Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 8

Humanities desk
< June 7	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

Queen Victoria's diaries

Are Queen Victoria's diaries available online anywhere? Or have they been published in full? All I have found is a selection from her youth. They must be out of copyright by now, although the originals will be locked up somewhere. Thanks 92.29.122.28 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The question was asked at Yahoo Answers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't seem to have been published in full. This may be because there were 111 "large manuscript volumes" of diaries, plus hundreds more destroyed after her death[1]. They are apparently held in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, which is open to academic researchers[2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Queen Victoria's own diary but here is the lost diary of her servant Abdul Karim. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. Kinnock remarked that it was great to see Queen Victoria's diaries, "and in her own handwriting". The Queen then told the truth with millions watching, that Queen Victoria's diaries had all been destroyed because she had upset the British establishment. The diaries were all rewritten, taking out the most important bits where Queen Victoria recorded every sitting she had with the medium John Brown when she made contact with Prince Albert." According to this source this was said on a live TV broadcast. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that that article is an opinion piece referring to "the British thought police", etc., I doubt whether it should be seen as reliable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! According to this http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0S00SaBau9N9QwAoQP37BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20110608003953AADTGGP Queen Victoria's first language was german, and she spoke german at home! Perhaps the diaries have not been published because they were partly written in german. I wonder how fluent our current rulers are in german. 92.28.242.181 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like anti-royalist half-truths to me; Queen Victoria#Heiress to the throne says "Her lessons included French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English at home.[14]". Interestingly, Queen Elizabeth II is pretty fluent in French. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate to disabuse you of this, but Queen Victoria was English and her first language was English, not German. Her husband, however, was indeed (what we would now call) German and so there is every possibility they spoke both English andGerman at home. (The UK imported the Hanoverian King George I over a century before the birth of Queen Victoria, so it could be said that the Royal Family was German, but as every monarch since George III has been born in England, they are English by birth.)--TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Victoria's mother, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, states that she was unable to speak English in 1820 when the Duke of Kent died (the year after Victoria's birth), so perhaps there would have been some German spoken in the Kent household. Victoria's governess Baroness Louise Lehzen was German too. However, Victoria was writing a journal in English from 1832[3]. But I do agree that anti-royalists often over-play the German ancestry card. Alansplodge (talk)

This page says that Victoria was "taught only German but at the age of three she started to learn English". I'm looking for a better source. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So it appears to be true then. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, being fluent in French is not surprising for someone with an upper-class background and in Elizabeth II's generation. It's probably not even rare now for people from good schools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

French isn't taught as a manner of course any more, even in top schools. GCSE French may be compulsory in a particular school, but A level, which is by no means fluency, surely isn't. Anyway, it's certainly not surprisign for QEII. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What language did Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh grow up speaking? His family was Danish, he was a Prince of Greece, but his uncle was the Earl Mountbatten, in the British nobility. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, he understands a bit of Greek but doesn't really speak it. The languages his parents had in common were English and German, but German was clearly his mother's first language, his sisters all married Germans, and he attended school in Germany until he was 16 (though he had lived in France for a while). Thereafter, he attended school in Scotland and later joined the Royal Navy. So, most likely, German was his first language, but English became his dominant language. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) From Elizabeth & Philip by Charles Higham & Roy Moseley, p. 74: "The boy's nanny, Nurse Roose, was British ... English was his first language, German and French his second and third, and Greek not at all." He was also "raised to learn sign language, so that he could communicate with his mother", who was totally deaf. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat correcting myself, I point to the quote from the prince himself about a third of the way down this page. He was apparently multilingual from childhood. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Albuisson

I'm looking for a good reliable source that supports the statement "French engraver Pierre Albuisson designed a stamp for the Principality of Monaco featuring Claude Monet's painting The Magpie to honor the 150th anniversary of the artist's birth." I've found the personal website of the artist[4] but no reliable secondary or tertiary sources (although I'm sure they exist). The website says the stamp was awarded "Best stamp" at the "world cup 1993", so surely it must be notable? Any help finding more information about this stamp and any coverage in good sources is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Three hobbyist websites: [5], [6], and [7]. No mention of a 'World Cup', but several references to Monaco 1993. Meph^talk 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The "World cup" refers to a a competition of stamps of the world, during which the readers of Timbres magazine voted for their preferred stamps proposed by postal administrations (In French the name of the competition is Coupe du monde des timbres, "Stamp World Cup"). You can check here that Pierre Albuisson wins four times. — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Are any of these reliable sources that we can use in Wikipedia articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed capitalist-communist system

Is it possible to develop mixed capitalist-communist system which in partiuclar would be able to fight unemployment more efficiently and whose planned ecomomy would combat financial crisises while retaining private property?--188.146.51.33 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you mix them? The key difference between the two is the ownership of the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.). If they are owned by private citizens, it's capitalism. If they are owned by the community generally, then it is communism (although capitalist economies usually have a fairly large public sector too). I am simplifying things to a ridiculous extent, but that's the gist of it. You could have a partly planned capitalist economy, using a combination of regulation and incentives (eg. tax breaks) to influence what private owners of capital do with it (in fact, all countries do this to some extent). That wouldn't make it communist, though. --Tango (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

State capitalism? Mixed economy? The articles may be of interest, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any state that has ever had a pure capitalist or a pure communist system. A mix with aspects of both is the norm. For the model used in several European states (originating in Germany and Austria, and implemented with vastly different degrees and shades), see Social market economy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Which begs the question, is China really a communist country or is it a capitalist autocracy? --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's neither. It's a hybrid system with some heavy aspects of socialism and some heavy aspects of capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it raises the question. </lostcause>AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Mr. 98. Looking at 21st century China it is hard to find heavy aspects of socialism. Maoist-communism is only given lip service and the large state owned industries are being privatised quite quickly. The direction is towards complete privatisation with a non-centralised market economy. The heavy hand of suppression is ever present but communist? Socialist ideals are almost gone. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, "State capitalism" could fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• It could, but it would be bending it heavily. The largest user of State capitalism at the moment is the SWP (UK) line parties. It is a bit of a stretch to reconcile their Cliffite construction of the soviet union with the nature of China. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they call themselves a Socialist market economy. There are some rather significant industries under state control that don't seem like they will privatize anytime soon. Whether you want to call that socialism or capitalism or what have you seems like cutting rather fine hairs. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that these days China is more capitalist than the US. This is because a totalitarian state can suppress unions and government regulation that would otherwise be demanded by the workers/voters. Meanwhile, the US has a large proportion of government workers, and those working at companies which get government grants, bail-outs, subsidies, etc., especially in fields like the military, police, fire-fighting, agriculture, and education. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

China has all of those things, too. The main difference between China and the United States today is in the area of political freedom, not economic system. The main way in which their economic systems differ is that, in China, the financial system is tightly controlled by the government, which also represses labor. By contrast, in the United States, the government allows labor organizing and theoretically lightly regulates and oversees the financial system (though some have argued that it is really financial interests that control the U.S. government). Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

James Meade (in Full Employment Regained?) argued that something like the OP's system might be achieved through the introduction of a Basic income guarantee; the idea is that with that in place the minimum wage could be significantly lowered or abolished and with aggregate demand high enough and labor cheap enough, full employment would be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand the Italian Autonomists used the "Social Wage" as an explicitly transitional demand, believing it to be incompatible with continued capitalism. (Then again, some Social Democrats used a non-starvation wage as an explicitly transitional demand...) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A mixed system WOULD be possible. You could have the state owning all the key industries, and people assigned to jobs for which all their needs are then met (state issued food vouchers, housing, car, public transit, ect), as well as private ownership of small businesses that were run as a sideline business to your state-given job. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A much more common mixed model is created by limiting ownership. Just because you "own" something, does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. You have to abide by all sorts of rules and regulations. Restaurants are not allowed to discriminate based on race or sex. Nuclear power plants must implement extensive safety features. Microsoft, Apple and Google probably would not be allowed to merge, even if 100% of the stock owners would support it. Eminent domain can be used to further the public interest even over individual owners. In that sense, "the people", represented by the state and its laws, exercise some aspects of ownership over private property. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Only to the extent that you can demonstrate that the state itself is a radical democracy, rather than being hegemonised by a property owning class. And if controlling the state is conditional on displacing a capitalist class, then you can't really describe it as socialism. For early critiques of state control, see Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Luxemburg. Another interesting question in this mix is about states in transition, such as dual power on one hand, and the NEP on the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

India from independence till the early 1990s is an interesting example of a mixed system. There was widespread nationalization of many industries, Soviet-style central planning, and private businesses were strictly controlled. Economy of India has a bit of info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it very amusing when our Australian government privatised the nationally owned telecommunications company, with a very aggressive argument that government ownership of such bodies was wrong, while the biggest player in the newly opened up telecoms market happened to be owned by the Singapore government. Go figure. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And French companies, some state-owned, some private, some mixed, but from supposedly statist France anyway, have bought up much of the UK's erstwhile public sector. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible version(s) used/referenced by Henry VIII in his dispuute with the Vatican

Which version(s) of the Bible would Henry VIII have referenced in his dispute with the Vatican regarding the biblical interpreation of divorce? Which would the Vatican have used?82.17.198.76 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Henry VIII cited from the Catholic Bible's Book of Leviticus regarding the invalidity of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Vatican would have mainly relied on Canon Law--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would guess the OP meant which printed editions they used. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear Henry and the Vatican used the Latin Vulgate Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Israel, need lots of info

Hey all,

My girlfriend is giving a very important speech on homosexuality in Israel (complex relationship =p), and I need to find as much info as possible about it but I see no article. Basically everything and anything so we can boil it down. =p Could someone please assist with this? Thank you very much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Israel is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good start. Anything else? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have Category:LGBT in Israel. You could take a look at the pages listed there, and follow the sub-categories downwards. --Antiquary (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, even better! Thanks! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

She is giving a speech about homosexuality in Israel OR in Israel, giving a speech about homosexuality? 2.139.12.164 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of homosexuality in Israel in Israel (as an Israeli). =p More I cannot say. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect and no offense intended, if it were me giving an important speech, I probably wouldn't start with Wikipedia. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when given the choice between finding info all over the web in sources you may not be able to trust, and finding them all in one place and being able to check the sources themselves for more info and credibility, in what is actually a very good article (though it could use a bit more on the anti-discrimination bit), I think I'd pick that article as a good starting point. I am going to see if I can find sources not covered in the articles though and hope they are good. You can count on Wiki at times. Let's face it, most people do. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia and the web are not your only two sources of information. (Shrugs.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Except when we put some thought into it and realise that most non-digital sources on the subject would most likely be in Hebrew. (Also shrugs.) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon thorough inspection of most online English sources on this matter, I can happily say that the current Wiki articles have pretty much all of the relevant info. Well done. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Western Europe 1453

Did the West ever plan to come to the aid of Constantinople in 1453? I know they never did. But did any of the rulers of Western Europe ever thought of extending their hands to help their fellow Christian brother in the East? Also what was the immediate reaction toward the fall of Constantinople by the rulers of Western Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if you read our article on the Crusade of Varna, perhaps along with our article on what is sometimes known as the Crusade of 1456, it should give you a pretty good fix on the state of affairs at the time. Executive summary: people cared less about what happened to Constantinople than about the threat the Ottomans posed to the rest of Europe. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fall of Constantinople article also talks about this. Who would have helped? The west already tried to help, and failed disastrously, at Nicopolis and Varna. The Polish king was killed at Varna, Poland had no king at all for a few years afterwards, and was probably not very keen on getting involved with the Ottomans again. They were also occupied with a war in Prussia. In the Empire, there were disputes over Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary, and the Hungarians (like the Poles) had already been defeated numerous times. England and France were still fighting the Hundred Years' War. And what would be the point of helping, if anyone had been willing or able? Constantinople was essentially all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, and it had been that way since the fourteenth century. The Ottoman sultans left it alone because they could extort tribute from it, but otherwise the empire no longer really existed. The emperors did come begging for help in the west, but the Papacy (which was itself still recoving from the schism of the fourteenth century) wanted the emperor and the Orthodox clergy to recognize the superiority of the Roman rite first. One of the emperors (John VIII maybe?) agreed to this, but the Orthodox population wanted nothing to with it. They didn't want western help at all if that was the price. (This was in the later stages of the Council of Florence.) So, basically, mutual distrust, the inability of most of Europe to help, and the absolute futility of doing so, led to the fall of Constantinople. There was really no way to beat the Ottomans at this point, and they eventually conquered Hungary and almost Austria before western Europe was able to do anything about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was John VIII Palaiologos who re-submitted the Orthodox Church to the authority of the Pope and attempted to force the use of the Latin rite in Byzantine churches. He led a mission to the Council of Florence in 1439, taking with him a retinue of scholars (claimed by some historians to be pivotal to the Rennaisance). This led to some financial support from the Catholic nations - I believe that Henry VI of England ordered a collection to be taken in every English parish church for the Byzantines. In terms of direct aid "Although some troops did arrive from the mercantile city states in the north of Italy, the Western contribution was not adequate to counterbalance Ottoman strength. Some Western individuals, however, came to help defend the city on their own account. One of these was an accomplished soldier from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani, who arrived with 700 armed men in January 1453" (from the Fall of Constantinople). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Royal Graves

Okay in current modern day monarchies, palaces and royal estates belong to the state rather than the monarch. But who do the tombs and bodies of their ancestors belong to? Do they belong to the Church they were buried in, the state as in the case of royal palaces and estates, or to their descendants.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has given an authoratative reply yet, I expect that for example Princess Diana's grave is owned by her brother, as it is on his estate. Presumably the graves of anyone are owned by who owns the land they are in. In some countries it may be customary to buy grave-plots, in others the church or local authority owns the land. On the other hand, "buying" a plot may be just paying a fee to the owner of the land to reserve use of the plot rather than actually owning the freehold. As to who owns the bodies - one would guess that bodies who died hundreds of years ago are owned by the landowner, although I understand that often even the skeleton decays away completely. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all royal residences belong to the state (perhaps more strictly The Crown): I think Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are personally owned by the Queen. (The Sandringham article says it's owned by the Royal family.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since 1928, all Royal burials (except for sovereigns and consorts) have been at the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore near Windsor. I believe this is privately owned by the Queen but not 100% certain. Kings and Queens come to rest at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, which is a Royal Peculiar and so answers directly to the Sovereign and not to any bishop. Westminster Abbey which contains the remains of several medieval monarchs, is also a Royal Peculiar, so the chances of a rogue bishop selling them on eBay to boost the funds is rather remote. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I expect that "ownership" of a buried body is not a simple issue. The land in which a body is buried has an owner, such as a cemetery association, a church, a municipality, or the family who owns the old family burial ground. There are laws in some localities governing the treatment of dead bodies, such that if I own the family cemetery in which my ancestors (parents back to some great grandparents) are buried, I have no legal right to dig up their remains and sell their skeletons as curiosities or medical teaching tools. I probably also have no legal right to dig them up. Exhumation typically requires legal process. I doubt that someone could legally have their ancestors dug up and the bones ground for fertilizer. That said, there was once a lively trade in Egyptian mummies, which were used as medicine or for various disrespectful practices. Edison (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it might be that someone (the descendant, the estate, and or the cemetery owner) "owns" the body, just as a pet owner or farm operator owns his animals, but society has laws to limit actions taken. One cannot legally torture animals, unless it is "for science," and even then there are supposed to be limits, based on public sentiment. An owner of a failing animal is typically supposed to take it to a vet to be euthanised, rather than killing it himself. A descendant can have an ancestor dug up, with suitable paperwork, and the remains moved to a different cemetery plot (so Grandma can "rest" next to Grandpa, if they were initially buried in different cities), but typically just cannot grab a shovel and do the digging himself. Edison (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)