The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 10-16-2011, 09:39 PM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
IMHO this should not be addressed right now. It should be put on hold until after William becomes king. Ask yourselves if this change is to affect the succession to the throne, should it affect other titles received through male primogeniture? Some good examples relating to the current monarch would be the Earl of Wessex's children, Louise and James. Louise is oldest...should she inherit her father's earldom or dukedom, if he becomes Duke of Edinburgh, when he passes away? Should Princess Beatrice inherit her father's dukedom after he passes away and become the new Duchess of York? If William and Catherine do have a daughter first, once William is king will she be the Princess Royal or the Princess of Wales? Will she be the Countess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay? What happens if she marries a heir to a foreign royal throne? Does she and her descendents lose their places in the line of succession?
I believe this is completely separate from the rest of the peer system. That is, the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)

Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms. After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 10-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
...the rest of the Peers will continued to be governed under whatever letter patent each title is granted under. For example, the Duke of York will continue to be passed down via the male line of the Duke of York. Ditto for Earl of Wessex. The only thing that would be changed is who ascend to the Throne, although of course they can use this opportunity to review the peer system and who knows what else (hence can of worms....)
Would it be fair to address equal primogeniture only in regards to who ascends the throne and not in regards to other titles of the peerage granted through male primogeniture especially those involving the BRF? If the eldest son of the monarch becomes the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Wales becomes the next monarch...with equal primogeniture will there still be a Prince of Wales if the eldest son is not the eldest child? IMHO this topic is way too complex than to be centered around just "who ascends to the Throne"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Personally while I agree completely with the principle of equal primogeniture, I think the practical effect will be to cause more trouble than it's worth--in other words, open a can of worms.
I am in complete agreement with your statement...I also feel that it will be more troublesome than beneficiary. What would be the advantage, in terms of governing, of going through such a change especially if it's only applied to who ascend to the throne?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
After all the monarch doesn't have any real power, and it's not like folks are demanding to sit on the throne anyway. There have been many many cases where past princes/princesses have approached this with great trepidations. It was said that Princess Margaret said "Poor you" to Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II) once they learned she would be heir presumptive, and that Princess Elizabeth prayed for a brother. I think there was a past King who had an older sister (can't quite find the right one, so maybe a urban legend) and was very upset when he learned that she wouldn't be next, but he would be.

So basically, while I do agree with the principle, I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of unintended consequences, but I hope to be wrong though if they do go thorough with it.
IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:33 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
IMHO I see no practical usage of applying equal primogeniture to the monarchy at this time, especially since the heir and the second in line are pretty much already determined. Waiting until William becomes king would be the best time to address equal primogeniture in regards to the throne. However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
And by the time William becomes King he will, hopefully, have at least a child or two who are fully grown with children of their own. Tell me, how would it be right or fair, should William & Kate's eldest child be a girl followed by a son, to change the rules of succession to apply equal primogeniture when said son would have been raised as William's heir?

Do it now. If you want to apply it only to children born going forward or to children of the Queen's grandchildren, so be it. But waiting on something like this is ridiculous if the support exists within the Commonwealth realms currently. It might be messy but waiting on it until further down the line is not going to eliminate any of the challenges that will be faced in changing it now. And, in fact, it could be a great deal more challenging, especially if the republican sentiment in nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada grows to the point of those citizens deciding "why bother" with the monarchy at all. With the Queen as popular as she is and entering her Diamond Jubilee year, there won't be a better time to make this change than in the near-to-immediate future, before William & Kate's first child comes along.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 10-17-2011, 03:46 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
However, in the mean time the "water can be tested" by applying equal primogeniture to lesser peerage titles.
I'm not sure the means by which a country's head of state is chosen can really be "tested" by applying the same changes to titles that are increasingly amounting to merely a fancy last name (if removal of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords doesn't happen in this Parliament, it will probably happen in the next one). Being a hereditary peer isn't anything like being the monarch, either in responsibility or social status. There's no reason why a change in the succession for one should necessitate (or preclude, or need to be preceded by) the other. They're just completely different things today and I don't see why they wouldn't be dealt with as the separate issues they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
From what I've read from non-tabloid sources the changes would not affect the relative positions of anyone currently alive but would begin with children born after some date in the very near future.
That's what the original articles say, but the most recent article in the (non-tabloid) Telegraph says otherwise. But we won't know until it's clarified by the powers that be or legislation is put down for us to read.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 10-17-2011, 04:34 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,583
It has to be done before William has children, very simple.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 10-17-2011, 05:30 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Discriminatory perhaps, but that discrimination applies to the very few people in the line of succession not to the society as a whole. Even barring Catholics from the succession does not impact on the Catholic marriage partner marrying a member of the BRF as they themselves are not dynasts, it only impacts on their non-Catholic marriage partner who is still free to marry who they wish if they are willing to give up their right to the succession. The proposed changes will still require Protestant succession, Catholics will still not be able to be the monarch.
True of course, but it still reflects, no? I mean, I've read it so many times at this forum that royals should be an "example" for their people. Such old-fashioned rules aren't exemplary, IMHO. I don't think everything has to be over-modern, political correct etc. to be exemplary, but these two things are simply too medieval for my taste.

