The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 02-23-2010, 01:14 PM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 624
Owen Tudor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something about the name Tudor.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-15-2010, 08:05 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyTudor View Post
Does anyone know when the Tudor surname began to be used? I don't know much about my ancestry, but I remember my grandmother telling me that we were entitled to use the Tudor coat of arms/crest/shield??? but it had to have a sinister bar??? across it which designated illegitimacy.
The Tudor name has existed for quite a long time.. as Tewdwr or Tewdr. The name is the Welsh equivalent of Theodoric or Theodore.

Welsh names are patronyms.. meaning they are personal names based on the name of one's father and/or grandfather. And in Wales, both male and female names are patronyms.

Males are designated "ap" or son of, while females are designated "ferch" or daughter of.

For example: If Tewdwr is the son of Rhys, he is named Tewdwr ap Rhys - and if Gwyneth is the daughter of Rhys, she is named Gwyneth ferch Rhys.

If Tewdwr ap Rhys has a son named Lionel, he will be Lionel ap Tewdwr, and if Tewdwr has a daughter named Anne, she will be Anne ferch Tewdwr.

Technically speaking, the name Tudor has probably existed since the Welsh language began, and it is also used as a first name and as a surname in Romania.

As far as the English surname.. well, it came from Wales in the person of Owen Tudor (Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr), whose name was anglicized from its original Welsh. And since his children with Catherine of Valois were born and lived in England, they naturally were not given a patronym.. or at least it was not used in England. If they had, their names would not have been Tudor at all, but ap Owain ap Maredudd.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-30-2010, 10:19 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Sir Roland Velville

Has anyone confirmed whether or not this was a child of Henry VII? Are there any sources that identify the Velville descendants as children of Henry? For example, Katheryn Tudor of Berain?

I ask because there are a lot of people on ancestry.com who have these people listed under the descendants of Henry VII, I suppose as part of their family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-02-2010, 08:20 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Sir Roland de Velville is generally accepted to be the natural son of Henry VII, although there have been a few detractors, whose arguments have not been sufficient to disprove his paternity.. and there even lingers the possibility that he wasn't illegitimate at all.

As far as it can be known, Sir Roland was never not considered Henry's son until 1967, when Professor S.B. Chrimes of Cardiff University published his argument against it. A few other historians have since followed suit and published papers of their own.. but there are holes in their reasoning.

He continues to be accepted as a natural son of Henry VII - the most recent example being Alison Weir in her book 'Britain's Royal Families' . Even the Dictionary of Welsh Biography refers to Velville as 'a natural son of Henry VII' (under the entry for Katheryn of Berain).

There is contemporary evidence relating to Velville's paternity, in the form of an elegy in 1535 (the year of his death) by a Welsh bard named Daffyd Alaw, which refers to him as being 'of kingly line' and 'of earls blood'. Henry VII was Earl of Richmond from birth.

And at that time in Wales, the bards were the recognized genealogical authorities, much like the Heralds of the College of Arms today, in so far as it was their function to maintain, and pass on, the genealogies of the Welsh royal or princely families, and that the elegy therefore amounts to a statement by an authoritative contemporary source that Velville was of royal blood.

While elegies may often exaggerate the good and gloss over the bad they do not, on the whole, make important assertions of fact that are either unknown or likely to be regarded as false by the intended audience.

What this means is that Velville was believed to be an illegitimate son of Henry VII in his own lifetime, at least by his immediate circle. This circle included many members of the extended Tudor family, into which Velville had married - the very people who would have been least likely to accept such a statement as true had it actually been false.

Katheryn of Berain was Roland's granddaughter. If Sir Roland de Velville was indeed the natural son of Henry VII, as is believed, then all of Katheryn's descendants may claim royal Tudor blood through him.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-04-2010, 11:55 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 214
[QUOTE=HM Queen Catherine;1018578] Elizabeth Woodville would probably have done anything to avenge the deaths of her sons and topple Richard from the throne.
Perhaps Elizabeth Woodville did not believe her sons were dead at this point ,there has been a question of the legitimacy of her and Edward IV's children because of pre contract.
It was recorded that Elizabeth and her daughters spent the christmas of 1484 at court with Richard,
"I know her murderd Edward and Dickon, but he does give wonderful parties "
doesn't sound quite right to me . If I suspected someone of murdering my children I would make as much noise about it as I could.
The most likely candidate for this crime is the Duke of Buckingham, who himself had a claim to the throne.

What a triumph for these two women that their plan succeeded. Margaret got a kingdom for her son.. and Elizabeth made her daughter a Queen.

Elizabeth's triumph was short lived , she did not attend her daughters coronation, and after her involvement in one of two rebellions against Henry, spent the last five years of her life in a nunnery. Most historians agree that this was not through choice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-04-2010, 08:39 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Unfortunately, whether she believed Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, to be dead or not, and by whose hand is irrelevant.

Richard III did have both her brother Anthony, Earl Rivers, and her son Richard Grey executed in June 1483. This fact is not disputed, and Richard III is responsible for the deaths of Elizabeth's brother and at least one of her sons. I cannot imagine that just because Edward V and the Duke of York were royal, that it would hurt any less as a mother, to lose Richard Grey.

I believe Elizabeth did what she thought was expedient at the time. She was a woman without much political power on her own.. and whatever power she had previously held was only through her marriage to Edward IV. She could claim a right noble bloodline through her mother, but her father was merely a baron when she married the king.. and before it was all over, she had many enemies because of the favor shown to her family.

So regardless of her feelings for Richard III, she and her daughters came out of sanctuary in March 1484, because she had secured his public agreement that they would not go to the Tower, and he would grant dowries and make suitable marriages for her daughters.

By this time, too, Elizabeth had already allied with Margaret Beaufort and arranged that if Henry Tudor won the throne, then he would marry Elizabeth of York, and bring the two warring houses together.

I think it was a calculated move on her part, to be at Court and be privy to the happenings there, rather than be shut away in sanctuary and not know what was blowing in the political wind. We will probably never know how much this helped Henry Tudor's cause..

As far as Edward IV's pre-contract to Eleanor Butler.. that was not even mentioned until after Edward's death, and was clearly used as a means to declare his sons illegitimate so that Richard could take the throne. After Richard was defeated by Henry Tudor, Elizabeth's marriage to Edward was declared valid and their children were restored to legitimacy.

What I cannot decide, is whether or not Richard III was responsible for the murder of his nephews. Like you, I think the Duke of Buckingham had plenty of motive, and everything I've read so far, shows Richard III to be loyal to his brother Edward IV, while he lived. He showed no compunction about executing Elizabeth Woodville's relatives, and I can see that he would not consider them part of his family, whereas his brother's children would be a different story.

History has not been kind to Richard, especially if he was innocent in the murder of his nephews.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-04-2010, 09:13 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
You are right that history has not been kind to Richard III. It seems more likely to me that Henry VII had the young princes murdered. Remember, they were declared bastards and Richard III was crowned as King. Thus, there was no need to eliminate the princes, unless they posed a political threat, and I don't think there was any evidence of that at the time Richard was ruling England. Second, Henry Tudor had every reason to eliminate any Plantagenet heir because Henry's claim to the throne was tenuous and thus he wished to marry the Plantangenet heiress, Elizabeth, so his children could rightfully claim a link to the throne. Thus, Henry VII might be viewed as a better candidate for murderer than Richard III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-06-2010, 07:27 AM
lady of hay's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: around the uk, United Kingdom
Posts: 214
Some Plantagenet heirs were eliminated under Henry VII and also under Henry VIII, remember Margaret Pole ? Both she and her sons presented some kind of threat to Henry VIII.
H M Queen Catherine, I'm pleased that you agree that Buckingham had a motive. Did you know that he was married to Elizabeth Woodvilles sister, Catherine, and that he is alleged to have hated both his wife and her family for their " humble" origins.
A document found at the College of Arms in the 1980's stated that Richard had the princes murdered on the "vice" of the Duke of Buckingham. Just what "vice " means has ,I understand been the subject of much debate.
Buckingham supported Richard in his claim to the throne, but soon began working with one John Morton Bishop of Ely , in order to put his ( Buckinghams) second cousin Henry Tudor , on the throne . Some sources suggest that the marriage between Henry and Elizabeth was first suggested at this time. Buckingham later joined a group of dissaffected nobles in a plot with the intention of putting Edward V back on the throne, and it was due to this rebellion that Buckingham was executed.

Buckinghams claim to the throne was as strong as Henry Tudors, three of his grandparents were decended from Edward III.

Unfortunately I have lost many of the notes I had made when originally studying this period of history, house moves and career change taking their toll.
One interesting thing to note is this , the afore mentioned John Morton took into his houeshold a young man by the name of Thomas ( later Sir Thomas ) More, on whos book "A History of Richard III" Shakespeare is said to have based his play.
There are ,as far as I am aware 4 possible solutions to the "mystery " of the princes

1 they were murdered by Richard
2 they were murdered by Henry
3 they were murdered by Buckingham
4 that they were removed from the tower, a Royal palace at that time , and sent to live with a noble family in anonymity. The household of Thomas More being the favorite for this.

This is however going off the original purpose of the thread. After the death of their son Arthur , Elizabeth of York gave "great comfort " to Henry VII, and then returned to her own chambers to vent her own grief , the king on hearing of it went to comfort her. A loving and devoted couple ? yes I believe they were, despite all the politics and scheming that went on around them.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-06-2010, 04:13 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Katheryn of Berain was Roland's granddaughter. If Sir Roland de Velville was indeed the natural son of Henry VII, as is believed, then all of Katheryn's descendants may claim royal Tudor blood through him.
Thank you for this. I have been looking around ancestry again... people have Jasper Tudor's illegit son as being the father of either Katherine of Berain's mother or father. Can't remember now, but I do remember that that was incorrect as well as Jasper's son being listed as Henry VII's son. People are just copying others trees and not questioning or looking facts up for themselves; for you have maybe 200+ people on there that think they have the line correct and are somehow related to the Tudors. Even the dates are off. Anyway, is there a place that I can find the descendants of Sir Roland; a reputable source? Perhaps I should look at the Alison Weir book? I read that there is a branch that ended up in Virginia, USA. Perhaps these things will never be sorted out unless people take a DNA test?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-07-2010, 07:30 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
First of all, I am not aware that Jasper Tudor had an illegitimate son, nor have I seen any documented evidence that such a son existed. Jasper did have at least one illegitimate daughter, Helen (or Ellen) Tudor, wife of William Gardiner (a cloth merchant) .. and is thought to have had a second illegitimate daughter named Joan Tudor, the supposed wife of William ap Yevan.

The sons of these daughters are a matter of debate. Helen Tudor is thought by some to have been the mother of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. She is known to have had at least three sons, but it is not at all certain that the Bishop can be attributed as her son.. it appears she did, though, have a son named Stephen.

Joan Tudor is thought to have been the mother of Morgan ap Williams, whose wife was Catherine Cromwell, and whose descendant is Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector.

As far as I know, these are the only children attributed to Jasper Tudor. He had no children with his wife, Catherine Wydeville. Her five children were Staffords - by her first husband, Henry, Duke of Buckingham, and these appear to be her only children as she had none with Jasper Tudor or with her third husband Richard Wingfield.

There is a reputable family tree for the descendants of Sir Roland de Velville. Sources are cited in the endnotes section. These are the descendants of Jane Velville, who married Tudur ap Robert Vychan. It is through their daughter, Katheryn of Berain, that the family descends.. she was their only surviving child and sole heiress of her father and apparently of her grandfather, Roland.

Incidentally, Katheryn's Tudor (anglicized) surname was only derived from the fact that her father's first name was Tudur. In the Welsh tradition, she was Katheryn ferch Tudur ap Robert Vychan. She was still related to the Tudor kings, however, through both her grandfather Roland de Velville and his wife, Agnes Griffith.. her grandmother's lineage was legitimate.

Certainly no supposed son of Jasper Tudor could have been a grandparent of Katheryn of Berain. That is simply and absolutely wrong. Obviously his son could not be Roland de Velville, and Katheryn's paternal grandfather was a Welshman named Robert Vychan, as evident by the name of her father.

Jane de Velville appears to be the only one of Roland's two daughters that had issue. The other daughter, Grace, appears to have either died young, unmarried or without issue, as I have only seen her name mentioned in passing.

Roland de Velville had no sons, or at least no sons that survived to adulthood, and this is evident by his will in which he left all his chattels to his wife. His daughters are not mentioned in the will.

You can find the tree here A Richer Dust - The Descent of Hughes
The tree goes backwards, so check out page four first and then page three.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-31-2010, 06:33 PM
Emeralds and Opals's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: *****, United States
Posts: 582
BBC - Cash boost to restore Tudor dynasty church on Anglesey

"Gronw Tudur, the great-uncle of (King)Henry VII."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northwes...00/8467947.stm

"Plas Penmynydd-the former home of Owain Tudur."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2010, 10:13 AM
Cadiva's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Leeds, United Kingdom
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
What I cannot decide, is whether or not Richard III was responsible for the murder of his nephews. Like you, I think the Duke of Buckingham had plenty of motive, and everything I've read so far, shows Richard III to be loyal to his brother Edward IV, while he lived. He showed no compunction about executing Elizabeth Woodville's relatives, and I can see that he would not consider them part of his family, whereas his brother's children would be a different story.

History has not been kind to Richard, especially if he was innocent in the murder of his nephews.
I think Richard had no doubts whatsoever about having Anthony Woodville executed, he was from a Lancastrian line and had fought against the House of York previously. Richard Grey was just caught up in the turbulence I think, simply by being with his uncle and Edward V at the time they were stopped by Richard's men. That they were related to the Queen, his sister-in-law, won't have been any reason - at that turbulent time in history - to not have them removed.

The one thing that I think Richard can't be excused from, in any form, is his execution of William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings. That was definitely a show of power and a display that anyone not loyal directly to him, Richard, as King was in danger. Hastings was, I feel, a man who stuck true to his beliefs - that Edward V was a legitimate king - as he had been a great supporter of Edward IV, and lost his life for that belief.
__________________
*I am not a smurf*
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2011, 07:12 AM
Eleanor Elizabeth's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shelby County, United States
Posts: 6
Does anyone know more about the lifting of the Beaufort ban to throne in 1470? I had always hear that it was never lifted, but since Henry VII was who they had no one paid much attention to it. The Beaufort family's ban to the throne was one of the reasons why it was so important for Henry to marry Elizabeth.

The fact about all this which convinces me that the princes were dead in 1485 or slightly after is that when Henry re-legitimised Elizabeth, that meant that her brothers Edward and Richard were legitimate as well. And if that were the case, Edward would be king, not Henry.

It seems to me that Elizabeth Woodville went along with the marriage because she thought that with her daughter's being queen she would have power as the queen's mother. But she was pushed aside after the marriage and her daughter never had any political power.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-19-2011, 04:16 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanor Elizabeth View Post
Does anyone know more about the lifting of the Beaufort ban to throne in 1470? I had always hear that it was never lifted, but since Henry VII was who they had no one paid much attention to it. The Beaufort family's ban to the throne was one of the reasons why it was so important for Henry to marry Elizabeth.

The fact about all this which convinces me that the princes were dead in 1485 or slightly after is that when Henry re-legitimised Elizabeth, that meant that her brothers Edward and Richard were legitimate as well. And if that were the case, Edward would be king, not Henry.

It seems to me that Elizabeth Woodville went along with the marriage because she thought that with her daughter's being queen she would have power as the queen's mother. But she was pushed aside after the marriage and her daughter never had any political power.
I have never read anywhere that the Beaufort ban was ever lifted, but officially Henry VII became king by conquest.

Yes, his marriage to Elizabeth of York was prudent and strengthened his position and that of his children.. not to mention ending the War of the Roses.. but even if he had not married Elizabeth, he would still have been King of England.

The fact is, there was no one left to seriously challenge him on either side of the rose and his main worries concerned the nobility, the treasury and the stabilization of England.

I do agree that Henry VII probably had a good idea that Elizabeth's brothers were dead, but I am still not convinced that he actually had them murdered.. because how could he have such a loving relationship with his wife, knowing that he killed her brothers? And how could Elizabeth love him if she thought he was responsible?

