October 22

In reading articles about important British people, I notice some of them have names and titles that change throughout their life. For example, Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel was, according to our article, known as Lord Maltravers until 2002 and presumably will become Duke of Norfolk if he outlives his father.

Don't all of these changes cause logistical issues? When a nobleman gets a new title, does he have to get a new driver's license? What about all of his banking or medical records? Do they still get phone calls under their old names and have to keep telling people, "I'm not Lord Maltravers anymore, I'm now the Earl of Arundel?"

I know name changes are common, especially when women marry. But it's typical for women who are well-known professionally (such as politicians) to keep using their old name, on business cards if not also in fact. I suppose the same thing happens with members of the peerage? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that titles aren't used on official documents. HM's drivers' licence doesn't, I think, say "Queen Elizabeth II." It probably says either 'Elizabeth,' 'Elizabeth R' (R for Regina, queen, comparing with e.g. Charles signing his marriage register as Charles P), or 'Elizabeth Windsor' if her own ministry required a last name to be used. Further, if one is the sort to be addressing nobility by their title, one is likely to keep up to date on what the correct title is. → ROUX ₪ 00:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda doesn't have a driving licence. She does drive, but she doesn't have to have a licence. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Elizabeth. And actually, "For her private use The Queen drives a Daimler Jaguar saloon or a Vauxhall estate. Like every other qualified driver, The Queen holds a driving licence." (from an old version of royal.gov.uk; since they have changed their site layout I have no idea where to find the same page now, it was page5022.asp). → ROUX ₪ 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's my Queen, I'll call her what I damn well please, as is every Englishman's right! Our article states she does not require a driving licence, reference is to a 2003 press release from DVLA, not now available on the web. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Queen too, actually, twice. And 'is not required' is not the same as 'does not have.' She is likewise not required to pay taxes on her income, but she does anyway. And I would take what the royal website has to say about such a mundane detail, particularly when it unequivocally states that she does indeed possess one, over a press release that says merely she is not required to have one. → ROUX ₪ 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William has a driver's license. Wonder what it says. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it says William Wales, following the precedent he set at school and in the Forces, and the apparent (new) tradition of the younger royals using their father's territorial designation as a functional last name when needed. → ROUX ₪ 01:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It raises an interesting point though. I presume she got her licence before becoming Queen. But if she had to sit a re-test (are these sometimes needed above 70? The UK licencing website doesn't seem top suggest so) how would the tester feel about failing her? Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Driving licences don't have a person's noble title on them, Henry Arundel's would have "Henry Miles Fitzalan-Howard" on it. Also, courtesy titles (like Lord Maltravers, or Earl of Arundel) are just that - matters of courtesy. He isn't really the Earl of Arundel, it's just that the courtesy of England calls him that. If you had such a person's phone number, the chances are you'd also know when his father, grandfather or whoever died and his title changed. I suspect the Norfolks have someone to answer most calls - and friends would just call him Henry (or Harry, or Hal, or whatever his friends call him). If you meet a nob, and aren't quite sure how to address him, just ask - if they mind being asked, they aren't proper nobs. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Charlie Rose interview of Henry's late grandfather and his grandmother. Rose asks, "In London, what do people call you?" The duke responds, "Well, they call me Miles!" That said, I wonder where he would be listed in the phone book if he was in the phone book? (You'd be surprised at the people who you'd think would be unlisted that are actually in there.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, in social settings proper nobs introduce themselves by their forename. titles tend to be reserved for formal occaisions, e.g. opening fêtes or being patrons of charities. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QE2 drove during WW2 in aid of the war effort, while a mere Princess. She presumably had a driver's license. Did it say "Princess Elizabeth," "Elizabeth Windsor," or what? When she became Queen in the early 1950's did she surrender her driver's license, get a new one, or what? Edison (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered that, above. → ROUX ₪ 04:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Chales and his children use Wales as a surname, and other nobles can use the place that they are lord of as a surname, presumably Elizabeth can use "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as a surname. I wonder how many characters are allowed on British drivers licences. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed "Elizabeth Canada". Or "Elizabeth Tuvalu". Etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this "license" rubbish? UK people have licences. James Bond's Licence to Kill retained the UK spelling even for the US market. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you're talking about something that happened in China, I'll expect you'll describe it in Chinese and not your own native language?APL (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ha! And I always thought they made a spelling error on my DVD box! Googlemeister (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, they're "driving licences" not "driver's licences". --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That depends on where you are. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario uses "driver's licence". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That is surprising. The spelling of "licence", I mean. I assumed Canada follows US custom in such matters. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Canadians I've known and worked with typically spell the British way (colour, favour, etc.) and also say PRO-gress and SHED-ule instead of PRAH-gress and SKED-ule as Americans do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Why was he not mentioned in the Wkipedia on famous Actors or Entertainment Celebrities. I fact probably the most famous, even more than Nicol Kidman and Errol Flynn. Is it due to his recent notoriety?

