The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 04-25-2009, 05:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Minor royals are people like the Gloucesters and Kents not the grandchildren of the reigning monarch.
I agree with that. It's up to the British people to decide if they want a monarchy or not, but if you're going to have a monarchy (IMO) you have to have at least a few people actively involved in it. If you pare the monarchy down to just the monarch and the next couple of people in line to the throne, and everyone else is just "minor royals" who don't really have an active royal role, some might ask, why bother with a monarchy at all? Sure, the monarchy can be slimmed-down, but cutting it back to only the top four in line to the throne seems a bit drastic to me. What happens if Charles becomes King and William and Harry don't have children yet? Then Andrew is third in line to the throne, Beatrice is fourth. I understand the monarchy doesn't need extra royals but Beatrice and Eugenie are fairly high-ranking.

I don't think it's completely a matter of whether they want to be full-time royals or not. Andrew, Anne and Edward aren't going to live forever...who will replace them in their royal roles? Are William and Harry really supposed to do everything?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 04-25-2009, 06:13 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
I don't think it's completely a matter of whether they want to be full-time royals or not. Andrew, Anne and Edward aren't going to live forever...who will replace them in their royal roles? ?
Who will replace Andrew and Anne? Harry and his future wife, that's who. He is the future monarch's sibling, just like Andrew and Anne are.
Quote:
Are William and Harry really supposed to do everything?
The Queen, Charles, Harry, William and their spouses are supposed to do everything, which I think is enough people to get a monarchy running.
When Andrew and Anne do Royal duties it hardly ever gets coverage or public interest anyway. In the British psyche they nearly have minor royal status.
Charles has hinted of wanting to downsize the Monarchy and I think that's what the British public wants too.
__________________

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 04-25-2009, 06:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel View Post
Who will replace Andrew and Anne? Harry and his future wife, that's who. He is the future monarch's sibling, just like Andrew and Anne are.
The Queen, Charles, Harry, William and their spouses are supposed to do everything, which I think is enough people to get a monarchy running.
When Andrew and Anne do Royal duties it hardly ever gets coverage or public interest anyway. In the British psyche they nearly have minor royal status.
Charles has hinted of wanting to downsize the Monarchy and I think that's what the British public wants too.

Currently the about 2000+ royal duties per year are done by:

HM The Queen (aged 83)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (aged 87 - nearly 88)
HRH The Prince of Wales (aged 60)
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (aged 61)
HRH Prince William of Wales (does about 10 - 20 annually)
HRH Prince Harry of Wales (like his brother)
HRH The Duke of York (aged 49)
HRH The Earl of Wessex (aged 45)
HRH The Countess of Wessex (aged 44)
HRH The Princess Royal (aged 58 - nearly 59)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester (aged 64 - nearly 65)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (aged 62 - nearly 63)
HRH The Duke of Kent (aged 73 - nearly 74)
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (aged 62)


You are proposing that all the work these people do should, in future be done by:

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH Prince William
HRH hypothetical Princess William
HRH Prince Harry (although I suspect he will have a full time military career for the next 20 years or so)
HRH hypothetical Princess Harry.

or even worse when Charles becomes King

HRH The King
HRH The Queen
HRH Prince William (I know he will have other titles but just so everyone knows about whom I am talking)
HRH Princess William
HRH Prince Harry
HRH Princess Harry

So from the current 14 you would expect 6 to do all the work and even worse when William becomes King you would have 4 - and I am including a full load for Harry which I don't think will eventuate for 20 - 30 years as I expect him to be in the army for that long.

It is simply due to the ages of the current royals doing duties that I expect Beatrice and Eugenie to be on the full time royal roster in time - replacing the older royals as they get too old (and that will be on an individual basis e.g. Alexandra is doing a lot less now than she was 10 or 20 years ago) and picking up some of the slack left by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh as they age further and eventually die.

It seems that some people just won't look at the figures. I wouldn't expect the Wessex children, or the children of Princess Royal (although Zara has done a few things) to do duties at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 04-25-2009, 06:47 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
So from the current 14 you would expect 6 to do all the work and even worse when William becomes King you would have 4 - and I am including a full load for Harry which I don't think will eventuate for 20 - 30 years as I expect him to be in the army for that long.
No, I am not advocating that the work-load be shifted, which would be ridiculous and unworkable.
I am just advocating that there be less full-time royals (each of them doing a reasonable amount of duties).

From your list:
Quote:
HRH The Earl of Wessex (aged 45)
HRH The Countess of Wessex (aged 44)
HRH The Princess Royal (aged 58 - nearly 59)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester (aged 64 - nearly 65)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (aged 62 - nearly 63)
HRH The Duke of Kent (aged 73 - nearly 74)
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (aged 62)
These people are of very little public interest and I wouldn't consider them all full-time royals.
Quote:
I wouldn't expect the Wessex children, or the children of Princess Royal (although Zara has done a few things) to do duties at all.
Why Beatrice and not Zara and Louise?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 04-25-2009, 06:55 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, Zara isn't royal. I think it remains to be seen what sort of duties the Wessex children do (or don't do).

Once Charles becomes King, Andrew and Edward and their children will be perceived as more junior royals because they'll no longer be in the direct line of descent from the monarch. Especially when William has children, the royal cousins won't be as high profile. The need for the York and Wessex children to get involved in full-time royal duties might depend on how many children William and Harry have. During the reign of George VI, there weren't many other royals to share the duties, especially after the Duke of Kent died.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 04-25-2009, 11:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel View Post
No, I am not advocating that the work-load be shifted, which would be ridiculous and unworkable.
I am just advocating that there be less full-time royals (each of them doing a reasonable amount of duties).
The point I was making was that there are a lot of duties being done by the 14 people who currently do them. Over 500 by 2 and well over 200 by another 6.

Most of the leading royals can't do any more and they are getting older.

Either fewer engagements are to be ones done by royals or more than William and Harry and spouses will be needed to do them hence why Beatrice and Eugenie will probably do royal duties.

Quote:
From your list:
These people are of very little public interest and I wouldn't consider them all full-time royals.

If you don't consider The Princess Royal as a full-time royal, and she was in the list you stated as not one you consider a full-time royal than obviously there aren't any such things. She has been the royal doing the most duties for years, only overtaken by Charles last year. Anne did 534 engagements last year to Charles 560 while Philip came in third with Andrew doing the most overseas engagements at 239 plus what he does at home.

What you consider as a full-time royal is irrelevant.

That fact is that the list I set up is the list of those who undertake royal duties - with some doing full-time duties. Just becaue they don't get national or international coverage doesn't mean they aren't appreciated in the local areas where they appear. Have you seen the coverage in the local press of a royal visit? That would indicate that there is quite a lot of local interest when a royal appears but only the big occasions get the full national and internationa coverage. Fewer royals doing duties means less often visits to smaller communities who are the ones that often get the lesser royals as the one who comes to them.


Quote:
Why Beatrice and not Zara and Louise?
Beatrice is currently 5th in line to the throne (the same position as Victoria when she was born - admittedly in different circumstances so don't waste your time telling me about that) and she could move higher if Charles succeeds before he becomes a grandfather.

She will serve as a Councillor of State at some time in the future as I simply don't see the Queen living to see one of William's/Harry's children reaching 21 do you? She therefore needs to be available if necessary.

Louise is currently 9th in line and Zara 12th. By the time Louise is old enough to be doing royal duties I would expect either her uncle Charles or possibly even her cousin William as king with her being lower in the line of succession. Zara isn't royal and has been raised to live more normally. I would expect her to make her career with eventing like her father - competitor to coach or official.

Even the degree that Beatrice is doing is one that says to me that she will be a full-time royal - History and the History of Ideas isn't one that would lead to an obvious career unlike Zara's Equine Physiotherapy.

