Humanities desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

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.

April 12

Heads of government who couldn't occupy their official residence

When Tony Abbott became Prime Minister of Australia in September 2013, the PM's official residence in Canberra, The Lodge, was undergoing major renovations, so he had to live elsewhere when he was in Canberra. The renovations were not completed till late 2015. However, by then, Abbott had been replaced as PM by Malcolm Turnbull, so he never spent a single night at The Lodge. Some earlier PMs had chosen not to live there, but this was the first time a PM was prevented from occupying The Lodge for any significant period, let alone his entire term.

Has such a thing happened to any other head of government? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The White House was burnt down by the British in 1814, in the War of 1812, and President James Madison had to reside elsewhere until it was rebuilt. I think it was rebuilt enough by the term of James Monroe so he could live there. See White_House#Early_use.2C_the_1814_fire.2C_and_rebuilding. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was also off-limits during much of Truman's administration, due to extensive remodeling and infrastructure work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening now to Justin Trudeau. He might not get into 24 Sussex Drive in his entire term.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 Downing Street has been off limits on a number of occasions, although the difference between 'choosing' and 'being forced' not to live there often depends on your point of view. Winston Churchill was 'forced' by his advisers to live elsewhere for much of his first term. Harold Macmillan spent 4 years living at Admiralty House while number 10 was rebuilt in 1960-64. And both Tony Blair and David Cameron have been 'forced' to live at No 11 because they have large families. Further, no Prime Minister or First Lord of the Treasury lived at No 10 between 1847 and Disraeli's renovations of 1877. Full details of who lived there when at List of residents of 10 Downing Street - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on government in exile, but whether those (former?) leaders weren't at their official homes or just not where they thought they officially belonged depends on whether you accept their authority. Not always an easy choice between the National Council of Iran and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, especially if you've never been there. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The West German Chancellor had no Chancellery building until 1976, and the (unified) German Chancellor had no Chancellery building between the move to Berlin in 1999 and the completion of the current building in 2001: see German Chancellery. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting tit-bits for future use. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is gender a social construct?

IS GENDER A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.19 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't yell. Wikipedia has an article titled Gender. You're allowed to read it and reach your own conclusions. No one here will prevent you from doing so. The first sentence to the article contains enough information to answer your question; though the most important thing to understand from that first sentence is that gender is not one single thing that can be summed up with a simple definition. --Jayron 32 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

taking all caps as yelling is a social construct. Asmrulz (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useful link: WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to read social constructionism, too. It's not very interesting, but it might help you get to the bottom of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The related concept that is almost definitely not a social construct is sex. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's so not that Google treats "sexual construction" as a synonym for the social kind. Social construction of gender difference is at the top. Looks useful, if boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The socalled sexual diversity, see queer studies have an total different background. Homosexuality might also be the sex of to artists (also some extraordinary) and the poor, even people with changing or low income who do not fit into conventional family life. Looking into an individuals history, how the one has been treated, abused, respected grown up to be a looser of prepared for life, also a personalty and sexual identity is beeing created. If a child was born from a one night stand, grown up without father and a mother who does not love her child due not wanted is a situation to think twice about. A mother usualy loves her children, but if the mother is not a respected individual, she might be accepted as a worker only. Only her work power counts. Getting a child into such environment, sometimes anforced my souspicious views like sects do, a damage to the child occurs more likey. When a government stops financing education or limits it to a special group of people, the mess begins. People were no longer citizens, the government makes them more and more become farmed workers and serfs. Goverments only discuss to allow same gender marriages, but if the people who think to benefit from it, indeed get the respect and the freedom by law and they are no longer illegal, but the price they have paid before was a stolen conventional life. It is not their fault at all, but in total they are victims who got now legalized the result of a unrecognized stolen freedom in their childhood or went a another way due achiving someting special. Also pick the review of sending wives to work. By average, women earn lower wages then men for the same job. So why not to enforce women to work to have less costs on workers? Here the mess begins, wage dumping, no family life, no time for children. Women with children and no man become poor and the child recognizes that and suffer from it. It is the point when keynesian economics becomes a name for different understandings and socialism shake its hands. Make the people serfs. When they are homosexual, they never have children and give continuous work power. When governments begin to regulate human courtship, only the extremists are fed. Forced marriages might be seen by German from total different point of view. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 02:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do British monarchs nowadays just marry their own people?

