The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2941  
Old 02-01-2017, 01:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Of course she can. She is the only person in the realm with the authority to do so.

You're maybe conflating peerages with royal styles and titles. Peerages require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone but not HRH/prince/ss

When it comes to royal styles, 'The Queen can giveth and The Queen can taketh away'

What some have been discussing is if Harry for whatever reason didn't seek/get permission to marry and marries anyway. Would there be some sort of 'punishment' for lack of better word.

By statute he would be excluded from the line of succession but titles are the prerogative of the sovereign.

Although a different set of circumstances, Edward VIII's abdication made him in the words of Geoffrey Ellis 'A Private citizen of the crown, who by implication has also lost the right to style himself H.R.H.'


Would Harry's exclusion from the line of succession be viewed as him becoming a 'private citizen of the crown and therefore not entitled to style himself HRH'

Ultimately it would be up to the Queen (or Charles) to decide.
In any case, even if the Queen could strip Harry of his royal title, the relevant point is that new LPs would still be needed. What I and other posters were arguing is that the Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about royal titles and, similarly, the Letters Patent 1917 say nothing about succession rights. If Harry married without consent, the only legal effect under the Succession to the Crown Act would be that he and hs descendants wouldn't have succession rights, but his HRH status as a grandson of a sovereign in male line and the HRH status of his children (for the same reason when Charles became king) would be preserved under the LPs 1917, which have not been repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2942  
Old 02-01-2017, 01:40 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.
last time i checked there was about 4000 in the line to succession .
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2943  
Old 02-01-2017, 02:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In any case, even if the Queen could strip Harry of his royal title, the relevant point is that new LPs would still be needed. What I and other posters were arguing is that the Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about royal titles and, similarly, the Letters Patent 1917 say nothing about succession rights. If Harry married without consent, the only legal effect under the Succession to the Crown Act would be that he and hs descendants wouldn't have succession rights, but his HRH status as a grandson of a sovereign in male line and the HRH status of his children (for the same reason when Charles became king) would be preserved under the LPs 1917, which have not been repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. In fact, there are hundreds of people in the line of succession to the British throne, but only 14 of them are currently HRHs, meaning that being in the line of succession is not a sufficient condition to be an HRH. Conversely, there were people in the past who were not in the line of succession, but were HRHs nonetheless in their own right (for example, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Michael of Kent), meaning that being in the line of succession is not a necessary condition either to be an HRH in the UK.
Of course there are people in the line of succession who aren't HRH but all the groups of people stated in the LPs of 1864 and the LPs of 1917 were in the line of succession. Up until Edward VIII, other than wives, there was never a royal highness outside the line of succession.

It was the spirit of the LPs.

The abdication was a one off, so it's difficult to extrapolate but exclusion by virtue of abdication must be viewed differently from exclusion from marrying a catholic (at the time) as to why Prince Michael of Kent remained an HRH.

You're right, Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about titles but that's not surprising since this has always been the sovereign's personal prerogative.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that if Harry purposely did marry without permission, he and his children could be 'denied' HRH

This is all hypothetical as the Queen will give Harry permission to marry.
Reply With Quote
  #2944  
Old 02-01-2017, 02:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Of course there are people in the line of succession who aren't HRH but all the groups of people stated in the LPs of 1864 and the LPs of 1917 were in the line of succession. Up until Edward VIII, other than wives, there was never a royal highness outside the line of succession.

It was the spirit of the LPs.

The abdication was a one off, so it's difficult to extrapolate but exclusion by virtue of abdication must be viewed differently from exclusion from marrying a catholic (at the time) as to why Prince Michael of Kent remained an HRH.

You're right, Succession to the Crown Act 2017 says nothing about titles but that's not surprising since this has always been the sovereign's personal prerogative.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that if Harry purposely did marry without permission, he and his children could be 'denied' HRH

This is all hypothetical as the Queen will give Harry permission to marry.

Since it is a hypothetical scenario anyway, it is not worth speculating.

Let me just take the opportunity to fix my previous typo: I meant the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, not 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #2945  
Old 02-01-2017, 03:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If, however, Charles never became king, Harry's children would be only Lord/Lady [name] Mountbatten-Windsor forever , unless they got some other title later, wouldn't they ? In other words, they would be great-grandchildren of a former sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II), but they wouldn't be grandchildren of any sovereign (as Elizabeth's successor would be their uncle William instead of their grandfather).

I think that would depend on the circumstances.

Technically, as the LPs stand they would never be styled as the grandchildren of the monarch, but rather as the child of the monarch. Depending on the circumstances, the monarch might wish to issue LPs to change that though.

I think in the hypothetical situation where Harry marries without consent, LPs wouldn't be forthcoming in this regards. However, were something to happen to Charles and Harry married with consent, I think both the Queen and William would be willing to issue LPs (depending on who was monarch), if Harry and his wife wanted it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
The queen can't issue LP stripping a person of his peerage or baronetage title, but she can strip of the style and title of Royal Highness. It's her right (see Sarah, Duchess of York).

No, that's not what happened there.

Sarah never had titles in her own right, neither did Diana. They held their titles as the wives of British princes, and when they ceased to be the wives of British princes the Queen had to decide how that was to be handled; were they now HRHs in their own right, or were they no longer HRHs.

If you look at the 1997 LPs it doesn't actually name Sarah (or Diana). Rather it addresses the ex-spouses of people who were covered by the 1917 LPs and basically states that the 1917 LPs don't apply to them.

The monarch can grant titles to specific people using LPs, and can remove titles from groups of people using them (as happened in 1917 and 1997), but they can't use LPs to strip royal titles from individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #2946  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The monarch can grant titles to specific people using LPs, and can remove titles from groups of people using them (as happened in 1917 and 1997), but they can't use LPs to strip royal titles from individuals.
They can.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...upplement/2421
Reply With Quote
  #2947  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,001
It is all moot as harry's not going to marry without permission or marry anyone unsuitable.
Reply With Quote
  #2948  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:47 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It is all moot as harry's not going to marry without permission or marry anyone unsuitable.
It's not about Harry. It's about new Succession to the Crown Act and all royals.
Reply With Quote
  #2949  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:54 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,020
Harry is just being used for discussion purposes as he is someone who would need permission but losing the place in succession would not really be a big deal since he isn't a direct heir. In the past, there would be no questions about titles but now there can be.
Reply With Quote
  #2950  
Old 02-01-2017, 05:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,678
It makes no sense to say the sovereign can grant the style and not restrict it. It's been done in the past.

The LPs of 1898 granted the style HRH to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales

The LPs of 1917 restricted this to the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.

The LPs 0f 2012 again expanded this to all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.

The Law Officers from the House of Lords said in 1937.

"The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

In our hypothetical case Harry would be a 'particular circumstance'
Reply With Quote
  #2951  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post


How is that an example of LPs being used to strip someone of a title?

Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenburg was born a Her Highness.

In 1906, her uncle elevated her to a Her Royal Highness, as shown in the LPs. This was done to elevate her status a bit for her engagement to the King of Spain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It makes no sense to say the sovereign can grant the style and not restrict it. It's been done in the past.



The LPs of 1898 granted the style HRH to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales



The LPs of 1917 restricted this to the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.



The LPs 0f 2012 again expanded this to all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.



The Law Officers from the House of Lords said in 1937.



"The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"



In out hypothetical case Harry would be a 'particular circumstance'


Rudolph, I think you're misunderstanding what I've said here.

The monarch can grant or remove titles from groups of people. The monarch can grant titles to specific people. The monarch cannot strip titles from specific people.

The LPs of 1864 restricted the use of the HRH Prince/Princess in a general way, saying that HRHs were the children of the Sovereign and the male-line grandchildren of a sovereign.

The LPs of 1898 expanded this use in a general way, allowing for the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales also be HRH Prince/Princess.

Royal Warrents were issued by Queen Victoria and Edward VII elevating specific people who were not covered by the 1864 and 1898 LPs; notably the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal and the Duke of Fife (who were not born royal, were elevated to HH Princess), the children of Prince and Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (who would have been HSH under Christian's titles, but were elevated to HH), and Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (who was elevated to HRH until her marriage).

In 1917 the LPs were issued to limit the use of the HRH, but only took titles from individuals who had previously held them only through other previous, general coverages. The Schleswig-Holsteins remained HHs, and the daughters of Princess Louise remained HRHs, they just chose (after marriage) to not utilize these titles. The people who had been HHs under the old rules lost those titles (there were no children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, then being the future Edward VII, who was still unmarried).

The 1937 LPs granted Edward Windsor the title HRH The Duke of Windsor after his abdication, essentially establishing that an abdicated monarch is not covered as a child or male-line grandchild (or for that matter a son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales), all of which he still was through the 1917 LPs. It was also established in a general way, saying that the wife and children of the Duke of Windsor were not extended the same styles and titles that they would have otherwise been entitled to under the 1917 LPs; and I say "in a general way" because at the time the Duke of Windsor was not married so technically Wallis wasn't being denied the title, a hypothetical wife of the Duke of Windsor was being denied the title.

The Law Office in 1937 was not saying that the monarch could issue LPs specifically stripping someone of a title previous LPs had granted. They were saying that when the monarch issued LPs they could dictate the way in which the title was shared. Before the part you quoted, the Law Office said that precedent dictated that the wife of an HRH also be an HRH, "unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it."

Basically, the statement your quoting is saying "your brother isn't covered by LPs anymore and if you word the LPs carefully you can deny Wallis Simpson from sharing her husband-to-be's titles without creating morganatic law."
Reply With Quote
  #2952  
Old 02-02-2017, 07:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Rudolph, I think you're misunderstanding what I've said here.

The monarch can grant or remove titles from groups of people. The monarch can grant titles to specific people. The monarch cannot strip titles from specific people.
I do understand what it is you're saying but I don't agree.

Why would this anomaly exist in your opinion? Why would the sovereign have the personal prerogative to grant the style to an individual but not the prerogative to remove it?

Parliament's consent isn't required to 'strip' someone of royal highness because parliament's consent isn't required to grant someone royal highness in the first place.

Peerages are a different beast all together. There is an entire body of statute, case and constitutional law surrounding peerages. Only the government can grant them and only the government can revoke or alter them.

It's done in sovereign's name but it's government doing it.

The reason for doing this is to peerages there is attached a constitutional role, the right to sit in the House of Lords. Peers play a role in the government and legislation.

Also there is a change in the status of the individual. Being elevated from commoner to noble entitled a person to trial in the House of Lords (since abolished)

And although today most peers are life peerages, there are still over 90 hereditary peers in the House of Lords.


None of this considerable body of law applies in anyway to royal highnesses and princes/esses

These styles and titles carry with them zero privileges or status. Princess Anne has no more legal rights, privileges or status under the law than Zara Tindall.

Unlike peerages, there are no rights attached to royal styles that can be defended in a court of law.

In Britain being a royal highness and prince or princess denotes nothing more than a degree of relation to the sovereign. Sons, daughters, male-line grandchildren etc.

It's nothing more than a courtesy and doesn't require an act of parliament to 'strip' someone of it.
Reply With Quote
  #2953  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
[...]

Putting it in another way, HRH status in the UK is not legally tied to succession rights as it is for example in the Netherlands. [...]
The HRH is not tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. The following person do (did) not (or no longer) enjoy succession rights but are (were) HRH:

HRH Princess Beatrix (abdicated)
HRH Princess Juliana (abdicated)
HRH Princess Wilhelmina (abdicated)
HRH Prince Friso (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Irene (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Christina (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Máxima (by creation and elevation)
HRH Prince Claus (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Bernhard (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Hendrik (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Princess Mabel (by courtesy)
HRH Princess Laurentien (by courtesy)

Reply With Quote
  #2954  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:26 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,545
""

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The HRH is not tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. The following person do (did) not (or no longer) enjoy succession rights but are (were) HRH:

HRH Princess Beatrix (abdicated)
HRH Princess Juliana (abdicated)
HRH Princess Wilhelmina (abdicated)
HRH Prince Friso (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Irene (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Christina (married without Act of Consent)
HRH Princess Máxima (by creation and elevation)
HRH Prince Claus (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Bernhard (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Prince Hendrik (by creation and incorporation)
HRH Princess Mabel (by courtesy)
HRH Princess Laurentien (by courtesy)


Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, the title of "Prince of the Netherlands" explicitly expires when a person ceases to be a member of the Royal House. A former monarch after abdication is automatically a member of the Royal House and a Prince of the Netherlands, which explains why Beatrix is an HRH today, but other relatives of the current King up to the second degree of consanguinity are members of the Royal House only as long as they have succession rights. That is why Prince Friso, for example, when he lost his succession rights, ceased to be a Prince of the Netherlands and retained only his previous title of Prince of Orange-Nassau.

Now, in principle, someone who is not a Prince of the Netherlands should not be entitled to the predicate HRH and, therefore, post-2002, HRH status is, in principle, indeed tied to succession rights. Prince Friso was an exception since, although he ceased to be a Prince of the Netherlands, Queen Beatrix allowed him by royal decree to keep the HRH predicate even though that was illogical. Beatrix's sisters are also a different situation because they were excuded from the line of succession prior to the 2002 law and, therefore, never ceased to be princesses of the Netherlands.

Mabel and Laurentien are HRHs only by courtesy, so their examples are immaterial to the discussion; Máxima is a princess of the Netherlands in her own right, which is possible under the law in the case of the wife of the heir to the throne and the consort of the monarch, but my previous remark was about "princes/princesses of the blood", and not about princesses by marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #2955  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The HRH is not [legally] tied to the succession rights in the Netherlands. [...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Under the Wet Lidmaatschap Koninklijk Huis, the title of "Prince of the Netherlands" explicitly expires when a person ceases to be a member of the Royal House. [...] Now, in principle, someone who is not a Prince of the Netherlands should not be entitled to the predicate HRH [...]
The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729
Reply With Quote
  #2956  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,545
"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729
True, but Princess Margriet's sons, who are only "princes of Orange-Nassau", but not "princes of the Netherlands", use the style only of "Highness" rather than "Royal Highness", which is why Queen Beatrix's decision about Prince Friso's style was illogical or, at least, inconsistent. I suppose it is (or should be) self-evident that someone who is not a "prince of the Netherlands" should not be an HRH in the Netherlands.

In fact, the Dutch government gave very bad advice to Queen Beatrix not only in the case of Prince Friso, but also with respect to Prince Constantijn's children.
Reply With Quote
  #2957  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:35 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,545
I have a question which some of you, I hope, might be able to answer: is the title of "Princess Royal" also granted by Letters Patent as the title of "Prince of Wales" ?
Reply With Quote
  #2958  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,678
^^^ No. The style is honorary and carries with it no precedence. It's granted by royal warrant.
Reply With Quote
  #2959  
Old 02-08-2017, 12:23 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis ties the title "Prince of the Netherlands" to succession rights, but it does not legally tie the predicates HRH or HH to any title.

wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis - BWBR0013729
HRH and HH are no titles but a form of address. Exactly like Your Eminence to a Cardinal, Your Excellency to an Ambassador or Lord/Lady/Your Lordship/Your Ladyship.

It is not tied to the membership of the Royal House or to the line of succession. The fact that the princes/princesses de Bourbon de Parme (no members of the Royal House and no successors) which belong to the Nobility of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are HRH is an example. The same counts for Princess Beatrix, Princess Máxima (as is her legal title) and the late Prince Friso. No successors either but HRH: Prince Michael of Kent, Prince Alexander of Belgium, Prince Louis of Nassau, etc.

That Prince Friso remained a HRH is logic. He was a prince of the blood royal. In Belgium, the United Kingdom, in Luxembourg, in the Netherlands, etc. we have seen different examples of persons no longer in succession, or never had succession rights, but remained a HRH.

It would be weird when Prince Friso would meet Prince Ernst August of Hannover, a royal without throne with his former country as part of a republic, that he then is HRH Prince Ernst August but Friso is suddenly denoted to HH because he did not seek an Act of Consent for his marriage. Note that HH Prince Pieter-Christiaan and HH Prince Floris were not "demoted" either when they married without an Act of Consent. They simply kept the form of address they enjoyed.
Reply With Quote
  #2960  
Old 03-30-2017, 08:39 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 140
When Charles becomes King, will William automatically be Prince of Wales?

When His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, becomes His Majesty The King Charles III (or George VII), will Prince William automatically be the next Prince of Wales, or will the Wales title merge in with the crown for King Charles?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, kate, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1724 Today 10:26 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 735 01-30-2017 01:39 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 749 06-29-2016 06:02 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
albania autographs baptism best gown september 2016 best outfit best outfit september 2016 birthday coel hen crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion current events december denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cambridge cocktail dresses duchess of cambridge eveningwear far-right fashion poll king abdullah ii king philippe lists monaco monarchy morgan multiple births nazi nobel nobel gala november 2016 october 2016 paris picture of the week pieter van vollenhoven prince charles prince liam princess marie fashion princess marie style princess mary princess mary fashion princess sofia queen elizabeth ii queen frederika queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen mathildes hats queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion rohan family state visit succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats what ifs


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:50 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises