Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 10

Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 10

Can Indians have light color eyes?/ India's people?

Sorry for creating my previous question ambiguous. I am trying to find out if South Indians (not mixed race) can have blue eyes.

Aishwarya Rai has blue eyes but she has had northern influence right?

She also has white, indian, and other races in her blood.

Can a full Tamil (means only from Tamil Nadu, no other races) person have blue eyes?

What was the current people of south india's people like right now?

Is there any way of them being Anglo,Greek,African, and Chinese?

I mean by long time ago which effects evolution

Thanks,

Rohit Gandam72.154.165.150 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Tamil kid with extravagantly blue eyes, though I don't know his pedigree. Your query seems to be fairly popular on the web. --TotoBaggins 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This question entails some horribly racist assumptions. "Full Tamil" implies that no ancestors ever had sex (consensual or otherwise) with a European.Let's move from real history to am abstract history. Assume a population that has a dominant gene Br, and further assume that the entire population is genetically Br-Br. Introduce intor this population a "foriegn" contributor with a recessive gene Bl-Bl, Mating with a single Br-Br individual. None of the offspring will be Bl-Bl. Formal and informal rules of society will inhibit interbreeding for several generations, but after N generations, interbreeding becomes essentially random. At that point, there is a non-zero liklihood of a Bl-Bl genome.

Now take this concept back to real history. Europeans reached India in the early 1500's. Some of them had romantic relations with the resident populace. What do you think happened"? -Arch dude 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris EpicTake it a little further back than that, Arch Duke- "Europeans" entered "Northern India" sometime between 3,000 and 1,000BC with the Aryan "invasion/migration." These were most likely NOT the "Germans" that pop-culture/post-naziism associates "Aryan" with, but rather Central Asians (i.e. Present-day Ukrain). These Aryans swept through Persia (hence: "IRAN") and further into India, pushing down, or mixing with the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, the Harapan culture who practiced an early form of "Hinduism" which the Aryans politely transcribed into written form; "The Vedas" in their own Proto-Indo-European(PIE)-derived language: Sanskrit. Therefore, with the possibly of blue eyes floating around the gene pool in India for as long as 5,000 years, there is not doubt in my mind that it is HIGHLY probably that blue eyes pop up from time to time Chris Epic.

Furthermore, there have been movements of individuals and groups into India from the northwest (Iranian plateau and beyond) since at least 3,000 years ago, and probably much earlier. This drift of individuals and groups did not stop at the present-day border of Tamil Nadu. The people who brought Indo-Aryan languages to the Iranian Plateau from Central Asia and then into India may have settled first in Punjab, but some of their grandchildren will have moved onto Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and some of their descendants will have moved into present-day Tamil Nadu and learned an ancient precursor of Tamil. So there has been an influx of genes since at least ancient times. Incidentally, this is true of any part of the Old World (and perhaps the New). There have been movements of individuals and groups into Europe from the south and east since at least ancient times as well. This means that Europeans may have distant ancestors who lived in South India. Nobody is genetically "pure" (whatever that might mean). Marco polo 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything racist in the question. It is possible to imagine that there exist Tamil families with well-attested bloodlines who contain no extra-Tamil blood. Well, to be more accurate, that's what I have no difficulty in imagining. Maybe my supposition has no scientific support, in which case I'd welcome some enlightenment. Does scientific proof exclude the possibility of the existence of counter-examples; if not, Aishwarya Rai may be a counter-example. The question was, after all, about a specific person, not any kind of statement about the Tamils as a people. -- JackofOz 09:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Europeans reached India long before 1500 AD. Alexander the Great's troops made it to modern-day Punjab, and there was trade between Egypt and Rome through the port of Kodungallur in Kerala - the first Christian baptisms there were in the 50s AD. I doubt those troops and traders and missionaries (and their support staff) didn't leave a few children around. There are people with green and blue eyes all over the Indian subcontinent and further west - the Afghan Girl has green eyes. --Charlene 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In A Suitable Boy, Lata's best friend Malati Trivedi "was very outgoing and never lost her tongue with strangers. Strangers, however, blinking into her lovely green eyes, sometimes lost their tongues with her" (page 8 in the Brittish Phoenix 1994 paperback edition). Somewhere else in the 1474 pages of that edition, one of the many characters mentions her eyes, and says that Malati might have a Kashmiri background. That's all. (So that's it? That's all my comment? Yep. Not going anywhere near what else the OP asked.) --Shirt58 13:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Arab

