Queen Victorias Children and Grandchildren

Queen Victorias Children and Grandchildren Queen Victoria and her first cousin Prince Albert, who married on February 10, 1840, had nine children. The marriage of the children of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert  into other royal families, and the likelihood that some of her children bore a mutant gene for hemophilia affected European history. In the following lists, the numbered persons are children of Victoria and Albert, with notes on who they married, and below them are the next generation, Victoria, and Alberts grandchildren. Children of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert Victoria Adelaide Mary, Princess Royal (November 21, 1840 - August 5, 1901)  married Frederick III of Germany (1831 - 1888)Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Emperor (1859 - 1941, emperor 1888 - 1919), married Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein and Hermine Reuss of GreizDuchess Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen (1860 - 1919), married Bernhard III, Duke of Saxe-MeinengenPrince Henry of Prussia (1862 - 1929), married Princess Irene of Hesse and by the RhinePrince Sigismund of Prussia (1864 - 1866)Princess Victoria of Prussia (1866 - 1929), married Prince Adolf of Schaumburg-Lippe and Alexander ZoubkoffPrince Waldemar of Prussia (1868 - 1879)Sophie of Prussia, Queen of Greece (1870 - 1932), married Constantine I of GreecePrincess Margarete of Hesse (1872 - 1954), married Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse-KasselAlbert Edward, King of England as Edward VII (November 9, 1841 - May 6, 1910)  married Princess Alexandra of Denmark (1844 - 1925)Duke Albert Victor Christian (1864 - 1892), engaged to M ary of Teck (1867 - 1953)King George V (1910 - 1936), married Mary of Teck (1867 - 1953)Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar, Princess Royal (1867 - 1931), married Alexander Duff, Duke of FifePrincess Victoria Alexandra Olga (1868 - 1935)Princess Maud Charlotte Mary (1869 - 1938), married Haakon VII of NorwayPrince Alexander John of Wales (John) (1871 - 1871) Alice Maud Mary (April 25, 1843 - December 14, 1878)  married Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse (1837 - 1892)Princess Victoria Alberta of Hesse (1863 - 1950), married Prince Louis of BattenbergElizabeth, Grand Duchess of Russia (1864 - 1918), married Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of RussiaPrincess Irene of Hesse (1866 - 1953), married Prince Heinrich of PrussiaErnest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse (1868 - 1937), married Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (his cousin, a daughter of Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a son of Victoria and Albert), Eleonore of Solms-Hohensolms-Lich   (married 1894, divorce 1901)Frederick (Prince Friedrich) (1870 - 1873)Alexandra, Tsarina of Russia (Alix of Hesse) (1872 - 1918), married Nicholas II of RussiaMary (Princess Marie) (1874 - 1878)Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh and of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (August 6, 1844 - 1900)  married Marie Alexandrovna, Grand Duchess, Russia (1853 - 1920)Prince Alfred (1874 - 1899)Ma rie of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen of Romania (1875 - 1938), married Ferdinand of RomaniaVictoria Melita of Edinburgh, Grand Duchess (1876 - 1936), married first (1894 - 1901) Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse (her cousin, a son of Princess Alice Maud Mary of the United Kingdom, a daughter of Victoria and Albert), married second (1905)  Kirill Vladimirovich, Grand Duke of Russia (her first cousin, and a first cousin of both Nicholas II and his wife, who was also the sister of Victoria Melitas first husband)Princess Alexandra (1878 - 1942), married Ernst II, Prince of Hohenlohe-LangenburgPrincess Beatrice (1884 - 1966), married Infante Alfonso de Orleans y Borbà ³n, Duke of Galliera Helena Augusta Victoria (May 25, 1846 - June 9, 1923)  married Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (1831 - 1917)Prince Christian Victor of Schleswig-Holstein (1867 - 1900)Prince Albert, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (1869 - 1931), never married but fathered a daughterPrincess Helena Victoria (1870 - 1948)Princess Maria Louise (1872 - 1956), married Prince Aribert of AnhallFrederick Harold (1876 - 1876)stillborn son (1877)Louise Caroline Alberta (March 18, 1848 - December 3, 1939)  married John Campbell, Duke of Argyll, Marquis of Lorne (1845 - 1914)Arthur William Patrick, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (May 1, 1850 - January 16, 1942)  married Duchess Louise Margaret of Prussia (1860 - 1917)Princess Margaret of Connaught, Crown Princess of Sweden (1882 - 1920), married Gustaf Adolf, Crown Prince of SwedenPrince Arthur of Connaught and Strathearn (1883 - 1938), married Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife (herself a daughter of Princess Louise, granddaughter of Edward VII and g reat-granddaughter of Victoria and Albert)Princess Patricia of Connaught, Lady Patricia Ramsay (1885 - 1974), married Sir Alexander Ramsay Leopold George Duncan, Duke of Albany (April 7, 1853 - March 28, 1884)  married Princess Helena Frederica of Waldeck and Pyrmont (1861 - 1922)Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (1883 - 1981), married Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone (she was the last surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria)Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1884 - 1954), married Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-HosteinBeatrice Mary Victoria (April 14, 1857 - October 26, 1944)  married Prince Henry of Battenberg (1858 - 1896)Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Carisbrooke (formerly Prince Alexander of Battenburg) (1886 - 1960), married Lady Iris MountbattenVictoria Eugenie, Queen of Spain (1887 - 1969), married Alfonso XIII of SpainLord Leopold Mountbatten (formerly Prince Leopold of Battenberg) (1889 - 1922)Prince Maurice of Battenburg (1891 - 1914) Queen Victoria was an ancestor of later British rulers including her descendant Queen Elizabeth II. She was also an ancestor of Elizabeth IIs husband Prince Philip.

