he was "the first legitimate grandchild of a monarch to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy style, for more than 500 years." That was the way his parents, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, wanted it; and likewise their daughter Zara Phillips carries no title.

My question is, what if they hadn't wanted it that way? Are there particular titles, or courtesy styles or whatever, that based on the practice of the previous 500 years would typically have been granted to Mark, Peter, and/or Zara, or an additional hereditary title that would typically have been granted to Anne? Or was it a random thing depending on how fond each monarch was of their particular children and grandchildren? --Anonymous, 03:08 UTC, May 17, 2008.

No there are no precedents, although, in the distant past, titles have been created for the illegitimate children of Monarchs. In theory the Queen can create any person she likes to any title. In the past Ladies in Waiting, and friends have even been elevated to fairly meaningless courtesy titles ("the style and dignity of a daugter of an Earl") for instance. There are plenty of Dukedom's not in use at the moment - Cumberland, Clarence, Monmouth etc. And a new one could always have been created Duke of Dorset, or Shropshire for instance. Howver, under British Law titles only very rarely can be passed through the female line. Peter Philip's father (Mark Phillips) declined a peerage on his marriage ([Princess Margaret]]'s husband Anthony Armstrong-Jones accepted and was elevated to become Earl of Snowdon, hence Princess Margaret's children have titles. However, as peter Phillip's father is still alive, Peter would only hold a courtesy title so would still be a commoner, even if his father had accepted. In previous centuries this problem never occurred as British Princesses seldom (if ever) marries outside of foreign Royalty. One of Queen Victoria's daughters married into the titled aristocracy, as did one of Edward VII's and a daughter of George V. I think Princess Margaret was the first child of a monarch to marry outside the aristocracy - so it is a comparatively recent happening to have the sovereign's grandchildren without titles at all. Giano (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in an account of the arrival in the British Isles of the titles 'prince' and 'princess' for the children and some grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the sovereign, and in the later limitations on that custom. See our article British prince. Xn4 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the first legitimate grandchild of a monarch to be born a commoner, having not even a courtesy style, for more than 500 years - who was the last one? Corvus cornix_talk 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecily of York, one of the daughters of Edward IV of England, made an obscure third marriage at some time between May 1502 and January 1504 to a country squire called Thomas or John Kyme, Kymbe, Keme or Kene, and two of their children, called Richard and Margaret (or perhaps Margery) are mentioned in a herald's visitation of Hampshire, without any dates of birth being given. There may have been other children, but records are lacking. On another analysis, Charles Edward Stuart, the son of James Francis Edward Stuart and grandson of King James II, never held any title recognized in Great Britain or Ireland. Xn4 04:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xn4. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence - However, under British Law titles only very rarely can be passed through the female line - is a bit misleading. Titles are granted by the College of Arms under letters patent, which will govern how a title passes; there's no legal impediment to passing titles through a female line (other than royalty per the Royal Marriages Act 1772), but the matter depends on what the letters patent say. The procedure is different between English and Welsh, on the one hand, and Scottish practice: see, Lord Lyon King of Arms.) Nowadays, there are so few hereditary peerages granted that the matter is effectively immaterial; but, should you be granted an hereditary peerage, you should consider taking (and paying for) legal advice to allow your peerage to pass through the female line rather than becoming extinct for lack of male heirs. Unfortunately, most people seem simply to rely on what the heralds put under their noses; thus, Willie Whitelaw's daughters were deprived of their father's peerage for no other reason that the man had not taken an interest in the drafting of his own letters patent. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On most of that, you're right, but I believe you're wrong on the last point. Heath didn't have the courage to give any hereditary peerages. Thatcher was trying to move back towards them by stages, and at that stage she was giving them only if they would soon die out, as with Viscount Tonypandy. It was the opposite of a slippery slope, and she fell off before she got to the end of it. Strawless (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side question

Side question: should that say "of a British monarch"? The cited news article is from the BBC and could have been assuming a British context. --Anonymous, 03:08 UTC, May 17, 2008.

