The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 09-16-2008, 10:54 PM
Count langley's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 27
As an American I can only assume; however, the Monarch of a nation is a symbol of national unity, much like our Flag. It is, indeed, the continuity of generations past and hope for the future.

In a republic, particularly in my country, we don't know who will live in the White House next year, whereas a royal family one watches them grow and live there lives on the public stage.

In most countries, royalty is more symbolic than powerful; however, one should appreciate the pride this symbolism embodies.
__________________

__________________
Count Langley
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,875
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?
Yes, the concept of royalty is relevant these days as are many other long-standing institutions such as education, the armed forces, the American Presidency etc. I think people need to look at the wider picture and realise that just because we are in the 21st century, things do not need to be modernised or changed simply because of current trends. In 300 years time, people would look back at history and think such things as "so for hundreds of years there were monarchies and then suddenly they were thought of as being irrelevant because it was fashionable/the trend to do so". So what I'm trying to say is why should the concept of royalty be any less relevant today than say 1909 or 1809 or 1709 etc?
__________________

__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-31-2009, 04:48 PM
Bones's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laredo, United States
Posts: 459
I think monarchy is or should be even more relavent today than ever. As Europe becomes more multi-cultural royal families are living links with the ancestral history of the native people and their culture. The US has other abstracts to unite, and the US is a much younger country than most in Europe (though oddly a much older government than most) so it cannot really compare. In many countries that even abolished their monarchies the former royal family remains very to moderately relavent from what I have seen.

Did anyone see that HBO special on John Adams? I loved the part where he met with King George III and as he was leaving King George said something like, "I pray the United States will not suffer unduly for want of a monarchy". lol loved that
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-16-2010, 11:51 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Chapter and verse, please. I'd like to look this up for myself. Scripture also says to "Honor the king"...this was at a time when the king was Caesar.
I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-17-2010, 12:18 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
That is a pretty strong opinion and I do respect it. I am in the States where we just have wealthy elected politicians which I'm sure some think are pure evil too. With having a constitutional monarchy, I believe the UK and the Commonwealth nations is holding onto something very precious... a continuous preservation of centuries of history and traditions. It fascinates me. There are many many people born into wealthy families or those that have made their own fortunes that are not in any way associated with the aristocracy. Being an aristocrat does not necessarily mean wealth, privilege and power. I don't believe that HM married the DoE for his money as I don't think there was much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-17-2010, 01:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
Gone are the days where royals controlled all the wealth and privilege, as you say. They generally exist only by the good graces of parliament and as such, the people.

Yes the aristocracy consists of many landowners and businessmen who have through enterprise and tourism, sustained or acquired their fortune, but so what? With the title comes an obligation to preserve their history and the history of their family. Those that bear a title often do so for it was inherited.

What you seem not to have mentioned is that bowing and curtsying is no longer expected. It is a discretionary act.

As for worship...

What about the sign of a cross, be it around ones neck or placed on an alter? It is a distinctive idol that people touch, neal before and kiss with a worshiping reverence because it's believed to be a holy image; yet it was man who made it so. It is an idol which technically depicts what was a man made murdering instrument which became, by way of human fascination and in many ways, superstition, an idolised effigy.

An individual’s relationship with their faith should be private and reliant upon nothing that is humanly fashioned.

I realise you were replying to a previous post, but your post seemed to me to be about preaching a biblical pretext more than anything, which needless to say, has little to do with the Queen of Australia, her Governors' General and her residences.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-17-2010, 02:24 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,219
There's a difference between respecting the office that a person holds and worshipping another human being. Why would St. Paul say that Christians should "honour the king" if that were not so? There was no contradiction in Paul's doctrine in honouring a human ruler while also declaring that Jesus is Lord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-17-2010, 04:08 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
An individual’s relationship with their faith should be private and reliant upon nothing that is humanly fashioned.
Very well stated Madame Royale and one reason why I believe that these forums frown on religious debates unless pertaining to British history such as the Reformation and such.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-17-2010, 04:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

Inherited wealth isn't 'pure evil'.

People like Hitler and Stalin were 'pure evil' but monarchs such as the Queen and the system she heads certainly isn't.

