nc33/multispan_quoref huggingface dataset:
A landscape can be seen through the window behind St. Catherine. Because of the miniature scale of the painting it can be seen only at close up. The view is built with extremely fine brushwork and shows a number of highly detailed buildings and hills before snowcapped mountains.A lance rests against the shoulder of a youthful-looking St. Michael. Michael is dressed in elaborately jewelled and coloured armour, his left arm holding his helmet, while his right hand rests on the shoulder of the donor as he is presented to Mary. The donor kneels in prayer before the Virgin, with his hands held upwards as if in prayer, although they are not clasped. He wears a gold ring on his right small finger, and is dressed in a long olive-green houppelande, at the time the height of fashion and an indicator of status within the Burgundian court. The gown has a fur-lined high collar and deep baggy sleeves, also lined with fur.  The donor's bowl-shaped haircut, rounded at the fringe but cut above his ears, is also typical of mid-1430s Netherlandish fashion. Except for the red hood, the garment closely resembles that worn by the groom in the Arnolfini Portrait.The capital of the pillar above the donor's head is lined with carvings of military scenes. Similar carvings are seen near the donor in van Eyck's earlier van der Paele and Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, and where they depict events or personal circumstances from the donor's life. Those in the present work likely serve a similar role, however because the donor is unidentified it is unknown as to what they may refer. Elisabeth Dhanens speculates that they might depict the sarcophagus of Hippolytus in Pisa, which she believes adds credibility to the belief the donor was of Italian origin; she also notes the military scene reflects St. Michael's status as military commander. Ward compares the carving to a similar one found in the Washington Annunciation. Unlike in van Eyck's earlier votive portraits the donor is positioned at a remove from the Marian apparition, and at a much smaller scale to Mary on a triptych wing.The lettering running along the edges of the panel's frame consists of a prayer fragment from the liturgy for the feast of St. Michael. The extract reads HIC EST ARCHANGELUS PRINCEPS MILITAE ANGELORUM CUIUS HONOR PRAESTAT BENEFICIA POPULORUM ET ORATARIO PERDUCIT AD REGNA COELORUM. HIC ANGELUS MICHAEL DEI NUNTIUS DE ANIMABUS JUSTIS. GRATIA DEI ILLE VICTOR IN COELIS RESEDIT. A PACIBUS ("This is Michael the Archangel, leader of the angelic hosts, whose privilege it is to grant favours to the people, and whose prayer leads them to the Kingdom of Heaven. The Archangel Michael is God's messenger for the souls of the just. By the grace of God, that great victor has taken his place in Heaven, on the side of peace'").

Question: What is the name of the person that painted a landscape can be seen through the window behind St. Catherine?
Answer: van Eyck
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What is the last name of the person who married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi?
Answer: Rapondi
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What are the first names of the people in the couple that Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for?
Answer: Catherine, Michel
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What is the last name of the person who said "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels?"
Answer: Dhanens
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What is the belief that has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece?
Answer: that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the first name of the person that historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437?
Answer: Michele
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the last name of the family whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine?
Answer: Rapondi
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the last name of the person who was a tax collector?
Answer: Burlamacchi
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the last name of the person who married Michele Burlamacchi?
Answer: Rapondi
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the first name of the person Catherine could have given the piece to ask as gift by way of protection on his travels?
Answer: Michele
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What was the first name of the person Michele could have given the piece to as a gift to pledge his affection during his absences?
Answer: Catherine
The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded by local tax receipts, suggesting a connection. Dhanens admits the donor's identity is lost, but she says of the piece that "it could have been a gift from the husband to the wife, a pledge of his affection during his absences; or it could have been a gift from the wife to the husband, by way of protection on his travels."

Question: What is the last name of the people whose daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi?
Answer: Rapondi
Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's old chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.

Question: What is the full name of the person that Anastasia gives the wand?
Answer: Lady Tremaine
Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's old chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.

Question: What is the name of the girl that the Prince danced with at the Ball?
Answer: Cinderella
Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's old chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.

Question: What are the names of the people who Cinderella follows to the palace?
Answer: Lady Tremaine, Anastasia, Drizella
Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's old chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.

Question: What is the first name of the person who is captured as an intruder?
Answer: Cinderella
Cinderella and the Prince are having a picnic to celebrate their one-year anniversary. Meanwhile, at the Tremaine mansion, Cinderella's stepsisters Anastasia and Drizella are bitterly doing Cinderella's old chores. Anastasia wanders off to avoid work and stumbles upon the picnic. When the Fairy Godmother drops her wand, Anastasia takes it to her mother. In the ensuing struggle, Anastasia inadvertently turns the Fairy Godmother into a garden gnome.
Lady Tremaine, reveling at yet another chance to ruin Cinderella's life, uses the wand to go back in time to the day the Grand Duke fitted the glass slipper on Cinderella. She uses the wand to expand the slipper so that it can fit Anastasia, and the Grand Duke declares she must be the girl the Prince is looking for. Cinderella arrives on the scene too late, and Lady Tremaine destroys Cinderella's other slipper – the only clue to her identity that she was the girl who danced with the Prince on the night of the ball. Cinderella decides to follow Lady Tremaine and her stepsisters to the palace with Jaq and Gus.
At first the Prince claims Anastasia is not the girl he danced with at the ball, but Lady Tremaine uses the wand to alter his memory, and he accepts Anastasia as his bride. Jaq and Gus witness this and inform Cinderella that Lady Tremaine has the Fairy Godmother's wand. Cinderella poses as a maid to get into the Tremaines' room, but she is spotted by Lady Tremaine and captured by the palace guards as an intruder. Cinderella briefly touches the Prince's hand and he begins to recognize her, but Lady Tremaine orders Cinderella placed on the next ship out of the kingdom. The mice find the Prince and explain the whole story to him, and he rides off to intercept the ship just as it leaves port. The Prince embraces Cinderella and his true memories return. He asks her to marry him, and she accepts.

Question: What is the name of the person the Prince proposes to?
Answer: Cinderella
Young bachelors and best friends Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble have recently qualified as crane operators at Slate & Company. Soon to be employed, now they want dates, and a little green alien The Great Gazoo, exiled to Earth by his species, offers to help, although only they can see him. Meanwhile, Wilma Slaghoople wants a normal life and activities, like bowling, despite her controlling mother Pearl, who wants her to marry smooth casino-owner Chip Rockefeller. Wilma angrily runs away to Bronto King in Bedrock. Waitress Betty O'Shale mistakes her as "caveless", and offers to share her apartment, and gets her a job.
Fred and Barney are smitten with the waitresses and invite them to a carnival, with Fred dating Betty and Barney taking Wilma. Fred wins a carnival game and gets a prize of an egg which hatches into a baby dinosaur, which he names "Dino". However, he does not really feel a connection with Betty, nor does Barney with Wilma, until both men switch dates. Wilma invites her new friends home to a birthday party for her father, Colonel Slaghoople, where all are shocked by her wealth. Fred intends to propose, but changes his mind after meeting Chip, who berates him for his low-level job at Slate & Company. Pearl dislikes the three new friends, but the Colonel accepts them, glad Wilma is happy, and privately gives her a valuable pearl necklace that once belonged to his great-grandmother. After the boys disgrace themselves at dinner, Wilma nevertheless proclaims her pride and follows them out.

Question: What is the full name of the character that Betty shares her apartment with?
Answer: Wilma Slaghoople
Young bachelors and best friends Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble have recently qualified as crane operators at Slate & Company. Soon to be employed, now they want dates, and a little green alien The Great Gazoo, exiled to Earth by his species, offers to help, although only they can see him. Meanwhile, Wilma Slaghoople wants a normal life and activities, like bowling, despite her controlling mother Pearl, who wants her to marry smooth casino-owner Chip Rockefeller. Wilma angrily runs away to Bronto King in Bedrock. Waitress Betty O'Shale mistakes her as "caveless", and offers to share her apartment, and gets her a job.
Fred and Barney are smitten with the waitresses and invite them to a carnival, with Fred dating Betty and Barney taking Wilma. Fred wins a carnival game and gets a prize of an egg which hatches into a baby dinosaur, which he names "Dino". However, he does not really feel a connection with Betty, nor does Barney with Wilma, until both men switch dates. Wilma invites her new friends home to a birthday party for her father, Colonel Slaghoople, where all are shocked by her wealth. Fred intends to propose, but changes his mind after meeting Chip, who berates him for his low-level job at Slate & Company. Pearl dislikes the three new friends, but the Colonel accepts them, glad Wilma is happy, and privately gives her a valuable pearl necklace that once belonged to his great-grandmother. After the boys disgrace themselves at dinner, Wilma nevertheless proclaims her pride and follows them out.

Question: What is the full name of the character that Pearl's daughter ends up with after switching dates?
Answer: Fred Flintstone
Young bachelors and best friends Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble have recently qualified as crane operators at Slate & Company. Soon to be employed, now they want dates, and a little green alien The Great Gazoo, exiled to Earth by his species, offers to help, although only they can see him. Meanwhile, Wilma Slaghoople wants a normal life and activities, like bowling, despite her controlling mother Pearl, who wants her to marry smooth casino-owner Chip Rockefeller. Wilma angrily runs away to Bronto King in Bedrock. Waitress Betty O'Shale mistakes her as "caveless", and offers to share her apartment, and gets her a job.
Fred and Barney are smitten with the waitresses and invite them to a carnival, with Fred dating Betty and Barney taking Wilma. Fred wins a carnival game and gets a prize of an egg which hatches into a baby dinosaur, which he names "Dino". However, he does not really feel a connection with Betty, nor does Barney with Wilma, until both men switch dates. Wilma invites her new friends home to a birthday party for her father, Colonel Slaghoople, where all are shocked by her wealth. Fred intends to propose, but changes his mind after meeting Chip, who berates him for his low-level job at Slate & Company. Pearl dislikes the three new friends, but the Colonel accepts them, glad Wilma is happy, and privately gives her a valuable pearl necklace that once belonged to his great-grandmother. After the boys disgrace themselves at dinner, Wilma nevertheless proclaims her pride and follows them out.

Question: What are the first names of Wilma's three new friends?
Answer: Fred, Barney, Betty
Young bachelors and best friends Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble have recently qualified as crane operators at Slate & Company. Soon to be employed, now they want dates, and a little green alien The Great Gazoo, exiled to Earth by his species, offers to help, although only they can see him. Meanwhile, Wilma Slaghoople wants a normal life and activities, like bowling, despite her controlling mother Pearl, who wants her to marry smooth casino-owner Chip Rockefeller. Wilma angrily runs away to Bronto King in Bedrock. Waitress Betty O'Shale mistakes her as "caveless", and offers to share her apartment, and gets her a job.
Fred and Barney are smitten with the waitresses and invite them to a carnival, with Fred dating Betty and Barney taking Wilma. Fred wins a carnival game and gets a prize of an egg which hatches into a baby dinosaur, which he names "Dino". However, he does not really feel a connection with Betty, nor does Barney with Wilma, until both men switch dates. Wilma invites her new friends home to a birthday party for her father, Colonel Slaghoople, where all are shocked by her wealth. Fred intends to propose, but changes his mind after meeting Chip, who berates him for his low-level job at Slate & Company. Pearl dislikes the three new friends, but the Colonel accepts them, glad Wilma is happy, and privately gives her a valuable pearl necklace that once belonged to his great-grandmother. After the boys disgrace themselves at dinner, Wilma nevertheless proclaims her pride and follows them out.

Question: What is the last name of the character that Mr. Rubble dates first?
Answer: Slaghoople
The 1896 French colonisation of Madagascar brought an end to the rule of the Merina sovereigns. The Rova of Antananarivo was converted into a museum the following year, and the Fitomiandalana tombs were excavated and moved to a new location behind the tombs of Radama I and Rasoherina. The bodies of sovereigns previously interred in the royal tombs at Ambohimanga were exhumed and transferred to the tombs in the Rova grounds, a sacrilegious move that degraded the status of Ambohimanga as a site of sacred pilgrimage. According to Frémigacci (1999), French colonial administrator General Joseph Gallieni undertook this desacralisation of the Rova in an attempt to break popular belief in the power of the royal ancestors. By the same token, his actions relegated Malagasy sovereignty under the Merina rulers to a relic of an unenlightened past.  The desecration of the two most sacred sites of Merina royalty represented a calculated political move intended to establish the political and cultural superiority of the colonial power.Following independence the Rova compound remained largely closed to the public throughout the First (1960–1972) and Second (1975–1992) Republics except on special occasions.  In 1995, three years into the Third Republic (1992–2010), the Rova compound was destroyed by fire. The tombs, chapel, exterior of Manjakamiadina and two traditional wooden houses (Besakana and Mahitsy) have since been restored with further restorations planned to continue until at least 2013.

Question: What was the last name of the person whose actions relegated Malagasy sovereingnty under the Merina rulers to a relic of an unenlightened past>
Answer: Gallieni