Humanities desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

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.

July 14[edit]

America, Republic and Empire[edit]

The user's other "work" is being reverted, and the user indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

America is an empire. America is an empire? America is not an empire. America is a republic. America has always been a republic. America is a republic, not an empire.

Kaypein (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feel better now? 86.172.130.137 (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating an opinion, Kaypein, or do you have an actual question. If so, what is it, and does it depend on how words like "empire" and "republic" are defined, and whether or not they are considered mutually exclusive?

Also, by "America", can we presume that you mean the United States of America? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: American imperialism. Xuxl (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Market ward" in Cambridge?[edit]

So I'm expanding the article for Ellis Gibbons and John Harley says that "He was listed in the Cambridge subsidy roles from 1598 to 1600, first as resident in the High ward, and then in the Market ward". A footnote at the bottom of the page explains that the "High ward" is mainly modern day Trinity Street but fails to explain what/where the Market ward is or where it would be today. I could be over thinking it and perhaps the "Market ward" is simply the modern day Market ward but I am hesitant about assuming so. Any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A districting system from over 400 years ago that's evidently seen the abolition of at least one district (High Ward) and the creation of many more (in the 1400s and 1500s there were only four wards of Cambridge, now there are many) suggests that the modern Market Ward is probably not exactly the same as the one of 400 years ago. Charles Henry Cooper's 1843 Annals of Cambridge may provide useful information. You can find it on HathiTrust: [1] (or alternatively find the modern Cambridge University Press rerelease at a library). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The 18th-century descriptions say that Bridgeward extended from Jesus Lane to Castle End; Preachers' Ward from Jesus Lane to St. Andrew's Street; Highward from St. John's College to Trumpington Road; and that Market Ward covered the Market and the adjoining area". The city of Cambridge: Wards, Victoria County History, London, 1959 (pp. 111-113).

We have an article on Market Hill, Cambridge which is to the east of the Church of St Mary the Great, Cambridge. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same link as above notes that the 19th century wards "were simply electoral districts and were constituted from entirely artificial groups of scattered parishes." This almost certainly extends to the modern wards, particularly given Market was one of those first electoral wards (comprising the Parishes of St. Mary the Great, St. Giles, and St. Edward). Cooper, Annals, vol. 4, p. 597. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@199.66.69.67 and Alansplodge: Thank you both for your terrific assistance! Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accession of King Baudouin[edit]

I've been tinkering with the Baudouin of Belgium article and the best source I can find in English, Wilsford, David, ed. (1995). Political Leaders of Contemporary Western Europe: A Biographical Dictionary. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0313286230., says that Leopold III of Belgium abdicated on 7 September 1951 but that Baudouin was sworn-in on 15 August 1951 (p. 27). Can anybody explain how this works? Were there two kings for a few weeks? Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Royal Question#Accession of Baudouin, 1951 answer that at all? It says Leopold abdicated on 16 July 1951, and not in September (cited to Witte, Els; Craeybeckx, Jan; Meynen, Alain (2009). Political History of Belgium from 1830 Onwards (New ed.). Brussels: ASP. ISBN 978-90-5487-517-8, p. 242). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book is wrong. It even gets Baudouin's name wrong; he was never called "the First". His wife was not a Spanish princess either. Leopold abdicated on 16 July and Baudouin was sworn in the following day. This is a very good source if you speak any French. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In Britain, if one monarch leaves the throne, the next one becomes king or queen immediately. (Their coronation ceremony is purely commemorative.) Belgium has different rules, then? --174.89.49.204 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Instantaneous and automatic accession seems to be confined to the UK and Commonwealth realms, as far as I can tell. I might be wrong. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's truly instantaneous (perhaps as a quantum entanglement effect), or if it's more classically limited by the speed of light? I believe Doctor Sir Terence Pratchett has speculated on the subject and postulated the existence of kingon (and queon) particles, which would presumably be some form of vector boson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.19} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that there is never any moment when there is not a UK monarch. The gap between the death of the old and the accession of the new is literally zero. Of course, humans with their limited technology can never say precisely when that moment was in any particular case. It's usually timed to the minute, a rather crude approximation when it comes to such abstruse matters. (But interestingly, the present Queen was the first monarch for many centuries whose moment of accession was not known to any better than a couple of hours, because George VI died during the night and was not discovered till the next morning). But none of this alters the instantaneousness of the transition, whenever it happens to occur. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

And Terry Pratchett speculated somewhere that, since monarchy travels through the universe instantaneously, you could build a faster than light communication system if you had a monarch close to death, and modulated the signal by nearly killing them and then reviving them. The way you would detect the signal at the other end, of course, would be by seeing if the heir could cure scrofula with a touch or not. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Monarchy of Belgium article, automatic accession of the heir is the norm in Europe and Belgium is the sole exception. The information is unsourced, however. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]