I'm back with another question!

We all know that the mother of a King or Queen could be called the Queen Mother or cultural equivalent right?

I was wondering; what happens in the King had been a commoner?

Like, not a drop of Royal Blood exists in Bob's veins and he didn't marry into royalty but somehow came to be on a throne anyways.

Is there a special title for his mother in that case? Or would she be considered, retroactively, royalty?

We know he was born in Austria, and spent much of the pre-WW1 years in Austria and southern Germany. He served in the German army in northern France. And spent a lot of time in WW2 in East Prussia/Poland

Did he travel further? Did he, for example, visit Rome? Or any other European capitals (apart from Paris in 1940)?

History.com says, Mao "launched what became known as the Cultural Revolution in order to reassert his authority over the Chinese government". Could anyone elaborate on what this meant?

So generally when discussing World War II Germany, Italy and Japan are focused on as they are the major belligerents, but I was curious in learning about the minor Axis powers, how did they end up allied to Germany? (and how voluntary was it?) and what was their contribution to the war? and their expected rewards?

I have read a lot about how North Africans are ethnically Caucasoid Berbers and culturally Arabic. Ancient Egypt was a spiritual and cultural hub historically. They have many technological achievements to their name. So how and why did a cultural power like North Africa absorb Arabic culture and religion?

As a lay person, I typically think of earlier time periods, such as the Victorians, as having "more delicate sensibilities". Things that would be considered racy or obscene by their standards seem commonplace today. Our entertainment- Game of Thrones, House of Cards, etc.- show moral decay, violence, and vulgarity to such degrees that I have a hard time imagining their existing earlier.

This brings me to The Iliad. I'm reading it now, and it is a tough poem. There are hundreds of deaths in here, and they're pretty graphic. Here's one example:

With that he hurled and Athena drove the shaft

and it split the archer's nose between the eyes-

it cracked his glistening teeth, the tough bronze

cut off his tongue at the roots, smashed his jaw

and the point came ripping out beneath his chin.

See? This poem is really brutal. Did people from earlier times shy away from The Iliad due to its brutality. Did it's status as a central piece of history and art to Western Civilization give it leeway that commercial entertainment would not have had? Were there attempts to censure it, or to make it softer?

Or, am I totally misguided in my perception of earlier times. Were they perfectly accepting of and able to handle graphic art? For specifics, I guess let's stick with the Victorians. But, I am interested to hear what people from different time periods had to say about it.

I'm learning about the Easter Rising and it made me wonder a lot about it. I will be asking a few questions today, so this is my first.

How were Irish soldiers treated with the Easter Rising happening? Were Irish soldiers at the front of the war kept under eye? Did the British government censure news about it to keep them uninformed?

Was it exactly how it is now with mass famine and etc? A giant police state.

I found my self on a Wikipedia page on desks in the Oval Office. On their it talks about the fire that happened in 1929. It said that Hoover received a new desk from some Grand Rapids furniture makers. Using a simple google search, I haven't found which furniture maker made this desk. Was it several companies working together, or a single specific maker? I work for an office furniture company and it has me curious.

The Dutch legacy of religious tolerance, multiculturalism, representative democracy, free trade, etc. are much vaunted in some discussions of the development of New York City (cough Russell Shorto cough). And yet a major impetus for handing it over was the press of English settlement, which presumably only increased after the transfer. So how well did these ideas really survive beyond the crafting of the city charter? Did these political traditions leave marks beyond New Amsterdam?

If I understand correctly, humans migrated from Africa some 100,000 years ago or so. Were these first human inhabitants of Europe black, or did the skin coloration specially in center/south Africa happen after the migrations?

How much involvement would the Tsar (or Tsarina) have in the Church, both in terms of temporal/organizational matters as well as doctrinal? And of course, were they supposed to, or did they just get away with it because they were in charge?

Did the involvement vary greatly between rulers? If so, at what point was the height of royal meddling in religious affairs?

And was there anything like the reverse, where the Patriarch was able to exert power over the throne by virtue of his position?

Did he use elephants? Also, how was he defeated, if this invasion did actually take place?

What happened to make English a low context culture, and East Asian ones high context?

It's been bugging me for a few months, I wasn't sure if this should go in /r/AskSocialScience or /r/History, apologies in advance if it doesn't belong.

I.e. treatment of Jewish people and the social and cultural effects of Nazi policies and propaganda ect

Any information on countries fighting in theaters they're not located in, such as Chinese fighting in Europe or French fighting in the Pacific is also welcome.

EDIT: By location I mean the location of the main geographical area of the country, so excluding things like colonies.

So, in the "Apply for Flair" thread u/maxpowerer mentions he's an expert in these colonies. I've always been very interested in them, but don't actually know a thing about them.

One thing I always wondered about: the Dutch Republic in the 17th century was not a very populous nation, but economically very prosperous with comparatively high standards of living. (At least in the Western provinces.) Indeed, there always was a healthy influx of seasonal labour from German lands and the like, as well as immigration to the Republic by groups like the Hugenots, Sephardic Jews and famously, if temporarily, the Pilgrims.

Considering all that, my question is: Who was immigrating to the Dutch North American colonies, and what do we know about why they went?

Do we know anything about what kinds of people and from what kinds of backgrounds went there? Was it people from the poorer, more rural parts of the country? Did the colony attract people from other European nations? Did the colony ever struggle to get enough immigration to keep up their strength? Did the various Dutch States stimulate emigration? How did the immigration patterns to the colony evolve over time?

How does immigration and demographics of this colony compare to those of the English, French, Swedish and others in the region? Any notable differences?

Finally, though this perhaps might deserve a question of its own: What happened when the English took over? Did many people leave? Were immigrants from the Dutch republic still welcome afterwards, for example if they wanted to join family members already there?

Reading recommendations are also welcome, of course. Much obliged to anyone who can answer at least some of these many questions.