Humanities desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

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.

August 17

Coronation of the British monarch

The coronation of the monarch involves anointing with holy oil on the breast, palm and forehead. Is this applied directly to the breast because this seems very invasive in such a public ceremony? —Andrew 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I believe I've read that the anointing happens behind a screen. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed what it says (with reference) in Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Anointing. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the coronations of William IV and Victoria, anointing was only on the head and hands, probably because of contemporary ideas of decency. For the 1901 coronation, it was proposed to only anoint King Edward's head, but the enthusiasm for restoring the original rituals caused a reversion to the three points which had been adopted for James I in 1601 (late medieval English kings had been anointed on 8 parts of their bodies as well as their head, but James thought this "Popish"). Source The monarch is not required to strip to the waist and I imagine the neckline of the robe is as far as it goes, but we may never know. In 1953, the television cameras were turned away so that nothing could be seen, [1] but I'm certain this is due to the sacred nature of the ritual rather than any fear of indecent exposure. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Pope annointed at least 8 places? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of anointing in our Papal coronation article, except that if the pope is not a bishop, he is consecrated first, which involves anointing.

On the point of James's coronation, this was the first after the outcome of the Reformation had been settled and there was some debate about what should be done. Many Catholic rituals had been abandoned as they were thought to be without Biblical precedent; however there was a strong desire to retain a continuity with the ancient past while rejecting what were believed to be errors introduced from Rome. Since anointing a king appears in the Bible (see Zadok the Priest) it was decided to return to the simpler anointing laid down in the Liber Regalis, the 14th century coronation textbook (Ref: Strong 2005, pp. 243-244).

The more elaborate form of anointing is described here: "Then the Archbishop anointed the King with the oil of catechumens on his hands, breast, between the shoulder blades, on the shoulders, on the elbows, and on the head; then at last with chrism, again on his head". Whether the King was required to undress for that is unclear. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When was net conversion to Protestantism mostly finished in England or Scotland/Wales? I've read that there were still enough supporters of the line of that Glorious Revolution guy (Charles II?) to rebel in the 18th century (not all would be Catholic of course). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the second half of the 16th century, Catholic authorities outside England made a number of moves which unfortunately had the result of identifying the Catholic cause inside England politically with treason, assassination, and foreign invasion (see Regnans in Excelsis, An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland, etc). For the post-1689 period, see Jacobite rising of 1715 and Jacobite rising of 1745... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to kill Parliament with gunpowder sounds pretty assassinationey... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politically, Catholicism became essentially legal during the later 18th and early 19th century, see Catholic emancipation and Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. --Jayron 32 12:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier piece of legislation, the Papists Act 1778, gave some freedom of worship to Catholics, provided they took an oath of allegiance and disavowal of some of the more extreme Catholic doctrines. However, even this was so unpopular that it provoked the Gordon Riots. Anti-Catholic feeling was kept alive by the popularity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs which described in lurid detail the Marian Persecutions, and by folk memories of the Bloody Assizes (a bit of an own goal by James II) and the arrival of Huguenot refugees following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France. And of course, Bonfire Night has only lost it's anti-Catholic emphasis in the last century, although at the Lewes Bonfire, an effigy of Pope Paul V is still burned (along with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and anybody else they take a dislike to), despite everybody else asking them to desist. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason behind electoral college is that each state is supposed to be equal, why don't each state have just one electoral college vote and so each state is equal?

I am not from usa, so I dont really undertand the logic and reason behind electoral college thing, but I always heard, that the reason is because each state is supossed to be equal.

If that's the case why don't each state have just one electoral college vote instead of each state having different amount of votes?201.79.63.254 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason for using the electoral college to choose the President of the United States. Rather, the reason the electoral college was invented is that the founders of the United States did not want to leave such an important decision in the hands of the general population. Source: Joe Miller (2008-02-11). "The Reason for the Electoral College". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2019-08-17. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why the electoral college exists, but 201's question was about the number of electors. The simple answer is that it was a compromise as to whether each state would be treated equally or whether the number of electors would be based on population. Since every state has two Senators but is represented by population in the House of Representatives, making the number of electors equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives provided a compromise. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many forget that the Constitution does not explicitly set the size of the House, but only sets a maximum tied to population. The size of the House has been essentially fixed by statute since 1913. Some have called for enlarging the House, which would give the more populous states more power in the House as well as in the Electoral College. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

201.79.63.254 -- that's how voting was done in the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, but the whole purpose of the 1787 Constitution was to go beyond a confederation of 13 quasi-sovereign states into a more tightly-knit entity with a real central government. As for the electoral college, doing a mass popular vote to elect the president was a non-starter in the 18th century for several reasons. First, each state had different voting qualifications, and the central (federal) government didn't have the personnel or budget or will to try to reconcile voting qualifications between the states at that time. Also, the writers of the constitution weren't sure that voters in one state would know enough about politicians from other states to have an informed opinion on them. AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as they stated, "each state is supposed to be equal" is a distortion. And one that's still commonly heard here in the U.S., so don't feel dumb. Since no one linked it yet: Electoral College (United States). Here's a relevant opinion article. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contingent election: Also, note that each state does get one vote for President if no candidate wins a majority of electors, in which case Congress elects the President and Vice President. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having offices elected by a statewide vote wasn't common in 1787. The people voted for legislators, who could be elected based on local reputation, and then those chosen individuals, more informed than their peers, could vote for governor, other state offices, etc. The US constitution is something of an adaptation of what was common at the time. The electors are chosen as the legislature directs, thus it could reserve the choice of electors to itself or have a popular vote. South Carolina first had a popular vote for president in 1868.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]