text:
Esther Rantzen

Dame Esther Louise Rantzen (born 22 June 1940) is an English journalist and television presenter, who presented the BBC television series That's Life! for 21 years, from 1973 until 1994. She works with various charitable causes and founded the charities Childline, a helpline for children, which she set up in 1986, and The Silver Line, designed to combat loneliness in older people's lives, which she set up in November 2012.

Rantzen has been recognised for her contribution to television and society. She was awarded an OBE for services to broadcasting in 1991 and a CBE for services to children in 2006, and in the 2015 New Year Honours was made a Dame for services to children and older people through Childline and The Silver Line. She is patron for a number of charities, including the charity Operation Encompass, and is a trustee for the charity Silver Stories.

Early life and family
Rantzen was born in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England, to Katherine Flora Rantzen (née Leverson, 1911–2005) and Henry Barnato Rantzen (1902–1992). Her family is Jewish. She has one younger sister, Priscilla N. Taylor. She attended Buckley Country Day School in New York, leaving in 1950. She was educated at North London Collegiate School, an all-girls independent school in Edgware, North London. She studied English at Somerville College, Oxford, where the Principal was Dame Janet Vaughan and one of her tutors was Mary Lascelles. At Oxford she performed with the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS), became Secretary of the Experimental Theatre Club (ETC) and joined the Oxford Theatre Group, performing in Oxford and Edinburgh.

Rantzen was the subject of an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? on 3 September 2008 (series 5 episode 4). Her paternal line was traced back, as far as the 1760s, to an established Jewish neighbourhood in Warsaw. Tracing Rantzen's forebears was greatly helped by the rarity of the surname "Rantzen" (even in Warsaw) and the survival of records in Warsaw. In the late 1850s, her great-great-grandfather emigrated to Britain and settled, as a cap-maker, in Spitalfields, a slum district of London's East End. Rantzen's great-grandfather moved to a more comfortable neighbourhood with the help of his brother-in-law, Barney Barnato (born Barnett Isaacs), who had become extremely wealthy as the owner of the Kimberley Diamond Mine in South Africa. Her father's middle name was Barnato. On her wealthy maternal side, Rantzen's great-grandfather, Montague Leverson, was one of the founders of the West London Synagogue. Montague Leverson was the maternal grandfather of British composer Gerald Finzi. Rantzen is also related to Ada Leverson, a British writer and friend of Oscar Wilde, who was portrayed by Zoë Wanamaker in the 1997 film Wilde. She is first cousin once removed of the novelist and translator Michael Meyer.

BBC
After training in secretarial skills, Rantzen was recruited by BBC Radio as a trainee sound effects assistant. She began her television career as a clerk in the programme planning department, then obtained her first production job working as a researcher on the BBC1 late-night satire programme BBC-3 (1965–66). Having worked as a researcher on a number of current affairs programmes, she moved to the award-winning BBC2 documentary series Man Alive in the mid-1960s.

In 1968, Rantzen, at the time a researcher for Braden's Week (hosted by Bernard Braden), became a presenter because the producer of the programme decided to put the researchers onscreen. Braden decided to return to his native Canada in 1972, to present a similar TV show there; the following year, the BBC replaced Braden's Week with That's Life! with Rantzen as the main presenter.

That's Life! ran on BBC1 for 21 years from 1973 to 1994, becoming one of the most popular shows on British television, reaching audiences of more than 18 million. During that time, it expanded the traditional role of the consumer programme from simply exposing faulty washing machines and dodgy salesmen, to investigating life-and-death issues, such as a campaign for more organ donors, which featured Ben Hardwick, a two-year-old dying of liver disease whose only hope was a transplant. Also included was the investigation of Crookham Court boarding school near Newbury, described as "dirty and depressing" with unsatisfactory teaching standards, the headmaster of which was a paedophile who employed several paedophile teachers. The school was closed and the head and a member of staff were convicted of sexual offences against pupils as a result of That's Life! publicising the issues.

To lighten some of these very serious themes and issues, That's Life! also had some humorous spots, such as readings of amusing misprints sent in by viewers; it also featured comic songs that often matched the theme of each show, specially written and performed by artists such as Lynsey de Paul, Victoria Wood, Richard Stilgoe and Jake Thackray.

In 1976, Rantzen devised the documentary series The Big Time, which launched Sheena Easton's singing career.

Childline
That's Life! was influential in many different ways, not least in the introduction of the videolink for child witnesses in court procedures, and it was responsible for the launch of Childline in 1986, the first national helpline for children in danger or distress. Rantzen had suggested the Childwatch programme to BBC1 Controller Michael Grade after the death of a toddler who had starved to death, locked in a bedroom. The aim of the programme was to find better ways of detecting children at risk of abuse; to that end, viewers of That's Life! who had themselves experienced cruelty as children were asked to take part in a survey detailing the circumstances of their abuse.

Rantzen suggested that after that edition of That's Life!, the BBC should open a helpline for children, in case any young viewers suffering current abuse wished to ring in to ask for help. The helpline was open for 48 hours, during which it was swamped with calls, mainly from children suffering sexual abuse they had never been able to disclose to anyone else. This gave Rantzen the idea for a specific helpline for children in distress or danger, to be open 24/7 throughout the year, the first of its kind in the world. The Childwatch team consulted child care professionals, who agreed that children would use such a helpline, but said it would be impossible to create. Nevertheless, the team obtained funding from the Department of Health and the Variety Club of Great Britain, both of which donated £25,000. Ian Skipper OBE, a noted philanthropist who had already helped Rantzen set up a special fund in memory of Ben Hardwick, agreed to underwrite the helpline's running costs for the first year. Rantzen and the team went to BT to ask for premises for the charity and for a simple freephone number, both of which were provided.

The Childwatch programme screened on 30 October 1986 and, based on the results of the survey, launched Childline with a specially written jingle (by B. A. Robertson) which featured the free phone number 0800 1111. On that first night in October 1986, fifty thousand attempted calls were made to the helpline. Childline now has twelve bases around the UK, including two in Northern Ireland, two in Scotland and two in Wales, plus a virtual on-line base. Childline merged with the NSPCC in 2006, enabling it to expand in an effort to meet demand. The helpline has now been copied in 150 countries around the world.

The Silver Line
In 2013, Rantzen set up The Silver Line, a charity to benefit elderly people, by combating isolation and loneliness, to provide information and advice and to offer a free confidential helpline. In addition, The Silver Line offers a telephone befriending service, in which trained volunteers make regular weekly calls to older people. It also offers conference calls, discussion groups originally called Silver Circles. It has now merged with AgeUK.

Later career
In 1988, Rantzen created a television series called Hearts of Gold, celebrating people who had performed unsung acts of outstanding kindness or courage. Its theme tune was written by her close friend Lynsey de Paul, and was released as a single on the CBS record label.

After That's Life! finished its 21-year run in 1994, she presented her own talk show, Esther, on BBC Two from 1994 to 2002. In 2004, Rantzen was a contestant on the second series of the BBC celebrity dance competition Strictly Come Dancing. She was paired with Anton Du Beke, and they were the third couple to be eliminated.

In 2006, Rantzen took part in the BBC Two programmes Would Like to Meet and Excuse My French, and was selected to present a new consumer affairs show with former Watchdog presenter Lynn Faulds Wood, under the title Old Dogs New Tricks. She made a documentary for ITV called Winton's Children about Sir Nicholas Winton, who (as was first revealed on That's Life!) had rescued a generation of Czech children from The Holocaust and was later nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Following the death of Rantzen's husband, film-maker Desmond Wilcox, she made a landmark programme on palliative care, How to Have a Good Death, for BBC Two. She has campaigned on behalf of hospice care and better care for the elderly and terminally ill, and has also campaigned to raise awareness of ME/CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome), as her elder daughter has suffered from the condition. She created the 'Children of Courage' segment for the BBC's Children in Need programme, and the series The Big Time which discovered singer Sheena Easton.

Rantzen was for a time a director of That's Media, which provides local TV programmes. In 2016, she was made an Honorary Fellow of Somerville College, Oxford.

In addition to her television career, as a patron or vice-president of 55 charities, she mainly concentrates on working for children, vulnerable older people and disabled people. Much of her voluntary effort has been for Childline as a volunteer counsellor on the helpline, and as a fund-raiser and spokesperson for children, and latterly working to set up The Silver Line, the new helpline for isolated and vulnerable older people. Childline currently has 12 centres around the UK, plus one virtual on-line base,1,500 volunteer counsellors and answers around a million calls and on-line contacts from children each year. Rantzen chaired Childline's board of trustees for twenty years, and since Childline merged with the NSPCC in 2006, she served as a Trustee of the NSPCC, as well as being President of Childline. In 2013, she also became the vice-president of Revitalise, a charity providing those with disabilities, and their carers, with short breaks and holidays. Rantzen is also patron of Erosh, a national charity which promotes good quality sheltered and retirement housing and provides resources for its members who support older people.

Rantzen appeared in the 2008 series of ITV show I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!, and was the fifth celebrity to leave the camp.

In 2016, she was in the first episode of Celebrity First Dates.

In 2018, she presented a new Channel 5 consumer advice show called Esther Rantzen’s House Trap, a 4-part series similar to BBC's long-running Watchdog programme, with hidden cameras trying to trap rogue traders in the homes of a number of undercover actors. Unlike Watchdog, these actors were all people of an advanced age with each episode focusing on a different trade, such as locksmiths, where older people were likely to being preyed upon.

