Humanities desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 2

Lang Leav poem

Does anyone out there know if the poem 'All Love' by Lang Leav appears in any of her books? The first line is, 'It's time to do what you've always wanted.' I've tried looking at previews of her books on Google Books and Amazon but can't see the contents pages. If anyone has access to her books and can find it, can you tell me the book title and page number please?

Many thanks Turner Street (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try this on the Entertainment desk, as it's probably more Popular Culture than Literature. Turner Street (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

► Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1126:28D:E0AD:3D46:6E7:D6E6 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. politicians "working across the aisle"

Please refer to the diagram of 435 "seats" at the article: United States House of Representatives. The diagram separates the blue seats from the red seats, by party designation. My question: Is there actually a physical "aisle" that separates the parties? Or is that simply metaphorical? I cannot imagine that they change the physical structure of the room every two years, since the number in each party is in constant flux. At the same time, it seems odd/awkward to have the "extra" Democrats sit on the Republican side, or vice versa. I had always thought that the phrase "working across the aisle" was simply figurative, not literal. But, while reading a few recent articles (for example, New Hampshire House of Representatives, third paragraph down), I started to question this concept. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"working across the aisle" is figurative, and has nothing to do with where the rep/senator sits. It just mean (well, as far I correctly understand it) some R+D working together on a specific bipartisan proposition. You will find some result if you search working across the aisle in WP search tool. For instance Problem Solvers Caucus. Gem fr (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro. To answer the part about the physical structure of the room: The Procedure section of that article says : Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern facing the rostrum and are divided by a wide central aisle.[37] By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, facing the presiding officer's chair.[38]. Pictures here - there are actually several aisles. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK. So, it's figurative. Which makes sense and is what I had always thought. So, that being the case ... they always "make" the "extra" or "surplus" Democrats sit with the Republicans? That seems awkward and odd. And who gets those seats? The lowest seniority Democrats? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that they have many more than 435 seats in there. For example, joint sessions of Congress are held in there, so they have to have room for 100 senators to sit. Assorted delegates also occupy a few seats, but as they're members of the House, their seats wouldn't be free for easy allocation as would the seats used by senators. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, the seats are no longer assigned, and it would seem to me rare these days that enough Reps are in the chamber to crowd the benches. I suppose only for ceremonial occasions, like the swearing in and State of the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article says -- toward the very end -- that there are only 446 seats. Does that seem correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "only" 446 seats, how do they seat the "extra" 100 Senators (and numerous other dignitaries) for special meetings such as the State of the Union, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congress, generally speaking, has 535 members (435 Representatives + 100 Senators). At various functions, we can add in a bunch of other dignitaries. If the room has only 446 seats (if that other link is correct), that only leaves 11 "extra" chairs to accomodate 100 senators and the others, assuming that the 435 Representatives show up. So, 446 seems like an awful low number to "accommodate" a joint session of minimally 535 people. So, what gives? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For joint sessions, there are sections for members of the Senate and the Supreme Court. The rest of the seating is for the Representatives. Each section's seat is first-come-first-served, so if the chamber is full when a latecomer gets there, they would either have to stand or go watch it on TV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more info.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UK House of Commons doesn't even have enough seats for all of its own members, let alone hypothetical visitors from the Lords. (The Chamber is relatively small, and can accommodate only 427 of the 650 Members of Parliament—during Prime Minister's Questions and in major debates MPs stand at either end of the House.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that also a first-come-first-served situation like the US House? Or are there seating assignments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even have seats, just benches. Even for the government. So, seating assignments... Gem fr (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MPs can reserve a seat for the day by attending prayers. See here under prayers. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current state of things, a good prayer would be the test pilots' prayer as noted in The Right Stuff: "Dear God, please don't let me f*ck up!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, when the chamber of the Commons was hit during WWII, Churchill insisted it be rebuilt without expanding the number of seats, feeling the importance to debate of having a full chamber.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are illegitimate sons included in the Bavarian line of succession if they've subsequently been legitimized?

