Humanities desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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 22

Breaking a tie in the US House

In the event of a tie vote in the House of Representatives of the United States, is there someone who gets to cast the tiebreaking vote? In the Senate, the vice president gets to vote to break a tie, but what about in the House? I know there are an odd number of members, but you could still have a tie if someone abstaned, or was absent, or the seat was unfilled for some reason (such as death). I looked in the article but didn't see it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably incorrect in saying this but i'll say it anyway. Its my understanding the speaker doesn't usually vote, and if it was a tie, he would? And if they had a tie they could probably argue for a day, a few people would change their mind, and the vote would be settled. Atleast thats my understanding. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives#Passage of legislation says: "Presiding officers may vote like other members. They may not, however, vote twice in the event of a tie. Instead, motions are decided in the negative when ties arise." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks for the replies RudolfRed (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer has no been given for electoral vote ties that are sent to the House for a vote. A tie there doesn't mean there's no president for four years. How is that broken? μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to historical precedent, they just vote again and again and again and again until one of the electors dies (ok, or until they break the tie otherwise). I don't know if they updated that aspect of the system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [1] [2] appear to concur that there's still no tie breaking mechanism (although the voting mechanism has changed since the representatives vote by state) but suggest if the House doesn't choose someone in time then the VP whether from the Senate or electoral college will become the president. There is some disagreement over what happens if the Senate ties with one source suggesting it's possible the typical Senate tie breaking mechanism will apply, but stating that this is unclear; and both suggesting they will just follow the normal succession order if they can't choose someone (although the source which doesn't mention the possibility of tie breaking in the Senate also says individual senators vote but then says there are 50 votes....). From what I remember this was a much discussed issue in the last election and these sources and others seem to confirm that so there are probably other more scholarly ones out there. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government

Hi! So here in Australia, we have 150 reps and 76 senators. In america they have 435 reps? and 100 senators. In the UK, the lower house has 650 seats and the upper house has 754 seats. So my question is this, what country has the highest number of elected reps/senators in their highest level of government?

(And for the purposes of the question, the Chinese people's congress or whatever its called doesn't count). Thanks guys, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the article "List of legislatures by country", whose tables have a column called "Population per seat". You can click on the column's title to sort the table accordingly. Gabbe (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going by that list it looks like France or Italy have the highest, remembering that The House of Lords is appointed and peerage - not elected - and therefore doesn't meet your criteria of elected. Having said that, investigation as to how the members are selected is required, some states have indirect elections, where by the states send representatives to the Upper House but these aren't directly elected by the constituency of those states (see Bundesrat of Germany) While others have other methods of indirect selection (See Senate (France), although it could be argued that the French Senate is more representational). Liamdavies (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an ERISA equivilent for public pensions?

Looking at the articles for ERISA and PBGC, it appears that these United States laws for pension protections only apply to private industry. Is there an equivilent law or program in the United States for protecting public (government) pensions? RudolfRed (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This CNN article seems to imply that the answer is no: "When employees of a bankrupt business lose their promised pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. steps in and provides a minimal level of benefits. But that federal agency doesn't back pensions in the public sector." It also points out that case law is "limited" regarding public pensions and there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about their level of protection. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERISA is not the source of Bankruptcy protection for private pensions... in fact it's not a guarantee of private pension protection. Title 11 has specific carve-outs for spendthrift trusts of various sorts, as well as private retirement accounts for individuals. Very generally, the main reason you're not finding specific protections for state-based pension plans is because they're generally protected by sovereign immunity which is way better protection than the relatively narrow and exception filled protections created for private funds. If you think private pensions are magically protected and public workers are not, ask any union related to a major bankrupt party in the last few decades, whether it be airlines or autoworkers. The Chapter 9 issue in Detroit is slightly different because these are municipal funds and because the state consented to their being under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. The State [of Michigan in this case] didn't have to do that. They could have just refused to pay creditors and there's very little the creditors could do to compel the State (or city) in court to pay. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Converting British/Commonwealth knighthood

