The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3861  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:10 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
If Elizabeth's first child was a girl, she would have been heir presumptive though and not heir apparent. If Charles was born second, he would preempt Anne as heir apparent. Until 2013, Anne followed all her brothers (and their children) and that's still the order in the line of succession.
Exactly, that's why I wrote 'one of her children' because at that point they had no clue whether her eldest child would be the future sovereign: yes, if a boy, and if a girl she would have become queen if all siblings were sisters.

But we're getting very much off-topic.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3862  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,323
I think there is a reason why nobles always keep their highest title, even if they don't use it all the time. Examples like Michael Ancram show how you can use part of your title just the way you need it in your life: Born Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram, he became a politician under the name Michael Ancram and even used this name when he inherited the title of the Marquess of Lothian at the death of his father. It was made easier by the fact that he has no son, so there is no new Earl of Ancram at the moment.

Depending of the situation, he was known as Mr. Michael Ancram (he as a lawyer thought it might irritate the judges in court that they had to call him My Lord, so worked under that name, he used that name as long as he sat in the Commons as MP)

Michael Lord Ancram, his inherited style, later The Marquess of Lothian (after his father's death).


Michael Kerr, Lord Kerr of Monteviot, (when he became a lifetime peer as Baron Kerr of Monteviot and entered the House of Lords, he retired from the Commons in 2010 and was created a lifetime peer in November 2010 - out of courtesy his highest title as Marquess of Lothian is used in parliament, even though he does not sit as Lord Lothian in the Lords).


So I can see Charles, who grew up in the era of a "mystical monarchy", loving the idea of being a benevolent father and grand-father surrounded by his Queen, princely sons, his daughters-in -law and grandchildren. While these grandchildren could just cease to use their Royal titles if they so chose. Eugenie works as "Eugenie York" for Hauser & Wirth (this did not change after her wedding) and if she wanted to, she could work, travel and even socialize as Mrs. Brooksbank. And just like that, prinely children of Harry could work as Mr. Sussex or even Mr. Windsor if they wanted. While Lady Louise can never be a princess, even if she wanted it, eg on marrying a foreign prince or British Lord.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3863  
Old 11-07-2018, 10:55 AM
Turby's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Augusta, United States
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
Personally, in the whole schene of HRHs I don't mind the current system.
To have only the children of William as HRH puts them on a pedestal and it's not a bad thing to have others of similar HRH status around children. What harm can it do for Harry's children to have HRH once Charles is KIng? There is no negative issue with Beatrice and Eugenie having had the same status as the Wales as they grew up.
(Louise and James were further down anyway so I see why their parents decided the way they did but if they were HRH; no problem.) Wouldn't they feel like they belonged to the same family? Doesn't it just identify/tag the obvious relationship to the monarch? HRH doesn't preclude them from earning their own living.

Similarly, there is no problem with the Gloucesters and the Kents having had HRH.
I am in complete agreement with you.
__________________
Georgian
Reply With Quote
  #3864  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 1,088
Why are some faulting Charles for the Queen’s failure to issue LPs regarding Harry’s future children? Last I checked Charles cannot issue LPs and the Queen is not mentally infirm and is quite capable of making her own decisions in matters such as these.
As it stands now Harry’s children will not be born HRH. Whether they become HRHs when Charles ascends the thrown is a decision the Queen may have chosen to let Charles make at the appropriate time.

In the case of Edward and Sophie they intended to continue working in private business and not become full time royals when they married and thus asked the Queen to style their children differently than their children would otherwise have been styled at birth. In doing so they created a situation which made the Yorks the odd ones as the only HRH non working royals of their generation. After the Wessex’s private careers imploded they became working royals, who’s to say if they had known how drastically their plans would change if they would have gone the Earl/future duke non HRH children route they took. Indeed, it’s possible the original plan was for the Yorks to become working Royals but the Wessex situation changed that.
During the Queen’s 90 plus years she has never acted impulsively, she has taken a wait and see approach. Harry’s children will not be born HRH, a decision by Charles that they should not become HRHs can be made by his own LPs when he is able to express his will once he is King if that’s what he, Harry, and Meghan want at that time.
A lot could change in the decade+ we all hope the Queen still has to live. If Charles were to predecease his mother Harry’s children would never become HRHs thus a decision would never have to be made unless William chose to issue LPs elevating them.
Better, IMO, to not make a statement about far future events/plans than to make a statement and then when things change have to change your position. One hopes Charles has learned that lesson with the ‘Camilla will not be Queen’ statement which may have to be retracted in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #3865  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:16 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,511
Those babies should be HRH’s through an issued LP. I really do think so. Especially being the grandchildren of the future King. These kids, both Cambridge and Sussex, will be the working faces of the new monarchy going into the future.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #3866  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Edward and Sophie didn’t make it known. The Queen did.

