Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 1

MONA LISA

The Mona Lisa Page is semi-locked, and I'm wanting to dispute the ficticious claim that the model for the painting was a woman named Lisa G. I tried to find out how to edit or contact someone on this matter, and all I got was a run-around of being transferred from one page to another, where it tells to type this code and that code; very confusing and unhelpful. I would like if a volunteer could please put a note of dispute on the sections of the Mona Lisa article where this person claims "Mona Lisa" is a woman named Lisa G., because this person shows some alleged evidence that Leonardo da Vinci was painting a portrait for a married couple, but that alone is not enough to link the painting of the Mona Lisa to this alleged married couple's portrait. A different painting could of been painted for that married couple, and one has to ask why did Leonardo did not give the Mona Lisa to the married couple if it was meant for them, instead, keeping the painting for many years, traveling with the painting to France, and then selling it to the King of France just prior to his death. I do not like how this "claimant" gets away with a ficticious claim in order to gain money, fame and notoriety! Again I would like if a volunteer could be kind for me and put in a dispute for me. Thank you for your time on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.175 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the identity of Lisa del Giocondo is much in dispute. If you wish, you can comment at Talk:Mona Lisa, but be aware that you'll have to provide reliable sources which clearly establish your point of view; the sources would have to be pretty spectacular to overcome the fairly comprehensive historical record in this regard. --Jayron32 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph on alternative views seems short in view of the many theories put forward and popularised on TV. I don't have the expertise to judge whether they are just crank theories or whether some have academic backing. In view of the length of time between starting the painting and completion, it is possible that more than one person was involved as "sitter". 166.147.120.175, can you point us to some academic papers that set out some alternatives? Dbfirs 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole spin off article on alternate views: Speculation about Mona Lisa. It's linked in the main article. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, for some unknown reason I missed seeing that link.) Dbfirs 08:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea who is gaining "money, fame and notoriety" from claiming that the picture depicts boring Lisa del Giocondo. As for why he kept it, it seems to have been a kind of showcase for his talents. The painting was most likely commissioned by his own father, so it wasn't as if Mr Giocondo was hounding him through the courts for his money back, since as far as we know he never received any (not that that would have deterred Leonardo. It happened all the time). Paul B (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is that. There's not much money to be made by a long-dead model of a 500 year old painting. --Jayron32 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Lisa del Giocondo clearly explains why the portrait was not given to the couple:

"But later that year, he most likely had to delay his work on Mona Lisa when he received payment for starting The Battle of Anghiari, which was a more valuable commission and one he was contracted to complete by February 1505.[27] In 1506 Leonardo considered the portrait unfinished.[28] He was not paid for the work and did not deliver it to his client.[29] The artist's paintings traveled with him throughout his life, and he may have completed Mona Lisa many years later in France,[13] in one estimation by 1516." --140.180.247.198 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment historical background

