Richard III and the car park

07 Feb 2013 20:01 #760123 by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
this is the most informative thread in ages. I got a text message complaining about how inappropriate it would be to have the mooted multi faith funeral for someone who would have died a follower of the pope. But as I pointed out, he may have been posthumously converted by the mormons, so a multi-faith funeral might be appropriate.
  • Gerontophile
  • Offline
  • Waiting for Godthaab.
07 Feb 2013 20:26 #760132 by Gerontophile
Brilliant thread.

I bring up QI again, because they mentioned something about the original 'lions' on the crests all over, and were actually called leopards. (Something to do with king of something or other.)

I didn't realise that I knew some of the above (from other posters), but a memory got massively jogged. And bloody hell, I did.

The 'Roses' thing was more an internecine thing (possibly the wrong word), and lots of Yorkshire-peeps fought for the Lancashire side.

Cricket keeps the bullshit going, because it needs something to excite.

Great thread. Only sorry, I have so little to contribute.
  • Amor de Cosmos
  • Away
  • It's turtles all the way down
07 Feb 2013 21:58 - 07 Feb 2013 22:00 #760157 by Amor de Cosmos
The lion/leopard confusion stems from old French heraldic terminology. It's bit tricky but basically if the beast's head is in profile it's a lion, if it's head is facing you (guardant) it's a léopard. It's further conditioned by what it's doing with it's paws, but I won't get into that. Basically it's the same beast and has nothing to do with whether it is portrayed with spots or a mane. English heraldry refers to them all as lions. Technically, by the old French rules, the three English lions are léopards.
Last Edit: 07 Feb 2013 22:00 by Amor de Cosmos.
  • Gerontophile
  • Offline
  • Waiting for Godthaab.
07 Feb 2013 22:06 - 07 Feb 2013 22:07 #760162 by Gerontophile
Thanks Amor. You summed up my post by actually explaining exactly what I meant, without me being able to say it.

(I know about the passant, rampant and the other one*.)

*de rigeur?
Last Edit: 07 Feb 2013 22:07 by Gerontophile.
08 Feb 2013 10:11 #760269 by Sits
A go-go?
  • Disco Child Ballads
  • Offline
  • Friends, Romans, Countrymen.We know where you live
08 Feb 2013 13:30 #760383 by Disco Child Ballads
I've never quite understood how counties work as administrative units in the US. What exactly is administered at the county level or does it vary from state to state?
08 Feb 2013 17:06 #760466 by ursus arctos
Like virtually all such matters, it varies from state to state, and even from county to county.

As a general rule, more is done at the county level in rural areas than in urban or suburban ones, where services such as education, police, fire, etc. are more likely to be in the hands of municipal governments than their county counterparts.

Traditionally, counties were important to the judicial system, as the basic element of the state court system, and that is still the case in many (but not all) places. When Americans were fighting about which towns were to become the "county seat" they were essentially fighting over the location of a courthouse, jail and the ancillary businesses that congregate around them.
08 Feb 2013 17:58 #760482 by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
what I want to know is why are so many of them called orange county?
08 Feb 2013 18:20 #760486 by Eggchaser

sw2boropetrovsk wrote: Jesus, I could kill my nephews for a game of Kingmaker right about now.

Percy to Yorkchester, plague at Cinque Ports, 5-4.

Killed: Scrope, Dudley
  • Reed John
  • Offline
  • Settle down, Beavis.
08 Feb 2013 18:28 - 08 Feb 2013 18:35 #760489 by Reed John
Indeed, as UA says, it varies.

For example, in Maryland and Virginia, school districts are coterminous with the county.

But in Maryland, you can live in a town and a county - like Rockville, MD or just the county. Bethesda, MD, despite being a prosperous and well-known place, isn't really there. It's just a "census designated place." Anyone in Bethesda is served only by the county. A relator could call where I used to live North Bethesda, to make it sound posh, when it was really just in the undesignated sprawl between Bethesda and Rockville. There's a town near where IMP lives (in Chevy Chase - which is a real place, but I'm not sure if he's in the real part of it) called Kensington that for years I thought didn't really exist. Then one day I got lost and found myself at an intersection with a sign saying Welcome to Kensington. It was like Brigadoon.

In Virginia, you're either in a county or in the city, but not both. For example, Williamsburg is a city (so-called. It's not very big). James City is the county next door, but Williamsburg is not in James City County.

In Pennsylvania, you live in a municipality - borough, township, city, or, in the case of Bloomsburg, a town - and also a county (except that Philadelphia is both a county and a city). That is totally separate from the school district, which usually encompass several municipalities and have their own tax authority. Water/sewage and parks are usually also coordinated between several municipalities, but not always the whole county.

The county government, such as it is, does the courts, various social services stuff, and some assorted planning things, but the municipalities or the state do everything else. Some rural municipalities are wise enough to leave functions like policing to the state. But some municipalities have only one or two people in their "Police Department." It's a terribly inefficient and redundant system. Roads don't always line up at municipal borders, urban or suburban areas that ought to coordinate development planning don't, you've got multiple people being paid to do a job that one of them could do more efficiently, etc, etc.

In Massachusetts, the county didn't seem to do much except the courts. It was all about the town/city and the state. The school districts were, as far as I could tell, the same as the town, which had it's pluses and minuses.

Those are the only places I lived long enough to pay attention.

As for Orange - there's an Orange County in New York and Orange County in California and a city in New Jersey called Orange. Are there more?
Last Edit: 08 Feb 2013 18:35 by Reed John.
08 Feb 2013 18:44 #760495 by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
there's one in florida, texas, virginia and north carolina. Some of these places grow oranges. some don't
08 Feb 2013 18:47 #760496 by ursus arctos
Of the non-citrus ones, the explanations are almost certainly an evocation of Dutch origins (New York) or Protestant leanings (Virginia and North Carolina)
08 Feb 2013 18:57 - 08 Feb 2013 18:57 #760499 by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
I love when people named places in the US after where they were from, or whatever they were up to back home. it makes for some very incongruous situations altogether, like the genius of menlo park, and the like.
Last Edit: 08 Feb 2013 18:57 by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!.
  • Reed John
  • Offline
  • Settle down, Beavis.
08 Feb 2013 18:57 #760500 by Reed John
There are also lots it the east named after places in the UK. For example, my parents live in Lewes, Sussex Co, Delaware. Delaware also has a Kent Co, and and New Castle Co. (spelled with two words).

Correction on Massachusetts. Apparently, all but five county governments, including Suffolk where Boston is, are just historical areas now with no government of their own any more. Some of the courts still bear the name of the county, but I believe they're all technically working for the state. I don't recall ever being asked to elect or retain a judge in Mass, but then I didn't live there long.
08 Feb 2013 22:34 #760553 by Sits

ursus arctos wrote: Reed, I think you would enjoy the In Our Time podcasts on stuff like this. I've been listening to them for years, and virtually always learn something (even with those about subjects that I've studied at university).

Battle of Bosworth Field.

Wars of the Roses.

The Bosworth one was excellent, and I have just downloaded about another twenty from the IOL Archive. Currently listening to the Sassanid Empire. Thanks again UA.
08 Feb 2013 23:22 #760560 by Eggchaser

Nesta Makhno wrote: 9. Why do you picture John of Gaunt as a rather emaciated grandee?

Noticing suddenly that the Middle Ages were coming to an end, the Barons now made a stupendous effort to revive the old Feudal amenities of Sackage, Carnage and Wreckage to stave off the Tudors for a time. They achieved this by a very clever plan, known as the War of the Roses (because the Barons all picked different coloured roses in order to see which side they were on).
  • Various Artist
  • Offline
  • Citizen of the universe, and a gentleman to boot
09 Feb 2013 02:31 #760585 by Various Artist
Wonderful thread, lots of good history and explanation flying around the place. Disappointed though not much joyful evisceration (as I'd hoped) of the documentary on Channel 4 about the finding of Richard III's skeleton, i.e. what the hell was up with the slightly unhinged Phillipa Langley? Though Simon "Horrible Histories" Farnaby was a pleasingly left-field choice as presenter and did a very good job maintaining a straight face while dealing with the aforementioned lady, as did the assorted scientific and historical experts that had to deal with her, though I think you could occasionally spot slight panic/pity in their eyes when she started to go off on one.

Anyway, was going to mention the lion/leopard thing but see others have chipped in on that – yes, I believe it's the case that mediaeval folk generally hadn't quite worked out the distinction between the two big cats, and as mentioned were likely to call what we would call a lion a "leopard"... The word leopard just means 'tawny (pardus) lion (leo)' in Latin, which does seem to describe the uniformly tawny-coloured lion better than the spotted leopard, no...?
12 Feb 2013 21:10 #761882 by NHH
Just listened to the Wars of the Roses IOT UA linked, and in discussing the end of the Hundred Years' War, they mentioned that the population of England in the 1430s would have been around 2m, whilst in France it was 16m.

That's an enormous difference, especially since the war had been played out on French soil. Was this a longstanding difference which only begins to be closed in the 1700s, and if so why?
12 Feb 2013 21:35 #761916 by Eggchaser
Did anyone else catch the Hundred Years War programme on BBC4 last night with the rather intense young Dr?

Interesting and laying the foundations for all of this. Well, not the car park.
12 Feb 2013 22:17 #761967 by Central Rain

NHH wrote: Just listened to the Wars of the Roses IOT UA linked, and in discussing the end of the Hundred Years' War, they mentioned that the population of England in the 1430s would have been around 2m, whilst in France it was 16m.

That's an enormous difference, especially since the war had been played out on French soil. Was this a longstanding difference which only begins to be closed in the 1700s, and if so why?

Later than that I'd say - even in 1800 you're looking at about 30m in France and around 10m for England, Scotland, Wales combined. France still had the larger population in 1900 but it was much closer by then. The French population didn't see the same growth spurt as several other countries in the 19th century, something which prompted French nationalists to fear that they were going to be outbred by the Germans.

There are a variety of long-term reasons for this population gap. Mainly it comes down to the fact that France was richer, more powerful and more geographically significant than England or Britain for most of European history, going back at least to Roman times. England's significance for European history in the 14th/15th centuries was due to its monarchs' interests in France rather than anything relating to England itself.
Time to create page: 0.185 seconds

Sign up for the WSC Weekly Howl

A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday

Email address