The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 03-23-2018, 11:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I suppose other issues would also be examined before an eligible candidate could even be identified, let alone disqualified on religious grounds.

For example, say King George V's line died out (I realize this will *never* happen barring an apocalypse which would render this discussion moot anyway). It would be necessary to identify whose line would be next, in this case the descendants of his oldest sister Louise Princess Royal & Duchess of Fife. Presumably each generation would be looked at, the legality of each marriage established, legitimate birth confirmed, religion confirmed, etc. Eventually the current Duke of Fife would be identified as next in line.

In this example establishing the legality of each marriage would be simple since Louise and her descendants requested permission under the Royal Marriages Act. But for other descendants, who, weren't required to seek permission, it would require more legwork (one example that comes to mind is King Carol II of Romania's first marriage to Zizi Lambrino).

BTW - I forgot to include Ernest Augustus of Hanover in my list of Queen Victoria descendants who were reinstated. He initially lost his place when he married Caroline of Monaco.
My understanding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-23-2018, 02:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
My understandding is that the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families didn't have to ask permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, which would then exempt many foreign royals.

Curiously, when the Royal Marriages Act was repealed, previously "invalid" marriages were legitimized for all purposes except the line of succession to the British throne, precisely to minimize changes to the preexisting line. That seems to suggest that even people way down the line are not entirely neglible after all.
I’m glad you brought this up since I’m curious about it.
.
As you point out, the Succession to the Crown Act states that previously “invalid” marriages are legitimized but descendants of those marriages have no succession rights to the Crown (Section 3(5)).

Whose marriage would this affect?

Under the Royal Marriages Act a marriage contracted without the sovereign’s permission was invalid and any children were illegitimate but the person who made the marriage could still inherit the throne. But under the Succession to the Crown Act the situation is reversed. The unapproved marriage would be valid and the children legitimate but the person contracting the marriage and the children would not have any succession rights (Section 3(3)).

So it seems Section 3(5) might be intended to place prior unapproved marriages on the same level as future unapproved marriages. The prior marriage is now recognized as valid, the children are legitimate, but have no succession rights.

However, one of the requirements of Section 3(5) states: “in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it.” (3(5)(c)).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf

This requirement narrows the number of eligible marriages. I suspect it was made with specific marriages in mind, for example George IV’s secret marriage to Mrs. Fitzherbert. He knew he was required to ask permission, but didn’t, so under the Succession to the Crown Act the marriage is still invalid. Ditto for Augustus Duke of Sussex’s two marriages and George Duke of Cambridge’s marriage to Sarah Fairbrother. Neither asked permission so their marriages are still invalid and their children are still considered illegitimate.

But who didn’t ask permission because they didn’t know they were required to? As you stated, the descendants of princesses who married into foreign families were exempt from the RMA, so the number of people who fell within it was actually small. So whose marriage would now be legal under the provisions of Section 3(5)?

This has been discussed on another forum as it relates to the descendants of Queen Victoria’s grandson Charles Edward Duke of Albany and of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His children didn’t seek approval for their marriages making them invalid under British law. So their descendants had no succession rights to the British crown or to the Albany title (the Titles Deprivation Act aside). But the Succession to the Crown Act means they might be able to claim the latter, if it could be proven they weren’t aware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them. For example, by then they were “foreign” royals and may have believed they were exempt. But how would that be proven given that the parties are dead?

Does anyone have any additional insights on this? Thank you. I learn a lot from these discussions and debates and find them very interesting.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-23-2018, 03:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Well, oops, I just remembered Section 3(5)(a) states "neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage."

So this is the part that renders George IV and Augustus Duke of Sussex's marriages invalid under the Succession to the Crown Act, not subsection (c).

But subsection (c) still applies to George Duke of Cambridge's marriage since he wasn't one of the 6.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-27-2018, 11:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Now that you raised the issue, it hás occurred to me that the Swedish royal kids have been affected too as Estelle and Leonore were not displaced by their younger brothers in the British line of sucession..