Thanks.

Mathew Dickson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.93.67 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where, specifically, are you looking? Wikipedia has a great many lists of actors, organized on various topics. Depending on where you looked, Mel Gibson may not meet the criteria appropriate for Nicole Kidman or Errol Flynn. I find it unlikely that he's excluded because of "recent notoriety"; Wikipedia is not censored and covers many socially uncomfortable topics. — Lomn 14:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, we have many Lists of actors by nationality but no List of American film actors (it was deleted recently) and no List of Australian film actors.

Mel Gibson is listed at List of film and television directors, btw. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search currently finds 10 articles mentioning Nicole Kidman and Errol Flynn but not Mel Gibson. None of them are called anything resembling "famous Actors or Entertainment Celebrities" so I don't know what you refer to. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 articles with all three names
• 83 with Nicole and Mel but not Errol
• 12 with Mel and Errol but not Nicole

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame may be close in concept even if not in name, but Mel Gibson not being there is not our fault Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find the name of a small tropical island inhabited my descendants of fair Europeans. They fish for lobster and do quite well. They marry young and build very nice mini mansions on the island. The men leave the island during lobster season. The people of the island are religious and attend the local church. The island may be in the Caribbean and the second part of the island's name may be Cay or Cays. 67.186.184.116 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haus^Talk 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Cayman Islands? Googlemeister (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it. It is Spanish Wells, Bahamas. Thanks anyway.67.186.184.116 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is at

tropical. -- 124.157.218.132 (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"i've a wee dead frog in alcohol, but he really isn't a frog at all. He's a prince enchanted, who can not tell the magic word to break the spell. Maybe he earned the wrath of witches by laying drunken in the ditches, maybe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoriestgs (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I can't answer the question, but a Google Books search finds the phrase "wee dead frog in alcohol" on page 26 of Columbia Poetry volume 1932, published by Columbia University in 1936. It's possible that the author was somebody named Hall, but that might be wrong. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to compile a list of, say,

What would be at the top? Really, you're going to have to give us a little more to go on, Schyler. What sort of criterion are you using? Alphabetic order? Cost? Volume? Usefulness? Weight? Edibility? Wearability? Availability? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For dispossessing things, consider charitable giving (see article) which includes the act of giving money or goods to the unfortunate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One fashionable neologism is decluttering, which lacks a Wikipedia article but you can Google it if you want to read many articles with tips on ridding yourself of clutter. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but orders of magnitude states "various sources estimate the total number of fundamental particles in the observable universe in the range 10⁸⁰ to 10⁸⁵" - so, provided you count fundamental particles as material things, that is the largest quantity that can exist of any material thing. Warofdreams talk 01:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. That's just in the observable universe. There could be many more things than that; they're just causally disconnected from us. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on your definition of material things, but you have a point. Warofdreams talk 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you're right. "At the top" would mean to me the most necessary, like underwear, a pair of shoes (arguable) and hygienic products (one material thing). "Necessary," that is, where I live; walking on concrete without shoes is uninviting. I am about to do that Google search you mentioned Comet Tuttle, thanks.

The answer will, of course, be culturally dependent. You might be interested in seeing

photo essay Material World: A Global Family Portrait. -- 124.157.218.132 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Food, then clothing, then shelter.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two may depend on what type of shelter and what type of clothing. In the dead of winter in Alaska, I would guess a heated or very well insulated house would be better or more important then a t-shirt and short pants. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freecycle or Freegle are good places to give unwanted things away on. In the UK there are many charity shops, but I think they are sometimes deluged with stuff that they cannot sell. If you just left things outside your home with a sign saying they were free to take, they would probably disapear quickly. In the UK there are companies that collect unwanted clothing and (apparantly) sell them on to the third-world. It woyuld be better not just to give things away, but to give them away to where they are most needed. 92.24.178.5 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What do monks or nuns have? Apart from the religious things, they would probably be the essentials. 92.24.178.5 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could always be a "Fool for Christ" and give it all away... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs and related articles are probably of interest to you. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]