Boat 8 Passenger


May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
I don't know much about the Royal Family,so i may have been wrong some ways,but it seems i was right about the males heirs to the throne get the priority before females do.
In the line of descent yes. Marilyn explains it quite clearly. But I can give you the plain knocked down version. Example- A King has a sister and a brother and a son and daughter. The King and the Son die so the King's Daughter would become Queen not the King's brother or sister.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Hi George. Long time,no see!

Pefect.I was on the lines of what you just mentioned about the son getting the crown before the young Daughter.
I did not know about the King Brother and sister rule though. Thanks.
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
Don't mention it.

I did not know about the King Brother and sister rule though.
Well in some cases yes if the Sister is older then she would get the crown like in Denmark or Sweden. They made a new law where the oldest gets the crown regardless of them being either male or female.

England is a country where the Male is in line first but even there it's been recently where the male is the oldest. The Queen's oldest is Prince Charles and the Prince's oldest is Prince William plus the fact Charles has no daughters yet! Not likely to, but never say never.

Anyways it depends on the country and their laws of inheritance on who gets the throne.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
I was talking about England in the Edwardian olden days! It was males that got * heir to the throne*.
Yes, you're right today it's a different story.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Ok. We agree on this subject,that's great.

The countess of Rothes?Why is her name poshie?Is this lady a princess? I just don't under stand her name,it's not a regular name like normal people have!
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
Women weren't far off getting the vote. Only 6 years to wait in the UK. Though for ten years after that only women over 30 got the vote, so whilst sexism was in retreat ageism still ruled! Actually, one of the reasons for the 'over 30' ruling was that in 1918 (after millions had died in the Great War) men were significantly outnumbered by women and didn't want them to have the majority when it came to electing a government.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
In Britain a Countess is the wife or widow of an Earl, a rank of nobility which in other European countries would be named a Count. The Earldom of Rothes is located in the Highlands of Scotland and the title is hereditary, passed on over many centuries from father to son. But the nobility also have family and Christian names like the rest of us, and in 1912 the name of the 19th Earl of Rothes was Norman Leslie. His wife's full name was Lucy Noël Martha Leslie, but she was entitled also to call herself the Countess of Rothes.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,248
11
308
Niagara Falls, Ontario
The countess of Rothes?Why is her name poshie?Is this lady a princess? I just don't under stand her name,it's not a regular name like normal people have!
The Countess of Rothes is not a real name, Alyson; it's a royal title. The Countess' real name was Lucy Noel Martha who married Norman Evelyn Leslie, (19th Earl of Rothes).

When a member of the Royal Family gets married, the spouse of the said member receives a title of their own. For example, when Prince Edward (Earl of Wessex) married Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999, Sophie was awarded the title of Countess of Wessex meaning they both represent that area of South West England, when it comes to carrying out many engagements in various areas, such as charitable events, young people, the arts, etc, etc.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
Though the current Earl of Wessex is a member of the Royal family, most Earls and Countesses are not so these are not royal titles as such, and the Earl and Countess of Rothes were certainly not royalty. In the league table of the nobility a Countess is several steps down from a Princess, but ranks higher than a Viscountess or Baroness.
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
Actually, one of the reasons for the 'over 30' ruling was that in 1918 (after millions had died in the Great War) men were significantly outnumbered by women and didn't want them to have the majority when it came to electing a government.
There are usually more Women then Men anyways. Of course in the States la influenza paid a good long visit and evened the playing field amongst Men and Women. Hence all women got the Vote!
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>There are usually more Women then Men anyways.<<

That's true.In Melbourne there's a man shortage!
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>Goes to show.....<<

Do you mean cause i'm always on the computer?....Well yeah true!

Bob and Jason. She's Royal? She sounds and treated like a normal passenger,even in Titanic books!
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
No, actually that there are less men in the world. I was answering and agreeing with your comment about the there being hardly any fellas in Melbourne. I was also using it to prove my point aboout there being more women then men
happy.gif
. It's amazing what you can say with just a few words.
 
May 27, 2007
3,917
3
0
Do you mean cause i'm always on the computer?....Well yeah true!
LOL you said it. Unlike you I'm suffering a shortage of ladies. I haven't the time for Romance anyways with my kid and work.
sad.gif
Well yeah true for me as well..
wink.gif
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Hey.I actually knew what you were saying,i agree.Well on the internet there's alot more men but in the real world, yes there's to many ladies.

About Countess of Rothes being Royal,these days someone that Royal never travels on public ships.To me it seems weird that Royals were traveling on a public ship like Titanic.Don't the royals back in 1912 own there own ships like today?
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
61
308
UK
Alyson: No, the Countess was not Royal. Read my last posting above, especially "the Earl and Countess of Rothes were certainly not royalty".
 

Similar threads