Yes! :)) SaundersW (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjudicatory hearing?

what is a adjudicatory hearing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.78.118 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A trial process in which a court determines whether or not the allegations contained in a petition are supported by evidence. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can also refer to a tribunal (many of those aren't courts), to a disciplinary panel of a professional body, and so on. Xn4 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see hearing (law). Strawless (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate wiki

I once discovered a wiki that was about debate and philosophy, and it had people supply various arguments linked, then those arguments were refuted on the next page, and so on. I bookmarked it a while back but lost it, anyone have any ideas? I appreciate any help. Chris M. (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be philosophy wiki? Seems pretty close to what you described. Or it could be philowiki. Try googling. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was philowiki, thank you! :) Chris M. (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York v. Lancaster

I've been reading your pages on the Wars of the Roses and was wondering why the Yorkists performed so much better than the Lancastrians, at least until the very end? Lancaster seemed to lose battle after battle, though they had the authority of the crown, which usually gives an advantage. I know that Henry Six was nuts but his side could still claim the right to call on the obedience of loyal subjects against rebels.Willow MacGregor (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a matter of established authority vs. rebels; it was a matter of conflicting claims to the throne. The subjects would be loyal first to their lords -- whoever your lord says to fight, you fight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end came Richard III. Strawless (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical and Anti hero traits

I'm looking into this myself, but I could use help! I need some background information, published scholarly, on two types of heroes: the classical/epic/tragic hero, and the anti-hero. I will use such sites as research for an English paper I'm writing.Tuesday42 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you've see the yummy articles Hero and Anti-hero with multiple links and refs? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are less than yummy. I'd prefer.edu stüff, please. Tuesday42 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. Have you tried google? The refdesks are relatively immune to homework until you've got matter to discuss. Still I'm sure someone will come along for you yet -- with a subscription maybe? good luck. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy and Shakespeare

I was somewhat surprised to see that this topic is not covered in our article on Leo Tolstoy. Question for our literati: why did Tolstoy hate Shakespeare? There is nothing understated in his vituperation; he goes at him with every weapon he has. Look for example at his 1906 essay "Shakespeare and the Drama", which includes bits like this (borrowed from Harold Bloom, The Western Canon): "...having freed themselves from this hypnotic state, men will understand that the trivial and immoral works of Shakespeare and his imitators, aiming merely at the recreation and amusement of the spectators, cannot possibly represent the teaching of life..." Tolstoy reserves his fiercest invective for King Lear. This has bothered me for a long time, having been a life-long fan of both writers. "...Cannot possibly represent the teaching of life..." Really? I know what Bloom says (not Christian enough, and it's partly envy) but I'd be curious to hear some other opinions. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you why Tolstoy hated Shakespeare, but he had even greater disdain for the works of his countryman Anton Chekhov. He put it very squarely and bluntly - You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for political correctness, diplomacy and no-dissing rules, eh. Where does one find Tolstoy: the Gripes, Jacko'Oz? I want to go on relishing his imperious rudeness, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It pops up on various lists – [1], etc. This says it’s from Karlinsky and Heim, p. 375, which is probably this. Happy reading, Julia. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Julia Rossi (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really surprising? Shakespeare was usually writing for the Elizabethan equivalent of a TV audience. I'm surprised more people don't think he's crap! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everone is entitled to their opinions, but great writers usually consider Shakespeare (whoever he was) at the pinnacle of the profession. The Russians particularly admired him. Boris Pasternak translated Hamlet and there various Russian translations of the sonnets. So Tolstoy seems to be in the minority here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: it's hard to find very famous writers who disliked Shakespeare across the board. I can think of plenty who disliked individual plays -- e.g. T.S. Eliot thinking Hamlet an "artistic failure" since Shakespeare failed to find his "objective correlative"; various 17th- and 18th-century writers who loathed King Lear for its pessimism, and even tacked on a happy ending (Nahum Tate, for example). I think Voltaire may have been another with Tolstoy. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GBS wasn't too impressed with the Bard either - [2]. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple.

Tolstoy WAS a 'King Lear', and he couldn't stand Shakespeare's clear-eyed indictment of his folly. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]