Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 11

Legal or illegal?

In Germany and Ireland, incest (sexual intercourse between lineal ancestors and descendants, or between full and half-siblings) is legal for same-sex couples but illegal for opposite-sex couples, see Legality of incest, however, see Transgender rights in Germany and Transgender rights in Ireland, both Germany and Ireland have self-determination law (self ID), allow everyone to change their legal sex in the civil registry without gender-affirming surgery, so are these four situation legal or illegal in Germany and Ireland?

1. male trans to female, has sexual intercourse to brother
2. male trans to female, has sexual intercourse to sister
3. female trans to male, has sexual intercourse to brother
4. female trans to male, has sexual intercourse to sister

And will the answer be different if they have done gender-affirming surgery? 61.224.132.200 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page, We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require legal advice. In any case, you should never trust random people on the internet for legal advice. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not a request for legal advice, it's a request for legal information (there's a difference). In any case, it would need to be decided upon by the courts. If the courts haven't already ruled on the matter, then the question is unanswerable. --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you'll excuse the expression, it's a case of "suck it and see." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Characters 入梅 on Chinese calendar

Why does my Chinese calendar show 入梅 (or something that looks like 入梅) for today, June 11, 2024? Google Translate says it means "plum blossom season". Is there any cultural significance to this, like with cherry blossom season in Japan? And why was this put on this specific day of the calendar, June 11? It is the 6th day of the 5th lunar month: is this relevant? 2601:18A:C500:E830:526A:B17D:E5EF:4ACD (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

入梅 refers to the commencement of the rainy season. In particular, it literally refers to entering the rainy season. GalacticShoe (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec) While the literal meaning is "beginning of plum blossom", Wiktionary defines it as "beginning of the rainy season". Our article East Asian rainy season states that it is also called "the plum rain".  --Lambiam 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To know what is 入梅, you need to know what is 梅雨 (literally means plum rain in China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea). Plum rain is the East Asian rainy season. 入梅 simply means the beginning of the plum rain season. 梅 is more commonly seen plant in China rather than in Japan, therefore I believe (not 100% sure), the term 梅雨 was come from ancient China instead of Japan. However, the first time I heard of the terms 入梅 and 出梅 (literally mean the end of the plum rain season) were in Taiwan, so I'm not sure weather China or Japan are using the same terms or not.

It is true that in Japan, it is the season that cherry blossom and a lot of people from other countries, mainly Asia, go to Japan to appreciate and celebrate the cherry blossom season.

In Taiwan, the Central Meteorological Bureau has a strict definition of the beginning and end of plum rain season. Their definition of 入梅 is the first day of the four consecutive rainly days with an average daily rainfall exceeds 9 mm. Therefore, the date of 入梅 is different year from year. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

June 14

Scientific article about religious/scientific cognitive dissonance

What are some peer-reviewed articles that examine possible cognitive dissonance or lack of true supernatural belief in academics or scientists who purport to be religious? 75.80.42.225 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not easy to define "true supernatural belief". If you define it as a belief that is at odds with the scientific consensus, a scientist harbouring such a belief obviously does not accept the scientific consensus in some respect. But many atheist scientists also question some aspect or another of the scientific consensus; this need not give rise to cognitive dissonance. More importantly, many religious beliefs do not intersect with the realm of science, such as the existence of an immortal soul or an all-powerful creator outside space and time.  --Lambiam 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, which a religious scientist came up with, and atheist scientists have made criticisms of it, unsurprisingly.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You might like Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I found Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Rather specialized, but more recent and open access: Faith and facts: Exploring the intersection of religion and science among anatomy educators.  --Lambiam 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

See also: Einstein’s Religiosity and the Role of Religion in His Private Life --136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular leaders

Per World losers gather at G7 summit (Axios),

Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker.

Is there a quick TLDR of why these people are so unpopular? Biden I sort of know about but I didn't realize that the rest of them are even further in the toilet.

Also, in the upcoming US election, while Biden and Trump might both be personally unappetizing (not in the same way), is there some reasonably established notion that the actual president (i.e. the person, not the institution or the office) doesn't matter much? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GWB, and maybe others were disengaged or vegetative or otherwise dysfunctional, at least towards the end of their terms. (More.) But the election is really about the entire executive branch, which at least sometimes is more influential than the figurehead whose face is on TV. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Narendra Modi is at the top of the list with 70%, yet in the recent election his victory margin was the second lowest ever for a sitting Prime Minister in India, and his BJP paty is now in a coalition instead of having an outright majority. So I'm unclear on what global approval ratings are even relevant to. They might predict the result of an election for leader of the world?  Card Zero  (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Several factors may have a major effect on the outcomes of opinion polls, such as the sampling method and the wording of the questions. Comparing outcomes from differently conducted polls in different cultures is not necessarily a meaningful exercise.  --Lambiam 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mid-term many voters tend to blame their current leader(s) for everything they're unhappy about, so when asked to rate those leaders, will give quite low scores. But when it comes to a real choice, and they see the quality of the opposition, they return their preferences to the devil they know. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You can read the articles about each leader, but both Trudeau and Macron have been around in their position for years (2015 and 2017, respectively) and that tends to decrease approval ratings as anything unpopular that happened over that long span tends to reflect on their ratings. For Sunak, he hasn't been around that long, but his party has been in power for a long stretch, and that stretch has been marked by a succession of leaders and, again, some traumatic events that have not helped the various leaders' popularity. And as mentioned, that can change quickly come election time when voters have to make an actual choice, not just express an opinion to a pollster. Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's an article about Scholz's SPD, which paints its unpopularity as an outcome of battling against fiscal conservatism. The usual rule of "it's the economy, stupid" at present is influenced by the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (still). We're apparently going through World food crises (2022–present), although I'm more keenly aware that multiple countries are experiencing a housing crisis with no affordable rented accommodation available, which I'm told is an echo from the pandemic's damage to builder's supply chains. (Our article on those current events is simply titled Housing crisis.)

More articles: Kishida’s popularity in free fall, Kishida is so unpopular, he can't even give money away, mention inflation, and tax hikes due to spending on defense and social care.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't claim to understand it, but in recent decades it seems like every French president's popularity declines not too long after being elected (though Macron's fall may be bigger than some of the others). AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Macron did manage to be reelected in 2022, however, contrary to his two predecessors (Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande) who both only served a single term. In fact Hollande was so unpopular that he did not even attempt to run for reelection. Xuxl (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer the question, but it's worth noting that most voting systems don't require the president or PM to have the support of the majority of the population to win an election. They are often elected indirectly (e.g. the Electoral College selecting the President in the US, or the leader of the winning party becoming PM in a parliamentary system). Election is usually by winning a plurality of votes (more than any of their rivals) rather than majority (more than half). Or a plurality of a plurality. Sometimes, due to the way voting districts are set up and the specific voting system in use, someone can win with despite not even achieving a plurality of votes. And of course, people who don't vote aren't counted (and certain voting systems make some people's votes irrelevant, which makes people more likely not to vote). All of this means that someone can win an election despite being very unpopular, and will likely become even less popular as they govern. Iapetus (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, during the term of being a leader, the leader has to make a lot of decisions which are good to their countries, but may not liked by all people. As everyone is being upset by the leader’s decision in one way or the other, so people tend to give a low rating in an approval rating poll. However, in an election, people will do it differently.

In an election you vote for a leader, not an entertainer or superstar. So, you vote for someone who you believe that he or she can do the best to the country instead of someone who you like most.

Entertainers have to focus their energies on striving for likeability from people so that they can be a superstar who can earn much higher income that a nobody. On the other hand, leaders have very different priorities, such as credibility, confidence, being respected as a leader and a higher chance to win the next election. A leader who acts like a clown might gain likeability from the people, but he or she might not be a respectable leader to the people. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I'll look at some of the links. It occurs to me in the case of Prime Ministers, they are selected by their party's MP's rather than by the voters, so a party in power could put up a PM who the public doesn't like, in preference to a more popular one. I don't know if they actually do that. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In public polls after Boris Johnson stepped down in 2022, Rishi Sunak consistently beat Liz Truss as preferred leader, yet the MPs elected Truss. In 2016, the US Democratic Party put up a presidential candidate, Clinton, in preference to a more popular one, Sanders (who in polls also generally beat Trump^[1][2][3]).  --Lambiam 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The usual way how it works with prime ministers (including Olaf Scholz) is that they first get elected as party leader (by party members). Next come the elections, where the public can vote for a party. The leader of the largest party takes the initiative in forming a government (which usually means forming some coalition), only then the party leader becomes prime minister, with a vote of confidence by parliament. Until that point the old PM is in charge of government, even if from the same party as the new PM.

So the cases with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss are somewhat exceptional because (A) they took the role of PM without any elections in sight and (B) didn't need support from other coalition parties, so could be appointed directly by their own party. In most democracies, a PM stepping down triggers elections. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Olaf Scholz is not the party leader, but he was nominated by his party as the Chancellor candidate for the last elections. Although the Chancellor is not elected directly by the people, the Chancellor candidates are very important in the electoral campaigns in Germany and there is a strong personal element to the elections. Therefore it is hardly conceivable that parties would intentionally nominate an unpopular candidate. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

True, there's often a difference between the leader of the party organisation (who leads party meetings etc.) and the political leader of the party (who's the figurehead in elections and is active in politics). Maybe I could have been clearer about that, but my comment was long enough already. PiusImpavidus (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The shortest answer I can think of is that people don't like politicians. "The five least-trusted professions [in the UK] are politicians, advertising executives, government ministers, estate agents and journalists." Even winning politicians may be unpopular. Keir Starmer may be heading for the largest ever Labour majority, so what's his favourability? Negative 17%. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The shortest answer I can think of is that people don't like politicians

I would argue that that's a somewhat newer development and has multiple factors involved. Since the 1970s, there's been a major influence campaign by conservative "think tanks" and foundations funded by billionaires to degrade democratic institutions and promote distrust around the world. They are doing this because by generating distrust in government, they can push privatization in its place and limit arguments for global governance that imposes regulations on corporations and dilutes their tendency towards monopolies. As we've repeatedly seen, capitalism does not need or require democracy to function, and that's essentially the primary reason politicians have low approval ratings. The secondary reason is that for the average person, globalization has been a total disaster. (Coincidentally, our article on economic globalization points directly to the 1970s as the pivot point. Among other things, this destabilized the global supply chain, which directly led to the production failures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.) Moving jobs and industries overseas for cheaper labor was instigated by the same billionaires who are promoting distrust in politicians. It's all connected. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're simply (or over-complicatedly) talking about libertarianism. Check out the quote in the section Libertarianism#Etymology. This seems to fit the bill, expressing distaste for "government ownership of property and more controls over persons", but dates to 1955 and is sincere and upfront and in no way a shadowy conspiracy. I would argue that you see this school of thought as a conspiracy, and are discovering more and more signs to confirm the theory as a result of looking hard for them, because you just don't like it.

On the other hand, with this general anti-democratic theme, perhaps you're thinking of populism, which is a different and smellier kettle of fish.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about right-wing networks. This is all easily sourced and is considered part of the mainstream discourse. Political scientist Richard J. Meagher summarizes the entire topic in his 2012 academic paper.[4] This network is composed of media watchdog groups, public interest law firms, fundraising organizations, state-level coordinating organizations, academic research centers, professional associations, conservative colleges and universities, government and public affairs training programs, foreign-policy think tanks, academic watchdog groups, conservative conferences, and conservative seniors organizations. Meagher concludes, "These networks of media and political organizations are a chief reason why the Right, despite all the weight of demographics and popular opinion against them, continue to triumph in "the war of ideas," and in our politics. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

TLDR side question

• I'm intrigued by the OP's question "Is there a quick TLDR of why these people are so unpopular?". TLDR means some text is too long to read, but the above usage seems to mean a short version, which is the exact opposite. That's a fascinating development. I put it in the same class as "entitled" (which now means someone who acts as if they are entitled but are NOT actually entitled), or "I could care less" (which means "I could NOT care less"). Why would people say the exact opposite of what they mean, and how is it that such enigmatically self-contradictory expressions are so quickly assimilated and widely understood? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that effect is due to salience. People were initially interested to be alerted to the problem, "this text is too long", and called that tl;dr, but were more interested by the custom of providing the solution, "in short ...", which became known as the tl;dr version and then just the tl;dr. And people are more interested in talking about the overentitled than about the justifiably entitled (or the rarely-mentioned underentitled), so the simple form entitled replaced the use case of most interest. At a stretch, this theory could even apply to "I could care less", which, if intended literally, would be a pointless observation about being in a very ordinary condition of moderate interest. Thus the phrase was up for grabs as a sort of clipping or contraction. But wikt:could care less says (more plausibly) that it's deliberate irony or hyponegation, in the same vein as wikt:monkeys might fly out of my butt.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree about salience; from what I've seen, these TL;DR versions were often from people self-effacingly annotating their own posts, which would eventually lead to summaries as a whole being ironically labelled about people not reading them. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm increasingly seeing TLDR being used just before a summary of something lengthier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wiktionary gives both senses.  --Lambiam 21:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

June 17

The London Residence of the Painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder

The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter

The painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder, a Dutchman, lived in London from 1823 to 1831. It has been suggested that his painting The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter represents Goderich offering his resignation to the King, represented by a Spaniel. What I would like to know is where was the London residence of the painter and does it still stand, and did Wonder have a dog while he lived there? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly the address is on the tag attached to the rabbit's foot. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

According to this article (14th item down), the message on the hare's foot includes the word "Sudbourne" where in 1828, there was a shooting accident at a hunting party for Tory politicians, resulting in Henry Frederick Cooke and two boys being injured (represented by the hare and the two small partridges); part of an elabotrate allegory. The London address has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to OP see here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

French election

[5] Does that mean what it looks like, that Marine Le Pen and her party are about to completely pwn France? Is that like Trump winning all 50 US states in the US election? Is there a main issue that caused this sudden takeover? I don't understand at all how French politics work, but I see from the relevant WP articles that Le Pen has been trying to soften her party's formerly far right image, to now be more centre-right. Is that legit, or posturing? Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what that Tweet is referring to, but according to the article 2024_French_legislative_election the election will be held on June 30 and July 7. RudolfRed (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The RN won 30 out of 81 French seats in the European Elections. The national elections later this month are done using a completely different system which elects one person from each constituency, and has a second round of voting if no candidta ehas 50% at the first vote. That often means that the RN gets the most votes the first time, then at the second vote the other parties all side with the runner up to prevent the RN candidate being elected. They should do well - but will probably not form the next government 2A00:23C5:2228:B301:29CE:A868:7FA4:ECA7 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(EC)The tweet is based on the recently completed 2024 European Parliament Elections. That election was run in a single round with a large number of national lists (30+) in competition, and results were strictly proportional. The Rassemblement National (as the party now calls itself) won a plurality in most regions, including in places where it had not done well historically - hence the map. The upcoming legislative election will be held in two rounds, in small electoral districts, with three or four large blocks in competition; in those elections, a plurality is not enough to win. So, you can't simply extrapolate results from one election onto the other. In past legislative or presidential elections, the RN (or its predecessors) tended to do well in the first round, and then face a coalition of all of their opponents in the second round, because they are still considered to be "beyond the pale", which resulted in fewer seats won in Parliament than would have occurred with a "normal" party. The question is whether this dynamic will play again in a few weeks. No one really knows at this point. Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Quatermain and Marmion

According to our article The Ingoldsby Legends, Allan Quatermain quotes part of Scott's Marmion in King Solomon's Mines, but mistakenly says it is from Ingoldsby. Which bit of Marmion was it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The quote comes in chapter 14 of KSM:

The stubborn spearmen still made good
The dark impenetrable wood,
Each stepping where his comrade stood
The instant that he fell.