When I read the Christianity in Saudi Arabia, I noticed that it only mentioned filipino Christians. Is this man that there is no real Christian Arabs in Saudi Arabia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.54.195 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Maybe I'm reading something incorrectly but are you saying that Filipino Christians aren't "real" Christians, whatever a "real" Christian is? Dismas|^(talk) 01:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

S/he said "real Christian Arabs". --TotoBaggins 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From the article Saudi Arabia: "The public practice of any religion other than Islam, including Christianity and Judaism, the presence of churches, and possession of non-Islamic religious materials is not allowed." --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia subscribes to the Henry Ford school of religious freedom: "you can choose any religion you want, as long as it's Islam". The CIA says the citizenry is 100% Muslim, and the US State Department says "Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims". --TotoBaggins 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

However, there are Christians in other Arabs countries, such as the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and Chaldeans in Iraq. StuRat 08:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Between 13% and 15% of Egyptians are Coptic Christians. --Charlene 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are Christian Arabs, but they are apart of underground churches. It is easy to say that the citizenry is 100% Muslim based on what the law is, but sometimes breaking the law is worth it if it means having salvation, right? Like I said, there are underground churches in Saudi Arabia with leaders such as Wally Magdangal, who was captured, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually set free due to massive request from the Christian community that he taught. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.204.194.7 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Marriage 'by license' vs 'by banns'

First off, Thanks to Clio for the great answer to my question re: emigration from England in the 1820's. I can now do more focused reading on the factors mentioned. My new question is...

Looking at the Parish baptism, marriage and death records for 1790-1820 for North Frodingham I see that the marriage entry for my ancestor is listed as, 'by license', rather than the more common, 'by banns'. Am I correct in assuming that this is because they were Methodists or Non-conformists and not members of the Church of England? An entry for Baines Directory shows that a church for Non-Conformists was in North Frodingham at the time and in Canada they were listed as Wesleyan Methodists in records there. Was an actual license required to be purchased, and at what expense? Was there significant religious discrimination at this time that may have also been a factor in their decision to emigrate? And as long as I'm asking all these questions on the topic, are there any books that especially deal with the social situation of the lower classes during this general time frame? Thanks! killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, killing sparrows, your assumption is correct. In 1689, at the outset of the reign of William III, Parliament passed the Act of Toleration, which guaranteed freedom of worship for most kinds of Dissenters. However, while this ended offical, state-sanctioned persecution, all sorts of legal disabilities remained in place. As late as 1857 all non-conformists, with the exception of Quakers and Jews, were officially supposed to be married in the Anglican Church; so the granting of the licence presumably meant that the ceremony was sanctioned by the local Anglican diocese. Dissenters also had to obtain a licence from their local bishop to to build or convert meeting houses. I imagine some kind of charge or fee was levied for all of these transactions, though I do not know at what rate. By the nineteenth century large-scale persecution, which had been such a feature of the reign of Charles II, was very much a thing of the past though, as it often does, it continued to operate at a local level, and Dissenters were often the victims of popular prejudice. For example, in rural communities, people could be threatened with loss of work if they worshipped outside the Church of England. There were all sorts of other minor and niggling restrictions. Builders and carpenters, for an instance, could be threatened with loss of trade if they assisted in the construction of Dissenting meeting-houses. More than that, criminal prosecution was occasionally resorted to. As late as 1834 a Methodist preacher was jailed in Hereford for preaching at an open-air conventicle. However, persecution of dissent in nineteenth century England was much like persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire-highly uneven in both its nature and its application. The fact that your ancestors had a church, and were able to marry there by licence, suggests that matters in North Frodingham were less irkesome than elsewhere. While I cannot, of course, be absolutely certain, I would suggest that the religious factor was less significant than the economic in their decision to leave England.

