Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 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.

September 5

Addressing a noblewoman

I'm reading a book set during the British Regency period. One of the characters is "the Marquis of X". The book refers to his wife, the murder victim, as "Lady X". Is this correct? I know that she would probbly be referred to as the "Marchioness of X", but I don't recall that ever being used in the book. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Forms of address in the United_Kingdom#Peers and peeresses should answer the question, given the weight of history behind these titles I doubt it's changed between the Regency and the present. Going by that table, it appears that "Marchioness of X" would be the technically correct term, with Lady X being an alternative that's probably not quite correct but would doubtless be used informally. ~ mazca ^talk 00:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on that, it looks like "Lady X" is acceptable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All peers except for Dukes can be referres to as Lord X, where X is the designation (as in "Viscount X", "Baron of X", etc). Thus, their wives are Lady X. The Marquess of X would normally be addressed as Lord X and his wife, the Marchioness of X, would be referred to as Lady X. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of Surtsicna's first sentence, read our article on the last noble Prime Minister of the UK. He was a marquess, but he's typically referred to as "Lord Salisbury". Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just one point: There are no "Barons of X". They're all "Baron X" (long form "Baron X of Y"); except for a small number of "Baron X of Z" (long form "Baron X of Z, of Y"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have articles on a few, such as the Baron of Renfrew, Baron of Dunsany and the Baron of Kells. Warofdreams talk 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but they're peerages in either the Peerage of Scotland or the Peerage of Ireland. My comment was about the Peerage of the United Kingdom since we're talking about British affairs. -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Marriage

What is the Chinese practice in which a male marries into his wife's family and their children take the wife's surname instead of the husband's?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if anybody know if it's exist anymore because I know it still exist in Shantou where my both my female cousins does this but I'm not sure if it exist elsewhere in China or the world.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea about China, but the Japanese term is mukoyoshi... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, from my readings in Heraldry and related matters I have come across this occasionally happening in Britain in order to maintain a peerage title that would otherwise have become extinct, though I can't recall any specific instances at the moment. I suspect it has been an occasional practice in many cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Every double-barreled name in Britain, like Bowes-Lyon, records an example where the man is marrying an heiress, and applies her family name, which he now represents to his own. -- 18:02, 5 September 2010 User:Wetman

Be careful of universal statements. There are cases where a person has a double-barrelled surname because both of that person's parents wanted their surname propagated to their offspring. Such cases have nothing to do with heiresses. Marnanel (talk)

However, when referring to the 19th century upper crust (as opposed to those influenced by feminist sentiments since the 1970's), Wetman's comments have a certain validity. Even among those who didn't change or add to their surnames in any way, there was the phenomenon of "heraldic heiresses"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The term (in simplified Chinese) in which a male marries into his wife's family is 上门女婿(common term, more polite), 倒插门(common term, derogatory), or 入赘 (technical term). Please note all the baidu links above may not be very reliable, but they are the best sources I could find describing this practice. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to mention all the above links are in simplified Chinese; and yes this practice still exist in China today. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an Australian born man who married a Taiwanese born woman, in Chinese script I have taken my wife's name, as our daughter has too. All official Taiwanese documents are in chinese script. In Australia we use my western name.

