Multiple questions attempted answered - long, and then some

[Christian Stubø]

No: HPFGUIDX 4220

Table of Contents:
1.  SCOTLAND
(a)  Placement of Hogwarts
(b)  Separate or not, and of Norway
2.  IRELAND
3.  PAGING DR. CONFUSION 
4.  ON POPULATION ISSUE
(a)  The assumption on squibs
(b)  Age Distribution
5.  HERALDRY

1.  SCOTLAND
(a) Placement of Hogwarts
I obviously was in error in my beliefs concerning
Scotland, if they flew over Peebles.  JRK seems to be
quite fond of subtle hints, and with CoS not being my
favourite of the four HP-books...  I am still certain
i read about Scotland not sending kids to Hogwarts
somewhere, but the source obviously was wrong.  

(b)  Separate or not?, and of Norway
Neil Ward wrote
---
Well, I know there are separate sports teams (for
some sports), becauseEngland and Scotland are separate
countries, but surely Scotland ceasedbeing a separate
*kingdom* when the Union was formed? Otherwise, why
callit the United Kingdom and have a single monarch?
Please explain as you seemvery knowledgeable about
this, and despite being English, I am useless
atBritish history.

>>Norway was a separate kingdom in the union with
Sweden. 

When was this? They have separate monarchs now, don't
they - were theyunder a single monarch at some point?
---

I suspect we may be using the term separate somewhat
differently.  With the term separate from England, I
think of the way Massachusetts is separate from
Vermont, for instance.  Scotland is not merely a
collective name for a number of counties in the
Northern part of Britain, it is a separate entity in
many ways  legally, educationally, the peerage (Scots
nobility has some differences from English nobility,
in some titles, among other things) etc., but not in
other ways (foreign service, the defence forces,
etc.).

Norway was in a union with Denmark for more than 400
years, during which the status was changed from a
kingdom in its own right to merely a number of
provinces under the Danish Crown.  In name, that was. 
In reality, geography dictated that Norway had its own
administration, army (but not navy), customs service,
postal service, etc.  In 1814, however, Napoleon lost
a certain war.  One of his allies was Denmark-Norway. 
Among the victors was Sweden (whose crownprince was
Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, son of a lawyer, and
formerly one of Napoleons marshals  he would later
becom king as Karl XIV Johan).  Britain knew to reward
its allies, and took Norway from Denmark and gave us
to Sweden (simply put).  Because the Swedish army was
far to the South, in France, however, It took some
time to shift it North again, and so there was time to
get a constitution, which resulted in Norway being a
kingdom in union with Sweden, rather than a part of
Sweden (to Karl-Johans dismay).  Norway became
independent in 1905.

2.  IRELAND
Jinx wrote:
---
Well, Irish kid Seamus Finnigan attends Hogwarts, so
Irish wizards might goto Hogwarts as well, especially
if there's only a few of them.
---

It is a month or two since I last picked up a one of
the books, but I do not remember any statements as to
what part of Ireland Seamus came from  the Republic
or Northern Ireland.  If he was from Northern Ireland,
it is still quite probable (to me, at least) that hed
support the Irish team, even against England.  His
name tells me that he is not descended from the
English that came to Ireland following the English
takeover, and hed be quite proud, I think, of being
Irish, even if he was a British citizen.  While all of
Ireland was a part of Britain, it would be natural for
Irish kids to go to Hogwarts.  However, I wonder if
Irish national pride following independence would
dictate an attempt to set up an Irish institution of
magical education, but I am not at all certain on this
matter.

3.  PAGING DR. CONFUSION
Steve Vander Ark wrote:
---
Or did I miss some VERY important bit of news lately
about JKR? And did I therefore just make myself look
ignorant?
---

I seem to be the one ignoratn on this issue.  More
below.

Joywitch wrote:
---
Huh?  Could you explain the above message?  I did not
understand any of it, and I doubt I am the only one. 
I am afraid we have a serious language barrier here. 
What do *Dr.H.C.* and Dr. n.n.* mean?

Maybe this will help:  (???)

In English-speaking countries, the title *Doctor,*
abbreviated *Dr.* is given to people who are medical
doctors (physicians of any kind, for people or for
animals) and also to people who have received 
doctorates, also called *Doctor of Philosophy* or
*Ph.D.*.  A Ph.D is the highest degree offered by most
institutes of higher learning, and is generally, but
not always, required to obtain a teaching position in
a university.  People who are medical doctors usually
refer to themselves as doctors, but most people with
Ph.D.s only called themselves *Doctor* when their
professional activities require it, unless they are
pretentious.  JKR does NOT have a PhD, and is not a
medical doctor, so she should not be called Dr.

I know titles work differently in other countries, so
maybe that is causing this confusion.  For example, in
Latin
America, where IMHO  education in general is treated
with a lot more respect than in the U.S., most people
with any sort of degree use a title.  I get letters
from people signed *Maestrado X* (Mr. X has a masters
degree) Ingeniera Z (Ms. Z is an engineer), etc.
---

Yes, I wrote that message a bit fast, perhaps.  n.n.
is the Norwegian name for John Doe (i.e. name
unknown).  Dr. n.n. thus means Dr. John Doe. 
Sometimes I type faster than I think.  Dr. H.C. means
Doctor Honoris Causa  the formal name for an
honourable doctorate.  I am a student at university
(though at a break right now), but I have not studied
the entitlements that come with doctorates and
honourable doctorates thoroughly.  The few I have seen
have had a formal Doctorate (Dr. Med., Dr. Scient.,
Dr. Theol., etc.), and as such have been entitled to
being referred to as Dr. already, and this probably
lead to a hasty conclusion in my titling of JKR (what
is she, by the way  Ms?  Mrs?  BSc?).  In Norway, we
have two tracks of Academic titling:  practically
oriented and academically oriented.  

Practically oriented titles are for instance within
engineering, architecture and economy.  The titles are
on the style of Hg.Ing. (three-year degree in
engineering offered at regional colleges), Siv.Ing
(five-year degree in engineering, offered at
universities and selected regional colleges.  Hg.Ing.
can be upgraded to Siv.Ing. with a two or three year
long add on) or Siv.k. (as siv.ing., within economy).
 These titles have no equivalent in English.  A
Siv-title gives the right to become a doctorand
(studying for a doctorate).  Education in these titles
follows a more practical approach than in the
classical university model.  The siv.-titles are
prestigeous.  I am studying for a siv.ing.-degree in
naval architecture.

The scientifically oriented titles belong to the
classical university, as seen particularly in Germany
and France.  The minor degree, eqv. to Bachelor is
mellomfag, giving the degree Cand.Mag. (from
Candidate and Magister), which requires classes equal
at least four normal years of studies.  Following
mellomfag, one can move to hoved-fag, which requires
at least two more years, culminating in a thesis which
constitutes a half academic year.  The degree can be
Cand. Scient., Cand. Med., Cand.Theol., Cand.Oecon.,
etc. depending on the specialisation.  From hovedfag,
one can move on to doctorate.  

One may also note that university-level magical
degrees in Norway would have to be Hg.Mag., Siv.Mag.
and Dr.Mag., seeing that Cand.Mag. is already taken by
a muggle-degree.

4.  ON POPULATION ISSUE
(a)  The assumption on squibs
The problem with squibs and muggleborn wizards (and
those of mixed descendancy) is that I have no way of
quantifying them.  They will disappear from the
calculations anyway, and all I did was state that I
assumed that that could happen without drastic
consequences for the calculations.  The problem is
that they could cause interference:  How long does a
muggleborn wizard live?  One of mixed descendacny?  A
squib?

(b)  Age distribution
Simon J. Branford wrote:
---
Christian wrote: "I assume that the demographic
distribution agewise is similar, but adjusted with a
factor of two (i.e.,the segment of the
muggle-population aged 7-8 years in proportion of
themuggle-total old is equal to the segment of the
wizarding population aged14-16years in proportion to
the wizarding total)

"I am not sure I agree with this step (I do not think
it will make muchdifference to the figures though). It
seems to me, that during childhood,wizard children
develop at a similar rate to muggle children (age of
firstcrush, puberty, etc.).
---

I think you misunderstood me here.

Ill try to set up an example.
The statistics from SSB and GRO that I used, showed
the distribution of the entire population of Norway
and Scotland respectively, broken down in classes of
one year, for a specific date (mean date).  The
statistics list how many are between 0 and 1 year old,
between 1 and 2 years old, etc.  They also have
gender-breakdowns, ignored in these calculations.

In this example, I am taking the optimistic assumption
of a muggle life-expectancy of 100 years (gives nice,
easy numbers), and that a wizard from the same sample
population has a life expectancy twice as long (200
years)  Then, the segment of the muggle part of the
population that is between 0 and 1 year old, is the
segment that has not yeat lived through 1% of its
life-expectancy.  In the wizarding part, that segment
is represented by the sum of those that are between 0
and 1 year old, and those that are between 1 and 2
years old.  An 11 years old wizard would then, in this
example, have lived through 5.5% of his
life-expectancy, equivalent to a 5.5 years old muggle
of the same population.  To get the number of wizards
aged between 11 and 12, I found how large a segment of
muggles were aged between 5 and 6, converted to %, and
divided in half.

Hopefully I cleared this up, though with my luck, it
is probably more likely that I just added another
smokescreen.

The method I employed is crude, and probably contains
inaccurasy, but it does give a tool to get a feel for
how many wizards there are in Great Britain.

5.  HERALDRY
Those that are interested in heraldry, should trying
looking for a book called (IIRC) The Oxford Guide to
Heraldry.  It is a very thorough book, with IMO good
illustrations.  It is written by (again, IIRC)
Richmond Herald and Maltravers Herald Extraordinary,
both of the College of Arms.  It explains a lot about
the legalities surrounding heraldry in Britain, and
the place of the College of Arms, and of the Lord Lyon
King of Arms, in relations to British Government, with
which these institutions are associated.  I do not
believe, however, it mentions, that while the heralds
in England (and Scotland) are paid by the Crown, they
have not received a payrise since the 1500s or 1600s. 
Accordingly, the rates charged are somewhat harsh.


_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
F din egen, gratis @yahoo.no-adresse p http://mail.yahoo.no