The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 02-06-2019, 05:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.
I highly doubt that this was anything other than a rumor considering that when King George VI died in 1952, his wife was 52 years old and the chances of pregnancy are very, very slim.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-06-2019, 05:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
Well it could have been tricky in a second sense, if Charles and Diana had had daughters, then divorced and Charles had remarried - say Tiggy (whom Diana slandered when she claimed Tiggy was pregnant by Charles, btw) and Charles and his second wife had produced a male heir that child would have been the next King rather than C&D's daughters and thus Diana's future role as mother of King William would have disappeared, so perhaps that is what her 'tricky' reference was to. Wasn't that the interview where she basically suggested Charles should be bypassed for the throne (ala David I suppose.)

That is actually an excellent point. Having two boys meant that Diana’s position as the mother of the future King was pretty much secure no matter what happened to her marriage. That would be a relief for her of course.

Furthermore, I agree with other posters on their point on sexism. Male-preference, but not male-only primogeniture had long been the norm for succession to the English and later the British Crown. Nevertheless, that did not prevent Henry VIII from being obsessed with having a male heir, nor did it prevent people from frowning upon the young Queen Victoria for taking the throne ahead of her uncles. Even as recently as 5 years ago, I heard a female British “ royal expert” on CNN literally congratulating Catherine for having had a boy as her firstborn.

In the end, I suppose many people still think it is preferable to have a King than a reigning Queen and, among the aristocracy , who is used to the concept of agnatic succession in the peerage, that opinion may be more widespread than in the general population actually.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-06-2019, 08:48 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 10,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post

It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.
Highly unlikely considering the queen mother was 52 years old when she was widowed. Even in modern times, she would be considered past that stage by most. There is no way anyone realistically thought she may be pregnant with a boy. And that would require nine months not a year.

Coronations are always delayed in the UK, to allow for an appropriate time of mourning for the monarch. And for plans to be made for the ceremony.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
It was also rumoured that Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was delayed by a whole year because the powers that be wanted to be sure that the Queen Mother was not pregnant with a boy.

Any such rumours would have been completely ignorant of fact. Regardless of the Queen Mother’s age when she was widowed or that a pregnancy doesn’t take a year to detect (and there were reliable pregnancy tests in 1952), is the plain and simple fact that the coronation of every British monarch since George III (with two exceptions) has occurred at least a year after the ascension. The exceptions: Edward VIII who never had a coronation and George VI who simply used his brother’s planned coronation date instead of rescheduling.

There were concerns that William IV’s newly widowed wife might have been pregnant when he died; this did not prevent Victoria from taking the throne, or affect her coronation schedule, but in the proclamation of Victoria as Queen an addendum was made noting that if a child was born to Adelaide that was William’s issue, they would become monarch. No similar statement was made when Elizabeth II was proclaimed Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,589
Thank you to everybody who provided the many informative answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
As Mbruno says, Diana's family depended on male offspring & she said herself, as the 3rd girl she was a disappointment to her parents who needed a son. In Sarah Bradford's book 'Diana', she describes how her mother Frances was sent to gynaecologists after her failure to produce a male heir. The British aristocracy was (is) obsessed with male heirs and in our monarchy, women only reigned in the absence of a male. The preference has always been for males so I can understand how a young Princess of Wales would feel pressurised to produce a male heir.
It's rather astonishing that having daughters instead of sons was apparently perceived by the British aristocracy and medical establishment as a gynaecological disorder as late as the 1960s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Prince Louis has been added to the line of succession on the BRF website. However, one of the queen's other greatgrandchildren, miss Mia Tindall, is still missing. It would be nice if they'd solve that after the birth of her sibling (or when they update Harry's title but that seems less likely).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
For some reason it seems the list always ended with Zara (Mrs. Michael Tindall).

For example, here's an archived copy from May 2016 (via the Wayback Machine):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513....uk/succession

And another from August 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170801....uk/succession
While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?
As Zara is godmother to Prince George that seems unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

While the most probable scenario is that they simply were overlooked, is there a possibility that even though at least their older daughter was baptized, Mrs. and Mr. Tindall are non-religious and thus are not raising their children as practicing Protestants?
That wouldn't remove them from the line of succession however. Only being confirmed as Roman Catholic would do that.

