The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 08-17-2005, 11:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by james
I don't think Louise ever will assume her title of Princess for various reasons. Firstly, by the time she is old enough to make a decision about it, say around 18, the situation in the Royal Family will have changed a lot. The Queen if not dead will not have many years left to live and William and Harry will have little Princes and Princesses of their own. In light of this Louise will be viewed very much as a minor Royal and for her to start using the Princess title I think would be frowned upon given that even now the Royals are trying to "downsize". I also think it would make her look very pompous in the eyes of the public.

However the main reason I don't see it happening is that I don't think it will be a big issue to Louise herself. She'll probably cherish the freedom not being HRH will give her. In this day and age young people don't set as much store by titles the way people did a generation ago.
You may be right. However, a more likely scenario would be new letters patent changing the 1917 one as to who is entitled to assume the rank of Royal Highness and the dignity of Prince/Princess of the UK.

It has been reportedly discussed by the "Way Ahead" group of senior royals as a way to downsize the royal family for the future. One idea is to limit the rank and dignity to the children of the Sovereign, the eldest child of the heir to the throne and the eldest grandchild of the heir. Everyone else would be granted courtesy titles ("The Lord/Lady Windsor") or a peerage if a grandchild of the Sovereign.
__________________

__________________
  #162  
Old 08-17-2005, 02:42 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Does this mean that people who were princes and princesses when they were children of the sovereign lose their titles when their parent dies and the sovereign is one of their siblings? Or just that the title wouldn't pass to all grandchildren of the sovereign like it does now?
__________________

__________________
  #163  
Old 08-17-2005, 04:18 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
It would mean that the Sovereign's children would always be Royal but only the children of the heir to the throne would be. For example, if this was currently the case Beantrice and Eugenie would not be Princesses. A lot of people would like to see this state of affairs implemented ASAP to avoid a new future generation of numerous Royal cousins like the present Queen has. It is almost certainly the reason why Edward and Sophie's child is not called Princess as is currently her legal right and why there was very real debate within the establishment a few years ago to have Prince Andrew's daughters be officially known as "Lady" as well. Although it didn't happen I think Branchg is correct in saying that new letters patent are bound to be drawn up to clarify the situation. I don't think the present Queen will want to be the one to legally deny her grandchildren HRH thus I think it will happen in Charles' reign. I personally think (although I may be proved wrong) that Beatrice and Eugenie will escape "the chop" as it were because they have been known as Princess for so long but in the case of Louise, and any other children Prince Edward may have, their non-royal status will become definate and the ambiguity over of their titles will thus be removed.
__________________
  #164  
Old 08-17-2005, 04:44 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
A question. Why downsize the royal family? This wouldn't reinforce them!
By having many people performing royal duties, the royal family is more present over the national territory and can meet more people. Important events are attended by senior royals, lesser events by minor royals. A reduced royal presence could be very harmful.
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
  #165  
Old 08-17-2005, 04:59 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think that now it's known that only the Sovereign and close relatives get paid from the Civil List, the pressure to downsize might be lower. On the other hand, being called Prince or Princess if you aren't doing public duties is a bit confusing, and I think that these days a lot of organisations would prefer to have their charities promoted and their buildings opened by celebrities rather than minor royals, so there's no particular need to have a dozen princes and princesses around.

I doubt that Lady Louise will be expected to do royal duties of any sort as long as William and Harry, who are already so much older, start families of their own.
__________________
  #166  
Old 08-17-2005, 05:04 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
Many people are of the opinion that a larger Royal Family is unnecessary and too expensive. They look at the other European Royals where the focus is almost exclusivley on the Sovreign's immediate family as a model.

One of the main criticism's by British republican's over the years has been the number of Royals receiving an income and accomodation from the State ie the Kents and Gloucester's so plans are in the pipeline to avoid such a large Royal Family emerging again.
__________________
  #167  
Old 08-17-2005, 05:11 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, the Kents and Gloucesters also spent a lifetime doing public duties, which I think the Gloucesters and the Duchess of Kent, at least, would have very much preferred not to have done. If they're going to do that, they should be paid for it. It's sad that people looked at the Michaels as an example of junior royals who didn't give value for money, yet they weren't doing public duties, they were just behaving like royals rather than private citizens because, I assume, the Princess wanted it that way.