As far as recommended reading is concerned on social and economic conditions in the period you are interested in E. P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class is still a classic in the field. It is also immensely readable! You might also consider Industry and Empire: the Birth of the Industrial Revolution by Eric Hobsbawm and Poverty and the Industrial Revolution by Brian Inglis. For more up-to-date work there is A Mad, Bad and Dangerous People?: England 1783-1846 by Boyd Hilton and, one of my favourites, Master and Servant: Love and Labour in the English Industrial Age by Carolyn Steedman. Very best wishes from Clio the Muse 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My favorite is still Lawrence Stone's The Family, Sex, and Marriage 1400-1750. It's even more readable than Thompson, and it practically began the field of cultural history (although Stone does not like what "cultural history" became). Geogre 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Saint Pedro de Arbués

This "saint" was responsible for torturing conversos suspected of practicing Judaism during the Spanish Inquisition. It seems to me that having such a man as a saint would be an embarrassment to the Catholic Church. My question is, does the Church have a mechanism for retracting sainthood, and, if so, have any steps been taken in this case ? StuRat 07:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be general agreement of Roman Catholic theologians as to papal infallibility in issuing a decree of canonization.[1] In light of this, revocation ("Give back that halo!") is out of the question – except that maybe, one day, a pope will stand up and declare, ex cathedra, somewhat in the spirit of Krishnamurti in Ommen: "Sorry folks, there has been a horrible misunderstanding, popes are just as fallible as the rest of humanity."  --Lambiam^Talk 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I guess the Church will be forced to wear this albatross indefinitely. StuRat 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another question for Clio Muse: how stable was the Weimar republic

Dear Clio Muse,

Thanx so much for answering my question on Hitler and the Holocaust. It was for a class discussion paper and Ive just been told that I got an A+ I have NEVER, EVER scored that high before, lol. I think wikipedia is great! I now have an essay to do and i really need your help. how stable was the Weimar republic in the mid 1920s. Please, please give me as much information as you can.

Yours sincerely, Kathy Burns —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.147.202 (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Kathy, if you have a question for a specific person, please leave that question on her talk page, not here. StuRat 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Kathy had a question on the Weimar republic. Although Kathy's "thank you", "personal background", and "statement of personal preference for who should answer" were (arguably) beyond the scope of this page, the question clearly was not. Additionally, I rather respect Kathy for her sheer ovaries and bluntness: Please, please give me as much information as you can. LOL!

Thank you, Kathy, for posing an interesting question (that can now be searched by other users as part of the Reference Desk archives) and for giving me the best laugh I have had in a long time. I would have missed it if you had placed it on a user page. dr.ef.tymac 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the Ref Desk is for questions directed to everyone. If you have a question directed to a single person, that question should be posted on that person's talk page. StuRat 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest our article on chutzpah, but I see you've already read it. --TotoBaggins 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Well, Kathy, I'm really glad I was able to help you, though I sincerely hope it was not all my ideas that contributed to your success! I'm sure you are learning to think for yourself. So, you are now on to the Weimar Republic? Well, let me see if I can give you a few hints. Unfortunately the Wikipedia page that I have linked is not especially informative on the so-called 'golden years' of the mid-1920s, the period most associated with the foreign ministry of Gustav Streseman. What you really have to focus on is the nature of the Weimar political system during this time. Although the Republic had managed with some difficulty to negotiate the rapids of 1919-1923, and brought hyper-inflation under control, there were worrying underlying signs. The new phase of economic growth, arising, in part, from arrangements under the Dawes Plan, was based of the uncertain foundation of short-term loans. The lower middle class, moreover, had barely recovered from the destructive effects of the inflation, and showed little sign of engaging with the Republic in any deep sense. The chief political characteristic of the middle years is the ongoing fragmentation of the middle-class vote, spread over a large number of parties, both regional and national in nature. Even at the high point of the pre-Depression years, in the Reichstag election of May 1928, the anti-Republican parties still made a strong showing, including the KPD. Although the pro-democracy parties were able to form a 'Grand Coalition' under Chancellor Hermann Muller of the SPD, it was government by the loosest form of consensus. Moreover, the liberal parties associated with the coalition, the DDP and the DVP saw their electoral base sink still further over the previous election of December 1924. It is also important to understand that Weimar had, since 1925, in the person of Paul von Hindenburg a President who, while observing all outward constitutional forms, had no great attachment to to the Republican system of government. He also had constitutional powers far greater than the head of government, which could be implemented in conditions of political emergency, and at his own discretion.