When an honorary knight of a British/Commonwealth order of chivalry becomes a citizen of Britain or a Commonwealth realm that recognises knighthoods, is conversion to a substantive knighthood automatic? Hack (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's automatic in the sense that the person can just assume the title "Sir" without any formal approval. But as far as I'm aware, it is generally safe to assume that an honorary knighthood will in such circumstances be converted to a substantive one in the fullness of time; but it's a question of a formal process being gone through first. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is implied in our article on Terry Wogan (one of the most famous examples of the holder of an honorary knighthood later taking British citizenship): "Wogan was appointed [...] an honorary Knight Commander of the same order (KBE) in the Queen's Birthday Honours in 2005. After asserting his right to British citizenship (he retains his Irish citizenship) that year, the knighthood was made substantive on 11 October 2005, allowing him to use the style "Sir"."

Another example is Rick Trainor: "The award was honorary because of his American nationality, but on 31 December 2010 the knighthood was made substantive by Queen Elizabeth II following his assumption of British nationality."

Mental floss tells us "Also, if an honorary knight later becomes a citizen of the realm, the honor is usually made substantive, or "bumped up" into real knighthood."

The implication seems to be that conversion is not automatic, but I can't find definite evidence of what process or ceremony one must go through to have the knighthood made substantive. One clue might be this announcement in Debrett's: "The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to give orders for the Honorary appointment of the undermentioned to the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire to be made Substantive: SMIT, Timothy Bartel. K.B.E. (to be dated 18 May 2012.)" - such a pronouncement by the Queen may be all that is required. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specific situation that brought this to my attention was James Wolfensohn. He was an Australian citizen who took on American citizenship, which at the time involved renouncing all other citizenships. While an American citizen, he was made an honorary Officer of the Order of Australia and made an honorary KBE. He has since regained Australian citizenship and he is quoted as saying his citizenship papers refer to him as "Sir James Wolfensohn".[3] He is still listed on the Australian Government honours list as an honorary AO, just wondering what the situation was with the KBE. Hack (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "Sir" cannot be used by a knight, honorary or substantive, Briton or non-Briton, unless the Sovereign confers the accolade; that's why men of the cloth (forbidden to accept a "martial" appointment) who have been knighted do not get the "Sir" prefix. FactStraight (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may once have been the case, but no longer. From Debretts: Forms of address: The recipient is allowed to use his title and to attach the appropriate letters for Knights of Orders of Chivalry after his name from the date of the announcement in the London Gazette. He does not have to wait for the accolade to be officially conferred upon him.

The prohibition on clergy receiving the accolade applies only to English ministers of the Church of England. It is not always observed by Anglican ministers elsewhere (see Sir Paul Reeves and Sir Ellison Pogo), and nor is it observed by non-Anglican clergy anywhere (see Cardinal Sir Norman Gilroy and Archbishop Sir Frank Little). This is expanded at Knight, at the para starting “Since the reign of Edward VII a clerk in holy orders in the Church of England …”. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were gazetted as a knight, is it compulsory to actually receive the accolade? Hack (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so but I'm lacking a reference. Various knighted people have been too ill to travel. Some have died shortly after being knighted. A few even had their knighthoods announced after their death (although made effective from before they died, as knighthoods are never granted posthumously; Sir Henry Cotton, for example). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything between Victory and Constitution?

HMS Victory is the oldest commissioned ship, USS Constitution the oldest commissioned ship still afloat. Is there any commissioned ship with an age in between? Or is it assured knowledge that the Constitution is the 2nd oldest commissioned ship? --KnightMove (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Surviving ocean going ships}}, at the foot of the Victory article, probably gives your answer; the only military ship intermediate in age between the two is USS Philadelphia, which was raised from the bottom of a lake and is now in a museum. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can titles of nobility be inherited by children born out of wedlock,

