Humanities desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

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.

July 25

Royal persons in concentration camps

Does anybody know any royalties that were sent to concentration camps during World War II? I know there was Princess Mafalda of Savoy, who died in one--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about royal persons, or about money? A human being, no matter how lofty, is not referred to as a "royalty". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious what they are trying to say, and there's no need for your arrogance. You could have pointed out that "royalty" is a collective term for royal people.

Dachau_concentration_camp#Royalty. You could also look through Category:Nazi concentration camps and look for any more.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack was not being arrogant. You could say he was being pedantic. We both work on the Language Desk and tend to pick up a lot on people's misusages of words - that is our job. However, Jack was wrong, because we CAN say that Queen Elizabeth is royalty, but I think the point he was trying to make is that we can't say that Queen Elizabeth and the rest of her family are 'royalties', as this only means 'money', in English. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was being an arrogant smartass. It annoys me when we nitpick obvious mistakes (unless we do so after answering the question, in which it's OK to whale on the questioner, a la Cecil Adams.) I have been guilty of this myself at times, I hasten to add. Tempshill (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant? I don't believe so, but people can make up their own minds. Smartass? Maybe. But pedantic? Definitely not. Imagine a question such as "Do any schools weigh more than 100 tonnes?" - which turned out to be about the weight of individual whales. Using a collective term to refer to individual members of a group is what I'd call egregious (particularly from one who claims a close association with QEII), and drawing attention to it, in a constructive way, as I believe I did, is a service that I don't expect any kind of recognition for, but certainly not criticism. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. Why are you arguing about this? I don't care I just want someone to answer the question. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, including nobles & aristocrats as well as royals:

Auchwitz

Henriette Mendelssohn (wife of Emmanuel Simon André Marie de Crussol d’Uzes, Marquis de Crussol)

Leau bei Bernberg

Sumner Kirby

Buchenwald

Dachau

Flossenbürg

Bernard de la Rochefoucauld

Mauthausen

François Marie Joseph Abel Henri Sauvage Comte de Brantes

Neuengamme

James van Beusekom

Oranienburg

Pierre d’Alcantara de Querrieu

Ravensbrück

Anne de Bauffremont-Courtenay
Elizabeth Pelletier de Chambure, wife of Philippe de Rothschild

misc.

Philip von Hessen: briefly interned after informing Hitler of Italy’s inability to continue fighting
The wife (Antonia von Luxembourg) and children of Rupert von Wittlesbach were interned in various camps including Oranienburg, Flossenburg and Dachau in 1944.
Michael I of Montenegro (survived)
Liliane (Nahmias) Haflin, mother of Diane von Fürstenburg (lived)
Prince Charles de Rohan (1894-1965) and his son Prince Charles de Rohan (1924-2005) interned in various camps (lived)
Antal Szapáry de Muraszombath (1905-1972) interned for activities with the Hungarian Red Cross and his relief work for Polish and Jewish refugees. He was released through the intervention of King Gustav V of Sweden
Fritz Thyssen an early Nazi sympathizer who was later interned by the Nazis (His autobiography was titled "I Paid Hitler", he is father of Anita Countess Zichy-Thyssen, and uncle of Margit Gabriella Lujza Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, the "Killer Countess")
Rupert von Wittlesbach, his wife, and his children were interned in several camps.

- Nunh-huh 08:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find reliable sources online now, but I have a vague memory of a photograph of Janusz Kwiek, who had been crowned king of Polish Gypsies in 1937 (see picture of his enthronement), taken in a concentration camp, probably Auschwitz. I found one online mention that in 1949, King Kwiek made a pilgrimage to thank Virgin Mary for saving him and other Gypsies from death in a camp, so apparently, he survived. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's citizenship and presidency(a "what if")

Let's say that the "birthers" are right and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama really isn't an American citizen. If this was the case(as I don't believe it to be), I assume his presidency would somehow be declared null and void. However, how might this be handled? Would Obama just have to step down, and Biden take over? Or would there be a special election called? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He would not be the first president whose birthplace was seriously questioned, even during his presidency. See Chester A. Arthur. In fact, the Arthur situation is almost 100% identical to the Obama situation. His mother was clearly an American citizen, but his father was not (He was Irish and not a citizen); and though his official birthplace is listed as Vermont, many have speculated that he was born in Canada and his family moved to Vermont when he was a young child; the family HAD lived in Canada up until shortly before Arthur's birth. His political enemies even hired lawyers and invesitgators to research where he was born, to disqualify him from the Presidency. So we have the following parallels:

Chester Arthur: Mother a U.S. Citizen, Father not one, family had lived in a foreign country for a time, family moved around a lot anyways. Political opponents tried to prove he was not born in the U.S. to prove he was ineligible for the presidency, even though his mother WAS a citizen, which should confer natural born rights to him.
Barack Obama: Mother a U.S. Citizen, Father not one, family had lived in a foreign country for a time, family moved around a lot anyways. Political opponents tried to prove he was not born in the U.S. to prove he was ineligible for the presidency, even though his mother WAS a citizen, which should confer natural born rights to him.