Are illegitimate sons included in the Bavarian line of succession if they've subsequently been legitimized? This question has relevance due to the fact that Prince Manuel of Bavaria was born an illegitimate child. Futurist110 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official rules, per the linked article and the sources linked in its Notes section, refer to legitimate at birth ("eine rechtmäßige Geburt"). The full wording is "Zur Successions-Fähigkeit wird eine rechtmäßige Geburt aus einer ebenbürtigen mit Bewilligung des Königs geschlossenen Ehe erfordert." (To succeed, you have to be legitimate, born from a marriage with an equal that the king had consented to.) There were three amendments, none of which affected the legitimacy requirement (1819: women excluded. 1948: Marriage to nobility instead of royalty counts. 1999: Any marriage with permission counts). You might wish to read the entire constitution to check there isn't another section about legitimizing, though I'm not sure that was even a concept in 1818; my German isn't good enough to skim but Language desk might help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't read German. Thus, we need a German-speaker to tell us what exactly it says. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimization was a concept in English law long before that -- the children of John of Gaunt by his third wife Katherine Swynford before he married her (his second wife then being inconveniently still alive) were retroactively legitimized, but with a disputed provision that excluded them from the royal succession. Also, the Princes in the Tower were retroactively declared illegitimate by Titulus Regius, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, illegitimate children could be legitimized, but as far as I know generally without acquiring any rights to the royal succession as a result of this legitimization (as your own example here clearly shows). For instance, I know that in France princes du sang had to be born, not made. Futurist110 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The royal bastard article discusses various illegitimate children that various royalty had. These illegitimate children often did not have succession rights even if they were subsequently legitimized--or were quickly stripped of their succession rights if they did ever acquire them, such as with Louis XIV's illegitimate sons. Futurist110 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how reliable is the line of succession article. Are there any sources that he is in the line of succession. We are assuming that the list on wiki is correct here and reflects the views of the Wittelsbachs. It could be that Prince Manuel doesn’t have succession right and the article is just making an unreliable claim solely based on genealogy. Which is the same problem with the Jacobite claim which is propted up by genealogists rather than the actual thoughts and actions of these former royals. Also looking at other examples from other historical monarchy won’t answer the question specifically in relation to Prince Manuel. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Tried googling for the German terms ("Manuel Prinz von Bayern" +Thronfolge) and got only one hit, which does not look like a reliable source to me. No hits in books. Why not stop at 14 and avoid the whole issue?

I don't think that it would be very fair to the juniormost branches of the former Bavarian royal family to remove them from this Wikipedia article. Plus, there are only a few of them--so it's not like their inclusion in that article is using up a lot of space. Thus, I think that my solution here works the best--specifically remove Manuel but keep his younger brother and cousin in the article since they were both born legitimate. Of course, it would certainly be interesting to see how the former Bavarian royal family would handle this issue if Manuel's male line will eventually become the senior-most male line of the former Bavarian royal family (and, of course, if there will remain at least one male line/branch of the former Bavarian royal family who is even more junior than Manuel's male line is). Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Here's that one hit [2]. It claims "Manuel war unehelich geboren wurden fast fünf Jahre, bevor seine Eltern verheiratet. Auch nach seiner Eltern Hochzeit im Jahr 1977, wurden Manuel und seine Geschwister aus der Leitung im Bayerischen Erbfolge ausgeschlossen, Gewerkschaft seiner Eltern wurde als morgana. Dies änderte sich jedoch am 3. März 1999, als Franz von Bayern erkannte die Ehe bedingt als dynastische in Übereinstimmung mit den bayerischen Hausgesetze. Da er dynastisch geheiratet hat, wird er in der Thronfolge gehalten." (Manuel was born illegitimate almost five years before his parents married. After his parents' marriage in 1977, Manuel and his siblings were excluded from the Bavarian line of succession because the marriage was morganatic. This changed as of March 3 1999 when Franz Prince of Bavaria conditionally recognized the marriage as dynastic according to house rules. Because Manuel married dynastically himself, he has remained in the line of succession.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that single hit looks like it's merely a German translation of Manuel's Wikipedia article. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriously, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; but I think that the assertion I read in it that "The Kingdom of Bavaria was abolished in 1918" is correct. If so, then I cannot imagine what significance the "line of succession" since then could have had. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's often not of any particular significance to governments, but there's a whole subculture of royal house fans (existing long before the Internet) which sometimes argues such issues passionately. Carlism was a significant force in Spanish politics for many decades. See also Alternative successions of the English and British crown, Legitimists (disambiguation), etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Futurist110 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, outside Bavaria, non-trivial numbers of people have become excited about analogous matters, but is there any suggestion that this might happen in/for Bavaria? Above: "it would certainly be interesting to see how the former Bavarian royal family would handle this issue if Manuel's male line will eventually become the senior-most male line of the former Bavarian royal family": interesting for very roughly how many people? -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For royalists and for those people who are into royal genealogy (regardless of whether or not they're royalists). Futurist110 (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has historical value and could also be relevant if the question of restoring the Bavarian monarchy will ever become a serious possibility (which isn't very likely, but still). Futurist110 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]