According to some gun-control opponents, the specific purpose of the second amendment to the US Constitution is to grant citizens the right to own firearms in case it is necessary for them to take up arms against Federal government tyranny. This interpretation in the past was associated with the extremist militia movement, but now it is a more mainstream (or at least more publicly expressed) opinion. What historical grounds exist for the idea that the the amendment was originally intended to be read this way? --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the eighteenth century, the militia was an institution whereby every so often all able-bodied adult white males in a locality were assembled by the government, their weapons were checked to see that they were functional, and possibly they were put through some rudimentary basics of military drills. The British colonists had inherited from the English a suspicion of maintaining "standing armies" when there was no war (not to mention that such an army was expensive), so the militia was the way of filling in the gaps when there was an immediate or local crisis. AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dick Act (the Militia Act you are referring to) was passed in the 20th century, and it's still in effect: 10 U.S.C. § 311. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the late 18th century, not the early 20th century. The 1903 bill seems to have been a realization that the old call-out of able-bodied adult white males armed with their own weapons no longer had much military value, and that the U.S. was now going to have a significant peacetime standing army beyond the old nineteenth-century peacetime army (which usually consisted of little beyond Indian-fighting detachments in the west, troops manning some coastal defense forts, and West Point). AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that law doesn't imply any of those things you're projecting onto it. I'm not aware of any scholarly research that supports the implications you've suggested either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- you said I was referring to a 1903 law, but I was not referring to 1903 law, and in fact the 1903 law pretty much marks the final end of what I was describing. AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really think that the government of a very young and quite vulnerable nation would specifically legislate for its own violent overthrow? Rhetorical questions aside, I recently saw a good historical essay on this subject online, discussing the context of the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment's subsequent legislative manifestation in the form of Militia Acts. Sadly, I can't find it. If anyone else remembers this and provides a link, I'd be very grateful, since an ounce of evidence is worth a pound of opinion on a topic like this. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, rhetorical questions aside, they had just violently overthrown a tyrannical king and so it's not unheard of to think that men of principle and not politics, thought that protection from government was an important value. There's mountains of scholarly research on the topic; I don't know which essay you read that you identified with, but you don't specify which conclusion it makes. The OP's questions assumes a lot of things, I'm not sure all are correct. Shadowjams (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's impossible, there's a chance they could have thought through the worst possible scenarios (ignoring the issues of the 2nd Amendment in the modern day, of course). And would taking away their guns count as tyranny? Then they would need their guns in case the government came to get the guns that they wouldn't otherwise have... HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The second amendment has all kinds of complex historical contexts that, as I understand, are nearly impossible to tease apart today. An obvious example is the English Bill of Rights 1689, which I think our second amendment article mentions. I think the 1689 Bill of Rights has strong ties to the English Civil War, which had some major post-war after-shocks in colonial Virginia, especially Bacon's Rebellion. It's been a while since I read about this topic, but books about Bacon's Rebellion, like, I think, 1676: The End of American Independence, make many connections between Bacon's Rebellion and the "right to bear arms" and the English Civil War, the New Model Army, and much else. Our article on Bacon's Rebellion isn't very thorough, but I think it was in many ways an American echo of the English Civil War, reframed in a colonial context in which a "cavalier" gentry class contended with a "roundhead" yeoman class (those terms do not perfectly translate to colonial Virginia, but are close); part of which revolved around the gentry wanting to protect their "Indian trade" (much of which in the form of a fur trade and an Indian slave trade) from being undermined by the poorer classes clashing and fighting with the Indians—by attempting to disarm the poorer classes in some cases. Nathaniel Bacon's Declaration of the People of Virginia does not directly mention "bearing arms", but does complain that the gentry has "emboldened the Indians against his Majesty’s loyal subjects"—with the implication that "his Majesty's loyal subjects" can only protect themselves in this situation by being armed and forming militias.

Bacon's Rebellion was essentially a failed revolution, in which militias played a key role in fighting the tyranny of the gentry. And to complicate things, the rebel militias attacked the Indians in a brutal, unfair, and rather stupid way. I can't recall the details offhand, but there were attempts to disarm the general colonial population, which further stirred the revolutionary spirit of the times. Search on some of these topics for more info. There is no doubt, as I understand, that the Founding Fathers, a century later, and especially in Virginia, were remembering Bacon's Rebellion in some part when drafting up the second amendment. Thomas Jefferson is often mentioned when talking about the American Bill of Rights, even though James Madison was more involved in actually drafting it up. Madison was a Virginian and was certainly aware of the revolutionary events in Virginia from a century before. While it is hard to imagine the Founding Fathers making provision for sedition, treason, and further revolution (excepting perhaps Jefferson, maybe), the Virginian founders at least knew that Virginia had been subjected to tyrannical rule and attempts to disarm the people before, even when "the people", especially the poorer people were being forced onto the dangerous frontier and subject to Indian attacks. Whether this played into the way the second amendment was worded I can't say, but it seems plausible to me. Also, I don't mean for these comments to necessarily support anti-gun control today. Just to point out some of the interesting historical context in which the second amendment came to be. Pfly (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

Why is it said there are ten lost tribes when the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, Levi and (remnants of) Simeon and maybe even Ephraim and Manasseh, who migrated to Judah during the reign of Asa of Judah, survived after the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdomof Israel? --170.140.105.14 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you -- "ten lost tribes" is semi-sloppy counting, which counts Ephraim and Manasseh separately, ignores Simeon, and ignores half the tribe of Levi. However, it's traditional... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Levites always lived in both kingdoms. But they're normally excluded from the counting of the tribes when it comes to territory, as they had none, the twelve tribes being actually thirteen when Joseph's sons are taken into consideration, each of whom had a share in the land. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But 170.140.105.14 has a point, in that if you exclude Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, then you can only get to ten by including Levi in the count, even though a large number of Levites lived in the southern kingdom. Anyway, probably significant remnants of Israelites remained in Samaria after 722 B.C., though they mixed with other groups, and few of them were willing to accept religious leadership from Jersualem... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my understanding:

• The "Twelve Tribes" was originally the twelve sons of Jacob, but when the Levites were set aside from receiving land and given their special status, they were replaced by dividing the Tribe of Joseph into that of his two sons: Ephraim and Manassah; thus the Levites were not normally counted among the "twelve tribes" when the territory of the Land of Israel was divided up.
• The actual assigned territory was never fully claimed, and the extent to which the territory of Israel as actually controlled by the Unified and later Divided Kingdoms never represented the territory which Scriptures had specifically assigned to the Tribes. IIRC, the Tribe of Dan never ousted the Philistines from their assigned land, and thus were forced instead to settle within the land of the Tribe of Naphtali in the are of the city of Dan. Also, though the Tribe of Simeon was assigned land within what later became the Kingdom of Judah they never took control of it; the land itself came under control of Judah instead; the Kingdom of Judah was thus limited to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Those two tribes were thus the "unlost" tribes in the counting, the Ten Tribes that were lost then could be considered the balance.
• The term "ten lost tribes" may not have ever been meant to be taken literally; nor is there any evidence that the term was used in scripture, nor is there any evidence in scripture or historical record that the Northern Kingdom was ever completely depopulated. Thus, the "ten lost tribes" may not have been ten, and may not have been completely lost. My understanding is that the end of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians occured when the leadership was removed by the Assyrians, and some of the people from some tribes were deported and/or enslaved, though several tribes usually counted as "lost" were mostly spared in this regard. The "lost" tribes thus may have only been "lost" in the sense that they lost their cultural heritage and distinction as separate tribes, but the people themselves continued to live in the same land.
• Cultural distinctions within the Levant indicate that the "ten lost tribes" may have in part become the Samaritans; the northern Kingdom's capital was the City of Samaria and the land of Samaria itself formed the core of the Northern Kingdom.

Just some ideas. --Jayron32 14:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Contacting the Israeli Government

I have a question. I previously proposed the idea of holding a referendum on Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods in the event of a final peace deal here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_August_8#East_Jerusalem_Arabs_and_Israel). What would be the best way for me to try contacting some prominent Israeli politicians and to share my proposal with them? I know that the chances might be low, considering that I am an ordinary person and a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen who has lived in the U.S. for the entire last decade (and longer), but I still want to try doing this considering that it appears that no one in the Israeli government (in this one and in all of the previous ones) has ever suggested a proposal similar to the one that I suggested. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of current Israeli government officials: [1]. It doesn't include e-mail addresses, but you could do a Google search on each name and "email address". Of course, even if you send an e-mail, most likely it will just be read be a secretary, not the actual politician. (You could also do snail mail, if you prefer wasting postage.) StuRat (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What's snail mail? Also, is there any way at all for an actual Israeli politician to hear my proposal? Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Snail mail" is using the postal system to deliver mail, written on paper, in envelopes, with stamps on them. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I think that using e-mail would be better for me, though. Futurist110 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although you might have an old-fashioned politician who's more likely to read snail mail than e-mails. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking about old-fashioned politicians, these politicians might also be less likely to speak English fluently. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Futurist110, in your supposing that that the likes of your proposal have never before been considered by "[any]one in the Israeli government," is that based on your having particularly extensive and comprehensive sources of information? It would be responsible and effective on your part to start by identifying which particular governmental body - and not necessarily on the national level - deals with the issue of Israeli citizenship for Arab residents of East Jerusalem. For example, I searched for an office of Arab Affairs (e.g. for the Jerusalem Municipality), and read the following on the English-language blog of the Israel State Archives:

...the office of the Adviser on Arab Affairs [...] was a unit in the Prime Minister's Office from the early years of the state until the turn of the century when it was abolished. (The abolition reflected the understanding that the affairs of Israel's Arab citizens should be dealt with, like those of all other citizens, in each respective ministry, rather than by a separate one).

