Humanities desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

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.

July 10

Factors leading to independence modern nation by modern nation British empire

Is there a website or some websites that shows the factors that lead to the independence of each modern-day nation from the British Empire. So far, I know that the World War II, racial prejudice and racial discrimination and religious discrimination were the factors that lead to Indian, Pakistani and later on Bangladeshi independence. Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can go to the Wikipedia pages for each of the countries that were previously part of the British Empire and see how they acquired independence. This Wikipedia article could help you get started on this: List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DonMust90 -- In the 20th century, Ireland gained independence in a bloody war; the "old" or White dominions gained ever-increasing autonomy through a series of slow and gradual steps; India and Pakistan gained independence due to the aftermath of WW2, an increasing ratio of imperial costs to benefits, and the policies of the UK Labour government elected in 1945; and Israel gained independence because the UK threw up its hands in the air, admitted it was unable to determine the future of the Palestine Mandate, and threw the whole thing into the lap of the United Nations. Then the Tories came back into power, and Winston Churchill during his second stint as UK prime minister during the 1950s was determined to hold the lid on any further decolonizations. After Churchill left office in 1955, the pressures to decolonize became strong, and it wasn't all that long before the British "empire" consisted mainly of small islands and peninsulas. AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Israel or even Palestine at the time was never part of the "Empire". -- 16:09, 10 July 2019 MilborneOne

It was a British-administered territory, not technically too different in status from British Cameroons or Tanganyika... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention Africa here. Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Union of South Africa was an old/white Dominion; otherwise independence of British African colonies belongs to the post-Churchill phase, starting with Ghana in 1957 (also the rather peculiar case of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1956). AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief outline at Decolonisation of Africa#British Empire. The fiercest insurgency was the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya Colony. Whether this hastened independence or not is debated. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In India's case, there was a relatively long-running Indian independence movement (1857-1947). The Nationalist Movements in India helped form a relatively cohesive "Indian" identity out of the disparate populations of the British Raj. In Ireland's case, the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) was partly a result of the rise of Irish nationalism, partly a result of the Irish Home Rule movement (1870-1921) failing to fully achieve its goals, and partly dissatisfaction in Ireland over forced military service in World War I. The Conscription Crisis of 1918 show much of the Irish population unite in opposition to the military draft.:

"Completely ineffectual as a means to bolster battalions in France, the events surrounding the Conscription Crisis were disastrous for the Dublin Castle authorities, and for the more moderate nationalist parties in Ireland. The delay in finding a resolution to the home rule issue, partly caused by the war, and exaggerated by the Conscription Crisis in Ireland, all increased support for Sinn Féin." Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't Louis, Count of Soissons ever marry or have any legitimate children?

Why didn't Louis, Count of Soissons ever marry or have any legitimate children? He got killed at age 37 and thus had plenty of time to get married and have legitimate children but never did. He also had an illegitimate son a year before he was killed, so it's unlikely that he was gay.

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My fist thought is that according to our article "around 1610, he and Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier, were joined in contractual marriage", although that disagrees with the German Wikipdia article. If the German version (and hence your assumption) is correct: As a Prince of the Blood, he did not have too many candidates of appropriate rank, and most of his attempts seem to have failed. He did apparently try for the kings sister, and for Marie de Bourbon, and was foiled by Richelieu for political reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not marry a noblewoman of lower rank if he couldn't marry a princess, though? I mean, the Bourbon-Vendome branch was notable for marrying nobility. For instance, the wives of James I, Count of La Marche, John I, Count of La Marche, Louis, Count of Vendome, John VIII, Count of Vendome, Henri I, Prince of Conde, Henri II, Prince of Conde, Louis, Grand Conde et cetera all came from the French nobility. Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most gay men were married with children, back in the day. Eg Philippe I, Duke of Orléans.

Some, certainly, but not I'm not sure about "most." For instance, Frederick the Great was likely gay and yet he never had any children. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick was married. Marriage was not a love affair, and offspring were expected. Gay men would be given the same instruction as women: "close you eyes and think of England"/do your duty. So: most. Gem fr (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, he probably wasn't, but that is just irrelevant anyway.

Gay men, even if married, didn't have illegitimate children. I just wanted to point that out. Philip I, Duke of Orleans never had illegitimate children--likely because having sex with his wives was hard enough for him and thus he didn't want to have sex with any other women. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I think he probably wasn't gay Gem fr (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely that gay men never had illegitimate children even if I'll give it was unlikely to be common and the current general understanding of gay as being exclusively or almost exclusively attracted to men. The acceptance of being gay varied from place to place and time to time. In situations where it was poorly accepted, maintaining a mistress may have bee one way to maintain cover. Especially in cases where who you married had little to do with any personal feelings or wants. And while the relationship may have been mostly for show, some sex may have been a necessary part of the process. Likewise while taking a mistress may have often been mostly about sexual desires, it seems likely in some cases there would have been a political angle. Also while I mentioned mistresses, a person could have illegitimate children with someone who wouldn't generally be called a mistress anyway. E.g. a slave they raped a few times. Possibly involving some combination of these, rejecting an "offer" of a female "companion" may have been problematic for some. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. He obviously hold grudges to Richelieu. 2. As a Prince of blood, he needed permission from the king (in effect: from Richelieu) to marry. Now do the math Gem fr (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good point. I checked the Wikipedia article for Gaston, Duke of Orleans (Soissons's cousin and co-conspirator) and Louis XIII and Richelieu didn't allow him (Gaston) to get re-married until Louis XIII was on his deathbed and Gaston begged him for forgiveness. Thus, the same might have been true for Soissons. Of course, Soissons didn't actually live long enough to ask Louis XIII for forgiveness, but it is nevertheless interesting to wonder if he would have indeed done this had he lived. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was in love with a beautiful blonde once. She drove him to drink. For that, he was forever in her debt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Futurist110 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He never said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- I'm afraid that Baseball_Bugs is paraphrasing a classic W.C. Fields quote... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Frederick was married" Yes, but his military campaigns often required him and his wife Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel-Bevern to live apart from each other.: "In 1763, when Frederick saw his wife for the first time in six years, he only commented: "Madame has grown quite fat." "Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement does two things: (1) Countering the statement that he never married; and (2) probably explaining why he didn't have children. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus Histories Volume II

I have a copy of Herodotus - Histories Volume II. It is a first edition print of the publication from 1910. Can anyone give vague value on this. Its a great book and well worth a read. Its in hard cover, and beautiful though it may need some restoration to make it ideal for sale. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

$18.69 (1927 edition, good condition) to $99 (1862 edition, "Antique with lots of wear.") based on e-bay. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Herodotus+Histories+Volume+II&_sacat=0 41.165.67.114 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pont del Diable chapel?

In the article bridge chapel, someone has added Pont del Diable in the list of examples. It certainly has a small chapel-like structure on the central span and it's dedicated to Sant Bartomeu, but I can't find a reference that says it is (or was) an actual place of worship. Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chapel in 1879/1882, per this traveller, "...immediately above the keystone of the central arch is a stone lodge, through which the roadway becomes but a narrow passage, for on each side are stone seats. In the wall of this lodge are two inscribed tablets..." (giving the dates of construction and repair) and this traveller, "On the summit is a sort of portico...". 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. found an image of the interior of the modern reconstruction - definitely not a chapel. Doesn't even have the benches the 1879 person mentioned. pic here 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved