text:
Dry county

In the United States, a dry county is a county whose government forbids the sale of any kind of alcoholic beverages. Some prohibit off-premises sale, some prohibit on-premises sale, and some prohibit both. The vast majority of counties now permit the sale of alcohol in at least some circumstances, but some dry counties remain, mostly in the Southern United States; the largest number are in Arkansas, where 34 counties are dry.

A number of smaller jurisdictions also exist, such as cities, towns, and townships, which prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages and are known as dry cities, dry towns, or dry townships. Dry jurisdictions can be contrasted with "wet" (in which alcohol sales are allowed and regulated) and "moist" (in which some sales of alcohol are permitted, or a dry county containing wet cities).

History
In 1906, just over half of U.S. counties were dry. The proportion was larger in some states; for example, in 1906, 54 of Arkansas's 75 counties were completely dry, influenced by the anti-liquor campaigns of the Baptists (both Southern and Missionary) and Methodists.

Although the 21st Amendment repealed nationwide Prohibition in the United States, prohibition under state or local laws is permitted. Prior to and after repeal of nationwide Prohibition, some states passed local option laws granting counties and municipalities, either by popular referendum or local ordinance, the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow alcoholic beverages within their jurisdiction. Many dry communities do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol, which could potentially cause a loss of profits and taxes from the sale of alcohol to their residents in wet (non-prohibition) areas.

The reason for maintaining prohibition at the local level is often religious in nature, as many evangelical Protestant Christian denominations discourage the consumption of alcohol by their followers (see Christianity and alcohol, sumptuary law, and Bootleggers and Baptists).

A 2018 study of wet and dry counties in the U.S. found that "Even controlling for current religious affiliations, religious composition following the end of national Prohibition strongly predicts current alcohol restrictions."

In rural Alaska, restrictions on alcohol sales are motivated by problems with alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related crime.

Transport
Since the 21st Amendment repealed nationwide Prohibition in the United States, alcohol prohibition legislation has been left to the discretion of each state, but that authority is not absolute. States within the United States and other sovereign territories were once assumed to have the authority to regulate commerce with respect to alcohol traveling to, from, or through their jurisdictions. However, one state's ban on alcohol may not impede interstate commerce between states who permit it. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Granholm v. Heald (2005) that states do not have the power to regulate interstate shipments of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, it may be likely that municipal, county, or state legislation banning possession of alcoholic beverages by passengers of vehicles operating in interstate commerce (such as trains and interstate bus lines) would be unconstitutional if passengers on such vehicles were simply passing through the area. Following two 1972 raids on Amtrak trains in Kansas and Oklahoma, dry states at the time, the bars on trains passing through the two states closed for the duration of the transit, but the alcohol stayed on board.

Prevalence
A 2004 survey by the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association found that more than 500 municipalities in the United States are dry, including 83 in Alaska. Of Arkansas's 75 counties, 34 are dry. 36 of the 82 counties in Mississippi were dry or moist by the time that state repealed its alcoholic prohibition on January 1, 2021, the date it came into force, making all its counties "wet" by default and allowing alcohol sales unless they vote to become dry again through a referendum. In Florida, three of its 67 counties are dry, all of which are located in the northern part of the state, an area that has cultural ties to the Deep South.

Moore County, Tennessee, the home county of Jack Daniel's, a major American producer of whiskey, is a dry county and so the product is not available at stores or restaurants within the county. The distillery, however, sells commemorative bottles of whiskey on site.

Traveling to purchase alcohol
A study in Kentucky suggested that residents of dry counties have to drive farther from their homes to consume alcohol, thus increasing impaired driving exposure, although it found that a similar proportion of crashes in wet and dry counties are alcohol-related.

Other researchers have pointed to the same phenomenon. Winn and Giacopassi observed that residents of wet counties most likely have "shorter distances (to travel) between home and drinking establishments". From their study, Schulte and colleagues postulate that "it may be counter productive in that individuals are driving farther under the influence of alcohol, thus, increasing their exposure to crashes in dry counties".

Data from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) showed that in Texas, the fatality rate in alcohol-related accidents in dry counties was 6.8 per 10,000 people over a five-year period. That was three times the rate in wet counties: 1.9 per 10,000. A study in Arkansas came to a similar conclusion - that accident rates were higher in dry counties than in wet.

Another study in Arkansas noted that wet and dry counties are often adjacent and that alcoholic beverage sales outlets are often located immediately across county or even on state lines.

Tax revenue
Another issue a dry city or county may face is the loss of tax revenue because drinkers are willing to drive across city, county or state lines to obtain alcohol. Counties in Texas have experienced this problem, which led to some of its residents to vote towards going wet to see their towns come back to life commercially. Although the idea of bringing more revenue and possibly new jobs to a town may be appealing from an economic standpoint, moral opposition remains present.

Crime
One study finds that the shift from bans on alcohol to legalization causes an increase in crime. The study finds that "a 10% increase in drinking establishments is associated with a 3 to 5% increase in violent crime. The estimated relationship between drinking establishments and property crime is also positive, although smaller in magnitude".

Dry and moist counties in Kentucky had a higher rate of meth lab seizures than wet counties; a 2018 study of Kentucky counties concluded that "meth lab seizures in Kentucky would decrease by 35% if all counties became wet."

title: Dry county


text:
McCanles Gang

The McCanles Gang (later changed to McCandless) was an alleged outlaw gang active in the early 1860s that was accused of train robbery, bank robbery, cattle rustling, horse theft, and murder. On July 12, 1861, some of its supposed members, including alleged leader David Colbert McCanles, were killed by "Wild Bill" Hickok during a confrontation at a Pony Express station in the Nebraska Territory. The incident was among the earliest to frame Hickok's later reputation as a legendary gunfighter.

Historians have since argued that the victims of the shooting were innocent and that their only crime was to cross paths with Hickok. Questions remain surrounding the veracity of the allegations of the gang's crimes, and whether the McCanles Gang ever existed at all.

McCanles incident
The legend of the McCanles "Gang" has been traced to a single incident between a young Hickok (not yet known as "Wild Bill") and a rancher named David Colbert McCanles at Rock Creek Station, a stagecoach and Pony Express station in southern Nebraska, near present-day Fairbury. McCanles, a former sheriff of Watauga County, North Carolina, was known as a local bully and had earlier had an argument with Hickok over the latter "stealing" his mistress, Sarah (Kate) Shull.

Background
Prior to the incident, McCanles leased a cabin and well on the east side of Rock Creek to the Russell, Waddell, and Majors freight company to be used as a relay station for the Overland Stage Company and the Pony Express mail service. The company hired Horace G. Wellman as station agent. Wellman later arranged to purchase the land in installments. In April or early May 1861, 23-year-old James Butler Hickok was hired by the station as a stock tender. He quickly became a target of harassment by McCanles, who teased Hickok about his girlish build and nicknamed him "Duck Bill" for his long nose and protruding lips.

The freight company soon fell behind on paying its installments, and on July 12, 1861, McCanles arrived at the station with his 12-year-old son Monroe (or William Monroe), his cousin James Woods, and another employee, James Gordon, demanding to see Horace Wellman in order to collect a long-overdue payment. There are several different versions of what happened next. In some versions, McCanles was initially met by Wellman's wife and Hickok at the door, who told him that Wellman was either unavailable or unwilling to meet with him. Other accounts suggest that Wellman himself was present for the confrontation. At some point, either by invitation or by force, McCanles entered the station cabin and argued with the occupants. He was then shot by Hickok, who was hiding behind a curtain. McCanles's son immediately rushed into the building. Woods and Gordon, like McCanles, were unarmed and attempted to flee, but Hickok stepped from the cabin and wounded both with his pistols. The two men were then killed by other members of the relay station. Gordon was killed by station employee J. W. "Doc" Brink with a shotgun blast; Woods was killed by Horace Wellman (or Wellman's wife), who hacked him to death with a gardening hoe. Hickok was not reported as wounded. During the attack, McCanles's son Monroe was able to escape via a dry creekbed.

This violent encounter was an early contributor to Hickok's reputation as a legendary gunman, as reported years later in Harper's Monthly, where the story was wildly sensationalized. According to the story, Hickok single-handedly killed the nine "desperadoes, horse-thieves, murderers, and regular cutthroats" known as the McCanles Gang "in the greatest one man gunfight in history." During the battle, Hickok (armed with a pistol, a rifle, and a Bowie knife), purportedly suffered 11 bullet wounds.

Aftermath
David McCanles's brother James immediately filed for an arrest warrant for "Duck Bill", Wellman, and "Dock" Brink, who were charged with the murders. When the case was brought to trial, Monroe McCanles, the only surviving witness on the State's side, who had been subpoenaed to testify, was not permitted by the judge to take the stand and the court heard only the account given by the station employees. The judge ruled that the defendants had acted in self-defense.

From The DeWitt Times News, as told by the foreman of the company stations:

"At the time of this affair I was at a station farther west and reached this station just as Wild Bill was getting ready to go to Beatrice for his trial. He wanted me to go with him and as we started on our way, imagine my surprise and uncomfortable feeling when he announced his intention of stopping at the McCanles home. I would have rather been somewhere else, but Bill stopped. He told Mrs. McCanles he was sorry he had to kill her man then took out $35 [$0 in dollars] and gave it to her saying: 'This is all I have, sorry I do not have more to give you.' We drove on to Beatrice and at the trial, his plea was self-defense, no one appeared against him and he was cleared. The trial did not last more than fifteen minutes."

