Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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 17

Rules for Unclaimed Nobel Prizes

Recently, Aung San Suu Kyi claimed her 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, which was originally accepted by her family members. This raises an interesting question: if the individual's close friends & family members are also unavailable to accept the prize (as in the case of Liu Xiaobo), is it still possible to claim the prize in the future when the individual gains the opportunity to do so? 98.116.65.50 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Nobel Prize committee can decide to do whatever they like in any particular situation. However, there is already a precedent in the form of Boris Pasternak, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1958 but declined (or was unable) to travel. He died in 1960, but his son collected the award on his behalf in 1989. So it is definitely possible to defer the presentation of a Nobel Prize. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they get the money. Just the diploma and medal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cottingham manor

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-xgHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA189 or http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Cottingham/Cottingham92.html or http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LYYKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA461#v=onepage&q&f=false (and many others repeating the same information)

According to most sources the 'manor of cottingham' (Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire) was split into 3 (or 4) after the owner died without male heir (c.1407). I can't seem to find the correct geneology for this - I think the names of the manors listed in 19th century literature are anachronistic: eg without male issue, the lordship of Cottingham, with two thousand four hundred and sixty-six acres of land, came into possession of the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Westmoreland and Lord Powis, who had married his three daughters, since which time the estate has been divided into three manors called Cottingham Richmond , and -there may be other errors/

I can verify as far as John, 3rd Earl of Kent then Joan of Kent. I think the next one is Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent (with daughters) followed by the childless Thomas Holland, 1st Duke of Surrey and Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent but who after that (1408)?

Can anyone work out who were the three daughters, and which and which historical figures were the predecessors of the "Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Westmoreland and Lord Powis". ?

I think you're looking at Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland here. As the time period is around the Wars of the Roses, things were getting a little messy, not to mention the rivalry between the Nevilles and the Percys, and so it's no wonder the exact question of the succession is confused. Were the three daughters the issue of the lord of Cottingham? It's not clear from the quotation. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Further information at Baynard Castle --TammyMoet (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The Earldom of Powis appears to have been first created in 1674, so it can't be that, must be a Lord with Powis as a surname. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe related to Hugh de Stafford and his family? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(comment it should be noted that this story of daughters is often repeated in association with the legendary (and mostly untrue) tale of the burning of Baynard Castle, Cottingham - however the manor of Cottingham was split.. perhaps the details are innacurate?)

It's not clear to me either. (the 19th century sources are usually reliable - but when they are wrong they tend to be very wrong..) - my assumption is that the named earldoms (Richmond, Westmoreland, Powis) were the current (or later) titles (of the 1800s) - I think the daughters referred to must have been daughters of Thomas_Holland,_2nd_Earl_of_Kent (his sons all died, or had daughters etc) - however he had more than three daughters (the sons appear to have died out)- excluding the one who became a nun:

Alianore Holland, Countess of March - only daughters by second marriage
Joan Holland, probably(?) no children
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Somerset - many children - the first male with offspring appears to be John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset whose daughter (only 1) Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby married a 'Richmond' - is this the link??
Elizabeth Holland (no article) according to the article Thomas_Holland,_2nd_Earl_of_Kent " [she] married Sir John Neville (eldest son of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland" - John Neville doesn't have an article but his son was Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland - this one seems to make sense.
Eleanor Holland, Countess of Salisbury - one daughter .

(To confuse things in http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1019823 it states "By the mid-17th century the Cottingham manors had reverted to the Crown and were then sold off by Charles I.")

(My guess, unable to VERIFY) is these were daughters refered to - I'd guess that either Alianore or Eleanor had children who (eventually) inherited the title of 'Powis'. I haven't been able to find this one. I don't really know the way to research these inheritences (or the rules of) - I suppose there must be a standard work for this sort of thing??Oranjblud (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my ideas for this involve subscription websites - Burke's Peerage, Ancestry both need a subscription. Ancestry is notoriously wrong too. The Society of Genealogists may be able to help but their site is subscription too (find my past). I've had a trawl through British History site to no avail, just the story repeated. If you are in the UK and can get to a library you can access Ancestry free of charge, and they should have copies of Burke's Peerage and Who Was Who. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to find Burke's and WhoWasWho in a library. I was more thinking of some sort of 'land deeds' publication, possibly governmental - but maybe what I am imagining doesn't exist for those dates (excluding a rolled up piece of parchment somewhere underneath Westminster). Burkes should be accurate - I'll try to remember to look at that.Oranjblud (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only other suggestion I can make is to contact the local archives, which in this case could be Hull but might well be York, as their archivists are often very knowledgable about what they have and where else you can look. I've got some excellent results by working with the archivists at Cambridge, for example. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend you try to find the relevant volume of the Victoria County History, which should give you a reliable account of who owned Cottingham and why. --Antiquary (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the book has different information to the website, then it's the same story repeated. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation

In Buddhism, can a person be reincarnated as the opposite sex? What about a different race? --108.227.31.151 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Buddhism, a person can be reincarnated as a different species. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Buddhism, a person cannot be reincarnated, except where they can be. In Buddhism reincarnation exists, or doesn't exist, as the cycle of deaths and rebirths, not as personal reincarnation (except where it does). Buddhism has such a diversity of practices and beliefs you'd need to narrow this down, but as a beginner's tip, don't think of personal reincarnation, imagine more some kind of montage being. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Hinduism that believes in individual reincarnation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism is large, syncretic, and internally diverse. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth". Please see Rebirth (Buddhism).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things that I don't understand about the whole "rebirth" thing: who decides what you are reborn as; and what does a snail need to do, to ascend to a higher form? Lay a perfect trail of slime? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An invisible sky father decides, of course…. Buddhism varies between a philosophy of being and a devotional religion complete with godhood. Our article Six_realms explains rebirth as if Buddhism is a devotional religion. Our article Ten_spiritual_realms explains in terms of a philosophy of being. I only feel confident describing the practice I was raised in, which is at the philosophical end. Rebirth is the continuous apparent permanence of consciousness, rebirth into a higher or lower realm is simply the change in disposition of consciousness that comes about due to desire and suffering—cf this koan. Rebirth is related to Karma_in_Buddhism as a mechanistic process of consciousness, regardless of where a particular buddhist practice sits in terms of philosophy or religiosity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot

He wanted to erase the history of Cambodia and rewrite it in his image. Would that count as Negationism? --Arima (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negationism is a historiographical concept, it is about attempts to rewrite accounts of history. Pol Pot sought to obliterate the concrete social fact of Cambodian history, he incidentally eliminated much of the intelligenstia, but his purpose wasn't to rewrite historical books and accounts. Negationism is what bad academics and state funded research bodies occasionally do. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot tried to create a new society out of whole cloth. He did this by killing off anyone who had a say in what the former society looked like: The inteligencia, educated, teachers, doctors, etc. His goal was to kill off or drive into exile anyone except the poorest classes, so he could recreate Cambodian society as a cult of personality around himself. Many dictators strive to do this, Pol Pot was particularly brutal and deliberate and single minded about it. To put it better, which Fifelfoo does too, is that Negationism is about changing history, Pol Pot was trying to change his country's present. --Jayron32 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that you were going to exceed me in wit with something along the lines of "Negationism is an attempt to rewrite history, usually to deny the existence of genocide. What Pol Pot did was simply genocide." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that too. Couldn't have said it better myself... --Jayron32 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]