The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 01-30-2014, 12:06 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lexington, United States
Posts: 1
Hi everyone, first time poster

I hope this is the correct place to discuss this. I've been reading a lot about French peerages and titles and I came across the Ducal title of Polignac, which is of course now associated with Monaco. At some point, I see that it went from Duke de Polignac to Count de Poliganc. Was it demoted, so to speak, or was there both a Duke and Count de Poliganc? Can there be a Duke and Count of the same place?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-17-2014, 07:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,565
Natascha O'Neill, the sister of Christopher O'Neill {the husband of Princess Madeleine of Sweden} is the wife of Graf Ernst von Abensberg und Traun.
Graf is a title of Nobility.
Graf means Count.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-18-2014, 05:41 PM
crown's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitney-Alexandra View Post
Hi everyone, first time poster

I hope this is the correct place to discuss this. I've been reading a lot about French peerages and titles and I came across the Ducal title of Polignac, which is of course now associated with Monaco. At some point, I see that it went from Duke de Polignac to Count de Poliganc. Was it demoted, so to speak, or was there both a Duke and Count de Poliganc? Can there be a Duke and Count of the same place?
The title was made heritable in 1783. The Duke's sons would have the title Comte/Count de Polignac. Upon the Dukes's death his first born son would inherit the title. There can only be one Duke at a time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:58 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423

Descendants of the first Duc de Polignac bear the title of Comte de Polignac. Comte Pierre de Polignac, a great-great-grandson of the first duke, was the father of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco.

The third Duc de Polignac was created a Prince of the Papal States in 1820. The title passed to his male-line descendants as Prince(s) de Polignac. The current head of the ducal and princely branch is Charles-Armand, 8th Duc de Polignac and 6th Prince et Vicomte de Polignac, born in 1946. Other members of this branch are titled Prince or Princess [first name] de Polignac.

The head of another comital branch of the family is the Marquis de Polignac.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-20-2014, 06:53 PM
Queen Shirley's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX, United States
Posts: 26
In the past particularly and now, I was wondering if being the monarch's in-law's, are they given any title just because your related? Is this how a commoner becomes upper class/entitled/Royal? When William becomes King, could he bestow a title on his in-laws just because? What about when King Henry VIII married he had lots of in-laws. Did he bestow titles to them? One wife was made his sister? Was that a great honor back then? What did she get as a sister that as an ex wife she would not have gotten? What about other Royal Families?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-21-2014, 06:58 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,272
I love this question. I'm going to break it down a bit.

Is being the monarch's in-law's, are they given any title just because your related? Is this how a commoner becomes upper class/entitled/Royal?

This just depends on the monarch, really. There's never really been established rules of who gets a peerage and who doesn't, at least when it extends to people who themselves aren't royals.

This isn't necessarily how someone, or a family, became aristocratic/noble, and certainly wasn't (in the British system at least) how they became royal. For the most part, until rather recently people who married into the English/British royal families have always been from at least upper class, if not aristocratic or royal backgrounds, prior to their marriages. In a few cases, women whose fathers, or families, didn't hold any titles married into the family, sometimes resulting in their families being given titles. It just depended on the monarch.

How commoners became nobles wasn't simply that they married into the royal family. Typically, honours were bestowed on people who had done a service to the monarch, monarchy, or government. Often it seems like these were granted in succession - typically, for awhile a number of fathers and sons would be knighted, then later one might be created a baronet, later on a descendant might be created an earl, then later another might become a duke.... It didn't always follow a set order and it seems like when the younger sons or grandsons of men who were peers were created peers themselves they didn't start back at zero.

So, consider the Spencer family. The first John Spencer was created a knight during the reign of Henry VIII, and a few generations of sons and grandsons were similarly knighted, before one such was created Baron Spencer of Wormleighton. Later a Baron Spencer was created Earl of Sunderland. When the grandson of an Earl of Sunderland was given a peerage it reflected the fact that he was descended from peers - first he was created Viscount Spencer, then later Earl Spencer (as well as secondary titles with both peerages).

When William becomes King, could he bestow a title on his in-laws just because?