That ISA blog has this piece on the topic of ID cards for East Jerusalem Arabs. See also the websites of NGOs concerned with, for example Palestinian rights in Jerusalem that share your interest and would provide background information not available through more mainstream sources. People in the field are likely to know the answer to the question you posed here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)'

In regards to my proposal, I studied the history of Israeli peace negotiations and peace proposals, as well as looked at Israeli news for the last six years. I have not found anyone proposing what I proposed. In regards to Israeli citizenship for the Arabs of East Jerusalem, the thing is that when it comes to peace proposals, only politicians are generally able to make serious proposals which could catch the attention of Israeli governments and peace negotiators. Thank you very much for these links about the affairs of Israel's Arab citizens. I will check them out in the future. In regards to background information, are these organizations genuinely able to get the attention of Israeli politicians? I think I've read before that Israel is trying to impose some restrictions on NGOs or something like that. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, I literally forgot all of my Hebrew after I came to the U.S. (in 2001--I was 8 back then). Therefore I would need to be able to contact someone in English. Also, in regards to politicians, I think that some politician(s) in Yair Lapid's new party (Yesh Atid) might be more interested in my proposal than the politicians in some other parties. Futurist110 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do district attorneys belong in the executive branch or the judicial branch?

Do district attorneys belong in the executive branch or the judicial branch? When I googled it there's an answers.com answer that's only one word long which isn't exactly helpful. The federal "version", United States Attorney, belong in DoJ and thus the executive branch; I'm asking whether this is also the case for their local counterparts.Dncsky (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

District attorneys represent the State and its interests, so they are not officials of the judicial branch per se. They are members of the Executive. They are still officers of the court, but that applies to defense attorneys as well. The idea behind the impartial judiciary is that Judges aren't beholden to any other party except the Law itself, so only the Judges represent the Judicial Branch of government, in U.S. constitutional theory. --Jayron32 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dncsky (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

What is the phobia of not being able to speak

I would like to know the fear of not being able to talk/allowed to talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.112.182.181 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Try List of phobias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be considered one of the symptoms of social phobia (http://www.temple.edu/psychology/heimberg/documents/Jorstad-SteinHeimbergSocialPhobiaAnUpdateonTreatmentPsychiatricClinicsofNorthAmerica2009.pdf (page 652) and http://books.google.com/books?id=W1x4v5-WQSEC&pg=PA24&dq=%22+fear+of+being+unable+to+speak (page 24)). I couldn't find a name for it as a phobia on its own. 184.147.123.15 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glossophobia is in the list I indicated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glossophobia is fear of public speaking, not the fear of NOT public speaking. 63.144.93.30 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP didn't say he fears not speaking; he fears not being able to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP says "able/allowed" to talk, which might imply a fear of some form of "freezing up" stopping one from making utterances, but also suggests being retrained or muzzled by others. In either case 63.144.93.30 is corerect that thr OP is not talking about fear of speaking, but fear of being restrained from doing so, whether by internal or external forces. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A phobia is an intense fear of something. Being unable to do something is a different thing. People have been known to do extraordinary things in the face of the most profound fears. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It should also be clarified that a phobia is an irrational fear of something: that is the fear itself does not reasonably derive from actual circumstances. The intense fear of being shot while sitting quietly in your house in a quiet, safe suburb would be a phobia. The intense fear of being shot while in the midst of a heated battle in a war zone would merely be prudent. --Jayron32 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the question. The OP seems to be asking about the fear that you will try to talk, and then can't, or the fear of finding yourself at a loss for words, or something like that. That's probably a real phobia, but I'm not sure there's a specific name for it. It should be noted that the vast majority of "named" phobias are not real, recognized psychological conditions but are rather simply popular terms for fears or anxieties, some of which may not even meet the clinical definition of a phobia (c.f. Nomophobia.) That is, the OP's question may be about a real, clinical phobia, but it is unlikely to be a phobia with a clinically-recognized name. --Jayron32 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess of Orange