The Rise of Corporations and Subsequent Effects on Social Inequality E

The Rise of Corporations and Subsequent Effects on Social Inequality E The Rise of Corporations and Subsequent Effects on Social Inequality Patrick Elahmadie SOC 139 ? Winter 2012 Midterm 1 The Rise of Corporations and Subsequent Effects on Social Inequality The rise of social inequality has become a paramount and controversial issue in the United States. Over the last few decades, higher income disparities, wealth concentration, and uneven access to social protection characterize our society. Scholars argue that there is a direct correlation between this social inequality and the rise of corporations in America. Some believe that corporations can act to decrease social inequality by ensuring equal opportunities and benefits to all qualified citizens, regardless of race or gender. Others believe that the government, through tax incentives and complex federal regulations that promote corporate expansion of pension, healthcare, etc. to full time employees as opposed to promoting social programs that apply to all citizens, has effectively increased social inequality by increasing the concentration of wealth and creating unequal access to social benefits. I will argue that, although the implementation of equal opportunity rights reduced soci al inequality by granting minorities and women access to previously white male-dominated jobs, it was the government?s delegation of social protection to corporations that created a severely imbalanced access to benefits, which in turn acted to greatly increase social inequality. Many believe that the corporations themselves do not account for the rise in social inequality. In order to understand corporate action, however, we must understand the institutional environment in which the corporation is embedded. This institutional environment, comprised of informal and formal laws and regulations, heavily influences the actions taken by corporations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, changed the entire hiring, promotion and termination procedures of large companies by outlawing discrimination in employment and ensuring equal opportunity of employment under the law regardless of race or gender. By making discrimination illegal, it became very costly for corporations to discriminate against minorities or women and potentially risk millions of dollars? worth of lawsuits, as well as bad publicity in front of an increasingly moral society. Although outlawing discrimination sounded appropriate, compliance with this new law was vaguely defined. It took several court cases in order to implement some of the common practices our companies hold today. A Supreme Court ruling against the Duke Power Company, who purposefully tested black employees on knowledge unnecessary for the job in order to justify rejection, clearly outlawed test validation practices. In 1998, the Supreme Court also imposed liability on employers for any sexual harassment that takes place within the workplace, highlighting the need for businesses to adopt policies designed to prevent harassment (Dobbin 2011: 4). Rationally, it became in a corporation?s best interests to combat discrimination and promote equal opportunity in job employment. This newfound interest sparked companies to undertake several experimental measures, some effective and several ineffective, to promote diversity in all facets of business .One solution that has proven effective is the formalization of mentoring programs, programs that help create social connections between ambitious, lower-level women or minorities and upper-management ?mentors? in order to help the former move up in the corporation. Most effectively, many corporations have chosen to appoint a specialized person, or committee, with the sole purpose of overseeing diversity efforts in hiring, promoting and terminating women or minorities in the workplace. By directly linking an employee?s or employees? job welfare to company diversity, a corporation can delegate the responsibility of diversity to a specialized expert. This responsibility makes ?managers and taskforces feel accountable for change, and they monitor quarterly employment data to see if their efforts are paying off (Dobbin, Kalev, and Kelly 2007: 27).? The diversity trend caught on quickly, and by 1980 ? most big time employers had hired equal opportunity managers, if not entire departments, and were in the process of creating race-relations workshops, special recruitment systems, and a host of programs designed to improve opportunities for women and minorities (Dobbin, Kalev, and Kelly 2007: 23).? These aforementioned diversity managers and taskforces then combined legislation, case law, and administrative law to create an informal code of business that ?translated the law into practice (Dobbin 2011: 3).? This code set the rules governing a wide assortment of issues from hiring, firing, and promotion to sexual harassment and maternity leave.

Textual analysis about What Every Soldier Should Know Essay

Textual analysis about What Every Soldier Should Know - Essay Example The atmosphere that the reader gets into at first is the ever-present threat of death and the psychologically torturing situations of the American soldiers on their daily life.In this text, Brian Turner uses figurative language, clichà © and other textual strategies to capture the attention of the reader and make the poem more meaningful as well as clear. I will analyze these strategies and the emotions they present to the reader. In the first stanzas, the author narrates about some common practices, which according to the title of this poem is something that every soldier should know about it. In addition, this inspires the reader to feel that these instructions are a way of showing respect to the Arabic culture and that the soldiers must be familiar with this culture as well as the optimum techniques to deal with it. According to the writer â€Å"If you hear gunfire on a Thursday afternoon, it could be for a wedding, or it could be for you.† (Turner, 609).The author mentions some Arabic practices that are present in the Arabic world such as use of gunfire celebration in the wedding, which the foreigners may misunderstand and act in the wrong way, in the process causing serious problems to the American soldiers. This stanza represents the Arab culture in general and every soldier should know about it.The atmosphere that the readers create when they read this stanza, is that there are some common cultu ral practices that the soldiers should know about the Arabic world which normally are not acknowledged. Since they are so close to the Arabic cultural practices daily, the American soldiers must know that they are strangers to this world and they ought to deal with these practices in a proper way to avoid any severe consequences. My take here is that the American soldiers ought to learn this atmosphere and respect others. The author uses some words to represent a common phrase, which help the soldiers to be in the safe side in the Arabic world. Furthermore, this