Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7

Children born in the White House

Were there ever any instances of a President's child being born while the President was serving his term in the White House? I guess this is another way of asking: were there ever any instances of a pregnant First Lady in the White House? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Cleveland, for one. Perhaps the only one born in the White House proper. - Nunh-huh 05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Cleveland had a sister Marion who was born while her father was in office, but she was born at Buzzard's Bay, Massachusetts. Their other siblings were born when Grover Cleveland was not in office. (For example, Cleveland's term ended 4 March 1897 and his son Richard was born 28 Oct 1897 in Westland, New Jersey. But that would mean the First Lady was pregnant with him in the White House.) - Nunh-huh 06:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy was born prematurely in August, 1963 and died 39 hours later. His father was assassinated 3-1/2 months later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Jr. was born on November 25, 1963, after his father was elected but before the inauguration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean November 25, 1960 Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the correction, Nil Einne. November 25, 1960 just a few weeks after Kennedy defeated Nixon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were also some first ladies who were likely pregnant in the White House, but hopefully not with the President's child. I mean of course the first ladies who were not the wife of the president. Martha Jefferson Randolph and Angelica Singleton Van Buren are 2 where the time frame suggests it may be likely. A bunch of the other ones in List of First Ladies of the United States didn't have sufficiently clear info on their children to rule them out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, but the same token, there's some chance some president has had a child born while they were president, but not to their spouse or the first lady. An obvious candidate would be Thomas Jefferson. Harriet Hemings, Madison Hemings, Eston Hemings were all born while Jefferson was president. AFAIK and Jefferson–Hemings controversy seems to support this, the generally accepted scholarly opinion is that Jefferson fathered most or all of Sally Hemings's children. I don't believe she ever lived in the White House.

There may be other children to some other president born while their father was president who's mother did live in the White House for a time. Depending on the level if discretion this may not be particularly known about. E.g. there is some suggestion George Washington also had another child with a slave, although I think West Ford was born before the Washington presidency (and I'm pretty sure before the White House which Washington was never in as President) [1].

See also [2] and consider the number of politicians who secretly fathered children and which we only know about because it was somehow revealed sometimes quite a while after birth even in this tabloid day and age and consider how different things were in the past.

In fact, there is Nan Britton who had a daughter with Warren G. Harding albeit born before the presidency. And their relationship is said to have continued until Warren G. Harding's death while president, allegedly including sex in the executive office's coat closet. We primarily know about it because she chose to speak of it and DNA testing. It's easy to imagine cases where that would not have happened. Particularly if the mother was either married or soon married after falling pregnant.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems useful to the discussion; there have been several presidential grandchildren who have entered this world in the confines of the Presidential mansion as well, and that lists them (along with the ones noted above). --Jayron 32 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a List of children of the Presidents of the United States (including illegitimate ones, adopted ones, stepchildren, and legal wards) so you could compare names and dates. From what I can see at least, the ones born during their parent's term in office were:

Harriet Hemings (1801-1863). Daughter of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Born early in her father's first term in office.
Madison Hemings (1805-1877). Son of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Born late in his father's first term. This child was named after James Madison, a friend and political ally of his father.
Eston Hemings (1808-1856). Son of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Born late in his father's second term. He was the last of a total of 14 children whose known father was Thomas Jefferson.
Sarah Polk Fall (1847–1924). Legal ward and unofficial adopted daughter of Sarah Childress Polk, and eventually the only legal heir to the deceased James K. Polk. The press mentioned her as James' daughter, though they were not biologically related and likely never met each other.
Esther Cleveland (1893-1980). Daughter of Grover Cleveland and Frances Folsom Cleveland Preston. Born early in her father's second term. First Presidential child to be born in the White House.
Marion Cleveland (1895–1977). Daughter of Grover Cleveland and Frances Folsom Cleveland Preston. Born during her father's second term. We do not have an article about her.
Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (August 7, 1963 – August 9, 1963). Son of John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Born late in his father's term. He was the last of four children whose known father was John F. Kennedy. Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Very helpful! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet soup