There royals do need the younger royals to start taking over more and more from the Queen's generation as they age and in time Beatrice and Eugenie should pick up some of the work done by the Gloucesters and Kents, and in time the Princess Royal as well. After over 40 years of having a royal President I would expect Save the Children to wish to continue with one and Beatrice may very well fill that position in time. It has seen Anne do 100s of duties annually since 1970.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:04 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
it amazes me how people justify the behavior of the young royals, or most young people as "everyone does it". getting drunk is not normal behavior. the world is littered with stories of young people partaking in this "normal" behavior and we now have a generation of spoilt kids with a sense of self entitlement the likes of which we've never seen. whatever happened to teaching our kids that they have a responsibility to society? that they have to work for what they have/want? whether they like it or not these princesses have a responsibility to act and behave in a certain way, moreso than most people their age just by virtue of the fact of who they are. eugenie and beatrice should be carrying out duties. it doesn't have to be a lot, enough to show that they appreciate who they are and where they come from. i agree with iluvbertie that raising these kids to be "normal" has backfired enormously.
I also agree. Children should be brought up to consider their actions and certainly not to become part of the binge drinking culture, with the excuse 'everyone' does it, they are normal for their age etc, etc. How did it get to the stage where it is considered normal for any young person to appear drunk coming out of clubs.

With money and titles comes resposibilities and the sooner these younger generation royals realise it the better.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:05 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The point I was making was that there are a lot of duties being done by the 14 people who currently do them. Over 500 by 2 and well over 200 by another 6.

Most of the leading royals can't do any more and they are getting older.

Either fewer engagements are to be ones done by royals or more than William and Harry and spouses will be needed to do them hence why Beatrice and Eugenie will probably do royal duties.
And the point I was making is that I advocate the first option, ie. less duties done by less people, not more workload for the remaining full-time Royals. Read my post again.
Quote:
If you don't consider The Princess Royal as a full-time royal, and she was in the list you stated as not one you consider a full-time royal than obviously there aren't any such things.
Again, please, read my post one more time.
I said some of them are not full-time Royals.
Anne obviously is a full-time royal, so is Edward and his wife.
Quote:
What you consider as a full-time royal is irrelevant.
I apologize for having an opinion.
Quote:
Just becaue they don't get national or international coverage doesn't mean they aren't appreciated in the local areas where they appear. Have you seen the coverage in the local press of a royal visit? That would indicate that there is quite a lot of local interest when a royal appears but only the big occasions get the full national and internationa coverage. Fewer royals doing duties means less often visits to smaller communities who are the ones that often get the lesser royals as the one who comes to them.
I agree completely and I have argued the same very point in another thread.
However this is only work if there is real public interest, i.e. the royal in question is well known. I wasn't aware the following Royals drew crowds:

Quote:
HRH The Duke of Gloucester (aged 64 - nearly 65)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (aged 62 - nearly 63)
HRH The Duke of Kent (aged 73 - nearly 74)
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (aged 62)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
No, I am not advocating that the work-load be shifted, which would be ridiculous and unworkable.
I am just advocating that there be less full-time royals (each of them doing a reasonable amount of duties).

From your list:

Quote:
HRH The Earl of Wessex (aged 45)
HRH The Countess of Wessex (aged 44)
HRH The Princess Royal (aged 58 - nearly 59)
HRH The Duke of Gloucester (aged 64 - nearly 65)
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (aged 62 - nearly 63)
HRH The Duke of Kent (aged 73 - nearly 74)
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (aged 62)
These people are of very little public interest and I wouldn't consider them all full-time royals.

Quote:
I wouldn't expect the Wessex children, or the children of Princess Royal (although Zara has done a few things) to do duties at all.
Why Beatrice and not Zara and Louise?
The above is a direct copy of your post not using the quote button, which leaves out the parts of my post to which your were commenting.

Your first comment was that there should be fewer full time royals and a reasonable amount of duties not that there should be fewer duties done. Your meaning isn't clear in your post, at least to me.

The second comment to which I replied was the section that you highligted from my post in which you say "from your list... HRH The Earl of Wessex, HRH The Countess of Wessex, HRH The Princess Royal....These people are of very little public interest and I wouldn't consider them all full-time royals.

From that statement I read you to say that you don't consider the Princess Royal, or the others, important or of interest.

