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
 
  #21  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
I disagree. I think that having them in the public might encourage younger citizens to take an interest in the monarchy if they have the chance to see a royal contemporary.
On that we will have to agree to disagree. Most youngsters would rather see a 'real' celeb, such as Leona Lewis.
Quote:
Princess Eugenie embarks on first Royal tour - Telegraph
"Although she will not attend any business meetings with ministers, she will accompany her father to evening receptions and dinners"
While I'm sure that she knows what fork to use during the salad, she will gain etiquette and protocol experience by attending any evening function she may be invited to while on this trip.
All things she should already know. My own daughters were taught such things at home and at school and before you suggest, that was too long ago, my youngest is around the same age as these girls.
Quote:
I don't think you can call it condescension when I question how ridiculous the public call to action could become about these girls. In your own words they are not 'crowd pullers', they are not 'ladylike'. You quote that their protection is a 'waste of money'. Why not just lobby your MPs to abolish their protection and have done with it? They will never be on the civil list, so just end it already if the taxpayers don't want them. They don't have to lose their titles to lose their taxpayer funded goodies, and they could lose all the criticism that accompanies it which would be better in the long run for all concerned.
The support for the monarchy to be abolished gains support every time the minor royals do this sort of thing. Daily Express | UK News :: £40,000 bill to protect Royals
Quote:
Well there is a double edged sword if I ever saw one. In your opinion all of Andrew's money is taxpayer funded money already. In your viewpoint then, what would be the difference if he did pay for their security himself?
Because then the protection money would not be coming from the UK policing allowance but from the money already paid to Andrew.
Quote:
From the nine out of ten comments made in all of her threads on this board that are derrogatory in nature. The overwhelmingly negative tone of which are so off putting that members that like Sarah will not post there anymore.
Why would that have any bearing on protection costs for these two?
Quote:
I know more people that live in my neighborhood that are deserving of being my next president than either of the two men that will win the position in a couple of days, but that doesn't change anything that either candidate has done in their lives or the privileges or risks that their position accords their families.
Now that is just insulting to the men and women who have fought and died for their country. Many people do not know what a hero is and it is disturbing that you are holding Andrew up as a 'hero', he like many flew a helicopter in a war zone.
__________________

__________________
  #22  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
Unfortunately, nowadays there are plenty of people who are what I call 'knockers' - and they always seem to get their views published (I presume to give some weird sort of balance).

Even the most ordinary of youngster nowadays goes out at weekends to clubs and pubs with their friends - but they don't have paparazzi flashing cameras in their faces at 2 in the morning, or whenever.

This country is still a monarchy, and a majority still want it that way. As an HRH and 6th in line to the throne, Eugenie is entitled to protection. Let us not forget that there are terrorists around the UK (and the world) who are bent on destablising the West, and what better way to cause a crisis than to capture/attack an HRH. This was the reason that Prince Harry had to be brought back from Afghanistan one his 'cover' had been blown.

It is only right that both Beatrice and Eugenie learn about doing Royal Duties. There is much talk about slimming down the Royal Family, but there is an incessant demand for family members to take on work in the form of supporting charities and promoting good causes. In the foreseeable future we will see the Queen, Prince Philip, Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Kent doing a lot less. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester do a small but steady amount of representation, and Prince and Princess Michael do a small amount too. Soon they will also do less - and none of the next generation of the Gloucesters and Kents is royal, so they will not be available.

Since Prince Edward has decided that his children are not to take up their Royal titles (although I believe this could be rescinded), this will only leave William and Harry, and their wives, and Beatrice and Eugenie, to help out King Charles and Queen Camilla. It is quite right now that these Princesses should learn the ropes. Since Prince Andrew does not have a wife to accompany him on his working trips, it is entirely appropriate for one of the Princesses to go. (And did I read what seemed a sneer at Prince Andrew's service in the Navy? He was a good naval officer, and did his part in the Falklands War as bravely as any other naval helicopter pilot. I cannot see any reason to make snide comments about it.)
__________________

__________________
  #23  
Old 10-30-2008, 10:42 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
As has been shown by the events in New York, Pennsylvania, Arlington & of course London, anyone and everyone can be at risk!
Unless you're using this argument to suggest removing protection from the entire royal family, I don't see your point. The York princesses - themselves personally - are potential terrorist and kidnapping targets (to say nothing of being the subjects of harassment by paparazzi) because they're the Queen's granddaughters, unlike all the people who get killed in random acts of terrorism.
__________________
  #24  
Old 10-30-2008, 11:37 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
On that we will have to agree to disagree. Most youngsters would rather see a 'real' celeb, such as Leona Lewis.
Perhaps, if we are talking about public figures in general, but if we are talking strictly about royalty, my original opinion still stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
All things she should already know. My own daughters were taught such things at home and at school and before you suggest, that was too long ago, my youngest is around the same age as these girls.
There really is a difference between knowing how to act in a situation and actually getting the practice doing so. I think I may just be spinning my wheels trying to explain this, but what she is being exposed to right now is far and beyond the simple table and manners etiquette that you keep suggesting that it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The support for the monarchy to be abolished gains support every time the minor royals do this sort of thing. Daily Express | UK News :: £40,000 bill to protect Royals

"The total cost of security would have included about £12,000 on business class flights for the officers, who stay in five-star hotels with their charges and are understood to receive £120 a day in expenses on top of their wages."

Maybe the taxpayers should be upset at how high on the hog the security officers live while they are on duty, instead of being upset at the royals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Because then the protection money would not be coming from the UK policing allowance but from the money already paid to Andrew.
But in your opinion, Andrew's money (and that of the rest of the royal family, minus the Waleses) is still all taxpayer money, including the Queen's. Would it honestly make you feel better about the situation if the Queen announced that she was giving Andrew another stipend to pay for the girls' security or, better yet, kept the public in the dark that she was doing it? Certainly we could agree that that is what would happen in such a situation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Why would that have any bearing on protection costs for these two?
In reality, nothing. In my original post, I was creating an over the top scenario. You were the one that took issue with the words that I was using in a sarcastic manner. I know that you read the Daily Mail fairly regularly. Can you not honestly see an article such as the one I made the speculation about if Andrew and Sarah were to take the responsibility of paying for the security themselves? They already claim that Sarah bought Beatrice's car and that it is she that pays for the "family" vacations because Andrew is too poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Now that is just insulting to the men and women who have fought and died for their country. Many people do not know what a hero is and it is disturbing that you are holding Andrew up as a 'hero', he like many flew a helicopter in a war zone.
How exactly did I insult anyone? I was making a parallel reference. If anything, my post could read that I was fully acknowledging that there were more deserving military personnel than Andrew. I have the utmost respect for people in the military and, quite frankly, view them all as 'heroes', so I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison20 View Post
It is quite right now that these Princesses should learn the ropes. Since Prince Andrew does not have a wife to accompany him on his working trips, it is entirely appropriate for one of the Princesses to go.
Quite right. Better a Princess Eugenie on his arm, than the companion of the day.
__________________
  #25  
Old 10-31-2008, 06:05 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison20 View Post
Unfortunately, nowadays there are plenty of people who are what I call 'knockers' - and they always seem to get their views published (I presume to give some weird sort of balance).
Really. I would suggest that they are the minority, who struggle to get their views heard. Whilst I accept this is a forum to discuss the royals, if everyone is saying - oh how wonderful, the UK taxpayers are protecting these two girls at the expense of using the 40,000 for ordinary policing, then it becomes just another site.
Quote:
This country is still a monarchy, and a majority still want it that way. As an HRH and 6th in line to the throne, Eugenie is entitled to protection. Let us not forget that there are terrorists around the UK (and the world) who are bent on destablising the West, and what better way to cause a crisis than to capture/attack an HRH. This was the reason that Prince Harry had to be brought back from Afghanistan one his 'cover' had been blown.
Yes it is still a monarchy and lets keep it this way by ensuring that the people of Britain see that their money is not spent needlessly. When ordinary families are losing their jobs and homes during a recession, the last thing they need to be told is that one of the royal youngsters is off on a jaunt but don't worry her father is paying for business class travel and board but you are paying to protect her from over drinking or having a holiday romance, which is probably the biggest danger she will face! If the police don't think protection for these girls is needed, then I am inclined to believe them. Your argument that 'terrorists' might destabilise the west by attacking B&E would surely also apply to the much loved and well regarded Zara.
Quote:
It is only right that both Beatrice and Eugenie learn about doing Royal Duties.
Royal duties, what is she learning by attending these dinners. She should already know how to behave and how to eat nicely. If she has not learned table manners or how to speak properly to her elders by now, so much so that she needs training, then their upbringing must be questioned!
Quote:
(And did I read what seemed a sneer at Prince Andrew's service in the Navy? He was a good naval officer, and did his part in the Falklands War as bravely as any other naval helicopter pilot. I cannot see any reason to make snide comments about it.)
Really, then you missed the assertion that he is a decorated war hero, in the true and now misused sense of the word, he was not a hero. He was just a helicopter pilot, as were many, doing the job he was paid for and enjoyed. There were many heroes during the Falklands, the Marines who marched for miles in appaling terrain as an example, they all received, like Andrew a campaign medal. In a generation that hold the likes of Paris Hilton up as their hero, or even Harry who spent a couple of well protected weeks in Afghanistan, was he brave to go, undoubtedly yes, was he a hero, no.
__________________
  #26  
Old 10-31-2008, 06:17 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Unless you're using this argument to suggest removing protection from the entire royal family, I don't see your point. The York princesses - themselves personally - are potential terrorist and kidnapping targets (to say nothing of being the subjects of harassment by paparazzi) because they're the Queen's granddaughters, unlike all the people who get killed in random acts of terrorism.
If she is 'in training' as a royal representative, then surely the countries she is visiting to receive this training will look after her. No I am not suggesting removing the protection for the main players, but such lightweights as Beatrice and Eugenie do not need it, as evidenced by the protection unit themselves. IF a terrorist cell were to decide to kidnap one of them, does anyone think they would send one man, possibly two? Of course not, they would send five or six, armed men to snatch the girl, having shot the protection officers. The paparazzi only seem to harrass these girls when they are coming out of nightclubs or parties, act correctly and one or two ordinary policemen can intervene, as they do with any 'celeb'.
__________________
  #27  
Old 10-31-2008, 06:57 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
I think there are a few inter-related issues here that need to be looked at.

