Singers Name (First And Last) Age: Fill & Download for Free

That’s easy, Faye Wong.We share first and last name.My legal first name is Faye, and Wong is HK spelling for Wang.Having a name that’s very similar to such famous super star is great. When people google Faye Wang, the first 10 thousand links would be about the singer, not me. In this day and age, anonymity through obscurity is about the only thing I can rely on for privacy.

At one time, it was incredibly inconvenient. First, when she became Miss America, I had difficulties with people believing I was who I saidI was. Examples: ordering a pizza and being refused; phoning for a cab and having the dispatcher say "yeah...right" and hang up on me. Also some relatives overseas were writing to my family, sending newspaper clippings about the win and asking "is it really true?!" Not only do we have the same name, but we are the same age (though I'm some months older, whereby I claim I had the name first.) My foreign relatives don't make any distinction between Canada and America--it's all the same to them. My Mom had to write a few letters explaining things to them.Then she became infamous for the Penthouse photos and things took a nasty turn. Now I was the subject of leers and dirty jokes and "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" behavior. That was the worst time, and I'm glad it's mostly forgotten.And then came the fan email. My email inbox was filled for a time with young men (never women for some reason) begging for a signed photo of the singer. Or asking for a copy of the lyrics to some song I've never heard.One inconvenience is that you can never get an Internet domain of your own name, as many of my friends have done. First, it's taken. And second, I'd get sued if I managed to acquire it. According to U.S. law, she owns my name and I have no rights to it (yeah, only in America--but they impose their laws extraterritorially on Canadians, too.) If I ever write a book, I'll have to use a pen name, because my own belongs to someone else. :-bMost of the time it's just as Robert Downey has said. It's pretty boring having to listen to "Oh! Like the singer?" over and over, though it's rarer now than it once was. And like Robert, I have no really clever comeback other than "well, we share a name, but unfortunately for me we don't share a bank account."I once worked with a man named Steven King (yes, different spelling). He called it Famous Name Syndrome (FNS) and suggested we start a club...

Your answer reveals some of the stereotypes movies have produced over the years, let's go a little into detail:Survive most battles: This was surprisingly easy as there rarely were any battles. Despite the popular conception that the Middle Ages were a never-ending series of battles, the opposite was true.​(Battle of Bouvines, Philip II. of France against Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor)When Philip II. of France won the battle of Bouvines in 1214 it was only the second battle a French king was involved in more than 200 years (and the first the French won).William the Conqueror (quite a martial name) only risked open battle twice during his life and was seen as a warmonger.If you had fought in more than two battles, you were seen as a skilled veteran and William Marshall who had fought in five battles was seen as a living legend during his time.Real battles (at least in the early and high) Middle Ages were extremely rare, mostly because it meant an extreme risk of losing and your army being routed. As regrouping an army was close to impossible, as routed knights would usually flee back to their castles and the peasant militias fled back to their farms or hid in the woods.​​​(Medieval infantry)Even if it was possible to retreat without losing the majority of the army (something that was almost impossible until the 18th century), it was questionable if you would get another chance. The Medieval conception of battles was similar to a trial, God himself being the judge. As both sides claimed that god was on their side, fighting was seen as a way to see which side had the just cause. After one side had lost, it was usually argued that god himself had made a decision and to go against this decision was blasphemy (admittedly: those rules were pretty ambiguous, if the overall situation still seemed good the army would keep fighting, while in other cases it was just an excuse for the nobility to leave the king and return back home).Choosing battle also had another huge disadvantage: The possibility of getting killed! The decision makers during most of the Middle Ages valued their lives quite a lot, so it was natural that they would avoid direct contact with the enemy. Most of medieval warfare was looting villages and besieging the enemy's castles. At least for the nobility this proved pretty bloodless as the normal adversaries were simple farmers, so both sides would focus on devastating one another’s holdings, rather than risking their lives in open battle:"Soon all is in tumult. The farmers, having just come out to their fields, turn back, uttering loud cries. The shepherds gather their flocks and drive them towards neighboring woods in the hope of saving them. The incendiaries set the villages on fire and the foragers sack them. The terrified inhabitants are either burned or led away with their hands tied to be held for ransom. Everywhere bells ring the alarm.. A surge of fear sweeps over the countryside. Wherever you look you see helmets glinting in the sun, pennons waving in the breeze, the whole plain covered with horsemen. Money, cattle, mules and sheep are all seized. The smoke billows and spreads, flames crackle. Farmers and shepherds scatter in all directions." - Chansons de LorrainesWhile this had some strategic reasoning, as Vegetius put it: "The main and principal point in war is to secure plenty of provisions for oneself and to destroy the enemy by famine. Famine is more terrible than the sword." The main reason was, that killing the peasantry was preferred over killing one another.Even if knights met for battle, the whole thing usually went down rather bloodlessly, the reason for this being that nobody really wanted to kill the people on the other side of the field. This had two reasons, as mentioned before, a battle was more of a semi-legal way to figure out who had the better claim and not the complete destruction of your enemy as they were fellow Christians and furthermore, because everybody knew everybody: As armies tended to be rather small and the knights were recruited from a small warrior elite of society almost everybody had friends and kinsmen on the other side. It wasn't even unusual that a knight owed allegiance to both sides and it was quite hard to tell for whom he had to fight legally.So knights were pretty reluctant to kill each other. Ordericus Vitalis, a medieval scholar wrote: "900 knights fought at Bremule (1119), I found out that only three had been killed, because they were clothed with thick iron and also they spared one another, because they feared God, but also because they were brothers in arms. They didn't kill those who fled and only took them captive."Taking other knights captive was the main goal of every battle, because a knight could make a fortune with ransoms. This sometimes proved close to absurd: During battle knights would release their captives if they swore to return after the fighting was done, so they themselves could take other knights captive to pay for their ransoms, but sometimes a knight was even taken captive several times, resulting in financial ruin.Despite all the chivalry, a knight's honour code only applied to other knights: If they fought against non-Christians or heretics, they would spare none of their enemies.Even when fighting Christian peasants or militias they would show no mercy, mostly because it was pretty easy to kill them. While it was almost impossible to kill a fully armoured nobleman during a high medieval battle (Emperor Otto IV. fought the entire day at Bouvines, killed countless soldiers, lost three battle horses and still managed to escape), peasants usually had no armour, no advanced weapons, no training and also they had been taught that they simply could not stand against knights.The only nightmare knights had were mercenaries: During the 12th century the populations of the urban regions (Flanders, Brabant, the Rhineland and Northern Italy) developed expertise in slaying knights: crossbows, halberds, axes and daggers proved helpful in getting through a knight's armour and actually killing them.(medieval Routiers, the first specialised "knight-slayers", image taken from Kriegsreisende.de)The European nobles were frightened, as for the first time non-knights stood an actual chance against them. Mercenaries were threatened with eternal damnation by the pope and while Philipp II let the enemies’ knights and peasants escape at Bouvines, the 700 Brabantian mercenaries of Otto IV. were all put to the sword.It would be an interesting question if the (often deserved) bad reputation of mercenaries throughout the centuries has its roots in the fear of the mediaeval nobility.So battles rarely happened, but when they happened was it possible to go berserk and mow down hostile soldiers? Only if you were a well-trained knight charging against a formation of frightened peasants. Other knights would be mostly off the table, first for their armour and second because they were "mates", while mercenaries would usually fight to the last man, because they knew that they could not expect mercy by their enemies.​Edit: Thanks for all the upvotes and encouragement, this has been by far my most popular answer on Quora! I would also like to point out a few things: My main intention with this answer was to point out that famous battles were quite rare, not that the Middle Ages were an overall peaceful time: skirmishes and minor wars were quite common and as many have correctly noted, this mainly applies to Western Europe during the High Middle Ages (1050-1250). My second intention was to show that the Hollywood portrayal of battle where the protagonist just goes through the enemy’s line and kills everyone in his way was uncommon: There certainly were men who killed a lot of enemies and those are mentioned in the source material, but they also clearly point out that those were exceptions. I also wanted to point out, that it was not a knight's goal to kill every one of the enemy’s soldiers, there were bloody battles and there were massacres, but making your enemy unable to wage war by killing his entire army is a modern concept, while a knight was more focused on taking other knights captive than killing them, what does not mean that they were unable to kill: when threatened a fully armoured knight was still the deadliest thing of his period.