After this tragedy, some of the McCanles family moved to Florence, Colorado, and changed the spelling of the name to McCandless. Hickok, making use of his new notoriety also changed his name after this incident. After growing a moustache to hide his protruding upper lip, he encouraged people to call him "Wild Bill" instead of "Duck Bill".

Later witness accounts
The first account was published around 1882 by S. C. Jenkins and S. J. Alexander, who had arrived at the ranch within two hours of the shootout taking place and before the bodies were removed. According to them, David McCanles' brother James was a Southern sympathizer and had tried to persuade Hickok to join him and turn over the stage company's stock. After Hickok's refusal, James threatened to kill him. Later that afternoon, David and three others arrived with the intention of carrying out the threat.

In 1883, D. M. Kelsey published Our Pioneer Heroes and Their Daring Deeds, which contained a biography for "Wild Bill" based on Hickok's own accounts. Hickok claimed he had killed six of the ten members of the McCanles Gang, who had rushed in after using a log to batter the station door down. Two of these he claimed to have killed in a knife fight after he was wounded.

"I remember that one of them struck me with his gun, and I got hold of a knife, and then I got kind o' wild like, and it was all cloudy, and I struck savage blows, following the devils up from one side of the room to the other and into the corners, striking and slashing until I knew every one was dead."

The remaining four attackers then fled, and Hickok picked up a rifle and shot one dead; another later died of his wounds. He continued:

"All of a sudden, it seemed like my heart was on fire. I was bleeding everywhere. I rushed out to the well and drank from the bucket, and then tumbled down in a faint."

The dead, according to Hickok, included David McCanles's brothers James and Jack LeRoy McCanles; however, according to records, Jack LeRoy McCanles was still alive in 1883 and was a "good citizen" of Florence, Colorado.

An account by William Monroe McCanles (the son of David McCanles) appeared in the Fairbury Journal on September 25, 1930. Monroe maintained that he had gone with his father to the station to collect money and that they had been unarmed:

"Probably the motive for killing was fear. Father had told Mrs. Wellman to tell her husband to come out. The Wellmans were the folks who lived there and kept the station. She said he wouldn't and father said if he wouldn't come out he would go in and drag him out. I think rather than be man-handled, he killed father."

"Buffalo Bill" Cody's visit to Major Israel McCreight at the Wigwam in Du Bois, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 1908, remains a notable event in Wild West history. On this occasion, Monroe McCanles was McCreight's houseguest and told Buffalo Bill about his father Dave McCanles having been shot by "Wild Bill" Hickok. The "McCanles Incident" was then the subject of controversy and debate by Wild West historians. Monroe McCanles disclosed that at the age of twelve he had stood beside his father Dave McCanles when Hickok shot him dead from behind a curtain. For the first time, Buffalo Bill heard an alternative account of the event and remarked that he would include the story in his projected autobiography. McCreight wrote articles about the "McCanles Incident" for the rest of his life.

Legacy
Another son of David Colbert McCanles, Julius McCandless, was the father of Commodore Byron McCandless, USN, recipient of the Navy Cross in World War I. David's great-grandson was Rear Admiral Bruce McCandless, USN, recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II, and his great-great-grandson was Captain Bruce McCandless II, USN, the NASA astronaut who made the first untethered spacewalk.

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

title: McCanles Gang


text:
Leonardo Loredan

Leonardo Loredan (Lunardo Loredan ; 16 November 1436 – 22 June 1521) was a Venetian nobleman and statesman who reigned as the 75th Doge of Venice from 1501 until his death in 1521. As a wartime ruler, he was one of the most important doges in the history of Venice. In the dramatic events of the early 16th century, Loredan's Machiavellian plots and cunning political manoeuvres against the League of Cambrai, the Ottomans, the Mamluks, the Pope, the Republic of Genoa, the Holy Roman Empire, the French, the Egyptians and the Portuguese saved Venice from downfall.

Born into the noble Loredan family in 1436, Leonardo dedicated his youth to classical education, after which he focused on trade in Africa and the Levant, in line with family tradition. Legend has it that in Africa a fortune-teller predicted for him the future of a prince in his homeland. In 1461 he married Morosina Giustiniani, whose influential family, according to some historians, played a significant role in his election as Doge later on.

He began his political ascent as a lawyer in a legal magistracy concerned mainly with financial scandals and bankruptcies, which he followed with an illustrious career that included positions such as Sage of the College, Sage of the Terraferma, Camerlengo di Comùn, Podestà of Padua, ducal councillor for Cannaregio, and finally Procurator of Saint Mark, one of the highest and most distinguished offices in the Venetian Republic, which allowed him to rise to the political top of the state. In October 1501, he was elected the 75th Doge of Venice.

Loredan's reign began during the disastrous Second Ottoman–Venetian War, which he settled with a peace treaty in 1503 at the cost of considerable loss of territory. Later that year a dispute arose between Loredan and Pope Julius II, after Venice occupied territory in the northern Papal States. This escalated into the 1509 War of the League of Cambrai, in which Venice was fighting an alliance of the Pope and France. Venice was defeated, but in 1513 Loredan formed a new alliance with the French King Louis XII against Pope Julius. This resulted in a decisive victory.

It was under his rule, in 1516, that a decree was enacted to formally isolate the Jews of Venice. Thus was created the first “Ghetto” in the world, from which all others derive their name.

Despite his last years being laden with financial and political scandals, some artfully mounted by rival families, Loredan died with great fame in June 1521 and was interred in the Basilica of Saints John and Paul, in a simple grave which no longer exists. In 1572, a monumental tomb was erected for him in the Basilica, adorned with Corinthian columns made of Carrara marble, which included work by architects and sculptors Girolamo Grappiglia, Girolamo Campagna and Danese Cattaneo.

Loredan was portrayed in numerous portraits and paintings, the most famous of which being the Portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan, painted by Giovanni Bellini in 1501 and now on display in the National Gallery in London. In 1507, Bellini painted Loredan with his four sons in the Portrait of the Loredan family, now on display at the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin. Loredan was also notably portrayed by Vittore Carpaccio, and posthumously by Pompeo Batoni in a work known as The Triumph of Venice (1737), where he is depicted in front of the Doge's Palace surrounded by mythological figures symbolising his victory over the League of Cambrai. In 1503, the Panegyricus Leonardo Lauredano was created in his honour.

Early life and marriage
Leonardo Loredan was born in Venice on 16 November 1436 as the eldest son of Gerolamo Loredan di S. Vitale, known as dal Barbaro, and of Donata Donà di Natale, niece of the archbishop of Candia Pietro. From childhood Leonardo demonstrated "exceptional maturity, combined with goodness and with the most noble talent of genius", as the historian Andrea Navagero testified. After a good classical education, he devoted himself with some success to trade in North Africa and the Levant, to increase the family's finances. Legend has it that while in Africa a fortune-teller predicted for him the future of a prince in his homeland.

He had a brother, Pietro (1466–1510), of poor health and unstable character, dedicated to studying alchemy in Padua, where he had moved, and disinterested in political life. In the will drawn up in February 1474 in Padua where he was podestà, the father designated Leonardo as the executor of the will and the sole heir of the estate and granted Pietro an annuity of 250 ducats. He also had a sister, Caterina Loredan, who later became Dogaressa of Venice by marriage to Doge Antonio Grimani: “The Loredanian tradition for patriotism and nobility was handed on in the gracious personage of Dogaressa Caterina Loredan, sister of Doge Leonardo Loredan – the Consort of his successor Doge Antonio Grimani.”

In 1461 Leonardo married Giustina Giustiniani di Pancrazio di Marco, of the wealthy branch of San Moisè, who died in 1500, one year before Leonardo became Doge, and with whom he had nine children: the procurator Lorenzo (1462–1534), Girolamo (1468–1532), the only one to continue the branch, Alvise (1472–1521), Vincenzo (died in Tripoli in 1499), Bernardo (1481–1519), Donata, wife of Giacomo Gussoni da S. Vitale, Maria, wife of Giovanni Venier, of the branch that gave birth to Doge Francesco Venier (1554–56), Paola, wife of Giovanni Alvise Venier, descendant of Doge Antonio Venier (1382–1400), and Elisabetta, wife of Zaccaria Priuli.

Some historians claim that his election as Doge in October 1501 was not entirely due to his talent as a politician but also because his wife came from the very influential Giustiniani family.

Political career
Loredan began his political ascent on 13 December 1455, at the age of nineteen, when he became a lawyer in the Giudici di Petizion, a magistracy concerned mainly with financial scandals and bankruptcies, for which he had Filippo Loredan as guarantor. A few years later, Leonardo sat on the Savi del Consiglio where he was responsible for assessing and evaluating foreign policy matters prior to their examination in the Senate. On 13 November 1468 he became consul of the Merchants and on 15 November 1473 he was elected Camerlengo di Comun. In 1480, along with Marco and Agostino Soranzo, Andrea Erizzo, Paolo Contarini and Nicolò Donà, he was chosen to administer approximately 30,000 ducats, collected through free donations from devotees of the miraculous image of the Virgin, to be used for the construction of the church dedicated to S. Maria dei Miracoli, in the district of S. Leone (Cannaregio), designed by Pietro Lombardo and his sons. In 1481 he was elected as a Savio di Terraferma and in November 1483 he was among the electors of Doge Marco Barbarigo.

Between 1485 and 1486 he was still appointed Savio del Consiglio, and on 29 April 1487 he was elected mayor of Padua, taking over from Antonio Venier. He held this position until 1489, when he was elected to the prestigious position of ducal councillor. In 1490 he was called again as a Savio del Consiglio. On 1 August 1491 he was re-elected ducal councillor for the Cannaregio district and in 1492 he returned as Savio del Consiglio. In July 1492, Loredan secured the election to one of the most distinguished offices of the Republic, that of Procurator of Saint Mark, which allowed him to rise to the political pinnacle of the state. On 3 May 1493 he was among the Governatori alle Entrate and from 1495 to 1501 he was continuously re-elected Savio del Consigli. In his capacity as procurator and also as Savio del Consigli, he was among the three designated by Doge Agostino Barbarigo, on 31 March 1495, to negotiate the alliance between Venice, Pope Alexander VI, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg, the Spanish rulers Ferdinand V and Isabella I and the Duke of Milan Ludovico Maria Sforza (Henry VII of England also joined), with the aim of countering the military operations of the King of France Charles VIII who had, almost without encountering resistance, entered Naples in February. The army of the League, led by the Marquis of Mantua Francesco II Gonzaga, in the Battle of Fornovo on 6 July forced the French army to withdraw from Italian territory. In October of the same year, Loredan signed the agreement for the conduct of Nicolò Orsini, count of Pitigliano, to the services of the Republic of Venice as captain-general of the land forces for a period of three to four years. In January 1497, Loredan, with the Savio di Terraferma Lodovico Venier, ratified the surrender of Taranto on behalf of the doge.

On 11 July 1501, Loredan was appointed podestà in Cremona by the Senate, but he refused.

On the death of Barbarigo (20 September 1501), Loredan was one of the designated candidates in the election of the new doge, which began on 27 September, and finished on 2 October with Loredan coming out first (with 27 votes in the sixth hand of the first ballot). The election was successful thanks to his and his wife's influential relations and the sudden death of the most popular opponent, the wealthy procurator Filippo Tron, son of Doge Nicolò Tron. The announcement was made by the procurator Nicolò Mocenigo and celebrated by the scholars, with numerous praises then given to the press.

War with the Ottomans
At the time of his accession to the dogeship, Venice was engaged in the Second Ottoman–Venetian War, which had started in 1499. Loredan had lost his cousin Andrea Loredan, a naval officer, in the disastrous Battle of Zonchio, and the war had proceeded badly on land too, with the Venetians losing considerable territory. This included the strategic city of Modon, which was the site of a bloody battle involving hand-to-hand combat, followed by the beheading of hundreds of Venetians after the Turkish victory. The war took a heavy toll on the Venetian economy and in 1502–1503 Loredan agreed a peace treaty with the Turks. He was helped in the negotiations by Andrea Gritti, a Venetian who had been conducting trade in Constantinople and would later become doge of Venice himself. Venice paid a high price for this treaty including loss of land and a requirement to pay an annual tribute to the Turks.

War of the League of Cambrai
Upon the death of Pope Alexander VI in 1503, Venice occupied several territories in the northern Papal States. When Julius II was elected as Alexander's eventual successor, the Venetians expected their seizure of papal territory to be tacitly accepted, as Julius had been nicknamed Il Veneziano for his pro-Venetian sympathies. But instead the new Pope excommunicated the Republic and demanded the land be returned. The Republic of Venice, although willing to acknowledge Papal sovereignty over these port cities along the Adriatic coast and willing to pay Julius II an annual tribute, refused to surrender the cities themselves. In 1508, Julius formed an alliance called the League of Cambrai, uniting the Papal States with France, the Holy Roman Empire and several other Christian states.

The Doge's problems did not end in Europe. In 1509, the Battle of Diu took place, in India, where the Portuguese fleet defeated an Ottoman and Mameluk fleet, which had been transferred from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea with Venetian help. The defeat marked the end of the profitable Spice trade, which was bought by Venetians from the Mameluks in Egypt and in turn monopolised its sale in Europe, reaping great revenues from it. After losing to the league's forces at the Battle of Agnadello, Venice found its holdings in Italy shrinking drastically. Soon Padua, Venice's most strategically vital Terraferma holding, had fallen, and Venice itself was threatened. Loredan united the population, calling for sacrifice and total mobilisation. Padua was retaken, though Venice was still forced to accept a reluctant peace, following which it joined the Pope as only a junior ally in his new war against the French. The alliance was on the verge of victory, but a dispute arose over territory. Emperor Maximilian refused to surrender any Imperial territory, which in his eyes included most of the Veneto, to the Republic; to this end, he signed an agreement with the Pope to exclude Venice entirely from the final partition. When the Republic objected, Julius threatened to reform the League of Cambrai. In response, Venice turned to Louis; on 23 March 1513, a treaty pledging to divide all of northern Italy between France and the Republic was signed at Blois. Under this alliance with the French King Louis XII, the Venetians achieved a decisive victory over the Papal States, and were able to secure back all the territories they had lost. In addition, the Papacy was forced to repay many outstanding debts to the Loredan family totaling approximately 500,000 ducats, an enormous sum of money.

The end of the war and the behavior of the doge, who perhaps thought he should enjoy the last years of his life rather than dedicate them to the administration of the state, led to a certain frivolity in Venetian society. Financial scandals were the order of the day and many public offices were bought at disproportionate prices rather than obtained on merit. In this period the doge bought titles and offices for children and relatives, making the most of his influence.

Despite Loredan's wishes, he could not lead this pleasant life for long as he began to suffer from health problems. Around the first days of June 1521 his health began to deteriorate and soon gangrene developed in his leg. Any intervention was useless and the gangrene spread, killing him in the night between 20 and 21 June. It is said that, to warn the councilors and regents of the state, the news of his death was silenced by the doge's own son and was communicated only in the late morning.

Interestingly, the commercialism and non-exemplary behaviour of his final years did not escape the watchful eye of the Inquisitors of the Dead, a magistracy created after the death of Francesco Foscari, charged with investigating the final "account" of the doge. Perhaps the trial was artfully mounted for political purposes but certainly there were incriminating motives, because the heirs of the doge, despite being defended by the lawyer Carlo Contarini, one of the best of the time, were sentenced to a hefty fine of 9,500 ducats.

Death
Doge Loredan's health was never excellent, but his character and intellectual energy supported him well in his government posts. In 1514, due to an accidental fall, he was injured in the leg but never stopped presiding over the meetings of the sovereign councils. From 14 June 1521 he was no longer able to attend government meetings, due to a feverish state and his conditions worsened quickly.

He died in Venice on 22 June 1521. The death, which occurred between eight and nine, was kept secret until sixteen at the behest of the children who, during their father's agony, had no regard for transporting furniture and objects from the doge's apartment to their residence. As is customary, the body was subjected to embalming practices. On the morning of 23 June, after the body was moved to the Piovego room of the Doge's Palace, the coffin was closed. At the solemn funeral the eulogy was read by the scholar Andrea Navagero, and Pietro Bembo, then abbot and secretary of Pope Leo X, was also present.

Loredan died "with great fame as a prince". He was interred in the church of Santi Giovanni e Paolo, in a simple tomb with a celestial marble headstone without inscription, placed above the steps of the main altar and now no longer existing. In about 1572, and after some disputes between the heirs and the friars of the church, a funeral monument was erected for him, divided into three parts and adorned with Corinthian columns in Carrara marble, placed to the left of the main altar, with architecture by Girolamo Grappiglia, and adorned with an extremely lifelike statue, an early work by the sculptor Girolamo Campagna, which depicts him in the act of "getting up and boldly throwing himself in defence of Venice against Europe conspired in Cambrai". On its right was the statue of Venice with sword in hand and on the left that of the League of Cambrai, with the shield adorned with the heraldic coats of arms of the opposing powers (these, and the others in the monument were done by Danese Cattaneo, a pupil of Sansovino).

Ancestry
Note: The branch of Santo Stefano is also known as the branch of San Vidal (San Vitale).

Note: There are some generations missing between Girolamo Loredan (1468–1532) and Francesco Loredan (17th century).

Note: Giustina Giustiniani (d. 1500), the wife of Doge Leonardo Loredan (1436–1521), is also known as Morosina Giustiniani.

Note: Caterina Loredan, Dogaressa of Venice, is featured in the family tree as the daughter of Gerolamo Loredan (d. 1474) and Donata Donà because, in some sources, she is mentioned as the sister of Doge Leonardo Loredan (1436–1521), although she may have been a daughter of Domenico Loredan.

Interestingly, near the Palazzo Contarini-Sceriman and the nearby bridge, Leonardo Loredan (d. 1675) was found dead in a boat. The unexplained death was the source of many rumors, claiming accidental death, murder by relatives, or murder by the Inquisitors of the Republic.