Sad classical piece

What is the saddest, or if that's too subjective, what are some especially sad or melancholy pieces of classical music for piano? I mean sad as in depressing, not creepy like Bach's T/F in Dm. FOr my purposes these should be ca. Classical-period classical (i.e., Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) not neoclassical. 76.199.167.204 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vxskud (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the saddest classical piano pieces I know is the 2nd movement (Adagio) from Mozart's Piano Sonata in F, K. 280. This movement is in F minor, so it's already right in the sad zone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Minstrel Boy", a traditional Irish song about a very young man sent off to war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps too modern, and "melancholy" might be an oversimplification, but personal favorites (I like to play) include Scriabin's Op. 2 No. 1 and Grieg's Elegie (there's more than one) Op. 38. No. 6. There's also Grieg's Elegie Op. 47 No. 7. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven himself would perhaps have chosen the cavatina from string quartet op.130; Carl Holz reported that "it cost the composer tears in the writing and brought out the confession that nothing he had written had so moved him; in fact merely to revive it afterwards in his thoughts and feelings brought forth renewed tributes of tears." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP asked for piano pieces. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Katisha's lament "Alone and yet alive" is sad even if played without the words. With the words (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a piano arrangement for it, but the second movement of Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven) ("Heroic") has sometimes been used as a funeral dirge. It kind of picks up the pace toward the end, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to make a piano arrangement of an orchestral work to fit this particular bill. There's a number of funeral marches written for piano, the most famous probably being the 3rd movement of Chopin's 2nd Piano Sonata. In fact, the sonata is nicknamed "Funeral March Sonata" because of this movement. It's extremely famous and rightly so; though, whether it's all that sad per se is a moot point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The minor-key variations from Bach's Goldberg Variations might fit the bill. Gould, #15 [2], #21 [3], #25 [4]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur on the Goldberg Variations. I also find some of The Art of Fugue quite sad, like Contrapunctus III. But I'm putting my money on Chopin's Preludes, opus 28, #4, "Suffocation". Pfly (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the Chopin #4! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hammerklavier Sonata is sometimes described that way. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad? The Hammerklavier? Anything but, I'd have thought. Can you show me 10 cites from 10 different reputable critics or commentators for that description of it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No changes

How do you call a legal outcome of a trial that orders to keep things at their current state? (or the state before the dispute began). In Spanish it's known as "No Innovar", but a quick search at google suggest that "no innovate" (the direct translation) is not the term used for this. MBelgrano (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with status quo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In US law you're probably talking about a dismissal (in which the case is simply dropped by the court, with or without the consent of the claimant). There are cases in which a judgement in favor of the defendant is tantamount to restoration of the status quo (particularly in criminal cases, when a defendant is released as not guilty). is that what you're looking for? --Ludwigs2 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Of course there are laws against killing but is there any law in US specifically targeted against cannibalism ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled [cannibalism laws] and this[5] is one of the first things that came up. The answer seems to be that it varies from state to state. That stands to reason. The cannibalism article is nearly all about murder and cannibalism. There are a few examples of historical cases of cannibalism "by necessity". However, the wikipedia article doesn't seem to address legality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If cannibals invite you to supper don't arrive late because you will be told that everybody's eaten. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's early yet, but I feel confident in giving you this award now.
The pun is mightier than the sword. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As the cannibal chief's widow said, thank you for your condiments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. I'm just trying to ketchup. Here's an oldie: Do you know what Dahmer said to Ms. Bobbitt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm dying to hear this one. Turns out JWB is a distant cousin.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"You gonna eat that?" (So old it's new again.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch it please; We're strolling into BLP territory here Buddy431 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dahmer's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lorena Bobbitt is still alive. Buddy431 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is phenomenon in itself, conversations about cannibalism often turn into unwanted humour. Perhaps we unconsciously strive to get away from the topic. I remember some people bending backwards to prove that cannibalism is pure fiction.

[unindent] Going back to the original subject — I vaguely remember reading that there aren't any such laws. For example, Marc Sappington confessed to killing and eating a person; apparently the cannibalism was widely reported, but he wasn't convicted of cannibalism, even though reading his article indicates to me that his confession was part of the reason for his murder conviction. Perhaps the best-known case of cannibalism in recent US history was Jeffrey Dahmer, but his article says nothing about him being charged with or convicted of cannibalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Morbid jokes arise from human nature - we joke about things that scare us, in hopes of being less scared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading about Albert Fish, possibly the most notorious American cannibal ever, at least prior to Dahmer, it suggests that they wanted to avoid the subject of cannibalism at the trial and make it strictly a sexually-motivated murder. That leaves open the question of whether cannibalism is technically illegal by itself or whether they just didn't want to put the family through that testimony, especially as the murder itself was sufficient to fry Fish; they didn't need to add the cannibalism factor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If cannibalism is illegal in and of itself, don't bite your fingernails in the presence of police. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See autocannibalism and autophagia. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden it is a crime (brott mot griftefriden) to move, damage or defile a corpse or the ashes of a deceased. I'm sure that cannibalism would be covered and I suppose that there are similar laws elsewhere.Sjö (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the old Royal Navy in the UK, I believe that where required, killing and cannabolism was murder unless all were in agreement and then lots were drawn.