I.
IMO they accepted the queen's decision They didn't want to be working royals, and they didn't get a ducal title... I don't believe it was their choice for their children not to be HRH, and I doubut if Harry and M will want their children not being HRH
Reply With Quote
  #3867  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:42 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Those babies should be HRH’s through an issued LP. I really do think so. Especially being the grandchildren of the future King. These kids, both Cambridge and Sussex, will be the working faces of the new monarchy going into the future.
Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.
Reply With Quote
  #3868  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,537
And I don't think that Harry and Meghan will want their children to be HRH Prince/Princess either.
Reply With Quote
  #3869  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
IMO they accepted the queen's decision They didn't want to be working royals, and they didn't get a ducal title... I don't believe it was their choice for their children not to be HRH, and I doubut if Harry and M will want their children not being HRH
Edward didn't get a ducal title because he'll be made Duke of Edinburgh once that becomes available. It's a nice touch to have Prince Philip's title passed on to one of his sons.

As for Meghan and Harry. My suspicion is that they wouldn't. Just look at the struggle Harry had with his own role and status, and then look at their wedding. It was a beautiful wedding, but it was about as pared back as one can get. And it is in keeping with who they are.
Reply With Quote
  #3870  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,843
Right now, in the here and now, I think the most important "titles" that Harry and Meghan will hold dear are "Mummy" and "Papa" or "Daddy" and they'll be able to say "my son" or "my daughter".
__________________
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
  #3871  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.
The difference is timing. That's important too. Right now, the Queen's cousins are still quite active. They likely wouldn't be around, or still working, in 25 years' time. Charles and Anne aren't likely to be going at the same speed then either. I expect Andrew and Edward will slow down as well as they'll be in their 80s. While we are currently experiencing a bulge of working royals, it's going to significantly slim down through attrition in 25 years to far fewer.
Reply With Quote
  #3872  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 984
Harry and Meghan Are Expecting, Baby Due Spring 2019

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.


I do think a difference is that all 4 of HM’s children are FT working royals. And some of her cousins are working members as well. Charles has 2 kids. None of his cousins, nieces or nephews will be working members. The future is solely William’s family, Harry, Meghan and maybe their kids.

To me- it depends on just how many working royals they want, how slimmed down they want to be in the future...and what they’re going to give up to accomplish that. Something will have to give.

That being said- I won’t be surprised if Harry ‘s kids aren’t HRH based on the way the RF seems to be headed.
Reply With Quote
  #3873  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:01 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Only 4 of the 6 male-line grandchildren of the queen are HRH; and only 2 of them are 'working faces of the monarchy'. As Charles already has 3 'working face' grandchildren by William, I don't see a need at all for Harry's children to become full-time royals.
I firmly believe Harry and Meghan’s kids will carry out officially duties in the future. They will be the future of the Monarchy. Right now, it’s just on the Sussex’s and Cambridge’s. Duties will fall on the kids way into the future.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #3874  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:06 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saz83 View Post
I think it is interesting to look at the examples of those who were not entitled to HRH at birth but were expected to become HRH later (Charles and Anne, Charlotte and Louis). Letters patent were issued both times to make them HRH from birth. I may be wrong but I believe if the intention is for them to take HRH in the future then we will see letters patent issued to make them so from birth.

I think you may well be right. However, there is also the possibility that HM The Queen will decide to defer the decision to her successor, given that these children will most likely be way too young for Royal duties, and both intellectually unaware of and psychologically unaffected by the situation/any change.



In the Queen's family, the children of the two sons nearest the throne, i.e. her 4 'senior' grandchildren in terms of the succession, are HRH and it may be that as Charles only has two children, all his grandchildren will become HRH, even if there end up being 5 or 6 of them. In any case, I'm sure that it'll be a question of all of the Sussex children getting HRH or none.
Reply With Quote
  #3875  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:17 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
The difference is timing. That's important too. Right now, the Queen's cousins are still quite active. They likely wouldn't be around, or still working, in 25 years' time. Charles and Anne aren't likely to be going at the same speed then either. I expect Andrew and Edward will slow down as well as they'll be in their 80s. While we are currently experiencing a bulge of working royals, it's going to significantly slim down through attrition in 25 years to far fewer.
Yes, that argument has been made before but I don't buy it. I don't see how adding Harry and Meghan's children will help in this respect as the lowest numbers will be reached in about 20 year when Harry and Meghan's unborn child will come of age and thus be of little use.

There has been talk about slimming down the monarchy. Currently there are 15 members doing over 50 [days of] engagements a year. That is an unnecessarily large amount of which the majority do less than 100 [days of] engagements (only Charles, William, Andrew, Edward and Anne did surpass that number by November 1; the queen, Edward (Kent), Sophie, Richard and Harry might end up around 100 depending on their activities in the last 2 months of the year).

