Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 August 15
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 14 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 16 > |
| 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. |
August 15
[edit]If Richard III and Henry Tudor had died...
[edit]I'm wondering who would have been king of England had both Richard III and Henry Tudor died in the Battle of Bosworth Field. Now wait a second, thread closers! I realize that I'm asking for speculation and guesses. But I'm not looking for you to make those guesses. So, I'd like it very much if you could supply me an answer based on any sources that might have looked into this question and come to a serious and scholarly decision. If there are any leading theories, that's what I'm going for. Thank you, Dismas|(talk) 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- It depends which sides was still in power. Possibly Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick or John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln, Richard III's alleged heirs if the Yorkists were still be in power in such a situation. If the Lancastrian won but Henry died in the process, the closest other Lancastrian heirs except for Henry's mother Margaret Beaufort were the descendants of John of Gaunt's legitimate daughters and other female line descendants of the Beaufort's. Charles the Bold, in his lifetime had an unexercised claim to the English throne, since he was a Lancastrian through his grandmother and married to a Yorkist princess, but he was a foreigner. Then there is the situation of some powerful noble usurping power and marrying Elizabeth of York or any other royal and legitimizing his succession. Maybe Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby by the right of his wife.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- If both the Lancastrians and Yorks had completely died out at Bosworth, you'd have to go back to other children of Edward III of England. The Lancastrians lay claim through John of Gaunt, while the Yorkist claim goes through both Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence and Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Edward III had 2 other sons: Edward the Black Prince, whose only son Richard II of England died without issue, and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester who had only one son, who himself died without issue. Thus, had all the valid Lancastrians and Yorkists died out, primogeniture gets VERY muddy (indeed, Henry VII's claim was ultimately very muddy too). You'd either have to go through daughters of Edward III (he had nine of them, I'll not follow every one of those lines, but one of them MUST have had a male heir alive in 1485, I would hope) or go back one MORE step to Edward II of England. Edward II had only one other son besides Edward III, that being John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, but HE had no legitimate issue. After that, it's just daughters and bastards, none of whose lines would be more legitimate than daughters of Edward III. Go back to Edward Longshanks. Longshanks had only one other legitimate son who survived to produce legitimate issue, that being Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent, half brother of Edward II. However, his only heir by the time you get to Richard II was Richard II himself (via Edmund's daughter Joan of Kent), and we know that goes nowhere. So go back one more step from Longshanks to Henry III of England. He had one other surviving legitimate son besides Longshanks (among a few other daughters) Edmund Crouchback, Edmund was named Earl of Lancaster; he had two sons succeed him Thomas and Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. Henry had only a single son, also named Henry who was elevated to Duke of Lancaster. He had no sons, so that line dies out, and his titles passed jure uxoris through his daughter Blanche of Lancaster to her husband John of Gaunt, and we're back where we started. So we go back one more step, to John (yes THAT John, of Robin Hood fame. We're going back a LONG way now, aren't we). John's only other son besides Henry III was Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall. Without going into all the details, which involve some murder and associated deviousness, Richard's male-line ends with his grandson Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall, and that also end's John's line (other than, of course, the line that gets us to Bosworth Field). John's father was Henry II of England, who founded the Plantagenet line. Henry had 5 sons, but the only one who doesn't get us to where we've already gone is William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury who had only one son who produced male issue, being William II Longespée. Wikipedia doesn't seem to follow his line too far, and implies his male line dies out. Before Henry II, you have The Anarchy, so we're essentially done. There's no real point going further back. So that brings us to following female lines; and your best shot there is some daughter of Edward III. --Jayron32 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury was illegitimate. England didn't practice Salic succession so it would have been unlikely for them to choose a distant direct male line heir even if there was one, although the preference would probably still have been a male from a female line. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, it'd still be better to go through the daughters of Edward III then. The eldest was Isabella de Coucy. In 1485, her living heir general would have been Marie of Luxembourg, Countess of Vendôme, and there may be some question has to whether the throne would have passed to a foreign princess. Probably not. The next best heir through that same line would have been Anthony I, Count of Ligny, Marie of Luxembourg's uncle, who would have also been alive in 1485. I got there the following way: Isabella de Coucy had only 2 daughters: Marie I de Coucy, Countess of Soissons was her eldest, and thus heir. Marie had only one child live to inherit from her: Robert of Bar, Count of Marle and Soissons. Robert had only a single daughter: Jeanne de Bar, Countess of Marle and Soissons. Jeanne de Bar had a bunch of kids; but the eldest John died without issue himself; his heir was his brother Pierre inherited from him. Pierre's heir was the aforementioned Marie of Luxembourg. Now, Marie WOULD produce a son in 1489, but England wasn't going to wait 4 years for a king, so she's probably out as a candidate in 1485 to inherit the throne. John and Pierre had one three more younger brothers: a consecrated bishop, Charles of Luxembourg, Bishop of Laon, who could produce no legitimate heir, so he wasn't getting the throne, Philippe of Luxembourg, Abbot at Moncel, HE wasn't getting the throne for the same reason, and that leaves Anthony of Ligny as our heir. The line to him follows the normal male-first primogeniture, but allows inheritance through daughters, until we need to avoid putting an actual queen on the throne. Part of the problem is, neither Anthony nor any English barons (who would have likely been in charge of finding and electing a king if needed) may have known about the strength of this claim. But that's the best I can find using a legitimate line of succession through Edward III, and assuming all legitimate lines from his sons were extinct. --Jayron32 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry we don't seem to have sources. The very accession of Henry Tudor would seem to indicate that, whatever the validity of the respective claimants, whoever thought fast and moved first had the best claim. The lack of academic speculation suggests that you can take your choice from the above, add anything you feel has been forgotten, and roll a dice. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct there. Henry VII, for all his "claims" to the throne, claimed said throne by right of conquest, no different than Henry Bolingbroke or William the Conquerer before him. I think that, given what we know the real claim to the throne required (an army to back it up!), had Henry Tudor died at Bosworth, it is quite likely one of those wily Stanley brothers would have laid claim to the throne. They were essentially biding their time at Bosworth anyways. Had both Henry and Richard died, their faction would have been the one intact to support a claim. --Jayron32 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry we don't seem to have sources. The very accession of Henry Tudor would seem to indicate that, whatever the validity of the respective claimants, whoever thought fast and moved first had the best claim. The lack of academic speculation suggests that you can take your choice from the above, add anything you feel has been forgotten, and roll a dice. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- In that case, it'd still be better to go through the daughters of Edward III then. The eldest was Isabella de Coucy. In 1485, her living heir general would have been Marie of Luxembourg, Countess of Vendôme, and there may be some question has to whether the throne would have passed to a foreign princess. Probably not. The next best heir through that same line would have been Anthony I, Count of Ligny, Marie of Luxembourg's uncle, who would have also been alive in 1485. I got there the following way: Isabella de Coucy had only 2 daughters: Marie I de Coucy, Countess of Soissons was her eldest, and thus heir. Marie had only one child live to inherit from her: Robert of Bar, Count of Marle and Soissons. Robert had only a single daughter: Jeanne de Bar, Countess of Marle and Soissons. Jeanne de Bar had a bunch of kids; but the eldest John died without issue himself; his heir was his brother Pierre inherited from him. Pierre's heir was the aforementioned Marie of Luxembourg. Now, Marie WOULD produce a son in 1489, but England wasn't going to wait 4 years for a king, so she's probably out as a candidate in 1485 to inherit the throne. John and Pierre had one three more younger brothers: a consecrated bishop, Charles of Luxembourg, Bishop of Laon, who could produce no legitimate heir, so he wasn't getting the throne, Philippe of Luxembourg, Abbot at Moncel, HE wasn't getting the throne for the same reason, and that leaves Anthony of Ligny as our heir. The line to him follows the normal male-first primogeniture, but allows inheritance through daughters, until we need to avoid putting an actual queen on the throne. Part of the problem is, neither Anthony nor any English barons (who would have likely been in charge of finding and electing a king if needed) may have known about the strength of this claim. But that's the best I can find using a legitimate line of succession through Edward III, and assuming all legitimate lines from his sons were extinct. --Jayron32 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury was illegitimate. England didn't practice Salic succession so it would have been unlikely for them to choose a distant direct male line heir even if there was one, although the preference would probably still have been a male from a female line. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- If both the Lancastrians and Yorks had completely died out at Bosworth, you'd have to go back to other children of Edward III of England. The Lancastrians lay claim through John of Gaunt, while the Yorkist claim goes through both Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence and Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Edward III had 2 other sons: Edward the Black Prince, whose only son Richard II of England died without issue, and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester who had only one son, who himself died without issue. Thus, had all the valid Lancastrians and Yorkists died out, primogeniture gets VERY muddy (indeed, Henry VII's claim was ultimately very muddy too). You'd either have to go through daughters of Edward III (he had nine of them, I'll not follow every one of those lines, but one of them MUST have had a male heir alive in 1485, I would hope) or go back one MORE step to Edward II of England. Edward II had only one other son besides Edward III, that being John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, but HE had no legitimate issue. After that, it's just daughters and bastards, none of whose lines would be more legitimate than daughters of Edward III. Go back to Edward Longshanks. Longshanks had only one other legitimate son who survived to produce legitimate issue, that being Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent, half brother of Edward II. However, his only heir by the time you get to Richard II was Richard II himself (via Edmund's daughter Joan of Kent), and we know that goes nowhere. So go back one more step from Longshanks to Henry III of England. He had one other surviving legitimate son besides Longshanks (among a few other daughters) Edmund Crouchback, Edmund was named Earl of Lancaster; he had two sons succeed him Thomas and Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. Henry had only a single son, also named Henry who was elevated to Duke of Lancaster. He had no sons, so that line dies out, and his titles passed jure uxoris through his daughter Blanche of Lancaster to her husband John of Gaunt, and we're back where we started. So we go back one more step, to John (yes THAT John, of Robin Hood fame. We're going back a LONG way now, aren't we). John's only other son besides Henry III was Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall. Without going into all the details, which involve some murder and associated deviousness, Richard's male-line ends with his grandson Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall, and that also end's John's line (other than, of course, the line that gets us to Bosworth Field). John's father was Henry II of England, who founded the Plantagenet line. Henry had 5 sons, but the only one who doesn't get us to where we've already gone is William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury who had only one son who produced male issue, being William II Longespée. Wikipedia doesn't seem to follow his line too far, and implies his male line dies out. Before Henry II, you have The Anarchy, so we're essentially done. There's no real point going further back. So that brings us to following female lines; and your best shot there is some daughter of Edward III. --Jayron32 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why a daughter of Edward III rather than a daughter of John of Gaunt? —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. If we go down that line, John's eldest daughter Phillipa was Queen of Portugal. Her great grandson, alive in 1485, would have been John II of Portugal. --Jayron32 15:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why a daughter of Edward III rather than a daughter of John of Gaunt? —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all the answers! Dismas|(talk) 03:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Grave offerings
[edit]I was just looking at photographs of Douglas Adams' grave in Highgate Cemetery, London. There is a custom amongst the fans who visit his grave to stick pens into the grave. It got me wondering, what happens to all the pens (or any grave offerings left at any graves) when they are cleared away? Are they kept by the cemetery authorities or discarded? 114.75.188.248 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- You could contact the cemetary to be certain but they are likely discarded. Flowers and other sundry items left at grave sites are often either discarded or donated to charity if they are of any use/value. Dismas|(talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's how my hometown graveyard worked. They tell people not to leave anything they expect to stay. I've read some just disallow it entirely, and others have strict guidelines for size, shape, colour and whatnot. Nothing that can potentially be a nuisance to other grievers, blow away or hurt a lawnmower. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Per a Kelowna by-law (first I saw in Google), "The Caretaker may remove and dispose of any offerings as specified in “Section 10.1” (he stores it for a month) from any grave when the condition is considered by him to be a safety hazard, detrimental to the beauty of, or impedes maintenance of the Cemetery. The Cemetery cannot be held accountable for any offerings which are lost, stolen or removed by an act of vandalism." And no planting anything! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- "On a date I prefer to give the lady a single rose. It's simple, classic, elegant, and best of all, it's easy to carry in my teeth as I jump back over the graveyard fence." :-) StuRat (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy of Jean Raspail's "The Camp of the Saints"
[edit]Link to a full PDF here for reference.