I hope the children of Charles's younger brothers, particularly Louise since she's so young that this will affect her from babyhood onward, will have it made clear what's expected of them. If the public or the government doesn't want them to be paid for by the state, they should be left alone to grow up quietly as private citizens.
__________________
  #168  
Old 08-17-2005, 05:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 364
I'm personally not criticising the Kents and Gloucesters. For decades society at large was happy to see them carry out public duties and they did well it's just that time has caught up with the Royal Family. They are not as popular as they once were and Republicans are attacking who they see as the easiest target first ie the junior Royals. I also don't understand your comment about the Michael's of Kent. When you said they were "behaving like Royals" you must be referring to the fact that they carry out numerous engagements on behalf of the 200 odd charities of which they are patron/president at entirely their own expense. I don't see how you can criticise them for that and it's always baffled me why they have been singled out as a bad example of junior Royals costing the State money as the only contribution they have received from the State has been their tenure at Kensington Palace.
__________________
  #169  
Old 08-17-2005, 06:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
The only royals on the Civil List are EIIR and Philip. She pays for the rest of them (except the Wales branch) from her pocket.
__________________
Kelly D
  #170  
Old 08-17-2005, 07:51 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
I put down the following example to demonstrate that a new rule to downsize the Royal Family would be almost useless, at least for the next 50 years.

I know that it's very, very long and boring (and a little nonsense), but it took me more than three hours - and now is almost 2 a.m., so I would appreciate very much if someone read it. :p
Thank you in advance. :)



THE PRESENT GENERATION (and the next few years)
PEOPLE: 12 (next years: 17 max)
(People in bold are those who perform or will beging to perform royal duties in the next few years.)

The Queen + The Duke of Edinburgh

[Children and granchildren + their consorts]
The Prince of Wales (1st son - heir apparent) + The Duchess of Cornwall
- - Prince William of Wales (1st son of the heir - grandson) + future wife
- - Prince Henry of Wales (2nd son of the heir - grandson) + future wife
The Duke of York (2nd son) + future Duchess of York (very unlikely)
- - Princess Beatrice of York (1st daughter - granddaughter) + future husband
- - Princess Eugenie of York* (2nd daughter - granddaughter) + future husband
The Earl of Wessex (3rd son) + The Countess of Wessex
- - Lady Louise (daughter - granddaughter)
- - child 2 ?
The Princess Royal (daughter) + Tim Laurence
- - Peter Phillips
- - Zara Phillips

[Cousins + their consorts]
The Duke of Kent (cousin - 1st son) + The Duchess of Kent
Prince Michael of Kent* (cousin - 2nd son) + Princess Michael
Princess Alexandra* (cousin - daughter)
The Duke of Gloucester (cousin) + The Duchess of Gloucester

This makes 17 people (I don't count the unlikely future Duchess of York), and this is the maximum number possible in the next future.
The present number is 12.

* Princess Eugenie is not entitled to perform royal duties, because she is the second child of a son of the sovereing who is not the the 1st child. Well, it's difficult to explain. She is like Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra: they are the 2nd and the 3rd child of the 4th son of the sovereing. In fact, Prince Michael doesn't perform royal duties. Princess Alexandra does because she was asked to do so in the 1960s.




THE SECOND GENERATION (2020/5 ca)
PEOPLE: 16 (max) - 11 (likely)
(I suggest the "worst" scenario: 3 sons for William and at least one son (first child) for Harry! This implies:
- Harry's son will perform royal duties and so his wife
- the first child of both the second son and the third son of William (sorry!) and the three wives of Will's sons will perform royal duties.
As William and Harry won't have their children tomorrow but, probably, during the next 10-15 years, in 2020 or 2025 ca they will be children or teenagers).

