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[edit]

Which king?[edit]

I'm not entirely sure which king is referred to here, in: "At last that child, which was yet in the Queen's Womb was elected for King, and being yet unborn was prefer'd in that Assembly before his elder Brothers". Is it Edward the Confessor and is that statement factually accurate? Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be talking about Edmund Ironside, who was also king before his older brothers, and a son of Ethelred the Unready. Later on in the next paragraph mentions the death of Ethelred and succession of Edmund. Wikipedia's article cites the very same passage you cite for the statement "The Life of Edward the Confessor, written fifty years later, claimed that when Emma was pregnant with him, all Englishmen promised that if the child was a boy they would accept him as king." Him being Edmund Ironsides. --Jayron 32 11:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text says it is Edward the Confessor: "sc" means scilicet 'that is to say'. It clearly does not mean Edmund, since it refers to him as having invincible strength of body, while the boy named is the one in his mother's womb. I don't know about the event described: Edmund Ironside in fact succeeded Aethelred, but that doesn't of itself disprove the account in the text. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be correct. Looking later on in the same text, it says that "Ethelred, died at London, leaving his son Edmund heir...that Edmund Ironside was chosen king after his Father's death". It seems that there are two events here 1) The first election of the unborn Edward the Confessor as King to succeed Ethelred (perhaps as a Junior king, c.f. Henry the Young King for a similar situation) and 2) The naming of Edmund, by Ethelred later on as his heir, and a second election confirming same, upon Ethelred's death. If so, then the statement in the article Edmund Ironside needs to be amended. --Jayron 32 13:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that needs to be noted here, is that many of these statements of "elections" and "inheritances" were made as part of the political maneuvering which occurred during the complex political landscape that was 11th century England. During the 11th century, there were often many claimants to the English throne, based on various conflicting principles of inheritance and what passed for constitutional law of the time. The House of Wessex (various branches thereof) and the House of Godwin were each native English dynasties which laid claim to the throne, as well as the House of Knýtlinga (Sweyn, Cnut, Harthacnut) which had claim by right of conquest and subsequent inheritance, as well as the upstart House of Normandy. During this time of transition, it wasn't always clear WHO got to decide who the next King of England would be, whether the king was a purely elective position selected by the Witenagemot; whether the primogeniture ruled, or how the Will of the sitting king in selecting a successor among his sons, or even others more distantly related to him, would factor into the succession. When a claimant came forth, they often had only their own word that they had been "named" the next king by any one of those principles (election, primogeniture, Will of the last king, Conquest). Ultimately, the ability to take and hold the throne was all it took, "justifications" for the "right" to do so often invented for the purpose of doing so. The succession of kings upon the death of Æthelred the Unready until the Norman Conquest demonstrates how messy it was for over 50 years. --Jayron 32 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Witchking? The Witchking of Angmar. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Identifcation query on File:Marshall Kiev 2014.JPG[edit]

I can identify a British Foreign Secretary, but are there any other notable officials in this image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign nations whose subnational units have their own constitutions[edit]

Each state in the United States, as well as its territories (such as Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas Islands), has its own constitution. Is such a practice unique to them, or are there other federations and unitary states with similar arrangements among their constituent sub-national divisions when it comes to constitutions or equivalents thereof (such as basic laws)? The most similar case I can think of is the Bangsamoro Basic Law of the proposed Bangsamoro autonomous region in the Philippines; however, the law (which is actually, as far as I know, just a bill/law rather than an actual constitution) has yet to be passed (and depending on the political situation the country, might not be passed at all), and should it be passed the law would be unique to it as none of the other provinces or regions of the Philippines have a constitution-like charter (cities have charters but they are laws rather than constitutions or basic laws). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe each of the constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had its own constitution. The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR is mentioned in some places at Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic mentions a "Constitution of Soviet Georgia", though we don't have any Wikipedia articles on them, they all existed as far as I can tell. The Autonomous communities of Spain each have their own Constitutions, called the Statutes of Autonomy. Those are just some examples I can think of. --Jayron 32 13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SSR constitutions were mandated by the Stalin Constitution; I'm not familiar with other union constitutions, so I don't know about SSR constitutions before the 1930s, although I'd guess that they all had constitutions after the 1970s union constitution. State constitution (Australia) is relevant. A quick scan of Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Politics of Saarland, and Politics of Baden-Württemberg doesn't mention anything (as far as I saw) about constitutions or Basic Laws for the German Länder. Administrative divisions of Mexico says that all 32 states have their own constitutions. States of Brazil only mentions the federal constitution. Federal subjects of Russia says that all the federal subjects (oblasts, okrugs, krais, etc.) have their own constitutions. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there is Hong Kong Basic Law and Macau Basic Law --Lgriot (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: The German Länder have their own Landesverfassungen. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Constitution of Quebec, which is an uncodified quasi-constitution containing things such as the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Neutrality^talk 00:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK all of the Malaysian states have their own constitutions. See e.g. Selangor#Constitution, Kedah#Governance, Negeri Sembilan#Constitution, 1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis, Kelantan#State Executive Council, Terengganu#The State Executive Council, Penang#Legislature, Pahang#Politics and Government, 2009 Perak constitutional crisis, [1], [2], [3], and either Johor#Monarchy or State governments in Malaysia#Heads of state (which actually applies to all). Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions help? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the signature "A.C.J." in the Jewish Quarterly[edit]

Hi. I wonder if anyone knows who the signature "A.C.J." in this short article in the Jewish Quarterly, Volume 15, Issue 1-2, 1967 is? Thanks – P. S. Burton (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly A. C. Jacobs (Arthur Chaim Jacobs, 1937 - 1994), himself a poet, who wrote reviews for the JQ in the 1960s and 70s (and later). There is some more information about him in a review of one of his poetry collections by Charles Hobday or in this obituary by Anthony Rudolf ---Sluzzelin talk 17:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very plausible. Thanks a lot for your answer. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]