Humanities desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

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.

July 16

Southern Europe is politically clientelist?

I have seen people characterizing the domestic politics of Southern European countries most notably Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain as clientelist, as when compared to Northern Europe. How true is this? Are there good articles or academic papers on this specifically? StellarHalo (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo the articles PIGS (economics) and European debt crisis are probably good places to start searching. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder at the Palace

Say Prince Charles got a bit stressed out and murdered the Queen. An open and shut case, 'e done it all right, and he confessed.

Would this be a case of treason? I presume yes.
Would conviction of treason disqualify him from holding the Crown?
If not, would imprisonment for the rest of his life, for whatever reason, disqualify him from holding the Crown?
In the UK Constitution, the new monarch accedes instantaneously on the death of the old one. In this case, would he in fact accede, until such time as his guilt was established by a court, and then be dethroned?
If he acceded but was incarcerated pending trial, and thus unable to reign, would a regent be appointed pending justice taking its course?
Or, since he confessed and there was plenty of evidence against him anyway, would there even be a trial? I presume there'd still have to be a court hearing, for a judge to sentence him. But then he'd be in prison anyway, so same scenario.
But what if he was charged but there wasn't much evidence and he strenuously protested his innocence? This process would take a lot longer to resolve, so how would his status change, if at all, in the meantime? As he'd be presumed innocent, and he'd hardly be considered a flight risk, I guess he'd accede and take up his monarchical duties pending the resolution of the matter.
Is there any such thing as a "conditional accession" for cases like this?

I hope such a thing never happens, but in case anyone thinks it's an absurd and impossible scenario, have a look at Dipendra of Nepal. He was the heir; in 2001 he shot both his parents and seven other family members. He then shot himself, but survived for 4 days, during which time he was legally King of Nepal, succeeding his father (whom he had murdered). Then he was succeeded in turn by his brother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the legal position or the likely position in practice? Legally, he would become King upon the death of the Queen, and would henceforth be immune from prosecution, regardless of how he got there. The only conditions on succeeding are those in the Act of Settlement 1701. (Yes, this in one sense a loophole in the law of succession to the British Crown - a member of the Royal Family could in theory do a Kind Hearts and Coronets on everyone ahead of them in the line of succession, and then be immune from prosecution because they are now the Sovereign. But I suspect no one has ever considered this an even remotely likely scenario!) In practice, I suspect that it would be made clear to him by the Prime Minister and other senior officials that he had two choices: (i) give Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament abdicating the Throne (and then be prosecuted for his crime), or (ii) refuse to do so, in which case Parliament would ignore him and either (a) hold him to have abdicated (as in the Glorious Revolution) or abolish the monarchy (in either case he would again be prosecuted for his crime). Proteus (Talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Proteus, that sums it up nicely. I guess the more interesting scenario is the one where there's just enough evidence to charge Charles (except for the fact that he's now the King and immune from prosecution) but he denies it. One can only wonder how this might play out. Good idea for my next best-seller. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously completely unprecedented, so all any of us can do is guess, but I suspect that he would be put under pressure to assent to an Act of Parliament establishing some kind of ad hoc tribunal (probably composed of a number of extremely senior judges, rather than a conventional jury) which could issue a binding determination as to whether his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, with a finding that his guilt was proved removing him from the Throne and enabling him to be punished as if he had been convicted in a standard criminal trial. If he refused to agree to that (in essence, saying "I assert my innocence, but I refuse to allow that assertion to be put to the test"), then I suspect they'd revert to my option (ii). Proteus (Talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Proteus: But on reflection, doesn't that then make a nonsense of the doctrine of "The crown is immune from prosecution"? Maybe that applies to most cases, but it seems that in this scenario a way would definitely be found. I guess that's because the crown itself (or the human embodiment thereof) is the victim. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Baudouin of Belgium felt unable to give assent to new abortion laws because of his religious beliefs, the Belgian parliament declared him unable to reign, got the act signed under the emergency constitutional arrangements and then declared him fit again on the following day.

Another scenario is that since we have Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, Parliament could enact a law overriding crown immunity and perhaps creating a regency until a trial could be arranged and conducted. See High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I for the last time a British monarch was put on trial, although constitutionality was not it's strong point.

Note that in 1553 Parliament simply rescinded Lady Jane Grey's proclamation as queen. She was subsequently tried, convicted and executed for high treason. Murdering the Queen certainly amounts to treason, although the death penalty for that offence was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To nitpick, it also depends on the parliament's will / will of the public. If the Queen had just been publicly exposed as a monstrous reptile from outer space, maybe no one would bat an eyebrow... 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the Treason Act 1817, repealed in Schedule 10. Note particularly (in the light of the demonstrations in London over the weekend against the regulation coming into effect on Friday) that s. 25 is headed "Powers to require removal of masks etc." 150.143.96.88 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True or rumor?

I saw this video [1] on YouTube regarding the Hi-Fi Murders. Towards the end of the video, it's said Byron Hunter Naisbitt, passed away in 2012. I can't seem to find his obituary on the Internet. One comment claimed he's still alive. Is it true he passed away?2604:2000:1281:4B3:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~According to the article: He suffered chronic pain for the rest of his life and died on June 4, 2002, aged 44.^[1]~~

~~References~~

~~^ "Hi-Fi Torture Victim Dies 28 Years Later". The Salt Lake Tribune. July 15, 2002.~~

→[oops] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The victim was Byron Cortney Naisbitt, who died in 2002. Byron Hunter Naisbitt, who the OP asked about, was the victim's father. And I haven't found anything about Byron Hunter Naisbitt. The Findagrave for the son[2] shows only the mother, who of course was one of the murder victims. The absence of an entry for the father doesn't mean he's definitely alive, but he could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here ([3]) is a photo of his grave site. (The photo was added to the website in 2009 -- a full eleven years ago.) He was born in 1922 ... so, if alive, he is nearing 100 years old. Not all that uncommon in modern times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did some snooping around on the Internet. His second wife (not the Hi-Fi murder victim, who was his first wife) died in 2013 (see here: [4]). The obituary -- written in 2013 -- states that "Sue is survived by her husband, Dr. Byron Naisbitt". So, no, he did not die in 2012. Further snooping on the Internet seems to indicate that he is still alive, at age 97, in Utah. He was/is a doctor (ob/gyn). Looks like he still practices medicine: [5]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this seems late. But since Dr. Naisbitt is still living at 97, I believe he's fully retired.2604:2000:1281:4B3:D949:D9E0:54BC:81B (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also thought that he'd be retired at age 97. But, that website linked above ([6]) infers that he is still active and accepting patients, as of now. I don't know how accurate that website is. It seems like it has only generic, "stock" information. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finally was able to watch the video. Yes, it incorrectly states that Byron Hunter Naisbitt passed away, shortly after the 2012 TV interview. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question

When I click that link up above in the original question ([7]) ... I get linked to You Tube ... but there is a message that says "video unavailable". I would like to take a look at that video, if possible. Does anyone know how I would be able to view it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. --Lambiam 13:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Thanks. May I ask, how you did that? All I got was a link at You Tube that said "video unavailable". What were you able to do, to find it? I still get the same "unavailable" message when I click the link in the original question. But, it works when I click the link in your reply. And those two different links seem to me to be the same exact thing ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph has now corrected the link provided by the OP. If you get a "video unavailable" message always make sure that the youtube ID is eleven characters long. If it is, make sure that you have correctly differentiated capital "O", zero (0), lower case "L" (l), capital "I", numeral "1", hyphen "-", and underscore "_". If that checks out, you can type a query into the search box. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:6900:274:458:F067 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not know about the "eleven characters long" rule on You Tube. I would have typed in some search terms ... but I assumed that "Hi Fi murders" would produce a lot of results ... and I would have no idea of which specific video the OP was referring to. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big thing with a chain

I found this image in the article Shah Nematollah Vali Shrine. What is it? I'm thinking perhaps an Islamic Golden Age submarine, or evidence of Ancient astronauts. Or a lamp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page it is a gold-inlaid steel Dervish begging bowl or kashkul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this "There is a large Kashkul at the entrance of the shrine, which is a mixture of metals such as copper and brass and Poems in the definition of Ahl al-Bayt and There are “Yahu” and “Ya Ali” on it. People make their vows in the Kashkul". DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Bit flashy for a begging bowl, isn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some beggars are more successful than others. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild-assed guess. Perhaps it was always intended for the entrance to this or another fairly prestigious shrine or mosque (similar to an offertory box) rather than to be carried by an itinerant mendicant. The symbolism of the shape would be appropriate to the purpose of collecting donations, while the size and the richness of the materials and decoration would be in accord with the establishment it serves. {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Kashkul, which links to an equally flashy one at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks more portable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think the "wild-assed guess" by 90.200.41.197 above must be the correct answer. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wonder if "People make their vows in the Kashkul" above should be more "place their donations in". But it looks big, perhaps 1 or 2 people could fit in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Hi-Fi Torture Victim Dies 28 Years Later". The Salt Lake Tribune. July 15, 2002.

[1]