Humanities desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 5[edit]

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) a law enforcement agency?[edit]

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agency of the Heath and Human Services Department of the United States federal government a law enforcement agency despite issues guidelines? The public health agency does issue guidelines like mask mandates and sometimes it becomes enforceable by governments nationwide despite being tyrannical. I am absolutely not here to debate about pros and cons of mandates because this is not a forum to debate controversial topics. 47.145.112.144 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the EPA a law-enforcement agency when it issues regulations about what level of pollutants can be discharged into the environment? AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not here to debate, then you should delete the "tyrannical" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the CDC is not a law enforcement agency in any common sense of the word. And the argument that the CDC issues guidelines which may be enforceable by state or federal governments does not support this at all - if anything, that would be an argument for the CDC to be part of the legislative process. But anyone can issue guidelines - and any state can can decide to back them with the force of law. That does not make the NIST into a LEO, or NASA, or Eurocontrol, all of which issue guidelines, with many of them being accepted into law by at least some states. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC issues regulation, i.e. secondary legislation, which it is empowered specifically by Congress to do. Those regulations may be enforced by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies. But they are not directly enforced by the CDC. Law enforcement agencies generally have arrest power, which the CDC does not. --Jayron 32 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal house change in the United Kingdom[edit]

The last time the reigning royal house changed in the United Kingdom was when Queen Victoria (of House Hanover) was succeeded by her son, Edward VII (of House Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). Now Edward VII was Queen Victoria's own son and not some entirely new monarch. So why did the house change? Was it because Queen Victoria, the previous reigning monarch, was a woman? If so, why won't the royal house then change again once Elizabeth II dies and passes the crown on to Prince Charles? JIP | Talk 20:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mountbatten-Windsor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Currently, the reigning house is the House of Windsor, which is just a name-change of the UK branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But apparently the Queen has decreed in 1952, and confirmed in 1960, that she and her descendants that can use the Royal Highness style will all be of the House of Windsor (which pissed off Prince Philip, but what could he do?). All the other ones use Mountbatten-Windsor as a normal surname. This is a quaint and old-fashion FRPG they are playing ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) House_of_Windsor#Descendants_of_Elizabeth_II explains it (and confirms what Stephan said). Basically, they said "nah" to Mountbatten. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand this right, the House of Hanover changed into the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when Victoria was succeeded by Edward VII (instead of being replaced by it), and this would otherwise happen again when Elizabeth II will be succeeded by Charles, except that she gave a decree that the House of Windsor (originally known as the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) will not change into the House of Mountbatten? So is it correct that the House of Hanover originally changed into the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because Victoria was a woman? JIP | Talk 21:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the articles Dynasty and Albert, Prince Consort, that is correct. --184.144.99.241 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the throne of Hanover passed from William IV to his younger brother, Ernest Augustus, because Victoria was debarred by the Salic law. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when was the last time the royal house in the United Kingdom (or in England or Scotland before that) actually got replaced by a new house that wasn't related to the previous house? JIP | Talk 23:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm taking you too literal, but if you require "not related", than my guess is "never". IIRC, Liz-2 can trace her ancestry back to both Bastard Billy and Alfred the Great, and every change of succession in between has been justified by some more-or-less remote relationship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are taking me too literally. By "not related", I mean not a direct descendant, like Edward VII was Victoria's own son, yet still the house he belonged was different from that of his mother. JIP | Talk 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanoverian George I succeeded his second cousin Anne, a Stuart, in 1714. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in the early 19th century in Sweden, the House of Holstein-Gottorp was entirely replaced by the House of Bernadotte when Charles XIII was succeeded by Charles XIV John. These two kings appear to have little-to-none relation with each other, especially as Charles XIV was actually born in France and came from a French family line. The Swedish Riksdag elected a king whom Napoleon would approve. Did something like this ever happen in the United Kingdom, or in England or Scotland before that? JIP | Talk 02:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Glorious Revolution replaced the House of Stuart with the unique combination of William and Mary, two co-reigning monarchs. Mary was the daughter of the deposed James II of England (and a protestant), so that was their strongest claim to the throne, but in reality it was a decision of Parliament that put them on the throne, more-or-less finally establishing the primacy of Parliament. Since William and Mary had no direct heirs (and neither hat Mary's sister Anne, who succeeded William), the Act of Settlement 1701 gave the throne to the protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover when Anne finally died. And, of course, William the Conquerer replaced Harold Godwinson, who in turn had replaced Edward the Confessor, both essentially with the argument "stop me if you can". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Settlement didn't specifically displace the Stuarts, only the Catholic ones. If there had been a surviving child of William and Mary or Anne, the House of Stuart would have remained on the throne. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if William and Mary had a surviving child, the throne would presumably go to the House of Orange-Nassau, I would think. They were both reigning Monarchs, but I would assume that William would count as the head of the House (even though his claim to the throne was weaker). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Act of Settlement explicitly says: any child of Anne, then any child of William by a hypothetical remarriage, then Sophia or her issue. (A child of William and Mary would have preceded Anne, but Mary died long before the Act.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the case that every British monarch since William I has been a descendant of William I? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not always a direct descendant; the biggest disconnect was between the Stuarts and Hanoverians as related above. Actually, William I was a first cousin once removed of the childless Edward the Confessor, so he was an illegitimate descendant (through the female line) of the Anglo-Danish kings of England. Harold Godwinson was only related to royalty by marriage, but was elected to the throne by a council of nobles, which was legal at the time. Therefore British monarchs have a somewhat tenuous descent from the earliest kings of England. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrilineal descendants of William I to rule England only include his two sons, William Rufus and Henry Beauclerc. Stephen of Blois descends from his daughter Adela, and the Plantagenets (including the Lancastrians and Yorks) all descend from The Empress Matilda, Henry's daughter. Beginning with Henry II, patrilineal descent can be traced all the way down to Richard III, though it skips back and forth through some younger sons. Henry VII had only illegitimate matrilineal descent via Beaufort line, but as he married Elizabeth of York, legitimate daughter of Edward IV, all of his children were legitimately matrilineally descended from the Plantagenet lines. When James VI & I became King of England, uniting the crowns of England and Scotland, his claim was via his grandmother, Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. The Stuart lines were all patrilineal, as the two women in the line (Mary II and Anne) had no issue. William III was of the House of Orange, but he was the legitimate grandson of Charles I (Stuart) of England via his mother. The Hanoverian line descends from James VI & I via his daughter Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia and her daughter Sophia of Hanover. The Hanoverian line was patrilineal until Victoria, became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (renamed Windsor), which was then patrilineal until Elizabeth II. Thus, every monarch is genetically descended from William I, and every monarch is legitimately descended from William I with the possible exception of Henry VII. --Jayron 32 14:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict)You guys all overlooked one other particularly notable (sort of)-exception: Henry VII, of House Tudor, whose wife was of House Lancaster (or was it York? I forget), but not himself. He won the thrown of England on the battlefield, by slaying the then-King Richard III. He is also the most recent pre-Hanoverian English monarch of whom every succeeding monarch has been a direct descendent (all of the post-Tudor kings and queens were descended from Mary Queen of Scots, who was Henry's granddaughter). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A19B:E835:C1A:979B (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VII was descended illegitimately but genetically through John of Gaunt (and thus Edward III). John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset was Henry VII's ancestor through his mother, Beaufort was the child of Katherine Swynford, who later married Gaunt, but at the time of Beaufort's birth was merely his mistress. Swynford's children were alternately legitimized or de-legitimized at various times depending on the political necessities of the dynastic struggles of the Lancastrians and the Yorks. Gaunt's wife at the time was Constance of Castile, through which John of Gaunt briefly claimed the Kingship of Castile, jure uxoris. It would have been difficult to claim to be rightly married to the Queen of Castile and thus claim kingship, if he also claimed his children via his mistress were legitimate. --Jayron 32 14:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Hanovers were "not direct descendants" of William I, then what the heck does "direct descendant" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One possible exception… depends on whether you count King Philip II of Spain (husband of Queen Mary I, aka “Bloody Mary”) or not. It is a technicality, but Philip was considered King of England (ruling jointly) until Mary died, and Elizabeth I was made Queen. He was not a descendant of William. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Philip and Mary and William and Mary were daughter and son-in-law of a previous king, which is not much of a disconnect. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William III (of “William and Mary”) was a grandson of Charles I, and so a descendant of William the Conqueror… as far as I know, Philip was not a descendant of the Conqueror. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Philip II of Spain was descended from William the Conquerer, legitimately too! His mother was Isabella of Portugal, whose father was Manuel I of Portugal, whose mother was Beatriz of Portugal, Duchess of Viseu, whose father was John, Constable of Portugal, whose mother was Philippa of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. So he ALSO was a descendent of William I, at least as much as any of the Tudors or Stuarts were. --Jayron 32 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected! Well done, Jayron. (John of Gaunt seems to get into it everywhere) Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. Dude was married 3 times, had numerous daughters that he married off into highly important families, both in England and on the Continent. Considering he had daughters who married both a King of Portugal and a King of Castile, you can get into just about any royal house from him. I just realized that Philip II can claim John of Gaunt twice (I literally just picked semi-randomly through his ancestry till I ran into John of Gaunt), since Philip II descends from Isabella I of Castile, who herself was a great-grand-daughter of John of Gaunt via Catherine of Lancaster, her grandmother. Also don't forget that via Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella, we get into the Habsburgs, who therefore are all also descendents of John of Gaunt. --Jayron 32 15:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rare for the house name to pass through females. The house name was traditionally passed only through the male line, so if a female queen rules, the house of her children becomes that of her husband, as was done with Edward VII. Elizabeth II broke with this tradition when she declared that Charles and his family would continue to be of the House of Windsor. A similar thing happened with Empress Elizabeth of Russia, whose husband was of the House of Holstein-Gottorp, but whose children continued to be of the House of Romanov. Similarly, Pedro V of Portugal's father's house was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but he claimed his mother Maria II's house of Braganza. --Jayron 32 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning to Scotland for a moment, both the House of Balliol and the House of Bruce had somewhat distant royal connexions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy aside, modern genetic theory says that we must all be descended from William I. Alansplodge (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely so, but this wasn't necessarily true of all people in, say, the 16th century. --Jayron 32 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And above, regarding the Balliols, they descend from David I of Scotland, who was married to Maud, Countess of Huntingdon, who was the granddaughter of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, William the Conqueror's father. If you give me a bit, I'll probably be able to tie them more directly to William as well. --Jayron 32 15:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that's the closest I can get with the Balliols. Alexander II of Scotland, son of William the Lion, is definitely a descendent of William the Conqueror via William's wife Ermengarde de Beaumont but the Balliol's link-in to the Scottish line comes earlier than that. --Jayron 32 15:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruces may have a better connection to William the Conqueror, even though their claim to the throne of Scotland was similar to the Balliols. Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale says that he was descended from Henry I of England, but I can't find any direct family tree to support that. Still looking. --Jayron 32 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both the Bruces and the Balliols would have been descendents of Alexander I of Scotland, who was married to Sybilla of Normandy, who was the (illegitimate) daughter of Henry I, son of William the Conqueror. --Jayron 32 15:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: That link only applies to Europeans. I doubt that my father, a distant relative of the Shah of Persia, is descended from William I. The dynasty only lasted till 1925, as it was overthrown by an army officer. 87.75.36.211 (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the odds are quite good that you have a fairly recent (say in the last 10 generations or so) who is European. It is not hard to find situations where Europeans and Iranians have intermarried. For example, the Aga Khans, an family of Iranian origin that serves as the hereditary Imams of the Nizari, have frequently intermarried with European women; the current Aga Khan, Aga Khan IV's mother was Joan Yarde-Buller, a British woman. His father's mother was Cleope Teresa Magliano, an italian woman. --Jayron 32 13:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Persian dynasty overthrown in the 20's was the Qajar dynasty. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted .211's indentation to reflect that it's a reply to Alansplodge, not to Jayron. Also, this is not Twitter where '@' is the vocative particle. —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]