Why don't they marry the children of other monarchs or ruling families? Maybe one Saudi princess can marry into the British throne or something. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking that members of the Royal Family are currently told whom to marry? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No British monarch has gotten married for years and years. They were all already married when the came to the throne. (Or in the case of Edward the 8th, after abdicating). Even if this wasn't the case, they are people too, and are free to marry whoever they want. The days of marriages as a geopolitical tool are long gone. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that Saudi royal family being Muslim and the British royal family being Anglican would cause trouble for at least one of the families. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current British monarch married a Greek/Dane, who had been British for only a few years at the time of their marriage. Of the five monarchs before the current Queen since 1900, three married someone with a foreign title and one married an American after abdicating. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PalaceGuard008: ... British for only a few years at the time of their marriage: Well, yes and no, and maybe. Prince Philip of Greece lived in the UK on and off since the age of 8. As a Greek and Danish citizen he served in the British Navy in World War II. It was not until March 1947, after he was given George VI's approval to become engaged to Princess Elizabeth (but before the engagement was announced), that he became a naturalised British subject and abandoned his foreign titles. They married in 1948. However, a court ruling in 1957, by which time they had been married for 9 years and Elizabeth had been Queen for 5 years, determined that Philip had been a British subject from birth, by virtue of his descent from Princess Sophia of Hanover. So, at the time, she was marrying a man thought to have been formally British (as distinct from British by association) for only 18 months (and who only became British after they were engaged); but we now know he was always formally British. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Issue of her Body. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks both. The current government policy document for handling claims under the Sophia Naturalisation Act, linked to at the bottom of that article, is quite interesting in itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm not sure what the OP means by "nowadays" and "their own people". If they mean "Other British Royals", then none of the current royal family have married anyone with a close familial connection to the British Royal Family, excepting the Queen, who married her third cousin, Prince Philip. So, none of the family married any members of the British Royalty. --Jayron 32 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about everything: see Endogamy in the British monarchy - "the practice of marrying within a specific class and social group, often for financial gain or influence in affairs of state". In answer to your question, I don't think that sort of engineered marriage would be acceptable any more, and although Elizabeth and Phillip's marriage might be seen in that light nowadays, the exact motive of Lord Louis Mountbatten who facilitated it remain conjectural. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those I wouldn't accurately describe as "endogamous" for any reasonable given definition of the word; for example George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon were 13th cousins. At 14 generations since most recent common ancestor, 2¹⁴ = 16384 possible descendants of those ancestors. Even accounting for some pedigree collapse, I wouldn't call a group of 16000 people "family". --Jayron 32 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In former times, royal marriages between different nations were used as a way to form alliances between those nations. But, in recent times, this is no longer needed, as alliances are now formed by treaties. The UK, for example, is in military alliances such as NATO, trade/economic alliances such as the WTO, the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union. These alliances in no way depend on who the members of the royal family marry. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one in the direct line of succession has married a foreign princess since 1893 - and even she was born and raised in England (Mary of Teck - wife of George V). 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael of Kent, 1978, admittedly not a Princess but a Baroness? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also not in the direct line of succession. He represents a collateral line, and if he were to assume the throne, would thus start a cadet house. --Jayron 32 18:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course he forfeited his position in the line of succession by hs marriage to a Roman Catholic, by virtue of the Act of Settlement. It was restored by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 (there may be others which I have missed). DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than a generation ago, there was a bit of a ripple in the equerries' smoking lounge when Charles was told to propose to Diana - something about her being the first commoner in ages to wed the heir apparent. I expect the Netherlands handle these things better -- Queen Máxima of the Netherlands was a commoner *and* foreign (*and* barely spoke Dutch) when she married the Crown Prince a few years ago. Here's an article from the Washington Post explaining why Catherine Middleton was a commoner, and why it mattered, in as much as it did. Only one of Queen Victoria's daughters was allowed to marry a commoner (though that didn't work out well [2]) - the advantage from Victoria's point of view being that she could keep one daughter near her, in Britain, whereas the others had to move to be with their foreign husbands, abroad. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though in both cases calling them 'commoners' is only true in the strict sense of not being royalty, they were both from privileged backgrounds, and definitely not 'common' in the wider sense of the word. Fgf10 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Middleton was certainly the first wife of someone in the direct line who was not even from the nobility - Diana, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, were both daughters of nobles. The Middletons have no titles whatsoever. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not 13th cousins. A person only has 16000 ish decedents in the 14th generation at most. So, at MAXIMUM, you can only have about 16000 13th cousins (see above. I already worked this out). According to most estimates, anyone with Eurasian ancestry are probably all descended from Charlemagne (or literally everyone else alive at that point), and the usual figure quoted is that the entire earth is 30th cousins, since at this point (due to European colonization of just about anywhere) it is very unlikely that anyone in the world doesn't have a single Eurasian ancestor from at least the colonial period. The article pedigree collapse notes that at about 30 generations, the number of ancestors one has had begins to surpass the world population at that time. This was also already cited above. --Jayron 32 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tangent of a tangent, but I don't think it's accurate that everyone has a Eurasian ancestor from at least the colonial period. This is unlikely in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where European colonists were few, recent, mostly present only briefly on a tour of duty, and largely endogamous. The same is true for other isolated regions such as the interior of New Guinea, some of the Andaman Islands, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm pretty sure any British Royal has some Eurasian ancestry, though... --Jayron 32 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you're confusing ancestry and descent. A person has a maximum of 16384 distinct ancestors in the 14th generation. But as families are not limited to two children apiece, the number of cousins may be somewhat larger, relying as it does on the number of distinct descendants in each generation. It's entirely possible for someone to have over 100 descendants in the 3rd generation, and to be well over 20,000 by the 9th, say. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Thanks for the fix. --Jayron 32 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue signalling

