Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 24
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 23 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 25 > |
| 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. |
July 24
editCatholic heirs of Mary I
editDid Mary I of England have any immediate Catholic heirs? Could it have been possible for her to do what Anne of Great Britain but instead skipped the Protestants in favor of the Catholics?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There was Mary Queen of Scots, of course, but after she was gone the focus seemed to shift to semi-convoluted arguments (based on John of Gaunt and Catherine of Lancaster, I believe) that some member of the Spanish royal family was the best candidate. Of course, at the time of Mary I of England's death, Mary Queen of Scots was firmly under French influence, and France and Spain were rivals... AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There was Margaret Douglas. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its ultimately moot because Mary's closest heir, irrespective of religion, was her half-sister. The succession was actually established by Henry VIII, who named, in order, Edward his son, then Mary, then Elizabeth as his three heirs in that order. That succession was verified by Parliament. Furthermore, under the common succession, Elizabeth was still Mary's closest living heir. That succession would have, of course, been interrupted had any of them had legitimate children. This was particularly problematic in the case of Mary, since her husband, King Philip II of Spain (who was also titular King of England jure uxoris), would have meant that their first child would have inherited both thrones. This never came to pass; perhaps some sort of division of the realms would have occured (As happened in the case of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor who divided his realms among his brother and son; or as in the War of the Spanish Succession where it was determined that two different Bourbons would rule France and Spain). However, this is pretty much idle speculation. It should be noted that Elizabeth's succession to the throne was not accepted by Philip; he sent a few boats over to England to reclaim what he thought was his rightful throne. --Jayron32 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Elizabeth was only Mary's heir if you accept that Henry's divorce from Mary's mother was legitimate. If not, then Elizabeth was an illegitimate heir and therefore ineligible for the throne. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, Elizabeth was Mary's heir if you agree that the Parliament can change the line of succession (which, of course, it can). The Third Succession Act made Mary Edward's heir and Elizabeth Mary's heir regardless of Elizabeth's (and Mary's) being illegitimate. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its ultimately moot because Mary's closest heir, irrespective of religion, was her half-sister. The succession was actually established by Henry VIII, who named, in order, Edward his son, then Mary, then Elizabeth as his three heirs in that order. That succession was verified by Parliament. Furthermore, under the common succession, Elizabeth was still Mary's closest living heir. That succession would have, of course, been interrupted had any of them had legitimate children. This was particularly problematic in the case of Mary, since her husband, King Philip II of Spain (who was also titular King of England jure uxoris), would have meant that their first child would have inherited both thrones. This never came to pass; perhaps some sort of division of the realms would have occured (As happened in the case of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor who divided his realms among his brother and son; or as in the War of the Spanish Succession where it was determined that two different Bourbons would rule France and Spain). However, this is pretty much idle speculation. It should be noted that Elizabeth's succession to the throne was not accepted by Philip; he sent a few boats over to England to reclaim what he thought was his rightful throne. --Jayron32 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking for the name of a percussion instrument
editI'm looking for the name of a percussion instrument. I've heard its sound many times but never knew what it's called. The instrument appears in the intro of Rosemary Clooney's recording of the song Sway. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a cowbell? Or agogo bells? It seems to be some sort of deadened metallic idiophone. 99.53.113.16 (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a cowbell. In contrast, the agogô has more of a ring, is usually higher and pitched (that is it has a clearly discernible note, even when only one bell is being played). The slightly different cowbell sounds you can hear in the Clooney intro are produced by dampening the bell (by tightening the grip harder with the hand that holds it) and of course by hitting it harder or more softly. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- For whatever reason, during the 50s and early 60s cowbells were not uncommon in rock and roll songs. The most obvious that comes to mind is "Little Darlin'", and even some of the early Beatles songs included cowbells. (Hence one of their lines, "I'm gonna love her till the cows come home"?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a cowbell. In contrast, the agogô has more of a ring, is usually higher and pitched (that is it has a clearly discernible note, even when only one bell is being played). The slightly different cowbell sounds you can hear in the Clooney intro are produced by dampening the bell (by tightening the grip harder with the hand that holds it) and of course by hitting it harder or more softly. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
changed names
editIt is a very common custom to change names of people in controversial accounts to avoid danger to both the narrator and the person in question.I want to know if there is any standard way to change the names or is it just a random fit? (there shouldn't be as that would defeat the purpose i suppose)I mean if the changed name doesn't mean anything why give a name at all? Could have as well said that the person wants to remain anonymous? Does it make any difference? --scoobydoo (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a standard way of replacing real names with pseudonyms. If you're telling a short story involving only one anonymous character, it might be OK to not give the person a name, but if you're telling a complicated story with multiple characters whose identities need to be protected, calling the characters "A", "B", etc would be both confusing and distracting. I think stories whose characters have names are easily to understand. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I often see news reports that police have arrested "a 26-year old man" or "a 30-year old woman" where the actual name of the arrestee is not revealed.
- In English literature a person's name may be concealed, as though to avoid slandering a living person, as in the following excerpt:
- You know Mr. C**** O****, you know his estate, his worth, and good sense: can you, will you pronounce it ill meant, at the least of him, when anxious for his son's morals, with a view to form him to virtue, and inspire him with a fix'd, a rational contempt for vice, he condescended to be his master of the ceremonies, and led him by the hand thro' the most noted bawdy-houses in town, where he took care he should be familiarized with all these scenes of debauchery, so fit to nauseate a good taste? The experiment, you will cry, is dangerous. True, on a fool: but are fools worth so much attention? -- Fanny
HellHill, John Cleland 1709 - 1789 Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- You know Mr. C**** O****, you know his estate, his worth, and good sense: can you, will you pronounce it ill meant, at the least of him, when anxious for his son's morals, with a view to form him to virtue, and inspire him with a fix'd, a rational contempt for vice, he condescended to be his master of the ceremonies, and led him by the hand thro' the most noted bawdy-houses in town, where he took care he should be familiarized with all these scenes of debauchery, so fit to nauseate a good taste? The experiment, you will cry, is dangerous. True, on a fool: but are fools worth so much attention? -- Fanny
- I can see why an admin initially zapped the question, as the "user ID" shown above is a pseudonym for the real user ID:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- He's actually a sporadic user called Nonstop funstop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can see why an admin initially zapped the question, as the "user ID" shown above is a pseudonym for the real user ID:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually i was reading The Fix (declan hill)where such precautions are necessary given the dangerous field of work. But everytime a name comes up i wonder how it would have been great if we knew who they actually were...an admin zapped the question?--scoobydoo (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)