The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4261  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
There are various theories out there about it. Here's a site that explores 3 possible reasons:

https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/ta...etters-patent/

I read that but while I can imagine that the first two ideas may have some truth in it, the last one sounds very implausible. King George V. and the father of Alaistair of Connaught, HRH Prince Albert of Connaught and Streathearn, were not only close friends, but Albert served his king and country till the end. Here are some of his orders (British only - source: Wikipedia)

donated to him by Victoria, Edward VII. and George V. While his son was a dreamer and not very talented as a career officer, his father was and served the king throughout his whole life, dying shortly after the coronation of George VI.



So honestly I cannot imagine the changes George V. did was to diminish Alaistair, who was just 4 years old and already the heir of both mother's and father's (future) dukedoms.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4262  
Old 04-30-2019, 03:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No, George V's Letters Patent (1917) limit the HRH to the following:
(1) The monarch's children
(2) The children of the monarch's sons
(3) The oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [I goofed in my earlier post when I said this royal would have an HH]. The other grandchildren of the monarch's sons would not be HRH. They would have the style and dignity of children of a Duke (Lords and Ladies).

Before the birth of Prince George the Queen issued new Letters Patent granting the HRH to ALL of William's children. Otherwise George would be HRH Prince George but his siblings would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis (following #3 above).

Likewise, unless new Letters Patent are issued, Harry's children will be Lord and Ladies (his oldest son will also have the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton). Once Charles becomes King they will be entitled to the HRH as children of the monarch's son (#2 above).

I hope this makes sense!
But the main reason the Queen issued new letters patent when William and Kate were expecting their first child was because the rules of succession had changed. A first born girl would be the Queen but not be an HRH, while her younger brother, not the heir, would be an HRH Prince as the eldest son of the eldest son of the s Prince of Wales. That would be weird.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4263  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
But the main reason the Queen issued new letters patent when William and Kate were expecting their first child was because the rules of succession had changed. A first born girl would be the Queen but not be an HRH, while her younger brother, not the heir, would be an HRH Prince as the eldest son of the eldest son of the s Prince of Wales. That would be weird.
Yes, and she and could have covered that scenario by making the *oldest* child an HRH regardless of sex, but instead she covered all bases by making *ALL* the Cambridge children HRH.

Otherwise, had the first two children been daughters we may have ended up with:
#1 HRH Princess Charlotte (oldest child & heir, therefore HRH per the Queen's LP)
#2 Lady Victoria (second child and daughter, therefore not HRH per either LP)
#3 HRH Prince George (third child but oldest son, therefore HRH per George V's LP)
#4 Lord Louis (fourth child, therefore not HRH per either LP).

Very confusing! The Queen's LP only dealt specifically with the Cambridge children but at some point I suspect another monarch will completely replace George V's LP in accordance with the new rules of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #4264  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
No, George V's Letters Patent (1917) limit the HRH to the following:
(1) The monarch's children
(2) The children of the monarch's sons
(3) The oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [I goofed in my earlier post when I said this royal would have an HH]. The other grandchildren of the monarch's sons would not be HRH. They would have the style and dignity of children of a Duke (Lords and Ladies).

Before the birth of Prince George the Queen issued new Letters Patent granting the HRH to ALL of William's children. Otherwise George would be HRH Prince George but his siblings would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis (following #3 above).

Likewise, unless new Letters Patent are issued, Harry's children will be Lord and Ladies (his oldest son will also have the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton). Once Charles becomes King they will be entitled to the HRH as children of the monarch's son (#2 above).

I hope this makes sense!
My impression was that Frelinghighness meant grandchildren BY sons of the monarch instead of grandchildren OF sons of the monarch - as the examples given were about Beatrice and Eugenie vs Zara and Peter. And that is consistent with how it works as you explained in your post above.
Reply With Quote
  #4265  
Old 04-30-2019, 04:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
My impression was that Frelinghighness meant grandchildren BY sons of the monarch instead of grandchildren OF sons of the monarch - as the examples given were about Beatrice and Eugenie vs Zara and Peter. And that is consistent with how it works as you explained in your post above.

My mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #4266  
Old 04-30-2019, 05:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, and she and could have covered that scenario by making the *oldest* child an HRH regardless of sex, but instead she covered all bases by making *ALL* the Cambridge children HRH.

Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.
Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
My understanding is that the main issue was that, previously, great-granchildren of a sovereign in male line were also normally princes too, but with the style only of HH rather than HRH. George V issued those LPs to limit the number of princes/ princesses.
Yes, but I think the question was why he had a desire to limit the number of princes and princesses. In the year 1917, the convention in almost all the royal houses of Europe was that all descendants of equal marriages in male line enjoyed princely styles. There were dozens of Archdukes of Austria and Princes of Prussia, for example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Personal vendetta against the Connaughts? I doubt that very much.

In 1917 Britain was fighting a war against the Central Powers (including Germany), the BRF had just renounced its German styles and titles (taking Windsor as the name of the Royal house) and stripped enemy combatants (even cousins) of their British titles.

At that time it was also unclear whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HRHs or merely HHs (by distant I mean great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc.). Follow the link below for a discussion: Victoria, Edward VII, George V (to 1917)

George V apparently decided it was a good time to (1) end the confusion by defining who was entitled to the HRH/HH, and (2) slim the BRF royal family down by (a) limiting the HRH to the children of the sovereign & the children of the sovereign's sons, and (b) limiting the HH to the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales [oops - editing this because I was mistaken - under the LP the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales is an HRH. George V phased the HH out]

I suspect he didn't want a repeat of 1917 when he was confronted by the fact that an enemy combatant, the Duke of Brunswick, was also a Prince of the UK, as a male-line great-great-grandson of George III, despite the fact that his family hadn't lived in the UK in 80 years.
Good idea! But I believe you meant to write in the third paragraph "whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HHs" rather than "whether [they] were HRHs or merely HHs" - as shown by the discussion to which you provided the link, it had already been established that they were not HRHs automatically. Queen Victoria's letters patent in 1898 granted HRH status to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales, but not to other great-grandchildren in male line.
Reply With Quote
  #4267  
Old 04-30-2019, 05:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.
Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.
My impression is that it mainly reflected the current situation. As it was clearly about William's children for now this sufficed. I am sure it will be changed by the then monarch if that would be needed as some point in the future.

Theoretically, changing it to the eldest child would not reflect the situation that for anyone born before October 2011 male-preference still applies (so even if William would have had an older sister: he would have been the future heir and not the eldest child).
Reply With Quote
  #4268  
Old 04-30-2019, 05:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,380
I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?
Reply With Quote
  #4269  
Old 04-30-2019, 06:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
My impression is that it mainly reflected the current situation. As it was clearly about William's children for now this sufficed. I am sure it will be changed by the then monarch if that would be needed as some point in the future.

Theoretically, changing it to the eldest child would not reflect the situation that for anyone born before October 2011 male-preference still applies (so even if William would have had an older sister: he would have been the future heir and not the eldest child).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I suspect as it was designed to have an effect on William's children the wording was chosen to reflect that so as to not have any unintended consequences. The Queen seems to favour IMO not changing the rules completely and just dealing with specific cases in turn.

I would hope personally that we will see a change by the time George and Charlotte are old enough to have children - will we see another Princess not being able to pass on HRHs to her children while her brothers can?

I agree it would have sufficed to deal only with William's children for the moment. Had that been Elizabeth's intention, however, it would have been even less complicated to issue Letters Patent designating William and Catherine by name, exactly as her father did for her and Philip in 1948:
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.
Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.
Reply With Quote
  #4270  
Old 04-30-2019, 07:20 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It's a fact of life Harry has known from day one. The Cambridge children are different from Harry's children.

Even little Prince Louis has his birthday marked by bell ringing at Westminster Abbey. Harry doesn't get that on his birthday.

His children will be fortunate to live a relatively low key life.
Ah yes, it's pretty cool that all children are different from one another, even royal and 'not-so-royal' children.

