Humanities desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20

Members of deposed royal houses having illegitimate children?

Which cases have there been of members of deposed royal houses (as in, former royal houses) having illegitimate children? I know that Prince Manuel of Bavaria was born an illegitimate child and that Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (b. 1943) had an illegitimate daughter in 2006. I also know that Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma had an illegitimate son in the 1990s and that Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria's first son Jaime was born illegitimate. In addition, Gonzalo, Duke of Aquitaine had an illegitimate daughter in 1968 (his branch of the Spanish Bourbons had already renounced their rights to the Spanish throne by that point in time).

Anyway, which additional cases of members of deposed royal houses (or at the very least members of royal branches who have renounced their rights to a particular throne (even if this throne still exists)) having illegitimate children are there? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought: this would be an enormous amount of research. List of current pretenders alone contains a couple of hundred names to investigate, and that would increase exponentially if you go back in history via the list in Abolition of monarchy. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name for Southern Half of the Italian Peninsula?

Is there ever a unique name for the entire southern half of the Italian peninsula besides the Kingdom of Naples? I have always found it a bit weird that the Italian Bourbons would reunite Naples and Sicily and simply name their new kingdom Two Sicilies and want to know if there is any alternative obscure historical name for the Kingdom of Naples or the territory associated with it. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some names given at Southern Italy, but these are political, rather than geographic names. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays there are a few names for Southern Italy (some of them may include Insular Italy): Meridione (from Latin 'merīdiēs', south), Italia meridionale, Mezzogiorno (midday, south), Sud (south), Sud Italia, Suditalia, Italia del sud, Bassa Italia (lower Italy). Terronia is an offensive/humorous name (see Terrone). Italia itself, along with a few ancient poetical names such as Ausonia, Enotria, Esperia, Iapigia and Opicia, originally referred to the southern part of Italy only. The name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is explained in the article. The Kingdom of Naples was also called Regnum Siciliae citra (Pharum), while the Kingdom of Sicily was also called Regnum Siciliae ultra (Pharum). These were geographical names relative to their position in relation with the Faro di Messina (the Strait of Messina). Langobardia Minor comprised a similar area to the Kingdom of Naples. The Diocese of Italia suburbicaria encompassed all of Southern and most of Central Italy. --87.18.64.165 (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wasn't "Sicily" originally only used to refer to the island as it was during Ancient Rome? Does this mean that as a result of Southern Italy coming under Sicilian rule, the people there just decided to give the name "Sicily" to the entire region as well instead of just the island? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained well in the articles already linked, especially the Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, and Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The short answer is yes, at one point there were two separate Kingdoms of Sicily, one governing the island, and one governing the southern half of the peninsula. The reason is basically exactly as you guessed. --Jayron 32 11:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help for Katherine Mansfield’s Millie (short story)?

Hi! I’m trying to locate reliable references for Katherine Mansfield’s Millie (short story) from 1913.

I’m on a mobile device so accessing the Google results, and trying to assess their suitability—searching within the results—is proving to be an obstacle.

I’m hoping editors more literarily knowledgeable than I can help identify strong sources that I can then ask WP:RX for copies.

Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can't find an online reference for the republication, but if you can get hold of a short story collection it might mention that in the introduction. Here are some refs you could request that could help with the "style" section; they all discuss "Millie": 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical essays on Katherine Mansfield by Rhoda B. Nathan. G.K. Hall, 1993
The Development of a Consistent Structural Pattern in Katherine Mansfield's Short Stories, Volume 1. By Fred Stanley Madden. University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1978
MANSFIELD, MISOGYNY AND MURDER: 'OLE UNDERWOOD', 'THE WOMAN AT THE STORE' AND 'MILLIE' REVISITED. By Bruce Harding. Journal of New Zealand Literature (JNZL). No. 6 (1988), pp. 119-136
Kimber, G. (2010) “An art that strikes deeper”: Katherine Mansfield and Rhythm. Paper presented to: Poznon 2010: Second Bi-annual Conference of the European Network for Avant-Garde and Modernism Studies (EAM): High & Low, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland, 09-11 September 2010.
Katherine Mansfield and the (Post)colonial by Gerri Kimber, Edinburgh University Press, Sep. 16, 2013. Some quotes from this one below:
- "Mansfield's early experimental, New Zealand regional stories - 'Millie', 'Ole Underwood'..."
- "In essence, she forged the soul of her own race by exploring the dialectic between home and not-home, between New Zealand and England. Perhaps the most obvious contrast can be found in her story 'Millie' (1913), in which Mansfield contrasts an English print of Windsor Castle which depicts..."
- "I suggest that among Mansfield's aims in stories like 'Millie' and 'The Woman at the Store', was to re-envision a nineteenth-century European settler society in crisis through the lens of modernist writing."
- "...tier of the masculine outdoors (a form of landscape primitivism), and the feminised genteel interior (a morally civilising presence). These are compared to Mansfield's exhibition of take genteel interiors and imported artefacts in stories about the primitive frontier enfironment like 'Millie'..."
- "What distinguishes Mansfield's literary evocations of New Zealand society and the world of middle-class childhood more specifically from the colonial text is her use of symbolism through which pioneer vulnerability and inherited social and cultural norms are delicately balanced, yet also deliberately exposed. In'Millie' this symbolism of an empire, dense with cultural artefacts, is represented in the language of the displaced, and in cultivation of the narrative moment."

Who created this painting

Someone uploaded a black and white scan of a painting in 2004 of the Dutch revolution: Special:PermaLink/12706982. This person didn't source the painting, but it's probably an old book scan. Another editor later tagged the painter as Frederick Henry (Special:Diff/613050916), which seems highly improbable.

Does anyone recognize the style. Can we figure out the author of this painting? I do not want to delete this image if it's public domain. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm guessing you've already done this. To my eye it is done in a style (modernistic?) that is unlike anything else painted about that siege. I look forward to any info that other editors can find. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per TinEye, all online versions of that image appear to have originated with the Wikipedia one, so that's going to make it harder to figure out. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a tapestry rather than a painting? Might account for the "modernistic" rendering of the smoke and the slightly wonky spires. No luck searching though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the smoke in front of the cannons is particularly modernistic, though the background smoke is another matter.

Anyway, by changing MarnetteD's search to say "frederick henry" instead of "painting", I found another place where the painting, if that's what it is, is attributed to Henry. Unfortunately, that is literally all it says about it, and it sure doesn't seem like a reliable source. The full page says it is a "slide presentation" on "The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment", and here is a direct link to the relevant slide. Note that the postage stamp that is the other image on the slide commemorates what as far as I know is an unrelated event: the meeting of Martin Luther and Emperor Charles V in 1521! I used TinEye to look for other images showing the siege painting and the stamp together, but it only found separate images of one or the other. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, according to our article on the siege itself, "Frederick Henry" was the commander of the attacking army, so the attribution is almost certainly erroneous anyway. (It's easy to see how a description like "Siege of Hulst by Frederick Henry" could have been misunderstood by somebody as referring to a painter rather than to a general). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well figured out! --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is most likely not a "painting" but an Engraving, which where very common in that time. Frederick Henry was very likely the sponsor. The artist was likely not found significant enough to be mentioned since Mr. Henry was nothing less than the the sovereign prince of Orange. --Kharon (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, that's far-fetched. We have absolutely no reason to think that Frederick Henry had anything to do with the picture at all, as there is not the slightest hint of sourcing for that attribution out there. It was a plain, trivial misunderstanding that happened right here and right before our eyes, inside Wikipedia. Somebody in 2004 uploaded the picture without any attribution or sourcing; somebody in 2005 added it to an article with the – correct but ambiguous – caption "Siege of the city of Hulst […] by Frederick Henry" [1]; somebody on Commons in 2014 quoted that caption [2] and subsequently misunderstood it as an authorship attribution and added that to the file description [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I deleted the author credit on the image. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]