Pardon me because my autistic American butt has spent about 20 minutes trying to find a way to ask this question. It seems like Romania has spent most of it's history belonging to other nations or empires - notably the Russians, but also Germans, Ottomans, etc. Is Romania that important/resource-filled? Was it just the state of things, that to get free from one empire they needed the help of another? Or is this just a normal trend for European history?

I just really am curious if the general population had any problems with the American governments insistence on going to the moon at the time. Did people worry about the financial implications? Were they upset the money could have been spent elsewhere?

Tldr; was there opposion in the general public to the moon landing, and it's associated missions?

I heard that it was because Oregon did not allow black people, but washington wanted to let them in. Is that true?

My understanding is that there isn’t really any evidence supporting the official story of Hitlers death, his supposed corpse has been proven not to be him (and in fact female) and everyone from the Stalin to declassified FBI files indicate it’s extremely plausible he escaped.

We also know there was large Nazi communities in Argentina following WW1 and it’s possible many WW2 Nazis could have escaped to rural Argentina as a safe haven.

How do historians view the official version of events, that Hitler died in Berlin by suicide?

The Wright Brothers first flight occurred in 1903, and a little more than half a century later the first man was in space. Things like the cell phone, the Internet, and other modern marvels have occurred relatively recently, so that got me thinking on whether or not our distant ancestors thought they were living in incredible technologically advanced times.

Or is this something from Romance of the Three Kingdoms?

Thank you

The question came to mind due to my love of period dramas. With “The Scandelous Lady W”, about Lady Seymour Fleming, in the post and having just started to read “Pride and Prejudice”I figured I would ask what the history of the titles were, what benefits they conferred upon both genders and their households and how they interacted with the rest of society.

I’m particularly interested in the roles Countesses would have played in the 1700’s-1800’s, when both Worsley and Austen were alive.

I hope the question isn’t too broad and I look forwards to reading your responses.

From a cultural and sociological perspective, why would aristocratic women continue to learn needlework, when they had an army of servants to do it for them?

I know that it was a cultural expectation for all women, but why, when so much else with high-born women is about demonstrating that one does not have to engage in domestic work (restrictive clothing, pale complexion, etc), why would they continue needlework? Did they actually make and mend their families' clothing, or did they only do fine embroidery, etc? Was it just a required hobby?

Were the Romani Gypsies really originally from India? If so why have they become very much non indian and more of a Irish culture? Or is there different types that branched off in history?

If the float or sink trial is just a comedic flourish, were there other ways of determining innocence that would end in death? Would the community care for the children of the executed, or in any way express remorse that they got it wrong?

[deleted]

It seems paradoxical to me that during a period when most people avoided other people (literally) like the plague, that there would be any enforcers for these quarantines. Was it mostly voluntary?

I tried asking this a few weeks back but got no reply, trying again.