This is a subject that can be debated a bit. As King, William will be the fount of all honours. Technically speaking, he could bestow a title on his father-in-law, or even brother-in-law, if he so wished (he could give his mother- or sister-in-law a title as well, but titles for women are considerably less common), but it would be going against the trend towards titles of the day (assuming that this continues). Currently, the only people to be granted hereditary peerages are royals, and life peerages are only granted on the advice of the government, typically after achieving something noteworthy. As such, I would debate whether or not William could create a peerage for any of the Middletons "just because." Even if he could, I think it would risk seriously offending some of his subjects.

What about when King Henry VIII married he had lots of in-laws. Did he bestow titles to them? One wife was made his sister? Was that a great honor back then? What did she get as a sister that as an ex wife she would not have gotten?

Henry VIII married six times. His first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a princess in her own right and came from a family with their own titles. Henry didn't, to the best of my knowledge, bestow any English titles upon them.

His second wife was Anne Boleyn. Anne's father didn't inherit titles and it's very likely that the titles that he received were largely related to his daughter's relationship, but Thomas Boleyn was also involved in politics so at least some of the honours he received may have been because of his own merits. Anne's brother wasn't given his own peerage, being expected to inherit his father's titles, but he did use the title Viscount Rochford by courtesy, but his titles were forfeited when he was executed. Anne was also granted her own peerage, a Marquessate, prior to, but because of, her marriage.

His third wife was Jane Seymour. Jane's father, John, was knighted by Henry VII, initially for his involvement in the Cornish Rebellion of 1497. John died within a year of Jane's marriage and was never granted a peerage. Two of Jane's brothers, Edward and Thomas, were created peers, but I believe this was more because they were the uncles (and regents) of the King than because they were the brothers-in-law of the King - in the case of Edward, he was created Duke of Somerset in 1547, 10 years after his sister's death and the year his nephew became king. I believe Thomas became a Baron around the same time. Around the same time, Jane's youngest brother, Henry, was created a knight, but he never received any further titles (and unlike his elder brothers, was never executed when his ambition backfired, so he didn't necessarily lose out).

His fourth wife was Anne of Cleves. Anne was from a Continental Ruling family, and as such her family had no need of English titles. Anne was the wife who was created an honourary member of the family after the annulment of her marriage, and it did make a difference. Henry had only divorced one other wife at this point - Catherine - and she didn't exactly have a great post-marriage situation. His two other wives, at this point, didn't survive their marriages. In saying that she was to be treated as the King's sister, Henry basically assured that Anne was to be treated well during his reign, and even afterwards. She was essentially taken care of and remained connected to the court.

Wife five was Catherine Howard, whose father died in the year before she got married. Both of her brothers were courtiers during her marriage, but neither were created peers. Catherine's youngest brother was eventually knighted because of his services on the battle field, after Henry's death. Interestingly, this knighthood was granted by the Duke of Somerset, the eldest brother of wife number 3.

The last wife was Catherine Parr. Catherine's father was knighted in 1509 and died in 1517, well before his daughter's marriage to the King. Catherine's brother, William, was first created a Baron a few years before her marriage, then created an Earl after the marriage, then finally created a Marquess after Henry's death. I would assume that the initial peerage had nothing to do with Catherine, the second one was because of his position as the brother-in-law of the king, and the third one was because he was the King's uncle (in a round-about way). At the same time, though, William Parr was also involved in politics and the court.

What about other Royal Families?

I honestly don't know about other Royal Families, but I can comment a bit more on other British monarchs. Henry VIII may be the most famous in terms of his marriages, but he's not the only one to marry women from more common means.

Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Woodville, was born to a commoner, Richard Woodville, later 1st Earl Rivers. Richard's peerage was very likely due to his daughter's marriage, as it was granted during Edward's reign and after the wedding.

James II's first wife, Anne Hyde, was also born to a commoner-turned-peer, Edward Hyde. Edward's rise to the peerage, however, wasn't really connected to his daughter's royal marriage so much as it was to Edward's continued support of the King through the Civil War, Exile, and later Restoration. All of Edward's peerages were granted to him by Charles II with a year of both the restoration and Anne's marriage, at a time when it was still considered likely that Charles would father legitimate children (Charles wasn't yet married at the time).