Does everyone eventually fall in love with someone?

Is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence? Or does everyone eventually fall in love with someone? Do people who have never fallen in love by a mature age have any distinctive psychological traits? Thanks 92.15.30.74 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While this may verge on medical advice, the answer is no. There are plenty of people who have gone through life without meeting 'the one' (I cannot, however, cite any specific examples). Love is part inexplicable ideal, part discerned choice. "Falling in love" is the ideal; "happily ever after" is the choice. schyler (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second sentance suggests you meant "Yes" rather than "No", if you were refering to the first question. 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this passes RS muster, but Dean Martin says "Yes." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "Yes, is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence" or do you mean "Yes, everyone eventually falls in love with someone"? 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are people who never "fall in love" with anyone.--Wetman (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But, is there a person who is in love all the time? MacOfJesus (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the love of God, father...? Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Falling in love" with God? I don't think that's the concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how you interpret the religous ecstasy of St. Theresa of Avila. I'm more concerned by the thought that Jon may be saying he expects a father to be in love with his children D: 86.164.78.91 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though surely off-topic. And I'm more concerned about this shift (and the second more than the first) from "love of" to "in love". Wikiscient (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first two replies are ambiguous and tell me nothing. So still mostly an unanswered question, apart from Wetman's reply. 92.15.7.161 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's likely. Actually this word "love" is the most mysterious word we have ! And to top things, everyone's got his own history that somehow comes up and gets in way of communication.

"does everyone eventually fall in love with someone?" No. There is no law requiring everyone to fall in love at least once before they die (as far as I know; I'll get my lawyers on that in a moment). Some people are very self-involved and are happy that way. Some are just unlucky, and never meet the right person. But if you are linking to the Limerence article in your post, you seem well on your way to researching this question here at WP yourself. Can you narrow your question down to something more specific (and directly answerable)? Wikiscient (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We could learn from the Ancient Greeks here, who had different words for love. Hence, I think we are looking at this question from within our own culture. 1. Filio; brotherly love. 2. Agape; "laying down ones life for ones friend" love. To mention just two. Forgive me if I'm over simplistic. The kind of love we are describing here would be viewed as infatuation, but not genuine love. Hence, it is going to be hard to answer the question as it stands. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

From Love and Death:

Sonja: "There are many kinds of love, Boris. There's the love between a man and a woman, love between a mother and a son...:

Boris: "Two women; let's not forget my favorite."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a special commission

In connection with Ely and Littleport riots 1816 and the associated to-do list, what is a special commission?

By the special commission issued to try the Ely rioters the judicial authority vested by charter in the Lord Chief Justice of that Isle will be superseded. Mr. Justice ABBOTT and Mr. Justice BURROW [sic], it is said, will be the presiding judges on this occasion.

— The Times, Tuesday, Jun 04, 1816; pg. 3; Issue 9852; col B

Ignore the mis-spelling; Sir James Burrough, judge of the common pleas.

