Humanities desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3

Identification of biogrpahical subject..

Anyone able to identify which Sir Hugh Hastings this is? the article on Baron Hastings lists 2, and I'm not sure which one this is.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I read everything rightly, there are six Hughs in that article, but the problem is that all of them were deemed to be barons only centuries after their deaths (or definitely weren't barons at all), so I don't see how any of them would stand out above the others. (The whole thing is rather confusing; twelve of the first fifteen barons were Hugh or John, including five of the first six barons being Johns). Here are the Hughs, as I understand them:

Hugh 1: Son of Baron I and not a baron himself, no dates. Father of John (baron VI) and great-uncle of Hugh 4
Hugh 2: Son of Baron II and not a baron himself, 1307-1347
Hugh 3: Son of Hugh 2 and not a baron himself, and father of Hugh 4, no dates
Hugh 4: Baron VII, 1377-1396
Hugh 5: Baron X, 1447-1488
Hugh 6: Baron XIV, 1515-1540

As you've maybe seen, the source image, File:Three knights.png, includes a depiction of Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick (1338-1401), whose active life was contemporaneous with that of Hugh 4 and potentially Hugh 3. Meanwhile, the image also includes Sir Robert de Septvans, of whom there appear to have been several; it's obviously connected to File:The original brass of Sir Robert de Septvans - geograph.org.uk - 783181.jpg, which according to the website of the church where it's located, depicts a Robert who died in 1304. So I guess this all means that these three weren't all contemporaries, and maybe none of them was contemporary to either of the others. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I got it. If you search for <kent brass "hugh hastyngs">, you get several references to a Hugh buried at Elsing, and our article on the church, St Mary's Church, Elsing, has a whole section entitled "Hastings brass". There can be no question that the replica of this brass is the same as the one in the picture you supplied. The church article reports that the subject died in 1347, so we're looking at Hugh 2. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I found c:Category:Sir Hugh Hastings, d:Q18671482, and de:Hugh Hastings. Finding the first bit is hard, but once you do, it all falls into place :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional point which may prove useful in similar cases, on the shield depicted there is a "label of three points" superimposed on (differencing) the arms it bears: this is most often (though not always, especially not for royalty) the conventional indication, especially (though not always) when the label is argent/silver, that the person is the eldest son of the contemporary bearer of the undifferenced arms, and since it's a funeral brass, the subject must have died before succeeding his father. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In early (and Continental) armory a label might only mean that the bearer (or her father) is someone other than the senior male of the line; I don't know when it came to mean "eldest son" more often than not. — I was puzzled that the shield here seems to show only a label! Took me a while to see the maunch behind it. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. As we were already sure that the subject was English (and not really early, because of the armour style), my remarks related only to English heraldry. Other jurisdictions did/do things differently: for example, in Scots heraldry, cadency beyond the eldest son (where a label is also used) is indicated by a system of bordures rather than English heraldry's brisures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here it is, Joseph Fowler's Some Feudal Coats of Arms (1902), which I couldn't find on the shelf earlier. Only one entry for a Hugh Hastings, showing the same brass. "Hastings, Sir Hugh, of Gressing, Norfolk, summoned to a council in 1342—bore, at the siege of Calais 1345, or a maunch gules a label (3) azure (F.) see Monumental Brass; borne also by Sir Nicholas at the first Dunstable tournament 1308; Cotgrave and Parliamentary Rolls, and by Sir William (E.i.) Harl. Roll. Another Sir William, banneret (E. ii. Roll), bore, a label (3) charged with the arms of Pembroke, chequy argent and azure three martlets gules; Parliamentary Roll." (I use italics here in place of the book's small caps.) "E.I" and "E.II" presumably mean during the reigns of Edward I (1272–1307) and Edward II (1307–1327); but I cannot guess what "F." means; the book has no obvious table of abbreviations. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golden arches

I was eating in a McDonald's restaurant a few minutes ago. Nothing unusual about that, but at the foot of the bill I noticed the words "Som Restaurants Ltd A franchisee of McDonald's Restaurants Limited". That was the first I knew that McDonald's is a franchise operation, quickly confirmed at McDonald's (I like the redirect from McDonalds). The first Kentucky Fried Chicken in Western Australia was opened nearly half a century ago in Melville, on the corner of the Stock Road and Canning Highway. I had an idea that some outlets were sold off after issues with Colonel Sanders and our article confirms this is also a franchise operation. How many of the big name brands are franchises? The article lead refers to KFC as having 20,000 locations and being second only to McDonald's in sales volume. Isn't that a bit misleading? Surely the sales accrue to the individual franchisees. 94.192.183.95 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the majority of international chain fast food restaurants are at least franchised in part although Chipotle Mexican Grill evidently has none (according to our article, although it also has a franchise category) or very few [1] (that ref keeps opening some dumb survey thing but if you close it, you can see it makes the claim there are a few legacy ones). Note that stuff like [2] can be misleading. It seems to suggest Starbucks no longer franchises but I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I'm sure that Starbucks still has Master franchises in a number of areas [3] and I suspect they will continue to use that to expand into new countries if it makes sense. In addition, I'm fairly sure some of their master franchises also operate at least in part on a franchise basis in their regions. And this is a fairly common arrangement. In other words, even if a restaurant only has corporate stores in the US or wherever they started, probably some of their operations in other countries are on a master franchise basis, and these may or may not use franchises themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, KFC has an interesting arrangement in Australia. I believe Collins Foods owns most or all of the restaurants in Queensland and Western Australia and possibly NT. [4] In other areas, Yum! Brands either operates or franchises to other partners such as Restaurant Brands (not to be confused with Restaurant Brands International) [5]. There tends to be differences in KFCs operated by Collins and other one, e.g. I believe the Collins ones generally have Hot n' Spicy all year round. And they often also don't take part in promotions or have different prices. See e.g. the discussion here [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to break the numbers down by the individual franchisee as you suggest. Franchisees "own" their restaurants, but the concept is owned by the franchisor and they exert direct control over what goes on in the store. For example, they negotiate with and inspect vendors and DCs. It varies by franchise, but the franchisees are in many ways more like store managers with profit sharing than "owners" in the sense that you or I might choose to open our own restaurant and operate it. For example, the franchisee cannot usually make any decisions about menu items, meal preparation, suppliers, or hours of operation. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I used to work at an Arby's that served unusual menu items (baked potatoes and waffle fries), unlike everyone else in the region, even other stores owned by the same franchisee, and it seems that every Arby's has different hours. Some have breakfast while many don't, and I know one Burger King in my area served no breakfast when I moved here. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franchises are everywhere and its only the small difference of ownership seperating them from 100% companyowned branch offices. Most Car-dealers and -repairshops are franchises in sense that they are "officially licensed" by some big company or even multiple to sell or repair specific brands. Amazons "Marketplace" is another example and everyone knows how successful this became or how many independent Bookshops it killed. Its strangely the juridical framework that enables and supports this, altho its obviously killing what economics describe as "free market". Independent commercial operations often find themselves in aggressive legal- or price-wares against franchise operations they cant win because they dont have the same resources or reserves for that and that may be the main reason why the franchises are so successful and widespread as a commercial concept. --Kharon (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]