Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17[edit]

Is it possible to travel to Oceania via ship (not cruisers) just to arrive and stay in that country?[edit]

I need to travel to Kiribati, a country in Oceania and I'd like to know if I can travel via ship. I am panicked by airplanes and I'm treating it with my therapist but haven't yet overcome it, so she asked me to find out other ways to get to Kiribati. Any help appreciated. LoweIan (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cargo Ship Travel page on "flightless travel" might be useful. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? it seems so. You can apparently book a passage on a supply ship from Fiji or Tuvalu [1] - either of which should be easier to get to by sea, though obviously it depends where you are coming from. Don't expect it to be cheap. Or quick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's something that would help you, but I've been looking into sea travel as I hate flying, too. RMS Queen Mary 2 appears to be the only Ocean liner left in the world. I'm curious why that happened. There are millions of people with Fear of flying. The must be a huge market for ships that would just bring people like me to the place they want to be as fast as possible, without having to fly, without having to find a cargo ship that happens to sail in the right direction. Joepnl (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the percentage of people who are not minded to fly multiplied by the percentage of people who consider taking ships a thing they want to do worked out for bad economics for the shipping companies. Today's cruise ships, and I've been on a few, are not intended as transportation. Yes, they go places, but few people take them to get from Point A to Point B, there are faster and cheaper means. Once transatlantic airplane travel became something relatively cheap and routine, the liners started to die.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the statement that cruise ships are not intended for transportation, but there are some exceptions. The trans Atlantic crossings, for example, are sometimes taken by people who can afford the time and the money not to have to fly. First class on an airline would be faster and probably cheaper, but there are those who really do have problems flying. I know people who do this annually. Bielle (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tranquilizers are cheaper? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Cunard Southampton/New York, certainly. Most cruise ships, even on transatlantic runs, make at least a couple of stops. Azores, Madiera, Bermuda are common. I took a transatlantic from Rome to Fort Lauderdale last year, it puttered around the Med for a week before getting going.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this travel agent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The reason people who don't like flying aren't going by ship is, I think, that the option is simply not offered. For me personally: time is not so much a problem, being Dutch I have about 24 holidays per year. Money isn't either; while a flight is ridiculously cheap nowadays, I wouldn't mind paying the fare that was usual 10 years ago. Let's say $800 to get across the Atlantic or $500 to go from Amsterdam to Istanbul. (1700 miles through countries like Rumenia, which I travelled by car a few years ago because I needed to be there for a convention. Gas alone was more than $500). Even if the number of people who'd choose to travel long distances by ship instead of by plane was like 0.1% (where the percentage of people "suffering" from Fear of flying is reportedly 10%-40% according to nl.wikipedia.org) that still amounts to a niche market of millions of passengers. This might sound like an elevator pitch, sorry for that. I do hope someone in the cruising business listened :) Joepnl (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From an article I read about a trip to Antarctica, there are websites that connect sea travellers with yacht owners. The yacht can take you as a passenger or as crew, but then you are expected to work. The author of the article worked as cook for the yacht, as an example. --Error (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a significant market for people travelling by boat with the intent of staying permanently in the destination country. Of course it's not the most comfortable or safest of journeys, and you're not always welcomed with open arms. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir 'Chips'?[edit]

Henry Channon was knighted in 1957 but married Lady Honor Guinness in 1933. Between 1933 and 1957 would it have been incorrect to have called him Sir Henry Channon? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be incorrect. From Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: "The honorific prefix of "(The) Lady" is used for the daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls. The courtesy title is added before the person's name, as in the example The Lady Diana Spencer. The title persists after the death of the holder's father but it is not inherited by her children. The husband of the holder is not entitled to a courtesy title. The holder is addressed as "Lady Diana"."

Note that Lady Honor and Henry were divorced in 1945. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, just what I was looking for. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the use of knighthoods as courtesy titles seems to have died out in the late middle ages, so no-one is entitled to be 'Sir' anything by virtue of who they're related to. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was with you until the comma. Baronets are titled "Sir", and they gain their titles by inheritance. True, they are not knights, but the second half of your answer was too broad. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that a baronet is a substantive title-holder; a baronet's heir has no special title, and nor does the husband of a baronetess. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin[edit]

When did Sophia Cracroft and Lady Franklin arrive in Hawaii in 1861 and how long did they stay?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]