PS: The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch RFs, in that order, are in the line of succession to the British throne. The Spanish RF is excluded because they are Catholics.

It just occurred to me that, if they were not Catholics, the Belgian Royal Family would be also (very remotely) in the line of succession to the British throne as Prince Carl of Sweden, grandfather of King Albert II, also descended from King George II via his mother, Sophia of Nassau. For the same reason, the Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg would also be in the line of succession.

And, of course, among the deposed royal families, the Greeks and the Romanians are in line (and much higher) as descendants of Queen Victoria.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-27-2018, 01:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
The majority of current and former European royal families descend from King George II (including, of course, Queen Elizabeth II):

CURRENT REIGNING MONARCHS

BELGIUM: King Philippe - yes

DENMARK: Queen Margrethe II – yes

LIECHTENSTEIN: Prince Hans-Adam II – no. However, his son and heir Hereditary Prince Alois is married to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, who is a King George II descendant. Sophie will eventually become the Jacobite claimant to the British throne, following her uncle Duke Franz of Bavaria (the current claimant) and her father Duke Max in Bavaria.

LUXEMBOURG – Grand Duke Henri – yes

MONACO – Prince Albert II - no

NETHERLANDS – King Willem-Alexander - yes

NORWAY: King Harald V – yes

SPAIN: King Felipe VI - yes

SWEDEN: King Carl XVI Gustaf – yes

FORMER REIGNING MONARCHS

BULGARIA: Former King Simeon II – yes

GREECE: Former King Constantine II – yes

CURRENT CLAIMANTS TO OTHER FORMER THRONES

ALBANIA: Prince Leka - no

AUSTRIA: Archduke Karl – yes

BAVARIA: Duke Franz – yes. Duke Franz is also the current Jacobite claimant to the British throne through his descent from Charles II and James II's sister, Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans.

FRANCE (Bonaparte): Charles, Prince Napoleon, and his son & rival claimant, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napolen - yes

FRANCE (Legitimist): Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou – yes

FRANCE (Orleans): Henri, Count of Paris – yes

HANOVER: Prince Ernest Augustus - yes

ITALY (SENIOR LINE): Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy, Prince of Naples – no

ITALY (JUNIOR LINE): Prince Amadeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta (rival claimant) – yes

MONTENEGRO: Prince Nicholas – no

PARMA: Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma (also the current Carlist claimant to the Spanish throne) - yes

PORTUGAL: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza - no

PRUSSIA: Prince Georg Friedrich - yes

ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes

RUSSIA: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – yes

SAXONY: Prince Alexandre of Saxe-Gessaphe and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Rudiger of Saxony - yes

SERBIA: Crown Prince Alexander – yes

TUSCANY: Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany – yes

TWO SICILIES: Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria and his cousin & rival claimant Prince Carlo Duke of Castro - yes

WURTTEMBERG: Duke Carl - yes
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-27-2018, 04:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,474
Which descendants of The Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, have been disqualified on the grounds of illegitimacy (including illegitimacy by unauthorized marriages) ?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-27-2018, 06:40 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-27-2018, 06:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post

ROMANIA: Crown Princess Margareta, Custodian of the Crown – yes
I should also point out that Prince Karl Friedrich of Hohenzollern, who some believe has a better claim to the Romanian throne, is also a King George II descendant. In fact, he and Margareta are both descended from Alfred Duke of Edinburgh & of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Victoria's second son.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Some of the descendants are disqualified from the succession because they were born out of wedlock and only legitimated when their parents married:

Hon. Mark Lascelles (b. 1964) - his parents George Lascelles 7th Earl of Harewood and Elizabeth Tuckwell married in 1967.

Martin Lascelles (b. 1962) - his parents Hon. Gerald Lascelles and Elizabeth Collingwood married in 1978.

Lady Emily (b. 1975) and Hon. Benjamin Lascelles (b. 1978), oldest children of David Lascelles 8th of Harewood and his first wife Margaret Messenger, who married in 1979. Because Benjamin is also disqualified from inheriting the Harewood title his younger brother Alexander will become Earl when their father dies.

