Monomakh's Cap

Monomakh's Cap called the Golden Cap, is a chief relic of the Russian Grand Princes and Tsars. It is a symbol-crown of the Russian autocracy, is the oldest of the crowns exhibited at the Imperial treasury section of the Kremlin Armoury. Monomakh's Cap is an early 14th-century gold filigree skullcap composed of eight sectors, elaborately ornamented with a scrolled gold overlay, inlaid with precious stones and pearls, trimmed with sable; the cap is surmounted by a simple gold cross with pearls at each of the extremities. The main hypothesis is of old-Moscow origin. One of the others is it Central Asian origin has led some modern scholars to view the crown as a gift from Uzbeg Khan of the Golden Horde to his brother-in-law, Ivan Kalita of Moscow during the period of the Tatar yoke in Russia. Boris Uspensky, in particular, argues that the Tatar headgear was used in coronation ceremonies to signify the Muscovite ruler's subordination to the khan. According to Sergey Solovyov "after the death of Ivan Kalita all Russian princes traveled to the Horde... and the Khan announced the eldest son of Kalita, the Grand Prince of Vladimir".

Solovyov writes that the first who introduced the coronation of the Russian monarch was Ivan III and it took place in 1498. At some point in the 15th or 16th century the crown was surmounted by a cross. After Russia overcame the period of feudal fragmentation and Ivan III of Moscow and Vladimir asserted his position as successor to the Roman emperors, there arose a legend that the cap had been presented by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus to his grandson Vladimir Monomakh, the founder of the city of Vladimir and patrilineal ancestor of Ivan III; the legend was elaborated in The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir and served as one of the grounds for the "Moscow as the Third Rome" political theory. Accordingly, the crown became known as "Monomakh's Cap", the term first recorded in a Russian document from 1518; however the fact that Constantine IX Monomachus died 50 years before the coronation of Vladimir Monomakh makes the statement a legend. The first version of the orient origin of the Cap was suggested by George Vernadsky.

Vernadsky was pointing to an interesting fact that according to Paul Pelliot Özbäg can be interpreted as a freeman. Professor Kramarovsky, interested in the origin of the cap remarks that according to the technology of the headwear production the origin of the cap is either out of the Volga cities or Crimea where the school of Golden Horde filigree had developed. According to Aleksandr Andreevich Spitsyn the cap was topped with the similar cross of the Jani Beg crown, however the German ambassador of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, Sigismund von Herberstein does not support that fact. After Ivan the Terrible had himself crowned the first Russian Tsar with this headgear, the Polish king asked him to explain the meaning of his new title. To that Ivan replied that whoever is crowned with Monomakh's Cap is traditionally called a tsar, because it was a gift from a tsar who had sent the Metropolitan of Ephesus to Kiev to crown Vladimir Monomakh with this cap. Ivan was not aware that at the time of Constantine IX Monomachus' death, Vladimir Monomakh was only two years old and he was not the Kievan sovereign yet.

The Monomakh Cap was last used in the dual coronation of Ivan V and Peter the Great in 1682, though it was carried in the coronation procession thereafter. When Peter assumed the title of emperor, a new western-style crown was fashioned, but was not used in a coronation until that of Catherine I. Caps of the Russian tsardom Jericho's caps of Russian tsars – royal parade helms Russian Imperial Crown Muscovy Crown Holy Crown of Hungary Macro Photography The Crown of Monomakh Crown of Monomakh pictures and description The Crown of Monomakh at Tatar's hats – Crowns of the Ruthenian Tsars, based on the article "Crowns of Ruthenian Tsars – landmarks of Tatar Culture". Magazine "Idel" #3/4, 1996

Sai ua

Sai ua or northern Thai sausage or Chiang Mai sausage is a grilled pork sausage from northern Thailand and northeastern Burma. In Thailand, it is a standard food of the northern provinces and it has become popular in the rest of Thailand as well, its name in Thai comes from ua. In Shan State, this sausage is known as sai long phik. Sai ua contains minced pork meat, herbs and kaeng khua red curry paste, it is eaten grilled with sticky rice and other dishes or served as a snack or starter. Traditionally sai ua was a homemade sausage, but today it is available in shops. Naem – a fermented pork sausage in Thai cuisine Sai krok Isan – a fermented sausage from northeastern Thailand List of sausages List of Thai dishes Food portal Media related to Sai ua at Wikimedia Commons Northern Thai in Western Melbourne

Anand Grover

Anand Grover is a senior lawyer known for legal activism in Indian law relating to homosexuality and HIV. Along with his wife Indira Jaising, he is a founder-member of the Lawyers Collective, he was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health from August 2008 to July 2014. He is and acting member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. With the Lawyers Collective Grover led the Naz Foundation's legal case for the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a law criminalizing homosexuality in India. Grover led the Lawyers Collective court case against Novartis regarding an interpretation of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which would determine the patent status of antiretroviral drugs in India; the result of the case was that the Lawyers Collective prevailed and certain drugs became ineligible for patenting, thus keeping the price of the medications in line with generic medication costs. Grover represented the Cancer Patients Aid Association as an attorney and won the legal fight against drug maker Novartis on the issue of patent of cancer drug Glivec.

On the night before Yakub Memon was scheduled to be executed, Anand Grover along with other senior lawyers of the Supreme Court, sought appointment from the Chief Justice of India, H. L. Dattu at his residence. After the Chief Justice constituted a 3 Judge bench, Grover argued for the mandatory 14-day period between the rejection of the mercy plea of a condemned prisoner, the execution of the death warrant, as per the guidelines set by the Supreme Court of India in the Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India case. Grover argued that an earlier mercy petition submitted to the President was by his brother, that since all the legal remedies available to the prisoner, including a curative petition, stood exhausted only a day before his scheduled hanging, only the final mercy petition submitted by Yakub himself must be taken into account while evaluating upon the 14-day period; however the Supreme Court rejected the argument noting that Yakub had not disowned the earlier mercy petition by his brother.

The bench commented. Grover expressed disappointment and unhappiness over the judgement and termed it as a tragic mistake. Grover represented Shreya Tripathi in her successful efforts to obtain bedaquiline for the treatment of her extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Grover is a member of the UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights and a Special Rapporteur in the United Nations Human Rights Council, his duty in this position is to promote the right to physical and mental health. Court report from result of Article 377 trial