As to the topic regarding Catholics: I've never said I want a Catholic King or Queen for England. It's clear that the monarch of England can only be Protestant and that's fine. I'd just say that IF a member of the BRF can marry a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and WON'T lose the place in the line of succession, then he/she shouldn't lose this place for marrying a Catholic either. I know the "rule" comes from a time where marrying Muslims or Hindus was out of question anyway, but... In this day and age such a rule is definitely discriminatory. Monarchy is much about traditions and I have nothing against the fact that members of the BRF should stay Anglican to be in the line of succession, and that they should raise their children, if they want to have them in the line of succesion, Anglican, but my oh my, let them marry Catholics without fearing this "punishment". It simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
My problem is still that if you take the view that 'A preference for male children and the exclusion from the line of succession because a member of the family marries a Catholic' is discriminatory and out of step with today's society etc, you then open a can of worms regarding whether the whole idea of a monarchy is 'discriminatory and out-of-step' with the idea that the UK is striving to be a Meritocracy...and thus that a monarchy has NO place in today's society, based on inherited position and accident of birth etc etc........

Only my thoughts,

Alex

I'm optimistic here (one could probably call it naive, too ). Other monarchies, like Sweden or Norway, have overcome this issue successfully as well, so why should it damage the fundament of the British monarchy? Sure, England isn't Norway or Sweden (and I LOVE the British way of life, btw ), but I can only think that most people would appreciate such changes. It won't be the last change for the British monarchy IMO anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 10-17-2011, 09:13 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Has male primogeniture prevented women from becoming monarchs?
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 10-17-2011, 10:39 AM
Sherlock221B's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 10-17-2011, 11:01 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
Actually yes, IF the rule exists back then. It looks like Princess Victoria,, daughter of Queen Victoria, was the oldest child, but the next child was a boy, who would eventually become King Edward VII. So I think this may have been the one I was thinking of earlier in this thread--that he was very disappointed he has to become King rather than his sister, Victoria. But that was way back in the 19th/early 20th century though, when attitudes were much more different from today's.
It would have prevented Elizabeth I from becoming Queen had her younger brother been healthy enough. Same with Elizabeth I's older sister, Mary.

I believe someone has also noted... Frederick, Prince of Wales' (son of George II) eldest child was Princess Augusta. She would have advanced to the throne had equal primogeniture existed.

Furthermore, George III had one daughter who was older than the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) who would have been ahead of Victoria for many years - though since she she had no children and died before her oldest brother (George IV) the actual line of succession to Victoria would not have been altered.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI & I and mother of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, would have been Elizabeth II of England had equal primogeniture existed in the 17th century instead of her younger brother becoming Charles I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 10-17-2011, 11:04 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.

IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.
I highly doubt that Vicky would have married someone that close to his own throne had she been first in line. With as many royals as there were floating around Europe in the 1850s-60s, her own Prince Philip would have been found.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
Princess Victoria married the German emperor Frederick III before her mother passed away. Wouldn't equal primogeniture have merged the two crowns if she became queen...would the same happen under equal primogeniture today? Lets say the eldest child of William and Catherine would be a daughter if she were to marry the eldest child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden if the child is a son, both children would be heirs to their individual countries thrones...so William and Catherine's daughter would be Queen of UK and Queen consort of Sweden? Too complicated...primogeniture should be left alone for now.
I think in this kind of situation, they would have to decide which Crown to take and decline the other Crown, if there are demands for that kind of decision. Not the kind of pressure a King Regent and Queen Regent would want to have. However I suspect it's not all that likely anyway, but you never know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock221B View Post
IMHO attention should be focused on the topic of succession and Catholicism.
I agree--I think it's probably much more practical to remove the requirement that the sponsor of a King/Queen be non-Catholics, although that too could also open up another can of worms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:24 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
The proposed changes to the Act of Settlement will only apply to the order of succession when Charles becomes King.

The York's are doomed to never touch the throne.
And this would be a bad thing??

__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:58 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
And this would be a bad thing??

I strongly suspect that if they're going to set a new "root" ancestor to replace Electress Sophia, they'd pick someone more recent, maybe Queen Victoria? That way there'll be enough descendants just in case some unforseeable disaster strikes the family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 10-17-2011, 06:25 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
And this would be a bad thing??

Considering the spine shattering shiver that would run through that island if Andrew (and through him Fergie) got anywhere near the throne? Yeah, we might see this as a good thing.

BUT...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If the change was to move Anne and her line above that of Andrew then there would be a very big change - who would be eligible to be the 4th CoS - from Andrew to Anne and Peter would then have to be prepared to take on that responsibility as well (something he hasn't really ever been prepared to do as it was always assumed that he would never have to serve in that capacity) while Beatrice would have been prepared to do it.
I agree, while Anne would do her mother's legacy proud what comes next? Would Anne's children be ready to take on the insane responsibility suddenly thrust upon them? Would it surprise anyone if one or both simply held up their hands and said, "No Thanks"? Then what?

If anything I think that might be the reason why the change wouldn't apply to the current royals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:11 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,772
I think establishing this change for the next unborn generation would be a good idea, leaving the status quo for the current royals. And it would be a good idea to do it soon, IMO, before William and Kate have a child, not decide afterward once they already have a family. I remember hearing about how the Swedish legislation changed the order of succession after Victoria and Carl Philip were born. He was actually the heir being the son although the second born, then Victoria was named when it was decided to change to equal primogeniture for firstborn regardless of gender. Somehow, I don't think it was fair to do it at that point, but that's just how I feel looking at this particular situation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 10-18-2011, 10:51 AM
EmpressRouge's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal_Eagle View Post
I strongly suspect that if they're going to set a new "root" ancestor to replace Electress Sophia, they'd pick someone more recent, maybe Queen Victoria? That way there'll be enough descendants just in case some unforseeable disaster strikes the family.
I see that happening, too. It's just more practical and other lines of successions are much shorter (~10-15 people) and imagine applying equal primogeniture to the thousands of descendants of Electress Sophia.
I understand why Queen Victoria would proposed, but there are lots of descendants of Victoria, Princess Royal and German Empress who might be able to claim spots, such as Princess Felicitas' surviving family, over the Windsors if Parliament didn't put in some special provisions.
Princess Felicitas of Prussia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, many of Queen Victoria's descendants married foreign royals, including the current REIGNING houses of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and even Monaco via Princess Alexandra of Hanover. The Spanish Royal Family are not in the line because they are Catholic but they are also going to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics (I doubt it will be applied retroactively but it's another complication).
IMO, George V would be a much more logical and practical "root" ancestor. First, most if not all of his living decedents are British since none of them have married into a foreign house. Remember when George I came from Hanover and he couldn't speak English very well? Second, George V was the founder of the House of Windsor, so that makes sense symbolically. Third, the impact of equal primogeniture on the line of succession would be minimal (Princess Anne and her descendants leap-frogging over Prince Andrew's. The Lascelles family over the Gloucesters and Kents, etc) and make the line of succession a big (in the event of some disaster), but still manageable group. Finally, the current royal family IS already the living descendants of George V. They're the ones that appear on the balcony at Trooping the Colour every year; just add the Lascelles family and it's complete.
__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 10-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpressRouge View Post
I see that happening, too. It's just more practical and other lines of successions are much shorter (~10-15 people) and imagine applying equal primogeniture to the thousands of descendants of Electress Sophia.
I understand why Queen Victoria would proposed, but there are lots of descendants of Victoria, Princess Royal and German Empress who might be able to claim spots, such as Princess Felicitas' surviving family, over the Windsors if Parliament didn't put in some special provisions.
Princess Felicitas of Prussia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, many of Queen Victoria's descendants married foreign royals, including the current REIGNING houses of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and even Monaco via Princess Alexandra of Hanover. The Spanish Royal Family are not in the line because they are Catholic but they are also going to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics (I doubt it will be applied retroactively but it's another complication).
IMO, George V would be a much more logical and practical "root" ancestor. First, most if not all of his living decedents are British since none of them have married into a foreign house. Remember when George I came from Hanover and he couldn't speak English very well? Second, George V was the founder of the House of Windsor, so that makes sense symbolically. Third, the impact of equal primogeniture on the line of succession would be minimal (Princess Anne and her descendants leap-frogging over Prince Andrew's. The Lascelles family over the Gloucesters and Kents, etc) and make the line of succession a big (in the event of some disaster), but still manageable group. Finally, the current royal family IS already the living descendants of George V. They're the ones that appear on the balcony at Trooping the Colour every year; just add the Lascelles family and it's complete.
Good point. I had thought of George V in fact, but figured Queen Victoria might be more symbolic, as she has been such a major historical figure in British history. But George V would also be very good candidate for "root" ancestor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 10-18-2011, 12:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Why is there any need to change the "root ancestor" at all? As I understand it any chnages in succession law will only affect those yet to be born all of whom will be descendents of the Electress. It should not matter that there are approximately 1900 people, living in different countries, who have some remote claim to the throne. I suspect they rather enjoy being able to say "bye the way did you know that I am 449th in succession, lol".
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 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]