Political career
On 26 May 2009, on Stephen Rhodes's BBC Three Counties Breakfast Show, Rantzen announced her intention to stand as an independent candidate for Parliament, if the incumbent Labour MP Margaret Moran stood for Luton South again. This statement was made against the backdrop of the Parliamentary expenses scandal and Moran's expense claims for £23,000 to eliminate dry rot in her second home in Southampton. Two days later, Moran announced she would not stand at the next general election, but Rantzen said she was still considering standing herself and confirmed her candidacy on 28 July 2009. Rantzen stood for election in Luton South against eleven other candidates, of whom four were independent. At the May 2010 election, Rantzen came fourth with 4.4% of the vote, behind the three main parties. In accordance with UK parliamentary electoral process, Rantzen lost her deposit, as only candidates receiving over 5% of the total votes cast have their deposit returned. Labour Party candidate Gavin Shuker won the seat with 34.9% of the vote, the Conservatives got 29.4% and the Liberal Democrats 22.7%.

In August 2014, Rantzen was one of 200 public figures who were signatories to a letter to The Guardian expressing their hope that Scotland would vote against independence from the United Kingdom in the referendum on that issue.

Savile child abuse allegations
In Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, broadcast on 3 October 2012, Rantzen, after seeing the interviews the programme contains, supported the women allegedly abused by the then late BBC broadcaster Jimmy Savile.

She told Channel 4 News: "If anybody had had concrete evidence, I think and hope the police would have been called in. But all they had was gossip – and gossip isn't evidence."

Abuse campaigner Shy Keenan, writing in The Sun newspaper, subsequently claimed that, using a different name, she had told Rantzen 18 years earlier of allegations that she had heard about Savile. Rantzen has denied hearing specific allegations and said she had no recollection of a conversation with Keenan.

Writing for The Daily Telegraph before the broadcast, Katy Brand also criticised Rantzen for failing to act on rumours she had heard about Savile. Pete Saunders, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, at Keenan's request, temporarily asked for all references to Rantzen to be removed from the charity's website, but subsequently defended Rantzen and said she would continue as a patron.

Personal life
In 1966, at the age of 26, Rantzen had an affair with the Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn. She wrote: "'He wore idiosyncratic suits and waistcoats, and I fell in love with him. ... I didn't realise he was married until far, far too late.'"

In 1968, Rantzen started an affair with Desmond Wilcox, who was the head of her department and married to Rantzen's friend Patsy who also worked at the BBC. After several years they decided to live together, and informed BBC management of their relationship. Management's solution was to move the entire production team of That's Life! out of Wilcox's department. The new arrangement meant that Rantzen and Patsy were now working in the same department, embarrassing Rantzen and causing further pain to Patsy. Patsy Wilcox had always refused to divorce her husband, but agreed when Rantzen became pregnant. After Rantzen and Wilcox married in December 1977, BBC management moved her back into the General Features department run by him. By that time, That's Life! was achieving huge audience ratings and reaching the number one position, gaining more viewers than Coronation Street. This created tension among colleagues in General Features, who ascribed the success of the programme to Wilcox's relationship with Rantzen. They complained to management, quoting the BBC's regulation that husbands and wives should not work in the same department.

As a result, Wilcox resigned, and set up his own independent production company, making award-winning documentaries such as The Visit, which included a series of programmes about The Boy David. For these, as well as previous films, he received many international awards, including the Grierson Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001. Wilcox and Rantzen had three children – Miriam (formerly known as Emily, b. 1978), Rebecca (b. 1980), and Joshua (b. 1981).

In 2001, Patsy's daughter Cassandra Wilcox gave an interview in response to comments Rantzen had made about Patsy in her autobiography, alleging amongst other things that Rantzen had long harboured animosity towards Patsy.

In January 2023, Rantzen announced that she had been diagnosed with lung cancer. In a statement, Rantzen said, "In the last few weeks I have discovered that I am suffering from lung cancer which has now spread. At the moment I am undergoing various tests, to assess the best treatment [...] I have decided not to keep this secret any more because I find it difficult to skulk around various hospitals wearing an unconvincing disguise, and because I would rather you heard the facts from me. [...] As I am sure you will understand, while I am awaiting the results of the tests, I am unable to answer questions. Thanks to the extraordinary skills of the medical profession there are wonderful new treatments, so I am remaining optimistic."

In May 2023, Rantzen announced that her lung cancer had reached stage IV and that she was on a new form of medication. In December 2023, in an article in The Times, she reflected on her mortality. On 19 December she said that she had joined the Dignitas assisted dying clinic in Switzerland.

Honours
Rantzen was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 1991 New Year Honours for services to broadcasting, Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2006 Birthday Honours for services to children and young people, and Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2015 New Year Honours for services to children and older people through Childline and The Silver Line.

Rantzen has also received a number of professional awards, including a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Women in Film and Television organisation, the Royal Television Society's Special Judges' Award for Journalism, their Fellowship, and Membership of their Hall of Fame. She was the first woman to receive a Dimbleby Award from BAFTA for factual presentation. She received the Snowdon Award for services to disabled people.

Arms
On 31 May 2018, she was granted arms by the College of Arms, through Letters Patent of Garter and Clarenceux Kings of Arms.

title: Esther Rantzen


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lir

I notice that an anon has recently removed, without comment, Viajero's parenthetical inclusion of the name "Adam Rinkleff" from the article. It is generally considered tacky (at best) to edit someone else's signed remarks. (I have no idea whether this is indeed Lir's actual name or if it was in any way inappropriate to use it, just that an anon edit of someone else's remark seems unlikely to remedy things to general satisfaction.) -- Jmabel 17:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It was likely Lir who did the removal. See the last paragraph of. -- Cyan 18:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lir


text:
Dura mater

In neuroanatomy, dura mater is a thick membrane made of dense irregular connective tissue that surrounds the brain and spinal cord. It is the outermost of the three layers of membrane called the meninges that protect the central nervous system. The other two meningeal layers are the arachnoid mater and the pia mater. It envelops the arachnoid mater, which is responsible for keeping in the cerebrospinal fluid. It is derived primarily from the neural crest cell population, with postnatal contributions of the paraxial mesoderm.

Structure
The dura mater has several functions and layers. The dura mater is a membrane that envelops the arachnoid mater. It surrounds and supports the dural venous sinuses that reabsorbs cerebrospinal fluid and carries the cerebral venous return back toward the heart.

Cranial dura mater has two layers or lamellae, which include a superficial periosteal layer that is actually the inner periosteum of the neurocranium (the calvarium and endocranium); and a deep meningeal layer, which is the true dura mater. The dura mater covering the spinal cord is known as the dural sac or thecal sac, and only has one layer (the meningeal layer) unlike cranial dura mater. The potential space between these two layers is known as the epidural space, which can accumulate blood in the case of traumatic laceration to the meningeal arteries.

Folds and reflections
The dura separates into two layers at dural reflections (also known as dural folds), places where the inner dural layer is reflected as sheet-like protrusions into the cranial cavity. There are two main dural reflections:

 * The tentorium cerebelli exists between and separates the cerebellum and brainstem from the occipital lobes of the cerebrum.
 * The falx cerebri, which separates the two hemispheres of the brain, is located in the longitudinal cerebral fissure between the hemispheres.

Two other dural infoldings are the cerebellar falx and the sellar diaphragm:
 * The cerebellar falx (falx cerebelli) is a vertical dural infolding that lies inferior to the cerebellar tentorium in the posterior part of the posterior cranial fossa. It partially separates the cerebellar hemispheres.
 * The sellar diaphragm is the smallest dural infolding and is a circular sheet of dura that is suspended between the clinoid processes, forming a partial roof over the hypophysial fossa. The sellar diaphgram covers the pituitary gland in this fossa and has an aperture for passage of the infundibulum (pituitary stalk) and hypophysial veins.

Blood supply
This depends upon the area of the cranial cavity: in the anterior cranial fossa the anterior meningeal artery (branch from the ethmoidal artery) is responsible for blood supply, in the middle cranial fossa the middle meningeal artery and some accessory arteries are responsible for blood supply, the middle meningeal artery is a direct branch from the maxillary artery and enter the cranial cavity through the foramen spinosum and then divides into anterior (which runs usually in vertical direction across the pterion) and posterior (which runs posteriosuperiorly) branches, while the accessory meningeal arteries (which are branches from the maxillary artery) enter the skull through foramen ovale and supply area between the two foramina, and the in posterior cranial fossa the dura mater has numerous blood supply from different possible arteries:

A. posterior meningeal artery (from the ascending pharyngeal artery through the jugular foramen)

B. meningeal arteries (from the ascending pharyngeal artery through hypoglossal canal)

C. meningeal arteries (from occipital artery through jugular or mastoid foramen)

D. meningeal arteries (from vertebral artery through foramen magnum)

Drainage
The two layers of dura mater run together throughout most of the skull. Where they separate, the gap between them is called a dural venous sinus. These sinuses drain blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the brain and empty into the internal jugular vein.

Arachnoid villi, which are outgrowths of the arachnoid mater (the middle meningeal layer), extend into the dural venous sinuses to drain CSF. These villi act as one-way valves. Meningeal veins, which course through the dura mater, and bridging veins, which drain the underlying neural tissue and puncture the dura mater, empty into these dural sinuses. A rupture of a bridging vein causes a subdural hematoma.

Nerve supply
The supratentorial dura mater membrane is supplied by small meningeal branches of the trigeminal nerve (V1, V2 and V3). The innervation for the infratentorial dura mater are via upper cervical nerves and the meningeal branch of the vagus nerve.

