The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
This is a good article from the Sunday Times on the current changes quietly being undertaken by the BRF in preparing for the time when Charles becomes King (although it is assumed that this is someway off)

I pondered on where this link belonged because it is about halting the views about abdication; the health of the monarch and Prince Philip; the preparation of Charles; the acceptance of Camilla etc.

If it is in the wrong place - then mods, please feel free to move it.

Changing the old guard at the palace | The Sunday Times
This looks to be an interesting article but unfortunately unless I subscribe, I can't read the entire article. Could you perhaps give a synopsis of all the article said?
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:29 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,193
^^^ I had that same problem.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 05-12-2013, 04:53 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
Sorry - here is a synopsis

CHANGING THE OLD GUARD AT THE PALACE

Subtle shifts within the royal family are preparing Charles for his role as king — but his past attempts to wield influence hint at trouble ahead


For monarchy, symbolism is everything. So what better place to put the new royal order on display than the state opening of parliament, the glitziest and highest-profile event in the Queen’s annual calendar?
As she read — with the occasional uncharacteristic stumble — the government’s legislative programme last week, the Queen was accompanied not just by the Duke of Edinburgh but also, for the first time, by Charles and Camilla.

The message of this unprecedented new line-up in the House of Lords was clear: change is afoot at the top of “the Firm”.

What a difference a year makes. The diamond jubilee celebrations last June — culminating in the royal barge’s progress down a rain-swept Thames — were very much the Queen’s affair.

In retrospect, however, the four-day event will be seen to have been a turning point in the history of the monarchy and a milestone on the way to the post-Elizabethan era.

Consider what has happened since: first, there has been the inevitable deterioration in Prince Philip’s health, followed by the abandonment by the Queen of a trip to Italy in March after she, too, was hospitalised suffering from what the palace described as “the symptoms of gastroenteritis”.

Then there has been the growing public profile of Princes William and Harry.

Most significant of all, there was the announcement on the eve of the Queen’s speech that Charles would take her place at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Sri Lanka in November.

It will be the first such summit the Queen has missed in the past 40 years and an indication, perhaps, that Charles is attempting to stake a claim to becoming the future head of the Commonwealth, a role that will not automatically be his when he finally succeeds his mother.

A generational change is under way in the House of Windsor; the birth this summer of the third in line to the throne will add to this impression. Quite how fast this change will happen and what form it will take only the next few months will tell.

First what will not happen: the Queen, 87, has no intention of going Dutch.....

Nor, as the Queen’s aides insisted last week, can there be any question of tinkering with the rules to allow Charles to take over any time soon as regent — which at present can happen only in the case of the monarch being formally declared incapable of discharging her duties.

The palace is at pains to insist the Queen is in robust health. “The Queen was out riding last weekend so there is absolutely no suggestion that there are any underlying health problems and she has not ruled out the possibility of taking a long-haul trip in the future,”

Still, it was notable that there was not the usual announcement of forthcoming foreign tours at the end of her speech. Could none be planned?

A probable future scenario, according to palace aides, is instead a more subtle, creeping change in the structure of the Firm. According to one palace insider, we are looking at the prospect of the royal family changing by a process of “evolution” rather than “revolution”. As another puts it: it will be “more of a merger than a takeover”.

What of the Firm’s chief-executive-in-waiting? For years it was thought that the main shadow over the reign of the future King Charles III would be cast by his consort.

At the time when he married the then Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005, she was still widely reviled for her role in the break-up of his marriage to Diana. A delicate PR job has succeeded in rehabilitating the image of the Duchess of Cornwall in the eyes of the public. Following sound advice from aides, Camilla has backed charities close to her heart, refusing to become merely a “letter-head patron” of causes she knows nothing about.
Among many others she chose literacy, because she loves reading and wants more people to enjoy it, and domestic abuse and osteoporosis because she wants to help other women and her mother was afflicted with the latter.

The duchess is clearly more popular than she was; that being said, only 16% of people questioned in a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times this weekend think she should be given the title of “queen”, against 46% who would prefer her simply to be “princess consort”.

Charles’s popularity is on the rise. The same poll shows that 50% think he will be a good king when the time comes — compared with 37% when the same question was asked in May last year.

Nevertheless, questions still remain about his behaviour. As the longest-serving heir to the throne, Charles, who will turn 65 in November, has had to create a role for himself as Prince of Wales.

The Queen came to the throne so young — she was just 25 — that she had no need to give much thought to her role as heir. As the decades have passed, Charles has considered it his duty to speak his mind and stand up for the causes he believes in.

