Humanities desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

Citizenship of the Queen

What is Queen Elizabeth II's citizenship? Obviously British, but she is the Queen of 14 other realms, officially head of state. So, for example, she is the Queen of Canada, a separate crown from that of Great Britain. Does she also hold that citizenship? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC) (edited to added the login of the asker Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Citizenship in the U.K. is related to the idea of being a British subject, quite literally it means "A subject of (subordinate of) the British Crown" and as such, the concept that the Queen would be a subject to herself is a patently silly idea. Furthermore, the concept of "official citizenship" is basically one of bureaucratic paper pushing; the sort of thing that commoners need to worry about, and not what the Monarch worries about. The queen is just the queen. She is both a sovereign (as a person) and sovereign (as a concept). In otherwords, at the theoretical level, the Queen is under the jurisdiction of no one except God; and as such needed worry about things like citizenship. In practical matters, Parliament rules the U.K. (and the various national assemblies likewise rule other Commonwealth realms). However, the "pomp and circumstance" surrounding the Government of the U.K. at least plays along with the idea that the Queen is the ultimate source of all sovereignty in the U.K. (with ideas like Her Majesty's Government, etc.) To sum up, she isn't the citizen of anywhere, because being a citizen would mean she denies her own sovereignty. --Jayron32 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, there. As you'll see if you follow the link, the concept of "British subject" has been redefined several times and the term is now almost obsolete. Citizens of the UK are just citizens of the UK now, like the way it works in most countries. --Anonymous, 08:41 UTC, November 10, 2009.

I agree with Jayron - whatever the rules on UK Citizenship, they don't apply to the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's 15 other realms, btw. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I too agree with Jayron, I'd have to say that if you define "The British Crown" as meaning the whole system of monarchy, rather than simply the monarch, then you could argue that there is probably no-one who is more "subject of the British Crown" than HMTQ. Just about her every move is specifically part of the monarchic system. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.royal.gov.uk describes the Queen as "a national of the United Kingdom" and "a citizen of the European Union". However, her position as Sovereign is obviously somewhat unique - she does not hold a passport, for example, and UK civil or criminal law proceedings cannot be taken against her in person. Interestingly, she is entitled to vote in both UK and European elections, although by tradition the Queen and members of the Royal Family do not exercise this right. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do any heads of state, or even heads of government, have (or at least use) passports? I would expect they all travel on diplomatic papers. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by "diplomatic papers". There is such a thing as a diplomatic passport, but it is still a passport. All other members of the Royal Family apart from the Queen need passports. The US President has a passport [1]. I imagine it is only monarchs who don't need passports. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of states normally travel on diplomatic passports. I'm not sure what the Queen does when she travels outside the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport ... As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports." www.royal.gov.uk Gandalf61 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing here, but if her son and heir has a passport, it is probable that she also had a passport which has since expired. She wasn't always the queen. Flamarande (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and in fact she was outside the UK when she became Queen. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the rules in 1952 may have been different. Did British subjects need passports to travel within the British Commonwealth then? I don't know. Oh, but she'd also been to the US while a princess. I guess she'd've needed a passport for that anyway. --Anonymous, 19:58 UTC, November 10, 2009.

In 1952, she wasn't in a dominion, but Kenya, then a British colony. Of course, the United States was neither. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, someone try to abuse this loophole in the system by impersonating the Queen in order to travel abroad without a passport! Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger things have happened... Flamarande (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name one. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a legion of Lizzian look-alikes. However, for her to just turn up at an airport all by herself, carrying her own luggage, with no advance security and other arrangements having been made, and to stand in the queue like everyone else - that would be exceeding strange. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the answers. They certainly help a bit, but would she also be considered a Canadian/Australian/Belize citizen)? Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is, as sovereign, she doesn't worry about citizenship of any sort. Such matters are beneath her. It is quite possible that other commonwealth realms have granted her citizenship, or that she qualifies for citizenship under the rules of those nations, so the question could be answered on a techincal level by asking of each individual nation what their stance on her citizenship is. However, its a moot discussion because it has no practical bearing on how the British Monarch operates. --Jayron32 04:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is more clear. Appreciated. Just one thing, though, is that while British Monarch is a handy shorthand, she is the Monarch of several independent realms, so Canadian Monarch applies just as validly (though obviously it's more confusing to most people.) Aaronite (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, etc . -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creeds