Clinical significance
Many medical conditions involve the dura mater. A subdural hematoma occurs when there is an abnormal collection of blood between the dura and the arachnoid, usually as a result of torn bridging veins secondary to head trauma. An epidural hematoma is a collection of blood between the dura and the inner surface of the skull, and is usually due to arterial bleeding. Intradural procedures, such as removal of a brain tumour or treatment of trigeminal neuralgia via a microvascular decompression, require that an incision is made to the dura mater. To achieve a watertight repair and avoid potential post-operative complications, the dura is typically closed with sutures. If there is a dural deficiency, then a dural substitute may be used to replace this membrane. Small gaps in the dura can be covered with a surgical sealant film.

In 2011, researchers discovered a connective tissue bridge from the rectus capitis posterior major to the cervical dura mater. Various clinical manifestations may be linked to this anatomical relationship such as headaches, trigeminal neuralgia and other symptoms that involved the cervical dura. The rectus capitis posterior minor has a similar attachment.

The dura-muscular, dura-ligamentous connections in the upper cervical spine and occipital areas may provide anatomic and physiologic answers to the cause of the cervicogenic headache. This proposal would further explain manipulation's efficacy in the treatment of cervicogenic headache.

The American Red Cross and some other agencies accepting blood donations consider dura mater transplants, along with receipt of pituitary-derived growth hormone, a risk factor due to concerns about Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

Cerebellar tonsillar ectopia, or Chiari malformation, is a condition that was previously thought to be congenital but can be induced by trauma, particularly whiplash trauma. Dural strain may be pulling the cerebellum inferiorly, or skull distortions may be pushing the brain inferiorly.

Dural ectasia is the enlargement of the dura and is common in connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome and Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. These conditions are sometimes found in conjunction with Arnold–Chiari malformation.

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak is the fluid and pressure loss of spinal fluid due to holes in the dura mater.

Etymology
The name dura mater derives from the Latin for tough mother (or hard mother), a loan translation of Arabic أم الدماغ الصفيقة (umm al-dimāgh al-ṣafīqah), literally 'thick mother of the brain', matrix of the brain, and is also referred to by the term "pachymeninx" (plural "pachymeninges").

title: Dura mater


text:
Grand strategy

Grand strategy or high strategy is a state's strategy of how means (military and nonmilitary) can be used to advance and achieve national interests in the long-term. Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of military doctrine, force structure and alliances, as well as economic relations, diplomatic behavior, and methods to extract or mobilize resources.

In contrast to strategy, grand strategy encompasses more than military means (such as diplomatic and economic means); does not equate success with purely military victory but also the pursuit of peacetime goals and prosperity; and considers goals and interests in the long-term rather than short-term.

In contrast to foreign policy, grand strategy emphasizes the military implications of policy; considers costs benefits of policies, as well as limits on capabilities; establishes priorities; and sets out a practical plan rather than a set of ambitions and wishes. A country's political leadership typically directs grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations.

Much scholarship on grand strategy focuses on the United States, which has since the end of World War II had a grand strategy oriented around primacy, "deep engagement", and/or liberal hegemony, which entail that the United States maintains military predominance; maintains an extensive network of allies (exemplified by NATO, bilateral alliances and foreign US military bases); and integrates other states into US-designed international institutions (such as the IMF, WTO/GATT and World Bank). Critics of this grand strategy, which includes proponents for offshore balancing, selective engagement, restraint, and isolationism, argue for pulling back.

Daniel Assamah and Shaoyu Yuan, challenge the prevailing notion that only great powers are capable of having grand strategies. They found that smaller states like Rwanda can, and do, deploy national resources in response to external challenges and opportunities, which is a hallmark of grand strategy. This approach is influenced by the country's historical memory and involves a complex interplay of military, economic, and diplomatic tools tailored to the specific context of Rwanda.

Definition
There is no universally accepted definition of grand strategy. One common definition is that grand strategy is a state's strategy of how means (military and nonmilitary) can be used to advance and achieve national interests in the long-term. Grand strategy expands on the traditional idea of strategy in three ways: Thinkers differ as to whether grand strategy should serve to promote peace (as emphasized by B. H. Liddell Hart) or advance the security of a state (as emphasized by Barry Posen).
 * 1) expanding strategy beyond military means to include diplomatic, financial, economic, informational, etc. means
 * 2) examining internal in addition to external forces – taking into account both the various instruments of power and the internal policies necessary for their implementation (conscription, for example)
 * 3) including consideration of periods of peacetime in addition to wartime

British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart played an influential role in popularizing the concept of grand strategy in the mid-20th century. Subsequent definitions tend to build on his. He defines grand strategy as follows: [T]he role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by fundamental policy.

Grand strategy should both calculate and develop the economic resources and man-power of nations in order to sustain the fighting services. Also the moral resources – for to foster the people's willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of power. Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between the several services, and between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting power is but one of the instruments of grand strategy – which should take account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not least of ethical pressure, to weaken the opponent's will. ...

Furthermore, while the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for its security and prosperity.

History
In antiquity, the Greek word "strategy" referred to the skills of a general. By the sixth century, Byzantines distinguished between "strategy" (the means by which a general defends the homeland and defeats the enemy) and "tactics" (the science of organizing armies). Byzantine Emperor Leo VI distinguished between the two terms in his work Taktika.

Prior to the French Revolution, most thinkers wrote on military science rather than grand strategy. The term grand strategy first emerged in France in the 19th century. Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de Guibert, wrote an influential work, General Essay on Tactics, that distinguished between "tactics" and "grand tactics" (which scholars today would refer to as grand strategy). Emperor Leo's Taktika was shortly thereafter translated into French and German, leading most thinkers to distinguish between tactics and strategy.

Carl von Clausewitz proposed in an influential work that politics and war were intrinsically linked. Clausewitz defined strategy as "the use of engagements for the object of the war". Antoine-Henri Jomini argued that because of the intrinsically political nature of war that different types of wars (e.g. offensive wars, defensive wars, wars of expediency, wars with/without allies, wars of intervention, wars of conquest, wars of opinion, national wars, civil wars) had to be waged differently, thus creating the need for a grand strategy. Some contemporaries of Clausewitz and Jomini disputed the links between politics and war, arguing that politics ceases to be important once war has begun.

Narrow definitions, similar to those of Clausewitz, were commonplace during the 19th century. Towards the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century (in particular with B. H. Liddell Hart's writings), some writers expanded the definition of strategy to refer to the distribution and application of military means to achieve policy objectives. For these thinkers, grand strategy was not only different from the operational strategy of winning a particular battle, but it also encompassed both peacetime and wartime policies. For them, grand strategy should operate for decades (or longer) and should not cease at war's end or begin at war's start.

In the 20th century, some thinkers argued that all manners of actions (political, economic, military, cultural) counted as grand strategy in an era of total warfare. However, most definitions saw a division of labor between the actions of political leaders and those of the executing military.

According to Helmuth von Moltke, the initial task of strategy was to serve politics and the subsequent task was to prepare the means to wage war. Moltke however warned that plans may not survive an encounter with the enemy. Other thinkers challenged Clausewitz's idea that politics could set the aims of war, as the aims of war would change during the war given the success or failure of military operations.These thinkers argued that strategy was a process that required adaptation to changing circumstances.

Scholarship on grand strategy experienced a resurgence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Bernard Brodie defined strategy as "guide to accomplishing something and doing it efficiently... a theory for action".

Historical examples
According to historian Hal Brands, "all states... do grand strategy, but many of them do not do it particularly well."

Peloponnesian War
One of the earlier writings on grand strategy comes from Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, an account of the war between the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) and the Delian League (led by Athens).

Roman Empire
From the era of Hadrian, Roman emperors employed a military strategy of "preclusive security—the establishment of a linear barrier of perimeter defence around the Empire. The Legions were stationed in great fortresses".

These "fortresses" existed along the perimeter of the Empire, often accompanied by actual walls (for example, Hadrian's Wall). Due to the perceived impenetrability of these perimeter defenses, the Emperors kept no central reserve army. The Roman system of roads allowed for soldiers to move from one frontier to another (for the purpose of reinforcements during a siege) with relative ease. These roads also allowed for a logistical advantage for Rome over her enemies, as supplies could be moved just as easily across the Roman road system as soldiers. This way, if the legions could not win a battle through military combat skill or superior numbers, they could simply outlast the invaders, who, as historian E.A. Thompson wrote, "Did not think in terms of millions of bushels of wheat."

The emperor Constantine moved the legions from the frontiers to one consolidated roving army as a way to save money and to protect wealthier citizens within the cities. However, this grand strategy, according to some ancient sources, had costly effects on the Roman empire by weakening its frontier defenses and allowing it to be susceptible to outside armies coming in. Also, people who lived near the Roman frontiers would begin to look to the barbarians for protection after the Roman armies departed. This argument is considered to have originated in the writings of Eunapius As stated by the 5th century AD historian Zosimus: "'Constantine abolished this frontier security by removing the greater part of the soldiery from the frontiers to cities that needed no auxiliary forces. He thus deprived of help the people who were harassed by the barbarians and burdened tranquil cities with the pest of the military, so that several straightway were deserted. Moreover, he softened the soldiers who treated themselves to shows and luxuries. Indeed, to speak plainly, he personally planted the first seeds of our present devastated state of affairs – Zosimus"

This charge by Zosimus is considered to be a gross exaggeration and inaccurate assessment of the situations in the fourth century under Constantine by many modern historians. B.H. Warmington, for instance, argues that the statement by Zosimus is "[an] oversimplification," reminding us that "the charge of exposure of the frontier regions is at best anachronistic and probably reflects Zosimus' prejudices against Constantine; the corruption of the soldiers who lived in the cities was a literary commonplace."

World War II
An example of modern grand strategy is the decision of the Allies in World War II to concentrate on the defeat of Germany first. The decision, a joint agreement made after the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941) had drawn the US into the war, was a sensible one in that Germany was the most powerful member of the Axis, and directly threatened the existence of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Conversely, while Japan's conquests garnered considerable public attention, they were mostly in colonial areas deemed less essential by planners and policy-makers. The specifics of Allied military strategy in the Pacific War were therefore shaped by the lesser resources made available to the theatre commanders.

Cold War
The US and the UK used a policy of containment as part of their grand strategy during the Cold War.

In the United States
The conversation around grand strategy in the United States has evolved significantly since the country's founding, with the nation shifting from a strategy of continental expansion, isolation from European conflicts, and opposition to European empires in the Western hemisphere in its first century, to a major debate about the acquisition of an empire in the 1890s (culminating in the conquest of the Philippines and Cuba during the Spanish–American War), followed by rapid shifts between offshore balancing, liberal internationalism, and isolationism around the world wars. The Cold War saw increasing use of deep, onshore engagement strategies (including the creation of a number of permanent alliances, significant involvement in other states' internal politics, and a major counterinsurgency war in Vietnam.) With the end of the Cold War, an early strategic debate eventually coalesced into a strategy of primacy, culminating in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The aftershocks of this war, along with an economic downturn, rising national debt, and deepening political gridlock, have led to a renewed strategic debate, centered on two major schools of thought: primacy and restraint. A return to offshore balancing has also been proposed by prominent political scientists Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

In the 1990s
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the focal point of U.S. strategy: containing the Soviet Union. A major debate emerged about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. In a 1997 article, Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross identified four major grand strategic alternatives in the debate:

 * 1) neo-isolationism
 * 2) selective engagement
 * 3) cooperative security
 * 4) primacy

Neo-isolationism
Stemming from a defensive realist understanding of international politics, what the authors call "neo-isolationism" advocates the United States remove itself from active participation in international politics in order to maintain its national security. It holds that because there are no threats to the American homeland, the United States does not need to intervene abroad. Stressing a particular understanding of nuclear weapons, the authors describe how proponents believe the destructive power of nuclear weapons and retaliatory potential of the United States assure the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States, while the proliferation of such weapons to countries like Britain, France, China and Russia prevents the emergence of any competing hegemon on the Eurasian landmass. The United States' security and the absence of threats means that "national defense will seldom justify intervention abroad." Even further, its proponents argue that "the United States is not responsible for, and cannot afford the costs of, maintaining world order." They also believe that "the pursuit of economic well-being is best left to the private sector," and that the United States should not attempt to spread its values because doing so increases resentment towards the U.S. and in turn, decreases its security. In short, neo-isolationism advises the United States to preserve its freedom of action and strategic independence.

In more practical terms, the authors discuss how the implementation of a so-called "neo-isolationist" grand strategy would involve less focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation, withdrawal from NATO, and major cuts to the United States military presence abroad. The authors see a military force structure that prioritizes a secure nuclear second-strike capability, intelligence, naval and special operations forces while limiting the forward-deployment of forces to Europe and Asia.

Posen and Ross identify such prominent scholars and political figures as Earl Ravenal, Patrick Buchanan and Doug Bandow.

Selective engagement
With similar roots in the realist tradition of international relations, selective engagement advocates that the United States should intervene in regions of the world only if they directly affect its security and prosperity. The focus, therefore, lies on those powers with significant industrial and military potential and the prevention of war amongst those states. Most proponents of this strategy believe Europe, Asia and the Middle East matter most to the United States. Europe and Asia contain the great powers, which have the greatest military and economic impact on international politics, and the Middle East is a primary source of oil for much of the developed world. In addition to these more particular concerns, selective engagement also focuses on preventing nuclear proliferation and any conflict that could lead to a great power war, but provides no clear guidelines for humanitarian interventions.

The authors envision that a strategy of selective engagement would involve a strong nuclear deterrent with a force structure capable of fighting two regional wars, each through some combination of ground, air and sea forces complemented with forces from a regional ally. They question, however, whether such a policy could garner sustained support from a liberal democracy experienced with a moralistic approach to international relations, whether the United States could successfully differentiate necessary versus unnecessary engagement and whether a strategy that focuses on Europe, Asia and the Middle East actually represents a shift from current engagement.

In the piece, Barry Posen classified himself as a "selective engagement" advocate, with the caveat that the United States should not only act to reduce the likelihood of great power war, but also oppose the rise of a Eurasian hegemon capable of threatening the United States.

Robert J. Art argues that selective engagement is the best strategy for the twenty-first century because it is, by definition, selective. "It steers the middle course between an isolationist, unilateralist course, on the one hand, and world policeman, highly interventionist role, on the other." Therefore, Art, concludes, it avoids both overly restrictive and overly expansive definitions of U.S. interests, finding instead a compromise between doing too much and too little militarily. Additionally, selective engagement is the best strategy for achieving both realist goals—preventing WMD terrorism, maintaining great power peace, and securing the supply of oil; and liberal goals—preserving free trade, spreading democracy, observing human rights, and minimizing the impact of climate change. The realist goals represent vital interests and the liberal goals represent desirable interests. Desirable interests are not unimportant, Art maintains, but they are of lesser importance when a trade-off between them and vital interests must be made. Selective engagement, however, mitigates the effect of the trade-off precisely because it is a moderate, strategic policy.

Cooperative security
The authors write "the most important distinguishing feature of cooperative security is the proposition that peace is effectively indivisible." Unlike the other three alternatives, cooperative security draws upon liberalism as well as realism in its approach to international relations. Stressing the importance of world peace and international cooperation, the view supposes the growth in democratic governance and the use of international institutions will hopefully overcome the security dilemma and deter interstate conflict. Posen and Ross propose that collective action is the most effective means of preventing potential state and non-state aggressors from threatening other states. Cooperative security considers nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and humanitarian crises to be major interests of the United States.

The authors imagine that such a grand strategy would involve stronger support for international institutions, agreements, and the frequent use of force for humanitarian purposes. Were international institutions to ultimately entail the deployment of a multinational force, the authors suppose the United States' contribution would emphasize command, control, communications and intelligence, defense suppression, and precision-guided munitions-what they considered at the time to be the United States' comparative advantage in aerospace power. Collective action problems, the problems of the effective formation of international institutions, the vacillating feelings of democratic populations, and the limitations of arms control are all offered by the authors as noted criticisms of collective security.

Primacy
Primacy is a grand strategy with four parts:

 * 1) Military preponderance
 * 2) Reassurances and containment of allies
 * 3) Integration of other states into US-designed institutions
 * 4) Limits to the spread of nuclear weapons

As a result, it advocates that the United States pursue ultimate hegemony and dominate the international system economically, politically and militarily, rejecting any return to bipolarity or multipolarity and preventing the emergence of any peer competitor. Therefore, its proponents argue that U.S. foreign policy should focus on maintaining U.S. power and preventing any other power from becoming a serious challenger to the United States. With this in mind, some supporters of this strategy argue that the U.S. should work to contain China and other competitors rather than engage them. In regards to humanitarian crises and regional conflicts, primacy holds that the U.S. should only intervene when they directly impact national security, more along the lines of selective engagement than collective security. It does, however, advocate for the active prevention of nuclear proliferation at a level similar to collective security.

Implementation of such a strategy would entail military forces at similar levels to those during the Cold War, with emphasis on military modernization and research and development. They note, however, that "the quest for primacy is likely to prove futile for five reasons": the diffusion of economic and technological capabilities, interstate balancing against the United States, the danger that hegemonic leadership will fatally undermine valuable multilateral institutions, the feasibility of preventive war and the dangers of imperial overstretch.

Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University, outlines three arguments offered by primacy enthusiasts contending that military preeminence generates positive economic externalities. "One argument, which I label 'geoeconomic favoritism,' hypothesizes that the military hegemon will attract private capital because it provides the greatest security and safety to investors. A second argument posits that the benefits from military primacy flow from geopolitical favoritism: that sovereign states, in return for living under the security umbrella of the military superpower, voluntarily transfer resources to help subsidize the cost of the economy. The third argument postulates that states are most likely to enjoy global public goods under a unipolar distribution of military power, accelerating global economic growth and reducing security tensions. These public goods benefit the hegemon as much, if not more, than they do other actors." Drezner maintains the empirical evidence supporting the third argument is the strongest, though with some qualifiers. "Although the precise causal mechanism remain disputed, hegemonic eras are nevertheless strongly correlated with lower trade barriers and greater levels of globalization." However, Drezner highlights a caveat: The cost of maintaining global public goods catches up to the superpower providing them. "Other countries free-ride off of the hegemon, allowing them to grow faster. Technologies diffuse from the hegemonic power to the rest of the world, facilitating catch-up. Chinese analysts have posited that these phenomena, occurring right now, are allowing China to outgrow the United States."

Primacy vs. selective engagement
Barry Posen, director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, believes the activist U.S. foreign policy that continues to define U.S. strategy in the twenty-first century is an "undisciplined, expensive, and bloody strategy" that has done more harm than good to U.S. national security. "It makes enemies almost as fast as it slays them, discourages allies from paying for their own defense, and convinces powerful states to band together and oppose Washington's plans, further raising the costs of carrying out its foreign policy." The United States was able to afford such adventurism during the 1990s, Posen argues, because American power projection was completely unchallenged. Over the last decade, however, American power has been relatively declining while the Pentagon continues to "depend on continuous infusions of cash simply to retain its current force structure—levels of spending that the Great Recession and the United States' ballooning debt have rendered unsustainable."

