Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 26

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 25 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 27 >
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 26 edit

Jesus and Muhammed edit

[Moved from Talk:Jesus#Jesus_and_Muhammed]

I am writting a paper on Jesus and Muhammed and have a question. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Correct? And Islam believe that Muhammed was a prophet sent by God. Correct? So is it this the same God. Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.238.49 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The God of the Christians is the God of Abraham/Ibrahim, who was the father of Ismail and Isaac. The God of the Christians is thus the same God as the God of the Muslims - we are all cousins. Christians also believe that, about 2000 years ago, God sent his divine son to earth to live for a time as a human, who was named Yeshua (in Greek this name is pronounced “Jesus”.) Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God. When the human body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the divine son returned to earth briefly to finish its work, and then went back to heaven where it rejoined with God. This happened hundreds of years before Muhammed was called to service by God, so the son of God (which had lived in Jesus) was by then back in heaven together with God. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Marcionites and many Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the Judean god, but rather sent by a higher god (arguing something along the line that the "real real" god would not have created an imperfect universe). And I do think that "Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God" is an opinion many mainstream churches would gladly burn you for (or whatever they do with heretics in these sadly civilized times). But yes, conventionally the god of Abraham is the god of Jesus and the god of Muhammad. Jesus is seen as an important prophet in Islam, but not as the son of god. See Jesus in Islam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This question is as poorly worded as possible. All that is being asked is: "Does Islam consider Jesus to be God?" The answer is a simple "No." -- kainaw™ 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another simple way of putting it is this: Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form. Moslems do not believe this, even though they believe in the same God. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect there to be a god, which you cannot easily find yourself? St.Trond (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from giving your opinion unless you have something meaningful to contribute directly to the question asked by the OP. If you want to merely discuss your opinions on the subject, feel free to visit the countless religion discussion forums specifically for that purpose. Vespine (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always puzzled by talk as to whether Christians and Muslims worship "the same god". Clearly the concept of God is quite different between the two religions. Most Christians believe that God is a trinity, in other words a union of three "persons", one of which became incarnate as Jesus. This is radically different from the Muslim point of view. So in what sense are they "the same God"? --rossb (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity is a Roman Catholic doctrine that is by no means universally regarded as either true or significant by all Christian sects. Jews, Christians, Muslims all consider themselves to be followers of the God of Abraham. But they have different views and interpretations of the nature of that God. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity is much more than a "Roman Catholic doctrine." Surely there are Christians who don't accept it, but please note the following from Wikipedia's article on the Trinity:
Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and all the mainstream traditions arising from the Protestant Reformation, such as Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".
--Dpr
The "central dogma" of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's where Christianity parts ways with both Judaism and Islam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Christianity and Islam are religions based on Judaism. The Hebrew bible, the Tanakh is pretty much Christianity's Old Testament which is also the basis for a lot of the Islamic scripture, the Qu'ran. From the Qu'ran article: The Qur'an assumes familiarity with major narratives recounted in Jewish and Christian scriptures, summarizing some, dwelling at length on others, and, in some cases, presenting alternative accounts and interpretations of events. Hence, it can almost be said that Christianity and Islam are just reforms of the Jewish faith, obviously quite radical reforms but they all still believe in the same God.Vespine (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verily do I say unto thee: read carefully (and follow the links at) the article: Jesus in Islam.
To sum up: Christians believe that Jesus (BBHN) is the Incarnation/Manisfestation of Allah (from the Arabic/Semitic name for "God") on Earth. Be that as it may (or may not) be: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are, together, the three main branches of all "Abrahamic" religion. Wikiscient 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic church shaped the idea of trinity, meaning that there are three entities and each is presumably deity. There is no trinity in Islam. One of the main principles of Judaism is that God have no shape or form of body and that we can't know anything about it aside for its commands manifestations and the Rambam also wrote that we can only inferwhat God isn't (to a very limit extent). So, it's very different from both Islam and Christianity --Gilisa (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do people of other religions than christianity use their god to swear as commonly? edit

I think it's safe to say (definitely in America, at least) that it's fairly common to hear a very angry person say "Jesus Christ!" or "G-d dammit!" (self-edited in case there are sensitive ears here, but you know what I mean). I wonder if Buddha, Allah, and others get used in the same way as commonly in other parts of the world. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a statement would be taboo in observant Judaism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements are forbidden to Christians as well, but many self-identified Christians make them anyway. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wondering about the forbidden-ness of the terms, I'm just wondering if blasphemies of the deities of other religions have established themselves in the lexicons of the other cultures of the world as those two phrases have. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The greeks used to invoke gods in swears as well. Here is a page that talks about it [1]. Pollinosisss (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's common to hear (mainland) Chinese people exclaim "Oh my heavens!" or "Oh my god!" depending on how you want to translate it, although by Western classification they're nearly all atheist (or even shamanist!). Whether that phrase is endemic or has been adapted from exposure to English culture I cannot say. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven worship predates Christianity by several millenia. Even if the expression was adopted from foreign influence, it probably isn't English - early missionaries were more likely to be Italian or French. The earliest form of Christianity to have flourished in China was Nestorianism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Truman, during talks with Stalin, the leader of an officially atheist nation, reported that Stalin invoked the expression "God willing" during one of their meetings. Even an atheist can ask for God's blessings, while a religious person can ask God to condemn. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the USSR was "an officially atheist nation" is a misconception, one that I ran into before. Actually, the only officially atheist nation ever was communist Albania, which declared itself to be atheist in its constitution and banned religion outright. The USSR discouraged religion strongly, yes, but it wasn't officialy atheist. </OT> TomorrowTime (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stalin article states that he himself was atheist. Is that a certainty, or is that original synthesis, based on the assumption that "all commies are atheists"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd never know. The old man wouldn't give a slightest clue and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that his personal tastes differed from his public policies. Incidentally, a search of his published papers and speeches yields no trace of any personal statements on religion or atheism. The topic "Was S. an atheist" has been debated in and out, and the answer is: we know what he did but we don't know what he was. NVO (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Stalin article indicates his true beliefs were kind of a mystery, so calling him an "atheist" in the fact box seems kind of questionable. It also mentions how he encourage the churches during WWII, for mercenary reasons, i.e. they served a means to an end. He was hardly the first to do that kind of thing, for sure. For example, the Pope sitting there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up. A man may compromise himself a great deal to keep his job. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for... Yes, like the Queen sitting there, or like you sat in your chair surfing the internet while people are still in Guantanamo Bay. What should the Pope have done rather than sitting there: marched out with a bandolier of grenades? If you're interested in some actual historical fact, why not try reading the (badly titled) Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, which would lead you to Mit brennender Sorge, an extremely important encyclical written (unusually, and to ensure wide exposure) in German and widely distributed in Germany in 1937, before Kristalnacht, before Poland, before the ghetto and the death camps. Or perhaps you meant only Pious XII? In which case, Summi Pontificatus and Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust would probably be interesting reading. The truth is more complicated than the soundbite of "evil Catholic Church".86.144.144.110 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Church has only recently achieved some moral high ground. More recently than World War II, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't. I know I...So what, precisely, do you mean? Given that I've shown you many places where you can read that the Pope did not "[sit] there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up", but actually did something positioning himself and the Church in opposition to it, which brought heavy repercussions for many Catholics. That anti-Catholic feeling continues to be acceptable in many countries does not mean that the Church, or the Pope, or individuals, necessarily conform(ed) to the "hilarious" things people say. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear this up: Gautama Buddha is not a god, nor is any of the Buddhas considered a god by Buddhists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Buddhists believe in any god or gods in the conventional sense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought Dainichi Nyorai was the closest Buddhists got to a deity. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. However, at the level of folk religion, some people who identify as Buddhists may worship entities with godlike qualities. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do they formally or informally believe in an afterlife? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scriptures of Buddhism refer to gods (small g) in various realms e.g. in Buddha's statement that he would depart to "a place where he would be seen by no man nor god" (Mahaparinibbana Sutta). Buddhist scriptures describe a range of after-life destinations, some involving more or less fortunate rebirths depending on one's accumulated karma. Tibetan buddhists have a Book of the Dead Bardo Thodol that gives details of between-lives experience. It appears that Gautama Buddha the founder of Buddhism consistently refused to affirm or deny his belief in an almighty creator "God", consistent with his dictate to disciples never to debate "eternal things". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP's question Buddha is believed by buddhists to have been an enlightened but otherwise normal human, so disparaging the person is disrespectful but there is no Blasphemy in Buddhism. For example, the wilful destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan statues was regarded as a sad cultural loss only. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a former Zen Buddhist (including a brief stint as a monk) I can vouch that Buddhists can't care less about such things. (We routinely said the word Buddha out loud, by the way, but he isn't a God, so it didn't matter.) They're more concerned with clearing their mind, and living their lives in the most productive way possible. There certainly is literature in the libraries of Zen monasteries that explains principles of the dharma, the sutra, and so on. But, those are emphasized by Western scholars and Christian visitors much more than Buddhists themselves. I have also worked with Thai and Lao communities (who are members of the Theravadan branch of Buddhism). The monks in those communities spend most of the day sitting still meditating (just like Zen Buddhists). They don't think about anything -- just clearing their mind. That's how Buddha spent his day, as well. Buddha mentioned that you are re-incarnated when you die (the dharma) and that there is a Noble Eightfold Path ([1] knowledge of the truth; [2] the intention to resist evil; [3] saying nothing to hurt others; [4] respecting life, morality, and property; [5] holding a job that does not injure others; [6] striving to free one's mind of evil; [7] controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and [8] practicing proper forms of concentration). But, again, you cannot do the first six things if you cannot properly perform last two. That is why it is so important to take control of yourself first, and then implement the first principles. You'd be surprised how many Christians came to our temple (including Catholic monks and nuns). Protestants in particular emphasize the Bible, and they are puzzled by the Buddhist emphasis on shutting the fuck up and staring at a wall. Then, we would chant for a few minutes and the sensei would give a short lecture. The lecture was often surreal and nonsensical (nonsense being a tool used to clear your mind). I never got involved with Tibetan Buddhists because their community was too commercialized and there weren't any Tibetans in their sangha. They were all Americans.
So, try not to approach Buddhism asking where their God is, what their bible is, etc. It's a whole different ball game.--Drknkn (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic invokes Allah in many normal expression ("God willing", "whatever God wants", etc), and this reminds me of an article: Niall Christie, "The Origins of Suffixed Invocations of God's Curse on the Franks in Muslim Sources for the Crusades," Arabica, vol 48 (2001), No 2, pp 254-66. (Basically, Muslim sources always say "may God curse their bones" or something similar whenever the crusaders are mentioned.) I don't know if that counts but I suppose it's the same general idea. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Spanish idiom "ojalá que" which vaguely translates to "I wish that" but comes from the Arabic expression, obviously added before the Reconquista. I've never heard it explained as having any religious meaning, and when an English speaker says "darn it" there isn't usually any religious implication. It's funny to go back to Chaucer and here people exclaiming "'sfut!" (Christ's foot) in dismay, so the non-religious religious statements in English are clearly not a modern invention. SDY (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these answers about the choice of words for swearing are not sufficient, I suggest you ask again on the Language Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clock Question edit

To whom it may concern:

Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is oblong: length: 12 3/4"--width: 6 3/4"--depth: 2 1/8--with a clear glass front.

I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.

Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.

I just want to say thank you for your help either way.

Bess Wilkins Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Removed email address) According to the article Holiday Casino, it is now Harrah's. You might get in touch with them. They may have a museum on site about the history of the casino. Bielle (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How TALL was King George IV ? edit

Dear SIrs,

I would hesitate to criticise any aspect of Wikipedea but the article on King George IV of the UK misses one important detail

How TALL was the man- makes a BIG difference if he's six foot or a "mere" five foot five high. This minor detail gives a better idea of his actual bulk- forget BMI, that confuses the likes of the undersigned!

I tried to determine the height but failed- perhaps your goodselves have the resources to nail the point!

Rgds

Bill Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.118.46 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of reformatting your question to make it more legible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galeros edit

Apparently, in Roman Catholic cathedrals, the tradition is to hang the galeros of cardinals from the ceiling when they die, where they (clarification, the galeros) remain until they have completely decomposed. How long does this take on average? Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: What noun does the third "they" refer to ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am wondering how long it takes a galero to completely disintegrate. Sorry about all the theys. I assume it takes a long time, but the Church has been around for a long time, so I'm hoping someone knows this information. Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.57 (talk) [reply]