[Father]
The Duke of Edinburgh*

The King (Charles) + "Princess" Consort

[Children and grandchildren]
The Prince of Wales (William) (1st son) + The Princess of Wales
son 1 (born 2010)
son 2 (born 2014)
son 3 (born 2019)
The Prince Henry (2nd son) + Princess Henry
son 1 (born 2013)
child 2 (born 2017)
child 3 (born 2020)

[Siblings, nephews and nieces and their families]
The Duke of York (brother) + Duchess of York (very unlikely)
- - Princess Beatrice of York (1st daughter) + husband
- - - - children
- - Princess Eugenie of York (2nd daughter) + husband
- - - - children
The Earl of Wessex (brother) + The Countess of Wessex
- - Lady Louise (daughter) + husband
- - - - child
- - child 2 ?
The Princess Royal (sister) + Tim Laurence
- - Peter Phillips + wife
- - - - children
- - Zara Phillips + husband
- - - - children

[Cousins]
Lord Linley
Lady Sara Chatto

[Queen's cousins]
The Duke of Kent* (cousin - 1st son) + The Duchess of Kent
Prince Michael of Kent (cousin - 2nd son) + Princess Michael
Princess Alexandra* (cousin - daughter)
The Duke of Gloucester* (cousin) + The Duchess of Gloucester*

* these people are likely to be deceased or retired from royal duties - due to age or other reasons (I didn't put the * next to those who don't perform royal duties)

In this phase we could have a maximum of 16 people (i.e. the previous number with only the present Queen missing.) But the most likely maximum number is 11: the King, his two sons and his three siblings plus the female consorts (but without a Duchess of York) plus Princess Beatrice, who is the only Queen's grandchild performing royal duties.




INTERMEDIATE PHASE (2035 ca)
PEOPLE: 13 (max)
Some of William's and Harry's children perform royal duties and the king and his siblings are alive).

The King (Charles) + "Princess" Consort

[Children and grandhildren]
The Prince of Wales (William) (1st son - heir apparent) + The Princess of Wales
son 1 (25) + wife
- - child
son 2 (21)
son 3 (16)
The Prince Henry (2nd son) + Princess Henry
son 1 (22)
child 2 (18)
child 3 (15)

[Siblings, nephews and nieces and their families]
The Duke of York (brother) + Duchess of York (very unlikely)
- - Princess Beatrice of York (1st daughter) + husband
- - - - children
- - Princess Eugenie of York (2nd daughter) + husband
- - - - children
The Duke of Edinburgh (brother) + The Duchess of Edinburgh
- - Lady Louise (daughter) + husband
- - - - child
- - child 2 ?
The Princess Royal (sister) + Tim Laurence
- - Peter Phillips + wife
- - - - children
- - Zara Phillips + husband
- - - - children

[Cousins]
Lord Linley
Lady Sara Chatto

In this phase we have a maximum of 13 people.




THIRD GENERATION (2050 ca) I will be 70!
PEOPLE: 17 (max) - 13-15 (likely)
At this point some of the Queen's children are dead or not performing royal duties.
Always the "worst", with first children who are males and so on.
(Obviously my task is more and more difficult)

The King (William) + Queen Consort

[Children and grandhildren]
The Prince of Wales (40) (1st son - heir apparent) + The Princess of Wales
- - son (15)
- - other children
son 2 (36) + wife
- - son (8)
- - other children
son 3 (31) + wife
- - son (4)
- - other children

[Brother and family]
The Prince Henry (2nd son of the previous king) + Princess Henry
son 1 (37) + wife
- - son (7)
- - other children
child 2 (33) + consort
- - children
child 3 (30) + consort
- - child

[Siblings, nephews and nieces and their families]
The Duke of York* (brother) + Duchess of York (very unlikely)
- - Princess Beatrice of York (1st daughter) + husband
- - - - children
- - Princess Eugenie of York (2nd daughter) + husband
- - - - children
The Duke of Edinburgh (brother) + The Duchess of Edinburgh
- - Lady Louise (daughter) + husband
- - - - child
- - child 2 ?
The Princess Royal* (sister) + Tim Laurence
- - Peter Phillips + wife
- - - - children
- - Zara Phillips + husband
- - - - children

[Previous king's cousins]
Lord Linley
Lady Sara Chatto


In this case we could have a maximum of 17 people, including all Charles siblings and their wives. But at this time Anne is 100 and Andrew 90: if they are alive they have probably stopped their duties because they are, after all, the king's uncle and aunt. The Duke and The Duchess of Edinburgh (Edward and Sophie) perhaps are performing or perhaps they aren't (for the above reasons).
Likely number 13-15.




