The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 08-16-2011, 01:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
I went racing today at Ascot [see other thead] and I bumped into two old friends who told me that Sarah is apparently heading off shortly for what was described to me as 'her usual summer luxurious jaunt to the sun'. Andrew and the Princesses are going too....

I know no more details and anyway at this stage I am treating the whole thing as speculation; if it is true, then I am reminded of the novel Vanity Fair' and the chapter entitled ' How to live on nothing a year'........not bad to be contemplating a luxury holiday when you are apparently penniless......

Alex



I see that the information that I received at Ascot was correct as I understand that Sarah has just returned from a week's holiday at Richard Branson's Necker Island and is now vacationing with Beatrice and Eugenie in Sotogrande..........

Not bad for someone who has almost been bankrupt......


I am sorry to sound cyncial
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Beatrice is now on holiday in Sotogrande with Eugenie and Sarah, Duchess of York.

Alex
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-16-2011, 01:26 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Pictures? Articles? I wonder if Andrew will appear.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-16-2011, 07:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 769
Thus far this is the only thing I could dig up ... no pictures.

A pucker escape to Sotogrande | Olive Press Newspaper | News
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-16-2011, 07:57 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Not cynical Alex, I wonder who's footing the bill myself.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
I see that the information that I received at Ascot was correct as I understand that Sarah has just returned from a week's holiday at Richard Branson's Necker Island and is now vacationing with Beatrice and Eugenie in Sotogrande..........

Not bad for someone who has almost been bankrupt......


I am sorry to sound cyncial
Not cynical but bitter, why begrudge Sarah the fact that she has rich friends who support her!? I don't understand the desire to be negative until you see Sarah living in a cardboard box on the Embankment. Paddy McNally has remained friends with Sarah since her divorce he has given her the use of his chalet for a winter holiday and house in Spain for a summer holiday. Lucky her, she doesn't pay for it, move on people. Richard Branson also gives her free accomodation, last year another friend flew her down to Nekker Island is his private plane. Again lucky her, why should total strangers be bitter?

Sarah had a business that failed and accured huge debts,(this time round it wasn't her spending but rather the failure of her Hartmoor business that caused her debt problem) well so did Prince Edward, his Ardent productions lost people a lot of money. Sarah's creditors got 25p to the pound, Edward's got 1p to the pound. Sophie Wessex's PR firm also went into liquidation, her creditors also didn't get all that they were owed. Sarah has a lavish lifestyle with much given to her for free, so the little green monsters start up, why should she get free holidays? Well that's the way it is!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-17-2011, 08:22 AM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 133
Well said Charlotte.


MM
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-17-2011, 08:34 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 769
True, Sarah's business went under but the problem is that despite all this she continues to "spend" large amounts of money on designer luggage, clothing and expensive restaurants. Even if friend buys all this for her it's just plain tacky and being a leech. In reporting or questioning how all her vacations are being paid for is NOT being bitter IMO. The point is, she continues to cry poor and needy on international talk shows and then goes on luxury vacations. Whether she pays for them or not, it is foolish and greedy and lacking in integrity and her cash for acess had little to do with her failing business. In the eyes of most people she is far past the point of needing to be defended and living in the Royal Lodge hardly qualifies for a homeless status. Oh, and she also plays fast and loose with the truth. Speaking the truth is not being either bitter or jealous.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-17-2011, 08:58 AM
Daisiesforever's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 609
In spite of the the "free" holidays and luxuries which are given to her, I do tend to agree with the Princess of Durham. Please do not "cry poor" on talk shows whilst entertaining a lavish lifestyle. The way in which she is plays on her two girls' sympathies is rather tactless as well. It is sad that she has had failed business ventures but then again many people experience that in todays economy and are literally forced to "cut their coat according the cloth".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:06 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 748
That is so true Princess of Durham. If Sarah didn't go around saying how broke and on the verge of homelessness which she has done many times it wouldn't be an issue. I don't think it is inappropriate to point out the hyprocrsy when flying around the world in first class for vacations others are paying for and crying poor mouth at the same time. Sarah has always been known for these lavish vacations that is where she got the name Freeloading Fergie it is a shame these friends don't offer her a place to live. But then she couldn't milk her links to Andrew and wouldn't have a Royal address. Not all the debt was Hartmoor there was also her own staff and businesses including chefs and bills from Royal Lodge. A split of what debt was the business and what was hers would be interesting to see.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:14 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
True, Sarah's business went under but the problem is that despite all this she continues to "spend" large amounts of money on designer luggage, clothing and expensive restaurants. Even if friend buys all this for her it's just plain tacky and being a leech. In reporting or questioning how all her vacations are being paid for is NOT being bitter IMO. The point is, she continues to cry poor and needy on international talk shows and then goes on luxury vacations. Whether she pays for them or not, it is foolish and greedy and lacking in integrity and her cash for acess had little to do with her failing business. In the eyes of most people she is far past the point of needing to be defended and living in the Royal Lodge hardly qualifies for a homeless status. Oh, and she also plays fast and loose with the truth. Speaking the truth is not being either bitter or jealous.
But how do you know that she's spending large sums of money on designer luggage, clothing and expensive restaurants. She's been photographed once leaving a restaurant in London with her daughters, the luggage she's had in years and I can't see the shopping for new clothes, since she's wearing the same long dresses for evening engagements that she's had for years. She doesn't cry poor on international talk shows, all she's said about money is that she's now for the first time debt free. She also points out that she needs to work, that's not crying poor, most people do need to work, she hasn't got a trust fund set up for her.
Having friends who invite you to holiday with them or give their homes so you can holiday with your children is not greedy. And yes it does sound bitter if that's what you're criticising Sarah for. Should she say no to her friends' offers and spend her holidays in that cardboard box at the Embankment?!

When Sarah moved out of Sunninghill after she and Andrew separated, she paid rent on the house she and her daughters moved in to. Andrew didn't pay for their living expenses, even after their divorce he just paid for the girls' school fees (admittedly quite a bit of money since they went to private schools) but Sarah paid the rest. (And got into heavy debt, since the living costs included a nanny's salary) A few years after their divorce Sarah and the girls moved back to Sunninghill and that reduced what she paid in living costs, but by then she was spending most of her time working in the US and rented an apartment in New York. After Andrew moved into Royal Lodge she continued to rent her New York apartment (she's subleasing it currently) and rent 2 different houses in the Windsor area. The girls moved into Royal Lodge, she was given a suite there since the girls for security reasons could not stay overnight at her rented houses nearby. Two years ago after a fire in the home she was renting she just stayed at Royal Lodge and didn't rent another house. (Mainly because she couldn't afford to since by that time her business had failed and she was in debt).

Her divorce package from Andrew, she agreed to sign over her share of Sunninghill (which Andrew then sold at a huge profit, Sarah got none of that money) The Queen agreed to buy a house for Sarah to live in, but it was to be placed in Beatrice and Eugenie's names. It was never to be Sarah's house, one was found that was suitable by the Queen's staff, since it had the necessary security. Sarah said no since she couldn't afford the staff to run the house, no other house was ever offered to her.

How can you say that her access for cash had nothing to do with her failing business!!? It was because of that business failing that she was heavily in debt! Prior to that she had quite lucrative contracts with Weightwatchers, so lucrative, that for a few years she even paid for Andrew's staff Christmas parties. Along with all her daughters' 'extras' Cash was being offered to her, she needed the money. Probably not her finest moment but she needed the money so it seemed a way of getting it. Not making any moral judgement on what she did, just stating a factual view of what she did.