As for the Scots, David II married a woman whose father was just a knight, but I couldn't tell you why he wasn't granted further peerages (be it a deliberate omission on the part of David, or owing to the father's death, although I suspect the latter as it wasn't either's first marriage). Robert II's first father-in-law was only a knight, but Robert's first wife died before he became king. Mary of Scots' second husband, Henry Stuart, only held his titles by courtesy, but he predeceased his father, who did have his own, pre-existing peerage. All other Scottish monarchs married women whose fathers had titles of their own.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-21-2014, 12:13 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423

Very thorough and enjoyable reading Ish.

A present-day example of ennoblement (or raise in status) due to marital proximity is the family of the current Queen of the Belgians.
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz was born into an untitled noble family of baronial descent. Her father bore the honorific of Jonkheer, which in English translates to somewhere between "The Honourable" and "Lord". Mathilde bore the honorific of Jonkvrouw.

When she married the Duke of Brabant (ie Crown Prince) in 1999, King Albert elevated the family of d'Udekem d'Acoz from the baronial to the comital rank, hereditary in the male line. Her father and brother thus gained a title, that of count, and her surviving sisters that of countess (her mother was uneffected, already being a countess in her own right).

Thus the daughter's marriage into the upper level of the Belgian Royal House directly led to her own family's rise in title, rank and status.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:35 AM
crown's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Shirley View Post
I What about other Royal Families?
This bit will be about the Danish Royal family.
Through history most Danish Kings' spouses have come from royal or princely houses of Europe. The in-laws had titles of their own.
In recent years 3 commoners have married into the DRF; Miss Alexandra Manley, Miss Mary Donaldson and Miss Marie Cavallier. Their fathers were all awarded the Grand Cross of the order of the Dannebrog. This order has 6 classes; the Grand Cross os the second highest and the higest class for non-royals.
So there is no precedence for bestowing titles to the in-laws of the DRF and it would be problematic to do so. Most titles (if not all) I can think of are in some way connected to a geographical area, and it would be a problem to bestow titles connected to a Danish area upon people who are not Danish citizens and who do not live in denmark.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 508
Wasn't it the case that when Princess Louise, daughter of King Edward VII married, her husband was created Duke of Fife. However as he was the eldest on of the Earl of Fife, this was more an upgrade of a noble rather than the creation of a noble.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Wasn't it the case that when Princess Louise, daughter of King Edward VII married, her husband was created Duke of Fife. However as he was the eldest on of the Earl of Fife, this was more an upgrade of a noble rather than the creation of a noble.
I was going to tackle this side of the equation next, but didn't have time when I posted my last one.

I didn't look at the families of the wives of younger sons of the monarch, as the wives themselves would have taken their husbands' titles and thus I don't think it likely that their fathers would have been given titles if they didn't have any already, particularly if they weren't politically engaged. I also haven't really looked at the illegitimate children of monarchs, although I know that in many cases the sons were given peerages of their own, and the daughters often made good marriages. I believe that at least one of the husbands of one of William IV's illegitimate daughters was given a peerage during his father-in-law's reign, which I would assume was at least semi-connected to his royal relation.

Prior to the Hanovers, there were few occassions when royal daughters married men who hadn't inherited their peerages, but I'm finding that most of them seem to have been created a peer prior to their marriage (or prior to the connection that their marriage created having been established) and generally for different reasons. For example, one of the (full blood) sisters of Henry IV married the First Duke of Exeter, but he was also the half-brother of Richard II, and was granted his peerage during his brother's reign. Another example is Charles Brandon, who was created the 1st Duke of Suffolk some 10 years before he married the sister of the then-reigning Henry VIII. It seems that Henry's sisters liked making "lesser" marriages after their first, royal husbands died. Margaret Tudor married first James IV of Scotland, secondly the 6th Earl of Angus, and thirdly a man named Henry Stewart. Henry was the younger son of a Scottish lord who was created a Lord himself after his marriage, by his new stepson, James V.

Alexander Duff was, at the time of his marriage, the 6th Earl of Fife, and his new bride was the daughter of the then-Prince of Wales. His wife's grandmother, Queen Victoria, decided to create him the Duke of Fife, as she saw the title Duke to be more fitting for the son-in-law of a future King than the title Earl. Later, his title would be recreated for him, with a special remainder to allow his daughter and her heirs male to inherit the title, as he had no surviving sons. Further, when his father-in-law created his wife the Princess Royal his daughters were also created Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland, this being before the 1917 LPs.

Duff's brother-in-law, George V, didn't seem to share Victoria's concerns. When George's daughter, Mary, married the then Viscount Lascelles he didn't create any titles to elevate his son-in-law, who was the heir-apparent to the Earl of Harewood. George didn't see it a problem that the daughter of the King be married to a man who was "just" an Earl.

George VI did see fit to create the husband of his eldest daughter and heir presumptive a Duke, but he didn't think it necessary to make the DoE a Prince of the United Kingdom, that didn't happen until during HM's reign. And when Princess Margaret married, the Queen thought that an Earldom was enough for her new brother-in-law, Antony Armstrong-Jones - who I believe was at that point the only man to marry the child or sister of an English/British monarch without any familial connections to the nobility. This was followed by the husbands of Princess Anne, neither of whom received any titles at all.

Back on the issue of other royal families, I do think it is important to note that in many Continental European houses it was practice until very recently that individuals who didn't make dynastic marriages would lose whatever inheritence rights they had. Often, the eldest son of a king couldn't marry a woman who came from nothing because then he would lose out on getting the throne. This is a big reason why it was so common for royal men to make dynastic, love-less marriages then take on mistresses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:32 PM
Victorian-Dandy's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 83
Got asked a question to which I bow to those with far great knowledge than I in the hope it can be answered.

From my daughter "Can a prince give up being a prince and decide to be non royal?"

The reason for her asking this is that at school they have been covering the Abdication Crisis (very loosely from what I've heard from her).

I know peers can surrender their peerage because that is what the late Tony Benn did so he could sit in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords.

So could someone of Royal birth walk away from what they are, without having to "abdicate"

Hope folks can help, so I can at least give her something to think over and surprise her teacher with next week.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:56 PM
crown's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorian-Dandy View Post
So could someone of Royal birth walk away from what they are, without having to "abdicate"
.
Interesting question. I realize that you are probably looking for answer that covers the British Royal family. But I guess the conditions for the BRF compares to those of the Danish RF. The titles of the RF are given at the dicretion of the sovereign. So I don't think a prince can give up being a prince.
The only way would be to marry without the concent of the sovereign and the state council - then he would loose his title of Prince.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-22-2014, 09:42 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,272
On the Continent, the most common way to "stop" being royal would be to marry without permission of the monarch, or in contravention of the House's marriage laws/rules. In some cases, as in Denmark, doing so means the individual forfeits their title and place in the succession, while in others I think it just means that the children aren't in the succession and they and the wife don't get any titles. In others, it's a combination effect.

This isn't the case in Britain. Britain has never had any laws regarding dynastic marriages, and the current law regarding royal marriage in general stipulates just that those in the line of succession (other than those whose place comes from a woman who married into another royal family) have to have permission to marry for the marriage to be valid. If they don't have permission then the marriage isn't valid. This is why the long-term partners of the sons of George III were all mistresses and not wives of men who used to be Princes.

People can cease to be British Prince(sse)s though, but they always need either the monarch or parliament to help.

The monarch can issue LPs creating, or uncreating, princely titles. When the 1917 LPs were issued, George V stripped people who did not meet the requirements set out by his LPs of their titles, with the exception of those who had had LPs issued specifically granting them princely titles. If the Queen wished to, she could issue new LPs stating that the only people who have princely titles are the children of the monarch - stripping all her cousins and grandchildren of their royal titles. This would not apply to the DoE, who was created a Prince by LPs specific to him, nor do I believe it would apply to George, for similar reasons.

The monarch can also say that it is his/her will that a set group of people not use princely titles. This is what's happened with Edward's children - they're entitled to princely titles under the 1917, but don't use them by the Queen's will. It's debated whether or not they have them and chose not to use them (similar to Camilla and Princess of Wales) or if they don't have them at all, but the point remains that they don't use them and aren't ever recognized by them.

As such, it seems to be generally assumed that the Queen has the power to issue LPs that would specifically strip a group of people of their royal titles - it is assumed that the Queen could issue LPs regarding the Wessex children, but chose not to. I would think that if she does have that power, then she also has the power to issue LPs specifically stripping someone of their royal titles, provided other LPs had not been issued specifically granting them. So, she couldn't issue LPs stripping the DoE of his princely titles anymore than she could stripping him of his dukedom, but I do believe she could issue LPs stripping Edward of his princely titles.