Upon some g**gling I found that the grave of John Henry Newman (who had died in 1890), when opened in 2008, contained a few red tassels of his galero. His body seems to have decomposed completely. Our article states "no remains were found because of the coffin having been wooden and the burial having taken place in a damp site". Based on this I assume that the hat, when hanging in a cool, well ventilated church would last for a quite lengthy time. This picture [2] shows 5 galeros suspended in the Holy name Cathedral in Chicago. For obscure reasons, searching for the Chicago Cardinals in the WP shows entirely different headgear. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that fabrics hanging in cathedrals would last a very long time indeed, perhaps due to the cool dry air. In the UK, it is the tradition for the local infantry regiment to hang it's retired "colours" (i.e. the regimental flags once carried in battle) in its "home" cathedral. Some of these date from the 18th Century[3]. In Canterbury Cathedral hangs part of the armour of Edward, the Black Prince[4] who died in 1376. At least part of that seems to be made of textiles. It seems to be in a display case now, but in my 1960s childhood it hung in the open above his tomb.Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK House of Commons - Opposition Day Motions edit

I was watching Parliament the other day and the motion being debated at the time was something like "The Government has handled the financial crisis badly". The Government tabled an amendment which was the complete opposite of the original motion. Guess which one got voted in? Now, what was the point of all this? I know it is the Opposition's job to hold the Government to account, but it just seems pointless to me when anything you table will get voted down and amended. There was a vote (when Blair was in I believe, something to do with Royal Mail?) that Labour back benchers voted with the Tories, so that at least was pragmatic! Rixxin (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, for once in British politics, it's not the vote that counts. On Opposition Days, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems will table a motion (recently it was ...calls on the Government to scrap the identity card scheme,) knowing that it won't happen – obviously the government won't drop the idea, they have a majority, why would they?
And the government will propose an amendment, like ...replace the motion with, "very concerned at the rise of identity theft...") so that they can have a position in the debate and the division/vote that comes at the end. But Opposition Days are about the oppurtunity for the Tories to require a government minister stand up and defend his position. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, the term "table" means exactly opposite things in British Parliamentary parlance vs. US Congressional parlance. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag is correct - the point of opposition days is to have a debate, not primarily to win a vote. We have had several Governments with landslide majorities recently and the opposition days do not stop merely because there is no chance of the opposition winning. Nor would there be much effect if the opposition did win: the motions are simply expressions of opinion. I think the Gurkha debate on 29 April this year is the sole example in history of an opposition motion on an opposition day being passed by the House (see Hansard HC 6ser vol 491 cols 890-931). In itself the motion did nothing, but it led the Government to announce a change of policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can't think of any other examples. Sometimes the opposition manages to get an amendment to a government bill passed, but usually only with government support. Occasionally rebel majority party MPs means a government loses a vote and either a government bill fails or is amended against the government's will. That is the only way the opposition can actually have a direct impact on legislation/government policy - they can have quite a lot of influence at the committee stage, but I don't think they can force through anything at that point without at least some support from the majority party. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before the present system of 'Opposition days' was brought in, there was a system of 'Opposition Supply Days'. If we except motions of no confidence (an opposition motion debated in Government time), then the last occasion on which an opposition motion was supported was 11 February 1976 when a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry by half was passed by 214 to 209. This was, however, an occasion of confusion because there had been a miscount and some MPs were unaware that the division was continuing. The previous occasion was on 27 June 1974 when an opposition motion stressing the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system, urging Her Majesty’s Government to introduce interim relief for the worst affected in that year, and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate, was passed by 298 to 289. It was not until 1989 (Scotland) and 1990 (England and Wales) that the rating system was fundamentally reformed, and we all know what a success that reform was. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, of course, we don't all know what a success that was or wasn't because most readers of the Reference desk reside outside the UK and may not even know what a "rating system" (for local property-tax assessment and collection, I think, in U.S. terms) is. The period between February 1974 and April 1976, for those who may not know or remember, was a time of closely-divided parliaments whose votes could be swung by the dissent or abstention of a few rebel, independent, or minor-party MP's. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, thanks for the answers. --Rixxin (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governor-General of the United Kingdom edit

