Humanities desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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.

May 13

Monarch or consort of a monarch?

Queen Sisowath Kossamak of Cambodia was a queen consort by marriage to a King of Cambodia, but was she also a monarch? Her article is a bit confusing, because it is contradictive: on one hand, it explicitly say she was not a ruling monarch since her son refused her succeeding to the throne, and she is only a queen consort in the majority of the formatting; but one the other hand, she is called a monarch in some of the formatting of the article. What is correct?--Aciram (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question that is almost impossible to answer, at least in a few sentences. It would literally need a book. The backdrop is the Indochina crisis and war, and the centerpiece of the happenings is her son Norodom Sihanouk or Prince Sihanouk or King Sihanouk (pick your choice). For seven decades, in his different roles as king, abdicated king, prince, prime minister, unspecified head of state, even as abdicated and retired, it was around him everything circled, even when he was not in any position. As long as his mother was alive, she had a formal position (and possibly even some influence), but to pin it down to an exact answer to your question, is more or less impossible. Was she a ruling monarch? Yes and no! Was she just a queen consort? Yes and no. Hence the ambiguity of the article. --T*U (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, though, a monarch is reserved for someone with the constitutional right to rule as such; there have been powerful queen consorts and queen mothers who ruled their country but were not considered monarchs because the were in countries that did not legally recognize them as such. I'm thinking of people like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Empress Matilda and Catherine De Medici and the like, all of whom at various times held the power of a monarch, but could not be named a monarch for various complex reasons. --Jayron 32 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how this can be a difficult question to such a degree. Of course, she was a royal person regardless if she was a queen consort or a queen regnant, and she had the title queen. But that is not the issue. I do know the difference between a ruling monarch and other royal people. Why should this be a complicated definition? All monarchies have lists of their monarchs: France has it, England has it, Sweden has it, and the lists are of course separate for people like Elizabeth I of England and Catherine of Aragon: both of them were royals, but one of them was a monarch, and the other was just married to a monarch. Unless there is a complete different definition of monarchs in Cambodia, I cannot see how this can be different. My question is very simple: was she a ruling monarch like Elizabeth I of England, or was she just married to a monarch and the mother of a monarch, like Catherine of Aragon? This is not really a question of power, de jure power or de facto power, only of a formal definition. As far as I understand it, Shihanouk was a monarch in 1960-1970 as well, he just didn't call himself by the title king in that period.--Aciram (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the article never calls her a monarch. It only says that she was "neither a monarch nor politically influential" and later "There were suggestions of changing the constitution to allow for Kossamak to succeed as queen regnant and monarch in her own name, but the royal council was unwilling to allow it." Nowhere else does it suggest she was a monarch herself. --Jayron 32 17:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, she is named as monarch in the infoboxes on the articles for her husband (as successor) and her son (as monarch 1960-70). Norodom Sihanouk, on the other hand, was not a monarch from 1960 to 1970, but he was still (and officially) "head of state", titulated as "Prince" (but I am not sure if that was official). In the List of heads of state of Cambodia article, they have put in both, just to be on the safe side. This is simply a case where our usual categories do not fit very well, if at all. --T*U (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Infoboxes can be the suck when it comes to things like this, I honestly rarely look at them myself and am constantly surprised by how bad a tool they can be when they are pressed into articles where they fail to capture the nuance of a situation. It's impossible to create a field in an infobox that adequately deals with every possible sui generis situation, and so you get stuff like this. I'm not sure how to resolve this. --Jayron 32 18:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True! Infoboxes are made for presenting things in black and white, but the real world contains lots and lots of different colours and any number of shades of grey (I did not link that...). --T*U (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You (Aciram) appear to assume that there is an unambiguous and universally agreed definition of the term monarch. However, that is a misconception. Webster's 1828 dictionary already starts with two definitions:

The prince or ruler of a nation, who exercises all the powers of government without control, or who is vested with absolute sovereign power; an emperor, king or prince invested with an unlimited power. This is the strict sense of the word.
A king or prince, the supreme magistrate of a nation, whose powers are in some respects limited by the constitution of the government. Thus we call the king of Great Britain a monarch although he can make no law without the consent of parliament.

By this definition, the consort of a monarch is not also a monarch. Merriam—Webster simplifies this to:

a: a sovereign ruler

b: a constitutional king or queen

So then the consort of monarch can after all be a monarch, depending on their title. However, the Emperor of Japan is neither a sovereign ruler nor a king or queen; are they not a monarch? Oxford Dictionaries has: "A sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor." Since they define sovereign as: "Possessing supreme or ultimate power", none of the European kings or queens is a monarch, according to this definition. But Collins reinstates them: "The monarch of a country is the king, queen, emperor, or empress." --Lambiam 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most constitutional monarchs theoretically have ultimate power, but that power has been devolved in practical usage. In the UK, the Queen theoretically appoints prime ministers, ministers, military and police officers, judges, diplomats and even bishops; but in practice, all those appointments are now decided by others on her behalf, but are still made in her name. Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and chips in Mexico?

This image is on WikiMedia Commons in the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". Is this really fish and chips? I see fish, and I see chips, in the picture, but fish and chips is the name of a specific dish in British cuisine, not just anything containing fish and containing chips. JIP | Talk 13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. It looks to me like someone read about fish and chips but had never had it or seen it, and then recreated it just from a vague description of what it was. Which is not to say that, at this restaurant in this locality, this dish wasn't called fish and chips. This sort of thing happens a lot, where two very different dishes use the same word, through accidents of history, or where a hyper-local dish is something totally different than what you expect, based on the name. As far as I know, fish and chips in the British sense is not part of Mexican cuisine (though, in the more cosmopolitan areas of Mexico, you'd probably find the real thing, in the same way that you can get tacos in London), though the style of fish shown in the image likely is. --Jayron 32 13:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be portions of some kind of chips on the plate in the background? --T*U (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The chips are in cups behind the salsa. But, there is no such thing as "fish and chips" in Mexico. Obviously, those are English words, not adopted in Mexico. Second, "chips" are called "papas fritas" regardless if you are using the American or British definition of a "chip." So, that is "pescado y papas fritas." If you ask me, it is a picture of an average "cenas para compartir." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to open this whole can of worms, but someone in Britain ordering chips would not expect those. Those ordering fries would. Fgf10 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded to wikitravel and added to the page Patzcuaro 14 years ago by a user who ceased to be active even before the English-language wikitravel content was forked over to wikivoyage. The image was added to a section starting "Typical of the region are:"; assuming that "fish and chips" is not typical of the surroundings of Lake Pátzcuaro – something I am inclined to believe without further examination – the image caption ("Patzcuaro Fish and Chips") and description ("Fish and Chips, Patzcuaro, Mex.") are not optimal. In the fourteen years since, there has been no content change; the image is now on the page Patzcuaro on wikivoyage with the same caption as in 2007. The text in that section lists as one of the foods that are typical of the region: "Pescado blanco: white fish from Lake Patzcuaro, prepared to order". Assuming this is correct (and I see no reason to doubt this), a better caption and description is: "Pescado blanco from Lake Pátzcuaro". It should also be reassigned on Commons to Category:Cuisine of Michoacán and perhaps also Category:French fries in Mexico. --Lambiam 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The picture unambiguously contains "fish and chips"; it's just not "Fish and chips". It's a kind of Ich bin ein Berliner problem. Matt Deres (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, I was surprised to read the claim that "there is no such thing as fish and chips in Mexico". I feel sure, even having never visited the place, that Mexicans eat fish and chips. They certainly eat fish, they certainly eat chips, so it seems more than reasonable to assume that sometimes they eat both together. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly fish, and it's certainly chips, it's just not "fish and chips". That's exactly what I was thinking as well. So the only thing wrong with the picture is that it's misnamed and miscategorised, it should not be under the category "Fish and chips in Mexico". JIP | Talk 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real fish-and-chips, or a close equivalent, is fairly common in America - battered fish filets and what we might call "steak fries". That rather gross-looking Mexican dish ain't it. But I wonder what the Spanish for lutefisk would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a good sprinkling of vinegar, it is not the "real" fish-and-chips. --Lambiam 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever did lutefisk enter the picture? --T*U (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La traducción directa es pescado a la sosa, debido al hecho de que está hecho con sosa o potasa.^es:Lutefisk --Lambiam 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled "delicious-looking". De gustibus non est disputandum. --Jayron 32 22:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the file to the correct categories on Commons. As I do not have filemover privileges on Commons, I have requested a rename. JIP | Talk 18:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]