Posen proposes the United States abandon its hegemonic strategy and replace it with one of restraint. This translates into jettisoning the quest of shaping a world that is satisfactory to U.S. values and instead advances vital national security interests: The U.S. military would go to war only when it must. Large troop contingents in unprecedentedly peaceful regions such as Europe would be significantly downsized, incentivizing NATO members to provide more for their own security. Under such a scenario, the United States would have more leeway in using resources to combat the most pressing threats to its security. A strategy of restraint, therefore, would help preserve the country's prosperity and security more so than a hegemonic strategy. To be sure, Posen makes clear that he is not advocating isolationism. Rather, the United States should focus on three pressing security challenges: preventing a powerful rival from upending the global balance of power, fighting terrorists, and limiting nuclear proliferation.

John Ikenberry of Princeton University and Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, both of Dartmouth College, push back on Posen's selective engagement thesis, arguing that American engagement is not as bad as Posen makes it out to be. Advocates of selective engagement, they argue, overstate the costs of current U.S. grand strategy and understate the benefits. "The benefits of deep engagement...are legion. U.S. security commitments reduce competition in key regions and act as a check against potential rivals. They help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in economic negotiations. And they make it easier for the United States to secure cooperation for combating a wide range of global threats."

Ikenberry, Brooks, and Wohlforth are not convinced that the current U.S. grand strategy generates subsequent counterbalancing. Unlike the prior hegemons, the United States is geographically isolated and faces no contiguous great power rivals interested in balancing it. This means the United States is far less threatening to great powers that are situated oceans away, the authors claim. Moreover, any competitor would have a hard time matching U.S. military might. "Not only is the United States so far ahead militarily in both quantitative and qualitative terms, but its security guarantees also give it the leverage to prevent allies from giving military technology to potential U.S. rivals. Because the United States dominates the high-end defense industry, it can trade access to its defense market for allies' agreement not to transfer key military technologies to its competitors."

Finally, when the United States wields its security leverage, the authors argue, it shapes the overall structure of the global economy. "Washington wins when U.S. allies favor [the] status quo, and one reason they are inclined to support the existing system is because they value their military alliances."

Ted Carpenter, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, believes that the proponents of primacy suffer from the "light-switch model," in which only two positions exist: on and off. "Many, seemingly most, proponents of U.S. preeminence do not recognize the existence of options between current policy of promiscuous global interventionism and isolationism." Adherence to the light switch model, Carpenter argues, reflects intellectual rigidity or an effort to stifle discussion about a range of alternatives to the status quo. Selective engagement is a strategy that sits in between primacy and isolationism and, given growing multipolarity and American fiscal precariousness, should be taken seriously. "Selectivity is not merely an option when it comes to embarking on military interventions. It is imperative for a major power that wishes to preserve its strategic insolvency. Otherwise, overextension and national exhaustion become increasing dangers." Carpenter thinks that off-loading U.S. security responsibility must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, the United States must refrain from using military might in campaigns that do not directly deal with U.S. interests. "If a sense of moral indignation, instead of a calculating assessment of the national interest, governs U.S. foreign policy, the United States will become involved in even more murky conflicts in which few if any tangible American interests are at stake."

Today
Posen has argued that the four schools of U.S. grand strategy that he identified in the 1990s have been replaced by just two: liberal hegemony, which came from a fusion of primacy and cooperative security, and restraint, which came from a fusion of neo-isolationism and selective engagement. Other scholars have proposed a third policy, offshore balancing.

Liberal hegemony
Proponents of liberal hegemony favor a world order in which the United States is a hegemon and uses this power advantage to create a liberal international system and at times use force to enforce or spread liberal values (such as individual rights, free trade, and the rule of law). The United States strives to retain overwhelming military power, under a theory that potential competitors will not even try to compete on the global stage. It also retains an extensive network of permanent alliance commitments around the world, using the alliance system both to advance and retain hegemonic power and to solidify emerging liberal political systems. According to Posen, this strategy sees "threats emanating from three major sources: failed states, rogue states, and illiberal peer competitors." Failed states, in this view, are sources of instability; rogue states can sponsor terrorism, acquire weapons of mass destruction, and behave unpredictably; illiberal peer competitors would compete directly with the United States and "would complicate the spread of liberal institutions and the construction of liberal states." Support for liberal hegemonic strategies among major thinkers in both political parties helps explain the broad elite support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya, even though U.S. military involvement in those conflicts had been initiated by presidents of different parties. The chief difference on foreign policy between Republican and Democratic proponents of liberal hegemony, according to Posen, is on support for international institutions as a means to achieving hegemony.

Restraint
Proponents of a grand strategy of restraint call for the United States to significantly reduce its overseas security commitments and largely avoid involvement in conflicts abroad. America would take advantage of what Posen calls a "remarkably good" strategic position: "[The United States] is rich, distant from other great powers, and defended by a powerful nuclear deterrent. Other great powers are at present weaker than the United States, close to one another, and face the same pressures to defend themselves as does the United States." Proponents of strategic restraint argue, consistent with the realist tradition, that states are self-interested and accordingly will look out for their own interests and balance against aggressors; however, when possible, states prefer to "free ride" or "cheap ride," passing the buck to other states to bear the cost of balancing. Restraint proponents also emphasize the deterrent power of nuclear weapons, which tremendously raise the stakes of confrontations between great powers, breeding caution, rather than rewarding aggression. Restraint advocates see nationalism as a powerful force, one that makes states even more resistant to outside conquest and thus makes the international system more stable. Restraint proponents also argue, drawing on thinkers like the Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz, that military force is a blunt, expensive, and unpredictable instrument, and that it accordingly should only be used rarely, for clear goals.

Restraint is distinct from isolationism: isolationists favor restricting trade and immigration and tend to believe that events in the outside world have little impact within the United States. As already noted, it is sometimes confused with non-interventionism. Restraint, however, sees economic dynamism as a key source of national power and accordingly tends to argue for a relatively open trade system. Some restrainers call for supporting this trade system via significant naval patrols; others suggest that the international economy is resilient against disruptions and, with rare exceptions, does not require a powerful state to guarantee the security of global trade.

Offshore balancing
In offshore balancing, the United States would refrain from significant involvement in security affairs overseas except to prevent a state from establishing hegemony in what offshore balancers identify as the world's three key strategic regions: Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf. This strategy advocates a significantly reduced overseas presence compared to liberal hegemony, but argues that intervention is necessary in more circumstances than restraint. Offshore balancing is associated with offensive realist theories of state behavior: it believes that conquest can often enable states to gain power, and thus that a hegemon in regions with large economies, high populations, or critical resources could quickly become a global menace to U.S. national interests.

title: Grand strategy


text:
Joseph Smith III

Joseph Smith III (November 6, 1832 – December 10, 1914) was the eldest surviving son of Joseph Smith (founder of the Latter Day Saint movement) and Emma Hale Smith. Joseph Smith III was the Prophet-President of what became the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church), renamed Community of Christ in 2001, which considers itself a continuation of the church established by Smith's father in 1830. For fifty-four years until his own death, Smith presided over the church. Smith's moderate ideas and nature set much of the tone for the church's development, earning him the sobriquet of "the pragmatic prophet".

Childhood
Joseph Smith III was born in Kirtland, Ohio, on November 6, 1832, to Joseph Smith Jr, and Emma Hale Smith. He moved with his parents to Far West, Missouri, in 1838, where his father was arrested partially as a result of the events in the 1838 Mormon War. Young Joseph was able to stay overnight with his father in prison on several occasions. It was later alleged by fellow prisoner and church apostle Lyman Wight that during one of these visits, his father laid his hands upon Joseph III's head and said, "You are my successor when I depart." While his father was still imprisoned in 1839, Joseph III left Missouri with his mother and siblings and moved to Quincy, Illinois, and later to the new settlement of Nauvoo. The elder Smith escaped custody later that year and rejoined the family.

At Nauvoo, the Latter Day Saints created a militia known as the Nauvoo Legion and soon afterward, 500 of the town's boys created their own junior version of the militia. Joseph III became general of the junior militia whose motto was, "our fathers we respect, our mothers we'll protect."

According to later reminiscences, Joseph III was blessed by his father at a special council meeting of church officials held on the second floor of the Smith family's Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. By some accounts, participants also included Hyrum Smith, John Taylor, Willard Richards, Newel K. Whitney, Reynolds Cahoon, Alpheus Cutler, Ebenezer Robinson, George J. Adams, W. W. Phelps, and John M. Bernhisel. Joseph III's father reportedly seated him in a chair and Whitney anointed his head with oil. Then the elder Smith reportedly pronounced a special blessing upon his son's head that suggested that Joseph III would succeed him as church president if he lived righteously.

Joseph Smith died at Carthage, Illinois, when Joseph III was 11 years old. Although many Latter Day Saints believed that Joseph III should succeed his father, his young age in 1844 made that impractical. A succession crisis ensued which resulted in Brigham Young taking lead of the majority of church members as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Three years later Young became the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Relations between Young and the Smith family were strained and many of the Smiths chose to recognize James J. Strang as church president. Young and the majority of the Latter Day Saints departed Nauvoo in 1846, leaving the Smith family in a mostly empty city. Smith's mother, Emma, attempted to make a living renting out rooms in the family home; in 1847, Emma married a second husband named Lewis Bidamon.