> What pubic roles are they expected to play in the future? My own view is a very minor one. In time, the focus will be on the (current) Wales family and thir offspring. The role of supporting royals will be that of Harry and family, the Wessex's, and Andrew an Anne. The York girls may do the odd balcony appearance or trooping the colour or appear at Christmas at church etc and may support a few charitis, but I doubt it will go much beyond that. It is therefore, IMO imperative that the girls develop careers for themselves, independent of the royal family - just like Peter and Zara. Some might argue that the girls have HRH titles, but that does not really matter in reality.

> Should the girls have security? Whilst their public profile may not warrant some, I think security is probably required given that they might be seen as soft targets by the various terrorist groups out there. Kidnaoping one of tese girls would jutr create a big public embarassment for th governent, and so the cost of security is a relatively small price to pay

> Should they travel with their father like the trip that E is taking? I can't see much value in them, but frankly am not too fussed as Andrew is paying for E. I am not concerned about the increemetal costs of flying her security. Its not a big deal in the context of the overall security bill. Also, you cant and should ot restrict the girlsfrom travelling because of the cost of security. Thats just ludicrous.
__________________
  #28  
Old 10-31-2008, 07:09 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
Perhaps, if we are talking about public figures in general, but if we are talking strictly about royalty, my original opinion still stands.
Then we will have to agree to disagree on that.
Quote:
There really is a difference between knowing how to act in a situation and actually getting the practice doing so. I think I may just be spinning my wheels trying to explain this, but what she is being exposed to right now is far and beyond the simple table and manners etiquette that you keep suggesting that it is.
No it isn't, or do you think that HM eats out of her Tupperware or private supper parties are eaten off plates on their laps? As children of an officer, they would have been at the summer ball and all the other events put on for officers and their ladies where strict dress codes and exemplary behaviour is demanded. Attending a gala where a royal is present, is no different.
Quote:
"The total cost of security would have included about £12,000 on business class flights for the officers, who stay in five-star hotels with their charges and are understood to receive £120 a day in expenses on top of their wages."