As an Australian I regard myself as living in one of the most democratic countries in the world where every person has the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to be heard by the people in government etc. The Queen doesn't impact on those rights at all, except to protect them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-17-2010, 05:14 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
The only wealth they control is what they have earnt in there own right.
They are hardly undemocratic, just because they were chosen by someone to be in the royal family they should not be descriminated against.
If you think the BRF is pure evil, I wonder what you think of Joseph Stalin.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-18-2010, 01:48 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
You know, the ironic fact is that the very countries where this system actually exists or existed until recently are not even monarchies at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-18-2010, 10:40 AM
Clinkerbuilt's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DFW, United States
Posts: 4
Hi All,

Well, this is my first post, here, so apologies in advance for the wordy intro.

I want to first state that I am ecstatic at finding this forum, and only wish I'd had a chance to post sooner. second, although I was born and raised in the US, I am solidly Monarchist, politically. I say this because, as an amateur historian, I note first that Monarchy is distinguished more by its abscence than its presence, and second that, to paraphrase something I read so long ago I don't remember the reference, ultimate power may flow from the People, but the People are too easily swayed by silver-tongued scam artists who tell them what they want to hear, to the detriment of themselves, their neighbors and the Nation as a whole.

In the current system, Monarchy is functionally irrelevent, but only beacuse of two primary factors, one feeding the other: first, the concept of Monarchy has been demonized in the last two-hundred years, beginning with George III with what became the US, and followed by Louis XVI -- after the guillotine, it was only a matter of time.

The problem for Monarchy as a system is that the social contract has never been well laid out -- essentially, Monarchy started out as a military dictatorship with pomp and ceremony. When that was removed, nothing was written - by Monarch or Commoner - to replace it: it was winner take all, and if a Monarchy remained, it was either eliminated entirely, or relegated to strictly ceremonial duties.

As to Monarchy being the "root of all evil", I'm sorry but that's just silly - never forget that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all elected to their poisitons by their respective "popular" systems of government.

Most people want monarchy - badly. People want someone to look up to. Partly, this is the "Parent Effect", but also partly "Star Power" -- and if they don't have a monarchy built into their government system, they will try to create one: you need look no further than Barack Obama in 2008-2009, Nursultan Nazarbayev, current President of Kazakhstan from 1991, or Chairman Mao, himself, who can be viewed as the first of a new Imperial Dynasty in China.

In order for Monarchy in particular, and aristocracy/nobility in general, to become viable as anything other than fodder for scandal rags, a new social contract for the modern day has to be created and adhered to. Please allow me to try and rough this out:

* The Monarch and the Nobility must stand as living examples and symbols of the Nation, and act accordingly.

* While both Monarch and nobility (male AND female) must retain some real military function, it needs to ultimately be focused at the higher levels of command; however,

* The Monarch and nobility must also have solid groundings in economics, agriculture, general science, management, industry and environmental management, because

* The aristocratic structure needs to function as a sort of "backup central nervous system" to the civilian bureaucracy, ready and able to step in to take charge of and deal emergencies as they happen...witness the current BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: after 50+ days, there is no real leadership or direction, and the hesitant local steps are being hampered by bureaucratic nattering about life jackest on pump-barges...

No Monarchy could allow this to happen, because the People will have a direct person to blame: the buck quite literally stops at the Throne.


Monarchy can be made to work in the modern day, and frankly needs to be made to work.

Sorry for the wordy first post, but this is something I feel passionately about, so I tend to get a little out of hand at times.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-23-2010, 08:45 PM
juanson's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wuppertal, Germany
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?
In my honest opinion, definitely not. I am proud living in a republic. People should be coequal. In my opinion it is ethnically not justifiable to automatically outrank everybody else, just because you were born to a royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-23-2010, 10:31 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Monarchies anymore are symbolic. Aside from possibly the Middle East and maybe SE Asia, I can't think of any absolute monarchies, where the King/Queen rules the roost. Most of today's monarchical countries have a legislature, prime minister, president....you get the picture. So they are essentially figureheads. They're harmless in the grand scheme of things, it's not like we're talking about the days of Henry VIII. As long as the people of those countries don't feel the need to vote to abolish them, then it's clear they aren't bothered by it. Also, people like a show. And when a royal dies or gets married or ascends a throne or has a baby....it's a production. It's pageantry and flash and pizazz. Look at Crown Princess Victoria's wedding, for example. Look at how excited those people were not just for her, but for the country. It's fun. I live in the US where we don't have monarchies, but I certainly wouldn't feel like they are better than me or that I'm of a lesser quality than they are, should I ever find myself living in a country that had one.