Andrea Loredan (d. 1750) died young, thus ending the male (agnatic) line of the branch of Santo Stefano.

In painting
Giovanni Bellini's portrait of Loredan is notable for being one of the first frontal portraits of a reigning doge; throughout the Middle Ages, mortal men had been portrayed in profile, while the frontal view had been reserved for more sacred subjects. Bellini's portrait was painted in 1501–02, and hangs in the National Gallery, London.

Over two centuries later, when Pompeo Batoni was given a detailed programme for his large Triumph of Venice (1737) by the Odescalchi cardinal who commissioned it, Loredan was chosen to represent the office of Doge, standing amid a group of allegorical personifications.

title: Leonardo Loredan


text:
Comity

In law, comity is "a principle or practice among political entities such as countries, states, or courts of different jurisdictions, whereby legislative, executive, and judicial acts are mutually recognized." It is an informal and non-mandatory courtesy to which a court of one jurisdiction affords to the court of another jurisdiction when determining questions where the law or interests of another country are involved. Comity is founded on the concept of sovereign equality among states and is expected to be reciprocal.

Etymology
The term comity was derived in the 16th century from the French comité, meaning association and from the Latin cōmitās, meaning courtesy and from cōmis, friendly, courteous.

Comity may also be referred to as judicial comity or comity of nations.

History of comity (thirteenth century to nineteenth century)
The doctrine of international comity has been described variously "as a choice-of-law principle, a synonym for private international law, a rule of public international law, a moral obligation, expediency, courtesy, reciprocity, utility, or diplomacy. Authorities disagree on whether comity is a rule of natural law, custom, treaty, or domestic law. Indeed, there is not even agreement that comity is a rule of law at all." Because the doctrine touches on many different principles, it is regarded as "one of the more confusing doctrines evoked in cases touching upon the interests of foreign states." The principle of comity has been questioned and even rejected by many scholars throughout the years; however, the use of the term remains present in case law.

European jurists have been wrestling with the decision to apply foreign law since the thirteenth century. As the popularity of commerce outside of the locality grew, the need to find a new way to resolve conflicts of law issues arose. The preexisting system known as statutism became too complex and arbitrary to keep up with the societal values of the time.

A group of Dutch jurists created the doctrine of international comity in the late seventeenth century, most prominently Ulrich Huber. Huber and others sought a way to handle conflicts of law more pragmatically to reinforce the idea of sovereign independence. At the core of his ideas surrounding comity was the respect of one sovereign nation to another. Huber wrote that comitas gentium ("civility of nations") required the application of foreign law in certain cases because sovereigns "so act by way of comity that rights acquired within the limits of a government retain their force everywhere so far as they do not cause prejudice to the powers or rights of such government or of their subjects." Huber "believed that comity was a principle of international law" but also that "the decision to apply foreign law itself was left up to the state as an act of free will."

Huber did not believe comity was a stand-alone principle but rather saw it as a basis for building concrete rules and doctrines of law. At the time of its inception in the common law, comity was an attractive principle as the United States and England were in search for a foundational principle by which they could build conflicts of law rules.

A century after Huber, Lord Mansfield, known for being Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench in England for three decades, introduced the doctrine of comity to the English law. Lord Mansfield viewed the application of comity as discretionary, with courts applying foreign law "except to the extent that it conflicted with principles of natural justice or public policy." He demonstrated this principle in Somerset v Stewart (King's Bench 1772), which held that slavery was so morally odious that a British court would not recognize the property rights of an American slaveholder in his slave out of comity. English courts and scholars adopted Lord Mansfield ideas on comity and provides a new means for courts to recognize foreign law where the application of English law would lead to injustices.

Comity was most famously introduced to the American common law by the American jurist Justice Joseph Story in the early nineteenth century. Much like Huber, Story sought to develop a new system of private international law that reflected the new commercial needs of the United States. Similar to Lord Mansfield, Story stressed the importance of justice in comity and that comity is a stand-alone principle that derives from mutual benefit. Story's view, which ultimately prevailed, was that the consensual or voluntary application of comity doctrine would foster trust among states, "localize the effect of slavery," and reduce the risk of civil war.

In the mid-nineteenth century, John Westlake advanced further the idea that States ought to act with comity for reasons of justice in his Treatise on Private International Law. Westlake is praised for adopting Huber’s comity in the English law; he rejected Story’s approach. Westlake states that conflict rules are an instance of domestic sovereignty and therefore, the duty to recognize foreign law must be found as a reason within English law itself.

United States
In the law of the United States, the Comity Clause is another term for the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Article Four of the United States Constitution, which provides that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Article Four as a whole—which includes the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Extradition Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause—has been described as the "interstate comity" article of the Constitution.

In the case of Bank of Agusta v Earl, the court adopted Justice Joseph Story’s doctrine of comity. At the end of the ninetieth century, the US Supreme Court delivered the classic statement on comity in the decision of Hilton v. Guyot (1895). The court stated that the enforcement of a foreign judgment was a matter of comity is viewed as the "classic" statement of comity in international law. The Court held in that case:

"'Comity,' in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws."

This case continues to be the leading case cited by American courts when articulating the doctrine of comity. It is an important decision for the country as it articulates the definition of comity and does so in a more broad way than previously. Despite the broad definition in Hilton v Guyot, the court refused to enforce the French judgment based on reciprocity, as France would not have enforced an equivalent judgment. This decision differed from Justice Joseph Story’s idea of comity as his idea of comity was concerned with sovereign interests and was rather concerned with reciprocity.

The United States faced significant advancement in its global standing as a military and economic power after the Second World War, and this transformed the principle of comity into something that more closely resembled an obligation to apply foreign law. After the Cold War, the Supreme Court heard the case of Hartford Fire Insurance Co v California. In this case, Justice Souter gave the opinion that one only considers comity where there is a “true conflict between domestic and foreign law”. In the dissent, Justice Scalia argues that extraterritorial jurisdiction must consider international comity to ensure international law is not violated. More than ten years later, the Supreme Court heard the decision of F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v Empagran, S.A. where Justice Kennedy writing for the majority adopted Justice Scalia’s dissent.

In the United States, certain foreign defamation judgments are not recognized under the SPEECH Act (a federal statute enacted in 2010), which supersedes the comity doctrine. The Act aims to stop "libel tourism."

Professional Licensure
In the United States, some states and territories recognize professional engineer licenses granted in a different jurisdiction, depending on the holder's education and experience (a practice called "licensure by comity"). Rules differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

England and Wales
By the end of the nineteenth century, comity had received judicial approval in English law as a foundational principle to private international law. In 1896, Professor Dicey published “Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws” that criticized the doctrine of comity on the basis that it is too vague as it promoted the recognition of foreign laws depending on option.

Despite the debate on the role of the principle of comity in academia, the Supreme Court and the House of Lords have recognized the role of comity in England and Wales. However, the courts have yet to adopt a precise definition of comity. The case law indicates that comity is relevant in the consideration of determining what effect another state's laws or judicial power should have in England in a given case.

Canada (excluding Quebec)
Unlike the United States of America and Australia, the principle of comity or Full Faith and Credit of recognizing judgments across the country is not recognized in the Canadian constitution or other authoritative bases. However, beginning in the 1990s the courts started to discuss the principle of comity as it relates interprovincially and internationally in a series of cases and adopted the principle of comity as a critical feature underlying Canadian private international law.

Morguard Investments Ltd. v De Savoye was the first case in this series considering comity in Canadian law. The common law reflected the principle from England that one of the basic tenets of international law is that sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their territory. Therefore, before this decision, Canadian courts were conservative in recognizing foreign judgments, including those obtained in other Canadian provinces' courts. Justice La Forest acknowledges that the common law approach is not grounded in the realities of modern times as states cannot live in complete isolation due to travel, flow of wealth, skills and people. Especially interprovincially, the Canadian Constitution was created to form a single country; therefore, there is no foundation for differential quality of justice in the Canadian judicial structure. In response to modern-day values, Justice LaForest notes the Supreme Court of the United States' approach to comity in Hilton v Guyot and explains that comity is a necessary principle to ensure order and fairness in modern-day transactions. Still, it is not a matter of absolute obligation but rather a voluntary matter based on common interests. Comity is not only based on respect for foreign sovereignty but also convenience and necessity, and the court held that the principle of comity called for a more liberal approach to foreign judgments. The court chose to revise the common law test and enforce a judgment with a "real and substantial connection" between the action or damages suffered and the adjudicating jurisdiction. This decision had important implications for both interprovincial and international litigations as Canadian courts began to engage with the comity in judgment enforcement.

The following case addressing comity was Hunt v T&N; the court elaborated on their decision in Morguard by stating that comity is “grounded in notions of order and fairness to participants”. Hunt v T&N is not about enforcement of judgment but rather about the constitutional validity of provincial legislation and its effect on another province's legislation to the proceeding before it. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada rewrote the rules on the extraterritorial effects of provincial legislation. These extraterritorial effects of provincial legislation will be assessed according to the principle of comity.

In the case of Tolofson v Jensen, the court answers the question of which law should govern in tort when the interest of more than one jurisdiction is involved. The court determines that the law of where the tort occurred should apply, this is known as lex loci delicti. Justice La Forest clearly reaffirmed the importance of comity in private international law in the decision. The court states that the choice of law is where the tort occurred for reasons of comity, order and fairness. The court states that international comity helps ensure “harmony” in the face of potential conflicts of law.

Australia
The Australian Constitution recognizes that the Full Faith and Credit should be afforded to all common law countries: "“Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of any State.”" In case law, the High Court of Australia has never defined the meaning of comity in Australian law. However, the High Court has adopted and approved the definition of comity from the United States Supreme Court in Hilton v Guyot, with the first reference to it being in 1999 in the decision of Lipohar v The Queen. Comity has played an important role in the development and application of Australian private law. It has been used by courts most frequently in navigating sovereign sensitivities and economic realities.

European Union
The Brussels 1 Regulation requires that the judgment of the court of one member states of the European Union (absence non-consenting defendants) shall be enforced by the court of another member state.

title: Comity


text:
Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 2

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
After the wedding this page should be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. While technically it's the style of a divorced peeress it's the simplest way to combine her name and title. It should not be moved to Camilla, Princess of Wales. Even though she will legally become Princess of Wales (unless the Queen issues letters-patent stating otherwist) she won't use that title and won't be know by it. Even the Court Circular will list her as the Duchess of Cornwall. For a similiar situation see Lady Louise Windsor who is technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. (Alphaboi867 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC))

 * Since it's so important to get Camilla's title right shouldn't the article's title be changed  from "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" which is clearly wrong and inappropriate since it reflects the title of a divorced peeress (like Sarah, Duchess of York)?  What about simply "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall," which is how she is refered to at the offical website of the British royal family http://www.royal.gov.uk. Of course the artcile could be redirected from Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla Shand and any other name someone might use to look the subject up.

I agree -- to a point. But isn't Wiki convention (not always followed, obviously) to have entries labeled with birth name? I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum but if Wiki is to have a stated rule about this, we should stick to it. So what will it be? "Camilla Shand" or "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall"? Or something else altogether. Who is the final arbiter about this? BTW, would it not be easier for the entry's title to utilize the name by which she/he is most famously known, ie the one most of the world knows? Again, there must be an arbiter on this. Mowens35 10:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Convention is that articles on peers and peeresses include the title of nobility in question. Thus, the article will be at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. -- Emsworth 11:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legally, she is Princess of Wales even if she doesn't use the title. AndyL 11:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * She is, and it's right that we refer to that. However, everyone is calling her the Duchess of Cornwall, and she has asked to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb on this one - we should use the style Duchess of Cornwall for the article title, and throughout the article (although it is proper, of course, to refer to her technically being the Princess of Wales too), jguk 12:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "Duchess of Cornwall" being used in the article title, and in the introduction. However, since she is (as you admit) legally Princess of Wales, I see no problem in putting such a title in bold. -- Emsworth 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're not "going out on a limb" as the government and legal experts, without dissent, have said she is Princess of Wales regardless of what she prefers to be known as. We have a number of articles on royal which say so-and-so "styled as" such-and-such. No reason for this to be any different. She is Princess Charles, Princess of Wales styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall. That statement is 100% correct and we need not apologise for it since we are on firm ground making that statement. AndyL 12:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Andy, you are correct, and I wish more people would understand this. I have worked for years at newspapers and magazines which often get royal and aristocratic titles wrong and who disbelieve my advice, even when I crack open a copy of Burke's Peerage and show writers the errors of their ways. I am forever arguing in favor of strictest accuracy -- something for all of us to remember since we're putting together an encyclopaedia, which is all about accuracy and information properly delivered. And since so few people understand the terminology and use of titles, but blithely and happily use them like something out of a fairy tale, it is important that Wiki get it right, even if others get it wrong. Mowens35 16:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andy - I a

Surname
What will her surname be after the wedding? That info should go in the article. Pakaran 13:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * She will presumably take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Strictly speaking, however, she is a peeress, and will therefore have no legal surname. (In other words, her passport or some other legal document would not use a surname.) This is the case not only for princesses, but also for other wives of peers. -- Emsworth 13:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Pakaran 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Why would she take Mountbatten-Windsor, when Charles's surname is Windsor? RickK 07:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Charles's surname is not Windsor; it is Mountbatten-Windsor, a hyphenate combination of his mother and father's surnames, as was decided by his parents for their descendants. This is the short story. Someone can go into the complicated version if he/she has the inclination. Mowens35 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From House of Windsor: The Queen issued another Order-in-Council, confirming that she and her four children will be known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that her other male-line descendants (except those who are "HRH" and a Prince or Princess) will take the name "Mountbatten-Windsor". Any future monarch could change the dynasty name if he chose to do so. Another Order-in-Council would override those of George V and Elizabeth. For example, if the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, he could change the royal house to "Mountbatten" in honour of his father, and of his uncle Louis Mountbatten..  In other words, the Queen and all of her children are Windsor, any other descendants who are not HRH's will be Mountbatten-Windsor.  Charles is therefore a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor.  RickK 09:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Per RickK's info re the Queen's Order-in-Council, I have changed Camilla's new surname to Windsor from Mountbatten-Windsor. I have also gone to the Prince of Wales's entry and made a similar change. Mowens35 12:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have reverted to Mountbatten-Windsor, as per published information that the Prince of Wales, as well as his sister and brothers, all use Mountbatten-Windsor as their personal surnames (as opposed to the official House of Windsor name). Despite the Queen's 1960 Order-in-Council cited by RickK, the children of Queen Elizabeth II all have used Mountbatten-Windsor as the surname on their marriage banns and marriage licenses, if a quick search on Nexis-Lexis and other sources is accurate. Mowens35 12:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typo?
At the beginning the page states, "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles". Charles? Shouldn't that be Camilla? SD6-Agent 14:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Adam 15:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whilst, historically, that might be how she would have been known, that is not what she actually is known. We really need commonsense here - we should use the name she and everyone else uses first. Anything else looks silly - particularly as this is likely to be a popular page going forward.

 * It's amazing that the monarchy and aristocracy can change, but there are still some people out there that think we should be inflexible and impervious to change. Citing "this is the WP style for royalty" is really nothing more than sticking your head in the sand - WP style must adapt to the changing world out there. We're an encyclopaedia - so we report, we do not decide whether we like what we report. In actuality, she is called the Duchess of Cornwall, so that is what we should call her first up, jguk 16:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Calling her "Princess Charles" is not "historical." If you will look in your nearest copy of Burke's Peerage, circa the time Sarah Ferguson married Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, you will see that Sarah Ferguson became, technically and legally, "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York," shorted to "HRH the Duchess of York." This is the proper usage and terminology and should be used, if explained in some succinct way. Believe me, I have studied this for years, as both an editor and a writer, and this is correct. I do not think Wiki should be "inflexible and impervious" to change. However, for Wiki to blithely ignore what is correct in favor of what is easier does the encyclopaedia a disservice. As you say, "we do not decide whether we like what we report." So be accurate, even if it makes your teeth grate. Mowens35 16:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So when a female is given a royal title, her first name is legally dropped and replaced with her spouse's first name? SD6-Agent 12:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it's the same thing as a woman becoming "Mrs. John Smith"; just substitute Princess for Mr ... Mowens35 18:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well no, it is not, because if one looks at the article for Britney Spears, she is quite clearly not Mrs Kevin Federline in the introduction.Grace Note 05:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consistency
If this article is to be headed Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as it should, then why is the late Queen Mother's article headed Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and not Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother? Adam 15:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy for monarchical consorts is deeply flawed at the moment, I think. While peeresses are at their married names, unless they are better known by their maiden names, British queen-consorts are always given their maiden name, even when they are never called by that. But the only case where they are never called by it, I think, is the Queen Mum, so it works out okay. It gets more absurd when we move out to other European countries. I would note, though, that we always have a different standard for living people than we do for dead people. A living person is always at whatever name they are currently using. john k 15:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She was at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she was alive, a name she hadn't used since 1920. I objected to this before her death and was overruled. Adam 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really? The page Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon only dates back to March 30, 2002. Were you even here in 2002? john k 15:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. On checking I see it was in April last year. Adam 16:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because royal spouses don't have ordinals, it becomes a tangled mess if they are referred to by spouse name. The standard historical procedure to avoid this is to refer to a deceased spouse by means of maiden name, hence Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Howard, not Queen Catherine and. . . um. . . Queen Catherine, Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, rather than Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elizabeth. That is also why history books refer to Mary of Teck, Mary of Modena, etc. It is standard editorial practice. Usually an edition of a hardcopy comes out every decade or so, so there is time for people to revert to using maiden name when referring to a deceased spouse. Wikipedia is more complicated because it is a live encyclopaedia. But in time unless explicitly talking about her in the 1952-2001 era, most will write about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon rather than Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother I've already sat in two editorial conferences for a major encylopaedia where we discussed whether she should be entered as QE the QM or EBL. The decision was that in the next edition she will be Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. They are (this week) discussing whether to have Diana, Princess of Wales or Lady Diana Spencer. The debate is whether, given her profile as the former, it is too soon to revert to maiden name. However as there now is a new Princess of Wales (even if she isn't called that), opinion is leaning heaving towards Lady Diana Spencer. The editorial committee tends to follow the rule '5 years dead - back to the maiden name'. Fear ÉIREANN 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles going overboard
I have serious doubts about the wisdom of using styles up front rather than contextualising them in articles (many people internationally in places where styles are never ever used don't understand that calling a pope 'His Holiness' is not expressing an opinion but using a style, for example). But it is really going overboard when an article is filled with paragraphs starting ''Her Royal Highness was. . . '' etc. This is an encyclopaedia, not a pro-monarchist publication (or anti-monarchist for that matter). I've removed the ridiculous HRH stuff at the start of paragraphs and replaced it with "The Duchess of Cornwall . . . ". Come on, folks. Don't make wikipedia look ridiculous with over-use of styles. It is one thing to start an article with one, but even Charles and Camilla would find the use of styles in this article sychophantic and embarrassing. This isn't the Court Circular! Fear ÉIREANN 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, the's no need to constantly use HRH every time you mention her. Camilla or the Duchess of Cornwall will do. (Alphaboi867 00:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