"as I think the Ingoldsby Legends beautifully puts it." Robert Louis Stevenson protested against the misattribution, but Haggard blamed Quatermain's poor literary education rather than his own. [6] All the same, I see that in my copy of KSM the attribution reads "as someone or other beautifully says", so the criticism must have stung. In Marmion you can find the lines in Canto 6, stanza 34, though Scott has "their dark impenetrable wood". --Antiquary (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

With a little searching of the Project Gutenberg version, I think it's this passage from Chapter 14:

As for the fight that followed, who can describe it? Again and again the multitudes surged against our momentarily lessening circle, and again and again we beat them back.

“The stubborn spearmen still made good The dark impenetrable wood, Each stepping where his comrade stood The instant that he fell,”

as someone or other beautifully says.

That's from Marmion, but not attributed to Ingoldsby at all. At the start of the story, Quartermain the narrator says "I am not a literary man, though very devoted to the Old Testament and also to the Ingoldsby Legends.” There's also an actual quote from Ingoldsby at the start of chapter 6. Perhaps we should mention one of those things in our article instead (if any of this is really wiki-notable, which I doubt). Chuntuk (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. The Oxford World's Classics edition Antiquary links to is based on Cassell's first, 1885, edition. The Gutenberg text to which Chuntuk links is a 1907 edition. So my inevitable next question is "When did Haggard gloss over Quatermain's error?" DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not yet fixed in this 1901 edition. Chuntuk (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly conclusive, but of the many editions listed at Library Hub Discover the only pre-1907 one described as "Revised" is the 1905 Cassell one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But, as I feared, that proves nothing. The Oxford World Classics edition tells us that after the first edition "Haggard subsequently made minor revisions to correct errors in early reprints and then added further revisions for the Revised New Illustrated Edition in 1905." --Antiquary (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 19

What proportion of people in the world have less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities?

A person, his/her parents, his/her grandparents, his/her great-grandparents, his/her great-great-grandparents, his/her great-great-great-grandparents, and his/her great-great-great-great-grandparents, with 7 consanguinities, adding up to 2^7-1 = 127 different individuals, a person usually has 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities, but some person has less than 127 different persons within the 7 consanguinities (this is because consanguine marriage), what proportion of people in the world have less than 127 persons within the 7 consanguinities? Also, what is the minimum number of persons within the 7 consanguinities such that there is a known person (may be in history) to have? 218.187.65.229 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the German WP, de:Ahnenschwund, which traces geneaologies of selected royalties for >7 generations. Estimating any average may be impossible, as such documentation is only available for a few notable individuals. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

OMG, that's so not true. We have nearly all the family trees of everybody on Iceland going back to 874. See deCODE genetics. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Iceland is, compared to continental Europe, a total exception to mobility. Numerous wars and migratory shifts have resulted in the loss of documentation on the European mainland. There is no point in extrapolating from a sample of 1 which is not representative. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. People choose mates the same way, mobility up to about 1850 was low worldwide, and all OP wants is an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• UK:
• Celtic population
• Roman legions in England
• Viking incursions, South and East
• Anglo-Saxon settlement in England
• Viking era under Cnut the Great
• Norman Conquest
• Great Fire of London
• Emmigration to US and other colonies
• Blitz Krieg
• Immigration from (previous) colonies
• Immigration of EU labour forces

• Iceland
• Population = Natfari and 2 slaves in the 9th century
• Settlement by Old Norse and Gaelic groups, 874 AD
• No wars
• No conquests