In Fulham, south west London, there is a block of "alphabet streets", running from south to north Bishop's Park Road, Cloncurry Street, Doneraile Street, Ellerby Street, Finlay Street, Greswell Street, Harbord Street, Inglethorpe Street, Kenyon Street and Langthorne Street. Is this arrangement unique or are there similar or longer blocks in other cities? 95.150.52.146 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, DC has a very extended arrangement of alphabetical streets. See here for an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis, MN has several series of alphabet streets. They had to get creative when they got to letter "X". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeing in Essex has a sequence running Avenue Road, Blythe Road, Clyde Road, Derby Road and Eldon Road. --Antiquary (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is/has been another one in Boston, Mass. --Antiquary (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Back Bay, Boston#Roads, the back bay being the only part of Boston which has a planned grid; the rest of Boston is rather random (like London or Paris). The street pattern goes Arlington, Berkeley, Clarendon, Dartmouth, Exeter, Fairfield, Glouscester and Hereford. It takes a break between Massachusetts Avenue (which is a major cross-city thoroughfare) and the Back Bay Fens (a large park), and picks up again with Ipswich, Jersey and Kilmarnock. The original grid plan included up to "Z" but was never completed. Information on it is here. --Jayron 32 16:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a forum thread on alphabetically ordered street-names giving many more examples. --Antiquary (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York City proper has Avenue A to Avenue Z, Avenue A to P, Ash Street to Oak, Austin Street to Olcott, Aske Street to MacNish, Ash Street to Rose, Aster Court to Lacon and honorable mentions Asquith Crescent to Fitchett Street and Avenue A to D (all unrelated). And Abbey Court to Just Court which is somewhat related to the Lacon Court set. For some reason none seem to be mentioned yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find the possible lack of theme of this one funny: Ash (tree?), Box (container?), Clay (soil?), Dupont (Delaware?), Eagle (bird), Freeman (ex-slave?), Green (color?), Huron (mundane place), India (exotic place), Java (exotic, never British), Kent (mundane, British), Greenpoint (where's L?), Milton and Noble (now back to British sounding), Oak (tree), Calyer (where's P?), Quay (nautical). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are box trees (see buxus). And anything old in the U.S. named "Clay" is very likely to be named after Henry Clay, who in the 19th century was one of the most well-known and influential Americans who was never president. (He was Abraham Lincoln's political hero, among other things...) Part of Manhattan, NYC is known as Alphabet City, but there aren't that many streets involved... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Old and New World members of a tree genus could have such different cold tolerances, neat. Apparently the European box can survive here but New World boxen are only native to South+Central America. Alphabet City's the Avenue A to D I mentioned above (the city has many full block sliver buildings much thinner than what could fit F-ward of Avenue E but that would slightly reduce the amount of 30% of income public housing they could cram in the 100-year flood zone so they missed out on 25% more letters) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest Brooklyn city directory I can find is 1862, and already Greenpoint, Calyer and Meserole were where you might expect to find L, P and R. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't know that. Renaming NYC streets is a dime a dozen though (large percents of entire NYC counties were changed to fit new grids later than that, why not rename 2 or 3 more to fit an existing letter grid?) But for whatever reason they didn't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego, California has several series of such street names with various themes from trees , birds, precious stones, aviation terms, etc. --Jayron 32 13:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Fulham is not unique, and the only difficult thing is to find more examples from outside the US. I can at least add the alphabetically ordered streets of Sept-Îles, Quebec. --Antiquary (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco has Anza, Balboa, Cabrillo, then a gap for Golden Gate Park, then Irving, Judah, Kirkham, Lawton, Moraga, Noriega, Ortega, Pacheco, Quintara, Rivera, Santiago, Taraval, Ulloa, Vicente, Wawona, Yorba. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And across town, Burke Custer Davidson Evans Fairfax Galvez Hudson Innes Jerrold Kirkwood LaSalle McKinnon Newcomb Oakdale Palou Quesada Revere Shafter Thomas Underwood VanDyke Wallace Yosemite Armstrong Bancroft Carroll Donner Egbert Fitzgerald Gilman Hollister Ingerson Jameston Key LeConte Meade (Avenues), crossed by Donahue Earl Fitch Griffith Hawes Ingalls Jennings Keith Lane Mendell Newhall Phelps Quint Rankin Selby Toland Upton (streets). (In 1988–9 I worked at Thomas × Hawes; one day I interrupted a worker as he was about to impress the name THOAMS into new concrete.) And another short series in Sunnyside. —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I worked from 1984 to 1993 managing a countertop fabrication shop on Bancroft Avenue in San Francisco. All these alphabetical street names resonate strongly with me after living in or working frequently in San Francisco for 46 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP was inspired to ask this question by the entry for Friday, April 27, 2018 on the diamond geezer blog (no connection with the TV series of that title), which was on this very topic? If not he/she might like to known that there's an even more impressive estate in Queen's Park, London, with streets beginning with A–P (again, excluding J), plus First–Sixth Avenues, and also a sequence of A–J inclusive in Tooting, London. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.143 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Street or road name lists many examples of theme naming, including alphabets. —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the options for low-income, single people who are old enough to retire out of the workforce and really can't work anymore?