When the Statute of Westminster 1931 was being brought into existence, was any consideration given to creating a "Governor-General of the United Kingdom"? Or since? All the other Commonwealth realms have one, and their Prime Ministers normally communicate directly with their G-Gs, and only occasionally with the monarch. We're all lead to believe that the Realms are all equal in standing in every way, the UK having no kind of special status any more. Indeed, it's often been said that the Commonwealth would continue unabated even if the UK were somehow to be expelled from the Commonwealth. Yet, the UK PM talks directly to the Queen rather than to a vice-regal representative, and she (at least nominally, although it's done in her name by the Lords Commissioners in most cases) gives Royal Assent to acts of the UK Parliament, whereas acts of the other parliaments are normally assented to by the relevant G-G (only in special cases is such an act reserved for the monarch's personal signature). Some might say "What's the point? They're both based in London, so why complicate matters by introducing a middle man?". I can see that, and of course the Commonwealth is intimately connected to the UK historically. But symbolically - and that's really the essence of governor-generalship - it would be very fitting. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please thank Hansard on my behalf. Okay, so it's 1968, but basically the same thing, just retrospectively. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many cultures, the British included, have a deep-seated objection to creating pointless government positions. As you so correctly state above, with the Queen's ready availability in London, such a post would be utterly irrelevant. Besides, having the GG do all the things that GGs do in other Commonwealth countries would make the Queen even less relevant in Britain. Besides, we'd then have to pay A GG in addition to all the royals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first Leader in The Times on 29 January 1937, on the subject of the Regency Bill, said:
The Times was extremely close to Buckingham Palace in the 1930s, so much so that King George V was despatched from this world to the next in order that his death would make their deadlines. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one will mind if I pick up on a point mentioned by Tango above...George V indeed faced an accelerated demise for the benefit of the Times...Such an incredible detail of history merits being repeated for general interest. According to our article on the subject:
Dawson admits hastening the King's end by giving him a lethal injection of cocaine and morphine, both to prevent further strain on the family and so that the news of his death could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper.[50][51] He died at 11:55 p.m.[52] --Dpr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 edit conflicts... The UK also has a special judicial role in the Commonwealth - Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council hears certain appeals from some other Commonwealth countries. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which hears the cases) is made up of British judges. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It may just be due to the fact that the Queen spends the majority of her time in the UK. The G-G is only the Queen's representative in her absence, and I seem to recall hearing that the G-G loses all "official" power the moment the Queen steps foot in the country. If that's correct, while the Queen is physically in the UK there is no need for a G-G (edit: as he'd be powerless most of the time). One may ask why there isn't a G-G for those times the Queen is out of the country, but it may just be that there isn't a real need - you can just wait for her to get back. I would speculate that if the Queen ever decided to relocate to Canada/Australia/etc. on a long-term basis, the UK might then gain a Governor General, though tradition and the ability to just phone her directly may trump that need. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not true that the GGs lose their power (the little they have) when the Queen is present. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"what little they have": In fact, in some circumstances, they have more power than the Queen. For example, Sir John Kerr sacked the government of Gough Whitlam (the reasons are described in detail at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). It has often been stated that, if the decision had been up to the Queen, she would never have taken that action. Not because her view of how best to resolve the crisis would necessarily have been any different from Kerr's, but because she basically does not have the power to appoint Prime Ministers other than those of the UK, and therefore would always leave decisions about sackings etc to the relevant Governor-General. Her private reactions to Kerr's decision are alleged to have included horror; but publicly, she clearly distanced herself from the issue, saying it was a matter for the Governor-General alone. And there is a well-defined school of thought that governors-general are not just there as representatives of the monarch, but have a range of powers in their own right that the monarch does not have. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent changes in the UK, I can see a time when a GG for Scotland is a likelihood rather than a possibility (and if so, I think the best person for the job would probably be Princess Anne -she's generally liked north of the border and it would appease Scottish royalists as well). Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would either a self-ruling Kingdom of Scotland or the Queen of Scots see the need for a Governor-General? She's perfectly capable of the far more challenging task of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while in England & Wales, and the protectress of the Church of Scotland (different structure, different theology) when north of the Border, although it's true that appointed Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland represents the Crown in her absence. Were the Irish as part of some long-term settlement to rejoin the Commonwealth as a Dominion as they were before 1949 (a status in which Eamonn de Valera, of all people, kept Eire in hopes of easing reunion with loyalist Ulster), they'd surely not want the return of a Governor-General or Viceroy. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So. I see I'm not the first person to consider this question. If it was good enough for The Times, ... Thanks for those refs, Jarry and Sam. You make a very good point, 128.104.112.179. My question was predicated on the need for a certain constitutional distance between the monarch and her prime ministers, which might in theory apply regardless of the shortness of any geographical distance. The Times' reference to "symmetry" was what I was on about. I assume that if there were a Commonwealth Realm in the English Channel (e.g. if the Channel Islands were converted into one, separate from the UK), they'd have a Governor-General regardless of the fact that they're within spitting distance of the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOCTOR WHO QUESTION edit

Question moved to Entertainment desk Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_October_26&oldid=1073427083"