Tanit Lascelles (b. 1981), daughter of Hon. James Lascelles and his second wife Shadow Lee, who married in 1985.

Lilianda Pearce (b. 2010), daughter of Sophie Lascelles and Timothy Pearce, who married in 2011. According to Marlene Koenig (an expert on the BRF) Sophie may not have requested permission to marry.

Two descendants are excluded because their parents never married:

Leo (born 2008), son of Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.

Georgina (born 1988), daughter of Martin Lascelles and his then-girlfriend.
Thanks! What about the children of Ellen Mary Lascelles, daughter of The Hon. R. Jeremy Lascelles ? Were they born out of wedlock too ?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Yes, you're right, I forgot about her. Ellen Mary Lascelles has a son Jack (born 2016) and daughter Penny (born 2018) with her boyfriend Mike Hermans.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As per Marlene Eilers Koenig, none of the descendants of Carl Eduard, second Duke of Albany, sought the approval required by the Royal Marriages Act. Is there evidence suggesting they did?

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

Assuming they did not, the grandchildren of Carl Eduard and their descendants are legally illegitimate from the British point of view.
This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:21 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
This has also been pointed out in the Peerage News Google group. Apparently the Albany title might be available. But the matter would have to be investigated & the facts established before the title could be used. I suspect the Queen will just avoid it.
There is no need to investigate really .The last official one Charles Edward fought for the Germans in WW1 and was stripped of the Garter in 1915 and of his title in 1919 - after that he became a Nazi (he was a SA General ),had working knowledge of the Death Camps as head of the German Red Cross and had to be de-Nazified at the end of the war .All his sons fought in the Wermacht in WW2 .

Him and few others were stripped under an Act of Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles...ation_Act_1917

None of the heirs (and CE's sons all had morganatic marriages anyway) ever re applied to regain the title (it's been 100 years at this point ) and I imagine they would have been told to take a running jump if they had .

So Albany is available but is still far too dodgy to be used .It took 200 years after James II took the throne (it was also his fathers title )for it to be used again (it was combined with the Ducal title of York under the Hanovers and 3 times it died with it's childless holder)

Dead King ,deposed King and a Nazi as 3 of the last 4 holders
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-16-2018, 07:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Yes, you are correct, Charles Edward was stripped of his peerage (and royal title) by the Titles Deprivation Act. But the Act also gave his successors the right to petition the Crown for revival of the title - "It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed, to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored and his name placed on the Peerage Roll."

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

Charles Edward's oldest son Johann Leopold did marry morganatically but because the concept of morganatic marriage isn't recognized in Britain that's irrelevant. Although it prevented Johann Leopold and his sons from inheriting Charles Edward's German titles (Coburg) they would still be able to succeed to his British titles (Albany).

What is important is that neither Johann Leopold nor his brother appear to have requested permission to marry as required by the Royal Marriages Act. If this is true, his descendants cannot petition the Crown for a revival. This is what would need to be investigated before the Queen could grant Albany to someone else.

This is also why the Cumberland title isn't available. The last Duke was also deprived under the Titles Deprivation Act but his current successor Ernst August of Hanover could petition the Crown for a revival of the title.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Something I've wondered about...the children of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha apparently didn't seek permission to marry as required under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. This apparently included his daughter Sibylla, wife of Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden and mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?

For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.

From The Royal Marriages Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:06 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 4,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Something I've wondered about...the children of Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha apparently didn't seek permission to marry as required under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act. This apparently included his daughter Sibylla, wife of Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden and mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

If Sibylla's marriage was invalid under British law then under British law her children were illegitimate. But wouldn't this mean Carl Gustaf and his sisters have NO British succession rights even through their father, who was also a descendant of Queen Victoria. Is this interpretation correct?

For example, because Augustus Duke of Sussex didn't receive permission to marry Lady Augusta Murray their two children were considered to be illegitimate. The son Augustus d'Este was not only barred from the succession but he also could not inherit the Sussex title when his father died.

