Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 October 27

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 26 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 28 >
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.


October 27

edit

Archaeological discoveries and earthquakes

edit

I was reading this Smithsonian article: Earthquake in Mexico City Reveals 500-Year-Old Aztec Snakehead and thought that there must have been other discoveries enabled by earthquakes in the history of archaeology. Could anyone give a few examples? BorgQueen (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, 12 July 2018: Mexico earthquake leads to discovery of ancient temple
Blog (sorry, didn’t see better source for this one) 1 Feb 2019: The Guano Mummy was discovered after an earthquake struck the town on August 5th, 1949
If you’re interested, searching this also turns up other disasters resulting in new archaeology revealed by retreating glaciers, sinkholes, storms and droughts. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very interesting side effects of the acts of God, as insurance companies call them. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: Some acts of man may inadvertently expose archaeological artifacts, too. See these:
CiaPan (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and, for another example of an archaeologically fruitful natural disaster, you may want to seek 'Ancient rock carvings Amazon drought'. --CiaPan (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CiaPan thanks for the pointer. If the seabed could be mapped and monitored completely, the revelations would amaze us, I bet. BorgQueen (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: Definitely. No doubt.   CiaPan (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom - Is there a separation of church and state?

edit

The United Kingdom appears at first glance claims it is a secular democracy to have a separation of Church and State; we have a Hindu prime minister and there is no obvious religious interference in political decision making or preferential treatment of one religious group. But there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that we're not as secular constitutionally as we seem on the surface it isn't, particularly with regard to the institution of the Crown and the Monarchy. What we seem to have is a theocratic constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy

  1. The accession of a monarch involves religious caveats, including the Statutory Accession Declaration that they are a protestant and will maintain the protestant succession to the throne, promises to protect the Presbyterian church, and assuming the leadership of the Church of England as Supreme Governor.
  2. Likewise, as we witnessed in May, the coronation ceremony itself is an intensely religious service, involving the invocation of the Holy Spirit through anointing to consecrate and bless the head of state. It is an event rich in Christian symbolism, with many references to God and Christianity both in the liturgy and in the Crown Jewels.
  3. The idea of the monarchy implicitly rests on the assumption that there legitimacy is derived from their being chosen by God to reign.
  4. The House of Lords maintains the presence of Anglican bishops who take precedence over other bishops. Similarly, both chambers of parliament begin their day with prayers.

With all this in mind, is how does the UK claim that is a secular democracy? It doesn't seem as though it is when the role of the Head of State - both in their selection and their responsibilities - and parts of the legislative process are saturated with religious symbolism and significance? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the idea of separation between Church and state but it seems anachronistic that an institution that is the embodiment of the state - the Crown - relies so heavily on religion for its legitimacy --Andrew 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the United Kingdom declare that it is a 'secular democracy'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) When did the United Kingdom tell you that it is a secular democracy? DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the Equality Act 2010 does it claim there is a separation of church and state? DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sense that it prevents any religion from being dominant, protecting them all equally. Historically, the country was heavily weighted to Christianity, but clearly that position has evolved as we have a Hindu prime minister, probably due to equal rights and equality legislation. I'm not a lawyer but clearly and obviously religion isn't allowed to significantly interfere in our political decision making (with the exception of the Lords Spiritual). I'm not a lawyer, hence why I'm asking the question. --Andrew 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any country that can behead its king for treason against the King, in the name of the King, has figured out how to live with these tensions. --Trovatore (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should probably be hatted as based on an entirely false premise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"including the Statutory Accession Declaration that they are a protestant and will maintain the protestant succession to the throne" I am not an expert on British legislation, but that protestant succession was defined by the Act of Settlement 1701. While it was amended in 2015, the Act is still in effect. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I think you’re completely wrong. If there was no sense of secularism or separation of Church and state at all we’d have a political system dominated by Christianity which we don’t have. So I think obviously it’s a legitimate question. We have a very secular parliamentary democracy for the most part - as evidence by having a Hindu PM - but a very religious head of state setup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.87.232 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this demonstrates how wonderfully odd the British Constitution is, in that pragmatism trumps ideology at almost every turn, by means of a tottering pile of compromises. For instance, the right to appoint the bishops of the Church of England was devolved from the monarch to the prime minister (who technically advises the monarch on the approved candidate), but, as Mrs Thatcher (a Methodist) found when she tried to prevent the radical theologian David Jenkins from being appointed to the bishopric of Durham, this power had in turn, for all practical purposes, passed to a church committee.
However, than can be no claim of British separation while 26 bishops of the Church of England can sit in the House of Lords, but I think that there is a fairly strong claim to freedom of religion, which has not historically been the case. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By law, all state-funded schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to hold daily acts of ‘Collective Worship’. In England and Wales in schools with no formal religious character this worship must be ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. ’Guide to the law on assemblies | Assemblies For All However, a great many schools simply refuse to do this, and the organisation tasked with ensuring schools comply with standards refuses to enforce this. This seems to be typical of British approaches to Church/State issues: i.e. by law and constitution, we're a Christian country and don't have separation of church and state, but most people aren't Christian and the Church of England doesn't have the influence it used to. Iapetus (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the UK is not a theocracy, but there are official "established" churches in England and Scotland (two different churches!), until Tony Blair's prime ministership there were still blasphemy laws on the books which referred to Christianity only, and Church of England bishops still sit in the House of Lords (see Lords Spiritual). It's useless to try to apply US first amendment concepts to the situation... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that it is obvious that we are not. It's obvious that we're not exclusively, but the monarch who is the embodiment of the British state through the crown, derives their authority from God. His regalia is surmounted by crosses, he is enthroned after being consecrated by the Holy Spirit. You're right that to say we're solely a theocracy is absurd but clearly there are theocratic elements, alongside constitutional monarchy and a modern democracy. --Andrew 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The monarch derives their authority by being the highest in the line of succession at the moment the previous monarch dies or abdicates. That is all about human genetics. If you believe, as many do, that God is the ultimate author of all things, then that's where God fits in to the equation. Charles became monarch at the instant of Elizabeth's death.
Yes, the coronation ceremony is replete with Christian symbolism, but a coronation is not necessary. Edward VIII never had one, for example. Admittedly, he was king for only 10 months in 1936, during which time a coronation was planned for 1937, and after George VI succeeded him, the date that had been chosen for Edward's coronation was used for George's. But Charles could have decided to dispense with one, rather than bowing to tradition, and he would still have been king in every sense. Or he could have died before the coronation, and he would still have been king in every sense. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I agree with everything you say the monarchs of the UK still rely on the idea that they have been specially chosen by God to serve the nation. If that wasn't a fundamental principle, then why can't anybody be king, why not elect them? The theme of this years coronation was "called to serve", with the implication being that this was called by god. The crown in its history is more or less inseparable from the Church - it has always relied on it to convey legitimacy. And while the coronation isn't necessary the Accession Council is and that involves numerous pledges surrounding religion, including upholding protestantism, declaring that he is a protestant, protecting the Scottish church etc. I'm not sure what would happen if the sovereign refused to do those things, presumably it might cause a mild constitutional crisis. It's definitely an interesting set up. --Andrew 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were chosen by strange women lying in ponds distributing swords. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Mrandrewnohome: – Read up on James II and the subsequent Glorious Revolution; that's what would happen. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although you're right that a monarch reigns from the moment of Accession, I think that the Coronation Oath Act 1688 makes a coronation a legal requirement. Only three monarchs since the Conquest have gone without one, Edward V who was deposed after two months and probably killed, Lady Jane Grey who only reigned for nine days and Edward VIII. I suppose we could have a Continental-style swearing-in, but how dull would that be? Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to Parliament who is King. God, being an Englishman, goes along with what Parliament says. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including being the head of the Church of England, right? --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And every British monarch inherits the title Defender of the Faith. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the monarch is the head of state, and also the head of the church, hence there would be no "separation of church and state". Unlike in America, where state and government are effectively the same thing, in the UK the state and government are separate things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly a language thing. UK "government" is roughly equivalent to US "administration", with differences related to separation of powers (a US administration is not part of the legislative branch). --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the monarch (= head of state) is ex officio also the head of the church, virtually all of their actions are done wearing their head-of-state hat rather than their head-of-church hat. Their prime minister (currently a Hindu) "advises" (= instructs) them on a wide range of matters. These include appointments to the upper echelons of the church hierarchy, although in these cases the PM in turn is "advised" (= instructed) by a committee of senior church people, who are the effective decision makers. They also include giving Royal Assent to laws passed by the Parliament despite the opposition of the Church.
Back in the 1960s when the Queen's sister Princess Margaret wanted to marry a divorcee, the Queen felt unable to approve such a union as it would have conflicted with her oath as Supreme Governor of the Church, which did not approve of remarriage of divorcees while the previous spouse was still alive. However, times moved along, and by the 1990s the Queen felt able to approve the divorces of three of her own children, and the remarriages of two of them (although she did not attend those ceremonies). As far as I can tell, those sorts of issues are the only times when the monarch's role as Head of Church plays any real role in British life. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Margaret tried to marry a woman? In the 1960s? --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Wiktionary: divorcée: a divorced woman. Wiktionary: divorcee: a divorced person (which could include women, but in this case the context would seem to contra-indicate that). Now back to that blazing funeral pyre where you belong, O fickle troubador (to mangle my Trovatore references). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Ah, that must explain Sir Elton's pronunciation in "Slow Down Georgie, She's Poison" where he sings she's just another divorcee and pronounces it /dɪvɔːrˈsiː/ instead of /dɪvɔːrˈseɪ/. I thought that was just some weird Brit thing. --Trovatore (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]
The Burchfield Fowler has this to say:

divorcee First recorded in the early 19c., it is normally pronounced /dɪvɔːˈsiː/. This is the regular word in English, but on occasion the Fr. forms divorcé (divorced man) and divorcée (divorced woman) also occur in English.

DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UK head of state is only head of the state churches in England and Scotland. The people of Wales and Northern Ireland lack this divine protection and have to live in secular states. Belle Fast (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issues list of female heads of state

edit

Regarding page List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government

Could you advise when the graph display technical issues are likely to be resolved?49.181.58.27 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be a better place to ask that... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2023_October_27&oldid=1183561083"