Allow me to quote Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-18-2010, 06:19 AM
nwinther's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Varde, Denmark
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.
But isn't the US filled with just that? Wealthy families that control all of the wealth etc.? You just haven't institutionalized it. Besides, aristocracy in other countries hardly "control all wealth".
I personally like the idea of granting persons and their family some privilige - the right (and duty) to live in a certain palace, a position in a legislative chamber or other things. Maybe with a time-limit or "pruning". Especially if that person has done something exceptional for the nation.

In the US (and other countries) wealthy people just buy the political influence - with more serious consequences to the population than in most any (constitutional) monarchy (with or without aristocracy).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,341
The Greeks and Romans have had both democracies and monarchies many times. Each form was successfull for awhile but eventually ended up in failure. For this reason I don't really think the form of government is that important. What is important is too have a well written constitution, a strong leader and a government that follows the constitution as written.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanofMonaco View Post
The Greeks and Romans have had both democracies and monarchies many times. Each form was successfull for awhile but eventually ended up in failure. For this reason I don't really think the form of government is that important.
A number of Greek city-states had their "day in the sun" like Athens and Sparta, then came Macedon which expanded its empire under Alexander. Then came the turn of Rome, and Pax Romana was one of the longer periods of relative peace in history. Certainly European history, until the last 20 years. But all of those states laid the foundation principles for modern political structures.

Quote:
What is important is too have a well written constitution, a strong leader and a government that follows the constitution as written.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, is political structure evolving as a matter of custom. Even Israel doesn't have a written constitution, for instance.

Sadly history shows that even a liberal, democratic constitution on paper doesn't always translate into practice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:37 PM
Smart's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?
1. While I'm totally against the current reigning royal houses. (with a couple exceptions here and there), they are and will continue to be relevant. In the same way Elvis Presley or James Mason is relevant, long after their deaths. And if you want to go one step further, considering how many people know and respect King David and/or King Solomon -- 3000 years later, it's unlikely there will be a quantum leap completely forgetting the royals.
2. the bolded portion of the quote is in respect to "royal families" - obviously regardless of what happens, unless all members of said family dies, that family will continue to exist. So this is invalid. However, I assume you meant ruling royal families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David V View Post
A number of Greek city-states had their "day in the sun" like Athens and Sparta, then came Macedon which expanded its empire under Alexander. Then came the turn of Rome, and Pax Romana was one of the longer periods of relative peace in history. Certainly European history, until the last 20 years. But all of those states laid the foundation principles for modern political structures.



The UK doesn't have a written constitution, is political structure evolving as a matter of custom. Even Israel doesn't have a written constitution, for instance.

Sadly history shows that even a liberal, democratic constitution on paper doesn't always translate into practice.
Yes, while that is true, it can be said that the UK - especially England would profit from a formal constitution, while Israel probably would not.
__________________
Supporter of global Republicanism and the Abolition of all Monarchies. With special attention to the Windsors.
Quote:
There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!
-John Hancock, upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-24-2011, 01:42 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_night554 View Post
He won't according to Richard's latest tweet:
The palace it seems isn't giving in so I guess we'll have to make do with paparazzi shots and info from the guests.