So, what you have then is a democratic system with the weakest of roots, one with potential grave-diggers already in the wings. All that was needed was a serious economic crisis to split Muller's volatile coalition, and the emergence of a new radical party, uncompromised by assocation with Weimar institutions, one that was able to galvanise the fragmented middle-classes with a common sense of purpose and direction, one that went well beyond the mainstream liberal parties and the reactionary DNVP. The Economc Crash of 1929 began a rapid process of disintegration. But the economic crisis itself was necessary though not a sufficient condition to explain what followed. Anyway, get along to the library and look out what you can on the whole period. I would suggest that you begin with The Weimar Republic by Stephen J. Lee to help you along your way. If you encounter problems come back and we'll tackle them case by case! Have fun. Clio the Muse 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to read Hyperinflation#The_1920s_German_inflation for more info about the hyperinflation early in the Weimar Republic. StuRat 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious art

I am trying to trace the origin and (meaning) of an sculpture entitled "Carranea do São Frameiseo." We believe it to be 20th century brazillian in origin, but aren't sure.

Could anyone tell me what "Carranea do São Frameiseo." means? I have a translation in english, but I'm not positive about its accuracy.

Where (who?) is "São Frameiseo."-- I can't find any reference to it online? Is it in Brazil? Or is it even a place?

Any clues? --Inquisitivecollector 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible you are misreading São Francisco as São Frameiseo?  --Lambiam^Talk 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps Carranca as Carranea? Then Carranca do São Francisco would mean: "Carranca (river craft talisman) of the São Francisco River" – which fits with the statement in the Carranca article that it was there they were once commonly found.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

early christian and byzantine

antique tradition —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.38.215 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

quite. Early Christian art and architecture, Byzantine art and Byzantine architecture. If you mean other kinds of tradition, please be more specific.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Decree of King Ahasuerus

In the book of Esther, chapter 1 verse 19. What would have happended to a King if he had tried to take back a decree after it was signed not to alter it? Kathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.141.68.98 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi. This question seems to have bothered Rashi, the medieval Jewish commentator. He understood (here) "let it not be revoked" to mean "this should be a statute and a law for anyone who shows contempt for her husband.". I'm assuming he read into it "let it not be revoked by anyone" (ie the phrase does not refer to the King), but that's my guesswork. It's a great story... enjoy it. --Dweller 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first question on King Ahasuerus, I should have asked: What would happen to a King if he decides to revoke or cancel a decree,in the times of Old Testament. Kathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.141.68.98 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Here's a Google search for the phrase "Laws of the Medes and Persians" -- AnonMoos 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Laws of the Medes and Persians could never, ever, be changed, even by that which issued the order - the Monarch. And since there was none higher than the Monarch, that's about as simple as it gets. martianlostinspace 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

English Monarchs not buried at Westminster Abbey

I was looking at Westminster Abbey#English Monarchs and their Consorts, and was wondering where the other monarchs were buried, and why they were not buried at Westminster Abbey. I found the more recent monarchs buried in St George's Chapel, but rather than try and generate a whole list, can anyone explain the history of burials of the English monarchy and how it changed? Carcharoth 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• The early kings were buried at New Minster, Winchester, apparently.
• And Malmesbury Abbey and Glastonbury Abbey.
• Edward the Martyr's story is interesting: Church of St. Edward the Martyr, Brookwood by way of Shaftesbury Abbey.
• The pre-Norman St Paul's Cathedral.
• Roskilde Cathedral, St Clement Danes, Trondheim.

