Humanities desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 14 >

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.

October 13

8 million pound sterlin bond from the united kingdom in the 1920's.

Why is australia still paying interest on a bond borrowed from the united kingdom in the 1920's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.33.57 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Perpetuity may be relevant. Loraof (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2014 UK was still paying interest on bonds issued in 1720: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/world/that-debt-from-1720-britains-payment-is-coming.html?_r=1 --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although we (the UK) finally paid off our 1918 war debt to the US in 2015. This map shows that Australia is not doing badly with regards to national debt, whereas the USA is up there with Portugal, Greece and Sudan. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orders Franz Joseph, Isabella the Catholic, Rising Sun, Chrysanthemum

Are there reliable sources for the awards of the Order of Franz Joseph, Order of Isabella the Catholic, Order of the Rising Sun, Order of the Chrysanthemum in the 19th century? I mainly need these sources to know if they were awarded to Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani or her husband John Owen Dominis. All part of a larger discussion. Possibly some more official record of the awards of these honors which doesn't mention both individual but only mentions the awardee because at this point it is hard to distinguish when both individual are listed in the same few sentences especially if you have two editors disagreeing on punctation meaning. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but to eliminate an obvious source, the list of conferrals of honours on foreigners on the Japanese foreign ministry's website only goes back to 2005: http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/protocol/jokun.html#happyo --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ja.wiki article on the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum (:ja:大勲位菊花大綬章) has an unreferenced footnote that mentions Liliuokalani. My Japanese is very poor but I think it says she was awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Precious Crown instead - the system was changed a bit later to differentiate between heads of states with female titles (e.g. Queen) and those with male titles (e.g. President). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a farmer move from Minnesota to Arizona?

Why would a ruined farmer and his family move from Minnesota to Arizona? Would that be considered an understandable or dumb move?

Some context:

That's in a Raymond Carver short story, but it's realistic fiction. In the story, that family has no apparent reason to go down there. (They lost their Minnesota farm to overspending and bankruptcy, then moved to Arizona. They rent a motel room in a small town where they know nobody. Everybody warned the man he won't find no farming job, and he stays unemployed. His wife becomes a waitress.)

So I'm just trying to understand what the reader was supposed to make of such move. Is Arizona supposed to be dirt-cheap living? Is this supposed to be a smart or understandable move for them? Or is it supposed to paint them as dumb or lost? Thanks, 62.147.27.240 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was the story set? Politico-economic context. 14:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

They have a K-Mart and a Denny's, so I'd say 1970s or early 1980s (story published 1983). 62.147.27.240 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See The Grapes of Wrath. Just swap Minnesota for Oklahoma and Arizona for California. People in economic hardship make moves out of desperation. It doesn't always work out for the best. In both fiction and real life. --Jayron 32 16:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Sun Belt; starting from the late 1970s, there was significant internal migration in the U.S. from the "Rust belt" and upper Midwest to the Southwest, which was then seen as a land of greater economic opportunity. However, Carver is known for depicting characters who are economic "losers", so the fact that the former farmer can't find meaningful employment in Arizona is at least thematically consistent. Obviously, the character would have had to move into another field of employment in Arizona, but the state's economy was relatively booming in those days, so that would not have been far-fetched. --Xuxl (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to sit around and do nothing, you might as well do it somewhere warmer. Wymspen (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, moving to California would make sense for a farmer; moving to Arizona, maybe less so? Hence my question. Wymspen, for doing nothing in a warmer climate, wouldn't going to California's beaches be a better move than Arizona's deserts?

Xuxl, that makes more sense to me. I was unclear about what Carver expected us to think of his main character, that is:

(a) Maybe Carver reckoned that Arizona would have the cheapest rents for this guy to survive with his family, and wanted us to see that move as desperate but "the least worst" in his situation?
(b) Maybe Carver considered dumb a farmer moving to Arizona's deserts (rather than some farming place in California), and wanted us to see him as a loser, as you point out.

Thinking about it, in the story: (1) He was a decent farmer until he bought a racing horse and started gambling on her, losing all races then the farm. (2) He moves to Arizona. (3) He tries to impress his neighbors and ends up hitting his head. (4) After ER, he's changed and a little simple. -- I mean, if Carver intended it as a pattern of "dumb and dumber" loser, then point 2 would also have to be intended as a dumb move for him, right? 62.147.26.108 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less competition? In January 2016, Minnesota had about twice as many beef cattle as Arizona, but fewer meat goats and sheep. See https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=MINNESOTA and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ARIZONA. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Jamaica still retains the monarchy

Having browsed Monarchy of Jamaica I still don't understand. Independence of Jamaica says that "On 19 July 1962, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Jamaica Independence Act, granting independence as of 6 August. On that day, the Union Jack was ceremoniously lowered and replaced by the Jamaican flag throughout the country". So why Elizabeth II and Governor-General are still there? Thanks. --93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true of Canada, Australia and ~~god~~ Wikipedia knows how many other Commonwealth countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Commonwealth realm says she's still the constitutional monarch of 16 countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. This implies that as long as they stay in the Commonwealth, they would have constitutional monarchy and only upon withdrawal there would be total self-governance. --93.174.25.12 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct. The Commonwealth is a community of 53 completely independent and sovereign nations. Some, like India and Pakistan, have elected to replace the British monarch with their own President as head of state. Others, like the ones mentioned above, decided to keep the Queen, but she is merely a figurehead, a ceremonial monarch with no actual executive power. The government of each country is completely independent. Rojomoke (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's separately the head of state of those 16 countries, so she is Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, etc., independently of her role as Queen of the UKGBNI. So, those 16 countries are all independent, and all happen to have the same person as their equivalent of the President in India (for example). She, or actually the Governor General in each country, does technically, abstractly, theoretically have executive power, but it would be, ah, rather problematic if she actually tried to exercise it. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, AFAIK, the last time the Governor General did anything meaningful in ANY Commonwealth nation, was over 40 years ago, and IIRC, It didn't go over so well... --Jayron 32 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true. The Governor-General of Tuvalu exercised his power in 2013 by firing the Prime Minister. See Tuvaluan constitutional crisis.173.18.56.232 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michaëlle Jean came close, but in the end only dallied for a few hours to 'send a message' rather than exercising her powers. Matt Deres (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our Governor-General of New Zealand article and [1] [2] [3] mention, it sometimes suggested that it may be more likely to be needed in NZ after the implementation of MMP. At the very least bumping heads together. As mentioned in the NZ Herald link, probably partially for this reason, most Governor-General's chosen since then have had a legal background. However so far there's actually been no need, probably partially because after the first election or two, most parties died out, leaving 2 dominant parties and other fairly minor parties. This combined with the recent poor performance of Labour has meant that recently National has actually nearly been able to govern alone. The Greens have managed to hold on an mature, but are much more closely aligned to Labour. NZ First's come back has raised the potential for problems, but with Labour's continued poor performance and as history has shown about the personalities involved, it's likely that a deal will be reached if there is any real choice without the GG needing to get involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, this is doubly wrong. First, while Elizabeth is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, more than two thirds of Commonwealth nations have heads of state different from her - indeed several are republics. And secondly, the Queen is not governing - she reigns. The fact that she is a nominal head of state of e.g. Canada does not mean that it is not fully self-governed. Keep in mind that the Queen is not the Queen of England in Canada - she is the Queen of Canada, who just also happens to be the Queen of England. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also not the Queen of England anywhere on earth, even in England. She's the Queen of the United Kingdom. The last Queen of England died in 1714, having relinquished said title in 1707. --Jayron 32 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are of course right. I award you 5 pendant points! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While most Commonwealth countries these days are republics, some are monarchies with monarchs who are not Elizabeth - Tonga and Malaysia, for example. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few further clarifications:

See personal union for the concept of the same person having separate positions as the monarch of multiple countries.
Under the Statute of Westminster, and I presume similar arrangements made later with other countries, this personal-union status will carry forward to QUeen Elizabeth II's heirs as long as the monarchy continues in these countries, because they all have the same law on succession to the throne and have agreed not to change it separately. It has only been changed once since the Statute of Westminster was passed, and all 16 countries had to enact the change separately.
Elizabeth II's status as "head of the Commonwealth" is separate again. Apparently this position is not hereditary though it may be expected that it will go to Elizabeth II's successor.
Elizabeth II's position as "a ceremonial monarch with no actual executive power" applies in the UK just the same as in the other realms.
As to the original question of "why", I think the answer must simply be that in these countries there was no strong desire to change things.

--69.159.61.230 (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute of Westminster applies in each of the "original" realms either because they gave consent beforehand or ratified it afterwards (in some countries, such as Australia, this took many years). The newer realms obtained the same status via the laws passed for their independence - e.g. in Jamaica via the UK statute that gave effect to Jamaican independence. The point of the Statute of Westminster is that each realm is sovereign with a separate crown, and the monarch is advised by his or her local ministers in respect of each realm. It does not as such deal with the rules of succession or the procedure for changing the rules of succession. The principle that all of the realms must agree for the rules of succession to be changed is instead a convention, although it is recorded in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which helped to solidify it. Our article Perth Agreement has a good summary of the background and how the different realms chose to interpret the principle in the process of implementing the agreed change to the rules of succession. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the short answer to "why Jamaica still retains the monarchy?" is that they wanted to. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but that's a tautological answer. These sorts of questions are asking "Why would they want to?" I'm not saying that such questions aren't basically impossible for the ref desks to answer (justifying the mindset of non-sentient abstract concepts like "nation states" are futile, first because no one here can read minds, and secondly because only people have minds, not abstract concepts). --Jayron 32 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"they wanted to" retain in 1962; in 2016 they just haven't got around to changing it yet. More information at Republicanism in Jamaica. I sympathise with 93.174.25.12's confusion; the monarchy articles in {{Commonwealth realms}} have a lot of repetitious Bagehot boilerplate about fount of justice and suchlike and little about what it all means to the average subject-in-the-street. jnestorius^(talk) 23:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to clarify that colonies were not coerced into Commonwealth Realm status as a condition of independence, they could just as well have chosen to be a republic, as many colonies did. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to contradict you but to prevent your comment being misinterpreted in a broader sense than you intended. The article I linked expands on the points you make. Incidentally I don't think any country gained independence as a Commonwealth republic until after Jamaica's independence; I believe the first was Zambia in 1964. Not saying it was not possible in 1962, just that it had never actually happened. The closest were Cyprus, became a republic in 1960 and rejoined the Commonwealth in 1961; and Malaya, became a non-realm monarchy in 1957. jnestorius^(talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, although Burma became independent as a republic in 1948, but was something of a special case. Uganda became independent as a Commonwealth Realm but became a republic in 1963. However, we end generally in happy agreement. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commonwealth_of_Nations#Republics, India was the first Republic to become a member of the Commonwealth, in 1947. See London Declaration, which in 1949 confirmed India's Republican status. According to Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, Pakistan (joined 1947, became Republic 1956) and Ghana (joined 1957, became republic 1960) were both Republics within the Commonwealth before Jamaica. Several states which joined before Jamaica (Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika) later became republics, but they did not do so until after Jamaica joined the Commonwealth. Also, according to the same article, Burma declined to join the Commonwealth. --Jayron 32 02:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed although India wasn't strictly a colony (at least in the British classification of these things) and became the Dominion of India between 1947 and 1950, so didn't go straight to republic status.

The concept of the Dominion began to be renamed "Commonwealth Realm" in the post-war period, in order not to make them sound subordinate to the UK I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was "gained independence as a Commonwealth republic"; there were Commonwealth republics in 1962, but all gained independence as Dominions/realms and became republics later. Burma gained independence as a republic but outside the Commonwealth. jnestorius^(talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]