Humanities desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

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.

September 15

A good mayor of Birmingham in a lean year

We all know the dig at Neville Chamberlain, but who said it? It is often attributed to David Lloyd George, sometimes to Winston Churchill, and by at least one writer to Lord Hugh Cecil. I have been unable to nail it down. Can anyone here help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site), a 1940 blurb said "the remark is credited to Lord Curzon." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Rees says in his Cassell Companion to Quotations: "Noël Coward ascribes to Lord Birkenhead (F. E. Smith), 'The most we can hope for from dear Neville is that he should be a good Lord Mayor of Birmingham in a lean year.' Also attributed (and possibly more correctly) to Lord Hugh Cecil in the form 'He is no better than a Mayor of Birmingham, and in a lean year at that. Furthermore he is too old. He thinks he understands the modern world. What should an old hunk like him know of the modern world?' Quoted in Lord David Cecil, The Cecils of Hatfield House (1973)." The Smith and Lloyd George attributions can both be taken back to the 1930s though: [1]. The trouble is that all of the names mentioned so far, apart from maybe Lord Hugh Cecil, are of people commonly dragged in to tie loose quotations to. --Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, did you have the "Chips" diaries? Don't recall from an earlier question. I can't tell the year from this preview or see the fn 173. I think this preview is Churchill in Collier’s October 16, 1937. Wondering if Churchill might be the ultimate source of attribution to F. E. Smith. David Cecil doesn't look very definitive. fiveby(zero) 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Channon, but have somehow managed to make Google Books shew me a little more. It was 1938 and Terence O'Connor who Chips says quoted F. E. Smith. It was over bridge with Harold Balfour at Robert Bernays's "horrid little flat". Roy Jenkins, in his Churchill, gives it to Lloyd George, but without date or source. The Spectator in 1936 ascribed it to LlG, using the form "is said to have been Mr. Lloyd George's summary of the capacities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer". Yes, in the Colliers article "he also quoted Lord Birkenhead’s view of Mr. Chamberlain as “an adequate Mayor of Birmingham in a lean year.” . DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full 1936 Spectator article "Middle-Class Business Man" reprinted in The Living Age. "P. Q. R." is, i think, Tom Jones which would add some weight for Lloyd George. Or is "P. Q. R." an often used pseudonym? All i find are Kelvin and Jones. fiveby(zero) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-person national executive

When a state has multiple people forming the chief executive, rather than just one, what do we call it? I'm looking for something to describe the Swiss Federal Council and the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, so royal terms like diarchy and coregency, and nonconstitutional setups like duumvirate and triumvirate, are wrong. I thought of plural executive, but that's just something about US politics. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collective leadership Xuxl (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-president redirects to a dab page about presidents. I guess it is a thing. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the term directory. --Lambiam 08:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State flags

I was reading today's "Did You Know" about the Flag of Liechtenstein and followed that by viewing State flags. I see that some have a trianglular white/cutout on the right (eg Denmark). Is this a cutout (the flag has a lack of material there) or a white area (the flag is a rectangle)? What about Norway with the blue "tongue"? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Swallowtail (flag). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] It's an actual 'cut-out' or 'swallowtail' with two points, known also as a Splitflag. This seems to be a Scandinavian custom, used by Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland, where flags for certain purposes retain this shape from Naval or at least military usage. Our relevant articles on en-Wikipedia do not (as far as I can find) give a particular reason for the custom – perhaps articles in the relevant-language Wikipedias do.

Compare also the (obviously unrelated) Flag of Nepal. Is there a vexillologist in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.160 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this video you can clearly see the split tail. --Lambiam 11:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This forum page says that the shape developed from medieval gonfalons, an example being the French Oriflamme banner. Another contributor suggests that a reason for the shape is that you can have a bigger flag with less cloth than a rectangle, making it lighter and more manageable. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag of Ohio is a swallowtail. It is the only flag of a US state that is not rectangular. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British regal names

Apparently British monarchs can choose anything as their regal name. So, for example, once Charles III dies or abdicates and William, Prince of Wales becomes the new monarch, he can choose to call himself William V, Arthur, Philip or Louis. He can even call himself Charles IV. Can he call himself King Magniafazzula or King Purple Banana? Can he choose a female name? Can he skip numbers and call himself William VI or Charles V? Are there any rules about this? JIP | Talk 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's the UK, I'm assuming there is a law somewhere about it that was created (likely before time immemorial), but as I understand it, the power to choose a regnal name is pretty much unlimited (cf. MacCormick v Lord Advocate) except by the fact that you cannot choose a name that was already in use (unless the legitimacy of said use is in question, which is why Charles III can be Charles III despite Charles Edward Stuart having made claim to be Charles III before him). That said, such a fantasy naming is highly unlikely. As for regnal numbers, they serve to distinguish from others with the same name, so skipping numbers is not really a problem (see regnal number#Queen Elizabeth II for example). Regards So Why 11:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The legal precedent of EIIR in Scotland suggests that William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales might choose to style himself as William XXX. --Lambiam 11:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how. The informal precedent established by Elizabeth says that a monarch uses a roman numeral one higher than the prior highest numbered monarch of either Scotland or England in cases where the numbers are different; the highest numbered William of either realm was [[William ~~III~~ IV of ~~England~~ the United Kingdom]], ~~who was also William II of Scotland~~ That would make a putative King William IV V. AFAIK, there has never been a monarch numbered William XXIX in any realm worldwide, never mind England or Scotland (or Wales, for that matter). Other than the Heinrichs of the House of Reuss, which number into the 40s or higher, I don't know of any regnal number that has ever gotten that high. --Jayron 32 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True but in MacCormick the court decided that numbering "was part of the royal prerogative", so he could choose "XXX" for himself. Regards So Why 13:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As far as I know, they can choose any name at all. It's their monarchy, after all. Most choose their first given name, and those that didn't choose a different given name, i.e. both Edward VII and George VI had "Albert" as their first given name, and used that (or the nickname "Bertie" in informal settings) before they became King. Queen Victoria was "Alexandrina Victoria" from birth. Prior to the Hanoverian succession, AFAIK, no British, English, or Scottish monarch had more than one given name even from birth. The use of multiple given names appears to be a peculiarly German trend that was introduced to the British monarchy with Georg Ludwig of Hanover. All subsequent British monarchs had multiple given names from that point, with Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David being the record with seven. --Jayron 32 11:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have we forgotten William IV, uncle of Queen Victoria? He was so pleased that he survived beyond his niece's eighteenth birthday, thus depriving her mother of the chance to be regent. 2A00:23C6:2403:C401:A8A9:8A15:4895:1E3C (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William IV's first name was "William", so doesn't apply to "Monarchs who chose something other than their first name as their Regnal name". --Jayron 32 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't about Monarchs who chose something other than their first name as their Regnal name. It's about the Prince of Wales, who may or may not use his first name as his regnal name when the time comes. 146.200.241.57 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is about British regnal names in general. Prince William was just used as an example. JIP | Talk 22:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name is (as far as I can tell) not formally adopted until accepted by the Accession Council which "confirms by name the identity of the new monarch and formally announces the new monarch's regnal name". I'm not sure that there's any mechanism for them to reject a name, but I suppose that the council members could refuse to sign off the proclamation on the grounds that the name chosen was too silly, provoking a constitutional crisis. But this is idle speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of the Crown and Boris Johnson

Further to my question of September 12 "Queen Elizabeth" I have come across an interesting piece of legislation. Our article on Demise of the Crown states that the Demise of the Crown Act 1702 states that it ensures that "office holders stay in office for six months".

This raises an interesting possibility that could very well have happened if Her Majesty had died after Boris Johnson announced his intention to step down but before Liz Truss was selected as the new Conservative party leader - not the Prime Minister. Could Boris Johnson have used this legislation as a pretext to stay in office for six months or to void his resignation.

Legally it seems perfectly possible that this is an outcome but it seems almost certain that it would have provoked a constitutional crisis. Would the new monarch have been forced to use his prerogative powers to dismiss his government and call an election?

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical but undeniably it's a very interesting scenario. Andrew 23:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister appeared to have very little to do following Her Majesty's death (in terms of constitutional actions - I am sure there was plenty happening politically and administratively). The main difference would have been that the Accession Council would have been chaired(?) by the previous Lord President of the Council, Mark Spencer, after which one of the first duties of the new monarch would presumably have been to ask Liz Truss to become PM. The six months' continuation of Parliament and Offices under the Crown is to cover the absence or inaction of a recognised successor. It allows time for said successor to confirm/replace officers without undue haste or interruption of functions. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Demise of the Crown Act 1901 amends the previous act, thus clarifying the intention, as follows: "1 Effect of demise of Crown on holding of office. (1) The holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty’s dominions, shall not be affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown." --Lambiam 13:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]