In Britain can a child inherit a title of nobility even if they were born out of wedlock, if the child's parents subsequently married? Thanks very much for your answers,--91.49.21.105 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and here's a followup while you're at it: Have any wars ever been fought over the answer? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The famous case is Katherine Swynford, mistress of John of Gaunt. He married her, but had to get his children legitimated by act of parliament. The Tudor monarchs and all their descendents got their claim from this late-in-the-day legitimation. Of course the king could also just make up new titles for his or his relatives' illegitimate children. Charles II did it all the time. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Charles II was brought up, just out of interest, when Prince Charles becomes King, will he be known as Charles III? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is rumoured he'll call himself George, which is one of his names (if he ever gets the chance, that is). The "royal" name does not have to be the same as the king's actual given name. The last king Edward was known to his mates as David. Supposedly there is a superstition in the Royal family that the regnal name Charles is unlucky. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)He can choose any regnal name he likes (but not regnal number). There's talk (it was unsourced in his article at some point, and I think it's been removed) that he'd choose George VII. It would be logical (but not mandatory) for him to choose one of his given names, Charles Philip Arthur George. It's my understanding (we used to have an article, I can't find it offhand) that there's an agreement between the King of Arms, the Lord Lyon, and Churchill specifying that the regnal number of future British monarchs would be the higher of whatever that name would be in England or Scotland, but not of subnational kingdoms preceding either. So if my memory is right, it's Charles III, Philip I, Arthur I, George VII (Philip II of Spain having been a king consort and King Arthur not being king of England but just some questionably-historical bit of it). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur I sounds like a mighty fine name. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He would (probably) be plain King Philip or King Arthur if he chose one of those, as regnal number I is usually only used retrospectively when number II comes along; cf Queen Victoria and King John. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that "King Arthur" could ever be "plain", given the existing significance of the name. And the ridicule it would produce would probably be enough reason to avoid it. Of course we nearly did have a king "Arthur I" in Arthur, Prince of Wales, older brother of the wife-decapitating fat one. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any future British monarch could ever fit that name (King Arthur) and would ridicule for using it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Philip was a monarch of England, not a consort. See Philip II of Spain#King of England and Ireland and Mary I of England#Spanish marriage. Thus, the next King Philip would/could/should be King Philip II. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official British Monarchy website[4] does not appear to consider Philip II of Spain to be a valid monarch of England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official British Monarchy website is not written by historians and, in any case, not by someone who can rewrite history. It might be worth noting that the same website also lists Lady Helen Taylor and her children as preceding that of her brother, which is plain wrong. The Parliament of England clearly regarded him as co-monarch; for one thing, it was called in his name as well as in Mary I's, with his name preceding hers (e.g. Anno Secundo Et Tertio Philippi & Mariae - "in the third and second year [respectively] of Philip and Mary"). Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After losing the throne with the death of his wife Mary, didn’t Philip’s somewhat unchivalrous behaviour towards her sister Elizabeth make his name unusable for any future king of England? And isn’t Charles a bit dodgy too, because of its Jacobite associations? --Hors-la-loi 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

No, illegitimate children legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage cannot inherit any title. Legitimacy acts that enabled illegitimate children to be regarded as legitimate if their parents subsequently married specifically excluded legitimated children from succession to hereditary titles, including the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is true except for titles in the Peerage of Scotland, to which children legitimated by their parents' marriage in Scotland may succeed. Proteus (Talk) 08:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read the really fine print, it says Exception: This does not apply to Dukes of Normandy who become King of England. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, true de facto! But de jure, the reason William the Conqueror is an exception is because he did not ascend the English throne by right of inheritance, but by right of conquest. Ditto Henry Tudor. FactStraight (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as William was concerned, the throne was his by right of inheritance, and he invaded simply to assert that right and to put to rest the claims of various other claimants. See Norman conquest of England. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he claimed it was his by right of descent -- as did Philip II of Spain who became King of Portugal by conquest. Burke's Royal Guide to the Royal Family says of William I, "S. his father as (William II) Duke of Normandy 1035, conquered Maine 1063, obtained the crown of England by conquest 14 Oct 1066, crowned at Westminster Abbey by Ealdred, Archbishop of York 25 Dec 1066." Of Henry VII Tudor, it says, "s. his father as Earl of Richmond at birth, attainted 26 Jan 1484, obtained the crown of England on the defeat and death of King Richard III at Bosworth 22 Aug 1485, crowned at Westminster Abbey by Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop or Canterbury 30 Oct 1485." FactStraight (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

standard grunbaum furniture company - otto grunbaum and unrelated honesty.netsolutions and unrelated the sumerian kinglist

Hi,

could you please provide information on the history of the grunbaum furniture company and its founders. Have tried to source information on the net, however it seems difficult to find.