Joseph III began to study and eventually practice law. In 1856, he married Emmeline Griswold and the couple moved into a house that was his parents' first residence in Nauvoo. They had five children: Rebecca, Emma, Carrie, Zaide, and Joseph Arthur. After Emmeline died of probable tuberculosis, he married their housekeeper, Bertha Madison, on November 12, 1869. They had seven children: David Carlos, Mary Audentia, Frederick Madison, Israel "Dutch" Alexander, Kenneth, Bertha Azuba, and Hale. Bertha Madison Smith died from injuries sustained in a carriage accident in 1895. On January 12, 1898 Joseph Smith III wed Ada Rachel Clark of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. They had three sons, William Wallace, Richard Clark, and Reginald Archer.

Reorganization of the church
In the late 1840s and early 1850s, the bulk of the Latter Day Saints either aligned themselves with Young and emigrated to Utah or they remained in the Midwest and looked to Strang as church president. Strang gave indications that he believed that a son of Joseph Smith would one day lead the church and made overtures to the Smith family. Emma and her sons, however, remained aloof. Many midwestern Latter Day Saints were adamantly opposed to plural marriage and when Strang began to openly practice the doctrine in 1849, several key leaders, including Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley, Sr. broke with his leadership. Later, when Strang was mortally wounded by assassins, he refused to name a successor, and when he died he left his church leaderless.

The midwestern Saints began to call for the need to establish a "New Organization" of the church and many believed that Joseph III should be its head. Latter Day Saints repeatedly visited Smith and asked him to take up his father's mantle, but his reply was that he would only assume the church presidency if he were inspired by God to do so. Finally, in 1860, Smith said that he had received this inspiration and at a conference in Amboy, Illinois on April 6, 1860, he was sustained as president of the RLDS Church. Smith III stated at the conference:

At the time both this organization and Young's Utah-based church claimed to be the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

President of the church
As church president, Smith was what his biographer has called a "pragmatic prophet." Many of RLDS Church followers were dissidents from what they felt were the excesses of a theocracy established by Smith's father, and which they also felt were continued under Young in Utah Territory. From the start, Smith attempted to steer a middle course. Rather than deny the later and more controversial teachings of Smith's father, such as baptism for the dead, the divinity of the Book of Abraham and the concepts of "eternal progression" and the "plurality of gods," Smith taught that these doctrines either were never officially accepted, were misinterpreted, or should simply not be emphasized. However, Smith repeatedly taught that his father did not teach or practice plural marriage and that this practice was an invention of Young and his followers. Smith also resisted calls from his followers to announce a new gathering place or to quickly "redeem" and build up "Zion" (Independence, Missouri).

In the 1860s and 1870s, Smith began to rebuild the structure of the church, establishing a new First Presidency, Council of Twelve Apostles, seven quorums of the Seventy, and a Presiding Bishopric. Zenas H. Gurley, Sr. became President of the Council of Twelve. Smith presented a revelation which called William Marks, former presiding officer of the church's central stake, to be his first counselor in the reorganized First Presidency. After Marks died, Smith called W. W. Blair and his brother, David Hyrum Smith, to be his counselors in the First Presidency.

In 1866, Smith moved from Nauvoo to Plano, Illinois, where the church's printing house had been established. He personally took over the editorship of The Saint's Herald, and Plano became the headquarters of the church. Meanwhile, Latter Day Saints adhering to the reorganization established a colony in Lamoni, Iowa, where they attempted to practice the "Law of Consecration" or "Order of Enoch." In 1881, Smith decided to move to Lamoni which became the new headquarters of the church. Although the practice of the Order of Enoch proved a failure, the town of Lamoni continued to grow. The church established a college there which became Graceland University.

Under Smith's presidency, the RLDS Church gained clear legal title to the Kirtland Temple in the 1880 Kirtland Temple Suit. However, the RLDS Church failed in its bid to acquire legal title to the Temple Lot in the Temple Lot Case of the late 1890s. The trial court in both cases declared that the RLDS Church was the legal rightful successor to the original Latter Day Saint church founded in 1830 by Smith's father (it failed to gain the Temple Lot because the owners at the time appealed on the grounds that the RLDS Church waited too long to act, but the earlier rightful successor decision was upheld). Rather than focusing on the practical ownership results of the cases, Smith emphasized these court judgements for the remainder of his life as legal validation of the RLDS Church's claims.

Redemption of Zion
In Smith's final years, members of the church began to move to Independence, Missouri, which Joseph Smith had designated as the "center place" of the "City of Zion." Many Latter Day Saints had wanted to return to this theologically important ground since their expulsion in 1839. In 1906, at the age of 73, Smith moved to Independence and entered a state of semi-retirement. His eldest son, Frederick Madison Smith, remained in Lamoni and took over active leadership of the church. Finally, on December 10, 1914, at the age of 82, Smith suffered a heart seizure in his home and died. He had been president of the church for more than fifty years and he was admired and mourned by thousands.

Teachings on plural marriage
Joseph Smith III was an ardent opponent of the practice of plural marriage throughout his life. For most of his career, Smith denied that his father had been involved in the practice and insisted that it had originated with Young. Smith served many missions to the western United States where he met with and interviewed associates and women claiming to be widows of his father, who attempted to present him with evidence to the contrary. In the end, Smith concluded that he was "not positive nor sure that [his father] was innocent" and that if, indeed, the elder Smith had been involved, it was still a false practice. However, many members of the Community of Christ, and some of the groups that were formerly associated with it are still not convinced that Joseph Smith III's father did indeed engage in plural marriage, and feel that the evidence that he did so is largely flawed.

title: Joseph Smith III


text:
Caernarfon Bay

Caernarfon Bay (occasionally Caernarvon Bay) is an inlet of the Irish Sea defined by the Llŷn peninsula and Anglesey.

The gentle coastline surrounding it is home to villages including Nefyn, Pistyll, Trefor, Llithfaen, and Clynnog Fawr on the mainland, and Aberffraw, Llanddwyn and Rhosneigr on Anglesey.

The Menai Strait heads north east to link the bay to Conwy Bay.

title: Caernarfon Bay


text:
Alix, Duchess of Brittany

Alix of Thouars (1200 – 21 October 1221) (in Breton Alis) ruled as Duchess of Brittany from 1203 until her death. She was also Countess of Richmond in the peerage of England.

Life
Alix was born in 1200. She was the daughter of Constance, Duchess of Brittany and Guy of Thouars. According to several French historians, Constance died after giving birth to Alix's sisters Catherine and Margaret. Alix's older half-brother was Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and her half-sisters were Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany and Matilda of Brittany, the children of Constance and Geoffrey Plantagenet. Upon the death of Richard I of England, a power struggle commenced between her half-brother Arthur and John, King of England. At the Battle of Mirebeau in 1202, Arthur and Eleanor were captured. Arthur was imprisoned at the Château de Falaise and in 1203 disappeared. Eleanor was imprisoned at Corfe Castle.

The Breton barons recognized Alix as Duchess of Brittany after the presumed death of Arthur, instead of Eleanor. This was due to fears that John might claim to rule Brittany as regent for the imprisoned Eleanor. Alix's father Guy became regent for Alix until 1206, when Philip II of France made himself the regent of the duchy in Alix's name. King Philip II broke off the betrothal of Alix and the Breton prince Henry of Penthièvre, and turned to his French cousin Peter of Dreux, as Alix's husband. In 1208, John permitted Eleanor to style herself Duchess of Brittany and Countess of Richmond, but gave her no lands of Richmond Earldom. Pierre married Alix on 27 January 1213, and paid homage to the French king for Brittany. In 1214 John recognized Alix as Duchess of Brittany, renouncing the claim of Eleanor.

In 1218 Peter and Alix were recognised by William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke regent of England as Earl and Countess of Richmond in place of Eleanor, who would never be released from imprisonment.

Alix died on 21 October 1221, without having exercised much control over her own inheritance. She was succeeded in the duchy by her son John I, but Peter remained the de facto ruler of Brittany as John I's regent until 1237.

Children
Alix and Peter had:
 * 1) John I, Duke of Brittany  (c. 1217–1286), married Blanche of Navarre, daughter of the king of Navarre, Theobald I of Navarre.
 * 2) Yolande of Brittany, (1218–1272), married Hugh XI of Lusignan, Count of Angoulême and Count of Marche
 * 3) Arthur of Brittany (1220–1224), betrothed to Jeanne de Craon, daughter of Amaury I de Craon and Jeanne des Roches

Portrayals in literature
Alix of Thouars is the heroine of the novel Le Poids d’une couronne (légende bretonne) (1867–1868) by Gabrielle d’Étampes and is mentioned in the novel Dans l’Ombre du Passé (2020) by Léa Chaillou, where it is revealed that the heroine is named after her.

title: Alix, Duchess of Brittany


text:
Talk:Andrey Razumovsky

Old talk
As far as alternative spellings are concerned, let me refer you to the aeiou encyclopaedia.  17:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Portrait
"There is a portrait of Razumovsky at the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum." What is this supposed to mean? Is this the portrait? What's the source on this?--Suessmayr (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rozumovsky spelling

