Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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

January 31

Court-martial?

Why is Mary Harris Jones considered to have been court-martialed when she was a civilian? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly answered in the article: martial law. Use ctrl F to find it. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what court-martial and Black's Law Dictionary [1] say. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that martial law was in effect in that region at that time. Presumably that would be the reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black's tells you what the law is - not necessarily what it was over 100 years ago. The Court-martial article is a summary - and does mention some non-military uses, but uses the word "including" so does not claim to be giving a definitive list of all such situations. Wymspen (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under martial law, the military commander has the option of remanding civil torts and other crimes to civil authorities. Even soldiers can be tried in civil, rather than military courts, at the discretion of their command. But Jones was directly involved in the actions because of which martial law had been declared. Not to comprehend this is to be intentionally obtuse. The whole idea of martial law is placing law-enforcement in the hands of military authorities. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, which is where Mary Harris Jones lived, it is difficult or illegitimate to fully impose martial law except in case of war or rebellion. In other cases, I would expect any action of a purported court-martial to be overturned, if the matter were appealed far enough. However, in disasters and other emergencies not rising to the level of a rebellion, the military can be used to enforce civilian law if the right authorizations are obtained. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was tried (and convicted) before a military court: this type of proceeding is called a court-marshal. When the defendant is convicted, the term "court-marshalled" is applied as a verb. -Arch dude (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "court-martialed" just means charged and tried, it doesn't mean convicted. You can be court-martialed and found not guilty. Moonraker (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the use of court-martial as a verb is a bit of a neologism due to verbification. The term was originally only a noun, but upon verbification takes on some awkward conjugations (court-martialed, court-martialling, etc.) It's certainly cromulent usage now, but has to be one of those things that drives second language learners of English just batty. --Jayron 32 19:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That rather depends on your definition of new (as in "neo"): see SHALL STRIKERS BE COURT-MARTIALLED ? (Liberty, August 25, 1883). Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference between marshal[2] and martial.[3] Also, court-martial as a verb since 1859.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wymspen points out, the court-martial article does mention non-military applications in passing, which I missed and will note in the intro. Thanks all, with one exception. Thanks μηδείς for your gratuitous insult. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutions where brevity was a factor in the drafting

Wikipedia's article on the Alaska Constitution says that the delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention intended on writing a short constitution. Which other constitutions had brevity as a goal when they were written?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Monaco has the shortest national constituion - and India has the longest. Wymspen (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination for best lead sentence and best lead section goes to the above-mentioned article Alaska Constitution, which currently (until I change it in a moment) says in its entirety:

The Constitution of the State of Alaska is the constitution of the U.S. state of Alaska. It was ratified in 1956 and took effect with Alaska's admission as a state on January 3, 1959.

Loraof (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

...in the category of "statement of the bleeding obvious" no doubt. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of US state constitutions: "The shortest is that of Vermont, which contains 8,295 words". [5] Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That fits with verbiage minimalist Calvin Coolidge having been from Vermont. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Arthur of Connaught and an unfortunate mistake

In our article on Edward Iwi we read that Sir George Coldstream told 10 Downing Street "You will no doubt recall that Iwi has on several occasions proved right and on at least one of these occasions he could have caused the government great embarrassment – I refer to the unfortunate mistake by which Princess Arthur of Connaught was named as a Counsellor of State in 1944. Iwi spotted the error but was good enough to keep quiet about it." Our article on her does not mention this mistake, but says she was a Counsellor from 1937 to 1944. The Counsellor of State article says she was eligible to serve as a Counsellor from 1937 to 1944. Now, my question is - what happened in 1944 that was so unfortunate? DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Princess Alexandra, 2nd_Duchess of Fife#Counsellor of state - what "unfortunate_mistake"? which explains that George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood had come of age in February 1944 and therefore, being higher in the succession, should have taken-over the role, despite being a guest at Oflag IV-C (Colditz Castle) for the duration. It seems to me rather piffling in the great panolpy of royal scandals, but how we reference this to add it to the article is beyond me at present. Alansplodge (talk)

According to Counsellor of State, it was the current Elizebeth II (then known as The Princess Elizabeth, and later as the Duchess of Edinburgh) who took over the Princess Arthur's role in the position upon her own majority. I don't know if this was by direct appointment or the sort of thing that was automatic upon her coming of age. I will note that the exact date (21 April 1944) is Elizabeth's 18th birthdate. I'm unclear what the mistake was. --Jayron 32 20:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that's what actually happened, but Iwi was pointing out that the terms of the Regency Act 1937 had been broken because Lascelles should rightfully have been appointed in February. However, I'm struggling to find anything that spells this out, other than our talk page quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's good to know the War didn't stop pedantry! DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Degrees of Royal belovedness

Answers to my question above about Princess Arthur of Connaught's unfortunate accident led to this webpage. On reading through it I was struck by the subtle variations in how beloved some of those mentioned in the various Letters Patent, Orders in Council, etc, are. We find "Right Trusty and Right Entirely beloved", "Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved", "Right Trusty and Well-beloved", "most dearly beloved", and "most dear and entirely beloved". What governs these variations? Is there some sort of Order of Belovedness, as there is an Order of Precedence? And, indeed, why are some of them Trusty and others not? DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Jayron 32 21:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the Royal Drawing Society?

We have a stubby article about the Royal Drawing Society. In trying to find out some more about it I found this which suggests it stopped operating around 1966. Can anyone provide any more information please? DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An annoyingly brief "snippet view" from the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Volume 115, 1968 (p. has a report of the 1967 Royal Drawing Society Exhibition. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1965 Whitakers Almanac shows their address as 6 Queen Square WC1, which is now home to The Art Workers' Guild. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, The Royal Drawing Society's Annual Exhibition of Children's Paintings opens tomorrow at the Guildhall Art Gallery (4 April 1963) is the best I could do I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were still listed in the 1983 edition of Whitaker's Almanack, but I couldn't find any later mention of it as an extant thing. This snippet from a 1985 book sounds ominous: "All entries under 'Aims and Activities of Academies, Groups, Societies, etc' are unchanged with the exception that the City of London Art Exhibition, Industrial Printers' Group, and the Royal Drawing Society have been omitted." --Antiquary (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another straw in the wind: according to The Times for 1 April 1980 (which lives behind a paywall, but your library may have a sub) the RDS's annual Children's Exhibition, which seems to have been one of its main reasons for existing, was taken over by the Federation of British Artists in 1978. My guess is the RDS has had no more than a legal existence since the early 1980s. If it had been formally wound up I'd have expected that fact to be noted in the London Gazette, which it isn't. --Antiquary (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The society was incorporated in 1902 with company number 00074253, and in Scotland SIC2003. The organisation's status is listed as "dissolved". 86.176.18.217 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]