Humanities desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 7

Violet McDougal

Violet McDougall (Q67181576) recently had a work, depicting Icknield House, shown on The Repair Shop - for those of you with access, it's available on Player. Where is Icknield House (there are several buildings with that name in the UK)? When did McDougal die? Did she exhibit? What else can we find about her? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Violet McDougall lived at Icknield House, Tring Hill near Aylesbury (modern postcode HP23 4LD). MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She regularly exhibited at the "Northern Counties Artists Exhibition" at the Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle upon Tyne. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Violet Hannah Arundel was born in Manchester, Lancashire on 10 February 1874, she married Isaac McDougall in Stockport, Cheshire in 1898. Son Douglas Sidney Arundel McDougall born in 1901, Daughter Elizabeth McDougall born in 1904, Son Michael Henry McDougall born in 1907, Son Anthony Isaac Alexander McDougall born in 1908, Daughter Violet Rebekah Dougall born in 1911. Violet was the daughter of Henry and Elizabeth Arundel, her father was a Machine Maker. She died in 1967 in Northampton, aged 93. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MilborneOne: Thank you. Please can you give sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Mabbett, I had a quick look for you but could only find it (in the search result but not the snippet view) at The Year's Art ...: A Concise Epitome of All Matters Relating to the Arts of Painting, Sculpture, Engraving and Architecture, and to Schools of Design, which Have Occured During the Year ..., Volume 64 (1945). The search result says "McDougal, Mrs. V., Icknield House, Tring". Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen the Concert

This theater marquee, pictured on 2012-09-03 in Pennsylvania, says the following:

QUEEN THE CONCERT 9-20
2016  OBAMAS AMERICA
HOPE SPRINGS

I've found 2016: Obama's America and Hope Springs (2012 film), but what is Queen the Concert? The other side of the marquee leaves off Queen the Concert and instead says "ART FILMS BEGIN SEPT 17TH", unhelpfully. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A filmed music concert by the band Queen seems most likely. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay. But the location is Bradford, Pennsylvania, a city of fewer than ten thousand residents in the state's remote northern woods, and I see that Queen is a British band. Do they routinely film concerts at small theaters in small cities while doing international tours? Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it refers to something listed in Queen videography. And I suspect that even rural Pennsylvanians are aware of Queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The theater appears to still be in business.[1] If all else fails, you could call them and see if anyone remembers screening it seven years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it refers to... Oh, so this would be showing a filmed concert that had been performed live somewhere else? I understood SinisterLefty to mean that they went to the Bradford Cinema to film a concert for distribution elsewhere, which surprised me because I figured such a band would make appearances only in big cities or major music events when doing an international tour. Nyttend (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the idea, that they would only show the film there. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:(edit conflict)Johannesburg Philharmonic Orchestra mentions it performed Queen: the Concert. I found a few other hints, all related to performers from South Africa. Looks like some musician arranged Queen hits for classical instruments and toured with them. Not unheard of. Gem fr (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC) wrong track [reply]

Found it ! (Thanks to Baseball Bugs' above link.) Hungarian Rhapsody: Queen Live in Budapest was sent out to a limited theatrical release on September 20th, 2012, the same date listed on the marquee. That is a film of a 1986 Queen concert, which was from the last tour featuring Freddie Mercury. And with a name that long, you can see why they couldn't fit it on the marquee. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Hungarian Rhapsody: Queen Live in Budapest now added to an image note. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll mark this resolved. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Lord of Ireland

According to Lordship of Ireland, the English kings styled themselves "Lord of Ireland" after Pope Lucius III declined to permit them to use the style "King of Ireland". (1) Why did the Pope care what title the English king used in Ireland? His article doesn't address secular politics except for the Holy Roman Empire. (2) Lucius' successor Pope Urban III consented to the kingship, but it didn't happen due to events immediately following. Why didn't later Lords take advantage of this and declare themselves Kings? (3) Monarchy of Ireland addresses the Lordship period, of course, but it doesn't talk about petty kings during this period. Were there ever any petty kingdoms [comparable to the immediate subjects of the High Kings of past centuries] that were subject to the Lordship, or did the leading Irishmen [excluding rebels] always use only noble titles? Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This source says that the pope held that the Donation of Constantine gave him (the pope) sovereignty over all islands...so, over Ireland. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems particularly presumptive on the part of the Pope, as Ireland was neither Roman nor Catholic at the alleged date of that forged document. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter: For a donation, only the donating person (here, Roman Emperor Constantine, supposedly) rights matter.

And, of course, the balance of power between the Pope and King do matter: was the mere word "king" instead of "lord" (with no real consequence whatsoever) worth entering conflict with the Pope, having he Pope lose face and turn angry and maybe excommunicate? Some could even argue that having the power for real while pretending to exert it on behalf of some abstract hapless far away "king" (Pope, in the instance) is actually even best.

Besides, it is not the best interest of rulers to be kings of several, equal, kingdoms. They try their best to have a single major title (King /Emperor), with parts being of inferior standing (duchy, county or whatever), so that their word as king/Emperor apply everywhere without the hassle to care about specific rules of each ruled countries (noticeably, dynastic rules, which could cause a split or even a war upon succession). There shall be only one, all other conquered former kings will be turned into something lesser. Gem fr (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...only the donating person (here, Roman Emperor Constantine, supposedly) rights matter." Yes, and he didn't own Ireland either. It wasn't controlled by Rome or Constantinople then. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True that, but, Kings/Emperors (or people like the Pope claming to have rights from them) never care to actually control land (or even know the land actually exist!) to claim rights on it. Gem fr (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as (1) I understood that the Pope was considered to hold dominion over all monarchs, but the question wasn't "why did the King care what the Pope said". Rather, why did the Pope care what the King said? He apparently didn't mind him using a royal title in England, or the King of Aragon calling himself the King of Aragon, or the King of Jerusalem calling himself the King of Jerusalem. Also, see personal union for the concept of kings reigning in multiple jurisdictions; in particular, five Kings of Ireland and two Queens were King/Queen of three countries all at once. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, sorry the source didn't answer your question. It looked thorough to me, but I'm not completely clear what evidence you need. Popes Innocent III and Alexander III are mentioned as considering that "Ireland was a papal fief granted to the kings of England" and per that article, such fiefs were not necessarily kingdoms, although a handful were. So not all fiefdoms got to be kingdoms, so I'm not sure why anyone would assume Ireland should. Anyway, it is true, though, that after all the context starting on the page I linked to the source simply ends with an assertion: "Quite properly, Henry considered that papal consent was necessary for this promotion" (meaning from lordship to kingdom) "Alexander III, however, was not apparently in favour of this scheme nor was his successor Lucius III who, Howden says, had resisted the idea with vigour". Howden is this person and if you would like to explore further, his writings are online here. Hope you find your answer. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird; I've never heard of such an idea before, so I assumed you'd misread the source. (Sorry!) Everything I've ever heard focuses on the fact that the Donation gives the pope ultimate authority over the whole of the West. In this text, Wherefore, in order that the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with glory and power even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule; behold, we give over and relinquish to the aforesaid our most blessed Pontiff, Sylvester, the universal Pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions, and we decree by this our godlike and pragmatic sanction that they are to be controlled by him and by his successors, and we grant that they shall remain under the law of the holy Roman church. Now I wonder why anyone cared about the islands as a matter of sovereignty, but that's a different matter. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, and thanks to you too. (I could have misread it! Always possible.) There definitely seems to be more to the issue than our various articles convey. One of the kings' articles led me to Surrender and regrant which might offer useful context about the end of the era of petty kingdoms? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because some member of the Irish clergy cared, and christianity in Ireland was quite strong, enough for the Pope to care himself? Gem fr (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Wikipedia at least calls them kings - there are hundreds of names in the various categories covering the period 1177-1542: 12th-century Irish monarchs, 13th-century Irish monarchs, 14th-century Irish monarchs, 15th-century Irish monarchs, 16th-century Irish monarchs and all the ones I clicked on at random said "so-and-so was king of Nameofkingdom in Ireland". Some of the kingdoms I saw were Connacht, Ui Maine, Ui Diarmata, Umaill, Leinster, Tyrconnell. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good find; thank you. I guess "Monarchy of Ireland" is just short of a good deal of information. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]