 * Indeed, this is absurd. We should not use HRH to refer to her. john k 03:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Given that recommended protocol (the Palace doesn't insist on any set protocol) on talking to a member of the Royal Family is to refer to them by HRH once only when first referring to them and then Sir/Ma'm in the first person (or in this example Duchess to refer to her in third person) surely this suggestion does not only read better, but is actually quite correct.--Ayrshire--77 13:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She is NOT Princess Camilla
Will people who have no concept of how royal/aristocratic titles are used PLEASE stop making unnecessary and incorrect "corrections." The Duchess of Cornwall, though married to a Prince, is not a Princess, ie Princess Camilla. The former Princess of Wales, Diana, was aware of this and often corrected people who called her or referred to her as Princess Diana. She was technically the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, as is Camilla now, technically. This is not unlike, in the United States or elsewhere, of a woman being Mrs. John Smith. If people have any questions regarding this, please check the nearest Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, or Almanach de Gotha. Or better, yet, make a call to the British embassy or consulate near you. Sarah Ferguson became "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York," et cetera. This is correct usage. It may seem illogical to some people but it is correct usage, so please STOP fiddling with the text.

 * No, she is a princess. She is not Princess Camilla. john k 17:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am fully aware she is Princess Charles, just not Princess Camilla, as my postings have made perfectly clear and continual editing/counterediting make clear. End of subject. Mowens35 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article history is full of people making this change so I've added a comment in the wikitext itself. They don't bother to check the talk page. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grr!! I changed it from "Princess Camilla" to "Princess Charles" and someone called it vandalism! Please, read this talk page before "correcting".

Intro
I made some changes to the intro, namely:
 * the opening line should not be HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, as she is not to be known as this, and it is not the name of article
 * mention that Prince Charles is also Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, hence her use of Duchess of Cornwall title
 * only brief mention of entitlement to Princess of Wales, as this should be discussed more fully in the article. Astrotrain 16:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree and feel the "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" should be put in the "Titles" section with brief explanation as to why this is technically correct -- I've done this in "Titles". I also agree with the Cornwall and Rothesay comment and the Wales one. The only trouble is getting people to realize that this is best and not to keep going back and forth like a pendulum re introduction. Mowens35 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please stop reverting me without comment.
 * This shows an example of my clarification. You have now reverted it twice, both times without explanation.
 * The changes is as follows:
 * From:
 * [...] she wished to use her future husband's subsidiary titles of Cornwall and Rothesay. Presumably, this is because [...]
 * To:
 * [...] she wished to use the style of her subsidiary title of Duchess of Cornwall; this is presumably because [...]
 * The reasoning is quite simple - your text suggests that her useage of DoR has anything to do with Diana, something which is doesn't. Also, starting a sentence with "Presumably," is awkward, and the close relationship of the flow of logic strongly suggests the use of conjoining via a semi-colon.
 * Thoughts?
 * James F. (talk) 18:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * James, read your sentence carefully ... "she wished to use the style of her subsidiary title of Duchess of Cornwall; this is presumably because [...] ... any editor would not allow it to be printed at all due to its illogic as well as its disinformation ... At the time the decision was made for Camilla to use the Cornwall title, she was NOT married to the prince, so it was not HER subsidiary title at that time. The Cornwall and Rothesay titles were not created for her; they belong to the prince, and Camilla would take the female form upon her marriage NOT before, which is my argument against staying "her subsidiary title". It seems very clear to anybody who has been following the marriage issue that Camilla and Charles decided to have her use the Cornwall and Rothesay titles because of the outcry that would result from her using the Wales title. Anyone following the story can see that, particularly with the public polls going so much against her use of the Wales title. I have reverted with a small edit to clarify this. Mowens35 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * MOwens, read your own - your line clearly implies that her use of Charles' subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Rothesay is different from how she would normally be referenced in Scotland. It isn't. Only the failure to use "Princess of Wales" is different from normal protocol, and (presumably) related to Diana. Stop putting it back. Please.
 * James F. (talk) 12:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whilst
I add to all the other nit-picking in this discussion by noting that the word "whilst" should not be used when the word "although" can logically be substituted. The word "while" can be used, though. Yanks seem never to use "whilst" and Limies seem never to use "while". They are different words, which, while somewhat similar in meaning, are not synonymous. I have, accordingly, made a change in the subject article. Too Old 17:46, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

 * I use both - but if one word is easier for an international audience to read than another, then it's best we change it. Be bold, Too old :) jguk 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whilst, amongst and amidst are pretentious and unnecessary variations on while, among and amid, which should always be used. Adam 02:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Bollocks. Whilst is a perfectly natural construction often used by Brits, myself included. Jooler 22:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While a Yank, such as myself, would not ordinarily use the word, it would be politic to use "whilst" whilst in the UK, so as not to rile the natives. (Strange creatures, the Brits: drink warm beer, eat cold toast, and drive on the wrong side of the street.) Too Old 01:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Whilst we may be "strange creatures", we drink beer at a temperature where we can taste it, and we do not drive on the wrong side of the road (iirc you deliberately decided to drive on the right as an act of defiance - and thus it is intrinsicly wrong!) :D
 * As to the actual issue in hand, I use "whilst"/"while", "amoungst"/"amoung" and "amid"/"amidst" interchangably or in different contexts, e.g. "Whilst Bob was not a qualified mechanic, he had learned a lot while working at the garage". "With, fear, suprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope amoung their many weapons, The Spanish Inquisition was amoungst the most memorable Monty Python sketches". "Amidst the chaos of battle, the young soldier gallantly and fearlessly stood his ground and protected his wounded Captain. However when receiving his medal at the Palace he felt decidedly uncomfortable amid the Gentry and all the pomp and circumstance".
 * Those might not be the best examples ever, but its the best I could do at 3:45am! Thryduulf 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems that my original point has been missed: "while" is sometimes roughly synonymous with "although"; "whilst" is not. If you can substitute "although" for "whilst" without making the sentence nonsensical, you should use "while" instead.  In other respects "while" and "whilst" are synonymous.  Last word from me. Too Old 16:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

 * I'll stop using "whilst" in British articles when Americans stop using "sidewalk" or "raincheck" or "broil", "canola", "take out", "flatware", "pantyhose" etc.. in American ones. Jooler 08:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For the record - British beer is not warm is it just not frozen to death. Ideally should be served at about 10-12 degrees centigrade. British beer is brewed using top fermenting yeasts which rise to the top of the vat an like high temperatures. The resultant beer has a complex flavour that is reduced when served too cold. German style lagers use bottom fermenting yeasts which sink to the bottom of the vat and like cold temperatures. Before efficient refrigeration, German beer was only brewed in the colder months. Unlike lagers which are mostly unpalatable when not served chilled, British beers can be enjoyed "warm" :-) or cold. Jooler 08:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clarification needed
"Wales has said that "it is intended" that the Duchess of Cornwall will be known as the Princess Consort if he becomes King."

