Tiger Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) So how about it? Should there be a duel in the Bridgemont series? I think it'd be totally awesome. Anyone else think there should be? I always thought duels were interesting, and it's a good way for a bad guy in the series to die. How about Granger and one of the Wilcoxes? Edited October 15, 2009 by Tiger
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Holy F that'd be so cool, but i think it shoud be more memoriable like granger forced to duel with bertie or even his older brother because of a big scheam found out, frankly i think granger could almost make king, but alas i'd rather him not. But wilcoxes would just be for fun then anything serious...i like serious risky plots a wilcox has no power anymore other then the few ship captains left.. either! way it would be exciting!
Tiger Posted October 15, 2009 Author Posted October 15, 2009 Holy F that'd be so cool, but i think it shoud be more memoriable like granger forced to duel with bertie or even his older brother because of a big scheam found out, frankly i think granger could almost make king, but alas i'd rather him not. But wilcoxes would just be for fun then anything serious...i like serious risky plots a wilcox has no power anymore other then the few ship captains left.. either! way it would be exciting! Granger cannot be king unless his family somehow usurps the power (which is unlikely). He is likely to be a knight and then, perhaps, a baron. The oldest brother is in line to be an earl (unless something changes). He is likely already a viscount. Someone can correct me if I am incorrect, but the ranks are as follows from highest to lowest for nobles: Duke or Dutchess Marquess or Matrioness Count/Earl or Countess Viscount or Viscountess Baron or Baroness
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Whoa duke and dutchess have the power.......well the duke....women in this time have little to none exept for the gossip and influential. They have no vote and no rights, Granger could Beat Caroline and No1 would Care, Exept since his father brought him up, i bet he would care. Anyway i think Granger definatly should be knighted by the time he's twenty five otherwise he'll not live up to his awesome navy skills. Alreay it's been about two years on the intrepid! like i think he needs a new ship. Since he isn't a Commander yet...I think a Promotion is soon on it's way! and a bigger ship P.S the movie dutchess with kira Knightly is a Good Movie of that Time!!(maybe a little before/or after though)
Enric Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Someone can correct me if I am incorrect, but the ranks are as follows from highest to lowest for nobles: Duke or Dutchess Marquess or Matrioness Count/Earl or Countess Viscount or Viscountess Baron or Baroness miraculously, the pecking order itself is correct. But some of these terms, well, you succeeded in mis-spelling them.... duchess marchioness Britain does not have count. all those there are Earl the earl's eldest son is *styled* by using the next-highest title of that very earl. It usually is viscount. but not always. and, it is a style only: the father still holds also the viscountcy, the eldest son only may use it as courtesy title - this means that the said eldest son is not yet summoned to the House of Lords
Mark Arbour Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 miraculously, the pecking order itself is correct. But some of these terms, well, you succeeded in mis-spelling them.... duchess marchioness Britain does not have count. all those there are Earl the earl's eldest son is *styled* by using the next-highest title of that very earl. It usually is viscount. but not always. and, it is a style only: the father still holds also the viscountcy, the eldest son only may use it as courtesy title - this means that the said eldest son is not yet summoned to the House of Lords That's correct. There's also a lower rung on the scale, a Baronet, who is addressed as Sir Whatever in the same way a knight is.
Daisy Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) thanks for giving me knowledge of my country . I've never learnt the intricate ins and outs of it. should have really. especially when it comes to the house of lords. so where is a knight, OBE, and Lord in all of this? and I'd rather not see a duel. don't want anyone to get hurt. Edited October 15, 2009 by Smarties
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 thanks for giving me knowledge of my country . I've never learnt the intricate ins and outs of it. should have really. especially when it comes to the house of lords. so where is a knight, OBE, and Lord in all of this? and I'd rather not see a duel. don't want anyone to get hurt. Awe a lover not a fighter!! Some lucky Person to have you are!!
Mark Arbour Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 thanks for giving me knowledge of my country . I've never learnt the intricate ins and outs of it. should have really. especially when it comes to the house of lords. so where is a knight, OBE, and Lord in all of this? and I'd rather not see a duel. don't want anyone to get hurt. A "Lord" would be any of those: Duke/Marquess/Earl/Viscount/Baron. A Knighthood is rewarded for something exceptional. The OBE you mentioned stands for "Order of the British Empire." There are several orders, or types of knighthoods. In Britain, the most prestigious is the Garter, usually reserved for those with the bluest of blood. In Granger's day, the most common order for valiant sailors and soldiers was the Bath, which is why you'll see Nelson with a KB after his name (for Knight of the Bath). Within the orders, there are also different ranks. For example, there is the rank of "Companion" of an order, which doesn't give the holder the right to use the word "sir" or "Lady" in front of their name. Then there's the rank of Knight, and above that "Knight Commander".
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 So why was this not expained in the storyline?? i think the Purpose of Sir and knowings it's History much less the hole history would be nice, as i said before i like the detail, and surprisingly as a history major you only give us bits and pieces in the story and a mountin of Great Detail on the outside of the story? To bad! this i find to Very Important. Like In another book Series i read (Sword of Truth, Terry Goodkind) He explained how in the Land called "The Midlands" Women who held the most prominant offices had longer Hair, Servent Girls usualy had Shaved heads, while the longest is the Mother Confessor who's Hair Is half way down her back, and a queen's is actually only a little below her shoulders. It's rather interesting the politics of these stories.
Daisy Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) So why was this not expained in the storyline?? i think the Purpose of Sir and knowings it's History much less the hole history would be nice, as i said before i like the detail, and surprisingly as a history major you only give us bits and pieces in the story and a mountin of Great Detail on the outside of the story? To bad! this i find to Very Important. Like In another book Series i read (Sword of Truth, Terry Goodkind) He explained how in the Land called "The Midlands" Women who held the most prominant offices had longer Hair, Servent Girls usualy had Shaved heads, while the longest is the Mother Confessor who's Hair Is half way down her back, and a queen's is actually only a little below her shoulders. It's rather interesting the politics of these stories. a capital p huh? . I can see what you mean about the detail. it does give you a better sense of what you are reading. however I suppose you can't load a story down with too much detail. or it depends on the impression you are trying to give. or maybe it's just up to the reader to discover if interested, and it's good on the story if you are. but i suppose as someone who isn't from england then you maybe at more of a disadvantage than me. I don't know how much english history you have to learn, whereas I soak up bits just by living here as well. but obviously I haven't learnt enough .... we just have too much damn history -actually I think my schooling was pretty shit with the way they taught it. so much crucial stuff was left out and you often repeated stuff, and I had huge gaps in the timeline. The best thing we did was going through the 'history of medicine', because at least it went through all of the ages. so yeah, I am partially guessing at what the politics was like then, because well, the development of our parliament was one of those things that was left out, and I never studied that era, so I've just had to guess over time how things evolved, and even now I don't really know how things work; I don't think many do. Edited October 15, 2009 by Smarties
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Alright i see where your coming from anyway Canadians only know about the wars, the ages, the economy and a moreso of the important people rather then the politics itself, course thats of all Europe not just britain. Mainly we learn of how Canada was Taken over and the wars and stuff! it's cool at some points but others....BLAH i could've hurt someone it was so dry!
Mark Arbour Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 So why was this not expained in the storyline?? i think the Purpose of Sir and knowings it's History much less the hole history would be nice, as i said before i like the detail, and surprisingly as a history major you only give us bits and pieces in the story and a mountin of Great Detail on the outside of the story? To bad! this i find to Very Important. Like In another book Series i read (Sword of Truth, Terry Goodkind) He explained how in the Land called "The Midlands" Women who held the most prominant offices had longer Hair, Servent Girls usualy had Shaved heads, while the longest is the Mother Confessor who's Hair Is half way down her back, and a queen's is actually only a little below her shoulders. It's rather interesting the politics of these stories. Probably because Granger isn't a knight. If/when he acquires that honor, I'll flush it out. It's impossible to stop and go through all the intricacies of 18th Century England all at once. I have to work them in as best I can, and when they make the most sense and have the most relevance.
Mark M Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Probably because Granger isn't a knight. If/when he acquires that honor, I'll flush it out. It's impossible to stop and go through all the intricacies of 18th Century England all at once. I have to work them in as best I can, and when they make the most sense and have the most relevance. Hmm Well Said! Only thing is that with Freddie and the Earl it Could have been flushed out. oh well i can wait, but now that i know it really doesn't matter anyway now haha to me anyway What is Grangers Next Rank?? or Possible Next Rank. Back to the topic i do wonder if a duel will come about between anyone. Any Chance of a lovly Chapter 2 night??...well in for minutes it'll be Tomorrow So yeah!
amBIguoustwo Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 If Mark wrote a different genre, he'd teleport Brian right to Granger's deck. That'd get rid of Brian in a very nice fashion. Bryan
Tiger Posted October 15, 2009 Author Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) If Mark wrote a different genre, he'd teleport Brian right to Granger's deck. That'd get rid of Brian in a very nice fashion. Bryan That would be cool. Honestly, I think Brian is trying to be nice, though. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, maybe there could simply be a similar character that Granger duels. Edited October 15, 2009 by Tiger
Daisy Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Awe a lover not a fighter!! Some lucky Person to have you are!! I don't see the point in someone possibly dying or getting injured over "honour". Life vs "honour" - or death for the sake of an argument. surely it can be settled better ways
Tiger Posted October 16, 2009 Author Posted October 16, 2009 I don't see the point in someone possibly dying or getting injured over "honour". Life vs "honour" - or death for the sake of an argument. surely it can be settled better ways A true lady you are. Those were different times though, and people would literally fight to the death to protect their honor.
Mark Arbour Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 A true lady you are. Those were different times though, and people would literally fight to the death to protect their honor. Well, sort of. By the late 18th Century, dueling in Britain was seriously frowned upon. If Granger engaged in a duel, he'd likely earn a rebuke from the King himself. In any event, the code wasn't to fight to the death, it was to satisfy honor, and honor was satisfied once a fight happened. So if two men dueled with pistols, once shots were exchanged, even if no one was hit, honor was satisfied.
Tiger Posted October 16, 2009 Author Posted October 16, 2009 Well, sort of. By the late 18th Century, dueling in Britain was seriously frowned upon. If Granger engaged in a duel, he'd likely earn a rebuke from the King himself. In any event, the code wasn't to fight to the death, it was to satisfy honor, and honor was satisfied once a fight happened. So if two men dueled with pistols, once shots were exchanged, even if no one was hit, honor was satisfied. So it needs to be someone other than Granger but close to him. A rebuke from the king would be bad for him, so...
Mark Arbour Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Well, we already had a duel in the story. That's how the whole feud with the Wilcox family got started: Bertie killed one of them in a duel.
Daisy Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Well, we already had a duel in the story. That's how the whole feud with the Wilcox family got started: Bertie killed one of them in a duel. yeah, but they want blow by blow action . and I thought one was just injured, mustn't have been reading carefully enough, oops.
Mark Arbour Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I thought I put enough blowing in the story as it was.
Recommended Posts