If one wants to stand in moralistic judgement of Sarah (she lied etc) fine, but I prefer not to 'casting the first stone' and all that!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:28 AM
expat's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 165
I could never be a defender of Sarah, I highly disapprove of her, but one thing I must add, which in a way, is to her defense, she has no idea, and probably never will have any understanding of what "being poor" actually is. She has always had everything given to her, this continued when she lived with the very rich Paddy McNally. Then
as the wife of a royal she lived a very rich life indeed, with the added bonus of being given the respect and diffidence that is given automatically to those who are born or married to royals. She has no idea how other people live at all and I doubt very much whether she could ever understand the real meaning of poor or even "not very well off".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 08-17-2011, 05:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
Sarah may be staying at one the most beautiful places on earth, living in complete luxury but it won't bring her peace in her heart. No matter how far she runs, she can't get away from herself. For a girl, who once appeared to have everything, I doubt that there is anyone here who would want to trade places with her now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-17-2011, 05:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 514
IMO there are worse things Sarah could be doing than vacationing at the expense of her wealthy friends. It's true, sometimes these gifts come with strings, but if we're to apply that standard to Sarah then we need to apply the same standard to anyone who's ever accepted favours from friends. I'm sure there are instances of current members of the royal family accepting the eagerly given hospitality of their rich acquaintances. Better for Sarah to be off on someone's yacht or vacation home than to be trying to sell access to her ex or otherwise getting into trouble.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-17-2011, 06:08 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
I see where you are coming from Camelot23ca about double standards but IMHO the difference with Sarah is that by virtue of her marriage she is almost uniquely placed to be a useful contact and....Oh dear me, do you see where I am inadvertently heading?.........the cash-for-access scandal is almost rearing its head again......

Just to make it crystal clear, I do not wish Sarah any ill will, but the problem is that she has had a good number of 'holidays' in the past year or so and I think that now would be an excellent time for her to 'lie low'. Holidaying in the very upscale Sotogrande is a bit of a difficult issue for any member of the Royal Family at the moment in view of the recession and I feel that when the inevitable photos of ' Beatrice and Eugenie luxuriating in Sotogrande' hit the press, it is going to invite adverse comment: Beatrice has already had a holiday in St Tropez and both girls will no doubt be making their way up to Balmoral before long.....Wonderfully tempting though Sotogrande is, I think that Sarah and the girls would have done better to avoid Sotogrande altogether this year....

Just my thoughts

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 913
As Mel Brooks said...

"It is good to be the King" (or Duke, or Princess, or...).

Lucky old them to be in a position to get so many holidays in so many beautiful places. In the states, poor President Obama is being criticized for daring to go to Martha's Vineyard for 10 days, and of course he takes his work with him.

How uninterested would we all be if the Royals were all work and no play? Go for it, kids! You will be criticized for whatever you do, so go ahead and enjoy the life you were born into.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:38 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Devonport, Australia
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
The thing is, Sarah wants to be a part of a group/society to which she really does not belong. She somehow manages to keep appearing at various events as though she is some sort of "special person" and she is not. She is merely the ex-wife of the Duke of York and the Mother of Beatrice and Eugenie and that does NOT qualify her as a special person in society. She loves the press attention, I suspect she truly feels she is nothing without it. Her girls are adults and yet she still manages to hold their hands in public as if they were children and in this case she is the child. I don't see her letting go of them easily because if she did she wouldn't get the press that goes along with them. I know that sounds harsh and I don't mean that she consciously does this but there is no doubt that when she is with them she manages to get attention. The longer this goes on the more pathetic she appears. I'm sure she has enough money to live quite well IF she didn't feel entitled to a very, very extravagrant lifestyle. She is really appearing very desparate.
I don't think she ever has to let her girls go, she'll always be their mother, but all the other things she does for attention is cringe worthy. Especially parading her daughters on that awful American tv show. Living with Prince Andrew as she does, means any money she earns can be spent on herself. Lucky lucky.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
First things first; I don't want to see Sarah living in a cardbox box and of couse she will not be reduced to this. And I am not 'jealous' either - indeed, I have nothing to be jealous of! What I do want to see is Sarah living with an appropriate degree of humility at the moment, because however you dress it up, it is her immense sense of entitlement coupled with greed that has bought shame to the Royal family and has caused a lot of pain to many of those who have lost out financially.

My objection to Sarah's vacation is because it seems the height of bad manners and poor taste to holiday in this way, regardless as to whether the house and flights etc are being provided by a third party when you have in VERY recent memory you have been unable to pay your staff the money to which they were entitled. It seems that although two of her most senior staff did receive around 80% of what Sarah owed them, The [London] Times and The Daily Telegraph have reportedly frequently that Sarah had a total of 15 staff and that the majority of them received only 25% of what Sarah owed them. It also seems that the staff who received this low settlement figure were not highly paid or wealthy.....

For my own part, if I was owed money by my employer and then only received 25% of what I was entitled to, I would be angry if I then saw him on an all-expenses paid jaunt.

