The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
View Poll Results: In your opinion, which European country is more likely to become a republic?
Belgium 81 20.30%
Denmark 12 3.01%
Great Britain 39 9.77%
Liechtenstein 12 3.01%
Luxembourg 9 2.26%
Monaco 16 4.01%
The Netherlands 4 1.00%
Norway 55 13.78%
Spain 140 35.09%
Sweden 31 7.77%
Voters: 399. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 06-10-2012, 03:58 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,334
Padam as someone who doesn't know anything about the Spanish Royal Family do u mind giving at least a few reasons why you think they are heading towards being abolished? I believe I recall reading that the present King was recently reinstated after the monarchy had been previously abolished.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 06-10-2012, 04:12 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Padam as someone who doesn't know anything about the Spanish Royal Family do u mind giving at least a few reasons why you think they are heading towards being abolished? I believe I recall reading that the present King was recently reinstated after the monarchy had been previously abolished.
Well, I could name the most recent controversies:

- A corruption scandal that involves the King's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarín, and most probably his daughter, Infanta Cristina, as well. In fact, the King himself is involved to a certain degree by trying to hush the scandal and protecting his daughter (who to this day hasn't been questioned). You can read more about that here.

- The hunting trip King Juan Carlos took, spending tens of thousands when his country is in economic crisis. Not to mention, he was hunting elephants; while it is not illegal where he was, it is morally a very dubious act. And people wouldn't even know about the trip, if the King hadn't suffered an accident requiring a hospitalisation. You can read more about that here.

- The fact King Juan Carlos was accompanied on that trip - and on many others, by the looks of it - by a woman who is believed to be his mistress. In fact, the King is believed to have numerous affairs throughout his marriage, which may explain why he and Queen Sofia decided not to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year.


In past, the Spanish media always protected the King and didn't report anything that could tarnish his reputation. That is slowly changing. Currently, only two members of the Royal Family are completely scandal free (to the best of my knowledge) - Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia. Queen Sofia's patience with her husband's ways has earned her a lot of sympathy and support as well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 06-10-2012, 04:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
One point on the US system. I think it was a quote in the West Wing, that any nation setting up a democratic state from scratch shouldn't even consider the US system as a template, mainly because of the power of the President (who I think can declare war unilaterally).
Only Congress can declare war. The US President can send in troops to anywhere the President wants, but the President must report to Congress within a set period (I believe 60 days, under the War Powers Act), and Congress can cut off funding. After Vietnam, and Lyndon Johnson's excesses, Congress clamped down on the President's warmaking powers, but this is a constant dispute between the President and Congress.

As an American, the only flaw I see is that the Head of State and Head of Government are combined in 1 job (the President), and we have a Vice President who doesn't really do anything; the VP is neither Head of State nor Head of Government and just casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 06-10-2012, 04:46 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.
I disagree in the sense that a monarchy has a much more solid foundation, rooted as it is in a country's history. As such a monarchy has more inertia.
A head of state, elected or appointed, is based on that person's own character, morals and standing. And if it's a politician a segment of the population would per default never dream of voting for him/her to begin with.
A monachy is also based on a family. That means that there are more people to share the burden. If some members of the family have issues, there will almost inevitable be others who are rolemodels.
Then there is the matter of people relating to different members of that family. Some people may dislike the monarch, but admire another member of the family.
In other words, within an RF there are almost always someone you can dislike or admire.
Finally but certainly not least, there is the matter of nationalism. A head of state who will be around for a few years, no matter how competent he/she is, can't be compared to a family who has been around for centuries.
Don't dismiss the "royal-soap-opera-effect".
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 06-10-2012, 05:27 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
Not necessarily. Its ok as long as the people support the current monarch, as its the case with QEII and many others. But as society evolves and a new generation of heirs comes up, there may come up the situation when the majority of people find their first representative useless or find a first representative who is a figurehead only useless. And then? They realize that they cant get rid of him or her. This is the moment that wont fit into a modern society or into the modern standard of democracy any longer, I am sure it will come in one or another country, not today, not tomorrow, maybe not in this century, but it will come.
But of course we can get rid of a monarch who doesn't garner the support of the majority of the population. It's happened before - we cut one's head off (Charles II), we chased one off by importing an alternative from another country (James VII), the government and the Church pushed one out when they didn't like his choice of wife (Edward VIII).

The British people have shown themselves perfectly capable of kicking out a monarch they don't fancy; we've even had a go at a republic but we didn't much care for it. The press and the politicians merely reflect the overall feeling among the public; so because the RF retain the support of c.80% of the population, no newspaper (apart from some of the leftie broadsheets) or mainstream political party supports a republic. But if that were to change; if some future monarch were to act in such a manner as to seriously anger the people, the press would start up the sort of bandwagon we saw in the week of Diana's death, and of course no politician ever saw a bandwagon they didn't want to jump on at the earliest opportunity.