At the same time, in as much as the monarch is the fount of all honours, Parliament has the power to take away titles granted by LPs. For example, during the First World War Parliament anyone who fought against Britain forfeited any British titles they held. It then stands to reason that they could remove princely titles from individuals or groups if Parliament so wished.

On that note, it was Parliament who had to allow Edward VIII to abdicate. Similarly, it was Parliament who decided that James II had abdicated. Later, after he claimed his father's throne, Parliament attained James Stuart, the Old Pretender, for treason, stripping him of his titles.

In a less certain route, it is possible for people to simply stop using their titles, or to renounce them. The DoE was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but leading up to his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth he stopped using his foreign titles. While it's debated whether or not he still holds them in any sense, he has not been recognized as a Prince of Greece and Denmark for some 60+ years. Nor have his children been recognized as such. During her reign, one of the sons of Queen Victoria became Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. While he continued to hold his many British titles, including that of Prince, he didn't continue to use them. He and his nephew and eventual heir, Charles Edward, are the only examples of British princes ceasing to use their titles that I can think of. In Charles' case, he supported Germany during the War and was consequently stripped of all his British titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-22-2014, 10:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,528
Just a note about George - the LPs issued by The Queen that included George weren't specific to him but simply widened those issued by George V in 1917.

Under the 1917 LPs George would have been a prince in any event as the first born son of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales but had he been Georgina she would have been Lady Georgina Mountbatten-Windsor. Following the decision of the Commonwealth realms to allow the first born child to inherit regardless of gender so it made sense to allow a first born girl to be born as HRH Princess Georgina just as a first born boy was going to be HRH Prince George.

The other extension under the 2012 LPs was to give HRH to all of William's children - remembering that they would automatically gain that style on her death anyway. It is the same thing as when George VI issued new LPs in 1948 to give HRH to any children of Elizabeth herself - as again on his death they would automatically be HRH Prince/Princess so he gave it to them from birth.

Regarding the removal of HRH by LPs - The Queen stripped both Diana and Sarah of their HRHs by LPs in 1996 - after Diana's divorce - so she can issue LPs to strip HRH's as she did so then. Of course these ladies weren't born with it but they gained it under the 1917 LPs as the wives of HRH Prince's of the Realm.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-22-2014, 10:43 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,272
I was kind of struggling to say what I meant regarding George.

If I'm correct, when the 1917 LPs were issued they didn't strip the children of Princess Louise of their Princess titles, as they had been created Princesses by their grandfather, Edward VII. If Edward VII had the ability to grant princely status to the children of his daughter that wasn't then reversed by the 1917 LPs, then it stands to reason that if the Queen were to now issue new LPs altering princely titles, George wouldn't be affected because of the previous LPs granting princely titles to the children of the Duke of Cambridge.

That's just the conclusion I'm making on the issue, but I admit that I haven't read the actual LPs regarding the Duffs, so they could be worded in a way granting them their titles by name, instead of in a more roundabout way as the children of Louise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
This isn't the case in Britain. Britain has never had any laws regarding dynastic marriages, and the current law regarding royal marriage in general stipulates just that those in the line of succession (other than those whose place comes from a woman who married into another royal family) have to have permission to marry for the marriage to be valid. If they don't have permission then the marriage isn't valid. .
That will change though when the new Successiion to the Crown Act 2013 comes into force and repeals the Royal Marriages Act. The first six persons in the British line of succession will still have to seek the monarch's consent to marry, but, in contrast to the current law, if they marry without consent, their marriage will still be legally valid, The person who married without consent and the future issue of that marriage will, however, be excluded from the line of succession. Those provisions will basically draw British law regarding royal marriages closer to the corresponding law in other European monarchies (Spain, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.),

In the end, it might look old-fashioned, but one might understand a royal marriage is not simply a private affair, but also a matter of state in the sense that children from those marriages may potentially become king/queen (i.e the HoS). It is reasonable then that royal marriages should be vetted by the monarch and the government and/or parliament, as is the case in all European kingdoms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-10-2014, 10:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,565
What is the oldest title of nobility in Spain?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
etymology, nobility, nobles, nomenclature, royal titles


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy 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 laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 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]