why is our Virtue signalling article so poor and biased. Plus, it looks like a case of WP:SYNTH. The salient feature of signalling is signalling about things that are high-status, regardless of whether they are progressive per se or not. In my country, for example, noone would call a person who defended "gay rights", a signaller, even if the term existed in that language. The thing may be progressive, but it's not high-status (in that sense Marxists are right when they say that polite discourse is whatever elites want it to be.) Thus the person who signalled on behalf of "gays" would be shooting themselves in the foot, social brownie points-wise and therefore couldn't be said to be signalling. Could someone whose English is better and who knows about all Wikipedia protocols do something about the article or initiate that something be done? I wouldn't even mind if it was deleted, better the person who googles Virtue signalling learn about it from the pages of the Spectator rather than from this sorry excuse for a Wikipedia article. Asmrulz (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask that. Please go to the Talk tab of the article in question and voice your thoughts there. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't improved it yet. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at cleaning it up a bit. (Which ironically is a perfect example of Wikipedian virtue signalling) Smurrayinchester 09:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who represented the USA government at the Tear Drop Memorial Ceremony in 2006? (Obama wasn't President then)

In the article about the Tear Drop Memorial (To the Struggle Against World Terrorism) it lists "President Obama" as attending in 2006. Obama wasn't president until 2008, so who represented the USA government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janora103 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be mistaken. The source listed notes that former president Bill Clinton attended the ceremony on September 11, 2006, and that the memorial was a Gift to the American People from the People of Russia and presented as such on behalf of President Putin, but I see no evidence that Putin attended the ceremony. --Jayron 32 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the article to match the source. Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a pastor solemnize a marriage between a Catholic and Protestant?

I thought any kind of religious ritual must be theologically sound or compatible or something. 140.254.77.186 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion of this in Marriage (Catholic Church). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Interfaith marriage in Christianity#Inter-denominational marriages. Loraof (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they not? It is true that to be considered married in the eyes of the Catholic church, both members must be nominally Catholic, unless special dispensation is given, as described by the article linked by Bugs. But ultimately, that's just one minority notion of marriage, and the Catholic church has no real power to stop their members from marrying whomever they want to marry. I think you might be confusing the religious (and especially Catholic) notion of marriage with the legal notion of marriage. Marriage officiants may or may not be clergy of any sort Marriage in the United States can be completely secular and non-religious. But legal requirements of members of a marriage vary widely by country. See Marriage_law for an overview, but I don't see anything there that says the two people must have the same religion, or any religion, to get married in the eyes of the law. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia Mixed Marriage. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the possibility of it being a non-Catholic pastor performing the service (as suggested by the use of "pastor" rather than "priest"), in which case the Catholic position on a mixed marriage isn't the operative one. Generally, the nature of Protestantism (both with the split from Catholicism and the further splintering internally) leads to less emphasis on a marriage between Christians of different denominations (to include Catholic) being considered "mixed" in the first place. See also the contrast in how Catholic churches offer communion (to Catholics) and how most Protestant churches do so (without regard to denomination). — Lomn 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mainstream protestant pastor from the mid-twentieth century until now would generally be happy to marry a person of his faith to a Roman Catholic, with no special qualifications. A Roman Catholic priest in the mid twentieth century would marry a Roman Catholic to a protestant, without demanding that the protestant become a Catholic, but not in the church itself, rather in the church parlor, so long as the protestant would agree that the children would be raised as Roman Catholics. I have a friend who is the product of such a marriage in the 1950's. Edison (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]