CONCLUSION
OK, I invented William and Harry's children. I supposed 3 children for each of them, many sons, people who marry young, and so on.
This means that the real numbers will probably be lower, I think around 10.

I made the whole example under the present rules (George V).

Now, look carefully at my example and apply the new proposed rule. Which people are affected by it? Imagine that the rule is applied tomorrow. Providing that the present cousins aren't affected (after all they have performed their dutied for man years) who would be the others?
(Of course I know, but I don't want to tell it!)



THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
  #171  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Nobody answered my question :( I have searched the web and googled for the supposed clarification by Buck House and/or statement by Sophie that Louise would be entitled to assume the HRH in the future at will, but can't find them anywhere.

Does anybody have a link?
__________________
  #172  
Old 08-18-2005, 05:22 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frothy
Nobody answered my question :( I have searched the web and googled for the supposed clarification by Buck House and/or statement by Sophie that Louise would be entitled to assume the HRH in the future at will, but can't find them anywhere.

Does anybody have a link?
I suppose that Louise may simply invoke the Letters Patent of 1917--they haven't been amended. She is styled 'Lady' according to the special decision of the Queen.
__________________
  #173  
Old 08-18-2005, 05:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Wow thank you very much for all the time and effort you put in ElisaR, I read it and found it very intresting
__________________
  #174  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:19 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
I agree, thanks Elisa! Great post.
__________________
  #175  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:32 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapple
She is styled 'Lady' according to the special decision of the Queen.
I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but that's not quite right... Louise has the courtesy title of Lady as the daughter of an Earl. The title comes with being that, the only title decision that has been made about her titles is that her parents have chosen not to accept any royal style or title for her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisaR
I know that it's very, very long and boring (and a little nonsense), but it took me more than three hours - and now is almost 2 a.m., so I would appreciate very much if someone read it
Thank you very much for that work, ElisaR! I read the whole thing and it was quite interesting. Nice imagination spinning in my head over those guesses for future children and wifes... :)
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
  #176  
Old 08-18-2005, 10:25 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but that's not quite right... Louise has the courtesy title of Lady as the daughter of an Earl. The title comes with being that, the only title decision that has been made about her titles is that her parents have chosen not to accept any royal style or title for her.

...
'At the time of their wedding it was decided, with the couple's agreement, that any children they have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl.

Accordingly, their daughter is known as The Lady Louise Windsor.'

(Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page476.asp )

I think it means that we both are right. :)
__________________
  #177  
Old 08-18-2005, 10:29 AM
Oppie's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 537
Thanks It was really interesting to think of the what ifs.


I'm still unclear about the Princess Eugenie thing. I know Prince(ess) Micheals don't perform a lot of royal duties, but they do some. Also Princess Alexandra of Kent seems to perform a lot (and she got a Garter for it). I thought since the Kents and Gloucester were royal dukes they were more prominate (sorry can't spell) but they siblings did "work" for the BRF. I had assumed in the case of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie they would both be doing royal duties but there husbands and children would be expected to have outside jobs.
__________________
  #178  
Old 08-18-2005, 12:02 PM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Thank you very much to those who read my (useless) "work". :)


Applying one of purposed new rules (that one explaind by branchg)...

Quote branchg:
One idea is to limit the rank and dignity to the children of the Sovereign, the eldest child of the heir to the throne and the eldest grandchild of the heir. Everyone else would be granted courtesy titles ("The Lord/Lady Windsor") or a peerage if a grandchild of the Sovereign.

... the only person who would be involved for the next half century would be Harry's eldest son (and his wife).
The rule could affect other people, who are all living people (Beatrice and the Queen's cousins) if it were applied retroactively. In the case of the Queen's cousins, I think it would be very unfair, because they have perfomed royal duties for many years. But Beatrice situation is more uncertain, because she could be included in the rule (unless she's already performing royal duties by that time).
So they are: Harry's son or both Harry's son and Beatrice.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oppie
...
I'm still unclear about the Princess Eugenie thing. I know Prince(ess) Micheals don't perform a lot of royal duties, but they do some. Also Princess Alexandra of Kent seems to perform a lot (and she got a Garter for it). I thought since the Kents and Gloucester were royal dukes they were more prominate (sorry can't spell) but they siblings did "work" for the BRF. I had assumed in the case of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie they would both be doing royal duties but there husbands and children would be expected to have outside jobs.
They are always talking about the York girls as if they would perform royal duties in the future, but I think it's wrong, because only Beatrice will do.
This is from the FAQs on Prince Michael web-site (there was a better explanation on Royal Insight, but I couldn't find it :().