I've noticed that the Apostle's Creed describes Christ as "crucified, dead and buried", whereas the Nicene Creed merely says "he suffered and was buried". Is there any theogical significance in the Nicene Creed not specifically saying that he died? Has this ever been the matter of controversy or alternative views as to whether he did actually die on the cross? --rossb (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Christology may be a good starting point for your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that article doesn't seem to address this issue. --rossb (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. It seems clear in the Latin at least, although the ecumenical English translation widely used since the 70's has "he suffered death and was buried". Does anyone know if the word used in Greek means only 'suffered' or can also mean 'suffered (death)'? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#1973_draft_for_an_ecumenical_version: ""He suffered death and was buried" (1975) replaced "he suffered, died, and was buried" (1973): "παθόντα" in Greek and "passus" in Latin are indicative of a suffering demise; but the 1973 draft inserted an extra verb, "died", not present in the original Greek or Latin." This suggests that the Greek and Latin verbs translated as 'suffered' indicate 'suffered (and died in this suffering)'. Obviously there is a lot of discussion about how best to exactly translate the Greek and Latin, but it looks like the Nicene creed doesn't necessarily leave out him dying. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Greek, but "passus" often does imply death; however it often does not, and anything can be suffered that way (hunger, some idiot bothering you, whatever). Of course, in this context it implies the Passion, which is derived from passus, and that certainly includes the death bit. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Greek the word is παθόντα, which I understand is the aorist participle of πάσχω and means "having suffered". Like the Latin, I suspect it may or may not imply death. One wonders why the authors of the Creed didn't spell it out more explicitly. --62.49.68.79 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak no Greek, but I wonder if the verb that is translated "rose again" necessarily implies death. It's an interesting question--I think there's more than enough evidence (NT, writings of church figures of the time, etc.) that the people composing the Creed didn't doubt Jesus' physical death, but the phrasing is odd. I'm suspecting, though, that "rose again" is a phrase that can only really refer to the reanimation of one who was dead. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a couple of online dictionaries, including one that claims to translate Koine, it does not look as if the meaning of πάσχω entails or by itself implies death. It really seems to mean just "suffered". Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, either you mistyped that last word, or misunderstood my comment. I'm suggesting that the phrase after "he suffered [death] and was buried" -- that is, "on the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures" -- uses a phrase "rose again" which in English certainly seems to imply he was not merely someone who had suffered, but in fact someone who had died. What Greek word or words are being translated as "rose again"? And what did they mean in 3rd century Greek, as far as we can tell? 67.170.96.241 (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about DC Sniper

The US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution and now I read that Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency. Is there any other way he could be saved now? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. He could escape, or the governor could change his mind. I would say his chances are pretty low for either. Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if he has a genuine medical emergency they would actually delay his execution until he was medically treated and was "well enough to be executed". I know, irony abounds. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A team of vigilantes could stage a daring rescue. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his attorneys could always file another emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, or with the state appellate court, if, say, the attorneys found new evidence showing that he didn't get a fair trial. The likelihood of this is low at this point, of course, after the years of opportunity to find such new evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, or... oh, nevermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, one could reanimate him. I don't know if the technology is availible yet. Plus, there's a good chance he could become a brain-eating zombie if we did... Still, its not much worse than what he was before... --Jayron32 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Hospital might be useful. Edison (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

middle-eastern and white american interracial marriage

our artlce said other and white interracial is a huge gross amount. This makes sense. But which one is mor likely. For middle eastern dad to have white mom or other way around. The 2006 census said 32% of Hispanics go with white-american 18 is white male with hispanic mexican female, and 15% other way around.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial people make up only 2.4% of the U.S. population. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Self-declared multiracial people only make up 2.4% of the US population. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong partially. I've known like 11 people who is black dad, white mom, two in my math class, 3 unknown people, one in my old middle school, few people in my high school. Of African American interracial I only know black dad with white mom, but I still never hear the other way around. let's see for Asians and white. One OCTA driver is Japanese male and he is marry to a white female, one in my middle school have like a Vietnamese dad, a white mom (last name is Tran), anohter one in High School (last name is Butte) have Chinese dad and a white mom, one in my nieghborhood is a Japanese dad, white mom, one last name of Gizara, and one Lee at old Chinese school have Chinese dad, and American white mom. But largely, I've known like 7 people with white male and asian female. I've known few middle eastern, hispanics males with white female.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Isn't middle eastern consider as a white? i thouhght black people is USA born, black people isn't neccessairly having descents from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USA does not have legal definitions of who belongs to what race -- it's largely a matter of "I know it when I see it." In some contexts and for some people, Muslim Arab-Americans are seen as being their own separate category. But usually they've blended in to "white". Consider the huge number of Lebanese-Americans who are powerful politicans. Do you think most people know that the Majority Leader of the Senate in the early 1990s, the current governor of West Virginia, and the governors of New Hampshire for half of the last 25 years are Lebanese? No -- they were all thought of as "white." And in America, that pretty much means you are white. --M @r ē ino 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Arabs are counted as White. This may not be enshrined in law (I could be wrong, but I don't think so), but it's close to being an official national definition — the Census Bureau is the nation's official statistics bureau. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the data i want For my english class we try have to learn else besides google seach. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]