"A semi-private room ran $225 daily, or $82,125 per year. And the average nursing home stay is 835 days, or more than two years, according to the government's latest National Nursing Home Survey."
"Medicaid pays for care for 7 out of every 10 nursing home residents. Medicare generally does not pay for nursing home care. The average cost for a private room is $219 a day. The average cost for a semi-private room is $198 a day."
"Holiday, for instance, uses a monthly average of $2600 in its online cost-of-living calculator, but actual retirement living costs for a one bedroom can vary by as much as $5000 across the country, closely tracking regional real estate values and cost of living."
"In a senior living community, you start with upfront costs. Assisted living communities and independent living communities generally have a monthly rate that could range from $1,500 to $6,000, and may make certain hospitality and care services available for an additional monthly fee."
"Senior Home Care: $15 - $25 per hour for hourly care and $150 - $350 per day for 24-hour live-in care. Assisted Living Community: $4,000 per month + additional fees for meals, special services and activities + additional cost for private duty caregiver services (see Senior Home Care costs above)."

A nursing home or retirement home isn't free. A home health aide isn't free. One possible way is to live in the house of your adult child. However, this assumes that the adult child is capable to take care of you. Some adult children are incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone their old parents or any other human being. Another possible way is to get married, but this assumes that you and your partner are both fertile. If you and your partner are not fertile, then it would cost money for assisted reproductive technologies or adoptions. However, "foster care adoption is a great way for people to add to or complete their families and may cost anywhere between $0-$1000. ... Prospective adoptive parents should keep in mind that adopting a baby through foster care is rare; it is much more likely they will adopt a child anywhere between 3 to 18 years old." But, that assumes that you are able to take care of a child, until the child is old enough to take care of you, which takes a lot of time and patience. You may just want an adult caregiver right now. SSS (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider living on a sailboat.

And/or leaving an expensive country.

Between the two, a relatively healthy oldster might live well on Social Security alone.

Sorry no references, as individual financial, geographic, and health conditions differ widely.

Personally, I've got my eye on a 24-30 foot sloop set in the Sea of Cortez.

If, however, you are concerned for another, you may be interested in at least talking with the matchmakers at A Place for Mom