When the British press and commentariat, along with politicians and public representatives, decide they're out to get someone, they pretty much always get their way. This would be no different if it concerns the monarch or (much more regularly) the England football manager.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 06-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,466
Actually, as your monarchs do nothing substantive to or for the government, their private lives have little bearing on how the government works. Charles the II was a long time ago and bringing in James, whose big sin was becoming Catholic, also a long time ago, is not relevant. Eward the VII, had dozens of mistresses, in fact his favorite was Camilla's grandmother. But Edward, faults and all was popular, so he stayed. Jump forward to the present day, you have a very dedicated woman who has done her best in this job, but the world doesn't sink or swim on her opinions and she has had and still has some dubious relatives, whom the country will inherit. No one is chopping off heads.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 06-11-2012, 02:35 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
But of course we can get rid of a monarch who doesn't garner the support of the majority of the population. It's happened before - we cut one's head off (Charles II), we chased one off by importing an alternative from another country (James VII), the government and the Church pushed one out when they didn't like his choice of wife (Edward VIII).
Very true. Royalty, just like any other public figure or even the politicians they appoint to government, are accountable to the court of public opinion. In my view members of Royal Houses are more accountable than political figures as they must constantly justify themselves to their people as opposed to politicians who usually just get into power and then plod along until they are voted out or retire.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 06-11-2012, 03:08 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post
Well, I could name the most recent controversies:

- A corruption scandal that involves the King's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarín, and most probably his daughter, Infanta Cristina, as well. In fact, the King himself is involved to a certain degree by trying to hush the scandal and protecting his daughter (who to this day hasn't been questioned). You can read more about that here.

- The hunting trip King Juan Carlos took, spending tens of thousands when his country is in economic crisis. Not to mention, he was hunting elephants; while it is not illegal where he was, it is morally a very dubious act. And people wouldn't even know about the trip, if the King hadn't suffered an accident requiring a hospitalisation. You can read more about that here.

- The fact King Juan Carlos was accompanied on that trip - and on many others, by the looks of it - by a woman who is believed to be his mistress. In fact, the King is believed to have numerous affairs throughout his marriage, which may explain why he and Queen Sofia decided not to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year.


In past, the Spanish media always protected the King and didn't report anything that could tarnish his reputation. That is slowly changing. Currently, only two members of the Royal Family are completely scandal free (to the best of my knowledge) - Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia. Queen Sofia's patience with her husband's ways has earned her a lot of sympathy and support as well.
If the Spanish monarchy goes or not will depend on Felipe, Leonor etc. not on recent scandals.

Whatever scandals there were, Inaki & Cristina may tarnish the image of the SRF but it wont touch Felipe's suitablitiy as King. Juan Carlos has done the maximum for Spain, with respect to abolishment his persona will be untouchable until he dies.

It will depend on Felipe and how he creates his reign whether the Spanish people will be comfortable with him or not or see any sense in continuing with the institution. I have no doubt Felipe will reign but I am not sure Leonor or her offsprings will.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 06-11-2012, 03:31 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,088
I believe the biggest threat to the European monarchies is not the public opinion, unless the royals do something extremely stupid, like being involved in serious crime, corruption or directly and repeatedly interferring with politics. It's the abolishment of the national state that is the biggets threat.

The royals are linked to the individual nations by being living national symbols.
When, not if, the relevance of the national state has diminished enough then the royal families cease to be of particular importance as well. By then they will be reduced to celebrities.

More and more people get an education in, live, work and eventually die in different countries throughout their lives. They marry different nationalities, have children who most often don't see themselves as 100 % belonging to one nation.
They again move around and marry someone of another nationality and have children whose adherance to a particular country become even more tenous.

After a while the national states will be reduced to geographical reference points, administrative areas with an ever increasing national and ethnic mix among the population.
The national state will go first, then the royals.

Example: Germany anno 1812 consisted of a multitude of nations, principalities and city states. Many if not most had been around for centuries.
In 1912 there were three or four left, all de facto under an overlord, i.e. the Kaiser.
2012. None are left.
I believe this is what is going to happen with the monarchies in Europe. Not because people wish to abolish them, but because they quietly cease to fulfill their most important function: being national symbols.

I know, I know, there is a setback right now, perhaps even a major crisis - but people still move around.
And Europe has to unite in order to be able to compete on the world markets.

Then there is the British example. With the British monarch being head of state for a number of nation in a commonwealth.
At present the British monarch is head of state of a number of nations who are mainly very similar ethnic and cultural and share a long common history.
But as the biggest of these countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada develope their own culture, get more diverse ethnically not to mention the national identity, which is very well developed in all three countries, there will be an ever increasing call for being represented by their own head of state.
150 years ago one solution might have been to adopt a secondary British prince and make him king, nowadays republics are more likely.
So the British monarchy will, I believe, eventually also become irelevant.