As for your comment that you wouldn't consider then all full-time royals of course you are entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you and I don't. I do regard those on that list as full-time royals as they have no other job to do and what they do do they do very well. The royal family decides who is a full-time royal and I suspect that they also disagree with your opinion but that doesn't mean you can't hold it.

We obviously disagree on the duties and importance of the royals - so be it. I see them as essential to what it means to be British and without them Britain would lose a lot of its unifying force, in my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
I suspect that Beatrice at least will start full-time royal duties before William. She will graduate in 2011 and could easily be on royal duties by late 2011 (although I suspect another gap year before that starts) or 2012 - the year of her grandmother's Diamond Jubilee.
While I agree that at some stage Beatrice will be a fulltime royal I don't think it will be after she finishes university. The Queen didn't expect her own children to take on fulltime royal duties without doing something else. ( I maintain that as Anne had an equestrian career, her fulltime royal status didn't occur until after she retired and had her 2 children) Therefore I don't think it's likely that there's an expectation that the Queen's royal grandchildren will begin as fulltime royals in their early 20's. ( Even Princess Alexandra who did begin royal duties at an early age, spent time working as a nurse's aid in a London hospital for a while in the early 50's) More than likely Beatrice will take on a higher profile with official engagements but still working elsewhere. Eugenie will be more interesting to watch as Beatrice is the one who has expressed the most interest in her future royal role, Eugenie is benefitting from being the younger sister and in the past at least it was said of her that she didn't enjoy 'the whole Windsor thing'.
Quote:
I would hope that they would also work with their mother's children's charity
Beatrice is already working for her mother's charity Children in Crisis, she's a junior ambassador and has done some PR work for them. She's also visited some of their projects. Her most recent ( last month) charity engagement was for the Teenage Cancer Trust which her mother is still patron of.
Quote:
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent (aged 62)
Nit-picking here, but Alexandra is actually 72, turning 73 in December.

Quote:
These people are of very little public interest and I wouldn't consider them all full-time royals.
In reference to the Kents and Gloucestors.
Minor royals are fulltime royals, they aren't minor celebrities, large amount of national press or not they did carry out a function. They do however get large amounts of local press as the small town newspaper has a major story with a royal visitor. In 2008, the Duke of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucestor and Princess Alexandra carried out 773 public engagements among them. ( Their number of engagements have remained fairly static for the last 5 years, no reduction) Where upon in the 1950s organisations in the UK were happy to have the local dignitary or lady of the manor come to their functions these organisations in the past 20 years have asked for a royal. Therefore the minor royals you'll see that they open hospital wings, school developments, exhibitions, royals respond to the invitations they are given. They don't go around touting for business, the more senior royals have the more senior organisations ( or high profile) but the UK is a large country with large numbers of charities etc all looking to getting some recognition even if it's the local press. It's not really feasible to expect Charles and his sons ( and wives) in the future to be the only working royals. ( Princess Alexandra got drafted in young because in the early 1950's there were few working royals, the QM was in seclusion, Margaret was prepared to do very little,so there was the Queen, Prince Philip, Duke and Duchess of Gloucestor, Duchess of Kent and Princess Mary, the Princess Royal. ( 6 fulltime royals were considered too few and this was in the era when the local aristocrats opened the hospital wings, school, local exhibitions. That era has passed, the expectations are that a royal will be available to do it)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 04-26-2009, 02:08 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
( Princess Alexandra got drafted in young because in the early 1950's there were few working royals, the QM was in seclusion, Margaret was prepared to do very little,so there was the Queen, Prince Philip, Duke and Duchess of Gloucestor, Duchess of Kent and Princess Mary, the Princess Royal. ( 6 fulltime royals were considered too few and this was in the era when the local aristocrats opened the hospital wings, school, local exhibitions. That era has passed, the expectations are that a royal will be available to do it)
That is true about Princess Alexandra. I remember reading that she began full-time royal duties in her late teens or early twenties for that specific reason--there weren't believed to be enough royals, especially female royals. One of the other reasons I think Beatrice and Eugenie will eventually perform full-time royal duties is because women often tend to attract larger crowds than men. I think that as the only young princesses in the royal family, Beatrice and Eugenie will be considered an asset (yes, provided they behave themselves well, and all that).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 04-28-2009, 06:48 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Unfair as it may seem, I think the Windsors will need some female glamor to pull the crowds in. It's always interesting to see what the ladies wear when they turn up. All you get from the fellows are: business suits, kilts or uniforms. Not so interesting. And if Wills and Harry don't present us with wives in the near future, the public will really want some younger female Windsors on parade.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 04-28-2009, 07:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Troy, United States
Posts: 3,088
I so agree, iowabelle! But do you really think that the York Princesses will be able to come to the fore and be glamorous enough?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 04-28-2009, 07:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
It's always interesting to see what the ladies wear when they turn up. All you get from the fellows are: business suits, kilts or uniforms. Not so interesting.
And that's an invitation to million£ quandry for the York girls: looking glamorous and getting dragged into debates on their clothing allowance/bills, or insufficiently glamorous and risk ugly labels by "clever" writers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 04-28-2009, 09:37 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I don't know if these girls can be glamorous. I think they need direction which they haven't received (or paid attention to) in the past.

You're right, Incas. I guess the other option might be that they wear clothes loaned from designers, and I'm sure they'd be questioned for that, too (perhaps they could confine their patronage to the British designers?). Poor girls, they probably won't win popularity polls, no matter what they do. Maybe they'd be better chucking the whole royal thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 04-28-2009, 10:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Troy, United States
Posts: 3,088
"chucking the whole royal thing"? That's pretty harsh , isn't it? You may have a point there. However, I doubt it will ever happen, imho.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 04-28-2009, 10:36 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Maybe they really should consider living like Zara or Lady Sarah Chatto, if all they're setting themselves up for is grief.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 04-29-2009, 04:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,047
I don't see a problem in the working Royals consisting only of Charles & Camilla; William; Harry and their wives. It would be in keeping with all the other European Monarchies where it is only the Monarch and his/ her children who are required to be involved. In Spain the wedding of the Crown Prince seems already to have had a detrimental effect on the number of events, such as banquets, that his sisters now attend and their father isn't even dead yet. Also in Norway the Monarchy is doing fine with only the King and Queen and Crown Princely couple being involved since Princess Martha-Louise chose to opt out a few years ago. So I don't see any need for any of William's cousins to be involved at any time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 04-29-2009, 04:39 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I know, here in the U.S. since we aren't "blessed" with royals, that it's just customary to have celebrities turn up at these things. Maybe the girls could be replaced by Liz Hurley or whoever's popular these days, Susan Boyle maybe?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 04-29-2009, 06:05 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
Even when William gets married, his wiife won't be able to take on all the events that the Duchess of Gloucester, The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra do now. When William's children are grown, then it will be a different situation. I think that even if Beatrice and Eugenie were able to do some things until William's future wife has had her children and sees them through their early years, it would be a help. Somehow, I'm able to see Beatrice being able to carry this through more than Eugenie, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
I don't see a problem in the working Royals consisting only of Charles & Camilla; William; Harry and their wives. It would be in keeping with all the other European Monarchies where it is only the Monarch and his/ her children who are required to be involved. In Spain the wedding of the Crown Prince seems already to have had a detrimental effect on the number of events, such as banquets, that his sisters now attend and their father isn't even dead yet. Also in Norway the Monarchy is doing fine with only the King and Queen and Crown Princely couple being involved since Princess Martha-Louise chose to opt out a few years ago. So I don't see any need for any of William's cousins to be involved at any time.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
career, education, princess beatrice, princess eugenie, royal duties, social life, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie: Old News and Photos Warren The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 93 09-11-2014 08:01 PM
Duties, Roles and Royal Training of the Princes JOY! Prince Harry and Prince William 214 02-20-2013 08:07 PM
Beatrice and Eugenie : Baby/child Pics: Part 1 Martine The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 133 03-04-2006 12:25 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]