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Paulscrawl's points a bit, although the OP's comments seem to be primarily thinking of the US in much of the developed world there is some social security system in place designed to try and ensure older long term citizens with little income or assets have the basics of life. This may include a pension of some sort or at least support for essential living costs like housing, food, power (electricity and heating as needed) and medical. This will generally include rest home care or in home support care if it's considered necessary. How well these systems actually meet the needs varies and is also often debated but it's generally far from luxurious or providing for anything much more than the basic necessities. To receive the maximal support, you will normally need to have income and asset levels below what the government considers a level where you are able to partly support yourself. And you will also need to be the government's determined age of retirement, not your own age, which for much of the developed world is currently 65 (see Retirement age) although many suggest it's likely to increase. If you are below that age but genuinely unable to work, again there tends to be some sort of support system in place which may or may not be the same thing. But again, it will be the government which decides whether you are unable to work in some fashion, probably relying on medical personnel and defined criteria. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "fertile" point at all. Nor the costs of adopting a child. If someone is low income, unable to work and ready to retire, maybe a partner will be willing to help look after you. However adopting or conceiving a child is in no way a solution. It simply makes things worse since you now have a child that you are responsible for maybe for 18 years. (And incidentally costs of adoption aside, your chances of being able to adopt if you are neither able to work nor have significant savings are likely to be very low in most of the developed world although it's likely the partner's income and savings will be considered.) The child may or may not be able to help take care of you when they reach adulthood, but expecting a 5 year old to help take care of you is silly actually I'd go as far as to say it's cruel. You needed to have the child long before you were old enough to retire and unable to work anymore. (Although I have to say, having a child for the sole purpose of having someone look after you when you are older is a dumb idea anyway.) If you think the partner is going to look after both you and the child until the child is old enough to look after you, you must live in some sort of dream world. In other words, by that stage it would be better if one of you wasn't fertile whether this is natural or medically induced. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weddings of the century

not a request for references, but an invitation to prediction or debate. --Jayron 32 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many "weddings of the century" can there be in any given century, before the term becomes risible?

Already Harry and Meghan's nuptials (still 11 days away) are being so described, despite the fact that his brother William and Kate already had "the WOTC" in 2011 (not to mention their parents Charles and Diana, although that was admittedly in a different century, which is why I didn't mention it). Then there's Lionel Messi (2017), Salim Mehajer (2015), Kanye West (2014), James Packer (2003), and the list goes on.

I mean, if the media got their story straight and described a particular wedding as "a wedding of the century" rather than "the wedding of the century", this would at least settle us pedants down for a while. As always, I seek meaning in the meaningless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See tabloid journalism. SSS (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that makes America press look reasonable. Trump-Shillary really might've been the election of the generation (but [[WP:CRYSTAL) and the baseball player of the century really might've started last month. Time will tell. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That assessment can only be made in the final days of December, 2099. .Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2099, unless the season's extended. And really century divisions are artificial so being the best of 1980 to 2080 should be enough (unless a way to stop a 1994 guy from reaching 2030 levels of aging in 2030 is discovered by 2030). Really being better than anyone from June 3, 1935 to June 3, 2035 should be good enough for provisional revocable close enough (even the 2020s if he ends up being better than Babe Ruth) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant alert: technically, this century won't end until December 31st 2020, due to there not being a year 0. WP:WHAAOE. See Century#Start_and_end_in_the_Gregorian_calendar. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know WTF we are talking about baseball but I don't understand the season point either. Even assuming the baseball season in the US doesn't change (which I assume is what SMW is referring to), the US and some others are trying to promote baseball in China and other places. Who knows if they will succeed but already a variety of factors have meant baseball is popular in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. For a variety of reasons baseball in these countries is significantly less competitive and lucrative than in the US. But 80+ years is a long time away and these countries have populations together about half of the US. I don't know what the seasons are like in these countries, but it seems easily possible the changes which may improve competition in them could potential change the time frames. And it's always possible that efforts to promote inter-country baseball competition will take off and contributions to such matches will end up being just as important if note more important than performances in local leagues. In other words, there's no reason to assume the baseball player of the century would somehow have to follow US seasons. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you either mean 1999 or 2007 for James Packer. Our article doesn't mention any 2003 wedding, nor does an internet search find anything. I gather there was talk of another wedding of the century for James Packer [3] probably in 2016 or 2017, but that didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasonable answer, of course, is "n", where "n = the total number of weddings performed in the century". We can't answer this question with reliable references, because it isn't really a request for further reading. It's just a complaint about culture which happens to end in a question mark. We shouldn't entertain such discussion prompts, which are antithetical to our mission here at this reference desk. There's nothing inherently wrong with such discussions, which is why there is a place called "the rest of the internet" to have them. As far as here goes, well, this is not what we do here. --Jayron 32 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.