Who sets a special commission up? Why (in this case)? What are its terms of reference? What is the wording? See also Warren (1997) p. 1 "... meet the Judges appointed by the Special Commission ..." and Johnson (1893) p. 25 "A Special Commission was appointed for the trial ...". Further background: according to Sir James Burroughs entry in the ODNB, In May 1816 Burrough was appointed a judge of the common pleas, when Charles Abbott was removed into the king's bench — the Ely riot trials were held in June 1816 --Senra (Talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Commission. Such commissions are (nominally) set up by the Crown, which means (in practice) by the appropriate branch of the executive - probably the Home Office in this case, but I'm not familiar with it specifically. The Scarman Report into the 1981 Brixton riots was produced by such a commission, set up by William Whitelaw, Home Secretary at the time. The terms of reference will be established in detail when the commission is set up. I assume they're publically available somewhere for the commission in question; the Public Record Office might be a good place to start. Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with Tevildo, but I think the special commission referred to in the Ely and Littleport riots was not a Royal Commission of Inquiry (which would not have the power to bring prosecutions), but a special commission of Oyer and terminer. Such special commissions were instituted in the name of the Crown, but I believe on the advice of Ministers. There is a blank example of a Special Commission in this book. The procedure is not used any more. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the above responses. I have searched The Times and the London Gazette trying to find the words of this special commission without success. I take the point about Oyer and terminer made by Sam Blacketer but this Law French stuff is way beyond me. If anyone can find this particular special commission wording it would help the article; in the meantime, thank you for the responses so far --Senra (Talk) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have always found the staff at Cambridgeshire Archives to be very helpful in cases like this, and would refer you to them. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TammyMoet; I find the staff at Cambridgeshire Archives very helpful too! Indeed, I have two outstanding queries with them at the moment; as a result of your response above, I have added a third :) Still, I cannot help wondering if this special commission would not have been instigated in government somewhere; perhaps visible in Hansard? I believe the Prime Minister at the time was Robert Jenkinson, the Lord Chancellor was Lord Eldon and the Home Secretary was Lord Sidmouth. Just had a quick look at Hansard and the period 1816 seems blank, so I am stuck really --Senra (Talk) 10:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on participation in Class Action lawsuits?

Hi, so I've posted my question to reddit, but would like to post it here too. Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, just a simple point in the direction of the information that I would need, a starting point.

Thanks in advance. 70.18.129.59 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My non-legal understanding: In most class actions you're included by default along with all other affected parties. The court will require notification to be made when the class is certified. Presumably Google could do this pretty easily. If you are left out, you can get in touch with the plaintiff's legal representation.

But I will note that I think your idea that you'll get $2500 is pretty laughable. Class actions of this sort — where the class is extremely huge, and proving direct harm is hard — always end up funneling most of the "award money" into legal fees. The few class actions I've been part of have gotten me whopping checks of $5 or so. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I got about $12 in the big CD lawsuit. Just to make the point, I spent it on a book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In general I think one should see class actions (ideally) as being punitive in nature. They punish companies; they don't really redress victims. You take part in them not because you want your $5, but because you want the company to pay massive fines. Or because you like enriching lawyers, I don't know. If I were going to take part in a Google Buzz lawsuit, it would be to send a message to companies of this sort who are cavalier with their privacy. It would not be because I thought I was going to get much out of it myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but our Class action article answers these questions. Shadowjams (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

War

Is it true to say there was no single cause (or catalyst) to World War Two, and that it was a combination of things in a certain order that caused it? This is what my history professor said, but I find it hard to believe that the worst war is history had no cause. Flyinaweb (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there was no single cause, but that doesn't mean there was no cause at all, it means that there were many causes. See causes of World War II - it's massive. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything complicated in history — that has many groups of people involved for different reasons — has multiple causes. Rarely are international relations monocausal. The superficial observer of history, of course, can find something that they've decided was the "true cause" (Germany invaded Poland, 1938), but this is a poor way to do history, and does not stand up under any thoughtful scrutiny. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1939, surely? 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) War is a complex event that rarely (if ever) has a single cause. Some wars have a trigger event (e.g., the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the immediate trigger of World War I), but those are not causes, merely triggers that set off a conflict stemming from multiple other factors. --Ludwigs2 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be nice to point out that history of WW2 looks a bit biased.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean our article history of WW2? --Lgriot (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the answer for you. Once upon a time there was a historian who was fed-up with the histories and wanted to write a REAL history, I mean a no-nonsense, UNBIASED history, so un-biased that no one could find faults in it. So he stopped all other activities, brought a lot of books, did a lot of research, tasted dust of all the museums he could and sat down to do the MS. It took years. When he was almost through, one evening a fight broke out in his neighborhood. He went out to have a look. He asked a neighbor what has wrong ? The answer was - a murder. Someone had been stabbed to death just across the street. As was his wont he begun questioning everybody around what had happened exactly. Each person gave a different answer ! Then it struck him - whom to believe ? He went into his study and threw away all he wrote into fire.