In the past few years he has toned down his pronouncements. Once he denounced modern architecture and also alarmed the medical establishment with praise for homeopathic medicine.
In recent months, by contrast, he has stood in as a weather forecaster during a trip to the BBC Scotland studios and guest edited an episode of the BBC’s Countryfile programme. Not exactly controversial.

There are, nevertheless, still occasional flashes of his old, more combative self: last week he used a speech given at St James’s Palace to criticise “corporate lobbyists” and climate change sceptics whom he accused of turning the Earth into a “dying patient”.

More potentially damaging are his attempts to wield influence behind the scenes. Today the prince has a member of his staff seconded to the Cabinet Office and one of its civil servants is working for him. This handy exchange means that the government will learn his views and he can better understand what it is working on.

The shadow hanging over him is the spectre of the so-called “black spider memos”, the hand-written letters dashed off by the prince to ministers over the years containing what are believed to be trenchant expressions of his views.

The Queen has scrupulously kept her own views to herself during her 61 years on the throne. Charles will probably do the same from now on; the real problem is that pile of “particularly frank” memos already out there that could yet come back to haunt him.

The Prince of Wales may have looked the part last week, dressed like his father in an admiral’s uniform, clanking with medals. But no transition at a family firm, however well planned, is ever completely seamless. This one is unlikely to prove to be an exception.


END

I've highlighted the pieces in bold in the text. IT is the first time overseas visits have been omitted from the Queen speech; and the staff exchange with the Cabinet office is controversial.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,193
Cepe, thanks for providing both the article and the synopsis.

While it's interesting, I wonder at times if we're reading a bit too much into the "symbolism" of current events. Yes Charles is stepping up, but him doing things for his mother isn't a new concept, nor is him being trained to be king a new concept - all of this has been going on for years, recent events are just a bit more in-your-face.

To me this seems like simply a natural course of events; HM is elderly, and while still able to do what is (in my opinion) the core elements of her role, travel presents an increasing threat to her health and abilities, so she's going to limit what she does and send Charles more. Similarly, she's likely to do fewer engagements and to let Charles take on a larger public role. That doesn't mean she's abdicating or retiring, it just means she's cutting back - something that people often suggest she does on this board, and which makes sense given her age.

To me, so long as HM can do the red boxes, state events, and periodic engagements, I don't see why she should abdicate or have a regency established.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 05-12-2013, 05:26 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
Yu are correct - it is the natural course of events. BUT, in the same way we know our parents will get old, then older, then possibly frail and then pass away - each stage is a shock.

We all know that HMQ is 87 but it is still surprising/shock etc when decisions are made and changes implemented based on that.

At the beginning of last year, the general view in the UK is that she would last for ever. Now people aren't so sure.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-13-2013, 10:54 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 8
MORE and more people think the Queen should step down from the throne if she becomes

The Queen must step down if she

Quote:
Meanwhile, exactly half said the Prince of Wales would make a good king, which is 13 percentage points higher than a similar survey a year ago.
Only 23 per cent thought he would not, down from 37 per cent last May.
But only 16 per cent say that Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, should become queen


The younger generation is even more popular, with 85 per cent believing Prince William made a positive contribution to the Royal Family.
The respective figures for the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry are 79 per cent and 72 per cent.
Pretty good numbers for Charles and William has long been the most popular member of the BRF, surpassing the Queen in her Jubilee Year of 2012. Catherine and Harry are very popular as well but what are we to make of Camilla's numbers? It seems this Princess Consort issue is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only 16 percent in favour of her being Queen with 11 percent saying she should have no title

Queen should abdicate if too ill to rule: UK poll
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-14-2013, 06:13 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucyLoo View Post
The Queen must step down if she

Pretty good numbers for Charles and William has long been the most popular member of the BRF, surpassing the Queen in her Jubilee Year of 2012. Catherine and Harry are very popular as well but what are we to make of Camilla's numbers? It seems this Princess Consort issue is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only 16 percent in favour of her being Queen with 11 percent saying she should have no title

Queen should abdicate if too ill to rule: UK poll
Sorry but where in any of the information you provided does it state more and more people want the Queen to abdicate?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 05-14-2013, 06:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Sorry but where in any of the information you provided does it state more and more people want the Queen to abdicate?
It says
Quote:
While a majority 53 per cent of voters still believe the 87-year-old monarch should rule for life, only a minority of 43 per cent said she should continue even if she was too ill to continue.
43% say she shouldn't abdicate if too ill to continue so the interpretation some people put on that is that 57% want her to abdicate in that scenario.

There are other possible answers - don't know or don't care.

The next sentence clarifies that even more
Quote:
a solid 48 per cent believed she should stand down in those circumstances and allow the throne to pass to her heirs, the Sunday Times survey conducted by YouGov this week found.
So not the interpretation is clearer - not a definite majority want her to abdicate if she is too ill to continue but more people want her to abdicate rather than stay if she can't do the job properly.