It is quite true that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, and we clearly have a near perfect repeat here. Unfortunately for us, Arthur was one of our most forgetable presidents. --Jayron32 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember to ask the "birthers" this question: which person was not born in the United States A)Barack Obama B)John McCain? Because one of them wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.48.124 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how your perception of The Truth is, it's either B alone OR A and B. While the so-called "birthers" claim that we have no good proof that Obama WAS born in the U.S., we have definitive proof that McCain was NOT. --Jayron32 04:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that one need not actually be born in the US to qualify, as long as at least one of one's parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. If that's the case, it doesn't seem to matter where they were born, so what's all the fuss about? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fuss is that, when Obama was elected president, those that opposed him started to grasp at straws for anything at all that could somehow make his win illegitimate. There is nothing more to it than that. Indeed, the phrase "natural born" is not clear; it could mean that one is required to be born on U.S. soil OR to U.S. citizens OR some combination thereof. It is not clear in the original text of the constitution. The Chester A. Arthur article I cite above does itself cite some legal opinions over the matter. My understanding is that the prevailing legal view at the time of Arthur was that a parent who was a citizen transfered "natural born" status to their children; which would have made the actual location of his Birth moot. However, since the U.S. is a case law country, the matter is literally undecided until a court decides it, and as such, no court has ever acted on a case of this magnitude. However, since OFFICIALLY, both Obama and Arthur before him were born on U.S. soil (whether the actually were is open to debate by some) there has never been a serious legal challenge. If we ever had a case where there was a candidate who was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen and one non-citizen, it may make a test case for the issue. But as yet, without that, I doubt the matter will ever be resolved by a court of law. --Jayron32 05:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington wasn't born in the United States! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are probably aware, the constitution has a separate clause making anyone who was a citizen of the US at the time the consitution was adopted eligible to be president. Algebraist 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in a thread below, 1968 Republican presidential candidate George Romney was not born in the U.S., and 1964 Republican nominee Goldwater was not born in the United States, but in Arizona Territory. McCain was not born in the United States. "Natural born" has been taken to mean, by legal scholars, a citizen without being naturalized ." If Obama were born in another country to a mother who was a citizen, he would be a U.S. citizen without needing naturalization papers, so he would qualify as "naural born." The purpose of the language in the constitution was to keep a European monarch or prince from becoming President. Edison (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

– To answer the acctual question here ("Would Obama just have to step down, and Biden take over? Or would there be a special election called?"): Obama would have to step down in this hypothetical situation since he would not be eligible for the presidency and Biden would become president. The US does not have any rules for extra presidential elections, which means there cannot be any. E.G. (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've an American friend who was adopted as a child. She's pointed out, following the Obama presidential eligibilty debate, that for all American adoptees except those adopted in the six states with open records legislation, there is legally no way for anyone to discover their birthplace, as all their "birth" certificates are faked. Indeed, I know several "Americans" born in Ireland and adopted to the United States, who have birth certs proclaiming them to be born in America. So yeah, really brilliant laws... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens consort of Mann?

Lady Margaret Beaufort was married to a king of Mann; she decked herself with titles such as "The King's Mother" and "The Countess of Derby and Richmond" and demanded queenly precedence, so she would have probably enjoyed the queenly title - but she was never referred to as queen. Did the wives of the kings of Mann use the title of queen of Mann at all? Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but the phrase "Queen of Mann" brings up images of this guy in my head. Never mind me, I'm just an idiot. --Jayron32 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article on her, you see that her titles were as a result of her marriages, and then as a result of her son becoming king of England as a result of winning the Wars of the Roses. She would not have been referred to as "queen" because she was not married to a king of England. Of course she may have been referred to as "Queen of Mann" but I have to say I haven't heard of this style before. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article about her; in fact, I am expanding it since yesterday. You do not have to be married to a king of England in order to be queen. Margaret was married to a man who styled himself King of Mann. Why didn't she style herself Queen of Mann? Did such title exist at all? Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title "King of Mann" barely existed either - by this time it was just an honour, and her husband probably had nothing to do with Mann. He didn't style himself that way, he just happened to have the title. There wouldn't be much point in calling herself "queen", and in fact the "king" title itself was dropped by her husband's successors. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the wives of previous kings of Mann? Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google books suggests that Queen of Man or Queen of Mann were used at various points. I'm not sure how reliable some of those books are though. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd generation American

