Humanities desk
< July 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	August 1 >

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 31

Lone Star State?

I'm not American. Heard the expression Lone Star State a few times lately, and started to wonder about its origin. I was vaguely aware that Texas was the Lone Star State, so I went to that article. It tells me....

Texas is nicknamed the "Lone Star State" for its former status as an independent republic, and as a reminder of the state's struggle for independence from Mexico.

Now, I didn't find that terribly helpful. How does "lone star" relate to being an independent republic? There are lots of independent republics all around the world. Their flags and symbols are diverse, without any particular emphasis on single stars. Or a struggle for independence? How does that fit? So, why IS Texas known as the Lone Star State? HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Star Flag seems to be the origin of the name. Mikenorton (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as of many other things, including the fine 1970s rock band from Cardiff. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Texas flag appears to be derived from the US flag, with its red-white-and-blue design, and with just the one "lone" star. Another thing to keep in mind is that Texans tend to be proud of their state. Hence the old joke that in 1845, "The Union joined Texas". <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 13:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is basically it. In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Many of the influential Texians (especially Sam Houston, didn't really want to be independent, the declaration of an independent republic was an expedient and somewhat necessary step in eventually joining the U.S. See Texas annexation for the full details. It's important to remember that most (not all, but most) of the leaders of Texas at the time were American slave-owning expatriates, the Empresarios. The choice of the Flag of Texas was in part a deliberate homage to the US flag. The entire point Texas Revolution was to secede from Mexico to join the U.S., slavery being illegal in Mexico at the time; the Mexican government initially allowed slaveholders to settle the land because they couldn't get many of its own citizens to settle it. The American empresarios wanted land to exploit, and the Mexicans wanted people to settle what was, at the time, their most sparsely populated state. In the end, such a deal bit Mexico in the ass, as the Texians revolted and joined the U.S. anyways. They just had to wait a decade until the political climate was right to join the U.S. The Lone Star is a symbol of Texas's unique self image as "going it alone". --Jayron 32 14:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, many Americans settled during the period of the loosely federated Mexican Republic under the constitution of 1824, and their revolt coincided with the transition to the Centralist Republic of Mexico in 1835 (which was not what they had signed up for). AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with the U.S. Civil War, however, what the Centralist Republic of Mexico was trying to make them stop doing was enslaving black people, however. Just like "states rights" was a bullshit excuse meant to cover up a horrifying racist practice, the new Mexican government's meddling in the rich White landowner's right to own slaves was the cause of the Texas Revolution as well. --Jayron 32 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but while slavery was part of it, it was by no means all of it. Under the 1824 regime, Anglos in Texas had some degree of semi-autonomy and/or benign neglect, while under the 1835 regime they were to be governed by the central government exactly as Mexicans in the interior of Mexico were governed. It was a drastic transition... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What particular practice, aside from slavery was the new Regime trying to interfere with? --Jayron 32 19:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Does anyone want to have a go at improving the wording in the Texas article that I quoted above? As a foreigner from far away, I'm not sure I would please everyone if I tried. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about that. I suppose there could be people who could take offense based on your nationality, but that's not really worthy of consideration. My inclination would be to reverse the content of that sentence and the one that follows it (, saying for example that Texas is known as the Lone Star State because of its flag and seal, which commemorate the independent republic etc etc etc. In principle there should be a source for the claim that the flag and seal are the reason for the nickname, but there's no good source for the current claim either, and the source that is there (this link) could support the new text as easily as the old. --Trovatore (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Linking to the flag article should deliver readers to enough sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To help clarify -- or, just state the obvious (with the only source being me): The stars on the US flag represent one star for each state. In a sense, one "lone" star on a flag represents a single entity, an independent 'Republic' (Texas) rather than one of the several 'States' (stars) on the US flag. 2606:A000:1126:28D:125:958E:BAB1:56E7 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't obvious to me. As I said though, I'm not American. And we ARE a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit of re-clarification is in order. The "lone star" reflects Texas' former status as an independent republic, and one might say its "enduring spirit of independance".^[me] 2606:A000:1126:28D:125:958E:BAB1:56E7 (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silent killers

Yesterday afternoon as I was walking towards Hackney Downs station a cyclist came up behind me silently at speed and smashed into my right arm. He didn't stop, just looked round and sped off. I was west of the station so there was no question of the "position of the sun" affecting visibility [1].

It's no better when you're the one on the bike. Cycling along the Regent's Canal towpath they block the way to force you to stop, rob you and throw you in the canal. They probably steal the bike as well. I read that adult scooters (which can travel at an incredible speed) have been legalised. Have they been legalised for road use only? There doesn't appear to be any requirement to have them taxed and insured (as evidenced by the lack of numberplates) - is this a first for motorised vehicles or is there already an exemption for mopeds under 50 c.c.? 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:C082:245:B6E4:3992 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably we're talking about e-scooters? According to this, "Rental e-scooters to be made legal on roads in Great Britain from Saturday [4 July 2020]". Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the rental ones have a speed limiter. The retail ones are still road illegal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And lest anyone take away the impression that London is a a "war zone" (as that nice Mr Trump would have you believe), I cycled along the Regent's Canal in Hackney to work in the City every day for a couple of years in the 1990s without incident. The reported theft rate then was double its current incidence. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three brothers made peers

Apart from the Phillips brothers - John, Owen, and Laurence, is there any other instance (excluding royalty) of three brothers being created peers? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any country? I found a couple of non-British cases:

Apparently, Joan of Arc had three brothers, all of whom were ennobled by the King in recognition of her services. [2]

Otto von Bismarck ennobled the three sons of Adolf von Philipsborn. [3]

And for good measure, the Three Brothers Arms, a pub in South Australia, is allegedly "without peer". [4] :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the research JackofOz. I wish I could be lifting a pint in your honour at the last one :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Bottoms up! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not peers, but I know of a case of five (5) brothers who were all knighted. The Coles brothers founded the Australian retail chain Coles Supermarkets. We have articles on two of them, Sir George Coles (entrepreneur) and Sir Arthur Coles. There was also Sir Edgar, Sir Kenneth and Sir Norman Coles. Also, Arthur Coles' wife's maiden name was Knight. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Many thanks - five knights must surely be some kind of record! And the article about Fritz Philippsborn is fascinating. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William IV had illegitimate sons and daughters aplenty, who were elevated to the peerage.2A00:23C5:D10F:E000:6CCA:8E5F:84F8:FC30 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, actually. The eldest son was elevated as 1st Earl of Munster. All the others were granted the rank of children of a Marquess, which entitled them to be called "Lord" or "Lady", but those distinctions were not peerages. They were not inheritable, and they did not entitle the child to sit in the House of Lords. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

missing a not there —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I reread that a few times, as I always do with my posts, but still read what I thought I wrote rather than what I actually wrote. All is lost now. The end cannot be far away. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Four of the sons of the 1st Earl of Mornington were created peers: Richard succeeded his father as 2nd Earl of Mornington and was subsequently created Marquess Wellesley; William was created Baron Maryborough and subsequently succeeded his brother as 3rd Earl of Mornington; Arthur was created successively Viscount, Earl of, Marquess of and Duke of Wellington; and Henry was created Baron Cowley. Proteus (Talk) 07:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Thank you @Proteus:. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]