In this sentence, is Wales a person or a governing body? please make it more clear in the article. Kingturtle 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away or we'll end up starting the article saying "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and Great Stewardess of ScotlandAndyL

Title Problems Again
FYI: The Duchess of Cornwall's grandmother Rosalind Cubitt was NEVER "Lady Rosalind," she was born the Hon. Rosalind, daughter of a baron. A baron's daughter may be a lady but she's never a Lady with a capital L. I have changed the text back to Hon. Mowens35 08:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it not wonderful that so much time and energy is wasted on such absurdities? Bring on the republic. Adam 10:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you there Adam! Thryduulf 10:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree as well, but both of you, Adam and Thryduulf, are wasting as much "time and energy" on this entry as any of us. (And if you each of you honestly feel that way, perhaps it would be best if you attended solely to entries on which no such "absurdities" are present.) Until titles are abolished and we all somehow manage to live as mere humans, without titles of any sort, it helps to be accurate. Otherwise, why are we working on this encyclopaedia? Attention to detail, in this instance, counts immensely, otherwise we're all wasting our time, yes? By the way, I'm an editor by profession, so what you see as "absurdities" I have a professional obligation to correct and clarify. Mowens35 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nature hath no fury like a humourless editor. Adam 11:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Humorless, no, just ask anyone. A stickler for perfection, yes, I'll admit that. Mowens35 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree completely about accuarcy, but I was basically saying that life would be a whole lot simpler without all these titles. To be honest I can't even remember why I got involved in this article, as although I'm British (and a civil servant to boot) I am not that fussed either way about whether we have a monarchy or not! Thryduulf 12:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What would Sir Humphrey think! -- Emsworth 14:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article on British princess says that the term "Princess Charles" is incorrect. This certainly is consistent with the usage I've seen - eg I never heard Diana called Princess Charles. The article should also comply with WP policy and refer to the article title to begin with. In particular, (1) it seems silly to refer to Camilla by a "name" that is never, ever used; and (2) it is courteous to refer to people by a name and style that they have asked to be referred to as, rather than one which they have clearly chosen to avoid for reasons of appreciating public concerns on the point - in fact, in this case, where the "alternative" is very politically sensitive, it is even more important not to unduly highlight the alternative, jguk 18:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * and what do we do about the Duchess of Kent? She and the duke are separated and in the midst of a divorce. She long preferred to be known as Katharine Kent and now prefers to be known as Katharine Worsley. Doesn't the title of her entry need to be changed to reflect this preference at this point, if you say it is courteous to "refer to people by a name and style that they have asked to be referrred to as"? Mowens35 19:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that it's fine where it is until the divorce goes through. When she is divorced, we can move it to Katharine Worsley. On the other hand, we have Michael Ancram.  This seems a similar kind of thing, no? john k 19:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * actually, if you wanted the article title to be correct, re Wiki, we all know it is incorrect but the clearest possible title under the circumstances. She is not a divorced peeress, which is precisely what Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall implies, but again, it is the clearest entry heading ... if you want the article title to be the finest and highest arbiter, it shoul-7d530461b01be

Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpTextbox1"

title: Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 2


text:
Alex Wharton

Alex Wharton (born 1939), later also known as Alex Murray, was part of the singing duo the Most Brothers with Mickie Most, and later, co-manager and producer of the Moody Blues.

Singing and acting career
The Most Brothers worked in the famous the 2i's Coffee Bar in London's Soho. They toured the UK with early rock'n'rollers Marty Wilde, Colin Hicks (younger brother of Tommy Steele), the Tony Crombie Big Band, Cliff Richard, the Kalin Twins, and Wee Willie Harris. In 1957 they recorded on the Decca label with "Whistle Bait" and "Takes a Whole Lotta Loving to Keep My Baby Happy" before disbanding the act in 1958.

In 1959 Wharton adopted the name Murray and moved into an acting career with the Theatre Workshop company in Stratford, East London, under the direction of the theatre director Joan Littlewood. He appeared in the first production of Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'Be before transferring to London's West End theatre, Wyndam's, as understudy to Alfred Lynch in the title role of The Hostage. He played a small role in the Arnold Wesker one-act play Last Day In Dreamland at the Lyric Hammersmith, and interspersed acting in minor film roles (Never Let Go - 1960), TV parts and commercials with solo record releases on Decca.

He wrote songs with Tony Crombie before working in 1961 as A&R man at Decca Records, the youngest in the country, at 20, in the post. His first production, "Love is Like A Violin" sung by Ken Dodd, went to #8 in the UK Singles Chart. It was followed by hits with Mark Wynter; plus Rhet Stoller's "Chariot", which reached #26 in the UK. Wharton gave much needed work to jazz musicians, at a time when they were out of fashion and struggling to find work, by producing a pioneering stereophonic album, Sweet Wide and Blue, with Stan Tracy (Piano), Victor Feldman (vibes), Lenny Bush (bass), Tony Crombie (drums) and others. He also recorded albums and singles with Mantovani, Winifred Atwell, and several other Decca labelmates before leaving Decca. Portrait of My Love with Matt Monro song was released by Parlophone and peaked at #3 in the UK chart. He returned to acting and travelled to South Africa to visit Mickie Most who he helped and encouraged to produce his own records, and taught to handle a mixing desk in the studios there.

Career as manager/producer
Wharton went on to discover and manage the Moody Blues, and produced their single "Go Now". He promoted it with a music video, produced and directed by him, and filmed on 35mm at the Marquee Club, scoring a #1 UK single and a #10 US hit in early 1965. He produced another chart hit in 1970 with "Friends" by Arrival which peaked at #8 in the UK Top Ten charts. He left the music industry in 1971. In 1973, Wharton moved to Wales.

Discography

 * "Teen Angel"/"Paper Doll", Decca F11203, 1960
 * "All On My Own"/"String Along", Decca F11225, 1960
 * "When You Walked Out"/"Send For Me", Decca F11345, 1961

title: Alex Wharton


text: File:Morals and Dogma eagle.jpg

title: File:Morals and Dogma eagle.jpg


text: Category:Belgian photographers

title: Category:Belgian photographers


text:
Collectables Records

Collectables Records is an American reissue record label, founded in 1980 by Jerry Greene. Greene also formed the Lost Nite and Crimson record labels.

History
It maintains a catalogue of over 3,400 active titles on compact disc, with thousands of additional titles available on vinyl. It has released hundreds of recordings from the vaults of major labels, such as Columbia, Atlantic, RCA Victor, Capitol, Vee-Jay and others, making many available on CD for the first time. Genres found on Collectables include doo-wop, rockabilly, rock and roll, pop, rock, funk, jazz, comedy, and blues. Collectables Records released recordings by Johnny "Guitar" Watson, the Cleftones, and other doo wop albums.

Collectables Records publishes the 'Priceless Collection' series of budget compilations. Many of the label's other releases combine the contents of two original LPs on a single CD. The company also manufactures multi-CD compilation box sets sold exclusively through retailers such as QVC, Costco and Sam's Club.

Collectables is one of a group of companies, including Alpha Video, Gotham Distributing Corporation and the e-commerce website OLDIES.com, owned and operated by Jerry Greene and the Greene family.

Quality of sound
Early LPs and CDs were often dubbed from scratchy records. Both Sides Now publisher Mike Callahan (in his book of CD reviews Oldies on CD), regularly gave early Collectables' CDs low scores based on sound quality. Over the years, the sound quality has improved greatly on Collectables' releases. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Little Walter DeVenne remastered many of the label's reissues, and the company has also made extensive use of the in-house mastering and restoration services of the major labels from whom they license material.

Artists
The following artists have had at least one recording re-issued on Collectables Records.

 * 1910 Fruitgum Company
 * Gregory Abbott
 * Barbara Acklin
 * Roy Acuff
 * Faye Adams
 * Johnny Adams
 * Cannonball Adderley
 * The Addrisi Brothers
 * The Ad Libs
 * Jewel Akens
 * Al B. Sure!
 * The Alan Parsons Project
 * Lee Allen
 * Mose Allison
 * The Allman Brothers Band
 * America
 * The Ames Brothers
 * Ed Ames
 * Ernestine Anderson
 * Lee Andrews & The Hearts
 * Chuck Berry
 * Blues Magoos
 * Brass Construction
 * Brotherhood of Man
 * Dave Brubeck
 * Anita Bryant
 * B.T. Express
 * The Buckinghams
 * The Capris
 * Ray Conniff
 * The Capitols
 * Bruce Channel
 * The Channels
 * Chubby Checker
 * The Checkmates
 * Don Cherry
 * Dee Clark
 * The Classics
 * The Cleftones
 * Perry Como
 * Ray Conniff
 * The Crests
 * The Cyrkle
 * The Danleers
 * Doris Day
 * Jimmy Dean
 * The Dell Vikings

 * Devo
 * Dion
 * Dion and the Belmonts
 * Ronnie Dove
 * The Drifters
 * Sheena Easton
 * The Edsels
 * Ray Ellis
 * Emerson, Lake & Palmer
 * The Emotions
 * Preston Epps
 * The Fabulaires
 * Percy Faith
 * Fancy
 * Eddie Fisher
 * The 5 Royales
 * The Five Satins
 * John Fred & His Playboy Band
 * Stan Freberg
 * The Harptones
 * The Hi-Lo's
 * Lena Horne
 * Billy Idol
 * The Islanders
 * Burl Ives
 * J.J. Jackson
 * Wanda Jackson
 * Harry James
 * The Jive Five
 * Johnny Maestro & the Brooklyn Bridge
 * Buddy Knox
 * Andre Kostelanetz
 * Mark Lindsay
 * Little Joe Blue
 * The Mandrake Memorial
 * The Marcels
 * Johnny Mathis
 * Gene McDaniels
 * Lou Monte
 * The Nutmegs
 * The Outcasts (Manhasset, New York, U.S.)
 * The Outcasts (Texas, U.S.)
 * Carl Perkins
 * Dan Pickett
 * ? and the Mysterians
 * The Raindrops

 * Randy & the Rainbows
 * Eddie Rambeau
 * Genya Ravan
 * The Ravens
 * Lou Rawls
 * Johnnie Ray
 * Red Crayola
 * Jim Reeves
 * Johnny Rivers
 * Kenny Rogers
 * The Royal Guardsmen
 * Joey Scarbury
 * Marlena Shaw
 * The Shells
 * Dinah Shore
 * Bobby Short
 * The Silhouettes
 * Ginny Simms
 * Joe Simon
 * Warren Smith
 * The Spaniels
 * Benny Spellman
 * Crispian St. Peters
 * Jo Stafford
 * Terry Stafford
 * The Staple Singers
 * Kay Starr
 * Ray Stevens
 * Al Stewart
 * Enzo Stuarti
 * Sugarloaf
 * Gene Summers
 * The Sunrays
 * The Swallows
 * Billy Swan
 * Bettye Swann
 * 13th Floor Elevators
 * The Tokens
 * Kenny Vance
 * Jimmy Velvit
 * Johnny "Guitar" Watson
 * We The People
 * Roger Whittaker
 * The Willows
 * The Zakary Thaks
 * Joe Zawinul

title: Collectables Records


text:
User:Michaelmesmermft

Michael Mesmer, MFT is a licensed Marriage & Family Therapist currently based in San Rafael, CA (USA). His web site is http://www.therapyalternatives.org.

title: User:Michaelmesmermft


text:
Victoria de Marichalar y Borbón

Victoria Federica de Todos los Santos de Marichalar y Borbón, Lady of Tejada (born 9 September 2000) is the younger child and only daughter of Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo, and Jaime de Marichalar. She is a granddaughter of King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofía of Spain and a niece of King Felipe VI. Victoria is fifth in the line of succession to the Spanish throne after her cousins, King Felipe's daughters Leonor, Princess of Asturias, and Infanta Sofía; her mother; and her brother, Felipe.

Early life and Education
Victoria de Marichalar y Borbón was born 9 September 2000 at 13:00 in Ruber International Hospital in Madrid.

She made her first Holy Communion on 27 May 2009 at the Dominicos Church in Alcobendas, Spain.

She attended Colegio San Patricio in Madrid. Then she studied at a British boarding school for 3 years before returning to Spain at St. George's de La Moraleja.

She studied business administration and management at the College for International Studies in Madrid.

Victoria studied ballet and horse riding. She also has a keen interest in the traditions of her country, particularly bullfighting. As a teenager, she spent her summer holidays in Palma de Mallorca with her family.

Career
Marichalar has been reported to be working in the fashion industry and is quoted as saying that fashion is her "true vocation" ("verdadera vocación").

She has a public instragram account with more than 260k followers.

title: Victoria de Marichalar y Borbón


text:
Gedenkdienst

Gedenkdienst is a concept in Austria aimed at young people to face and take responsibility for the darkest chapters of the country's history while being financially supported by Austrian government.

Founded in Austria in 1992 by Andreas Maislinger, the Gedenkdienst is an alternative to Austria's compulsory national military service as well as a volunteering platform for Austrians to work in Holocaust and Jewish culture-related institutions around the world with governmental financial support.

The Austrian Gedenkdienst seeks to serve the remembrance of the crimes of Nazism, commemorates its victims and supports Jewish cultural future. The program is rooted in the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Austrian government for the crimes committed by the Nazis.

Origin
The historian, political scientist and scientific director of the Braunau Contemporary History Days Andreas Maislinger promoted the idea of an alternative to the compulsory military service dedicated to the research, understanding and remembrance of the Holocaust as well as the commemoration of its victims since the late 1970s.

In 1991 Austrian chancellor Franz Vranitzky was the first chancellor of Austria to admit to and acknowledge the Austrian people's share of responsibility for the crimes committed by National Socialism during WWII. The new approach rejected the then established myth of Austria merely being the first victim of Nazism. This signaled a new approach within the Austrian political establishment regarding its stance and treatment of Austria's and Austrians' roles during the time of National Socialism.

Following these events, the Austrian government vouched to finance a Gedenkdienst with the first Austrian Holocaust Memorial Servant starting in 1992.

After amendments to Austrian law in 2014, women or men who are not required to perform civilian service have also been able to perform memorial service and receive the same state funding since 2014. Moreover, a new amendment, which came into force in September 2023, increased the financial resources for those performing memorial service and opened up the possibility of continuing memorial service in Austria in the event of disasters such as the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, there is now a centralised record of completed memorial service.

Acknowledgmen
"I follow the works of the Gedenkdienst with great interest and the organization has my full support.""I often claimed there is no Austrian association which sends young people to Israel, like the German organization “Aktion Sühnezeichen”. It touched me to read there is now, thanks to the possibility to perform the Austrian civilian service within the framework of the Gedenkdienst." "As a former Polish political prisoner of a fascist Concentration Camp and historian of World War II, I want to take the honoring opportunity to speak in front of the high house. I want to thank all the young Austrians, which work so hard for the remembrance of the past. Here I specially think of the people of the documentation archive of the Austrian resistance under the leadership of Prof. Wolfgang Neugebauer, the Austrian Camp Community Mauthausen, the Gedenkdienst, and also the local initiatives of the communities Gusen, Langenstein und St. Georgen in Oberösterreich, the working circle for homeland, memorial and history care." "I thank you for the information about the positive result from your accomplished Gedenkdienst.""The Gedenkdienst is a very impressive initiative.""I feel very close to this organization and I have great respect for the servants, because what they achieve is the right way for Austria – to look the past directly into the eyes and to do something against it. Not to say, we were the first victims.""I like to support and recommend the Gedenkdienst initiative. It is a real service which can be and should be provided by young people.""Many people have no idea what those young Austrians achieve for themselves, that they straighten up their backbones, so they can walk straight again, also myself, who belongs to this generation.""I consider the project Gedenkdienst as an important and valuable initiative in the service of peace and the peoples' communication.""Gedenkdienst is remembrance work, which is also a bridge between “Yesterday's World” and the modern and democratic Austria. It also is a reminder that today's values like a sense of responsibility and moral courage did not lose their importance.""Each Generation has to be aware of the horror of the past, to be able to build a new world of peace and respect for human rights. The project Gedenkdienst serves this important challenge of sensitizing for the meaning of the words “Never forget."

Association Never Forget from 1994 to 2017
The association provided positions in 19 memorial sites in Germany and Poland. The association "Never Forget" took an active part in youth work against forgetting. The association stopped operations and became defunct in 2017.

Austrian Service Abroad since 1998 (Österreichischer Auslandsdienst)
Andreas Hörtnagl and Andreas Maislinger founded the organization "Austrian Service Abroad" in 1998.

The organization is the largest in Austria and sends Auslandsdiener to six continents of the world to accomplish Holocaust commemoration work, social services and peace services. The Austrian Service Abroad is characterized by offering three types of service: the Gedenkdienst, the Austrian Social Service and the Austrian Peace Service. In May 2023, Maislinger stepped down as chairman after public criticism for alleged abuse of power.

The Gedenkdienst since 1992
The Gedenkdienst association was founded in 1992 by Walter Guggenberger (SPÖ), Andreas Hörtnagl (ÖVP) and Andreas Maislinger (non-party) to raise awareness about the Holocaust, its causes and consequences. In 2008, female volunteers were supported for the first time by the newly created Geschwister Mezei Fund. This was set up with the aim of offering women the opportunity to perform memorial service under the same conditions as those doing alternative civilian service. This was made possible for all sponsoring organisations with the amendment to the Volunteer Act in 2014. This organisation received the Leon Zelman Prize in 2013.

In addition to its volunteer activities, the Gedenkdienst also offers events and projects in the field of historical and political education.

title: Gedenkdienst


text:
Goldeneye (duck)

Bucephala is a genus of diving ducks found in the Northern Hemisphere.

Taxonomy
The genus Bucephala was introduced in 1858 by American naturalist Spencer Baird with the bufflehead as the type species. The genus name is derived from Ancient Greek boukephalos, meaning "bullheaded", from bous "bull", and kephale, "head", a reference to the crest of the bufflehead making its head look large.

The bufflehead was formerly treated as the only member of the genus (sometimes unnecessarily changed to Charitonetta) while the goldeneyes were incorrectly placed in Clangula (as Clangula americana), the genus of the long-tailed duck, which at that time was placed in Harelda. It may yet be correct to recognise two genera, as the bufflehead and the two goldeneyes are well diverged. In this case, Bucephala would be restricted to B. albeola and the name Glaucionetta (Stejneger, 1885) resurrected for the goldeneyes.

Species
The three living species are:

Known fossil taxa are:
 * Bucephala cereti (Sajóvölgyi Middle Miocene of Mátraszõlõs, Hungary - Late Pliocene of Chilhac, France)
 * Bucephala ossivalis (Late Miocene/Early Pliocene of Bone Valley, United States), which was very similar to the common goldeneye and may even have been a paleosubspecies or direct ancestor
 * Bucephala fossilis (Late Pliocene of California, United States)
 * Bucephala angustipes (Early Pleistocene of central Europe)
 * Bucephala sp. (Early Pleistocene of Dursunlu, Turkey: Louchart et al. 1998)

title: Goldeneye (duck)


text:
User:Talrias/Templates/Box free/oldvfd

  was previously nominated for deletion.

This article was nominated for deletion, but the consensus was to stay. Some suggestions for improvement may have been made during this process; please use them to help with improving this article.

title: User:Talrias/Templates/Box free/oldvfd


text: Category:Austrian photographers

title: Category:Austrian photographers