Of course, that is pure speculation on my part.. and one of the reasons I suspect the Duke of Buckingham more than Henry VII for the deed.

As for Elizabeth Wydville, the widow of Edward IV.. she probably did think she would retain some political power as the mother of the Queen. But that was quickly dispelled by the Lady Margaret Beaufort, who appears to have been much more intelligent and ambitious than any of the Wydvilles.

Besides, Elizabeth's family was hated by the time Edward IV died, most especially by the nobility.. and it would have done more harm to Henry VII's reign to allow his mother-in-law any influence in his court. Even she probably saw the logic in this, deciding it was better to have her remaining children legitimated and able to make decent marriages and futures for themselves. And she certainly had to be aware in agreeing to her daughter's marriage to Henry, that he would repeal Titulus Regius before the wedding. It would have done him no good to marry the bastard daughter of Edward IV.. she had to be seen as her father's legitimate heir.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:35 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,269
I can't help but to think of Henry VII as the ideal when comparing him to his blood thirsty crazy wife murdering son. Not only as a King, but also as a husband to Elizabeth of York.It seems quite unfortunate that The Tudors had to execute so many of their family members and/or "friends" who had equal or more claim to their throne; despite the fact that said people had no desire to sit on said throne.
__________________
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
  #36  
Old 08-04-2011, 12:29 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 10
it was certainly a cut-throat world back then. even if someone was innocent but the monarch wanted them out of the way, they could concoct a reason to get rid of them (eg: Anne Boleyn)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:29 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
How Henry VII branded the Tudors | Books | The Guardian
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:38 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425


It has long been known that Henry VII effectively re-wrote the history to suit his propaganda wars. In fact, one of the first things he did after the Battle of the Bosworth Field was to task historians with creating the "true" (that is to say, his) version of the events; they demonised Richard III and portrayed Henry Tudor as the glorious liberator who freed the country from the clutches of a tyrant.

Henry VII was very good at PR and he understood clearly one thing; no matter what the truth was, what is written and portrayed as one will be remembered by future generations.

The Tudors followed the suit; the poor Richard III, for instance - when we think of him, most of us remember the horrible, hunchback monster from Shakespeare's play. The truth was, of course, far from that; the contemporary sources portrayed Richard as a caring, wise and brave man who was loved by people and considered a fair and just ruler. As or the Princes in the Tower, let's just say Henry VII had at least as much reasons to see them dead as Richard III. Much more, actually, because had they been alive, they would have far better claims to the Throne - and Henry VII was notorious for very effectively and permanently getting rid of all potential rivals.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-03-2012, 09:59 AM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,762
Another wily move Henry VII did was to date his reign the day before the Battle of Bosworth, creating the image of a rightful king defending his throne rather than a usurper battling for it.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-03-2012, 10:10 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
But he was an usurper.
Henry Tudor had virtually no claims to the Throne. His mother might have been a descendant of Edward III through John of Gaunt, but it was through an illegitimate line that was barred from ever ascending to the Throne by an Act of Parliament.

He won the Throne by right of conquest, same as William of Normandy - and no one denies the latter was an usurper. Most of Henry's forces weren't English and had it not been for the treachery of the Stanley brothers, he would have never won. Richard III had been more than lenient towards the Stanleys in his lifetime even though he must have understood they could betray him in the end; one of them was, after all, married to Margaret Beaufort - Henry Tudor's mother.

And I absolutely agree; the dating of his reign was just vile. A legitimate King indeed!
__________________

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
Illegitimate Offspring of King Henry I (1068-1135) CarolinaLandgrave British Royal History 23 07-18-2014 05:01 PM
A Potential Wife for Prince Harry Zonk Prince Harry and Prince William 1781 07-12-2014 12:25 PM
Henry VIII and Wives (1491-1547) Jo of Palatine British Royal History 696 07-04-2014 06:18 AM
Who is your favourite of Henry VIII's wives? lexi4 British Royal History 287 07-03-2014 12:51 AM
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 33 06-25-2014 01:39 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
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 fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena 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 ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 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]