More added above as I find them. I've also realised that I want to get a list of all the entries under 'burial place' for the "Infobox Monarch", as applied to English Monarchs. Any easy way to do that? Carcharoth 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

King John was buried in Winchester as the French were in possession of London at the time. See First Barons' War. --Dweller 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Though it is Worcester, not Winchester. :-) That is interesting, cos I hadn't realised that Louis VIII of France could be considered (when he was Prince Louis) as one of the Kings of England! Carcharoth 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen Victoria was interred in the mausoleum at Frogmore. In general, I think it's a matter of personal preference. Carom 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom was buried there as well. Carcharoth 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there may have been some politics involved here, as well as expressed preference. Monarchs whose reigns ended in ignominy may have not been considered suitable for entry into the pantheon. For instance, Edward II is buried at Gloucester Cathedral in isolation, though his tomb is splendid enough. His grandson, Richard II, who was also deposed, is only at Westminster with his grandfather because of the guilty conscience of Henry V. The first Lancastrian king, Henry IV is at Canterbury Cathedral, perhaps in need of the protection of Thomas Becket! His grandson, Henry VI is at Saint George's Chapel, alongside Edward IV, the man who deposed him, and the first to be interred there. His son Edward V, or at least what was taken to be the remains of Edward V, is buried at Westminster. Richard III, England's very own Macbeth, was buried at Greyfriars Abbey in Leicestershire, well away from all the others, though his remains were lost during the English Reformation, when the Monasteries were dissolved. James II, another king whose reign ended in disgrace, is buried in exile at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. George I was buried in his beloved Hanover. His son, George II, was the last to be interred at Westminster Abbey. Clio the Muse 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That fills in the gaps nicely. I'd spotted James II's exile, but didn't realise George I was taken back to Hanover. Carcharoth 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also there's King Richard I (the Lionheart) who was buried at Fontevrault Abbey near Chinon in France becuase he wanted to be interred near his father Henry II. Henry himself was buried there after dying at a nearby castle. William the Conqueror was taken back to Normandy to be buried at his abbey in Caen after also dying in France, though all that remains of his tomb today is a simple plaque due to the actions of the French Revolutionaries. Miremare 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For any gaps left unfilled a little googling found this [2] Interesting points include the removal of Alfred the Great's remains from the New Minster Winchester, so we don't really know where he is buried now. And the stories about the burial of Harold Godwinson, apparently first buried on the seashore by his conqeror William the Bastard.Cyta 08:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

may 18,1947

I was doing research on this date a few weeks ago and found a historial note about one country attacking another and a very large explosion. I think there were ships involved. Now I cannot find the information. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Box909 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Texas City Disaster was on April 16, but was a large explosion involving ships in 1947. Was that the one you were thinking of? Carcharoth 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bath School Disaster happened on May 18, 1927; that comprised three explosions. --LarryMac | Talk 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Our list of wars may help narrow the range of conflicts. Do any of those overlapping 1947 spur a memory? The First Indochina War appears to be the only multinational conflict active on the date specified, but a civil war could be responsible as well (I haven't tried to vet those). — Lomn 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, on April 18, 1947, the British attempted to blow up the island of Heligoland - you can find further information in this section. Carom 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lomn, I was thinking of the Royal Navy attempting to destroy the island...I was just looking in the wrong month. I can sleep at night now! I was hoping to find something historically significant or just plain fun that happened on 5/18/1947 as this is the day my father was born.

Type May 18 in the search box and click "go". Stuff happened on other years. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing in the Scottish Highlands