Maybe the taxpayers should be upset at how high on the hog the security officers live while they are on duty, instead of being upset at the royals.
If as you say, they need all this protection, of course the officers are obliged to stay in the same hotels, travel on the same flight and of course they are given an allowance to cover meals etc, all expenses that need not be paid if they did not have to look after these girls. What is worse, is that the figures are from Beatrices trip so will have risen drastically.
Quote:
But in your opinion, Andrew's money (and that of the rest of the royal family, minus the Waleses) is still all taxpayer money, including the Queen's. Would it honestly make you feel better about the situation if the Queen announced that she was giving Andrew another stipend to pay for the girls' security or, better yet, kept the public in the dark that she was doing it? Certainly we could agree that that is what would happen in such a situation?
Probably but you are missing the point. You said "In your opinion all of Andrew's money is taxpayer funded money already. In your viewpoint then, what would be the difference if he did pay for their security himself?" The difference is that Andrew, from his pocket money should pay for the protection he feels they need, saving the taxpayer the bill for his daughter.
Quote:
I know that you read the Daily Mail fairly regularly.
Ah, insults now! I could choose the Times or the Telegraph to post, but the Mail does lead with Royal related stories. Do I consider it worth buying, absolutely not but many 'ordinary' Britains do along with The Mirror and The Sun, the last two don't seem to specialise in ordinary royal related stories on page 3.
Quote:
Can you not honestly see an article such as the one I made the speculation about if Andrew and Sarah were to take the responsibility of paying for the security themselves? They already claim that Sarah bought Beatrice's car and that it is she that pays for the "family" vacations because Andrew is too poor.
I should think most Brits would think great, about time. I don't recall an outcry about the family holidays or the car!
Quote:
How exactly did I insult anyone? I was making a parallel reference. If anything, my post could read that I was fully acknowledging that there were more deserving military personnel than Andrew. I have the utmost respect for people in the military and, quite frankly, view them all as 'heroes', so I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.
It could read, but doesn't and my comment stands, I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth, I interpreted your post in a manner you perhaps didn't mean, in much the same way that you interpret mine in a different manner to what was intended.
----------------
We are not going to agree on this, whether it is the age difference, the Anglo/American difference, expected standards difference or what, I don't know, but I'm off to start that petition to my MP, as you suggested!
__________________
  #29  
Old 10-31-2008, 03:17 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If she is 'in training' as a royal representative, then surely the countries she is visiting to receive this training will look after her. No I am not suggesting removing the protection for the main players, but such lightweights as Beatrice and Eugenie do not need it, as evidenced by the protection unit themselves. IF a terrorist cell were to decide to kidnap one of them, does anyone think they would send one man, possibly two? Of course not, they would send five or six, armed men to snatch the girl, having shot the protection officers. The paparazzi only seem to harrass these girls when they are coming out of nightclubs or parties, act correctly and one or two ordinary policemen can intervene, as they do with any 'celeb'.
Well, if terrorists would send five or six armed men after someone like Eugenie, imagine what they'd send after Charles or the Queen, yet they seem to manage with one or two protection officers. At this stage of things, Beatrice and Eugenie are probably higher-value terrorist targets than the Duchess of Gloucester or Princess Alexandra, who a lot of younger people have never heard of.
__________________
  #30  
Old 10-31-2008, 04:06 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, if terrorists would send five or six armed men after someone like Eugenie, imagine what they'd send after Charles or the Queen, yet they seem to manage with one or two protection officers. At this stage of things, Beatrice and Eugenie are probably higher-value terrorist targets than the Duchess of Gloucester or Princess Alexandra, who a lot of younger people have never heard of.
I was just trying to point out that they, like the Duchess of Gloucester and Alexandra are minimal targets, simple because they are not high profile royals. Mention Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie to a lot of the youngsters and they say 'who, what country are they from then'?.

People seem to imagine one or two terrorists would walk up to an unprotected B or E and ask them to get in the van. IF they were considered high profile, unless they have a number of protection officers at their side, it would take very little effort to grab them. Nobody argues with an Uzi or Glock.