The Telegraph has reported that since the 'Fake Sheikh' 'sting' that Sarah has had 20 trips and holidays abroad. Perhaps it would be better if she had spent August in Beautiful Berkshire.

Side Issue - it is all very well accepting 'free hospitality', but we always say that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. I always wonder whether those wealthy foreigners who host Sarah are really doing for the best reasons or whether they have some kind of ulterior motive. Sarah is no longer royal, but she is the mother of two Princesses, and I fear that to some hosts, that could be quite an advantage. Many are wealthy businessmen; at some stage if they have a new factory or a property development or anything where association with Royalty could be useful, the Princesses could find themselves under an awkward obligation at 'pay back time'

Second side issue; on her marriage and up to the time of her divorce [and indeed for some years afterwards] Sunninghill Park was NOT owned by Prince Andrew outright - and Sarah NEVER had a legal share in the property. The Queen was the beneficial owner, having taken a LEASE of the property from the Crown Estate. It was some years after the divorce [and Sarah's settlement] that the Queen bought the freehold from the Crown Estate and apparently transferred the beneficial ownership to Andrew.


Just my views

Alex
Never mentioned the word 'jealous'. But the first paragraph, again it's your opinion, she's not living with humility. I would say she is since she's had to make that excruciating Oprah documentary (complete with reediting since the first version was 'too boring') because she needed the money. Pre fake sheik expose, she was pouring what money she had (her fee from the Young Victoria film, she was executive producer and income from her children's books) to propping up Hartmoor. She certainly learnt humility when she was booked for public speaking engagements in a tent in the middle of winter in Canada. (all to earn money to keep herself afloat) And then there's the very public humiliation of the whole expose and the constant rehashing as she's doing PR to try and sell her book. There is a certain amount of humble pie involved, I've watched a number of her recent interviews, including the Australian 60 minutes and she's certainly not loving having to relive what she did in the past.

Sarah on the 2 occasions she got heavily in debt could have chosen the easy way out. That is declare herself bankrupt and just walk away, in that case all her creditors would have got nothing. Instead she worked and in the 1990s debt paid all the creditors, so rather than caning her for the fact her some of her creditors this time didn't get their full amount. How about acknowledging that they got some money rather than nothing. Would you feel any better had you been Edward's creditor for Ardent and only got 1p to the pound for the money you invested, or Sophie's and got nothing? And they still live in a huge estate rent free and have nice holidays. Less press follows them, but they too have a yearly ski trip, summer holidays in Italy. It's all relative, Sarah's creditors got something, which is better than nothing which is why they settled. The procedings could have gone on and they got nothing. Sarah is on holidays at the moment but how much press coverage are they receiving in the UK? None as far as I can see from the major papers at least.

Did you bother to read who paid for the many trips Sarah has done this year? The latest one was to Argentina for the Hello photo spread, Hello magazine paid for that one. The various trips in the US and Canada were all paid for by the Oprah network since it involved work on her TV series. Here's where the distortion comes in, how dare Sarah travel the world! What with? Well she was paid for the Oprah documentary and presumably paid an advance for her book as well so she has been earning money. TV appearances are also paid, public speaking engagements the travel expenses are part of the deal as well. So along with the friends who provide the free travel comes the travel where she is working. She's certainly not sitting infront of the TV eating bonbons!

The free hospitality Sarah is receiving is from long time friends Paddy McNally with a house in Spain and Verbier, Richard Branson with Nekker, guy whose name I've forgotten in The Hamptions (one with private jet). Christmas time she goes to Norway to stay with the family of the guy who was rumoured to be her boyfriend for a number of years. She's sticking with a small group of people she's known for years.

