Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.

In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (Australia, NZ et al) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.

Dead man naked they shall be one

With the man in the wind and the west moon;

When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,

They shall have stars at elbow and foot;

Though they go mad they shall be sane,

Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;

Though lovers be lost love shall not;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

Under the windings of the sea

They lying long shall not die windily;

Twisting on racks when sinews give way,

Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;

Faith in their hands shall snap in two,

And the unicorn evils run them through;

Split all ends up they shan't crack;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

No more may gulls cry at their ears

Or waves break loud on the seashores;

Where blew a flower may a flower no more

Lift its head to the blows of the rain;

Though they be mad and dead as nails,

Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;

Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,

And death shall have no dominion.

Fartsdumper

Fartsdumper (pronounced farst-hoump-ah)

In Norwegian Nynorsk & Norwegian Bokmål, the indefinite plural of fartsdump (masculine or feminine), a road hump, speed bump or speed hump.

Mid twentieth century: The construct was fart + -s- + dump.  Fart was from the Middle Low German vart (speed, velocity; movement, motion; transport, transportation, traffic), from the From Old Saxon fard (traffic; journey) from the Proto-West Germanic fardi, from the Proto-Germanic fardiz (journey, voyage).  In the higher Germanic, the definite singular was farten, the indefinite plural fartar & the definite plural fartane.  The -s- was the genitival interfix indicating that the former part is a characteristic of the latter.  Dumper was from the German dumpf ((of a sound) dull (pain also), hollow, muffled; a thud (dull sound)), a gradation from the Middle High German dimpfen (to smoke, fume) and it’s speculated it may ultimately be derived from the same source as the English dank.  In fartsdump (masculine), the definite singular is fartsdumpen, the indefinite plural fartsdumpar & the definite plural fartsdumpane.  In fartsdump (feminine), the definite singular is fartsdumpa, the indefinite plural fartsdumper & the definite plural fartsdumpene.  The alternative form is the synonym fartshump (and derivatives).

The English Dank is a curious one, the conventional etymology suggesting it dates from the late fourteenth century, from the Middle English danke (wet, damp; dampness, moisture), probably from the North Germanic and related to the Swedish dänka & dank (marshy spot), the Norwegian dynke (to moisten), the Icelandic dökk (pool), the Old Norse dǫkk (pit, depression; water hole), from the Proto-Germanic dankwaz (dark).  The alternative etymology traces it to the a West Germanic source such as Dutch damp (vapor) or the Middle High German damph, both ultimately from the Proto-Germanic dampaz (smoke, steam, vapor).  Dank is an adjective & noun, dankly is an adverb, dankness is a noun and danker & dankest are adjectives.  The noun plural is danks.  Dank’s niche in the language is unique but words associated with the idea include chilly, damp, humid, muggy, steamy, sticky, wet, clammy, dewy, dripping, moist, slimy & soggy.

In other languages the evolution differed.  In Modern Dutch, dank (gratitude, a showing or token of recognition; reward, recompense) is from the Middle Dutch danc, from Old Dutch thank, from the Proto-Germanic þankaz.  In German, dank (thanks to, because of) was cognate with danken and the Dutch dank (and related to the Latin grātia) while in Lower Sorbian it came to mean "tax, fine, levy, duty".  In one Germanic quirk, in Luxembourgish, dank evolved as the second-person singular imperative of danken (to thank), from the Old High German thankōn, from the Proto-Germanic þankōną and cognate with the German danken, the Dutch danken, and the English thank.

Humps & bumps

In Norway, this advises a speed hump is ahead and drivers must not exceed 30 km/h (19 mph).

The terms speed hump and speed bump are, by most, used interchangeably because few of us realize there’s a difference, both appearing as tiresome, planned obstacles placed in a road. However, to traffic engineers, there is a difference.  A speed hump is intended to slow traffic to a speed in a 10-20 mph (16-32 km/h) range and is used in high volume areas such as residential streets, school zones, bus stops, the approaches to pedestrian crossings and around hospitals.  The construction and installation techniques vary depending upon the dimensions of the hump and the material used but the objective is gradually to reduce the speed of traffic, thus minimizing both the occurrence of incidents and reduce severity of injury in those which happen.  In design, a speed hump is a compromise between its purpose the need (1) to avoid damage to vehicles and (2) ensure emergency service vehicles are not unduly impeded.  Speed Bumps are more aggressive intent, designed to reduce the speed of vehicles to as slow as 2 mph (3 km/h) and generally no more than 5 mph (8 km/h).  Rising at a more acute angle and usually higher than a speed hump, speed bumps are used in areas where vehicle and pedestrians (or animals) share the environment such as parking areas, concourses or inner city streets.  The core purpose is a shock which induces a driver abruptly and rapidly to reduce speed.

Flink Fartsdumper (Smart Speed bumps): In high-tech & law-abiding Scandinavia, the smart-speed bump seems admired, only transgressors suffering while the obedient in their Volvos cruise on, their serenity undisturbed.

Fart Kontrol Denmark.  The Fart Kontrol signs advise motorists of enhanced speed monitoring by the police including speed cameras.

The Nordic nations seem well-advanced in the art and science of speed humps & bumps, something not surprising, Sweden especially notorious for its onerous (and enforced) road-rules.  The new generation of Scandinavian smart speed humps & bumps are part of an integrated system of traffic management which permits speed limits in a given place to be varied according to defined conditions (time of day, visibility, weather conditions, day of the week etc), the signage changing automatically or by intervention in response to a specific event (road damage, accidents etc).  All this is accomplished by a combination of robotic devices which use sensors, artificial intelligence (AI) and centralized or distributed monitoring centres where humans react to information passed dynamically by the AI.  Part of the system is the smart speed hump or bump, one of the features of which is that the devices can be designed to be both depending on need and indeed even cease to exist, becoming a flat structure not protruding from the road’s surface.  Manually or automatically thus, at any time, a road may change from one with a speed hump, a speed bump or no obstruction at all.  The use of sensors monitoring the speed of traffic allows a speed hump or speed bum to be raised in response to a vehicle travelling above the limit while remaining flat for those not offending, sinners thus punished while the virtuous proceed serenely and slowly onwards. 

This is an aspect of the surveillance society which is becoming pervasive, the integration of which with AI has implications both reassuring and ominous.  The developments are most obvious (and most discussed) in China’s (People’s Republic of China; the PRC) Social Credit System (unrelated to CH Douglas's (1879–1952) mysterious theory of political economy).  The Chinese system began essentially as an exercise in database matching with the intention of ensuring those with a history of bad debts weren’t able to obtain credit from other institutions.  From there it grew to the point where the combination of big-machine databases and facial recognition software can mean someone crossing a road without waiting for the “Cross” sign to appear, might find their “social credit” score debited.  Presumably, if one jaywalks once too often, there can be consequences although whether that will be a text message suggesting a closer attention to road rules or a knock on the door at 2am informing one that one is to spend the next week in a “re-education centre” remains to be seen.  To the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) the social credit system must seem admirable because, after all, anyone who waits for the “Cross” sign has nothing to fear and pedestrian injuries & fatalities should greatly be reduced.  A win-win system then.

In the West, the pressure to adopt systems which pivot off the possibilities offered by facial recognition and database matching will be irresistible.  Corporations like the idea that someone wandering around a shop should see and hear content as tailored to their buying habits as that which is delivered to their screens at home or in their pocket.  They’ll be interested too in whether someone walking into the shop was once convicted (or even accused) of a property offence such as theft (especially shop-lifting it’s presumed) so matching a corporate surveillance system to law-enforcement databases offers obvious efficiencies in loss-prevention.  In commerce, the attraction of AI is that such systems, whether revenue generating or loss-preventing, run at essentially marginal cost.  Thus a “success” rate, in terms of additional sales may need to be as little as 3% because 3% of a store’s total customer movement should be still a big number.  Politically, it may be more of a concern because the possible implications of agencies of the state knowing (and recording) what a citizen eats, drinks, reads & watches and where they go with whom and what they buy or do when they’re there, remains substantially still speculative.  The possibilities will however emerge as the systems, gradually (and not necessarily obviously) are rolled-out, history suggesting we’ll be told about (1) the benefits and (2) if we’re doing nothing wrong we have nothing to fear.

Fart kontrol in the age of climate change.

Melissa Carone & Rudy Giuliani before the Michigan House Oversight Committee, Lansing, Michigan, 2 December 2020.

In Scandinavia, Fartkontrol is a familiar and well-understood road-sign but in the English-speaking world, at first glance it might summon thoughts other than of traffic management.  When Rudy Giuliani (b 1944; Mayor of New York City 1994-2001 & Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) personal attorney since 2018) appeared at a hearing conducted by Michigan House Oversight Committee in Lansing on 2 December 2020, there were so many memorable moments, it’s perhaps unfair to focus one but Mr Giuliani’s inability to maintain fartkontrol was so emblematic of the event that it’s as well remembered as his appearance in the mockumentary Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020).  Helpfully the precise moments of interest may be determined by the expressions of distaste shown by Jenna Ellis (b 1984), an attorney then attached to the Trump team and sitting to Mr Giuliani’s left.  The hearing was held to investigate allegation of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and focused both on aspects of the behavior of voters and the operations of electronic voting machines provided by Dominion Voting Systems.  Footage of the hearing provided some fun for viewers but the drama of the events of 6 January and more recently the coverage of the congressional committee investigating the involvement of others in the attempted insurrection diverted attention from what was in itself a serious matter.  That may soon change as the previously little-reported suit by Dominion (US Dominion Inc & Dominion Voting Systems Inc versus Fox Corporation & Fox Broadcasting (CA No N21C-11-082 EMD CCLD)) was recently cleared to proceed by the Superior Court in Delaware.  Dominion is, inter alia, suing Fox News for repeatedly broadcasting claims Dominion rigged and otherwise manipulated the 2020 election, even though it knew the claims to be demonstratively untrue.  Even if a final judgment doesn’t in quantum approach the US$1.6 billion headline damages Dominion have cited, the case may become interesting (1) as a marker on where the US mainstream media stands in relation to the First Amendment and (2) especially interesting if Fox is subject to discovery, the tantalizing prospect being the revelation of communications from Rupert Murdoch (b 1931; effective controller of News Corp & Fox News) himself.  Just what Mr Murdoch actually tells his editors to do and say has for decades been a matter of fascination among political junkies.

If Mr Giuliani’s inconsistent fartkontrol was a footnote, the appearance of his star witness was one of the better fifteen minutes of fame in recent years.  Ms Melissa Carone’s (b 1998) performance before the oversight committee was a smorgasbord of conspiracy theory, accusation and political polemic; of its genre, it was a tour de force.  Indeed, it seemed a star had been discovered and a career in politics or the theatre (it can be a fine distinction) seemed certain but unfortunately the Michigan Department of State recently disqualified the mercurial Ms Carone from contesting the Republican primary for a State Senate seat outside of Detroit, the office saying she (and ten others who had nominated) had made false statements on an affidavit candidates were required to submit.  In the matter of Ms Carone, she had attested she had against her no unpaid fines for election law violations and all of her public campaign filings were up-to-date.  The department of state ruled this was not true and it was her second recent disqualification, the Macomb County Clerk & Register of Deeds having earlier barred her from participating in a primary for state representative.

Ms Carone knows a conspiracy when she sees and accused Republican election officials and the GOP leadership of plotting to keep her off the ballot.  “This is how our elected officials keep good candidates from getting elected” Ms. Carone said, adding that she was “…going to fight it. Even if I don’t end up on the ballot, my voice will be heard. I’m not going anywhere. I will still be exposing these establishment sellout RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in the Michigan GOP.”  The office of the Macomb County clerk denied any political motivation, saying the disqualification was because “…she basically perjured herself” and that it was in Michigan “a felony to make a false statement on affidavits like those signed by candidates.”

Rudy Giuliani.

Melissa Carone

Empire

Empire (pronounced em-pahyuhr (sometimes om-peer if affecting to speak of things historically French)).

(1) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

(2) As First Empire, the period of imperial rule in France under Napoleon Bonaparte, 1804-1815; as Second Empire, the period of Imperial rule under Napoleon III, 1852-1870 (a decadent period).

(3) A government under an emperor or empress.

(4) The historical period during which a nation is under such a government (often initial capital letter).

(5) Supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty.

(6) Supreme control; absolute sway.

(7) A powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope, especially one controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.

(9) In fashion, of the style that prevailed during the first French Empire, in clothing being characterized especially by décolletage and a high waistline, coming just below the bust, from which the skirt hangs straight and loose (usually initial capital letter).

(10) As Empire State, a term for New York since 1834.

(11) In architecture and design, noting or pertaining to the style of architecture, furnishings, and decoration prevailing in France, emulated variously in various other places circa 1800-1830; characterized by the use of delicate but elaborate ornamentation imitated from Greek and Roman examples or containing classical allusions, as animal forms for the legs of furniture, bas-reliefs of classical figures, motifs of wreaths, torches, caryatids, lyres, and urns and by the occasional use of military and Egyptian motifs and, under the Napoleonic Empire itself, of symbols alluding to Napoleon I, as bees or the letter N (often initial capital letter).

1250–1300: From the Middle English empire (territory subject to an emperor's rule (and, in general "realm, dominion"), from the Anglo-French & Old French empire & empere (rule, authority, kingdom, imperial rule; authority of an emperor, supreme power in governing; imperial power), from the Latin imperium & inperium (a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm) from inperare & imperāre (to command) from parāre (to prepare; to make ready; order).  The construct of the Latin imperare was in- (in) (from the primitive Indo-European root en (in)) + parare (to order, prepare) (from the primitive Indo-European root pere- (to produce, procure).  A doublet of empery and imperium.

In English, the early understanding of the word was defined substantially by the knowledge (however imperfect) of the Persian and Roman (especially the latter) empires of Antiquity and though never etymologically restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor", for entirely logical reasons it did tend to be used that way.  The phrase "the Empire" (which in the UK and the British empire almost exclusively implied "the British Empire" (dating from 1772)) previously would have been supposed to be a reference to the Holy Roman Empire.  Officially, the British Empire devolved into "The Commonwealth" in 1931 because of the constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster (and the changing world view) but opinion is divided on when it really ended, most dating it from Indian independence in 1947 (when George VI ceased to be George RI (Rex Imperator (king-emperor)) and became George R) while others claim (less plausibly) that in a sense it endured until Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997.  Nobody claims that still holding the Falkland Islands an empire makes.

Always a civilizing project, the Roman Empire stopped short of Ireland and Scotland.  One has to draw the line somewhere.

Despite the modern habit, etymologically, empire was never restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor" but has been used that way for so long a meaning-shift may have happened.  In political theory, an empire is an aggregate of conquered, colonized, or confederated states, each with its own government subordinate or tributary to that of the empire as a whole but history is replete with accidents and anomalies.  Japan’s head of state is an emperor although no empire exists and the most often quoted remark about the Holy Roman Empire has long been Voltaire’s bon mot that it was "...not holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

Long pre-dating the era, the empire-line (sometimes called empire-silhouette) dress is most associated with the French First Empire (which lasted from 1804 when Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor, to his final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815) and although the look endured longer than the political construct, beginning in the 1820s, skirts widened and waistlines lowered to an extent most were no longer identifiable as the style.  The look became linked to the First Empire because it was Napoleon's first Empress, Joséphine de Beauharnais (1763–1814) who popularized it in Europe and there are fashionistas who when speaking of the style, will pronounce it as a quasi-French om-pire.  In England, Emma, Lady Hamilton's ((1765–1815); mistress of Lord Nelson (1758-1805) and muse of the artist George Romney (1734-1802)) adoption of the style was much imitated, the cross-channel exchanges of fashion continuing uninterrupted even when a state of war existed between London and Paris.  The English or American fashions of this time tend respectively to be termed "Regency" (referring to the Regency of the Prince of Wales, 1811-1820) and "Federal" (referring to the decades immediately following the American Revolution).

Gisele Bündchen in Dior empire-line dress, Academy Awards Ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2005.

Empire-line dresses featured a waistline considerably raised above the natural level with skirts which vary from the slim and columnar to the swishy and conical.  In its pure form it was characterized by (1) a columnar silhouette without gathers in front, (2) some fullness over the hips, (3) a concentration of gathers aligned with a wide centre-back bodice panel and (4), a raised waistline which reached usually to just below the bust but (occasionally) as high as the armpits.  Mass-production of the design was possible only because the industrial revolution made available new fabrics and other materials at volume and an attainable cost.  Empire- line proved appealing to women without an ideal figure because, by adjusting the parameters of the various components, a seamstress could flatter a wide variety of body types, disguising and emphasizing as required, able to create also the illusion of greater height. 

The empire-line inherently needs a lot of fabric which offers designers the possibility of using bold patterns, especially florals, which can't be displayed to the same effect in styles with less surface area.

Traditionally, most clothing had relied on the shape of the human body but new forms of corsetry, including strong yet delicate shoulder straps to provide the necessary structural integrity, combined with materials such as mull, a  soft, sheer Indian white muslin, allowed designers to create wearable outfits in which the neoclassical influence was obvious, the silhouette imitating the Classical statutes of Antiquity.  Such constructions had before existed for the rich but they were heavy, hot, rigid, uncomfortable and very expensive.  Sadly, the relative freedom women enjoyed proved short lived, evolving by the 1820s into something less simple and notably more restrictive, the hourglass Victorian styles much more prevalent in high-fashion by the mid-nineteenth century, a trend which lasted until the First World War.  The ideas of empire-line were revived for the less-constricting clothing popular in the 1920s and, although coming and going, it’s never gone away and, being somewhat hippie in its look, gained a new following in the 1960s.

Empire-line wedding dresses (left to right) by Dana Harel, Savannah Miller, Two Birds & LoveShackFancy.  Although the design and structural details differ between these, all four can be reduced to the same mathematics.  The wedding dress business seems to be one part of the industry where blonde models seem not to enjoy their usual natural advantage, photographers preferring dark hair, better to contrast and define the edges of all that white fabric.  

Lindsay Lohan in empire-line dress, Paris, 2011.

Today, empire-line dresses are still often worn and the style gained a new audience from their used in the Mad Men television series, set in upper-middle class US society during the 1960s.  One place where they've long inhabited a stable niche has been the Western wedding dress where the technical aspects of the design, the fitted bodice, high waist, and loose-fitting skirt allow the creation of silhouette that’s flattering and forgiving for a wide range of body shapes, once a genuine selling feature for brides with child who, in less accepting times, wished to conceal the bump.  However, even though the empire- line is almost uniquely  ideal at shifting focus from the waistline, it can be cut in a way to complement the slender, delivering a cinched waist.  In either case, the same mathematics are at work, the goal being to elongate and define and by creating the visual effect of the narrowest point appearing just under the bust, it can either (1) trick viewers into seeing a longer torso, diverting attention from the midriff and hips or (2) emphasise the waistline of the truly slender, making it perfect also for the petite or short.

Defenestration

Defenestration (pronounced dee-fen-uh-strey-shuhn)

(1) The act of throwing a person out of a window.

(2) In casual, often humorous use, to throw anything out of a window.

(3) A sardonic term in the business of politics which refers to an act which deposes a leader).

(4) In nerd humor, the act of removing the Microsoft Windows operating system from a computer in order to install an alternative.

1618: From New Latin dēfenestrātiō, the construct being dē (from; out) + fenestra (window) + -atio (the suffix indicating an action or process).  It was borrowed also by the Middle French défenestrer (which persists in Modern French) & défenestration.  The German form is Fenstersturz; the verb defenestrate formed later.  The related forms are defenestrate (1915) & defenestrated (1620).  Derived terms (which seem only ever used sardonically) include autodefenestration (the act of hurling oneself from a window), dedefenestration (the act of hurling someone back through the window from which recently they were defenestrationed and redefenestration (hurling someone from a window for a second time, possibly just after their dedefenestration).  Use of these coinings is obviously limited.

The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of; from)  It was used in the sense of “reversal, undoing, removing”; the similar prefix in Old English was æf-.  The –ation suffix is from the Middle English –acioun & -acion, from the Old French acion & -ation, from the Latin -ātiō, an alternative form of -tiō (from which Modern English gained -tion).  It was used variously to create the forms describing (1) an action or process, (2) the result of an action or process or (3) a state or quality.  Fenestra is of unknown origin.  Some etymologists link fenestra with the Greek verb phainein (to show) while others suggest an Etruscan borrowing, based on the suffix -(s)tra, as in the Latin loan-words aplustre (the carved stern of a ship with its ornaments), genista (the plant broom) or lanista (trainer of gladiators).  Fenestration dates from 1870 in the anatomical sense, a noun of action from the Latin fenestrare, from fenestra (window, opening for light).  The now rare but once familiar meaning "arrangement of windows" dates from 1846 and described a certain design element in architecture.  The related form is fenestrated.

Second Defenestration of Prague (circa 1618), woodcut by Matthäus Merian der Ältere (1593–1650).

Although it was already known in the Middle French, defenestrate entered English to lament (or celebrate, depending on one’s view of such things) the Defenestration of Prague in 1618, when Two Roman Catholic regents of Ferdinand II, representing the Holy Roman Emperor in the Bohemian national assembly, were tossed from a third floor window of Hradshin Castle by Protestant radicals who accused them of suppressing their rights.  All three survived, landing either in a moat or rubbish heap defending on one’s choice of history book and thus began the Thirty Years’ War.  The artist called his painting the "Second Defenestration" because he was one of the school which attaches no significance to the 1438 event most historians now regard as the second of three.

The defenestration of 1618 that triggered the Thirty Years’ War wasn’t the first, indeed it was at the time said it had been done in "…good Bohemian style" by those who recalled earlier defenestrations, although, in fairness, the practice wasn’t exclusively Bohemian, noted in the Bible and not uncommon in Medieval and early modern times, lynching and mob violence a cross-cultural political language for centuries.  The first governmental defenestration occurred in 1419, second in 1483 and the third in 1618, although the term "Defenestration of Prague" is applied exclusively to the last.  The first and last are remembered because they trigged long wars of religion in Bohemia and beyond, the Hussite Wars (1419-1435) associated with the first and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) with the Third.  The neglected second ushered in the religious peace of Kutná Hora which lasted decades, clearly not something to remember.  The 1618 event is the third defenestration of Prague).

The word has become popular as a vivid descriptor of political back-stabbing and is best understood sequentially, the churn-rate of recent Australian prime-ministers a good example: (1) Julia Gillard (b 1961) defenestrated Kevin Rudd (b 1957), (2) Kevin Rudd defenestrated Julia Gillard, (3) Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954) defenestrated Tony Abbott (b 1957), (4) Peter Dutton (b 1970) defenestrated Malcolm Turnbull (although that didn’t work out quite as planned, Mr Dutton turning out to be the hapless proxy for Scott Morrison (b 1968)).  Given the recent history it's surprising no one has bother to coin the adjective defenestrative to describe Australian politics although given it's likely there are more defenestrations will be to come, that may yet happen.

Some great moments in defenestration

King John of England (1166-1216) killed his nephew, Arthur of Brittany (1187-1203), by defenestration from the castle at Rouen, France, in 1203 (the method contested though not the death).

In 1378, the crafts and their leader Wouter van der Leyden occupied the Leuven city hall and seized the Leuven government.  In an attempt to regain absolute control, they had Wouter van der Leyden assassinated in Brussels. Seeking revenge, the crafts handed over the patrician to a furious crowd. The crowd stormed the city hall and threw the patricians out of the window. At least 15 patricians were killed during this defenestration of Leuven.

In 1383, Bishop Dom Martinho (1485-1547) was defenestrated by the citizens of Lisbon, having been suspected of conspiring with the enemy when Lisbon was besieged by the Castilians.

In 1419 Hussite mob defenestrates a judge, the burgomaster, and some thirteen members of the town council of New Town of Prague. (First defenestration of Prague).

Death of Jezebel (1866) by Gustave Doré (1832–1883).

In the Bible, Jezebel was defenestrated at Jezreel by her own servants at the urging of Jehu. (2 Kings 9:33).  Jezabel is used today to as one of the many ways to heap opprobrium upon women although it now suggests loose virtue, rather than the heresy or doctrinal sloppiness mentioned in the Bible.

Jezebel encouraged the worship of Baal and Asherah, as well as purging the prophets of Yahweh from Israel.  This so damaged the house of Omride that the dynasty fell.  Ever since, the Jews have damned Jezabel as power-hungry, violent and whorish.  However, she was one of the few women of power in the Bible and there is something of a scriptural dislike of powerful women, an influence which seems still to linger among the secular.

In the Book of Revelation (2:20-23), Jezebel's name is linked with false prophets:

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.

23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Lorenzo de' Medici (circa 1534) by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574).

On 26 April 1478, after the failure of the "Pazzi conspiracy" to murder the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici (Lorenzo the Magnificent 1449–1492), Jacopo de' Pazzi (1423-1478) was defenestrated.  In 1483, Prague's Old-Town portreeve and the bodies of seven murdered New-Town aldermen were defenestrated.  (Second defenestration of Prague).  On 16 May 1562, Adham Khan (1531-1652), The Mughal emperor Akbar the Great’s (1542-1605) general and foster brother, was defenestrated (twice!) for murdering a rival general, Ataga Khan (d 1562).  Akbar was woken up in the tumult after the murder. He struck Adham Khan down personally with his fist and immediately ordered his defenestration by royal order. The first time, his legs were broken but he remained alive.  Akbar ordered his defenestration a second time, killing him. Adham Khan had wrongly counted on the influence of his mother and Akbar's wet nurse, Maham Anga (d 1562) to save him as she was almost an unofficial regent in the days of Akbar's youth.  Akbar personally informed Maham Anga of her son's death, to which, famously, she commented, “You have done well”.  After forty days and forty nights, she died of acute depression.  On the morning of 1 December 1640, in Lisbon, a group of supporters of the Duke of Braganza party found Miguel de Vasconcelos (1590-1640), the hated Portuguese Secretary of State of the Habsburg Philip III (1605-1665), hidden in a closet, killed and defenestrated him.  His corpse was left to the public outrage.  On 11 June 1903, a group of Serbian army officers murdered and defenestrated King Alexander (1876-1903) and Queen Draga (1866-1903).

Poster of Benito Mussolini (1883-1946, Duce of Italy, 1922-1943), Ethiopia, 1936.

In 1922, Italian politician and writer Gabriele d'Annunzio (1863-1938) was temporarily crippled after falling from a window, possibly pushed by a follower of Benito Mussolini.  The Duce might almost have been grateful had he suffered the illustrious fate of defenestration, the end of not a few kings and princes.   Instead, Italian communist partisans found him hiding in the back of a truck with his mistress Clara Petacci (1912-1945), attempting to flee to neutral Switzerland.  Taken to a village near Lake Como, on 28 April 1945, both were summarily executed by firing squad, their bodies hung upside down outside a petrol station where the corpses were abused by the mob.  When Hitler saw the photographs, he quickly summoned Otto Günsche (1917–2003), his personal SS adjutant, repeating his instruction that nothing must remain of him after his suicide.

On 10 March 10 1948, the Czechoslovakian minister of foreign affairs Jan Masaryk (1886-1948) was found dead, in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry below his bathroom window. The initial (KGB) investigation stated that he committed suicide by jumping out of the window.  A 2004 police investigation concluded that he was defenestrated by the KGB.  In 1968, the son of China's future paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (2004-1997), Deng Pufang (b 1944), was thrown from a window by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.  In 1977, as a result of political backlash against his album Zombie, musician Fela Kuti's (1938-1997) mother (Chief Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, 1900-1978) was thrown from a window during a military raid on his compound.  In addition, the commanding officer defecated on her head, while the soldiers burned down the compound, destroying his musical equipment, studio and master tapes.  Adding insult to injury, they later jailed him for being a subversive.  On 2 March 2007, Russian investigative journalist Ivan Safronov (1956-2007), who was researching the Kremlin's covert arms deals, fell to his death from a fifth floor window.  There was an investigation and the death was ruled to be suicide, a cause of death which of late has become uncommonly common in Russia, people these days often falling from windows high above the ground.

Dominion Centre, Toronto.

On 9 July 1993, in a case of self-defenestration, Toronto attorney Garry Hoy (1955-1993) fell from a window after a playful attempt to prove to a group of new legal interns that the windows of Toronto’s Dominion Centre were unbreakable.  The glass sustained the manufacturer’s claim but, intact, popped out of the frame, the unfortunate lawyer plunging to his death.  Mr Hoy actually also held an engineering degree and is said to have many times performed the amusing stunt.  Unfortunately he didn’t live to explain to the interns how the accumulation of stresses from his many impacts may have contributed to the structural failure.