Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 13

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

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.

May 13

Advantages and disadvantages diplomatic immunity

What are the advantages and disadvantages of diplomatic immunity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.152 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on diplomatic immunity may help you find the answers to this. - Eron^Talk 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It answer my question properly. Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1931 to 1945 world map for allies and axis

cant seem to find maps or map that has names of countries and the allies or axis that controlled them.this is for school project .. help I am stuck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilleno (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lilleno, I guess you've seen our map of the countries that show countries as Axis, Allies and neutral in the article Participants in World War II. You might have to read through the articles Allies in World War II and World War II, and work out which countries they controlled until someone more enthusiastic comes along. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(Later) The best article I see is Axis leaders of World War II which shows the puppet states controlled by Germany, Italy and Japan, and Allied leaders of World War II gives you the countries involved with the UK, Greece, France and China, (with flags in a table bottom left) but you might have to map this across a world map of your own. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar/China response to disaster

Two totalitarian countries in Asia, both experienced natural disasters. Myanmar couldn't do less to help the people while China went all out. Why? F (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some simple reasons: China is very wealthy; Myanmar is very poor. China has well-developed infrastructure; Myanmar does not. China has a legitimate, well-functioning modern government with a large bureaucracy (though I'm sure certain people would dispute "legitimate" and "modern"); Myanmar has a military kleptocracy. China wants the rest of the world to see it as a happy friendly place, especially now; before this week, did the average person even know Myanmar existed? In China there is no risk of a popular uprising at any moment; in Myanmar there is, and apparently they are afraid that the presence of international aid workers will make that threat worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the average person knew Myanmar existed, but maybe as Burma they might, and Aung San Suu Kyi put it on the map at one level. I for one didn't know how extensive it was in size until the cyclone. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the average journalist still doesn't know that the capital has been Naypyidaw since 2005. Most of them are referring to "the capital, Rangoon", unaware that even Rangoon is now called Yangon. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself better informed than the average person, & both points you mentnion, Jack, were a surprise to me. I guess, to paraphrase Will Rogers, everything I know about Burma Myanmar is what I read in the papers. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of changing capitals, were you aware that the capital of Sri Lanka is not Colombo, as most everyone seems to think? It was moved to Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte (generally known simply as "Kotte") in 1982. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's just that they're afraid of international aid workers inspiring an uprising. Their afraid of what the aid workers may do. Paranoid? Perhaps. But it's not as if countries haven't used a variety of means and people to spy on their opponents before, some of them extremely controversial (e.g. Richard Butler (diplomat)). And given the way a lot of the world has dealt with Myanmar, and given as well other events like the war in Iraq, is it perhaps surprising that the military government is extremely paranoid about what other countries may do if they give them a chance to enter Myanmar? The biggest problem is that the Myanmar government/junta doesn't recognise that no one actually cares enough about them to actually want to invade them or spy much on them, and even if someone wanted to do it, using the provision of aide as pretext for an invasion is too far, probably not for the leaders themselves in general, but for much of the populance. (China on ther other hand hasn't needed to rely on foreign workers much, and they know that even those they do allow in are not going to be a big threat to them.) But if you analyse the situation, I think it is possible to see there are several reasons why the military leaders were so paranoid about allowing foreign workers into their country and yes, the actions of various countries in the world before the cyclone had a lot to do with their paranoia. It's also a noterable point that from what I can tell, aide workers from SEA and India have had a lot less problems accessing Myanmar then those from countries who have treated Myanmar like a paria state until now, the problem is that these countries being mostly poor themselves don't have sufficient expertise or money nor is it a good idea if we start letting countries pick and choose which aide workers they want enterring their country. None of this of course justifies what the military government has done. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Characterising both China and Burma (the Junta seized power illegally, and so none of their actions in government have been legitimate, thus, according to both mine (and the opposition/legitimate government's) opinion, the nation is still called Burma and its capital is still Rangoon) as totalitarian seems misleading. China is authoritarian, but I would say that it desires to control every aspect of its citizens' lives in the same way as the Burmese Junta. In response to your question, I would say that the tragedy is mostly the result of the Burmese Junta playing politics with peoples' lives. The Junta has been organising a referendum on a new constitution, a constitution that will essentially leave the Junta in charge indefinately. The Junta's first instinct was to cover up the news of the cyclone and tell its people further upland that everything was completely fine. After that, their plan has been to hijack all incoming aid donations and use them as leverage to make sure people vote as they should - as opposed to professional aid workers, who are trained in distributing aid according to need, the Burmese military will use aid to bribe dying people into voting them into power permenantly, and will deliberately deny aid to those suspected of voting against their constitution (the dead, after all, cannot vote). Ultimately, the Burmese military is an organisation that is dedicated solely towards its own interests, and not towards Burma as a whole. Ninebucks (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you mean "but I would not say that...", in there? --Anon, 22:12 UTC, May 14.

Identifying statues on the Albert Memorial's frieze

I've been working on the article Albert Memorial, and one of the things I have been doing is trying to identify all the poets, musicians, painters, architects and sculptors found on a feature of the memorial called the Frieze of Parnassus. I'm now at the stage where I need help for the last few links. See Albert Memorial#Frieze of Parnassus. The first two parts of that list was obtained from here. A full list was obtained from here. Unfortunately, that full list, despite being from the official history of the memorial, sometimes only gives surnames and has transcription errors as well. I've been working on the list at Talk:Albert Memorial, and I think I've managed to identify or link to nearly all the 169 individual people featured on the frieze (the talk page list is still a bit untidy, so use the main article to see which poets, musicians, painters, architects and sculptors I've linked to), but if people here could help with the following, I'd be very grateful:

• (1) If possible, go through the list in the article and click on the names and see if you think the right person's article has been linked to - the original source is on the talk page, sometimes with initials, sometimes not. The names are also carved on the memorial itself, so photographs could also be taken to show what was carved.
• (2) The architects and sculptors are arranged chronologically, but the poets, musicians and painters are arranged "by national schools". Could anyone help identify the schools involved here, and if possible link to the relevant articles?
• (3) Three of the historical figures are mentioned in the list of architects are Sennacherib, Nitocris and Cheops. The architectural achievements of Sennacherib and Cheops are fairly clear, but Nitocris seems to be here because at one time it was thought that she built the "third pyramid at Giza", but now that pyramid is attributed by "modern historians" to Menkaura. Does anyone know when this change occurred and what people thought at the time the Albert Memorial was being built?
• (4) I've drawn a complete blank on three names (they could be transcription errors). Does anyone know who the following refer to?
  • (a) R. de Courcy (from the list of architects, I redirected this to Richard de Courcy, but that looks wrong for the dates, unless it is for Norman castle architectural achievements - another possibility is John de Courcy, if you assume the "R" was a transcription error.)
  • (b) Giuliano de Ravenna (sculptor, I found Giuliano da Maiano, and Giuliano Finelli, but neither of these seem to have been associated with Ravenna, and they don't fit the chronological order - this Giuliano needs to be very early medieval, at the time of or before the 13th-century Nicola Pisano. I was hopeful about Severo Calzetta da Ravenna, but the date is still wrong and it is difficult to get from Giuliano to Severo. One more try threw up what might be the most promising possibility so far: John of Ravenna, mostly theological, but unlike the 1911 Britannica entry, the Wikipedia article has an extra possibility, an 11th-century abbot of Fécamp Abbey - that is famous architecturally, and there is also an earlier abbot, Guillaume de Volpiano (William of Volpiano) whose article says he was an architect, of Mont St Michel. Still not 100% convincing, but does anyone think this is getting closer?)
  • (c) W. Tonel (sculptor - I'm drawing an utter blank here. Tonel is a football player, but the Tonel we want should be 15th century.)

I'll check back here to see if anyone has any answers or comments, but people can put stuff at Talk:Albert Memorial#Redlinks and disambiguation pages instead or as well, if they want. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Update - turns out that W. Tonel was a transcription error. It is William Torel, though the carved name is TORELL. And R. de Courcy may turn out to be Robert de Courcy (though that is not 100% - can't find any big architectural connection) - the carved name is ROB DE CODCY, in case that helps. Also, still don't know what Giuliano de Ravenna is about - the carved name is GUILIANO DI RAVENNA. See here for the four pictures of the friezes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nailed down William Torell and John Bushnell. --Wetman (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert de Coucy sorted. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why (and when) did Britain's John Lewis Partnership start calling itself a co-operative?

The second sentence of its 2008 annual report says :

It is also the country’s largest employee co-operative, with over 69,000 employees.

It has traditionally described itself as an employee-owned company and as a partnership. Its structures of democratic governance are more complex than the one-member-one-vote that is conventional in the co-operative movement, and as far as I know, they haven't changed since the 1930s.

Not only have I recently noticed it calling itself a co-operative, but organisations like Co-operatives UK and the International Co-operative Alliance have included it on their recent lists of the world's largest co-operatives. At least one John Lewis executive has become a co-operative development activist.[1]

Is this co-operative identity something new for John Lewis? If so, it seems that for some reason it has become more acceptable for John Lewis and the British co-operative movement to associate with each other. How and when did this happen? Has it officially joined any co-operative federations? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise they had called themselves a co-operative: I stand corrected. As I've said elsewhere, they have some key features of a classic co-op and some clear differences, but accurately identifying co-ops in the UK is a nightmare job and so there's never going to be a definite answer. I would imagine that the JLP's self-identification changes depending on its leaders and the climate in the UK: now that the Conservatives have got co-ops in the news again, they obviously think it's a good idea to identify with the Movement. Which can only be a good thing. JonStrines (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That preamble to the Annual Report goes back several years - I haven't looked at how far - but definitely before David Cameron's Conservative Co-operative project. Maybe Brown as chancellor did something that somehow made co-ops cool, or maybe it is something in the current JLP chairman's preferences. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Martín's comments at Talk:British_co-operative_movement#John Lewis Partnership? were also very useful to me (and, no doubt, to the article.) However, the answers to my original questions of how and when have yet to be uncovered. Nonetheless, thanks to all who investigated the questions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The size of the atom according to the ancient atomists

Hi, this question was sent to the Science Desk, but I'd like to try you guys now.

From this article, [2] I got this quote:

Some controversy surrounds the properties of the atoms. They vary in size: one report—which some scholars question—suggests that atoms could, in principle, be as large as a cosmos, although at least in this cosmos they all seem to be too small to perceive

Can anyone tell me more? Who was it who suggested atoms could be so huge? Were they suggesting another universe populated with a single gigantic atom?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation 'DK68A47' is in the Diels-Kranz numbering system, concerning the Presocratic philosophers, and refers to the Aëtius compendium. (See Freeman, Kathleen, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press, 1983). The only remnants of the Presocratics are quotations embedded in texts by later authors. Xn4 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant; thanks yet again, Xn. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How do i get involved in fighting poverty in Angola

I am extremely interested in travelling to Angola and working to help fight poverty. How do i get involved? Erin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.146.221 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You could seek out a charity (see also Category:International charities), or a volunteer organisation like Voluntary Service Overseas, or approach your nearest Angolan embassy or consulate (best search the phone book or yellow pages for their contact details). If you're not quite so "action" orientated or busy with your normal work, you could simply donate to a charity instead. Astronaut (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend steering clear of the Angolan embassy or consulate unless you need an official document and/or you want to grease an Angolan bureaucrat's palm. Corruption in Angola is so serious a problem that it has merited its own Wikipedia article, and government corruption, including corruption at embassies, has undermined international relief efforts according to this article. A list of poverty relief programs sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is on this page. If you intend to travel to Angola, you will need to speak some Portuguese and/or one of the local African languages, since English is not widely understood there. This article lists some of the international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate in Angola, many of them on poverty-relief programs. Marco polo (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit to add to Marco polo's post. Erin, if you are an American, the CIA World Factbook has the contact info for the Angolan embassy in the US and the US embassy in Angola: [3]. I wish you all the best in your mission! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in 16th Century Venetian Navy

^{Hope it's ok to pose two questions at once...}

Can anyone list for me the ranks of the men on the naval ships of Venice in the 16th Century?

ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They had Capitani (Captains) who each commanded a ship, and the commander of the fleet was Capitano Generale da Mar (Captain General of the Sea, or Chief Admiral). Below the captains were chief and petty officers. Nobili di poppa, noblemen of the poop, were rather like midshipmen: that is, they were young gentlemen learning the crafts of navigation, seamanship and naval warfare. Xn4 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see there's much more detail of the Venetian naval ranks in an article of the Italian Wikipedia, Marineria veneziana. If you don't read Italian, I can give you a summary of what it says about ranks, please let me know if you need it. Xn4 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I love you, XN4 - I'd appreciate any summary - love 'Nobili di Poppa' - great stuff! Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's taken me a little while to get around to this, but here it is. Perhaps I might just mention that this is merely a summary of the material on naval ranks in the article mentioned above, I haven't looked for better sources...

The command of the navy was a right and prerogative of the Doge up to the end of the Republic. However, in time of war a commander-in-chief was appointed, with the title of Capitano generale da mar (Captain general of the sea), who was commander of naval operations and of the core of the fleet. Immediately below him (and holding office at all times, both in peace and in war) was the Provveditore generale da mar (Provisioner general of the sea), first naval officer of the Sea Staff, responsible for discipline and order and also paymaster general. In war-time he was deputy commander of naval operations.

There were also permanent naval squadrons, commanded by:

• The Capitano del Golfo (Captain of the Gulf) commander of the Adriatic fleet, based in Corfu;
• The Capitano delle galeazze (Captain of the Galleasses), at the Arsenale station;
• The Capitano dei galeoni (Captain of the Galleons), commander of the great navy based at the Arsenale station;
• The Governator de'condannati (Governor of the Condemned), commander of the squadron of galleys used for long haul patrols;
• The Capitano del Lago (Captain of the Lake), commander of the squadron controlling Lake Garda, during part of the sixteenth century only

Commanders of various lesser naval forces, organized on an ad hoc basis, held the title of Capo da Mar (Sea Chief), equivalent to admiral.

The title of ammiraglio (Admiral) was held not by naval commanders but by officers controlling the ports of Venice and also by the officer who commanded the Bucentaur, the state galley of the Doge.

• The Ammiraglio dell'Arsenal (Admiral of the Arsenale), was military commander of the Arsenale;
• The Ammiraglio del Lido (Admiral of the Lido), was superintendent of the port of Lido;
• The Ammiraglio di Malamocco (Admiral of Malamocco), was superintendent of the port of Malamocco [which was a small port of Venice].

There was also:

• The Capitano dell'Arsenal (Captain of the Arsenale) deputy military commander there.

On board the warships were:

• The sopracomito (before the 13th century called patrono, later for a short time the comito), the ship's captain, always a patrician;
• The comito (first officer), always a citizen;
• The nobili di poppa (nobles of the poop), concerned with fighting skills
• Sometimes also a segretario (clerk) and a medico (doctor);

The crew, which in a galley might amount to two or three hundred men, consisted of:

• marinai (sailors), including timonieri (helmsmen) addetti alle vele (sail-setters), etc.
• galeotti (oarsmen), including free men, forced men and galley slaves
• corpo tecnico (technical corps), carpenters and axe-masters for making repairs
• fanti da mar (marines), fighting men

In times of war, numbers were boosted using the zontaroli, or sentenced prisoners from all the territories of the Venetian Republic.

I hope this is what you need. Xn4 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful - just what I need - thanks so much - perfectly accords with my impression of Venice as a state where every aspect of life was baroque and slightly alien. I would love to pick your brain some more, XN4, if that'd be possible; there are one or two other articles in the Italian WP I'd love to have summarised - I wonder if we can come to some kind of arrangement? Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but perhaps we are the aliens?

No doubt the arrangement is that you ask and I or someone else responds, time permitting... if I disappear from here for a time, you should be able to reach me on my Talk page. Regards, Xn4 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest mention of Lord in a religious context

Does anyone know what the earlies mention of the title "Lord" is in a religious context? What I mean is: When was the first time the title Lord was used to describe God or Jesus. In the English language please (I don't mean Adonai and all that = ))! Thanks --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1549, according to The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. I take it you mean in England? It was used in the 1549 Prayer Book of Edward VI. PeterSymonds | talk 13:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually forget that, that's the Lord's Prayer. :S Sorry. PeterSymonds | talk 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you mean by "English." Bede would have used the word in his partial translation of the Bible late in the seventh century, in what we now call Old English or Anglo-Saxon, as would have Adhelm in his translation of the Psalms around the same time. Basically, whenever you pinpoint the beginning of the English language, is where you will find the first use of the word Lord in a religious context. Remember that the persons most likely to be literate in the Middle Ages are the religious scholars, and their writings are very likely to use that word in that particular context. Pastordavid (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm yes I see the difficulty posed by my question now. Thanks for the info though, I think it will suffice! Thanks again! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's any use, the earliest known example is Cædmon's hymn. Hamer's A Choice of Anglo-Saxon Verse says that some [who?] read Bede's account as implying that Cædmon was the first to compose Christian verse in Old English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual first use in relation to god recoded in the OED is from the homilies of Ælfric of Eynsham c.1000 and the first use of lord for a ruler comes from the glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels c.950. The Lindisfarne Gospels though do not use Lord to refer to god they use instead the word drighten which seems to be its first religious use although it is used to mean ruler in Beowulf. meltBanana 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aelfric (the one abovementioned) uses 'hlaford' (which becomes modern English 'lord') as a translation of the Latin 'dominus', which was used for both secular and religious meanings of 'lord'. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the answer to a different question. "Drihten m 'ruler, king, lord; God, Christ, the Lord'" [Mitchell, Invitation to Old English, p. 376]; "Lord dryhten (m), ealdor (m), frēa (m), hearra (m), hlāford (m), mondryhten (m)" [Pollington, Wordcraft, p. 78] Drihten/dryhten is "lord", so C8th if not earlier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sailing east: any poems, songs or nicknames?

Let's say an Arab, Chinese, or Portuguese merchant travels far from home for trading opportunities. Did these people having a popular poem, song or nickname for sailing home (particularly in a easterly direction)? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if they could get away with adopting James Elroy Flecker's The Golden Journey to Samarkand, chanted "at the Gate of the Sun, Bagdad, in olden time"? Xn4 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

UK court-dress changes

Anyone know where I can find a large/hi-res pic of the newly revealed British judges' gown? Thanks —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

What I don't understand is why when Elizabeth Bowes Lyon married George VI she became Queen consort, but why when the Duke of Edinburgh married Elizabeth II, why did he not become King consort, and was instead made a Prince/Duke? --Hadseys 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Men aren't traditionally granted the title "king consort". The last one to do so was Philip II of Spain when he married Mary I in 1554. A king is seen as higher than a queen, for obvious reasons, so if Philip were king, he'd outrank Elizabeth in status. That's why he's given the lower title, because the Queen is the Queen, and there can be no one higher. Queen Victoria wanted her husband to become king but her ministers blocked the idea, because he was a foreigner of supposed "low birth" (as far as German princes are low!). Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people view King to be higher than Queen (they obiously have no regard for the "regnant"/"consort" bit) and thus people deem it inappropriate to have somebody who has only married into the royal family (ie Philip) to hold a title seemingly higher than the monarch herself. The same goes for most titles of the nobility: If a Duke marries a woman (even if she is common as muck) she becomes a Duchess, however if a Duchess marries a man (even if he is the Prince of X) he does not become a Duke. You may wish to read articles such as King regnant,King consort, Queen regnant and Queen consort and even Prince consort.--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: When Peter says "Men aren't traditionally granted the title "king consort"" he speaks for the UK...some other countries do grant men this titles, though nowadays there are few. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Kingmaker" (who died in 1471) was known by his wife's title; and at one time it was customary in Scotland, when a peeress married a commoner, to duplicate her titles for the husband (for life). When did these practices end? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The wife of a king becomes a queen, unless prevented from doing so by being a king's wife in a Morganatic marriage, whereas by marrying a queen regnant a man doesn't acquire any title at all ipso facto. Often, such husbands of queens hold a princely title already, as Philip did. The Crown, as the fount of all honours, can grant a queen's husband the title of prince consort or even king consort, or else a rank in the peerage, but that's rarer than you think and needs a political consensus as well as a willing queen. In the case of Queen Victoria, it was many years before she even gave in to Prince Albert's aspirations to see state papers and to have a share in royal duties, let alone creating him Prince Consort. That came many years after their marriage. Xn4 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Philip had to renounce his Danish/Greek princely title as a precondition of marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth. He was not recreated a Prince - this time of the United Kingdom - until 1957 although he was inaccurately referred to as Prince Philip in common parlance before then, as he was given an HRH and made Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the marriage. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Marriage goes into this at some length while Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal Status makes it (reasonably) clear that contrary to the assumption of the OP and other posters, Philip is not the Prince Consort (although that term is also commonly used erroneously). (I happen to have read the Philip article about 2 days ago - I don't make a habit of knowing this kind of thing!) Valiantis (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While it's undisputed (except by some Divine Right kooks) that Philip did renounce his foreign titles when he was (redundantly) naturalized, I don't know what grounds there are for saying he had to. —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Strictly speaking Elizabeth Bowes Lyon married the Duke of York, and only became Queen consort 13 years later. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

.. and likewise Prince Philip didn't marry Queen Elizabeth II. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon thought that the Duke of York would become king one day and she become queen, it's likely she would not have married him at all. The 1936 abdication of his brother Edward VIII to marry "the woman he loved" was unimagineable in 1923; Edward was healthy and there was every reason to believe he would father an heir and, barring a meteor strike, would be king for a long time and then be succeeded by his heir. Although she seemed to cope well in public after fate played its hand, it seems behind the scenes she always hated the position that Edward's decision placed George and her in, and she never forgave Edward for what she considered to be his treacherous behaviour to the family and the country. She refused ever to see Edward again, and I believe she refrained from even attending his funeral in 1972. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Norse Mythology

Was there a Norse goddess of gateways? If there wasn't one, what would she have been called if she exsisted? Emma Hordika (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No there wasn't but this list may interest you. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Natural Rights" and "Human Rights"???

Is there any response to the claim that these sorts of "rights" are an outgrowth of Hume's Is-ought fallacy?--Goon Noot (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine is that natural rights are based on the concepts of natural law and go back much further than Hume, to Aquinas, Hobbes and Grotius, among others. While Human rights are claimed to have ancient beginnings, their main origins in the 18th century are at least as political as philosophical. There's a system of international human rights law, but no one has promulgated any international natural rights law, because natural law just doesn't take such forms. Xn4 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)