[deleted]

This issue keeps popping up on his birthday but I have yet to be able to find any substantial evidence to support this claim.

Can I safely debunk these claims or are they true?

[deleted]

How has history viewed the presidency of Taylor?

I found a handmade pillow in an antique shop and it is hand embroidered with the words WW1 veteran (it had some other details on it as well.) It definitely looks authentic for the time period. I researched a little and found that embroidery was taught and used by disabled soldiers in the hospitals as a form of therapy for British , New Zealand and Australian soldiers. Was this practice also used in the United States?

Was there ever an army without the mentioned phenomen?

At what point did it become unacceptable in Western armies?

[deleted]

I am a sophomore in university and I would like to possibly pursue an internship in the field this summer if I can.

Any recommendations?

Just the title really

I hope this is the right place to come for help with this. My Grandad, soon to be 102, fought in the second world war and recently told me about something I found really interesting but I have no idea where to begin searching to find out more.

He was part of REME as an engineer and was also assigned to the 79th armoured division. He has told me for years about his work with the tanks which I find really interesting; however, recently he has told me he is also a Bren gunner and was a top marksman. These didn't quite add up to me but I doubt he would have made that up.

It's also worth mentioning that when we tried looking up his 'army number' with The Soldiers and Sailers Families Association, it came up with nothing.

Anyway, a family friend mentioned that during WW2 some soldiers were given additional responsibilities or skills and these were kept a secret (also spanning to intelligence work). He said that it would also make sense if his number didn't return any searches.

Basically, how likely or true is any of this? And if there is some truth to it, how would I go about finding out more?

Alright so as we know prior to the first world war the world was dominated by a number of massive Empires. The British Empire, Russian Empire, German Empire, Ottoman Empire and the austro-hungarian empire. Yet when the first world war would come to an end all of these Empires aside from the British Empire would no longer exist. Why?

What was it about the first World War that caused the deaths of so many Imperial powers? Now you could say that some of these Empires were already on the downturn. After all the austro-hungarians and the Ottomans were already starting to suffer pretty significant cracks in their imperial system. This of course was also happening to a slightly lesser degree in Russia with the widening gap between the peasantry and the aristocracy.

Yet the German Empire was surprisingly stable. Yet somehow at the end of the war Germany lost pretty much all of its Imperial Holdings. One thing that is terrifying is the fact that this was actually predicted by Otto von Bismarck. And his prediction was only off by about four months.

Still. I fail to see why so many empires fell during this short time.

Just watched the documentary The Sunshine Makers, which I found brilliant. After watching it I thought about this: I know psychedelic mushrooms, for instance, grow throughout Europe - how can it be that you never hear about them being used in European history? It seems weird considering how great humanity has always been at getting high.

I just watched the imitation game which was based off off of Alan Turing, the head of the British codebreaking center, and I was just wondering if their role as codebreakers was insignificant or actually important. Like were battles won, the war shortened, or lives saved from the kmowledge gained though code breaking.

EDIT: Alternatively, did the association of West Country accents with pirates predate Treasure Island (1950)? I understood that Robert Newton simply exaggerated his own Dorset accent and was thus not building on any then existing pirate accent tropes, but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

So, in my D&D Campaign, my character was born to the rulers of the Abifort Duchy, Duke Eristan and his wife, Guinevere, which brings me to my first question:

• If a woman is not noble blood (of the family) but is married to a Duke (basically a royal consort), is she still called a Duchess, or is she a Duchess Consort or a different title altogether?

Next, my character (Cecilia, nicknamed "Trouble") was born a Tiefling to humans, so she was naturally hidden away (though not disowned and still has not been disowned after running away), so consider her a regular child. I need help figuring out the titles of her and her siblings. Below I will list the children from youngest to oldest, their age, and whether they are married. I ask you to tell me what their titles will be, and how someone might address them:

• Youngest: Iselda Abifort, daughter, six years old, unmarried.
• Second Youngest: Everett Abifort, son, fourteen years old, unmarried.
• Second Oldest: Cecilia Abifort, daughter, sixteen years old, unmarried.
• Oldest: James Abifort, son, eighteen years old, unmarried (though possibly betrothed. He is a Paladin (it's a class, not a real knight, so he's still in line to be Duke, but he is currently leading the search for Cecilia.)

Your help is much appreciated.

As the title says, obviously with no male heirs, I would assume at the time of death, the style would pass straight to the next male in line (e.g. his younger brother/distant relative/OR depending on the style in question, the line would end).

However, within months of this, there would exist a direct, living 'heir, male of the body, lawfully begotten' of the 1st holder. Would he be entirely cut out of the line of succession due to the unfortunate time of his birth? Would he become the first in line, after the now-holder? Would he automatically assume it at birth, depriving the new holder?

Has a situation like this ever occurred? I can't think of one.

PS apologies if this is covered elsewhere, I couldn't work out what to Google!

So I am in a course entitled The Viking Experience and one of our books for weekly readings is a Viking Age Reader filled with many different sagas/chronicles. I know that many of these Sagas are exaggerated or mythological in theme but I know that there are things that are revealing of Viking society within them. This question would be best answered by someone who has studied or is well-versed in Viking Age Sagas but I am sure any medievalist could provide some help considering its broad similarities with European chronicles.

I tried reading about it on Wikipedia, Sarah Churchill and her cousin Abigal seem to be kind of accurate. But how could Queen Anne be a functioning monarch while being this childish and stupid. Also it said that Sarah Churchill got her Revenge after Queen Anne died, how did she do that?

In movies and TV shows about the old west it makes it seem like everyone who survived into their 30s had to kill another human just to survive. Was this actually common? Would the typical shopkeeper, cow poke, or gold prospector actually have to kill another human in their lifetime or is this a myth created by wild west shows/movies?