New article: k after reading all that the palace is seriously beginning to piss me off they have to give us something from the evening reception!
Harry plots a 6am survivors¿ breakfast: Best man takes charge of the ¿wedmin¿ - and bacon butties | Mail Online

Where to watch and where to party: Your very own Wills and Kate wedding planner | Mail Online

Ok, not to be rude, but I have never really thought too highly of Guy Pelly, and truly hope he does not have as much pull in this wedding as some of these articles are saying. Not to be a snob, not that I know William and Harry, but this is a royal prince, and to cheapen it, somewhat, as to try and mix common vs. pomp vs. elegant vs. royal, has to be difficult at best. I mean, from what I have read of this young man, I really hope the Queen has a lot of say in this. It would seem sadly:

Charles and Camilla are determined to put their out of this world stamp on it...their inviting corporate sponsors, their own friends, their out of touchness. I am sorry, but in MY view, Camilla walks a fine line in having any say in any of this. She is NOT his mother, her mother, etc. And given the past, lady, stay out of it, or, tread lightly with advice and any input.

While I truly appreciate William and Harry's down to earth and grounded frames of mind, this is not a wedding for their common friends to really have much say. You risk..cheapening it. I am not trying to sound mean or cause trouble, but at the end of the day, they are different than us...they are royal, and while I know it is their wedding, we expect, and they should provide, the pomp and circumstance. I do very much love, given the state of the world's economical challenges, they are certainly creating a wedding that respects and acknowledges what is going on.

Just my two cents, not trying to offend anyone.
__________________
Lady M
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-24-2011, 02:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post
Ok, not to be rude, but I have never really thought too highly of Guy Pelly, and truly hope he does not have as much pull in this wedding as some of these articles are saying. Not to be a snob, not that I know William and Harry, but this is a royal prince, and to cheapen it, somewhat, as to try and mix common vs. pomp vs. elegant vs. royal, has to be difficult at best. I mean, from what I have read of this young man, I really hope the Queen has a lot of say in this. It would seem sadly:

Charles and Camilla are determined to put their out of this world stamp on it...their inviting corporate sponsors, their own friends, their out of touchness. I am sorry, but in MY view, Camilla walks a fine line in having any say in any of this. She is NOT his mother, her mother, etc. And given the past, lady, stay out of it, or, tread lightly with advice and any input.

While I truly appreciate William and Harry's down to earth and grounded frames of mind, this is not a wedding for their common friends to really have much say. You risk..cheapening it. I am not trying to sound mean or cause trouble, but at the end of the day, they are different than us...they are royal, and while I know it is their wedding, we expect, and they should provide, the pomp and circumstance. I do very much love, given the state of the world's economical challenges, they are certainly creating a wedding that respects and acknowledges what is going on.

Just my two cents, not trying to offend anyone.

And now you have explained one of the reasons why I have become a republican - the sheer ordinariness of William and Harry.

That they have repordely asked Guy Pelly to help organise the dancing for the evening isn't a surprise. It is what he does - run a nightclub and Harry and William enjoy clubbing at his place.

As for Camilla. If it is true that she was given the right to cross off people then remember that she would only have been given that right by William so he must also approve of her decision to cross off people - just as someone crossed off Fergie. If William had really wanted these people there then noone would have been crossed off. But I also take these reports with a grain of salt - they are from the DM and the source for the Camilla crossing off people is from one of them crossed off. Since Diana died have either of them had anything to do with William? Camilla on the other hand has been a major part of his life for the last decade as his father's partner and wife. The fact that he is including Camilla's granddaughter is his wedding party speaks volumes for how William sees Camilla.

As for the invites to friends of Charles read carefully. The one that I remember is the one that says an American billionaire is getting a free flight to America in exchange for an invite but if you read the article carefully this person is a big time supporter of Charles' charity and may very well be getting the invite for that reason.

One to compare is with is the story that a top guy from Audi is being invited and then reports of William getting an Audi for Kate as a wedding gift - now the DM headline could have been Audi execs helps William with wedding gift for Kate in exchange for invite - but that wouldn't accurately reflect the story and wouldn't be written because it would put William in a bad light - and the DM won't do that. The DM thinks that by attacking Charles they are doing a service to William and his dead mother.

The father of the groom, like fathers/parents of the groom everywhere have some say in the wedding and who is invited - just as the parents of the bride do.
__________________

__________________
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
Royal Yachts hrhcp Royal Life and Lifestyle 22 08-01-2007 07:42 AM
What Is The Point Of The Gr Family? sky The Royal Family of Greece 82 10-21-2004 01:26 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 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]