Also could you provide information on the founders and owners of honesty.netsolutions a private company based in Mumbai and its relationship to British Telecom. This would be quite interesting because of the cloud services this private company provides BT. Not being an IT expert my understanding is that BTYahoo e-mail facilities could be being stored by honesty.net.solutions. Which means and you may know better, that all your e-mails could be accessed by honesty.net.solutions without the permission of the account holder (unless of course you check the IP addresses accessing your account every time you sign in). Honesty.netsolutions IP addresses have accessed e-mail accounts without the knowledge of the account holders, that information I have already. We know that European countries especially governments originally outraged by the Snowden case have been muted recently. Is this because certain European countries are conducting their own versions of PRISM. Am not asking you to do my homework , but have found it extremely difficult to research honesty.netsolutions. Additionally BT security employees were unaware that honesty.netsolutions are providing their cloud services. Regarding PRISM you must know with your own IT knowledge thats its highly unlikely organised terrorist units are e-mailing each other with their future exploits and the excuse for authorising PRISM by Govts to fight Terrorism just does not make sense. The expense itself is a waste of taxpayers money and could be better spent on education like wikipedia (thought you would like that one ) in the fight against terrorism.

Last request could you provide the meanings of the names that appear on the Sumerian kinglist. Have accessed portals to Oxford University alas no luck and have e-mailed the university of Pensylvania who promised to get back to me on two occasions but alas no reply. Have even asked if its a copyright issue alas no answer. Their primary concern was how I got their e-mail address? Which I did via a portal, no mean feat for someone with my limited IT ability, all above board though.

I use wikipedia a lot and have noticed a lot more Jargon being used which defeats the object of learning, I wonder wether you could discourage the use of Jargon. Also is it true Oxford university are studying the trends of millions of edits on wikipedia, if thats true then wikipedia is truly a legend in its own time, you would think they have better things to do! Congratulations though.

If you can provide any assistance on the above it would be most gratefully received.

p.s My name is Charlie,am not an IT expert and find some of the instructions to ask you questions not user friendly , such as (86.145.132.171 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)) what does that mean ? Apologies if I have not used it correctly , however as an admirer of wikipedia , surely the objective is to reach as many people as possible and not to assume that only those with IT knowledge are interested in wikipedia or editing wikipedia.[reply]

kind regards,

charlie

To answer the first question, the Standard-Grunbaum company was based in Seattle, and founded by Maurice, Otto, and Julius Grunbaum (see this photo). It's (mildly) notable because Stanley Armour Dunham, President Obama's grandfather, worked there as a salesman after WWII. Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at some of the other questions, but in future, Charlie, please ask separate questions in separate sections: they're easier to read, it's easier to see if they have gone unanswered, and it's easier to match up the answers with the questions.

If you find things in Wikipedia which could be improved, then you are strongly invited to improve them! If you think an article can be made clearer, by all means edit it (as long as you don't remove well sourced material, or introduce your own opinions or conclusions). It's not clear to me exactly what you are referring to as jargon. Many articles about specific subjects use the language of that subject, and this is generally appaopriate (though they should define or explain the terms). Or are you talking about the jargon of Wikipedia itself?

The signature, which you are asked to insert by typing ~~~~, identifies who has made the contribution, and provides links to their user page and talk page. It is somewhat less useful when you are not logged int, so you get an IP address, as you see above; but it is still a way that people can communicate with that writer, see what other contributions they have made to Wikipedia, etc. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the meanings of names on the SKL are known, sometimes it is known what language they are - Some are Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Kassite, Gutian, Amorite... I don't know of any comprehensive list of all the interpretations; it's not unlikely one can be found, but even then it may not be totally accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18/7/2013 UN classification of South Sudan