Why was Sophie of Württemberg considered The Princess of Orange from 1839 to 1849 when her husband was the heir apparent but the present Princess Máxima of the Netherlands is not? The argument that the title is reserved for a female heir apparent doesn't make sense since the Spanish monarchy also allow female succession but gives the title Princess of Asturias to both spouse and female heirs-apparent.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that The Netherlands is not Spain. The Monarchy of the Netherlands is not bound to follow rules established by the Monarchy of Spain. The rules currently state that the Princess of Orange title today can only be applied to the female heir apparent, and not to the wife of the male heir apparent. The Netherlands is well within their rights to declare that a rule. In the 1840s, the Netherlands had a different inheritance law, and did not allow females to be actual heirs apparent, merely heirs presumptive (as is the case in the UK today). Line of succession to the Dutch throne makes it clear that the situation in the 1840s was even more restrictive than that: Females could only inherit if there were literally zero qualified males able to inherit until 1887. From 1887-1983, the situation was for male preference primogeniture, but which allowed females to inherit if there was not a male within a certain degree of kinship (similar to the UK). Since 1983, the Netherlands succession law maintains strict gender-neutral primogeniture. Given the difference in the rules between 1840's and today, it is unsurprising that the rules governing the use of titles related to that succession have changed, and the fact that the rules in Spain are different is a non-starter: Spain has no say over what happens in the Netherlands. --Jayron32 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another question on Japanese culture

I am Japanese and I was once a hikikomori when I was 20 years old, I locked myself up in my own bedroom, tired of the pressure of society and spent all the time playing games and watching TV. A team of governmental psychologists and psychiatrists helped me out and I overcame that. My question is, in Western countries, do you have governmental free mental care like Japan in that sense?. Hope you understand me. My English is like hell. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

All medical care is free in the UK, including mental health care, because of the NHS, but not dental care. Dental care is free only if you are receiving state benefits or are under 18. Of course, it is not free if you go to a private institution. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OP may want to check out Universal health coverage by country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the United States there is only very rudimentary government mental health care at the moment. This may change under the Affordable Care Act; I'm not sure one way or the other (I haven't looked into the mental health provisions of the new law). Generally speaking US public mental health care was stripped down substantially in the 1980s. Frankly I doubt that the government here would give you the sort of treatment you received in Japan. If anything, they might commit you involuntarily to a mental institution, but that's not quite the same thing. Also, your English is completely understandable. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Queen Elizabeth II a Commander?

I saw her on the box of Northern Mali conflict with the flags of the UK and Canada. Is she a Commander? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, much like the Japanese emperor, the British monarch has no executive power. Rojomoke (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

British kings led armies in the middle ages, sometimes getting killed in the process. Was that option taken away abruptly, or was it a gradual transition? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The transition was in the 15th to 16th centuries. Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain and would have given his kingdom for a horse, while Elizabeth gave a stirring speech to the troops. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I always thought it was Richard III's father who Gave Battle in Vain, seeing as he didn't become king. Richard III was the last English king to die in battle; James IV was the last British monarch to do so, in 1513. At that time, Catherine of Aragon was ruling England as regent, and she rode out in armour to send the army on its way, but did not make the long journey north to the battlefield. But George II was the last British monarch to lead his troops into battle, at the Battle of Dettingen. But as noted below, British royal involvement in warfare continues to this day, and in 1942 cost the life of Prince George, Duke of Kent, the king's younger brother. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Like many of the Queen's powers, I suspect that this one is one that exists on paper, but which she cannot practically use. That is, she is, in name, the Commander-in-Chief of the British military, but unlike, say, the U.S. President, she cannot actually make any command decisions in practice. Like the rest of the Monarchy's powers, there was likely not a single event or law which specifically removed this power; just that over time as the democratic elements of the British constitution began to exert themselves, the Monarchy gradually stopped exercising that power until it just became practically impossible to do so. It's part of the legal fiction of the British constitution: the Parliament allows the Monarch to have any powers they want, so long as they are never put into use. --Jayron32 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. It occurs to me that both Will and Harry have participated in some degree of combat activities (Harry, especially) and may in fact be issuing orders. Not commanding an entire army, obviously - just commanding at whatever officer level they are; and not commanding as royals, but within the framework of their military ranks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Most males in the Royal Family serve in the Military in some capacity. Charles, Prince of Wales served in both the Air Force and Navy and commanded a ship for a while. Prince Andrew, Duke of York served in the Royal Navy as a Helicopter pilot and saw action during the Falklands War. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex briefly served in the Royal Marines, but never made it through training. However, they don't normally receive special command duties outside of their military roles. --Jayron32 04:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But some of them are Royal Colonels. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the answers to your previous question.Dncsky (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes; particularly, our article Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and This BBC article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)