I remember hearing somewhere a few years back that iin order to be an American president one would need to be 3rd generation American or more. This would make sence, to not have a foreigner run your country. Now I am not American, but think that Obama is great but is there a discrepancy here or did I miss hear. Can some one illuminate this for me please? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such provision in the constitution, which merely requires that the president be a natural born citizen of the United States (whatever that means) as well as being at least 35 and resident in the US for 14 years. Perhaps your source meant that a person without several generations of American ancestry would have no chance of being elected, rather than actually being ineligible. Algebraist 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all constitutional experts would agree that a person born in the United States (who meets age and residency qualifications) is eligible for the presidency, no matter where that person's parents were born. The only thing unresolved about the "natural born citizen" clause is whether it would qualify a person born outside the United States to US citizens. Since Obama was born inside the United States (in Hawaii), he qualifies for the presidency under the universally accepted meaning of that clause. Whoever told you that a president has to have had ancestors or even parents who were born citizens was wrong. Obama proves that. Incidentally, most US citizens would not consider a person who was born and raised in the United States a "foreigner," so long as that person is able to speak English with an American accent. Obama speaks English with an American accent, and I think the vast majority of Americans would accept him as American, regardless of his father's origins. People in the United States are very different in this way from many Europeans. I lived in Berlin for a while, and I could not understand why a person who spoke German with a Berlin accent, who was born and raised in Berlin, and who rooted for the local football team would be considered a "foreigner" by other Germans just because his grandparents came from Turkey. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural born" has been taken to include all citizens who were not naturalized. Someone born to a citizen outside the U.S could be a "natural born " citizen. This could include those born to military personnel overseas, like 2008 Republican candidate McCain, persons born in U.S. territories which later became states, like 1964 Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, or even babies born overseas to U.S. citizens who were visiting another country, like George Romney, 1968 candidate for the Republican nomination. Thus it would likely include Obama even if he were born in Kenya to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. Edison (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was at the time US territory. Rckrone (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone was an unincorporated territory, making it less part of the US than Goldwater's native Arizona, an organized incorporated territory of the United States. According to Panama Canal Zone#Citizenship, someone born in the Zone at the time McCain was would not have automatically been a US citizen, although they would become so retroactively when the law was changed a year later. Algebraist 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babies born to military personnel in countries where birth conveys citizenship become dual citizens.(Thousands have been born this way on US bases in Germany, for instance). At age 18 they must make a choice to renounce one or the other, or may lose their US citizenship. There was some debate about Obama's status because of his having been an Indonesian citizen, through his step father, in childhood. -KoolerStill (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost time according to Joshua 10:12-14

Can it be determined by current methods if a day has been lost according to the KJV Bible, Joshua 10:12-14? Has anyone tried to prove one way or the other it's validity? Thank you, Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.143.81 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Julian Calendar - in the British Empire it went from Wednesday 2 September 1752 to Thursday 14 September 1752. Not sure if that sort of thing is what you mean? As it stands actual 'days' are a social-construct so we can 'lose' one by making changes like shown in the julian calendar article. As for a day occuring but the whole world 'losing' it in some sort of biblical style way then no, that's just bible-talk. ny156uk (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can be guaranteed that anything in the Bible can be "proved" by someone, somewhere. Here is one for Joshua's day. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as a practical matter? No, you can't tell. If you had precise astronomic information that predated Joshua (if, for instance, Moses recorded a given eclipse with a precise UTC timestamp), you could extrapolate extra Joshua-era hours. However, no such data exists (no such data can exist), and so we can't. — Lomn 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a famous hoax, in the 1960's that a NASA observatory or radio telescope had somehow determined that the exact amount of time suggested by the Joshua passage was missing from history. No explanation was given of how such a measurement could, even in theory, be made. It was just a pious lie, told in an attempt to fool people into believing the Bible was a work of history and science. Edison (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask another question: is it possible to prove that 4 billion years ago, a dinosaur flashed in and out of existence in one Planck second? No, it isn't, because I just made that up. Made-up things with no basis in theory, experiment, or observation are hard to disprove unless you use common sense. In this case, since the Bible flatly contradicts almost all of science, history, and anthropology, common sense says a day wasn't lost. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell's Teapot has not been proven or disproven, either. --Sean 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flevoland

I have several questions about Flevoland that our article doesn't answer (or doesn't answer well). Flevoland appears to be in three bits Nordostpolder, Eastern flevoland and southern flevoland. Nordostpolder is the island to the top right in the map image. Presummably the other two areas form the other larger southern island. Is that the case? Why are they named separately? Where is the border between them? Then there is the history. Our pages flevoland and zuiderzee and the offical http://provincie.flevoland.nl/welcome_in_flevoland/about_flevoland/history_of/ skimp on details. In particular, when (year? or full date?) was it decided to create these islands? When did construction of the islands start (presumably building the walls and draining the middles)? When was the island construction deemd 'complete'? If that is too ambiguous to answer, when did the first dwelling get built/inhabited? And lastly how was the remains of the salt from the salt water sea managed - didn't it leave the ground 'toxic'? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I haven't read it, but the article Zuiderzee_Works should have a lot of information regarding your questions. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Flevoland article does say that the southeast part was drained in 1957 and the southwest in 1968. For the Noordoostpolder, the linked articlde Schokland says it was completed in 1942. Page 44 of this book, The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography[1], mentions that experiments in the Wieringer Polder (the first section of the Zuider Zee to be drained, but part of North Holland province, not Flevoland) were done in the 1930's to determine the best succession of crops to remove the salt. Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]