Humanities desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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 12[edit]

Number of times England could have had a king named Arthur?[edit]

There are two Arthurs who could have become king of England: Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and Arthur, Prince of Wales. Are there more such Arthurs? Are there other first names no king of England was ever called one could have been? Basemetal 06:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Frederick, Prince of Wales who died before he could become king, and there has never been a King Frederick of either The United Kingdom or England. There was also an Albert, Prince of Wales, but he dropped his first name and became Edward VII. There has never been a King Albert of either The United Kingdom or England. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert, Duke of York became George VI. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose, might have expected to succeed his father, but in the event he was fobbed off with the Duchy of Normandy, primogeniture not having yet having fully taken hold in English law or custom, so we never had a King Robert. --Antiquary (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was Stephen, King of England, who ended a civil war by ceding the succession to the throne to the man who became Henry II, thus disinheriting his own eldest surviving son Eustace. --Antiquary (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eustace pre-deceased his father: it was the second son, William of Blois, who was disinherited. Wymspen (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to have one more shy at this, Harold II's eldest son failed to become King Godwin not because of his slightly questionable legitimacy but because of, well, events, dear boy, events. --Antiquary (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how far you stretch "could have become king". If Queen Victoria had had no children, for example, she would have been succeeded by her first cousin once removed Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. There has never been a King Ernest, a King Augustus or a King Ernest Augustus (it is not clear what regnal name he would have taken). As it happened, Ernest Augustus bore arms against the UK during the First World War and was deprived of his British titles in 1919. Proteus (Talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, and there's never been a King Michael while there was a guy in Australia called Michael who it is said was the legitimate heir to the English throne. But, seriously, no. I meant people who had a one time been the immediate heir to the English throne. And note both previous respondents also understood it that way. Basemetal 09:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: Alphonso would have been rather "in-your-face" aux Brexiteers :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered Sophia of Hanover, legal heir of Queen Anne, who would have succeeded to the throne if she'd just lived a few weeks longer. Also George IV's only child, Princess Charlotte, who predeceased her father. And there have been quite a few kings of England (Great Britain, etc.) whose first child was a daughter, that daughter being soon bumped down the line of succession by their younger brothers. Thankfully that's no longer possible. --Antiquary (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, no really, finally, I can add the names Thomas, Roger, Edmund, Humphrey, Catherine, Frances, Margaret and Ernest, now that I've discovered our list of heirs apparent and presumptive to the English throne and list of heirs apparent and presumptive to the British throne. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I didn't know about those lists either. Thanks. Btw, not Edmund: Edmund I and Edmund Ironside. Basemetal 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! --Antiquary (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal, I'm surprised noone has mentioned Charles, Prince of Wales, a potential near-future King Arthur. When there is a new monarch, they can take as their regnal name, any of their given names. Edward VII, for example, was named Albert Edward and called Bertie until he became King. Charles is Charles Philip Arthur George. So he could become King Charles III, King Philip, King Arthur or King George VII. If he ever actually becomes King, that is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if we had a King Arthur, finally. Augustus (heir presumptive 1837-1840), emperor of India, if Queen Victoria had died childless (as pointed out by Proteus), would have been pretty good too. But in that case we should take into account all the given names of all presumptive heirs (as far as they're known). Albert Edward becoming Edward VII while it does show a king can pick any of their given names (or at least that the rules are fluid enough that he was able to get away with it) it seems to me (though I haven't checked the whole list) that was really an exception. Given how things work in England, is there really any firm explicit rule regarding the names that a new monarch can adopt? Why couldn't the new monarch in principle adopt any name they chooose? Does anyone else (the parliament for example) have to agree to it? Is that written anywhere? Basemetal 13:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE - Regnal_name#United_Kingdom --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Unfortunately it doesn't answer my last question. Basemetal 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Much is based on precedent. Parliament hasn't been asked to approve the previous decisions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there other first names no king of England was ever called one could have been?" - Well, Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, and she could have chosen that as her regnal name. We'd all be talking not about the Victorian era but the Alexandrine era, which sounds quite lovely and less forbidding. And I'd be living in the state of Alexandrina (Australia). The closest we have Down Here is Lake Alexandrina (South Australia). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit off topic, but Alexandra of Denmark was a very popular British queen, and the town of Alexandra, New Zealand is one of many places named for her. Alexandra, Victoria probably is also.-gadfium 22:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when a diplomat's motorcade travels to a country that drives on the opposite side of the road?[edit]

I have some questions about the recent North Korea summit in Singapore with Donald Trump. (Article is here: 2018 North Korea–United States summit.) This got me wondering. How do they get all of our cars (Secret Service limousines, etc.) over to other foreign countries when the President travels abroad? I assume they fly them? How does that work? Are there special airplanes that fly cars? And what do they fit, like one car per airplane? There seemed to be a huge procession of USA cars there. Let's just say 30. That would take 30 separate airplanes to transport them over there? Thanks. Also, a (sort of) related question. What happens when the USA President travels to a country where they drive on the left side of the road? Do we (USA) have special cars for that? Or does the host country just make an "exception" and let us drive cars that are designed for American driving (on the right side of the road, with steering wheel and driver side on the left)? Similarly, what do we do in the USA when we host other dignitaries from a foreign country where they drive on the left? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#United States Air Force: "A C-17 accompanies the President of the United States on his visits to both domestic and foreign arrangements, consultations, and meetings. The C-17 is used to transport the Presidential Limousine and security detachments." In answer to your second question, no "exception" is required. It is perfectly legal to drive a right-hand drive car in countries where they drive on the right, and a left-hand drive car in countries where they drive on the left. Happens all the time. --Viennese Waltz 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Viennese Waltz: it's not significantly difficult, or dangerous, to drive on the opposite side of the road from that which a car has been designed. It would be far more difficult for a driver to adapt his/her own engrained habits from a right-hand-drive vehicle to a left, or vice-versa.

My UK family lived in Germany for a period, and like very many others we took a standard UK car to use there. (If one bought a new car for the purpose, there was a significant tax advantage because it was being 'exported'.) The only necessity for such a transfer is to fit headlight adaptors (to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic) if they cannot be altered from the dashboard, and it takes no more than an hour of driving with heightened alertness on the 'new' side before one adapts to the 'mirror conditions'. See Left- and right-hand traffic, particularly Sections 3–4.

Likewise, on UK roads one regularly sees continental vehicles with the driver sitting on the left. (US vehicles are rarely brought to the UK because of the high shipping costs and their designs being often awkwardly large for many UK (and continental) streets, which due to their antiquity are often narrow by US standards.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81l230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About how much of Europe would be too narrow for these? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but the Presidential limmo might struggle with this street in the City of London. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's limo famously got stuck on a small hump coming out of the US embassy in Dublin --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would omit the word "dangerous" from that. "Högertrafikomläggningen" was justified by studies showing that an increase of accidents was caused by the popularity of left-side steering wheel vehicles in Sweden while they drove on the left-side of the road. So, they switched to the right-side of the road. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult or danger aside, it's worth remembering this is the sort of thing which will depend significantly on the laws and regulations of the country in concern. The connections both physical and political within the EU or within Europe may mean it's relatively simple to be able to legally drive a wrong-side car on the road within the EU or Europe.

By comparison, these are the requirements in NZ [1]. For vehicles less than 20 years old

To issue a vehicle with a category A LHD vehicle permit, the Transport Agency must either deem it to have historic value, or it must be a vehicle that was not manufactured in right-hand drive form that meets three of the following four requirements:

Most cars and similar vehicles more than 20 years old would also fall under "These are light vehicles that were manufactured 20 years or more before the vehicle is certified in New Zealand." There are also special cases for specialist vehicles and diplomats (re: the original question). Likewise tourists can temporarily bring their foreign registered cars in and drive on these. I don't know the specifics of the IP's case, but there's a fair chance it won't meet these since it sounds to me like they were just taking an ordinary car.

Singapore seems even stricter, per our article Driving in Singapore#Left hand drive Vs Right hand drive (also in the lead for some reason). It sounds like they may have the diplomat and tourists driving foreign registered vehicles, and for specialist vehicles, but may not have anything even for classic cars or other enthusiast cars. (Also the cars need to have a sign on the back saying left-hand drive. I'm not sure if this applied to the US president's car traveling in a motorcade.)

Also in terms of practicalities, these are perhaps illustrative of local differences [2] [3]. Okay I don't know about Singapore, but in Malaysia or at least KL it's common enough for car parks, even ones at shopping complexes or similar to have ticket machines. (And despite the low labour costs there has been a move away from human operated exits but I'm not sure of the quality of all of these so I wouldn't guarantee your car won't be hit by the barrier if you run across to the machine and then run back.) Then there are the large number of toll plazas due to the large number of concessionary toll roads although I think nowadays at least most of the major ones have the SmartTAG drive through contactless system [4] (~15 years ago though.....) So these are not small inconveniences. (By comparison, in Auckland you get these on occasion and especially in the city and other very high traffic areas but it's easy to never encounter them.)

Even in terms of foreign registered vehicles, there's likely to be a difference. An average of 6000 cars use the Channel Tunnel each day [5] and I guess some more by ferry. While France etc are a big countries, there are enough tourist hotspots that I imagine it's not hard to spot them in certain places. NZ as a relatively isolated island and Singapore as a country where the closest neighbours with left-hand vehicles are Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos and roadtrips from these countries not exactly common. So maybe outside of those who regularly drive near embassies you get this [6].

Note in particular, I wouldn't assume it's always possible to even bring a foreign registered vehicle and drive it as a tourist. (I'd imagine most do allow diplomatic vehicles though.) As I understand it, the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic would at least does generally guarantee it, but plenty of countries are not parties. China is a notable one (and also doesn't recognise foreign licences [7]), and per our article does not allow it. However Macau and Hong Kong are not foreign to China.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of left hand drive vehicles aside, my understanding is the tinted windows of Kim's and probably Trump's vehicles would not normally be allowed in Singapore [8] [9] [10]. I think Singapore, unlike Malaysia, does not enforce theor tinting requirements on foreign registered vehicles [11] even though they aren't a party to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic either from what I can tell [12]. In any case, I'm sure it'll be allowed for diplomatic vehicles so it's not an exemption specific to the summit, but still a sort of exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a mundane example in America, those little US Postal Service trucks have the steering wheel on the right, so that the postman driver doesn't have to scoot over to drop mail into roadside mailboxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be remembered that the presidential car does not drive in regular traffic. It drives on closed roads with a police escort as part of a motorcade. Keeping to the right lane and watching your mirrors is not a major consideration; making sure you have a car able to withstand an armed attack is. --Xuxl (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that it took so long for the Secret Service and Swiss Guard to get good. They didn't bother bulletproofing the cars till after their heads of state got shot in cars. World Wars had already been caused by "world leader shot in car" for crying out loud. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it was entirely a technical problem. Such leaders have always had the conflicting requirement to be seen by and being able to wave to their adoring public. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the stand up and wave Popemobile, which was still like this when the Pope was shot (2 decades after a superpower's President was shot in a car) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, our own Head of State and her family have to make do with some old horses and carts. Here she is last Saturday. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they can't even get new horses? —Tamfang (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're waiting for the 2019 facelift with 4 nostrils. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all, for the discussion. Very helpful! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi symbolism[edit]

To my slight concern, I've just spotted a guy near where I live wearing a t-shirt covered in neo-nazi/white supremicist symbols. (Including the slogan "14 Words", the SS logo). The centre piece was a large styalised eagle (or possibly a rendering of an eagle statue). It wasn't the standard Nazi Reichsadler/Parteiadler, but I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere. The eagle had swept down wings, and was standing on/clutching a rectangular (rather than the more common circular) doodah. (I think the rectangle contained a swastika, but I didn't hang around to get a better look). Does anyone recognise this eagle from my description, and does it have any particular significance (other than the general Nazi imagery)? Also, the t-shirt also had the slogan "Never Forget" - does that have any particular meaning in nazi/white supremicist symbology? Iapetus (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Heeresadler, see also Uniforms of the Heer (1935–45) ("Heer" = German Army (Wehrmacht), in this instance). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was that. I'm pretty sure its wasn't clutching/perched on the swastika directly, but on a rectangular object containing on. Also, the more I think abut it, the more I think it was supposed to look like a statue (of the sort that would be found on top of a public building). Was there any such statue that fits that description, and would have had particular significance to Nazi sympathizers? Iapetus (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was Speer's design for the German Pavilion at the 1937 World's Fair in Paris. We do have an image of it on Commons but since France has very limited freedom of panorama, and it only applies to permanent buildings, not temporary structures like this, I'm not going to link to it as it seems to me a copyvio, but easy enough to see it. That is similar to what you describe, though the swastika is within a circle rather than a rectangle.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does look pretty much like it. And the image was shown in a slightly oblique view, which may have made the wreath look more rectangular. Is there any reason why this image would be particularly significant or meaningful for a neo-Nazi, or is it probably just that it makes a "nice" image to go on a t-shirt? Iapetus (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]