The Sussexes' children will enjoy the lifestyle, status, and privileges of royal 'provenance' without the gnarly headaches attached to a strict life of royal duties. They will be able to live a fairly normal existence and have a measure of freedom to choose their own paths in life. I can see Harry grinning from ear-to-ear about that set of circumstances being in place for his offspring.
Reply With Quote
  #4271  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
...
Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.
It’ll be awhile before the issue needs to be resolved since the next 3 monarchs - Charles, William and George - are males. The first possible time for it to be an issue is if George has a daughter first.
I hadn’t thought about this but different scenarios arise:
When Charles is King he creates William POW. George has a daughter first while his father is POW - she’d be HRH per QEII’s 2011 LPs since she’d be a child of the POW’s eldest son. Her children would not be HRH if born during Charles reign - but that’s 50 years away & I doubt Charles will live to 120.
When William is King he creates George as POW. George has a daughter first (a future Queen) she’s an HRH as a male line grandchild of the Monarch as are her brothers. That daughter’s children will not be born HRH (nor will her brother’s children be born HRH - just like Harry’s child at present) - so William may be the one who has to issue new LP in that scenario for George’s daughter’s children.
When George is King w/ a firstborn daughter as the future Queen. Her children, like Princess Anne’s, would not be HRHs, as they are not male line grandchildren, nor are they the children of the eldest son of the POW, however, her younger brother’s children would be HRHs as male line grandchildren.
I tend to think that in 30 or so years if George has a girl first there will be adjustments enabling her to be POW and to have access to the Duchy of Cornwall funds during George’s reign in addition to making sure that her children are HRH from birth.
Reply With Quote
  #4272  
Old 04-30-2019, 11:32 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
It’ll be awhile before the issue needs to be resolved since the next 3 monarchs - Charles, William and George - are males. The first possible time for it to be an issue is if George has a daughter first.
I hadn’t thought about this but different scenarios arise:
When Charles is King he creates William POW. George has a daughter first while his father is POW - she’d be HRH per QEII’s 2011 LPs since she’d be a child of the POW’s eldest son. Her children would not be HRH if born during Charles reign - but that’s 50 years away & I doubt Charles will live to 120.
When William is King he creates George as POW. George has a daughter first (a future Queen) she’s an HRH as a male line grandchild of the Monarch as are her brothers. That daughter’s children will not be born HRH (nor will her brother’s children be born HRH - just like Harry’s child at present) - so William may be the one who has to issue new LP in that scenario for George’s daughter’s children.
When George is King w/ a firstborn daughter as the future Queen. Her children, like Princess Anne’s, would not be HRHs, as they are not male line grandchildren, nor are they the children of the eldest son of the POW, however, her younger brother’s children would be HRHs as male line grandchildren.
I tend to think that in 30 or so years if George has a girl first there will be adjustments enabling her to be POW and to have access to the Duchy of Cornwall funds during George’s reign in addition to making sure that her children are HRH from birth.

In the second scenario (George is the Prince of Wales), the future Queen's (first) younger brother's children would be HRH by the 2012 letters patent as the brother would be the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (If there were additional younger brothers, the children of the remaining brothers would, as you described, be elevated to HRH when George ascended the throne.)

True, a future monarch can easily resolve the issues via new letters patent. But if Queen Elizabeth had wished to do so, she could have prevented the issue from occurring at all by issuing the 2012 letters patent either specifically for William and Catherine's children (much like the specific letters patent for her own children in 1948) or by using gender-neutral wording. It seems apparent that her choice of a male-preference rule that would affect future generations as well as William's children was intentional.
Reply With Quote
  #4273  
Old 05-01-2019, 01:50 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In the second scenario (George is the Prince of Wales), the future Queen's (first) younger brother's children would be HRH by the 2012 letters patent as the brother would be the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. (If there were additional younger brothers, the children of the remaining brothers would, as you described, be elevated to HRH when George ascended the throne.)
...
Hum... that’s an interesting twist, and I doubt that result would be desired by the RF to have children of an ancillary line born RH when the direct line are not born so. I was surprised that the Queen chose not to go gender nuetral as well.
Reply With Quote
  #4274  
Old 05-01-2019, 09:07 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Apparently Queen Elizabeth wanted to give preference to sons over daughters even in her 2012 letters patent, since they state that the children "of the eldest son" (rather than "of the eldest child") "of The Prince of Wales" (rather than "of The Prince or The Princess of Wales / of The Prince of Wales or the Heiress Apparent") will enjoy the style of HRH Prince or Princess.
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.
Making only the oldest child HRH regardless of sex would have been inconsistent with the preference for sons. I suppose the question is why she chose to maintain male preference in the 2012 Letters Patent.





Yes, but I think the question was why he had a desire to limit the number of princes and princesses. In the year 1917, the convention in almost all the royal houses of Europe was that all descendants of equal marriages in male line enjoyed princely styles. There were dozens of Archdukes of Austria and Princes of Prussia, for example.




Good idea! But I believe you meant to write in the third paragraph "whether distant male-line descendants of a sovereign were HHs" rather than "whether [they] were HRHs or merely HHs" - as shown by the discussion to which you provided the link, it had already been established that they were not HRHs automatically. Queen Victoria's letters patent in 1898 granted HRH status to the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales, but not to other great-grandchildren in male line.
Yes, you are correct. The HH was under debate not the HRH and George V's LP did away with the HH. Thank you for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #4275  
Old 05-01-2019, 09:25 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I agree it would have sufficed to deal only with William's children for the moment. Had that been Elizabeth's intention, however, it would have been even less complicated to issue Letters Patent designating William and Catherine by name, exactly as her father did for her and Philip in 1948:
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.
Instead, she chose generic wording and further chose not to amend the letters patent after the new rules of succession entered into force (in 2015). Therefore, unless a future monarch decides otherwise, the children of a future heiress apparent will not enjoy the style of HRH, but the children of her younger brother will.
Thank you for your very perceptive points! It's odd that the Queen didn't issue LPs dealing specifically with the Cambridge children. But I suppose it's in keeping with the males only peerages she has created for members of her family. I personally hope Sussex baby is a boy so a daughter doesn't have to see a younger brother inherit a title she is barred from.
Reply With Quote
  #4276  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:38 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 181
Should the new Earl of Dumbarton be called His Royal Highness Prince______of Sussex?

I think they should.
Reply With Quote
  #4277  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:44 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 23,463
Not unless the queen issues Letters Patent ,we should know more about the new Earl of Dumbarton over the next few days.
__________________

14th of July 1223 : Death of Philippe Auguste,King of France
Reply With Quote
  #4278  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,616
I think if the Queen was going to issue LPs for the new baby, she already would have done so. I am seriously of the opinion that both Harry and Meghan are going to prefer to keep their children titled and styled as children of a Duke.

We just have to wait and see what develops.
__________________
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
  #4279  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
Should the new Earl of Dumbarton be called His Royal Highness Prince______of Sussex?

I think they should.
He will be called HRH Prince xxx of Sussex when Charles is King, unless he changes the present rules. No need to rush then.
Reply With Quote
  #4280  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:53 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,067
I don't see them doing it...when Charles is King, Baby Sussex will get the HRH.


LaRae
__________________

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
archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia birthday celebration bracelets british royal family charles of wales clothes crown prince hussein's future wife current events cypher cyprus denmark discussão duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex earl of wessex felipe vi forum french revolution future wife of prince hussein genealogy general news germany hamdan bin mohammed head of the house headship jack brooksbank lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle member mohammed vi monaco christening monarchism naples nelson mandela bay official visit pakistan patron prince harry prince laurent prince of wales prince peter princess princess beatrice princess benedikte princess claire princesses princess louise princess royal prince william qe2 queen elisabeth queen elizabeth royal tour rumania sarah ferguson sharjah siblings spain state visit tradition united kingdom windy city wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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