Hi me again Charlie ( Grunbaum/kinglist/honesty),

couldnt help noticing someone asking about the UN classification of South Sudan. Historically Sudan has always been North Africa and not Sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient kingdom of kush was based in South Sudan after the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt.This is currently a hot topic or should be , because certain global interests seem to be dominating those historical areas that may have information that we could still translate to further understand the origins of civilisation. Some as follows:- Kush - South Sudan Patagonian Plain Argentina- new pope Brazil adjoining Argentina - World cup/Olympics Benghazi/Cyrene ( also Elba/Damascus and more in Syria) Sirmium / Kosova Balochistan - Pakistan Afghanistan Iraq - too numerous to mention(no WMDs) Jos plateau - Nigeria Mynamar Iran - the most important of all !!! North Korea - North Korea is historically important but like cambodia and vietnam not all will appreciate its importance historically.

Israel and Egypt have both been researched intensively and you will note, that still no-one can explain who the Hyskos were or is prepared to do so, the historical evidence must have been there.

South Sudan is not the home of the legendary "punt" though. "Punt" never existed in the middle east, historical records prove that beyond doubt if correctly interpreted. South Sudan is also an important topic due to Barack Obamas ancestry. Barack snr although living in Kenya before coming to the US is a Luo , who originate from the ancient Kingdom of Kush but due to aridification relocated to Kenya. Barack Obama has no doubt gained votes from descendents of sub-saharan African slaves in the US due to the colour of his skin. The truth is however that he is descended from the elite who oversaw the most horrific period of slavery in recorded human history under the Hyskos in Egypt.Whilst this is well known in elite circles it is probably not so well known by the majority. Additionally civil unrest has occurred recently in South Sudan. Ambassador Susan Rice who was in the same secret university society as Barack snr( not at the same time) condemned south sudan on her twitter account in 140 characters. This is politically important as a senior global politician is prepared to use twitter to preach to the world about south sudan without rational justification. Additionally and allegedly US/Global elite business interests have contracts ready to be signed to support agriculture in South Sudan , however they are more likely interested in mining as thats the business they are mainly in, and the interest in agriculture is highly unlikely and would probably never be initiated if they get their way. This further upholds the current global events that are centered around historically (biblically depending on interpretation)important sites. Other important areas such as Cambodia and Vietnam were decimated by the controversial systematic bombing campaigns under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon after JFK was assassinated.

So The location of South Sudan and its classification is important and the UN are definitely right if they have classified it as North Africa, it was never inhabited by the Khoisan or Bhutu ( sub-saharan africans) in recent millenia.

regards,

Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.132.171 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? --Soman (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell either, but I would just point out that Mentuhotep II left the first known mention of the existence of the Kingdom of Kush when he campaigned against them in the 21st century BC, which is some centuries before the Hyksos ever arrived in Egypt. And Punt was an older name for the Horn of Africa since the later Old Kingdom, ca. 2800 BC. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for someone today being descended from the Hyksos - if you do the simple math, figure out around how many generations ago 1700 BC was, and multiply 2 by itself that many times, you will see that 100% of people on Earth today could easily be descended from the Hyksos (in varying proportions) as well as every single other group that left issue from that long ago. We are mobile creatures living on a globe, not direct lineal descendants that spread like plants on an infinite plane. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Manuʻa

When was Tui Manuʻa Elisala born? And what was the lifespan of his successor Chris Young?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Field Marshall Ludwig Graf Yorck von Wartengurg

My grandmother claimed her father was born Gustov Graf Yorck von Wartenburg circa 1838 the Germanic Federations. I can find no referencemto Ludwig's children/grandchildren anywhere. I do not speak/read german/polish languages. Can you help?

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.231.11 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when the family emigrated to the US (assuming they eventually did)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the name wrong. The title is Graf von Wartenburg. The name should be Ludwig Yorck Graf von Wartenburg.
Sleigh (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference to a "Gustav Yorck von Wartenburg" on Google, but Ludwig certainly had at least one great grandchild - see Paul Yorck von Wartenburg who was born in 1835 and may have been a brother or cousin to Gustav? Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig hat three children. His first son had no issue and his second son had nine children, no Gustov listed. Sorry. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]