Taking a cut-off point of 85 years (it seems that most royals stay quite active until about that age; for example, the Duke of Kent at age 83 took on 92 engagements so far this year; comparable to his 10 year younger cousin the Duke of Gloucester):
- by January 2019 there are 15 full-time royals;
- by January 2029 this number will most likely drop to about 12 (still more than enough imo),
- 10 years (2039) the numbers will be at a relatively low point (if Charles is king at that point it will be 8-9 active royals; if it's William, we're talking about 7 - the Cambridge kids are in their early 20's and can take on an engagement here and there but most likely will focus on their studies);
- another 10 years (2049) later the numbers are going up again to 9-12 full-time royals (depending on whether the Cambridge kids have spouses that become active full-time royals) which should be more than sufficient;
- another 10 years down the line (so in 40 years/2059), we're still at 9-10 full time royals.
- by 2069 (50 years from now), we might get to another low point with William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan all being in their mid- to late eighties and only George and his siblings fully active; however, as king and queen William and Catherine will most likely still take on quite a large amount of engagements; and by that point George hopefully has grown children of his own supplying another generation of royals.

So, I truly don't see why Harry and Meghan's child(ren) (and spouse(s)) - who would start becoming active by 2049 at the earliest (in their late twenties) - would be needed; especially if the support of Beatrice and Eugenie is not needed now nor in the future; as they would be the ones that really could help out at the lowest point, unlike children by Harry and Meghan, but apparently that's not considered a need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy T View Post
In the Queen's family, the children of the two sons nearest the throne, i.e. her 4 'senior' grandchildren in terms of the succession, are HRH and it may be that as Charles only has two children, all his grandchildren will become HRH, even if there end up being 5 or 6 of them. In any case, I'm sure that it'll be a question of all of the Sussex children getting HRH or none.
I don't think it works that way. What if William and Catherine will have another child? In that case the 4th senior child would be the child of a future king; if not, the 4th senior child would be only the grandchild of a monarch.

Formally, all grandchildren of the monarch in male-line should be HRH; however, as this wasn't practiced for Louise and James, the most logical thing would be to formalize this new rule for all in a similar position (i.e. children of a younger child of the (future) monarch) - or elevate Louise and James to their rightful position if that is considered a mistake by now.
Reply With Quote
  #3876  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Yes, that argument has been made before but I don't buy it. I don't see how adding Harry and Meghan's children will help in this respect as the lowest numbers will be reached in about 20 year when Harry and Meghan's unborn child will come of age and thus be of little use.

There has been talk about slimming down the monarchy. Currently there are 15 members doing over 50 engagements a year. That is an unnecessarily large amount of which the majority do less than 100 engagements (only Charles, William, Andrew, Edward and Anne did surpass that number by November 1; the queen, Edward (Kent), Sophie, Richard and Harry might end up around 100 depending on their activities in the last 2 months of the year)
Before this conversation gets any further, you might want to check some of your numbers there.
Reply With Quote
  #3877  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:31 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Before this conversation gets any further, you might want to check some of your numbers there.
I did. So please tell me which of my numbers are off in your opinion. I have them all written down before me and even shared my cut-off point to be completely transparent. So, I stand by my numbers and conclusion.

To be precise: the number of 7 remaining royals (applying a strict cut-off point of 85) will be reached in 2035 when Anne turns 85. William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan will be early to mid 50s and Andrew, Edward and Sophie early to mid 70s - so that team can continue on for another 5-10 years while William and Catherine's children finish their university studies and start picking up royal duties in their late 20s.
If Charles and Camilla are still alive, I assume they will still do quite a few engagements and I don't see Anne retiring as long as her older brother is still active; that is against her character (so, it might be slightly later at which point George, Charlotte and Louis are older and more likely to take on royal duties).

Harry and Meghan's eldest child will be a teenager by 2035 and it's not reasonable to expect him/her to do lots of royal duties for at least another 10 years; and by that time the Cambridge kids probably are (getting) married and have started replacing their greatuncles and greataunt (3 adults; potentially being replaced by 3-6 Cambridge kids + spouses).
Reply With Quote
  #3878  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I did. So please tell me which of my numbers are off in your opinion. I have them all written down before me and even shared my cut-off point to be completely transparent.
I checked Bertie's numbers, the total number far exceeds 50, and a number of royals that you stated will reach 100 if they rack up numbers by the end of the year has surpassed it in October.

BTW, I did the math for the current number of royals (unlikely to grow until the children grow up), and what it'll look like in 25 years' time. All, but Harry, will be over the age of 60 (older than Duke of York is now).

If I do the math and count who won't be here, and have the assumed cut off to be 95, The Queen, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent, and Duke of Gloucester wouldn't be. Prince Charles barely made it at 95. So now we are down to maybe 9, including sovereign. Now granted, they can still be around, but at that point, I see them taking the route of Duke of Edinburgh, so retired.

Of those 9, Charles will be 95, and likely scaling back. Anne will be 93, so that's a maybe around, but definitely scaling back. Duke of York will be 83, doubt he's going to be doing as much as he is today. The Wessexes will be in their late 70s.

However, fast forward 10 more years, Charles and Anne likely won't be around. Duke of York will be 93, and the Wessexes will be in their late 80s. That literally leaves with 4 (Cambridges and Sussexes) from the current crop.

That's 11 people in difference. Cambridge kids and spouse (assume all will be married and their spouses are working royals, which is a bit optimistic). We are still 5 short compared to today.

And that's assuming everyone lives to very old age and very healthy. While the BRF has good track record, it's not a given.
Reply With Quote
  #3879  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,843
Its also very possible that in the future, there will be members of the British royal family working for the "Firm" that do not carry the HRH honorific. As we've seen by the line of succession to the throne, there are people closer to the throne that do not have the HRH before people that do have the HRH.

It may change to be that only the senior line of the monarch (Charles, William, George, George's heir) and their families will carry the HRH and the supporting members such as Harry and Harry's children will work as a royal duke and children of a royal duke.

It isn't a requirement to have a HRH honorific to work for the family "Firm".
__________________
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
  #3880  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:57 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I checked Bertie's numbers, the total number far exceeds 50, and a number of royals that you stated will reach 100 if they rack up numbers by the end of the year has surpassed it in October.
Iluvbertie's numbers were my source; again: please specify what is off as I don't appreciate my numbers being questioned without proof when I made an effort to be as accurate as possible. FYI: I included Catherine, Meghan and Alexandra among the 15 full-time royals although they haven't made it to the 50 yet but Alexandra is at 49, and Catherine and Meghan had some special circumstances this year.

Quote:
BTW, I did the math for the current number of royals (unlikely to grow until the children grow up), and what it'll look like in 25 years' time. All, but Harry, will be over the age of 60 (older than Duke of York is now).

If I do the math and count who won't be here, and have the assumed cut off to be 95, The Queen, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent, and Duke of Gloucester wouldn't be. Prince Charles barely made it at 95. So now we are down to maybe 9, including sovereign.

Of those 9, Charles will be 95, and likely scaling back. Anne will be 93, so that's a maybe around, but definitely scaling back. Duke of York will be 83, doubt he's going to be doing as much as he is today. The Wessexes will be in their late 70s.

However, fast forward 10 more years, Charles and Anne likely won't be around. Duke of York will be 93, and the Wessexes will be in their late 80s. That literally leaves with 4 (Cambridges and Sussexes) from the current crop.

That's 11 people in difference. Cambridge kids and spouse (assume all will be married and their spouses are working royals, which is a bit optimistic). We are still 5 short compared to today.

And that's assuming everyone lives to very old age and very healthy. While the BRF has good track record, it's not a given.
Ok, so my numbers aren't off. You just have different assumptions: that is, that the number of active royals should be equal to the current numbers. That is inconsistent with the idea of a slimmed down monarchy but happy to think that scenario through.

I agree that if the number should remain consistent at about 15 H&M's children are needed - as are Beatrice and Eugenie (and even Louise and James to bridge the gap between the Cambridge and Sussex children coming of age and neither the queen's cousins nor her children taking on engagements).

However, it seems that the British royal family is the only one with such an excessive number of full-time royals. They could easily slim down to about 8-10 in my opinion. Andrew, Edward and Sophie are there for many more years to support the monarchy while the Cambridge children are growing up. And hopefully the current members in their late sixties/early seventies (Charles, Camilla, Anne, Richard and Birgitte) have many more years ahead of them as well.

[Edited]
__________________

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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 779 06-28-2019 02:26 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 886 04-11-2019 05:26 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 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 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
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration bracelets charles of wales christian ix countess of snowdon crown crown prince hussein's future wife current events cyprus denmark discussão duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of wessex felipe vi french revolution future future wife of prince hussein genealogy general news germany hamdan bin mohammed headship house of bernadotte king lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lithuania lithuanian palaces meghan markle mohammed vi monaco christening monogram mountbatten naples nelson mandela bay netflix official visit patron potential areas prince harry prince of wales prince peter princess benedikte princess eugenie princess margaret princess royal qe2 queen paola romanov family royal rumania savoy siblings south korea spain spanish royal state visit state visit to denmark swedish history united kingdom windy city



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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