People are really struggling to make ends meet, with many now in negative equity and it is these people who begin to question the 'right' of the royals to rub their noses in it by paying for a holiday for the daughter and passing it off as royal training. These are the very people that could in future years vote to end any rights for them at all. You can hear the rumblings when they are sitting in the waiting area and glance at The Mail, Mirror or Express. It is bad enough that C&C have gone on a royal jaunt at this time, (yes I know it isn't a jaunt and yes I know it was arranged aeons ago), but to read about 'Royal Training', really sets them off.
__________________
  #31  
Old 10-31-2008, 05:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
To me it makes perfect sense that B & E have security protection, however I was wondering how other European monarchies handle security issues w their "minor" royals. For example, do the Infantas of Spain have 24 hr security protection for themselves and their families? I know it's a bit different from Pss B&E as the Infantas are the daughters of the King and B&E are granddaughters of the monarch. How about Camilla's grown children? They are after all the stepchildren of the future King and you'd think they'd be pretty serious targets for kidnappers. Or deposed Royals, like King Constantine and Queen AnnMarie (she is a princess of Denmark) and their families? I know there's no country to foot the bill for them but they're pretty high profile - at least King C and Q AM and their older children.
__________________
  #32  
Old 10-31-2008, 05:38 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Wasn´t a holiday house for the Dutch Crown Prince and Princess vetoed just recently because the costs of security would be too high? I think I read that on the Dutch royal family thread.
__________________
  #33  
Old 10-31-2008, 07:22 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella View Post
---snipped--- How about Camilla's grown children? They are after all the stepchildren of the future King and you'd think they'd be pretty serious targets for kidnappers. Or deposed Royals, like King Constantine and Queen AnnMarie (she is a princess of Denmark) and their families? I know there's no country to foot the bill for them but they're pretty high profile - at least King C and Q AM and their older children.
Nothing for any of the Parker Bowles children, sorry I don't know about the others.
__________________
  #35  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,004
I've never heard Eugenie talk before! I didn't know she had such a deep voice. It's funny because Beatrice's voice is just the opposite--very girly and high-pitched.
__________________
  #36  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:47 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,273
Yes, Eugenie takes after Sarah in that respect, I think--although she has her father's colouring. And the Queen Mother had low voice as well. Good to see Sarah taking Eugenie and/or Beatrice along to things. It gives them experience in case their help is needed for the Royal Family someday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I've never heard Eugenie talk before! I didn't know she had such a deep voice. It's funny because Beatrice's voice is just the opposite--very girly and high-pitched.
__________________
  #37  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:59 PM
PrincessofEurope's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
I've never heard Eugenie talk before! I didn't know she had such a deep voice. It's funny because Beatrice's voice is just the opposite--very girly and high-pitched.

Same - i had never heard either of them talk until tonight when i heard them on a TV ad for a forthcoming programme they are doing with their mother

Does Eugenie smoke?
__________________
This is the stuff of fairytales

  #38  
Old 11-03-2008, 03:40 AM
ada's Avatar
ada ada is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: pomona, Australia
Posts: 542
Thank you Kinga77 for the videos of D of Y and PE
__________________
  #39  
Old 11-03-2008, 04:01 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
From what I saw when Princess Eugenie is with her mother it must be very hard for her to get a word in edgewise.... I hope that the patients enjoyed the visit, they seemed to.
__________________
  #40  
Old 11-04-2008, 09:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: na, Australia
Posts: 175
I read an online article on the HELLO!magazine website stating that apparently Beatrice and Eugenie are to have a more active role in "the firm"
__________________

__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
princess eugenie


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
Princess Beatrice of York 12: October 2008-October 2009 Warren Current Events Archive 623 10-01-2009 03:45 AM
Princess Eugenie of York 4: June-October 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 241 10-30-2008 12:21 AM
Princess Beatrice of York 11: June-October 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 202 10-07-2008 09:33 AM
Princess Eugenie of York 3: March 2007-June 2008 Avalon Current Events Archive 221 06-18-2008 09:11 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 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]