Humanities desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Name of Italian warship

Italian ironclad Re di Portogallo

Can anyone tell me why an Italian warship in 1864 was named "King of Portugal"? This was not any old warship - it was one of the two most modern ships in the Italian navy. The other one was called Re d'Italia which to me makes considerably more sense.

I have searched the Web until I am blue in the face, and I cannot find any explanation for the naming of this ship.

Many thanks for any assistance.

Fred Karno (Redacted)

95.144.51.192 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely a guess, but the ship was launched in 1863. Luís I of Portugal, who became king in 1861, married the daughter of the king of Italy in 1862. So he was a member of the Italian royal family, so maybe that's why that name was included in the class. --Golbez (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This ref https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tjoSsk6EnekC&pg=PT170&lpg=PT170&dq=re+di+portogallo+ship&source=bl&ots=DbOdq6TZjA&sig=YsMq4FIP6y0Rch01iIVC1UEApE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig5dOYx7bNAhXJAMAKHbi_CEYQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=re%20di%20portogallo%20ship&f=false states that the ship was named in honour of King Luis II who was the son-in-law of the King of Italy. The II must be an error - there wasn't a second king of that name. Wymspen (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There almost was: see Luís Filipe, Prince Royal of Portugal#Lisbon Regicide. Had he survived his wounds, he would certainly have been proclaimed King Luis II. In fact, the Guinness Book of Records used to claim that Luis Filipe had the world's shortest royal reign, being Luis II for 20 minutes until his own death; but they must have examined the matter more closely and discovered that Portuguese monarchs do not accede automatically at the instant of their predecessors' deaths, as is the case in the UK. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<scratching head> Surely if there was never a King Luis II then there can't have been a King Luis I either. He was just King Luis. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what style a monarch prefers. Pope John Paul I called himself exactly that, not just "Pope John Paul". OTOH, the current pope prefers plain "Pope Francis", NOT "Pope Francis I". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, amongst kings, Juan Carlos I of Spain was so styled. I wonder if in either case it had something to do with the double name, emphasising that they were the first holder of the full name rather than "John XXIV Paul" or "Juan III Carlos" in the style of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Though that doesn't explain Umberto I of Italy or Paul I of Russia. Proteus (Talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first king of a particular name is obviously "<Name> I" in a hypothetical world in which it is assumed there will be a second or more kings of the same name; and nobody can ever say there won't be another. In Umberto's case, there was indeed an Umberto II. There hasn't yet been a Paul II of Russia, but if the Russian Royal Family is ever reinstated, who knows? And there may be an Anna II or an Elizabeth II of Russia. (But if your question is, why is it Paul I but not Anna I or Elizabeth I, ... well, that's a very good question.) If there's ever a Victoria II of the UK, we'll then have to start referring to Queen Victoria as "Victoria I", exactly as happened when Elizabeth II became heiress presumptive and caused the Virgin Queen to henceforth become referred to as "Elizabeth I" (because up till then she was just known as "Queen Elizabeth", which must have caused confusion between her and the incumbent Queen Consort, Queen Elizabeth.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans, naturally enough, refer to the Queen as Queen Elizabeth, but within the Commonwealth she is known simply as "The Queen". Queen Elizabeth the wife of George VI would have been similarly titled. The potential for confusion arose when George VI died and we had two Queen Elizabeths. Until she died I never heard her referred to as anything other than "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother". 86.177.172.210 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II is the queen of 16 Commonwealth realms but not of the other 37 Commonwealth countries. While I have not lived in any of those countries, I doubt that she is often simply called "the Queen" there. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm talking about the period between 1936 (when Edward VIII abdicated) and 1952 (when George VI died). There was a Queen Elizabeth (the one who was later known as the Queen Mother) and her daughter Princess Elizabeth (who everyone assumed would become Queen Elizabeth II). From 1936, the person who had hitherto been known simply as "Queen Elizabeth" was henceforth known as "Elizabeth I", as otherwise there would have been much confusion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic boots" story

Hi all,

There's a common children's story which goes as follows: 1) a kid is given some magic item which supposedly will increase their prowess (e.g. a pair of football boots) 2) the kid becomes incredibly talented, proving the item's magic 3) the kid loses his magic item 4) after an initial bout of panic, the kid takes to the field and finds that his ability is undimmed, thus proving the talent was inside him all along.

Does anyone know what the original or most well known version of this story is? I was trying to use this story as a metaphor but was stumped by the fact that I couldn't think of a version of this story that everyone would know.

I tried Billy's Boots but this doesn't work as Billy's football boots are actually magic, and when he loses them he can't play. The only version of this story I can now remember is a parodic version in a Simpsons episode: Lisa is given a pair of mechanical tap shoes that allow her to tap-dance flawlessly, after her performance Professor Frink attempts to persuade her that the shoes were switched off all along, only for Homer to thoughtlessly show they were on. This is definitely a reference to this story but unusually, given that most Simpsons articles are a long list of "cultural references", I can't find any indication as to what the ur-story is.

I also vaguely recall having an animated film when I was young in which the magic item is a talking piano - the kid uses it to play flawless Chopin and becomes a child prodigy, he gets conceited and does something to piss the piano off, yada yada, the ability is inside him and he can play Chopin without the magic piano after all. Again, if this is ringing any bells... --87.224.68.42 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this last: sounds like the description of Sparky's Magic Piano, though I myself have never seen it. Try YouTube? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TV Tropes article Magic Feather lists a bunch of examples. The trope namer, Dumbo, is well known. -- BenRG (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TV tropes page is good stuff. The oldest use of this trope I can see is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, published in 1900. As TV tropes also mentions, the Epic of Gilgamesh has a version of this, wherein Gilgamesh finds at the end of a long quest that he had always had what he sought, but only metaphorically. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]