• That Icelanders are the same species is a profoundly irrelevant and idiotic comment. That mobility (on the continent) was low until 1850 is total rubbish. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's you who don't get it. Everyone alive today who is of European heritage is descended from everybody alive in Europe in the year 800. Why? That was 48 or so generations ago given a 25 year generation time, meaning that you theoretically have 281,474,976,710,656 ancestors from the year 800. Or, if you assume 3 generations per 100 years, then 68,719,476,736 ancestors from the year 800. This makes the difference between Iceland and all of Europe look like a rounding error. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are some flaws in your assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In the more densely populated parts of Europe, there's a village every 2 km. Even centuries ago, people could easily marry someone from three villages away. Back in the 17th–18th century, your ancestors 6 generations back could come from a 5000 km² area (assuming no mass migrations, which did happen), housing around 200,000 people, more than the entire population of Iceland back then. (Rough numbers.)

You cannot assume Iceland is representative for Europe. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, they are the same species, and mate the same way. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that marriage customs in Iceland are identical to those throughout the rest of Europe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Then people in Iceland must conciously avoid mating somebody with a common great-great-great-grandparent. I don't know Icelanders that well, but here on the continent most people don't know who their great-great-grandparents were, even when it can be looked up in the archives. Else, random chance makes cosanguine marriages within 6 generations more likely on Iceland, simply due to the smaller pool to draw mates from. And if Icelanders conciously avoid cosanguine marriages within 6 generations, they may be less common than on the continent. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there were very explicit rules shared by everyone in the Catholic world and probably in all Christendom. You went to the priest, they looked in the church register and worked out the consanguinity using a mathematical method. If it violated the rule (mentioned in the article Libellus responsionum), you had to apply to the Pope in Rome for a dispensation, which he would use to extract a lot of money from the nobility, who were more likely to engage in close marriages. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has studied their own family tree will probably know the answer for themselves, but even if that information could be compiled across all trees somehow, there's no assurance it would represent a reliable average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For Cleopatra VII I find 24 individuals, assuming that Cleopatra I had four different grandparents. In particular, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra III, themselves uncle and niece, where great-grandparents of Cleopatra VII along three different lines and great-great-grandparents of hers along two more lines. There may be Egyptian royals where you find an even lower number. Assuming the family trees are correct; amongst nobility extramarital sex happened sometimes on purpose to prevent inbreeding. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then there's King Tut, whose parents were brother and sister. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

From a distant sociological point of view there is nothing like - exists akin without a fully homogeneously structured population. Except for one given durable period in insolated Iceland, and outrageously punctual, this or that other capital city blessed with the kind of magical aura making their burghers view themselves shiningly aristocratic. It's well known that otherwise, they'd finished dissolving in cretinism. --Askedonty (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of King Tut? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain (see Avunculate marriage#Medieval European royals, there are only 24 different persons within the 5 consanguinities of Charles II of Spain)? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Alfonso XII of Spain? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Ferdinand I of Austria? Also, how many different persons within the 7 consanguinities of Cleopatra VII (see Pedigree collapse)? Where for a “normal” person the answer is 127. 36.233.246.191 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

King Tut: Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt family tree is incomplete and some lines are uncertain, but other dan his parents, who were siblings, the next pair of ancestors who were related happened 8 generations before. I cannot conclude that the number as asked in the question is fewer than 63.

Charles II of Spain: 49. Going more generations back, there are more consanguinities to be found.

Cleopatra VII I already mentioned above: 24.

PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

June 23

"...year of his age"

The grave of Pelham Humfrey states: "Here lieth interred the body of Mr. Pelham Humphrey, who died the fourteenth of July, Anno Dom. 1674, and in the twenty-seventh year of his age". Does this mean age 27, as stated in the article, or rather age 26? Can we be sure about the right interpretation of 17th century English? --KnightMove (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, our article at Mary Jones and her Bible seems to document a case, in 1800, where " in the 16th year of my age" must have meant "in the year leading up to my 16th birthday", i.e. at the age of 15. I don't know how consistent historical usage would have been about this either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks - and there are sufficient sources to confirm this viewpoint. Example. --KnightMove (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)