- Does Prince Michael receive any funding from the tax-payer?
No. In fact, only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive payments from Parliament, which are not reimbursed by The Queen. Since 1993, The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowance received by other members of the Royal Family. Prince Michael, however, is in a unique position within the Royal Family, being a second son, and so he does not receive these parliamentary annuities. But having been brought up as a member of the Royal Family, Prince Michael has always felt it is his duty to respond in the same way as other members of his family, if requested to help and support a charity or other non- commercial organisation. Because he does not receive the parliamentary annuity that the other members of the Royal Family receive, Prince Michael runs his own private consulting business, which helps Prince and Princess Michael to fund and carry out charitable and public duties.

- Why does the Court Circular not include the public engagements of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent?
The Court Circular records the official engagements carried out by The Queen and Members of the Royal family. Engagements undertaken by Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not included in the Court Circular because they do not usually carry out official duties on behalf of The Queen. Prince Michael is not eligible for the paliamentary annuities received by other members of the Royal Family, because he is a second son. Under prima genitor rules it is Prince Michael’s older brother, The Duke of Kent, who carries out official duties which are included in the Court Circular. Prince Michael’s sister, Princess Alexandra, was asked by the Queen to undertake such duties because of a lack of female members of the family during the 1960s. However, although not categorised as ‘official’, Prince and Princess Michael carry out a great many charitable and public engagements each year both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

I hope this helps. :)
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
  #179  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:33 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
I also don't understand your comment about the Michael's of Kent. When you said they were "behaving like Royals" you must be referring to the fact that they carry out numerous engagements on behalf of the 200 odd charities of which they are patron/president at entirely their own expense. I don't see how you can criticise them for that and it's always baffled me why they have been singled out as a bad example of junior Royals costing the State money as the only contribution they have received from the State has been their tenure at Kensington Palace.
The lifestyle they live is indistinguishable to most outsiders from the lifestyle enjoyed by the more senior members of the royal family who do perform public duties for the Queen. Most people, if asked, would say they think Prince and Princess Michael have the same status as the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Alexandra, as a junior member of the royal family being provided with an apartment in London by the Queen so they can use it as a base to perform their royal duties. The only thing is that, for whatever reason (and it's always struck me as a bit unfair that Princess Alexandra has been on the list of royals who perform public duties but Prince Michael hasn't, but that's another issue), the Michaels aren't doing public duties for the Queen; their charity stuff is their own initiative.

Prince Michael doesn't have any sort of paid employment as most of us would understand it; he sits on Boards of Directors by virtue of his position as a prince, and he pretty much hires himself out as a spokesman for organisations where he can promote British products. In contrast, if it hadn't been for the fact that Prince William of Gloucester had died, Prince Richard, a more senior royal than Prince Michael, would have been out there in full-time employment as an architect (which is what he was doing in the few weeks between his marriage and his brother's death) and living in a house of his own in London, not expecting the Queen to provide him with lodgings. He would have lived a life far more like the one that Viscount Linley is currently living - in Society but self-sufficient and self-employed. At the moment the Michaels appear to have the trappings of the royals who are doing public duties but without the duties.
__________________
  #180  
Old 08-18-2005, 01:49 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Why are we making the assumption that Princess Beatrice will wish to be doing royal duties?
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
lady louise, lady louise mountbatten-windsor, louise mountbatten-windsor


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
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Birth of Lady Louise 8 Nov 2003, and Christening Alexandria The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 314 03-31-2007 08:23 PM
Prince William current Events 13: October - December 2006 Avalon Current Events Archive 185 12-08-2006 07:26 AM
Portuguese state visit to Belgium: 18-20 October 2005 Hannelore Royal Family of Belgium 52 02-05-2006 12:31 PM
King Harald And Queen Sonja News: December 2002 - November 2003 Alexandria Current Events Archive 58 11-06-2003 11:31 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 diana dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg 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 olympics ottoman pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 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]