There are 9% undecided of course.

Then the next paragraph shows this
Quote:
The latest figures mark a turnaround from March when 51 per cent thought she should carry on even if she were ill and other members of the royal family had to take over many of her duties.
So this sentence is showing that the figure supporting her staying on when she can't perform properly has dropped 8% since March - in within a two month period.

The full poll is here http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upload...lts-100513.pdf and the royal questions are on pp. 9 - 10
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 05-14-2013, 06:24 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
The results of opinion polls are irrelevant. The Queen won't abdicate and Charles will be King. Camilla is automatically Queen Consort.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 05-14-2013, 06:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
The results of the poll maybe irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact that the questions were asked and that the answers are showing a change in people's opinions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 05-14-2013, 08:53 AM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The results of the poll maybe irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact that the questions were asked and that the answers are showing a change in people's opinions.
Only if she really ill to the point she Incapable but the Queen is not Ill and still able to do her duties. But even then she would not abdicate, At best a Regency would happen. And this question has been asked for the last 15 Years but is irrelevant as you only 1000 people's. It like during election and they take a poll of only 1000 people's. It irrelevant. Even during Queen Victoria Diamond they were saying that she should Abdicate. But the reality is abdicate won't fly with the majority of the people's like with the Dutch.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 05-17-2013, 12:29 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Cepe, thanks for providing both the article and the synopsis.

While it's interesting, I wonder at times if we're reading a bit too much into the "symbolism" of current events. Yes Charles is stepping up, but him doing things for his mother isn't a new concept, nor is him being trained to be king a new concept - all of this has been going on for years, recent events are just a bit more in-your-face.

To me this seems like simply a natural course of events; HM is elderly, and while still able to do what is (in my opinion) the core elements of her role, travel presents an increasing threat to her health and abilities, so she's going to limit what she does and send Charles more. Similarly, she's likely to do fewer engagements and to let Charles take on a larger public role. That doesn't mean she's abdicating or retiring, it just means she's cutting back - something that people often suggest she does on this board, and which makes sense given her age.

To me, so long as HM can do the red boxes, state events, and periodic engagements, I don't see why she should abdicate or have a regency established.
Isn't the only necessity that she do the red boxes herself? Can't she have a representative do everything else? During Victoria's self imposed mourning in her early 40's what did she do? I don't believe it was much.

There is the possibility that the Queen will live to be her mother's age, or perhaps beyond. Her mother's death, despite her age, was in fact precipitated by Margaret's, dying only 6 weeks later. I think the question is, or might be, can a woman of 100 still do the red boxes? What is entailed in those boxes? The Queen's abilities is now no longer a given, they could change on a dime.

What I sense in these polls and articles is that the public recognizes that it would be abject cruelty to expect most people of her age to keep up her duties - this is far beyond when most of us put up our feet once and for all,and that nobody would think the less of her is she CHOOSES to pass the torch to Charles.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 05-17-2013, 12:42 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post

Isn't the only necessity that she do the red boxes herself? Can't she have a representative do everything else? During Victoria's self imposed mourning in her early 40's what did she do? I don't believe it was much.

There is the possibility that the Queen will live to be her mother's age, or perhaps beyond. Her mother's death, despite her age, was in fact precipitated by Margaret's, dying only 6 weeks later. I think the question is, or might be, can a woman of 100 still do the red boxes? What is entailed in those boxes? The Queen's abilities is now no longer a given, they could change on a dime.

What I sense in these polls and articles is that the public recognizes that it would be abject cruelty to expect most people of her age to keep up her duties - this is far beyond when most of us put up our feet once and for all,and that nobody would think the less of her is she CHOOSES to pass the torch to Charles.
Victoria may have been in mourning but she still did her job for the most part which included red boxes, etc. She just didn't appear in public and instead mostly stayed in seclusion at windsor castle for 10 years after Albert death (creating the nickname 'Widow of Windsor') She did not open Parliament between 63-65. It is rumored that the Prime Minister at the time (Gladstone) was sent to Belmoral to tell Victoria that she needed to come back to Buckingham Palace to fulfill and do her 'Queenly Duties
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 05-17-2013, 12:45 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,667
I suppose my question is what is the minimum requirement for the job as opposed to what can be delegated legally?
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 05-17-2013, 01:17 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I suppose my question is what is the minimum requirement for the job as opposed to what can be delegated legally?
I think legally she can delegate it all except the red boxes.

When Victoria stopped doing public engagements it presented a problem. Being seen and fulfilling the ceremonial aspects of the monarchy is I think a big part of the job.