When royals get reduced to cebrities rather than national symbols, they lose their magic.

Fortunately I won't live to see my prediction being fulfilled.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 06-11-2012, 06:05 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Then there is the British example. With the British monarch being head of state for a number of nation in a commonwealth.
At present the British monarch is head of state of a number of nations who are mainly very similar ethnic and cultural and share a long common history.
But as the biggest of these countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada develope their own culture, get more diverse ethnically not to mention the national identity, which is very well developed in all three countries, there will be an ever increasing call for being represented by their own head of state.
150 years ago one solution might have been to adopt a secondary British prince and make him king, nowadays republics are more likely.
So the British monarchy will, I believe, eventually also become irelevant.
There have been continuous calls for Australia to become a republic since the idea of an Australian Federation was first floated in the late 1880's. And here we are in 2012 celebrating the 60 glorious years that have been the reign of Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. While Australia has most certainly got much more ethnically diverse and its own national identity and is no longer the outpost of the British Empire in the far edge of it does not mean that we have any incentive to become a republic. If anything, calls for a republic are growing fewer as the years go by. Australia may have a different identity but the British Monarchy is part of our DNA - thousands of our young men and women shed their blood for the Crown over many years; we have an affection fort the Queen and her family that runs far, far deeper than that for any celebrity or public figure; and we have had over a century of stable government with a Governor-General replicating the Queen's steady hand on the ship of state (with one notable exception, although it didn't do much damage long-term). In hindsight I wish Queen Victoria did send one of her sons out in 1901 to be the first King of Australia but she didn't, and it hasn't made one iota of difference to Australia's relationship to its monarch.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 06-11-2012, 07:00 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Actually, as your monarchs do nothing substantive to or for the government, their private lives have little bearing on how the government works. Charles the II was a long time ago and bringing in James, whose big sin was becoming Catholic, also a long time ago, is not relevant. Eward the VII, had dozens of mistresses, in fact his favorite was Camilla's grandmother. But Edward, faults and all was popular, so he stayed. Jump forward to the present day, you have a very dedicated woman who has done her best in this job, but the world doesn't sink or swim on her opinions and she has had and still has some dubious relatives, whom the country will inherit. No one is chopping off heads.
Of course we're not chopping off heads; we no longer need to go to those lengths to get things done. Edward VII was accepted and admired by the people because he did his job to the best of his ability and in a way that the British people supported. I used the examples as evidence that the British people have a rebellious streak in them, and are not averse to removing a monarch they don't want.

If during the collective national mass hysteria after Diana's death the Queen had refused to bow to the mob, and there had been big demonstrations in the streets for a prolonged period, does anyone genuinely think that nothing would've happened? The politicians, realising that they're on the wrong side of the prevailing mood would've jumped on the bandwagon, as would the press and the media. In that atmosphere, the PM would likely be advising the Queen to abdicate, and she would have to take that advice; or there would be a referendum on whether to abolish the monarchy and become a republic.

Our constitutional monarchy is not an immovable relic that doesn't change; it's constantly evolving to reflect the nation and people that it serves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 06-11-2012, 06:03 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Juan Carlos is playing the fiddle as Madrid burns, and his son in law is clearing what left of the Treasury. The Dutchess of Alba would be more suited to run the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 06-11-2012, 07:20 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia
Well, I could name the most recent controversies:

- A corruption scandal that involves the King's son-in-law, Inaki Urdangarín, and most probably his daughter, Infanta Cristina, as well. In fact, the King himself is involved to a certain degree by trying to hush the scandal and protecting his daughter (who to this day hasn't been questioned). You can read more about that here.

- The hunting trip King Juan Carlos took, spending tens of thousands when his country is in economic crisis. Not to mention, he was hunting elephants; while it is not illegal where he was, it is morally a very dubious act. And people wouldn't even know about the trip, if the King hadn't suffered an accident requiring a hospitalisation. You can read more about that here.

- The fact King Juan Carlos was accompanied on that trip - and on many others, by the looks of it - by a woman who is believed to be his mistress. In fact, the King is believed to have numerous affairs throughout his marriage, which may explain why he and Queen Sofia decided not to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary this year.

In past, the Spanish media always protected the King and didn't report anything that could tarnish his reputation. That is slowly changing. Currently, only two members of the Royal Family are completely scandal free (to the best of my knowledge) - Crown Prince Felipe and Crown Princess Letizia. Queen Sofia's patience with her husband's ways has earned her a lot of sympathy and support as well.
Thank you. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. But when it comes to the Spainish Royal Family, I know more than most. You know the old rule, "I can criticize my own family, but you may not.". Well, I believe the first part, and if the family put it out there, so can you. I, through must professional family research and Geneological Societies research published records, I descend for Phillip II, and we all know what he did. Lost the Armada to Elizabeth and bankrupted the treasury.