So, would the aforementioned work be considered predictive of modern trends? Are there any examples of modern praise or criticism of the book? 74.14.22.58 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the article on the book in the French-language wikipedia [1], there is a whole section on reactions to the 2011 re-printing; the commentators cited use expressions such as "racist paranoia" and "a book of the extreme right". The book was cited approvingly in a 1994 article in the Atlantic Monthly [2], in one of its more prominent discussions in mainstream U.S. media. Also check out the article The Camp of the Saints, which includes reactions of some English-language critics, who are divided along the same lines, between strong criticism and praise. --Xuxl (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Are there any examples of modern sources thinking it to be innacurate or predictive and explaining that in detail?74.14.22.58 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there a Catholic or Protestant equivalent of a Protestant youth ministry?
[edit]So, is there? If so, what is it? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about the Catholic one, but I can only imagine the "Protestant equivalent" of a Protestant youth ministry is, well, a Protestant youth ministry. Is that what you meant to ask? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. I meant to ask for a Catholic or Orthodox equivalent. Apparently, Wikipedia only has a page on "Protestant youth ministry". I suppose Newman Centers may be considered a Catholic equivalent. I recently became aware of the typo in the heading. It's supposed to read "Orthodox" instead of "Protestant". 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would probably vary from parish to region or parish. The Catholic Christian Outreach] is focused on Catholic youths, for example. Also, there are interdenominational groups that the Catholic church has had some positive interaction with. The Catholic church generally doesn't prevent anyone from joining the YMCA, though they do have disagreements over birth control that occasionally lead to the Catholic church pulling financial support (but not forbidding their members from joining or participating). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. I meant to ask for a Catholic or Orthodox equivalent. Apparently, Wikipedia only has a page on "Protestant youth ministry". I suppose Newman Centers may be considered a Catholic equivalent. I recently became aware of the typo in the heading. It's supposed to read "Orthodox" instead of "Protestant". 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Another Catholic organization is the Catholic Youth Organization. The CCO program noted above is mainly a Canadian one, while CYO is active in the U.S. and Philippines. ECyD began in Spanish-speaking countries, but has expanded into English-speaking ones as well. --Jayron32 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- And then I found the template below. Let it guide your research: --Jayron32 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, it's not much, but in the U.S. for Greek Orthodox youth, I found this. --Jayron32 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- And Orthodox Christian Fellowship, which represents itself as a "pan-orthodox" group for college-age Orthodox youth in America. --Jayron32 01:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I found Catholic Youth Ministry Federation for the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Other side of the Wailing Wall?
[edit]I feel like this is a really stupid question, but I seem to be chasing my tail on searches. Our article on Western Wall shows a fairly pretty little park behind it, and its map seems to suggest there are the two mosques in that open space, but we don't have a picture of it from the far side. I understand of course that most of the Jews won't go in there, but somebody must have gotten a shot of the far side ... and we ought to have it in the article. Also, just out of curiosity, are there any groups of Muslims or Christians who would find some reason to do something at the far side of the wall? Wnt (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the ground under the Temple Mount platform is on the other side of the wall. The Temple Mount waqf has jurisdiction over it, and seems to have been given free reign by the Israel Antiquities Authority to conduct archaeologically destructive activities there (one of a number of problematic aspects of the Israel Antiquities Authority); see Committee for the Prevention of Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a good aerial photo of the Temple Mount looking north. It gives an impression of what is on the other side of the Western Wall. This photo of the El-Kas fountain shows the "park" area east of the Wall.--Cam (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've put the first of those in the article; at least to me it makes it a LOT clearer. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a good aerial photo of the Temple Mount looking north. It gives an impression of what is on the other side of the Western Wall. This photo of the El-Kas fountain shows the "park" area east of the Wall.--Cam (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