 * Well, isnt' Britannica a well-established Egnlish source? And it seems like it spells the last name of this Ukrainian noble family as Rozumovsky (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/511702/Kyrylo-Rozumovsky). Additionally, it uses Ukrainian language as a source to latinize Andriy Rozumovsky's father Kyrylo Rozumovsky, which consequently gives a good reason to use Ukrainian as a source language to latinaze Andriy Rozumovsky's name. --BezosibnyjUA (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 0 versus 73 works is a definite no-go, sorry. The ratio is also in favor of "Kirill Razumovsky" 2:1, but that's beside the point here. --illythr (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't use Google scholar as a ultimate source to decide how to spell Ukrainian last names. I would say Britannica is the way to go. P.S. Just for your information by far one of the most dominant reasons of why there are so many more incorrect spellings of of Rozumovsky family on Google scholar is because great many of those research papers/books actually talk/mention one of those pieces composed by Ludwig van Beethoven and entitled "Razumovsky Quartets," and not about famous Rozumovsky family members. I have nothing against that composition of Beethoven and don't argue at all that the composition needs to be renamed, since it was obviously up to Beethoven to decide how to spell the last name of Andriy, but that provides us a poor indicator as to how to spell this Ukrainian nobility name. So I say let's stick to Britannica. --BezosibnyjUA (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books and Scholar results are not the ultimate authority in naming things, true. However, they are useful for performing quick reality checks when someone claims that their preferred variant is the correct or the most widely used one. In this particular case, the check defeats such a claim for the purposes of establishing common name quite soundly. As for the quartet being the source - this is actually how name "translation" tends to happen (until late XX century, at least). Wikipedia doesn't care if the original adaptation was a mistake - only that it had stuck enough to become the most recognizable of all the variants. I also didn't find anything on Andre/iy Ra/ozumovsky in Britannica. But even he were mentioned there, it'd only warrant the addition of one more variant to the list (which is already done), while keeping the common one as the primary. --illythr (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Countess "Constantine Joseph Dominic Tyurgeym"
A woman of that name never never existed. All appearances of this nonsensical name on the Web can be traced to this generally flawed Wikipedia entry.--Suessmayr (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to Catholicism
His 1816 marriage entry proves that Razumovsky did not convert to Catholicism.--Suessmayr (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andrey Razumovsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/103/8152/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918195027/http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/collection/international/painting/r/ipa00094.html to http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/collection/international/painting/r/ipa00094.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

More spelling
The lead had stated that there are various spellings, including "Razumovsky, Rasoumoffsky and Rasoumoffsky". Since the second and third of those are identical, I've changed the second to reflect another spelling that is sometimes used (including in the article), namely Rasumofsky. However I can't verify which (if any) of those is the spelling used in the English translation of the Treaty of Paris. I've left it that it was "the last" of those three variations, but if anyone can provide a source for that, that'd be great. Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Andrey Razumovsky


text:
Giancarlo Fisichella

Giancarlo Fisichella (born 14 January 1973), also known as Fisico, Giano or Fisi, is an Italian professional racing driver, also captain of the official Nazionale Piloti association football team (composed of the racing drivers). He has driven in Formula One for Minardi, Jordan, Benetton, Sauber, Renault, Force India and Ferrari. Since then he has driven for AF Corse in their Ferrari 458 GTE at various sportscar events, becoming twice a Le Mans 24 Hour class winner, and a GT class winner of the Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta. He was also Ferrari's F1 reserve driver for 2010.

Fisichella won three races in his Formula One career, the first of which was at the chaotic 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix, a race abandoned for safety reasons with 15 laps remaining. After several days of confusion regarding rules and technicalities, Fisichella was eventually declared the winner in the following week, and collected his trophy in an unofficial ceremony at the following race. He was brought into the Renault team to replace fellow Italian Jarno Trulli, and won his first race with the team in Australia in 2005. However, after that race it was his teammate, the Spanish driver Fernando Alonso, that would win the greater share of races for Renault. Although highly rated as a driver, Fisichella was unable to keep pace with eventual champion Alonso, managing just one further race win following his debut. However, his best finishes also helped Renault win back-to-back Constructors' titles from 2005 to 2006. Outside of driving, he has backed his own GP2 team, FMS International.

On 17 June 2012, Fisichella won the GTE Pro division of the 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans for AF Corse and followed this up with the Manufacturers' title in the WEC at the end of the season.

Early career
Like most current Formula One drivers, he began kart racing as a youngster in the Guidonia's Kart circuit. In 1992, he competed in the Italian Formula Three Championship, racing for the RC Motorsport team. He finished runner up in 1993, and in 1994 he won the championship, following race victories in Monaco and Macau. He left open-wheel racing briefly in 1995 and 1996, driving for Alfa Romeo in the International Touring Car Championship.

Minardi (1996)
In, he made the move to Formula One, making his debut for the Minardi team, after being the official test driver the previous season. However he did not complete the full season since Minardi required a driver who could bring funding to the team, and replaced Fisichella with Giovanni Lavaggi.

Jordan (1997)
In 1997, he made the move to Eddie Jordan's eponymous team, where he drove alongside former F1 champion Michael Schumacher's brother Ralf, himself a former Formula Nippon champion. Fisichella gained his first podium finish at the 1997 Canadian Grand Prix, and went on to finish higher in the points standings than his teammate. At Hockenheim, a victory looked to be within reach for Fisichella, but a puncture and the performance of an on-form Gerhard Berger denied him the win. Fisichella was able to show his talent again at the rain-soaked Belgian Grand Prix in which he finished a commendable second behind Michael Schumacher. Following this race, the Benetton team signed him for 1998.

Benetton (1998–2001)

Following Renault's withdrawal from Formula One, Benetton would contest the 1998 season without factory-supplied engines, instead using rebranded development versions of 1997 Renault engines. Despite not having the latest engines, Fisichella still managed second places at Montreal and Monaco, and was in contention for a victory in Canada until gearbox problems slowed him down. In Austria, Fisichella scored his first pole position. However, an on-track clash with Jean Alesi during the race cost him any chance of a good result. He was then able to add only two more points to his total in the second half of the year as Benetton lost ground on their competition.

1999 proved to be a similarly inconsistent season. He did score some points finishes, including second at Montreal, and again came close to a victory in the European Grand Prix, until he spun off whilst in the lead. This would prove to be his best chance of a victory for the next few seasons.

Fisichella's season was to follow a similar pattern in 2000. He again gained some surprise podium finishes early in the year in Brazil, Germany, Monaco, and Canada. However, Benetton's poor second half of the season meant that he failed to score any more points. After his first Benetton year, when he finished one point behind him, Fisichella had comprehensively outperformed his Austrian teammate Alexander Wurz, who would then leave the team to make way for British driver Jenson Button in 2001. Renault had purchased the Benetton team after the start of the 2000 season, but their radical engine design meant Benetton had an uncompetitive 2001 car, and as a result, Fisichella was battling for much of the season with teams such as Minardi and Prost. However, the efforts of technical director Mike Gascoyne and his staff did result in improvements over the year, culminating in a 4–5 finish at the German Grand Prix and a third-place finish for Fisichella at the Belgium race. Although Fisichella had gained the team's best results that season and consistently outperformed Button, he was not retained by the team, so he rejoined Jordan for 2002.

Return to Jordan (2002–2003)
Fisichella scored seven points in 2002, while comfortably outpacing new teammate Takuma Sato, although the Jordan-Honda car of that year was never truly competitive. After Honda withdrew their engine supply, Jordan switched to Ford engines for the 2003 season, but the team were still unable to compete with the top teams on the grid. Despite this lack of performance, Fisichella won his first race at the Brazilian Grand Prix. Battling with McLaren's Kimi Räikkönen amidst heavy rain and numerous crashes, Fisichella took the race lead on lap 54, just before the race was red-flagged. However, he was demoted to second place on the podium, because under the regulations, the race results were declared at two laps before the red flag, at which point Räikkönen was thought to have been the race leader. Several days later, though, the FIA determined that Fisichella had already begun his 56th lap before the red flag, meaning that he, and not Räikkönen, had been leading the race two laps before its premature end, awarding the Italian his first F1 victory, and he became the only F1 driver to have won a race without having stood atop the podium. He collected the winner's trophy at the next race at Imola. Fisichella's only other points finish of 2003 was to be a seventh place at Indianapolis.

Sauber (2004)
Unhappy with the Jordan team's performance, Fisichella moved to Sauber in 2004 in the hope of greater results, and using the team as a way of gaining access to drive for the 2003 World Champions Ferrari, who supplied re-badged engines to the Sauber team. Fisichella drove well all year, comfortably outpacing teammate Felipe Massa for much of the season (scoring 22 championship points vs Massa's 12).

2005
His strong performances prompted his former Benetton-Renault team boss Flavio Briatore to re-sign him for the 2005 season as partner to the young Spanish driver Fernando Alonso. A win at the season opening race at Melbourne signalled the Formula One breakthrough that commentators had been predicting, but it proved to be something of a false dawn. A run of poor luck saw Fisichella fall behind his teammate in the championship standings, and at times the pair were achieving noticeably different lap times with the same equipment. It appeared that Fisichella simply did not have the pace to match Alonso.

The difference in pace between Fisichella and Alonso was noticeable, and while Alonso's metronomic consistency helped him win the championship, Fisichella's general bad luck was to cost him points finishes. He was overtaken and lost the lead on the final lap of the Japanese Grand Prix by McLaren driver Kimi Räikkönen, despite his race engineer urging him to avoid letting Räikkönen past, which earned him heavy criticism from the press. Nevertheless, his performances alongside Alonso throughout the season enabled Renault to win the World Constructors' Championship ahead of McLaren and Ferrari, the latter of which had won that title the previous six seasons.

2006
2006 proved to be a similar season for Fisichella. Having won in Malaysia, putting in a strong performance to win from the pole position. However, he failed to maintain that pace for the upcoming races and even failed to reach the top ten in qualifying for two races. This form, in addition to a penalty in Monaco for allegedly impeding David Coulthard, meant Fisichella was again unable to challenge his teammate Alonso for the Drivers' Championship. Some strong results in the second half of the 2006 season, including finishing ahead of Alonso at the US Grand Prix, enabled Fisichella to obtain his best results: Fourth in the World Drivers' Championship with 72 points, one win, and five podium finishes. After finishing third in Japan, Fisichella dedicated the result to his best friend, Tonino Visciani, who died of a heart attack on the Thursday before the race. Nevertheless, he was able to get a sixth-place finish in Brazil to secure the Constructors' title for Renault.