Only once they were actually in the position to be the monarch and asked to take the oath to defend the Anglican church would there be a problem if they couldn't take that oath. Being an atheist isn't a bar so long as no one actually knows that fact.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,589
It was stipulated in the Act of Settlement that only Protestants are in line.
[...] the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants [...]
Of course, as you pointed out, somebody who pretends to be a Protestant and takes the oath can become monarch if no one actually knows their true beliefs, but that would be true with respect to a Catholic pretending to be a Protestant as much as an atheist pretending to be a Protestant.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,269
A Roman Catholic is confirmed as such and at that moment is removed from the line of succession. The Earl of St Andrews children were all baptised RC but remained in the line of succession until they were each confirmed. Amelia has never been confirmed RC and so she remains in the line of succession. She may prefer the Roman Catholic rites but she has not committed herself to that denomination and so remains in the line.

The Tindalls' have had Mia baptised as CoE and presumably either has or will baptise Lena accordingly. Only when they reach an age where they publicly declare they are Roman Catholic will they be removed from the line of succession. Not being confirmed won't be a barrier - until such time as they actually are to be crowned as they do need to be able to take communion in the CoE during the Coronation ceremony.

The Succession to the Crown Act specifies that the monarch must be 'in communion with the CoE' and will uphold the 'established Church of England' and the 'established Church of Scotland' and uphold 'the protestant succession'. Most Roman Catholics would be unable to do any of those things. the Succession to the Crown Act actually is more specific than the Act of Settlement - which it amended in many ways.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,589
Has any official decision or judgment validated that interpretation of the Act of Settlement? In my opinion, it seems evident that anyone who is known not to be a Protestant would be barred by the clause "the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants" (though non-Protestant heirs of her body who have never been Roman Catholics would gain a place in the line of succession on conversion to Protestantism).

In 1714, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped, including the crown prince of France (age 4) and the crown prince of Spain and his brothers (ages 2 to 6).
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

In the end, I suppose many people still think it is preferable to have a King than a reigning Queen and, among the aristocracy , who is used to the concept of agnatic succession in the peerage, that opinion may be more widespread than in the general population actually.
I would argue that allowing a Queen Consort, but only Prince Consort, is evidence of such biases. The idea is that a king is higher than a queen. Rather than equal. If it is indeed equal, then all would be Prince/Princess Consort or King/Queen Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Has any official decision or judgment validated that interpretation of the Act of Settlement? In my opinion, it seems evident that anyone who is known not to be a Protestant would be barred by the clause "the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants" (though non-Protestant heirs of her body who have never been Roman Catholics would gain a place in the line of succession on conversion to Protestantism). In 1714, if I remember correctly, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped.

The children, in 1714, who were skipped were done so because the legislation had been passed 13 years earlier and so they were largely not even born at that time.

Had one of them tried to claim the throne the country wouldn't have accepted them anyway having been conditioned to accept Sophia from 1701 onwards and not wanting to have a minor on the throne - who may still decide to convert to Roman Catholicism giving their family background. They could have had a series of minor monarchs who never reached their majority as they would have been confirmed as they reached 10 - 11 as Roman Catholics and then ended up with George anyway.

Parliament determines the succession - that was agreed in both 1660 and again in 1688 so they could have left out Sophia and gone to any family they wanted to at that point and there wasn't anything anyone could do. They chose Sophia as she was the most obvious that fitted their criteria - not RC and not married to an RC with an adult protestant son to inherit after her.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,589
I see your point in regard to the children being born after the Act of Settlement had named Princess Sophia specifically as the heiress. Given the long line of succession, though, it was relatively apparent at the time the Act was enacted that whenever Queen Anne passed there were likely to be baptized but unconfirmed children in some of the Catholic families. It seems to have been Parliament's preference to skip these (future) children, and there is no suggestion in the Act of Settlement that unconfirmed Catholic descendants of Princess Sophia would be treated differently.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
I suspect the Act of Settlement, like any law, is open to interpretation, especially as the religious requirement has never been tested. For example, are Roman Catholics permanently barred from the throne, even if they renounce that faith?

Apparently that interpretation didn't apply to the prohibition against marrying a Roman Catholic. When Prince Michael and the Earl of St. Andrews married Roman Catholics they lost their place in the succession (only to regain it when the marriage prohibition was repealed) but Peter Phillips, who married a former Roman Catholic who joined the Church of England prior to the marriage, did not.

It appears that children are not automatically barred despite being raised in the Roman Catholic faith, at least today. For example, in the past Lord Nicholas Windsor's children were included in the line of succession:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-of-succession

I suspect it's because (as the article points out) children cannot be held to be Roman Catholic (despite their upbringing, which they have no control over) until they have reached the age of reason.

But as you point out, at the time the Act was passed Roman Catholic children were passed over. I suppose at that time it was felt these children were likely to remain Roman Catholic (conversion from the Protestant to the Roman Catholic faith was far more common among James I's descendants than the opposite) and it was safer to settle the succession on an adult who not only was a staunch Protestant but whose son and heir was a staunch Protestant as well, with Protestant children of his own in the bargain.

Quite frankly, I don't think any potential heir is automatically disbarred from the line of succession based on his/her religion, even an heir like King Felipe of Spain, known to be a practicing Catholic. If and when necessary, an heir would be questioned (presumably by Parliament and the Church of England) to learn if s/he meets the religious requirement and disqualified at that time. But that's just my opinion.

`````````````````````

EDIT: I just discovered that the Roman Catholic prohibitions (succession & marriage) originally date to the 1689 Bill of Rights which states:

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same..."

See Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The 1701 Act of Settlement restated both prohibitions and took the further step of limiting the succession to the Electress Sophia and her descendants.

According to an article I just ran across, this was done after the death in 1700 of the Duke of Gloucester (son and heir of the soon-to-be Queen Anne) to prevent "any of the popish branches of the royal Family or even the Pretender himself, as the descent of the Crown is said to purge all Attainders, might by a pretended conversion to the Protestant Religion, have clame'd the Crown, without any impediment from the foremention'd Act [meaning the Bill of Rights]."

Source: "Appendix 3: Essay on the Act of Settlement c1758," Parliamentary History, October 2013 supplement, pp. 330-37 at 330-31.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I suspect the Act of Settlement, like any law, is open to interpretation, especially as the religious requirement has never been tested. [...]

It appears that children are not automatically barred despite being raised in the Roman Catholic faith, at least today. For example, in the past Lord Nicholas Windsor's children were included in the line of succession:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-of-succession

I suspect it's because (as the article points out) children cannot be held to be Roman Catholic (despite their upbringing, which they have no control over) until they have reached the age of reason.

But as you point out, at the time the Act was passed Roman Catholic children were passed over. I suppose at that time it was felt these children were likely to remain Roman Catholic (conversion from the Protestant to the Roman Catholic faith was far more common among James I's descendants than the opposite) and it was safer to settle the succession on an adult who not only was a staunch Protestant but whose son and heir was a staunch Protestant as well, with Protestant children of his own in the bargain.

Quite frankly, I don't think any potential heir is automatically disbarred from the line of succession based on his/her religion, even an heir like King Felipe of Spain, known to be a practicing Catholic. If and when necessary, an heir would be questioned (presumably by Parliament and the Church of England) to learn if s/he meets the religious requirement and disqualified at that time. But that's just my opinion.

`````````````````````

EDIT: I just discovered that the Roman Catholic prohibitions (succession & marriage) originally date to the 1689 Bill of Rights which states:

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same..."

See Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The 1701 Act of Settlement restated both prohibitions and took the further step of limiting the succession to the Electress Sophia and her descendants.
Your points are very well considered. You are entirely right about the Bill of Rights, which I should have remembered as it remains in force today. Still, I believe your point that the breadth of the prohibition is open to interpretation because the statutes do not set out explicit requirements regarding the descriptions "Protestant" and "papist" still stands with respect to the Bill of Rights. It is not surprising, perhaps, that Buckingham Palace officials in the 21st century interpret the word "papist" differently (in fact, I suspect they would not use the word "papist" themselves!) than Members of Parliament interpreted those words in 1689 and 1701 (assuming the inclusion of Albert and Leopold Windsor on the official list was not a mistake like the style of "The Honorable" given to them in the list, as I have seen some persons speculate).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
According to an article I just ran across, this was done after the death in 1700 of the Duke of Gloucester (son and heir of the soon-to-be Queen Anne) to prevent "any of the popish branches of the royal Family or even the Pretender himself, as the descent of the Crown is said to purge all Attainders, might by a pretended conversion to the Protestant Religion, have clame'd the Crown, without any impediment from the foremention'd Act [meaning the Bill of Rights]."

Source: "Appendix 3: Essay on the Act of Settlement c1758," Parliamentary History, October 2013 supplement, pp. 330-37 at 330-31.
That is an interesting motivation. I am not sure why the Parliament of 1700 assumed that people from the nearest branches of the royal family would be willing and able to be disingenuous about their religion while the future descendants of Princess Sophia would always be reliably heartfelt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
For example, are Roman Catholics permanently barred from the throne, even if they renounce that faith?

Apparently that interpretation didn't apply to the prohibition against marrying a Roman Catholic. When Prince Michael and the Earl of St. Andrews married Roman Catholics they lost their place in the succession (only to regain it when the marriage prohibition was repealed) but Peter Phillips, who married a former Roman Catholic who joined the Church of England prior to the marriage, did not.
I think the Bill of Rights makes clear that even former Roman Catholics (as opposed to those who merely married former Roman Catholics) are barred, as it states (after the modification of 2015) that "all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion ... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit".

The point that a converted Anglican who is a former Roman Catholic is barred from the throne, while a converted Anglican who is a former member of any other religion is qualified for the throne, was made by a member of the House of Lords when the Succession to the Crown Act was proposed, and the Government minister did not take issue with that point.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That is an interesting motivation. I am not sure why the Parliament of 1700 assumed that people from the nearest branches of the royal family would be willing and able to be disingenuous about their religion while the future descendants of Princess Sophia would always be reliably heartfelt.
Religious prejudice would be my guess. The nearest branches were Roman Catholic and therefore capable of duplicity, unlike Sophia's Protestant and therefore morally superior descendants.

Quote:
I think the Bill of Rights makes clear that even former Roman Catholics (as opposed to those who merely married former Roman Catholics) are barred, as it states (after the modification of 2015) that "all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion ... shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit".

The point that a converted Anglican who is a former Roman Catholic is barred from the throne, while a converted Anglican who is a former member of any other religion is qualified for the throne, was made by a member of the House of Lords when the Succession to the Crown Act was proposed, and the Government minister did not take issue with that point.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
.

The Succession to the Crown Act specifies that the monarch must be 'in communion with the CoE' and will uphold the 'established Church of England' and the 'established Church of Scotland' and uphold 'the protestant succession'. Most Roman Catholics would be unable to do any of those things. the Succession to the Crown Act actually is more specific than the Act of Settlement - which it amended in many ways.

I couldn't find any of the above in the final text of the Succession to the Crown Act.



I believe the requirement to uphold the established Protestant Church in England may be in the Coronation Act 1688 whereas the promise to preserve the Presbyterian system of government of the Church of Scotland may be included in the Treaty of Union of 1707.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Religious prejudice would be my guess. The nearest branches were Roman Catholic and therefore capable of duplicity, unlike Sophia's Protestant and therefore morally superior descendants.

Thank you for pointing this out.
if a former RC can't be King, why did Charles Edward Stuart consider converting to Anglicanism
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I see your point in regard to the children being born after the Act of Settlement had named Princess Sophia specifically as the heiress. Given the long line of succession, though, it was relatively apparent at the time the Act was enacted that whenever Queen Anne passed there were likely to be baptized but unconfirmed children in some of the Catholic families. It seems to have been Parliament's preference to skip these (future) children, and there is no suggestion in the Act of Settlement that unconfirmed Catholic descendants of Princess Sophia would be treated differently.

At that time, it was very unlikely that a child who was baptized in the Catholic Church would not be later confirmed. Similarly, it was unlikely that a child who was baptized as a Catholic would "convert" to Protestantism before reaching confirmation age. I suppose that, by explicitly mentioning Sophia, Parliament intended to make sure the succession would pass to a reliable Protestant line.


When George I ascended the throne, he was below 50th in line to the Crown by strict male preference primogeniture. It is very likely that there were unconfirmed Catholic children ahead of him, who were nonetheless excluded by the Act of Settlement for not being descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
if a former RC can't be King, why did Charles Edward Stuart consider converting to Anglicanism
I suppose because he didn't fully understand the law and was willing to try anything in order to become King. (1) He didn't realize that all Roman Catholics were barred from the throne, including former Catholics, and (2) his religion technically wasn't even relevant because the succession had already been limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia before he was born. The Act of Settlement eliminated him twice. Or actually thrice, once he married a Roman Catholic.
__________________

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 08:49 PM
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 22 02-17-2012 10:49 AM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian british royal family charles of wales crown crown prince hussein's future wife current events cyprus denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex duke of york earl of wessex foundation french revolution friendly city future future wife of prince hussein genealogy general news germany greece harry headship kiko king philippe lady louise mountbatten-windsor lineage lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle modernization monaco christening monarchist monarchy monogram naples official visit patron patronages potential areas prince aymeric prince harry prince nicholas prince of wales prince peter princess benedikte princess eugenie princess louise princess royal qe2 queen elisabeth queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan relationship royal children russian imperial family savoy saxony south korea state visit state visit to denmark titles uk styles united kingdom windy city



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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