Humanities desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

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.

February 4

Did Paul von Hindenburg ever give the Nazi salute?

I'm watching a documentary on the military channel, and they just showed a clip of Hindenburg making some sort of announcement (it might have been a press conference) and when he finished, many people in the room gave the Nazi solute but not Hindenburg. Did Hindenburg ever give the Nazi salute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you kids, get off my Lebensraum! But seriously... if you look for pictures of Hindenburg and Hitler, it's clear that the former was the more "senior" of the two. Hitler usually is the one formally prostrating himself. I find it unlikely that Hindenburg would have formally pledged his alliance and subservience to Hitler in such a way, but that is just speculation. Hindenburg was old school (and quite old), and not a huge fan of Hitler anyway. He didn't have to grovel (moreover, he could, in fact, make demands upon Hitler). I would suspect he never did. But that is just a hunch—I don't see anything out there that says he did or didn't. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague recollection that Hitler at least publicly deferred to Hindenburg. Although when he named the world's largest blimp after the portly Paul, it might have been his idea of a subtle joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points and I see now that it's actually called the the Hitler salute (Hitlergruß) so it's unlikely Hindenburg would have done such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture a guess that the German "Gruß" and the English "greet" have a common root, especially as the first definition for "Gruß" in my German dictionary is "greeting". So although the salute and the accompanying slogan seem blood-chilling to us, it was really just their cheerful way of saying, "Hiya, Hitler!" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, it was called the "Deutscher Gruß" (German Greeting), at least at first. I don't think that ever changed before 1945. Of course, the gesture was imported from Mussolini's Italy...so much for "German" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's Italian, going back to the Romans, yes? Oddly enough, ol' Benito could do the salute just with his jaw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that Hitler didn't name Zeppelins, the Zeppelin company did, and that they were run by Hugo Eckener who was as anti-Nazi as they came such that he even considered running for President in 1932 just so he could oppose Hitler? Oh, and the LZ-129 wasn't a blimp but a rigid airship, and while the biggest at the time was subsequently beaten by the LZ-130 Graf Zeppelin II which was slightly larger. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the LZ-129 was a rigid airship. :) Is it the case that Hitler, at least in public, held Herr Hindenburg in high esteem? If Hitler had wanted the ship renamed after himself, for example, I have a hunch no one would have stood in his way. But maybe he felt it was politically better to keep it in Hindeburg's name. And from what you're saying, I'm guessing Herr Eckener was not too crazy about those big swastikas on the tail, either, but he probably had little or no choice in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LZ-130 was slightly longer and bigger around than LZ-129. If I understand its article correctly, all its flights were demonstrations, and it was never used as a commercial airship. That probably accounts for my misunderstanding on the "largest" airship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The swastikas on the tail were a compromise. Hitler wanted even bigger ones on the sides of the blimp. --Carnildo (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least they didn't have a picture of the Red Baron and a sign saying "Met Death". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting someone without addressing the person's name

If a person who isn't close to you or who isn't your friend but just an acquaintance greets you by calling your name, is it rude of you to greet in return but without addressing their name? For example, say my name is Bob. Then:

Person: Hi Bob.

Me: Hi.

Rude or doesn't matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my social circles (college in North Carolina), but it also depends on context. Mannerisms speak far more loudly than words. If you walked up to me and said "Hi, Falconus!" (not my real name, btw) and I said "Hi," and promptly opened up a newspaper and started reading it, that could (but not necessarily in all cases) be rude. But if I answered "Hi!" and continued with "how are you?" or "how's it going?" then it would be perfectly normal. My advice is to observe (discreetly) the people around you, and see how they handle that social situation. If everybody replies with "Hi, [name]", then that probably is the accepted custom for your social group, and you have to make the choice of whether to accept that custom, or whether you can get away without accepting it. Falconus^{p t c} 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. I very rarely address anybody by name. It's like putting a little label on someone saying 'you're Bob'. Which is a bit presumptuous. Bob didn't name himself and even if he did, maybe he doesn't want to be called Bob right now. And calling someone by name is a useful tactic when they are out of line, which Bob probably isn't. Of course if you needed to get Bob's attention across a room filled with people... well then go walk up to Bob and draw his gaze. No need to call names, even if they appear on a birth certificate. I'll drop all this if I haven't seen someone for a while though. Vranak (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as note, social customs such as this are probably very likely to change from place to place. I don't find it presumptuous to address someone by name, but I don't find it necessary either. Falconus^{p t c} 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not replying with their name may also suggest that Bob has forgotten the other person's name. That may be considered rude in some situations. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but if Bob is so unremarkable that I would forget his name, then I would not feel the slightest bit abashed on that account. Vranak (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once worked with someone who made a point of always addressing people by name (I think he'd been on a management course that told him it would increase his effectiveness, or something). I found it quite jarring, but even worse was that fact that he very often got my name wrong when speaking to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What may be worse is if 1) you are a shy person who doesn't like to call attention to yourself, 2) you have a slightly less common name, and 3) you are being introduced to someone who has never heard the name before. So, you spend the first full minute of the conversation repeating your own name and trying to explain how to pronounce it. Dismas|^(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organizational behaviour

what can you do,as a manager, to increase the likelohood thayt your employees will exert ahigh level of effort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha dabral (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead by example. Show in your own work the level of effort you want them to show. If people respect you for your hard work, they are more likely to work harder. While they may not necessarily work as hard as you do, the converse is dangerous -- they are almost certain to be slackers if their manager seems to be one. Just speaking from experience here, of both being a manager and observing others. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be confident (and correct) in your decisions. Set realistic goals and stick to them. Be open to discussion. Make clear what you want done and that you expect them to do it. Then let them do it. Don't hover over them, but do check progress frequently, especially if you don't know them well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Align their incentives with project success — set up a bonus program where they get more money the better they hit the goals that you value. A slightly different goal program is to make sure the team sets their own goals; it's easier to dismiss a goal as unrealistic if it was dictated to you by a manager, and wasn't a shared goal that you came up with along with the other members of the team. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Take care in your written communications. (2) Do your own homework. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attend a good leadership course and ask your boss for advice. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much good advice above. My 2 cents(Australian) worth:

Treat your staff as people, they are not machines. Don't expect machine-like perfection.
Be even handed and consistent in 'discipline'.
One good principle I have heard, but not seen too often is, "Praise in public, chastise in private". Too often Managers make a show of their 'authority' by publicly abusing staff. This is poor mangement & usually counter productive. Best if you need to give some 'negative feedback' to do it in private. On the other hand good performance should be praised openly.
If you have more experienced staff working for you, don't be afraid to take their advice. (Just don't take credit for their ideas.)
As Bugs says, discussion but listen too. Too many bosses talk, but then ignore their staffs viewpoint. Big mistake.
Not everyone is Management material

Human resource management may help. Knowledge of Psychology also. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:32, 4 February

2010 (UTC)

You'll want to make the workplace somewhere where employees are excited to go to each morning. Where everyone's contributions are valued. Good luck with that! Vranak (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget to always and without fail call employees by their first name in every single sentence you direct at them. Never mind if you don't remember their names - just make a similar name up, they'll nevertheless understand and appreciate the gesture. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Where everybody knows your name / Where they're always glad you came..." Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After you ask them to work harder, provide "donuts and the possibility of more donuts to come", as in this documentary.[1]John Z (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody ever really try this ploy?

In just about every submarine movie I've ever seen (and a Star Trek episode or two), the trapped sub shoots out loose debris and spare oil to make it look like it's gone to the bottom. Was this real or just another Hollywood invention? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was actually a viable (if last-ditch) tactic in world war II, at least before sonar became commonplace. There was no other way to know if a sub got hit than to see oil and debris fields. I'd be curious to know who invented the tactic, though - seems inspired. --Ludwigs2 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account from HMS Mermaid [2]

"At last fuel oil rose to the surface, smelling strongly, turning the foam of our wake a dirty brown, but because the asdic reported a still-moving target, it was decided that this was just a ruse to persuade us to believe in the destruction of the boat."

I found several other references where Allied attackers believed that this tactic was being used[3] but no confirmation from the other side. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with plane shootdowns, the number of claimed submarine sinkings always greatly exceeded the actual results (for instance, when the Allies went over German Navy records after the war and compared them to all Allied reports). Considering the extra structures that WWII subs carried on deck compared to most modern subs, some of the debris reports may just have been from stuff knocked loose from deck but I would imagine desperate submariners to have used the fake tactic and eager surface mariners to have been keen to claim a kill on little evidence. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this "Submarine Bubble Target"[4] which is interesting if not really relevant. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attractiveness

It seems to me that males and females view attractiveness in a different manner. Annecdotally some women find me *very* attractive, but some evidently find me quite unattractive. This appears to be the same with others as well, but when it comes to male-female attraction there seems to be more agreement. That is, if 50 percent of men find a woman attractive, chances are most of the other 50% will as well whereas this is not the case with female-male attraction. Is this correct? If so, why is this? 98.20.170.216 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be, and maybe still is, a wikipedia article on this general subject. I can't think of its name, but you might be able to find it in a search, if it wasn't zapped due to it being laden with POV. Regardless of percentages, attractiveness depends on individual viewpoints. It also depends on how you define "attractive". Physical beauty only goes so far. You can find out too much about someone and discover that she's "ugly" on the inside. And the reverse is also true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fifty percent who do find you attractive are for starters, not put off by vanity. The other half probably are. Vranak (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I hear a balloon busting. :) I heard a quote years ago that I think still works: "A beautiful woman is one I notice. An attractive woman is one who notices me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

(deindent) Male and female attraction are different in their modalities. Both have nothing to do with "what's on the inside", or at least, not with any qualities that anyone would interpret as positive.

Men generally don't care about how attractive a woman is to their own judgement, rather they care about how attractive a woman is to their peers. Of course, they think that they are responding to their own individual judgement, but what they do is they slowly change their preferences until it settles on the dominant preferred model of their social group. When they change their social group, they will slowly change their preferences.

Men in a given social group all agree on attractiveness ratings. They come to agree by gathering together in public and rating women by attractiveness. They then shame any member of the group who rates differently than they do.

Since men like a woman to be attractive to other males, they prefer a woman who has been with many men. They will say the opposite. Men don't have modalities of attraction--- so that a woman that they would like to take to bed is the same woman that they would want to marry, and is the same woman that they fall in love with. They will say the opposite. If a woman is unfaithful to them, they will become more strongly attached. They will say the opposite.

Women on the other hand have strict modalities of attraction. They will say the opposite. They each classify men into two classes: the "superman" and the "ordinary man", with two different roles. The "superman" is above your powers of control, generally above your social class. He cannot be manipulated by female casual hypnosis. He is extremely attractive, but become unattractive the moment he shows any deep attraction or attachment. He can be taken to bed, but he is not suitable for long-term relationships. He has the characteristics of a Nazi SS officer.

The "ordinary man" can be placed under control by hypnosis, and is normally not attractive at all. This man only becomes attractive when he is mistaken for a Nazi SS officer, which happens once in a while under certain conditions. Since this is a question of random chance, a few women will find this man attractive, but most will not. Once the woman finds the "ordinary man" attractive, and he is captured, he can become a boyfriend/husband. This requires waiting for a rare random event.

The female distinction between "supermen" and "ordinary men" is defined entirely socially, and is all in women's collective mind. It has nothing to do with the man himself: it does not depend on his physical characteristics, on his intelligence, on his race, on his wealth, nothing. It only depends on the shared perception of other women, and on the man's callous behavior.

To be seen as a "superman", a man just has to be perceived as one who casually sleeps with many women, shows no compassion or kindness, disobey authority, but succeed socially. If this man is portrayed as having this characteristics, even if he has no verifiable manly traits, he will be attractive.

This operates in much the same manner as the male social-group bonding, except with subtler cues depending only on submission and domination. Women will gather together and ask males to do tasks in front of other women (get me some coffee, etc.). Those that do the tasks are shown to have submitted to female hypnotic control, and are therefore eliminated from the class of supermen. The "supermen" are those that don't do anything that is asked of them.

Men do not respect this distinction, and know that there is no real difference between the superman and the ordinary man. Likewise, women know that there is no real difference between a woman whose features are currently in-favor with the social group and one who isn't.Likebox (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed a long, rambling WP:OR post with no citations that has it all — hypnosis of men and the Nazi SS. Good times. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a doco once where they took 10 couples and cut their wedding photos in half, they give the pictures of the men to a group of ladies and the women to a group of men who are both asked to "rank" the photos in order of attractiveness. Maybe unsurprisingly the men that were ranked highly by the women were actually married to the women that were ranked highly by the men, and same for the ones that were ranked low. (the married couples were not included in the groups that did the ranking). The surprising find was how precisely they correlated. The show I saw about it claimed there was a total one to one relationship, when the pictures were lined up they ALL matched, not one couple out of place. I'm going to do a search if that's been repeated. Vespine (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Sexual selection. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article, and Ronald Fisher... just... ouch. FiggyBee (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just needed a minute to get my thoughts together. Those articles just reminded me that, however much we may laugh/despair at young earthers and religious fundamentalists, the day that "science" rules the earth is the day I move to the moon (or become a fundamentalist!). FiggyBee (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without science, there are no trips to the moon. Or anywhere, really. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone would say, that science is bad. I'm saying that people who think their worldview is unequivocably correct and should be imposed on everyone are scary, and the most credible and powerful people of that sort in western society today are the Dawkinites, "Brights", and similar. FiggyBee (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That description could apply equally to religious fundamentalists. But I don't understand what any of that has to do with attractiveness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could, but religious fundamentalists don't seem to have the same appeal to educated western people. What it has to do with attractiveness is how unimpressed I am by the Sexual selection article Colin linked to, which is based heavily on the work of Ronald Fisher, "the greatest of Darwin's successors", a eugenicist and white supremacist whose work was heavily influenced by his early 20th century conservative values. But it's science, so who can argue with it? We are getting a little off-topic, I must admit. FiggyBee (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there's an old saw I heard once: some people in the world have questions, and some people have answers; you should never trust the latter. --Ludwigs2 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the Will Rogers comment to the effect that it's not what folks don't know that's a problem, it's what they know for sure but which ain't so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photogenic is an article that relates to this subject matter. I actually don't think it necessarily relates to this subject matter. But apparently a lot of other editors (at that article) equate attractiveness with the quality of being photogenic. I know there is a correlation, but I also think the two qualities are often different. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the question, it's not clear to me if the OP is referring solely to physical attractiveness (that article may be of interest and is perhaps what BB was referring to although it doesn't really address the issue directly). It's also not entirely clear how he's finding out if women are attracted to him. If for example he's asking, then it's fairly obvious that a fair number are going to lie for a variety of reasons (say yes to avoid hurting his feelings, say no either because they're annoyed by the question or to avoid giving him ideas if they aren't interested in a relationship) and are likely to be influence by things other then physical attractiveness even if you specifically ask about that (the same with males of course).

Or to put it a different way, any experiment where you're getting people to rate people they already know and particularly such an anonymity lacking one is pretty useless. Females of course tend to consider physical attractiveness as less important then males when it comes to choosing a mate. I would also point out without intending to offend anyone that it's pretty pointless to compare how males may rate females famous for being attractive, with how females may rate more average males.

Anyway my point is that I'm not sure whether the thesis at least when it comes to physically attractiveness, is particularly well supported, while females may very well be more variable in their ratings, I'm not aware of much evidence from the various things I've read that females tend to be highly variable from each other in how they rate male physical attractiveness (compared to males rating females). There is some evidence females preference do vary by the stage of the menstrual cycle which complicates things so you probably want to choose females at the same stage in their menstrual cycle when conducting such an experiment.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

does/did noam chomsky drive, and if so what kind of car

does/did noam chomsky drive, and if so what kind of car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.194 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google says he drives a red Audi. I can't imagine why you would want to know this. [5] [6] Marnanel (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He used to have a Porsche 911 Turbo and a Mercedes E63 but I think he traded in the Mercedes for the Audi S6.

Because Colourless red Audies sleep furiously ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would Jesus drive?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that one's obvious. An SUV, of course. Duh. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep (in a good way). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur and English royals