2007

In 2007, Fisichella became Renault's lead driver after the departure of Fernando Alonso. His teammate was the team's former test driver, the young Finn Heikki Kovalainen, who was replaced as test driver by Nelson Piquet Jr.

Renault did not demonstrate the same level of pace as in previous seasons, which had seen them win successive World Championships. It remains unclear whether the difference was due to the change of tyre supplier from Michelin to Bridgestone, the driving abilities of Fernando Alonso, or simply being outpaced in off-season development by the other top teams. Another possibility is that the team's wind tunnel was giving inaccurate data in late 2006 which affected the development of the 2007 car. In the early races, Fisichella obtained better results than rookie teammate Kovalainen, but in Canada and the United States, it was the Finn who claimed the higher finishes. Fisichella was disqualified from the Canadian Grand Prix, along with Ferrari's Felipe Massa, for exiting the pit lane while the traffic light was showing red, the purpose of which is to prevent cars rejoining the race ahead of the safety car. He later stated that he had been busy avoiding other cars in the pit lane and had simply not noticed the red light. The Renault team seemed to have made significant progress in terms of pace by the Spanish Grand Prix, but a series of fuel rig problems meant that neither driver was able to capitalise on this apparent increase in performance. Fisichella crashed into the Super Aguri of Anthony Davidson in Hungary which broke his rear suspension and forced him to retire.

2008

With Renault signing Fernando Alonso and Nelson Piquet Jr. Fisichella was announced as the number one driver alongside Adrian Sutil for the Force India F1 team for the season (This was the third stint for Fisichella at the former Jordan team) on 10 January 2008. In the 2008 Monaco Grand Prix, he became the 9th driver to join the '200' club for drivers to have competed in at least 200 Grands Prix.

Fisichella finished the season pointless, as did the Force India team. However, there were a few moments when he found himself in the points position, such as the Brazil, where an early change to soft compound tyres and his wet-weather ability saw him climb as high as fifth. On 17 October, Force India announced they would keep Fisichella for the 2009 season.

2009
With the new Force India VJM02 powered by a Mercedes-Benz engine, Fisichella qualified 18th (promoted to 15th after both Toyotas and Lewis Hamilton were demoted) on the grid for the 2009 curtain-opener at Australia. He finished 11th in the race itself. In Malaysia, he qualified 18th, and was classified in the same position, having spun off in the torrential rain that stopped the race on lap 33.

On 29 August, making the most of some very effective technical upgrades from Force India, Fisichella recorded the team's first pole position at the Belgian Grand Prix. He went on to score Force India's first points and earn them their first podium in Formula One with a strong second-place finish behind Ferrari's Kimi Räikkönen.

During that weekend, there were rumours that Fisichella might replace fellow Italian Luca Badoer (who was himself replacing the injured Felipe Massa) and become a Ferrari driver, something that he admitted he always wanted to do. On 3 September 2009, an official press statement confirmed Fisichella would be released from Force India to drive for Ferrari at the Italian Grand Prix, his home race.

Ferrari (2009)
Fisichella signed a contract as Ferrari's driver for the remainder of the 2009 season and reserve driver for 2010 on 3 September 2009. However, he had not ruled out continuing to race for another team in 2010, saying "if there is a good option to find another seat in another team it would be good". Beginning with the 2009 Italian Grand Prix, he replaced the injured Felipe Massa for the remainder of the 2009 season.

Fisichella remained Ferrari's reserve driver for but had been keen to keep racing for a different team. He admitted that Sauber was a strong option and was strongly linked to the team, however his hopes of driving for Sauber in 2010 were ended when Pedro de la Rosa was confirmed as the team's second driver. He was also linked to a possible return to Force India but the team confirmed former teammate Adrian Sutil and fellow Italian Vitantonio Liuzzi. As a result, he remained one of Ferrari's test drivers for along with fellow Italian Luca Badoer, Spaniard Marc Gené, Frenchman Jules Bianchi and Italian MotoGP rider Valentino Rossi.

At the end of 2010, Fisichella along with Luca Badoer and Marc Gené was replaced by Jules Bianchi as Ferrari test driver ahead of the 2011 season. However he remains a part of the Italian team and attended their annual 'Wroom' media event at Madonna di Campiglio in January 2011.

Helmet
Fisichella's helmet was white with two yellow and green lines with a blue diamond on the center of the lines running on each half of the helmet (forming a X in the sides) and around the visor; on the top there was a blue drop. In 2004, silver and chrome flames were incorporated in the design by Fisichella's then painter, Carsten Meurer of MRC Design. In 2007, Barney Stinton, part of Fisichella's management team incorporated the Italian colours into the design and the helmet was realised by Jens Munser of JMD, a design he uses to this day. Whilst at Renault it featured a light blue ring. Once at Ferrari, his helmet turned black and grey.

In 2004, whilst racing for Sauber, Fisichella became the first driver in Formula 1 to have his HANS device painted in his colours, Massa followed soon after and then the rest of the grid had theirs painted.

Sports cars
Fisichella made his sports car racing debut in 2010 by driving for AF Corse in a Ferrari F430 in the Le Mans Series as well as briefly in the American Le Mans Series as part of the Ferrari deal he signed in mid-2009. In 2011, Fisichella, co-driver Gianmaria Bruni, and team AF Corse won both the driver's and team's championships in the LM GTE Pro class of the Le Mans Series, by finishing second at Le Mans and won the 1000 km of Spa and helped AF Corse win the team's championship in the Intercontinental Le Mans Cup.

In 2012, Fisichella was again with AF Corse and took part in the 2012 World Endurance Championship He won the season opener and came second in Spa.

In the 80th edition of the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2012, Fisichella and the AF Corse Team scored first place in the GTE-Pro class along with his co-drivers Toni Vilander and Gianmaria Bruni; their Ferrari 458 Italia covered a total of 335 laps (2,845.53 miles), of the Circuit de la Sarthe. Fisichella had the honor of driving the last stage of the competition. After a difficult 2013 Fisichella moved to the TUSCC Series in America to race for Risi Competizione but returned to AF Corse and teammates Bruni and Vilander for the 2014 edition the Le Mans 24hrs. After a hard-fought race, they emerged victorious covering 339 laps, 4 more than their 2012 win tally. Fisichella then returned to America and won at Road America and Virginia International Raceway, he currently lies 8th in the GT Le Mans standings.

Open Wheel Racing
In 2022, Fisichella competed in one round and 3 races at the Adelaide 500 in the S5000 category. "I am thrilled to be coming back to Australia to race S5000 – at last,” he stated. "My Formula 1 career started literally a few weeks after the last F1 race in Adelaide. I have never driven on the circuit, which is now a slightly shorter version of the GP track. I expect the S5000 car will be fast there, and I'm thrilled to be driving with Team BRM, which has a great record in racing in Australia."

Career summary
* Season still in progress.

Complete International Touring Car Championship
† Driver did not finish the race, but was classified as he completed over 90% of the race distance.

Complete Formula One results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap) † Driver did not finish the race, but was classified as he completed over 90% of the race distance.

Complete International Superstars Series results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete FIA World Endurance Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete IMSA SportsCar Championship results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; results in italics indicate fastest lap)

Personal life
Fisichella is related to the so named Italian noble family, forming part of the Sicilian nobility.

Fisichella married Luna Castellani on 10 October 2009. They have three children: Carlotta, Christopher and Carolina.

He is a supporter of Italian Serie A side Roma, and captain of the official Nazionale Piloti association football team.

Fisichella has a cameo appearance in the 2019 film The Art of Racing in the Rain, playing a Scuderia Ferrari crew member in the closing scenes.

title: Giancarlo Fisichella


text:
Rally for the Republic – Republican Party of Czechoslovakia

The Rally for the Republic – Republican Party of Czechoslovakia (Sdružení pro republiku - Republikánská strana Československa, abbreviated to Republikáni or SPR–RSČ) is a minor political party in the Czech Republic, strongly opposed to the EU, NATO and immigration. The party and its leader Miroslav Sládek are particularly known for their radical attitudes towards Roma people (antiziganism) and Germans.

History
The party was founded on December 30, 1989 as one of the first political parties in post-communist Czechoslovakia. It peaked in the 1996 Czech legislative election with 8% of the vote (485,072 electors, 18 seats in the 200-seat Chamber of Deputies) but declined after that, and in 2001 disbanded due to financial irregularities – specifically the theft of party funds by the chairman, who used the money to fund his luxury lifestyle.

The party was reestablished in 2001 as Republicans of Miroslav Sládek (RMS, Republikáni Miroslava Sládka). Sládek immediately set up a new party; to distinguish it from the other "republican" parties his name was added. The new party failed to attract a significant number of votes (0.9% during 2002 Czech legislative election was the highest). For the 2006 elections RMS joined with the National Party, which obtained 0.1% of votes. The number of active members was estimated to be in the dozens at most.

On May 17, 2008 this new party merged with five other minor parties to form the SPR–RSČ. The renewed party chose Sládek as chairman, yet even after the merger the party failed to gain political traction. For non-compliance with statutory obligations, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (acting on a Czech government proposal) decided in December 2010 to temporarily suspend the Republican party's activities. Finally, on 15 May 2013, the Court ordered its complete dissolution.

The party was reestablished once again in February 2016 under the name Rally for the Republic – Republican Party of Czechoslovakia 2016.