I hope you understand what I mean... Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean he was a really incompetent historian. All textual research turns up incomplete and contradictory material: the job of a historical researcher is to weigh the likely reliability of different sources, seek for further corroborations or definitive data, reconcile the remaining alternatives as far as they can be, and - in a scholarly context - present the results with the appropriate caveats. For popular accounts the last step has sometimes to be elided or omitted. (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Had he been a really incompetent historian the experience would have left him untouched and he would have stubbornly gone ahead with his new "unbiased" history

Jon, please go and read Historical method. There is no historian in the world who behaves like that: it's something you would learn in any properly-taught history class. Herodotus is long dead. Marnanel (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the main purpose of your "properly-taught history class" - to keep producing historians who are dumb enough to carry on the burden

Monarchies

Why are so many "democratic" countries still monarchies? (England, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc.) --75.33.216.97 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably a couple of main reasons: power tends to lie with a more or less democratic parliament or assembly rather than with the monarch; and because during revolutionary times, such as the late C18 and early C19, the governments of those countries avoided revolution. There is a plethora of ancillary factors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why should a democratic (no scare quotes please) country not retain a constitutional monarchy? England isn't a nation state but the United Kingdom remains a monarchy because the people wish to remain subjects of Her Majesty. Some other countries have considered the issue directly - referendums in Italy in 1946, Greece in 1973 went against their monarchies, but Australia in 1999 voted to retain the monarchy. Spain restored its monarchy by referendum in 1978 and was by all accounts very grateful for it in February 1981. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At the 1999 referendum, Australians were asked to say Yes or No to: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is, they were given exactly one model of how a republic might work (of many such models), and asked to choose between that specific model and the status quo. They chose the status quo. However, there’s plenty of evidence that, had they been asked the threshold question "Would you prefer Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?", they would have gone for the republic option. Or, had they been given a range of republican models along with the status quo, they would have chosen a different republican model. So, it’s not safe to say Australians "voted to retain the monarchy", as that was just the surface appearance of what was being asked of them. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But why do those countries claim to have a democratic form of government when they're ruled by a monarch instead? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but England is not in any real sense "ruled" by a monarch. She just sits on her throne, waving (or whatever it is monarchs do) while England is ruled by its government. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As QEII would undoubtedly be happy to confirm, she reigns but does not rule. This is not just a semantic game; she really does NOT: sit on her throne (except on special ceremonial occasions); make up laws on whim; issue commands to have people's heads chopped off or to have their taxes doubled; or anything else the King in the Wizard of Id does. She is for the most part told what to do, and she does it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For more on the "for the most part.." bit in the above contribution, see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See Monarchism in Canada for an example of the arguments used in favor of keeping a monarchy in one democratic country. In reality, the biggest hurdle to a republic in a place like Canada is simply that it would be so much work politically, constitutionally and bureaucratically to bring about, and there are seemingly far more pressing issues to address. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "monarch" in the modern day need not necessarily mean "the person with the ultimate power" - the monarchies you mention have monarchs that are primarily symbolic figureheads with no real power in affairs of state. The situation is similar with the Emperor of Japan - he gets to stay in his palace, speak to high guests and twice a year to his countrymen, but other than that has no real power. Or see this example: President of Germany - the president in the German model of governance has almost no real powers, he's merely a symbolic figure. I live in a similar country - our president is, while elected directly, almost completely without real power: he gets to confirm ambassadors, he is the (symbolic) CIC of the army and that's about it. His power lies mainly in being a moral influence to the people - he sometimes chimes in with current events and gives his opinion, but nobody in power is legally bound to listen to those opinions. Incidentally, this question chimes in with a question that was posted a couple of days ago: obviously the OP was taught that democracy=good, monarchy=bad and is now having difficulties trying to come to terms with the fact that the world is far from quite as simple and black-and-white. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Most republics have non-executive presidents (the US and France are exceptions) which do pretty much the same thing as a constitutional monarch and cost their country about the same amount of money. In most monarchies, having a king or queen is part of a long standing tradition that carries great cultural significance and adds pageantry, colour and national identity. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The monarchy is also (rightly or wrongly) regarded as being "above politics" - so avoiding the issues that arise when a parliament (or its equivalents) and a national head of state are each elected, often at different elections and with different political outcomes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the quotes around democracy in the question, they aren't needed. These countries are democratic. We vote for our representatives, and they make the laws, Queen or no Queen. Republicanism isn't the only type of democracy. Aaronite (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But can't the Queen of England withhold Royal Assent, effectively vetoing a law? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, but that never happens -- it hasn't happened, anyway, for 300 years. If Queen Elizabeth II were to start doing that, the UK would presumably become less democratic. Note that some U.S. governors could, under their power of pardoning, have all of their political enemies killed and then pardon their killers. But that never happens either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It has happened in Belgium.. Baudouin of Belgium refused to sign an abortion law. He left the throne for a day so the government could sign the bill itself. Unilynx (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) King Baudouin of Belgium, a devout Catholic, was so personally unhappy with a proposed law legalising abortion, that he arranged to (in effect) abdicate for a day, leaving the signing of the law to others. That was his solution to not being a party to a law he could not countenance. That kind of demonstrates that simply refusing to give Royal Assent is not really possible in modern constitutional monarchies. I mean, he could have said "No, I will not sign", but the consequences could have included his being deemed permanently unfit to reign; kings do not give up their thrones so readily. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion has come up before, except I don't recall the answer, or if I even asked it this way: In theory, does the Queen have the power to "veto" a law that she considers to be so outrageous that it could cause great harm to the nation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, she has the discretion to withhold Royal Assent on any bill at all, for any reason at all, no matter how capricious. But the reality is 180 degrees different. If she felt so strongly about a bill, she'd obviously raise her concerns with her Prime Minister. He might agree to propose some modifications to assuage her, but it would be up to the Parliament to agree to them. If she still felt so outraged by the bill, I think it's more likely she'd just abdicate than refuse to sign. Refusal to sign would bring the Crown into sharp conflict with the Executive, and in such contests, the Crown always comes off second best. Charles I had his head chopped off for his troubles, and the monarchy was even abolished for a while. The Queen would not ever get into that sort of territory. She'd just quit. But think about it: If she was so outraged, there'd be plenty of others of a similar view, and it would become a political issue first and foremost, not a constitutional one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our relevant article (mentioned above) the answer to BB is Yes. "The monarch can force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this inevitably leads to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1704 during the reign of Queen Anne. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died; George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent responses, both of you. I see the bottom line being that it's theoretically possible, but very unlikely due to a variety of reasons both political and practical. About the only way it should come to something like that is if the Prime Minister and the ruling party have defied all advice and public opinion, and have sent the bill on to her anyway (for example, a bill to outlaw tea), the Queen would have some options, and triggering a dissolution of Parliament seems the most politically astute. However, if it was clear the people and the Parliament both favored the law after much public discussion, she would be pretty much stuck with it even if she didn't like it (which I am sure happens sometimes, but she keeps her royal mouth shut about it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Baudouin of Belgium may have refused to sign the law legalising abortion because all of his wife's 5 pregnancies had ended in miscarriage. However, the Queen's 5 miscarriages were not revealed to the public during his lifetime. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)