Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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.

January 6

Catholics in London

I just discovered that the particular church for London is the Diocese of Westminster, headed by an archbishop. Why is it a diocese, not an archdiocese, if it has an archbishop and suffragan dioceses; or why is the ordinary an archbishop, not a bishop, since it's just a diocese? Some legal provision when Universalis Ecclesiae took effect, prohibiting the existence of a Catholic archdiocese on the north side of the Thames? I'm aware of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark with its cathedral a few km away, so obviously it's not as if all archbishops were prohibited from the London area. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy are happy with the terminology [1]. 81.158.94.204 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from that website that the church is happy to call it an archdiocese. Westminster was established as a metropolitan diocese - and historically a metropolitan bishop was actually a higher rank than a mere archbishop. When the hierarchy was re-established in England, in 1850. there was only the single province, with the Metropolitan Archbishop of Westminster at its head. The church has subsequently been divided into several archdioceses, but the original title for Westminster was retained, probably as a mark of its historical significance. Wymspen (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did we stop to be obedient servants?

Today we don't close letters by writing Your obedient servant, Address and Name. When did people stop doing that? Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It gradually got abbreviated to "Your obt. svt.", then "Yours etc." then "Yours". Abbreviate a formality to "et cetera", and it's likely to disappear as people forget what the "cetera" is. I've not yet found when those transitions generally happened. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The item in question is known as a valediction or complimentary close, which might help your search (our article doesn't contain much about historical usage). This and this might also be of interest to you. Matt Deres (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone has stopped signing themselves "your obedient servant" when at their most formal. A search of the Times Digital Archive, which unluckily lives behind a paywall, shows that two letters to the editor used that sign-off in the very last issue covered, 31 December 2012. --Antiquary (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google NGram might help: [2]. While it is not a corpus of letters, it might give a rough approximation. It shows the phrase peaking in the 1860s with a steep fall after 1880. You'll have to model "yours etc" separately because of the scale. [3] That graph shows it was a phrase used in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.70.67.222.124 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People who sign off their letters to The Times with "YOS", are probably just warming up to write to their beloved hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) i.e. they're a bunch of YOSers[reply]

Literature about the Ancient Sophists

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am looking for literature that deals with the views and available personal informations about the ancient sophists and their movement. The article on Wikipedia about the Sophist Movement gives some tops about literature, however, for me as a starter of philosophy, it is not made clear which one of these books would suit my needs the most. Thank you for your answers

Kind regards--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:54EC:F65:8C21:749A (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in a quick online source, this peer-reviewed site looks decent, and includes sources, additional reading, etc: "Sophists". www.iep.utm.edu. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D1A1:6412:B071:BD34 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million! That will do!--2A02:120B:2C79:D630:4C30:3595:124C:ADBD (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to let a British royal into your home: has anybody done it and what are the legal consequences?

This text implies that the Queen and other royals visits ordinary people from time to time (or used to visit when the text was first published). Have there ever been cases when a British royal knocked on an ordinary person's door and they (for example, being mentally ill) refused to let them in? Also, is there, besides the now-repealed lese-majeste, any old law containing legal consequences for such an action (I know it is unlikely that it would be enforced, I'm just curious)? --185.147.82.205 (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems she can still get into Waitrose: [4], if that's of any interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you suggest mental illness (!) as a reason to refuse entry to a person who comes to your door unannounced and with whom you are personally unacquainted. Unless they have a particular reason (selling something, doing a survey, evangelising, collecting census forms, police business ...) - and not even then in most cases - I wouldn't be letting anyone come inside. Would you let Johnny Depp in just because he chose your door at random? Or Miley Cyrus? Or J K Rowling? No? Well, why would royalty be different? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think (see below) that in practice such a visit would always be carefully arranged in advance by a member of the relevant Royal Household, who would ensure that the visit was welcome: there are undoubtably some people of staunch Republican/anti-monarchist views who would object to a visit by Royalty, and many more who are not anti-royal but who would feel overwhelmed by the honour of being so visited. It is inconceivable that Her Majesty or other senior royals would be deliberately exposed to the potential of embarrassment by a refusal or a totally flummoxed host, not to mention the security implications of having such a visit go awry.

I haven't attempted to cite references for my assessment, because in British society such matters are generally conducted in confidence and are unlikely to have seen extensive public discussion (and therefore if I did have actual relevant knowledge I might feel constrained to keep it confidential). Someone else however may be able to add to (or contradict) this estimation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be punished for refusing to let the Queen into your home. In Southam v Smout [1964], it was found that 'The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. So be it – unless he has justification by law.' 211.23.25.64 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and the tradition of Castle doctrine goes back in England at least a thousand years before that [5]. Dbfirs 11:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm reasonably certain that quotation is originally from Blackstone or Coke as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, otherwise it'd be odd that a judge in 1964 would still be referring to the "King of England", when such an office ceased to exist in 1707. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is usually expressed as "An Englishman's home is his castle". Lord Denning was quoting from a 1760 remark by William Pitt the Elder. The King has special privileges: see Semayne's case. Jack's claim that while England is perfectly capable of having a national football team it is impossible for her to have a Sovereign has been advanced before. See this discussion, started on what used to be Commonwealth Day:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 May 24#how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning. 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:D5DF:3883:614E:60D6 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

England has a monarch only in the same sense that New Hampshire has a President, or Tasmania has a Prime Minister, or Manitoba has a Governor General. You get my point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article castle doctrine, linked above, and to which An Englishman's home is his castle redirects despite not being mentioned in it, seems to me more concerned with how to get away with killing people than with the right to refuse entry to forces of the state, which is the meaning of the English expression. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian premiers, or prime ministers?

When I was in Western Australia the newly elected Premier was a Labour politician popularly referred to as "Super Tonkin". He replaced the long-standing Country Party incumbent Charles Court. I have no idea who the Premier of Tasmania was at that time, but our eponymous article says the current office holder is the Labour Will Hodgman. Since the terms "Premier" and "Prime Minister" appear to be interchangeable, what is your point exactly? 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:6CA5:580F:917B:5C40 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:C18E:B4DA:4F87:5276 (talk) [reply]

They're not interchangeable in Australia. A premier is the head of a state government, while a prime minister is the head of the federal/commonwealth government. There is no "Premier of Australia" or "Prime Minister of New South Wales" or any other state. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]