There for I think based on history, and present behavior he will stand guard as the country goes destitute on his watch. "The acquisition of multiple w100 Billion€ bailouts, do not a great king make."

I want to like them. The Crown Prince and Prince produce some beautiful babies. Pretty monarchs, even rather average looking Royal Families produce their weight in platinum of the return in tourist and business dollars for a simple meet and bow. I don't understand it. Spain is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, as is Greece. The cradle of civilization. Everywhere you look is ancient buildings and beautiful views. Taxes on tourist spending alone should float them.

If Juan Carlos wants to save the future do his monarchy, anything else and he has to step aside for a full powered (as much as the have) to a Prince Regent and retire. Juan Carlos should have known what was going on with the bum of a son-in-law. This was happening over time, and people had to know and said nothing. Plus the mistress, the safari and the trip to Monaco while he could not do his job. He should be work 24/7 to solve his countries problems, and nobody can tell me he is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 06-11-2012, 10:50 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,334
Can someone explain how adultery is treated in Spain? I have always been told that the US is anal when it comes to the private lives of their heads of state. But a mistress of the King is on the list of reasons why the monarchy could possibly be abolished.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 06-12-2012, 02:50 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
If Juan Carlos wants to save the future do his monarchy, anything else and he has to step aside for a full powered (as much as the have) to a Prince Regent and retire. Juan Carlos should have known what was going on with the bum of a son-in-law. This was happening over time, and people had to know and said nothing. Plus the mistress, the safari and the trip to Monaco while he could not do his job. He should be work 24/7 to solve his countries problems, and nobody can tell me he is.
JC is not a politician, he is a figurehead. What do people expect of him? There is no reason to abolish the institution because JC has a mistress, so what, there are more pressing problems. And even though Felipe likes to present himself sometimes as if he were a politician, he is not a saviour to replace the Old Man and Spain will be well off again.

Again, I dont see Spain getting rid of the monarchy as long as JC is alive, he is the one who drove the democratic process, without him there would be no CP Felipe around in the first place. And then, Felipe will be given a chance and why not, and then its up to him and up to Leonor to make something of it. And if they fail, as a consequence the institution might go, at some point in future decades.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 06-12-2012, 09:28 AM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,502
I am also of the agreement that if anyone, then the Spanish monarchy will be the first to go, not by chopping off anyone's head, maybe by a vote. JC is of the generation that the mistress had a place in royal lives, but not anymore and he hasn't adapted...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 06-12-2012, 05:53 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
The string started at "Which country Could be the next to abolish the monarchy.". Not list the reasons that JC should be abolished. I do ask this question, "Who is, list the reasons, why a monarch should go. Although the string started as Monarchy, which I feel encompasses the entire family, the head seems to be the topic. I am not talking about desert monarchs with billions of dollars and his people are destitute, or the monsters of some African countries, that is obvious be anyone with a minimum of intelligence. Discuss
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 06-13-2012, 07:40 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
The string started at "Which country Could be the next to abolish the monarchy.". Not list the reasons that JC should be abolished. I do ask this question, "Who is, list the reasons, why a monarch should go. Although the string started as Monarchy, which I feel encompasses the entire family, the head seems to be the topic. I am not talking about desert monarchs with billions of dollars and his people are destitute, or the monsters of some African countries, that is obvious be anyone with a minimum of intelligence. Discuss
And the worst of these monsters aren't monarchies at all. Look at Syria and Libya for starters, or Iran.

Remember when Argentina invaded the Falklands, or when Belize became independent as a Commonwealth country while Guatemala claimed it? What were Argentina and Guatemala, both Latin American republics, doing at that time? Slaughtering their own people by thousands, while the US supported them (and shame on them for that). What could be worse than that? Hence why I get angry when people think monarchies are a "bad" thing when the worst regimes in modern history aren't monarchies at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 06-13-2012, 10:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,086
Just because a country is a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that it is a democracy and will remain so, and that elections will be fair. The history of Thailand during the first decade of the 21th century have shown that a monarch is in no way a guarantee for stability.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 06-18-2012, 08:27 PM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
Just because a country is a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that it is a democracy and will remain so, and that elections will be fair. The history of Thailand during the first decade of the 21th century have shown that a monarch is in no way a guarantee for stability.
One could say the same thing about Fiji, but there are always going to be the odd monarchy that lets the side down. By and large, constitutional monarchies - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium etc. are more stable politically.

In some cases, an independent monarch has been crucial to the establishment of representative democracy - e.g. Spain and Tonga.
__________________

__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
From a country saved by the Monarchy Haliotis Member Introductions and Updates 3 03-30-2008 03:27 PM




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 current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:29 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]