Did any kings of England ever claim descent/right to rule from King Arthur? 174.20.67.206 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Tudors did, but if so not very seriously. Peter jackson (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur seems to be an honored name among the Brit Royalty, but it seems to be more in the realm of mythology. William has always been popular, a real guy who proved that love and a large army conquers all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by it seems to be more in the realm of mythology, Bugs. Arthur is one of the names of the current heir to the throne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I recall it's "Charles Philip Arthur George". Philip is his father, of course, and both Arthur and George are honored names among the British royalty, except that the Georges were real guys (some of whom even spoke English), whereas Arthur is largely mythological. Not totally, but significantly. And theoretically, Prince Charles could rename himself King Arthur (II) if he wants to, but that probably wouldn't be the wisest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I've mentioned before on here, he wouldn't be Arthur II; King Arthur is not a historical King of England, and in any case the numbering starts with the Conquest (Edward Longshanks was Edward I, despite three earlier Edwards). FiggyBee (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I should amend the question to "Did any of them claim it seriously enough for a textbook that isn't even about English royals to bother mentioning it as a serious fact?" 174.20.67.206 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VII certainly did[7], through a line of Welsh and British princes, some made-up by Geoffrey of Monmouth and some from earlier Welsh sources. His granddaughter Elizabeth I, had a 22 foot long pedigree made, showing her descent all the way from Adam and Eve by way of King Arthur - it is in the library at Hatfield House. The Round Table at Winchester Castle was repainted in Henry VIII's reign to show Arthur looking strikingly similar to Henry. While the Arthurian legends were hugely popular across Europe, in England they were a political tool. For the Plantagenet kings, it was a chance to cast the Saxons as villains, while the Tudors were desperate to legitimise their dynasty by aligning themselves with the Kings of Britain. Arthur was thought to be the great-grandson of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, so all the more reason to be descended from him. Arthur, Lear, Coel and Lud were genuinely believed to be historical figures. If the King and the College of Heralds said that he was descended from them, then that would be taken as the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then, King Arthur's family says "Although Arthur is given sons in both early and late Arthurian tales, he is rarely granted significant further generations of descendents [sic]; this is at least partly because of the premature deaths of his sons in these legends". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it's not straightforward. Perhaps I should have said "out of the house of Arthur" rather than a direct descendant. I've spent the last hour trying to find a clear explanation on the web without success. The claim certainly existed and I believe was taken seriously by most at the time. Sorry I can't back it up in a better way. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sweet. Thanks. 174.20.67.206 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical basis for King Arthur would be an interesting read for people interested in this topic. --Jayron32 06:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..and also King Arthur's messianic return. This article states: "Henry VII made a good deal of his Welsh connections to rally support in his march from Milford Haven to Shrewsbury in 1485. Much was made of his alleged descent from Cadwaladr, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth the last “King of Britain” in the seventh century, and of Merlin’s prophecies that his descendants would one day reunite the realm. (That they would do so by “driving out the Saxon” was discreetly ignored.) Henry’s naming his eldest son “Arthur” was a sop to these “British” roots...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FB isn't entirely correct. The numbering of British monarchs follows English or Scottish numbering, whichever is larger. It's the English side of the numbering that starts from the Norman Conquest. However, there was no King Arthur of Scotland either, so FB's main conclusion is correct. A future King Arthur wouldn't be Arthur II. Peter jackson (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always what is larger — except in a Scottish context, we never talk about the Stuarts as James VI and VII. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who "we" is. Scots talk about James VI and VII all the time, whether they're in Scotland or not. And why shouldn't they? It's not as if their Jameses I-V suddenly retrospectively ceased to have ever existed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, although from what I can gather "whichever is larger" was merely a suggestion from Winston Churchill to shut up the Scots who complained about having EIIR on their postboxes. MacCormick v Lord Advocate established that numbering was a matter of Royal Prerogative, so there is no rule or law as such regarding numbering; future Kings and Queens can use whatever number they like. FiggyBee (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that there never was an Arthur I is correct, but it wasn't for the want of trying. Arthur of Brittany was set to be Arthur I of England after the death of Richard I, his childless uncle having named him as his heir some years previously in an attempt to prevent his own brother John from inheriting the throne. Richard changed his mind on his deathbed and John took the crown after all, but Arthur fought for recognition, at least for Richard's French Counties as a consolation prize, and gained a fair amount of support. He came to a nasty end (it is assumed) as a result, and the bad luck attached to the name Arthur continued with Arthur, Prince of Wales, who would have been Arthur I but for a nasty bug, and whose childhood marriage was the excuse for his brother's divorce and England's split from the Church of Rome. My grandmother told me that there were some raised eyebrows back when the name of the current Queen's first-born son was announced, because of a superstitious belief that someone named Arthur was unlikely ever to be king. We'll see ... Ka renjc 14:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And his firstborn son is William Arthur Philip Louis... --TammyMoet (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FB, you're correct to say that there's no law on the subject, that it's a matter of royal prerogative. Legally, Prince Charles could call himself Benedict IX when he comes to the throne. But there are also realities to consider. In the modern political climate it seems unimaginable that any future monarch is going to tell the Scots that their monarchs don't count. Of course this can't go in articles because of WP:CRYSTAL, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]