The many engagements, the charity stuff, etc, I think that is all kind of fluff. The important aspect of the job (beyond the red boxes) is the more ceremonial state stuff - the trooping of the colours, the opening of parliament, state visits (if not in terms of her visiting people then in terms of her hosting others). We don't need to see HM visiting the London Underground or similar engagements, but we do need to see her doing the big stuff.

My opinion is that as long as HM can do the red boxes and the other state functions and is still comfortable doing so, she should be allowed to do so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 05-17-2013, 01:30 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 672
I think the minimum requirement does not exist.
The Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls (three or more of them) have power to decide how much is enough.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 05-17-2013, 05:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
The minimum is doing the Red Boxes and holding the councils - all of which can be done in private.

The ceremonial stuff was really set up by Edward VII - yes they existed before but not as annual events as they are now.

The fluff stuff was also really started by Edward while Prince of Wales to divert attention from the fact that Victoria wasn't appearing in public. Prior to Albert's death they tended to do more high-brow stuff but not the flim-flammery we see the royals do in their 100s these days.

George V really promoted that idea so that there was a 'job' for his family after WWI - to keep them relevant to the British people.

The State Visits etc can be hosted by Charles - just as Albert Edward hosted them under his mother, if the visitee wasn't a member of the extended family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 05-17-2013, 05:23 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The minimum is doing the Red Boxes and holding the councils - all of which can be done in private.

The ceremonial stuff was really set up by Edward VII - yes they existed before but not as annual events as they are now.

The fluff stuff was also really started by Edward while Prince of Wales to divert attention from the fact that Victoria wasn't appearing in public. Prior to Albert's death they tended to do more high-brow stuff but not the flim-flammery we see the royals do in their 100s these days.

George V really promoted that idea so that there was a 'job' for his family after WWI - to keep them relevant to the British people.

The State Visits etc can be hosted by Charles - just as Albert Edward hosted them under his mother, if the visitee wasn't a member of the extended family.
George V get lot of Credit in my book, He really Modernize the Monarchy with the thought that the Monarchy and the Royal Family had to be seen in order the survive the 20th Century (And he was right). Edward VII said after his mother died that about the monarchy (something along the lines of as II can not remember the exact quote) that in order for it to survive it needed to Change, update itself and re-inform itself and move with the times and be seen as more modernly. George V however in my opinion set the stage for the monarchy to survive for the rest of the 20th century as he created a lot of the stuff the royal family does now like walkabout s and public engagements. I think Queen Elizabeth has done a good job of keeping it Modern into the 21st Century and continuing to move with the times.

As other Europe Monarchies were falling and Crumbling one after another around them the British Monarchy stayed strong and stood tall.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 05-17-2013, 05:39 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
Thinking out loud here........ Surely being monarch is more than doing the minimum such as reading government papers and signing documents? You don't need a monarch, that's the job of a head of state so could be a president. HMQ has said she has to be seen to be believed and today this is more necessary than ever. So being monarch is about being seen so I don't think the minimum will be enough. I think that if that is all that is possible, then abdication is required.

I know she is v popular but if she was seen to be hanging on but not doing the job, it wouldn't take much for that popularity to drop like a stone. and regency would not resolve this problem.

Her real job is maintaining the monarchy, and that might include standing down.

To be honest I'm still working this through.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 05-17-2013, 05:46 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Thinking out loud here........ Surely being monarch is more than doing the minimum such as reading government papers and signing documents? You don't need a monarch, that's the job of a head of state so could be a president. HMQ has said she has to be seen to be believed and today this is more necessary than ever. So being monarch is about being seen so I don't think the minimum will be enough. I think that if that is all that is possible, then abdication is required.

I know she is v popular but if she was seen to be hanging on but not doing the job, it wouldn't take much for that popularity to drop like a stone. and regency would not resolve this problem.

Her real job is maintaining the monarchy, and that might include standing down.

To be honest I'm still working this through.
Yes there is more then just reading papers and reading documents, If you look on the british monarchy website it tells you what her day is like and the role of the queen. About the the Quote I think her Grandfather said something like that once (but that was the 20th century a different time then it is now) But she is right about that. It had to be seen now to be believe especially if it want to survive the ever changing 21st Century.
__________________

__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, regency, retirement


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
ABBA singing "Dancing Queen" for the Swedish King and Queen allison513 Royal House of Sweden 34 11-19-2011 02:24 AM
Queen Fawzia and Queen Soraya were they involved in their country's development ? FarahJoy The Imperial Family of Iran 15 12-15-2009 08:53 PM
Valdemar II the Victorious, Queen Dagmar and Queen Berengária norwegianne Danish Royal History 2 11-10-2007 05:54 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history 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 olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 AM.

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]