From The Royal Marriages Act:
"every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

The Royal Marriage Act, 1772
But the descendants of Princesses who married in a foreign Royal House di not need to ask for Permission. And the swedish Royals are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught. So perhaps this was the reason Gustadf Adolf and Sibylla did not ask for Permission.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
But the descendants of Princesses who married in a foreign Royal House di not need to ask for Permission. And the swedish Royals are the descendants of Princess Margaret of Connaught. So perhaps this was the reason Gustadf Adolf and Sibylla did not ask for Permission.
Yes, Gustaf Adolf didn't need permission. But Sibylla did, just as her aunt Alice of Albany needed permission to marry Alexander of Teck even though he was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

So did Gustaf Adolf's mother Margaret of Connaught whose husband Gustaf VI Adolf was also a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

Other princesses who married a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign royal house but still needed permission:

Helena, daughter of Queen Victoria, married Christian of Augustenberg.
Maud, daughter of Edward VII, married Carl of Denmark.
Queen Elizabeth II, married Philip of Greece.

In addition, several princes married princesses who were exempt for the same reason, including Edward VII (married Alexandra of Denmark, a descendant of George II's daughters Louisa and Mary) and George V (married Mary of Teck, the daughter of Princess Mary Adelaide).

So marriage to a descendant who was exempt made no difference.

Given the fact that Charles Edward had been deprived of his British title (Title Deprivation Act) and his children were no longer British HRHs (1917 Letters Patent) I suppose he didn't want to be bothered with requesting permission from the British monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:42 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, Gustaf Adolf didn't need permission. But Sibylla did, just as her aunt Alice of Albany needed permission to marry Alexander of Teck even though he was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

So did Gustaf Adolf's mother Margaret of Connaught whose husband Gustaf VI Adolf was also a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House.

Other princesses who married a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign royal house but still needed permission:

Helena, daughter of Queen Victoria, married Christian of Augustenberg.
Maud, daughter of Edward VII, married Carl of Denmark.
Queen Elizabeth II, married Philip of Greece.

In addition, several princes married princesses who were exempt for the same reason, including Edward VII (married Alexandra of Denmark, a descendant of George II's daughters Louisa and Mary) and George V (married Mary of Teck, the daughter of Princess Mary Adelaide).

So marriage to a descendant who was exempt made no difference.

Given the fact that Charles Edward had been deprived of his British title (Title Deprivation Act) and his children were no longer British HRHs (1917 Letters Patent) I suppose he didn't want to be bothered with requesting permission from the British monarch.
Don't worry, their marriage was legal (see Succession to the Crown Act 2013)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Don't worry, their marriage was legal (see Succession to the Crown Act 2013)
Section 3(5) of the Succession to the Crown Act states:

A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line
of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given
under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not
to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to
it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the
basis that the marriage was void.

It seems that (c) is the sticking point. In order for the marriages of Charles Edward's children to be recognized as valid it would need to be established "that it was reasonable for [them] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to [them]."

I'm not sure how this would be done now that the children are deceased.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0130020_en.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,723
There is no any "sticking point" here. Their marriage was grand, very public event with a lot of officials on the hand.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:47 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,335


I may be misunderstanding but is it the difference between legal (ie true marriage in the eyes of the law and the world) and valid (in terms of the succession)?
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, danish royal family, dutch royal family, norwegian royal family, swedish royal family


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
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 09:49 PM
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 22 02-17-2012 11:49 AM




Popular Tags
aif biography bracelets british royal family camilla clothes commonwealth games current events current events thread dailyfail discussão duchess of cornwall duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh fashion felipe vi germany gordon harry and meghan head of the house her children history interesting facts iñaki urdangarín jack brooksbank jacobite juan carlos lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle modernization nelson mandela bay patron plantagenets porphyria prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince peter princess princesses princess louise princess royal public image queen elisabeth queen letizia queen mary of teck relationship royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal wedding rumania sarah duchess of york state visit surname swedish royal family tom bower wedding windsor castle windsor wedding windy city wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises