The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3521  
Old 06-09-2018, 09:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,250
I agree it is a strange situation, the Earl and Countess of Wessex's children being known as Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, rather than Princess Louise and Prince James.

However, at the time the decision was made, there was no intention of Edward and Sophie being working Royals. They both had careers and intended to continue with those careers. Only when it became obvious that their closeness of relationship to the Queen made that impractical did they give up their careers and began working for the Royal Family.
So now, they all seem to be operating under the same terms as they would have without that announcement of "the Queen's will."
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3522  
Old 06-09-2018, 11:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,829
I think there existed other motives for the decision, as children's titles and styles generally have no influence on their royal parents' careers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3523  
Old 06-09-2018, 11:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think there existed other motives for the decision, as children's titles and styles generally have no influence on their royal parents' careers.

That is not what I said.



But the Wessexes lives would have been quite different if Sophie and Edward had continued their careers and the Prince/Princess titles would have been a distraction.
Reply With Quote
  #3524  
Old 06-09-2018, 11:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
That is not what I said.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. There have been speculations that the decision about the Wessex children's titles was due to their parents not being working royals and continuing their careers at the time, and that was what my previous comment applied to.
Reply With Quote
  #3525  
Old 06-12-2018, 08:59 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,183
Methinks that they're going to need wider paper in order to get the full title on the official letterhead for communications.
__________________
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
  #3526  
Old 07-25-2018, 09:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
Anyway, I don't think that someone needs to be treated a special way or deserves more than others just because he or she was born in this family or another.

Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?



Quote:

Thus, the York girls should not be treated or accorded anything else/more than their Phillips cousins just because they are descended in male-line from the Queen. The gender preference does not even apply any more to the order of succession. They should be, though, only if they were performing official duties on behalf of the Sovereign and working for the monarchy. Or maybe also when in the direct line to the throne, with a real possibility to succeed one day. But they don't. Are not. In fact, they are simply the Queen's granddaughters and their status of princesses of blood is archaic and meaningless today. At least for the people. I'm sure that their Grandma loves them, though
Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned:


  1. Belgium and Sweden: all grandchildren of the King are princes/princesses and HRHs.
  2. Denmark: all grandchildren of the Queen are princes/princesses, but only the heir's children are HRHs; the Queen's younger son's children are HHs.
  3. The UK: the Queen's grandchildren in male line are HRHs (except Prince Edward's children for obscure reasons to be honest); otherwise, grandchildren in female line are untitled, unless they inherit a title from their father. The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes/princesses and HRHs too.
  4. The Netherlands and Spain: only the heir's children are now HRHs (princes/princesses in the Netherlands and infantes/infantas in Spain); children of the monarch's other children are not HRHs, but belong to the nobility or are treated as such: they are counts/countesses in the Netherlands (the counts being able to pass on their title to the next generation) and, in Spain, they are accorded the rank and style of a grandee, but do not transmit that rank to their descendants.

In conclusion then, it seems to me that:


  • Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
  • The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #3527  
Old 07-25-2018, 09:35 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
...
  • The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway.
The Queen respected the wishes of her daughter, the Princess Royal, with relation of titles to her grandchildren. Peter and Zara have not suffered at all from being title-less - at the end of the day they are still in the line of succession and are very much included in major Royal events. I have to applaud Princess Anne in having the foresight and strength to be the first daughter of a Monarch to giveway to titles.


As for Eugenie's wedding - it all sounds lovely and in line to the wishes of the happy couple. As many have attested - haters are going to hate....
Reply With Quote
  #3528  
Old 07-25-2018, 09:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
The Queen respected the wishes of her daughter, the Princess Royal, with relation of titles to her grandchildren. Peter and Zara have not suffered at all from being title-less - at the end of the day they are still in the line of succession and are very much included in major Royal events. I have to applaud Princess Anne in having the foresight and strength to be the first daughter of a Monarch to giveway to titles.

I think I am talking about a more structural issue that has nothing to do with Anne's or the Queen's will per se. Anne's children would have titles (or differentiated styles) if their father were titled as, in the past, children of British princesses had titles because their mothers married crown princes, kings, emperors, grand dukes, sovereign dukes/princes, or simply British peers. They would not get their titles or styles from their mother though, or from their condition of grandchildren of the Queen. That is the point which I find unfair compared to the practice for example in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, or even in the Netherlands.



Call me old-fashioned, but I think all grandchildren of a sovereign (in male or female line) should have a special rank/style (not necessarly an HRH, but maybe an HH or some noble rank) for the sole reason that they are the monarch's grandchildren, and independently of their father holding any title.


I hope I made myself clearer now.
Reply With Quote
  #3529  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:04 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 510
Quote:
Call me old-fashioned, but I think all grandchildren of a sovereign (in male or female line) should have a special rank/style (not necessarly an HRH, but maybe an HH or some noble rank) for the sole reason that they are the monarch's grandchildren, and independently of their father holding any title.


I hope I made myself clearer now.
You did, to me, and I totally agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #3530  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:24 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In conclusion then, it seems to me that:
  • Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
  • The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.
Clearly times are changing and that's what is currently reflected in the titles.

I am not so sure that Peter and Zara's lack of titles is too harsh. If we compare them to others whose princess mother married a commoner in the seventies, Sweden comes up as an example. The Magnusson cousins not only lack a title but are even excluded from the line of succession. Comparing the Phillipses with children that were born decades later (Madeleine's) isn't a fair comparison imo. The case of Astrid's children is also very specific. Had Philip married younger, I don't think they would have been princes of Belgium as this was part of introducing them as possible heirs to avoid Laurent becoming king. The eldest held only their father's titles from birth.

The children of the Luxembourg princesses are titled only because their fathers are. In the Netherlands Margriet's children received a personal title but we'll have to wait and see what happens in Alexia and Ariane's case. In general the tendency seems to be less(er) titles. Juliana did have untitled grandchildren as well by her youngest daughter Christina.

In Liechtenstein, titles are exclusively passed on in male-line. Hans-Adam's 7 grandchildren by his only daughter are not titled while all his other grandchildren are.
Reply With Quote
  #3531  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Clearly times are changing and that's what is currently reflected in the titles.

I am not so sure that Peter and Zara's lack of titles is too harsh. If we compare them to others whose princess mother married a commoner in the seventies, Sweden comes up as an example. The Magnusson cousins not only lack a title but are even excluded from the line of succession. Comparing the Phillipses with children that were born decades later (Madeleine's) isn't a fair comparison imo. The case of Astrid's children is also very specific. Had Philip married younger, I don't think they would have been princes of Belgium as this was part of introducing them as possible heirs to avoid Laurent becoming king. The eldest held only their father's titles from birth.

The children of the Luxembourg princesses are titled only because their fathers are. In the Netherlands Margriet's children received a personal title but we'll have to wait and see what happens in Alexia and Ariane's case. In general the tendency seems to be less(er) titles. Juliana did have untitled grandchildren as well by her youngest daughter Christina.

In Liechtenstein, titles are exclusively passed on in male-line. Hans-Adam's 7 grandchildren by his only daughter are not titled while all his other grandchildren are.

I find Mbruno's comparisons to be fair, as neither the children of Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson, nor the children of Princess Astrid of Belgium until 1991, nor the children of Princess Christina of the Netherlands, were in the line of succession. In addition, the marriage of Princess Christina of Sweden was declared unequal and the marriage of Princess Christina of the Netherlands did not obtain consent from parliament. He also stated that his comparisons were the major European monarchies (excluding Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Monaco).

I'm not sure if Princess Astrid's eldest only held his father's titles from birth. Amedeo was (in Belgium) Prince Amedeo, Archduke of Austria-Este until 1991, when he became Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este, whereas his father was "only" Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este until 1995 (see the discussion in the royal titles in Belgium thread).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?



Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned:


  1. Belgium and Sweden: all grandchildren of the King are princes/princesses and HRHs.
  2. Denmark: all grandchildren of the Queen are princes/princesses, but only the heir's children are HRHs; the Queen's younger son's children are HHs.
  3. The UK: the Queen's grandchildren in male line are HRHs (except Prince Edward's children for obscure reasons to be honest); otherwise, grandchildren in female line are untitled, unless they inherit a title from their father. The children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes/princesses and HRHs too.
  4. The Netherlands and Spain: only the heir's children are now HRHs (princes/princesses in the Netherlands and infantes/infantas in Spain); children of the monarch's other children are not HRHs, but belong to the nobility or are treated as such: they are counts/countesses in the Netherlands (the counts being able to pass on their title to the next generation) and, in Spain, they are accorded the rank and style of a grandee, but do not transmit that rank to their descendants.

In conclusion then, it seems to me that:


  • Beatrice and Eugenie's dignity is not unusual by European standards and by no means excessive. In fact, it is the same dignity as that of the children of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, or of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine, and only marginally higher than that of Prince Joachim's children.
  • The lack of titles for Princess Anne's children, on the other hand, seems too harsh by European standards compared again to Princess Astrid's and Princess Madeleine's children (who are HRHs), or even to Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's children (who are not HRHs, but are at least "His/Her Excellency"). In fact, the only royal grandchildren in the major European kingdoms who are in the same position as Princess Anne's children (i.e. are only Mr./Ms.) are Princess Märtha Louise's children in Norway, and Norway has an extremely slimmed-down monarchy.
The lack of royal styles or titles for grandchildren of a monarch in collateral lines of the Norwegian, Spanish, and Dutch royal families is also rather new. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were born, every individual in the order of succession to the Norwegian, Spanish, and Dutch thrones was a Prince(ss) and/or a Royal Highness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They would not get their titles or styles from their mother though, or from their condition of grandchildren of the Queen. That is the point which I find unfair compared to the practice for example in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, or even in the Netherlands.
And perhaps, compared to Norway too. It may be that if Crown Prince Haakon had a younger brother, his children would have been untitled like the children of Princess Märtha Louise.
Reply With Quote
  #3532  
Old 07-25-2018, 10:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,183
Where did Eugenie and Jack go?
__________________
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
  #3533  
Old 07-26-2018, 05:16 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Isn't that what hereditary monarchy is based on though ? I mean, treating certain people in a special way just because they were born in a particular family ?


(That's why I am a republican!

Anyway, to the point (but off-topic, I know, I know...): the hereditary status is more about the succession to the throne and not styles, titles and dignities. We treat special someone because he/she will be the Sovereign one day but why should we anyone else? Just because they are descended from a Sovereign but does not play any official role in the monarchy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Let's compare different European monarchies as far as titles of the monarch's grandchildren are concerned: [...]
I wasn't talking anything about the York girls' titles. I understand that that's the current law and practice in the UK, granting them their status and titles (mind the Wessexes, though...).


As I said, the Princess should follow an example a low-scale wedding of a minor prince not expected to work for the Firm, who Prince Richard was back in the days.
Reply With Quote
  #3534  
Old 07-26-2018, 03:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
(That's why I am a republican!

Anyway, to the point (but off-topic, I know, I know...): the hereditary status is more about the succession to the throne and not styles, titles and dignities. We treat special someone because he/she will be the Sovereign one day but why should we anyone else? Just because they are descended from a Sovereign but does not play any official role in the monarchy?

Well, my point was that, in all current European kingdoms, close members of the monarch's family, other than his/her spouse and his/her heir, have special titles and/or styles. In fact, the status of the York girls is not different from that of other grandchildren of a sovereign who are in the line of succession to the thrones of some other countries ( I added the qualification in italics to respond to Somebody's counter-examples about countries that have or had agnatic succession).



The abnormal situation, if any, is not that of the York girls, but rather of Princess Anne's kids, who are alone with Princess Märtha Louise's girls in being plain "Mr/Ms". I don't dispute that Peter and Zara are probably perfectly fine with not having titles, or that they didn't need titles to have successful careers, but that doesn't change my mind that it is unfair anyway.



On the other hand, the situation of Eugenie's possible future children is different. As great-grandchildren of the monarch not in direct line to the throne, the case for their having titles of the Royal House (as opposed to titles inherited from their father) is much weaker.
Reply With Quote
  #3535  
Old 07-27-2018, 06:05 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 323
A hypothetical question: the 2nd Duke of Whatever acceeds to the throne through his mother, Jane Doe, but he also holds the Dukedom which he inherited from his father, John Doe. I assume the Dukedom is merging with the crown the moment he becomes King? Is it absolute and cannot pass to anyone? What about a situation when he has a daughter only, who succeeds him in the Crown but cannot inherit the Dukedom. Will it pass to his younger brother or is it already extinct because of its merge with the Crown and the brother needs to be given a new dukedom (re-creation)?

Or when the said King, former 2nd Duke, has only one son, who changed his religion and became Catholic, thus losing his rights to the throne. He cannot inherit the throne but what about the Dukedom? I assume the Dukedom needs to be re-created for him, if the King wants it to be passed on to the next generation. But maybe I'm wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #3536  
Old 07-27-2018, 06:22 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
A hypothetical question: the 2nd Duke of Whatever acceeds to the throne through his mother, Jane Doe, but he also holds the Dukedom which he inherited from his father, John Doe. I assume the Dukedom is merging with the crown the moment he becomes King? Is it absolute and cannot pass to anyone? What about a situation when he has a daughter only, who succeeds him in the Crown but cannot inherit the Dukedom. Will it pass to his younger brother or is it already extinct because of its merge with the Crown and the brother needs to be given a new dukedom (re-creation)?
Yes, it's absolute. The dukedom ceases to exist when it merges in the crown. It can never be inherited again once that happens.

A committee of the House of Lords heard a claim on the matter (relating to a peerage held by William IV) and ruled that a peerage becomes extinct when it would be held by the sovereign.
Reply With Quote
  #3537  
Old 07-27-2018, 06:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,183
I think a pretty good example of how this works is to actually look at Prince Philip's title of The Duke of Edinburgh. Philip was created the DoE by George VI at the time of his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. As it was a new creation, Philip is the 1st Duke of Edinburgh.

Now, the intention is that eventually Philip's dukedom will pass to his son Edward. The remainder of Philip's title is that it passes to the eldest son who is Charles. Should Philip die before his wife, Charles will also hold the title of the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. Once both Philip and Elizabeth have passed on, the title of DoE reverts to the Crown. It is then that Charles would honor his parents' wishes and create Edward as The Duke of Edinburgh. As it is a new creation of the title, Edward would also be the 1st DoE in its 2nd creation. It would therefore be his son, James, that would inherit that title upon Edward's death as the 2nd DoE and so on down the line.

Any male holding a duchy that becomes King automatically has the duchy and its title revert back to the Crown to be granted in a new creation (with the exception of being the Duke of Lancaster as that's a duchy specific to a monarch. Queen Elizabeth is actually the Duke of Lancaster).

Now, another example would be if Johnny Spencer had two sons. Upon his death, the eldest son, Charles would inherit the title. If Charles only had daughters and the remainder to the title were specific to males, if Charles died with only daughters, the title then would go to the second son (we'll call him Jake) and continue on down through his line. Should Jake die with no sons, the title would then revert to the Crown and become extinct.

Remainders for daughters are few and far between at this time but have been known to happen. Case in point was Patricia Mountbatten, daughter of Louis Mountbatten (Uncle Dickie), Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Lady Mountbatten succeeded to her father’s title through a special remainder, granted by George VI in 1946, to allow the earldom to pass for one generation through the female line to her eldest son, Lord Romsey.

Hope this helps.

ETA: I'm not 100% positive on the Duke of Edinburgh being the 1st creation of the title for Philip.
__________________
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
  #3538  
Old 07-27-2018, 07:05 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,512
Philip's totle is the third creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title. So, Edward's will be the fourth.

Previous holders were:
Reply With Quote
  #3539  
Old 07-27-2018, 07:06 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 323
Thank you both for your answers, guys. I thought so!

Osipi, I think the most remarkable example of a special remainder meant for the female heirs is that of the Duke of Marlborough's. It is nearly impossible to die out, pretty like the line of succession to the British throne itself.

I quote:
  1. The heirs-male of the 1st Duke's body lawfully begotten;
  2. his eldest daughter and the heirs-male of her body lawfully begotten;
  3. his second and other daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten;
  4. his eldest daughter's oldest daughter and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten;
  5. his eldest daughter's second and other daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten
  6. all other daughters of his daughters, in seniority, and the heirs-male of their bodies lawfully begotten;
  7. and other descendants into the future in like fashion, with the intent that the Marlborough title never become extinct
Reply With Quote
  #3540  
Old 07-27-2018, 07:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
ETA: I'm not 100% positive on the Duke of Edinburgh being the 1st creation of the title for Philip.

From Wikipedia:
Dukes of Edinburgh, erste Verleihung (1726)

Dukes of Gloucester und Edinburgh (1764)

Dukes of Edinburgh, zweite Verleihung (1866)

Dukes of Edinburgh, dritte Verleihung (1947)

Titelerbe (Heir Apparent) ist der älteste Sohn des aktuellen Titelinhabers, Charles, Prince of Wales (* 1948).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-27-2019 12:04 AM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 782 10-28-2019 08:29 AM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 04:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 03:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales chittagong countess of snowdon crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history felipe vi foundation french revolution genealogy germany head of the house henry v house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma kiko king philippe letter lithuanian castles marriage mbs meghan markle monaco christening monaco history monarchist monogram naples nelson mandela bay nobel 2019 norwegian royal family official visit palaces potential areas prince harry prince of wales rania of jordan romanov family rumania shakespeare south africa south korea spain spanish history spanish royal state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty tracts united kingdom usa windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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