Sunninghill Park was given to Andrew and Sarah as a wedding gift. The site was originally one which had a house that was supposed to be for the newly wed Elizabeth and Philip. The house burnt down before the could move in and lay derelict, sometime after they were married the Queen handed over the land (fair enough crown estate land) to them and the house was built as a wedding gift. They didn't pay for the house the Queen did, but the house belonged to them both. (even if the land didn't) Part of her divorce settlement Sarah had to sign over her claim to the house (afterall it was on crown land), she was to be compensated in that a house was to be bought and placed in Beatrice and Eugenie's names. This house was never bought. When Andrew wanted to sell Sunninghill Park (since he was given the use of Royal Lodge after the Queen Mother's death) then it was removed from crown land so he could sell it and make money from it, but the house originally belonged to them both.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-18-2011, 11:14 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
In defense of Prince Andrew (and I am certain that Sarah would agree with me), he does not owe her one pound. Since their divorce, he has been more than generous to her. Sarah has had free room and board in a palace no less, for years and years. And after that scandal (I don't want to mention it again), when most men would have thrown her out on the street, he not only publically supported her, but he also paid off her debts (millions of pounds).

In defence of Edward and Sophie, their money problems were years ago. Since then they have been hard-working royals, who have a budget and live within it.

And in defense of Diarist most of us thoroughly enjoy her posts. They are well-written, interesting and informative. We are all different people, from different countries and backgrounds and it is only natural that we are going to have different opinions. Hopefully, when we disagree, we are able to do it in a nice way.

On that note Charlotte1, you and I obviously have different opinions on the definition of the word "humility".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-19-2011, 02:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
I've done a 'cut and paste' job from another thread in order to answer this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
Diarist can you confirm what she is supposed to called. Should she be called The Duchess or is it Sarah? I thought it was now supposed to be Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York. But everyone who interviews her still calls her The Duchess. It drives me crazy!
The correct form of address for the former wife of a Duke is quite simply 'Madam'. This is NOT abbreviated to 'Ma'am' (which is correctly only used when addressing the Queen and Royal Highnesses.)

I think that the reason why interviewers address Sarah as ''Duchess'' stems from the fact that the correct way to address a [non-royal] Duchess who is still married to (i.e. not divorced from) her ducal husband is 'Duchess'. This sounds strange to many of us, as of course one does not address the wife of an Earl as 'Countess'. But there you have it, the correct way to address a married duchess is 'Duchess', [just as the correct way to address her husband is 'Duke'; yes, honestly, this is true]. There is however one slight refinement to this: an employee will address his or her ducal master or his wife as 'Your Grace'.] Nowadays, even after a divorce, socially some people do continue to address the divorced duchess as 'Duchess', but the correct formal form of address is 'Madam'.

Since Sarah's 'title usage' [as I should call it] takes place in a business context [i.e. not a social context] I think that she should only ever be called 'Madam'.

One point that I should mention here is this; when considering the correct way to address any divorcee, consideration should ALSO always be given to what titles they themselves bear; Sarah is the daughter of a 'gentleman' and so she bore no title before her marriage. Sometimes in England, you find a divorced wife of a Duke calling herself (say) 'Lady Helen Smith'. Before automatically thinking this is wrong, check carefully: Lady Helen could have been the daughter of a Duke, a Marquess or an Earl herself!! Therefore, on her divorce from the Duke, Instead of styling herself Helen, Duchess of Wherever, she is quite entitled to revert back to her own ''style''.

Finally, if it is any of any consolation, titles confuse nearly everyone in England; even the Royal Family, come to that, for George VI, when granting Prince Philip the Title of 'Duke of Edinburgh' presumed [wrongly] that he was also making him a Royal Prince. He was not, and the error had to be rectificed subsequently, otherwise Prince Charles could hav been born ony a Lord!!!


Hope this helps

Alex
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
duke of york, old photos, pictures, prince andrew, princess beatrice, princess eugenie, sarah duchess of york


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
General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family paulette Royal House of Denmark 120 07-14-2014 03:04 PM
Prince Amedeo - News & Pictures, Part 3 Marengo Princess Astrid, Archduke Lorenz and their family 293 07-06-2014 05:24 AM
Queen Alia Al Hussein (1948-1977): Information and Pictures salma Royal House of Jordan 179 04-01-2014 09:48 PM
Relationships between members of the Norwegian royal family. Dennism Royal House of Norway 78 11-22-2012 08:04 AM
General News & Information: Prince Albert & Princess Charlene 1: July 2011 - Feb.2012 iceflower Prince Albert and Princess Charlene 843 03-01-2012 03:38 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 current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski 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 claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion 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 the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 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]