Is it possible to describe what happened in the Highlands after Culloden as ethnic cleansing? SeanScotland 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't have called it that back then. I wonder what they did call it? Carcharoth 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, yet another highly sensitive issue. I have visited the Culloden Battlefield and am fully aware just how much passion this subject still generates in Scotland. So let's try to untangle the issues with some degree of care. The first point to note is that the rebel Highland clansmen in the army of Bonnie Prince Charlie were, indeed, very badly treated after the defeat, both on the battlefield itself, and in the subsequent pursuit. The commander of the victorious army, William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, came north with the very specific aim, to 'extirpate a race', whose purpose had been to chase his father, George II, from the throne. (The Butcher, W. A. Speck, 1995, pp112-3). Such was the conduct of his army that, as Butcher Cumberland, he has left a reputation in Scotland quite as ferocious as Cromwell in Ireland. Yet, for all the hyperbole, Cumberland's aim was restricted in the end to an attempt to destroy the Highlanders' capacity to make war, rather than Highlanders in general. The other point to consider is that rebels at this time were never treated kindly, regardless of background or race, and Stuarts were no more noble than Hanoverians in this regard. During the reign of Charles' own grandfather, James II, the rebellion in the English West-Country was repressed with much savagery, and the actions of Judge Jeffries at the Bloody Assizes has left an abiding memory in history, literature and folk-lore. It also has to be stressed that some of the worst persecuters in Cumberland's army were not English at all, but Lowland Scots, who long had a very poor opinion of their 'savage' Highland cousins, an attitude that led directly to the infamous Glencoe Massacre in 1692. One of the most brutal officers in Cumberland's army was Captain Caroline Scott, a Lowlander, responsible for a number of atrocities. So, if there was an attempt at 'ethnic-cleansing' in 1746, it involved Scots against fellow Scots, as much as the English against the Highlanders.

In the end the whole clan system, and much of the Highland way of life, was destroyed not by vengeful armies, not by banning the wearing of tartan by civilians, and other outward attributes of the clan way of life, but by steadily changing economic conditions which, in the following century, were to lead to the Highland Clearances. And again, just as some of the worst persecutors in Cumberland's army were Scots, so some of the worst clearers were also Scots, both Highland and Lowland, of the same blood and race as those who were being removed from their lands and homes. From this perspective, the ethnic cleansing thesis, no matter how superficially attractive, and no matter how emotionally comforting, does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Clio the Muse 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We in North America benefitted from the Scots who came here after the loss at Culloden. Edison 00:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Caroline Scott? Is this some sort of Beverley/British naming quirk? Clarityfiend 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I really can't say. Perhaps the usage is now obsolete? I certainly have never come across a male Caroline, in England or in Scotland. You will, if you are interested, find some details of Captain Caroline's career in John Prebble's Culloden. Clio the Muse 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the North American tangent, I was surprised to learn, a while back, how many or most of the placenames in America with "Cumberland" in them (like Cumberland Gap, mountains, river, plateau, various counties, cities, etc), were named for Prince William, Duke of Cumberland after the battle of Culloden. Until I looked into the etymology of the term I'd never even heard of Culloden. As further tangent, the United States Forest Service says that a good part of the reason why the Cumberland National Forest in Kentucky was renamed Daniel Boone National Forest in the 1960s was because many early Kentucky settlers had fled Scotland after Culloden and found the name "Cumberland" distasteful, even in the 20th century. Pfly 06:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Size of estate

How do I discover the size of the estate of Sir Evelyn Delves Broughton Bt.? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no way of assessing the veracity of the following exerpt from an interview of his daughter in the Observer Magazine on June 23, 2002, entitled "Blow by Blow", but it is a place to start: "Isabella's father, Sir Evelyn Delves Broughton, ran off with another woman and disinherited Isabella when he died in 1994, leaving her just £5,000 of his £6m estate." The source is [[3]]. Bielle 05:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reason to think it is wrong. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends how seriously you want to know. Grants of Probate are public documents so it is possible to find out the terms of a British deceased's last will, and the size of estate as declared for probate purposes. Naturally, the very wealthy often create trust funds with the express intention of keeping assets out of their probate estates, and keeping them secret, but at least you would have found out whether the point about the legacy was true. I always use a firm of genealogists when I need this type of information. AndyJones 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Madrid: Google Maps — what's this?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=spain&ie=UTF8&ll=40.42137,-3.643212&spn=0.008625,0.01369&t=h&z=16&om=1 Vranak

Parque de Arriaga (Arriaga park). Skarioffszky 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikimapia says it's Cementerio de la Almudena: [4]. --TotoBaggins 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look the "Parque de Arriaga" label in Google Maps more carefully, you'll see it refers to a narrow park across the street from the cemetery. Here's a map that confirms the cemetery's identity (it's a little bit southeast of the center of the map). --Anonymous, May 10, 23:05 (UTC).

Thanks. Vranak