The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4441  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:07 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
I don't think it's that strange.

We see evidence all the time that some people in royal offices who believe they know everything that's going on actually don't. They say things to the press with great confidence, the press believe them because they don't (and can't) really have adequate information to assess just how inside this person is on this particular issue, and it turns out the real talking on the matter didn't include that staffer.

I suspect it especially happens when, for example, the staff they bring into a certain discussion is all based at BP but the source is of rank at CH or KP. They haven't seen the talks happening in their own office, the news hadn't slipped out to their office that this thing was in the works elsewhere, they assume they have complete info, but...they don't.
I see it as a big game of "telephone". If no one has played this before you sit in circle with a mess of people. One person whispers something to the person on their left and it passes around that circle until it comes back to the starting person. Most times, what is stated that the last person heard is totally different from what the original statement was.

A staff member may have some of the information on a certain thing and another staff member elsewhere has another piece of that information. Unless the staff person is part of the actual decision making conversations, they will not know the full story or all of the information.

Then again, tabloids tend to take the bits of information that will garner them the most clicks and money in their pockets rather than do research and get facts. As a matter of fact, what the media hears the most is "the palace refuses to comment" or "the palace has not returned our calls".
__________________

__________________
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
  #4442  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank you for the clarifying perspective. Is it then the most probable scenario that a decision has been made to follow the Letters Patent, but the decision has not been made known to all ranking staffers?
Not necessarily. Another at the office can have the assumption that they've agreed to it if they didn't decline while the couple might just not have declined because they are leaving it open for now.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4443  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:23 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Devon, United Kingdom
Posts: 589
I think it's very likely that Camilla will be styled Queen because Charles clearly adores her & will want his wife to have the proper title rather than a lesser one. He knows that names/titles have strong emotional attachments so BP will probably refer to her as Queen Camilla as much as possible rather than The Queen, at least until people become accustomed to her status.
Reply With Quote
  #4444  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I think it's very likely that Camilla will be styled Queen because Charles clearly adores her & will want his wife to have the proper title rather than a lesser one. He knows that names/titles have strong emotional attachments so BP will probably refer to her as Queen Camilla as much as possible rather than The Queen, at least until people become accustomed to her status.

Queen Camilla would be the style of a dowager queen. If they don't feel comfortable calling her The Queen, then I suggest they call her The Princess Consort (as Charles said he intended to do when he got married).
Reply With Quote
  #4445  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Queen Camilla would be the style of a dowager queen. If they don't feel comfortable calling her The Queen, then I suggest they call her The Princess Consort (as Charles said he intended to do when he got married).
I don’t have a problem with this - provided, and only if, the title of Princess Consort is then used for Kate and all wives of the King going forward. There is absolutely no justification for treating Camilla any differently than Kate. If both are married to a King then both should be known as Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #4446  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I THINK, with some of the discussion I've seen here, that was a question posed to BP by someone here (Iluvbertie?) if the Wessex children are technically HRHs just not using their title since no LP was issued. The answer was that the Queen's wish was enough to take it away, and the statement at the time of the Wessex wedding was enough to consider as the Queen's wish. So LP isn't necessary.
Yes that was me.

Quote:
What's awkward here is that while Archie isn't an HRH in this reign, he automatically becomes an HRH when Charles ascends to the throne under the 1917 LP. And then Charles has to take it away after he's had it. So why not preempt it like they did with the Wessex children if they can. I don't know if the Queen has the power to take away an HRH under the next reign without changing the LP. I would think so given that she can simply issue an LP and limit it for the next reign as well.
If The Queen issued that statement in this reign it would carry over. Her Will is the same as LPs and so is forever, unless changed by one of the three means possible - LPs, Royal Warrant, or monarch's Will.

Quote:
I was surprised BP didn't announce a clear decision on this right now. I just figured they would want one less issue at the beginning of Charles III's reign. While I understand that Archie's status and Camilla's are separate, that's not how it'll be viewed. Taking away his grandson's title while going back on his word regarding Camilla's, albeit well-deserved, title? It has the potential to rile up those that do not support Camilla.
I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.


Quote:
While that's normally the case. A statement was released, at the time of their wedding, that she'd be styled as Princess Consort. Now, there has been signs they might have changed their minds on that. While I think Camilla certainly deserves the title, and I do believe Charles would want his wife to have the title as well, it need to be addressed when the time comes.
Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms.

That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????
Reply With Quote
  #4447  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes that was me.

If The Queen issued that statement in this reign it would carry over. Her Will is the same as LPs and so is forever, unless changed by one of the three means possible - LPs, Royal Warrant, or monarch's Will.

I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.

Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms.

That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????
So really nothing about titles is really "forever" if the next monarch wishes to change something.

Camilla is the Princess of Wales but uses the title the Duchess of Cornwall. Could she actually be Queen but use another title?
Reply With Quote
  #4448  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
So really nothing about titles is really "forever" if the next monarch wishes to change something.

Camilla is the Princess of Wales but uses the title the Duchess of Cornwall. Could she actually be Queen but use another title?
As Charles' wife, she takes and uses titles and styles from him. As Charles is The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cornwall, she had a choice.

All of Charles' present titles revert to the Crown upon the Queen's death. Only title she can then take from him is "Queen". As King, Charles will also be the Duke of Lancaster (as the Queen is the Duke now actually) and is solely to be used by the monarch.

My opinion is that if Camilla is to be "Princess Consort", Charles would have to create Camilla a princess of the UK in her own right.
__________________
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
  #4449  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

I don't think Charles will issue any such statement. I do think though that it goes against the 'smaller royal family' rumours as he will have more HRH grandchildren, in all likelihood than his mother has.
I know it’s been long rumored. But someone posted the announcement on the day of the Wessex wedding, and Charles was mentioned in the agreement to give The Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward. However, he was not mentioned on the matter about Edward’s future children’s titles. That was entirely between HM and the Wessexes. Or at least that’s how the announcement read. So I do wonder if Charles simply went along with it or actively sought it.

But having HRHs doesn’t conflict with his desire for a more slimmed down monarchy. They simply wouldn’t be working royals like the York princesses aren’t.

And this is an out of box idea. But what if Charles doesn’t make an announcement regarding Archie and just focuses on other business like announcing his wife, after many years, will indeed be Queen rather than Princess Consort? Can the Sussexes express a wish for their son to be known by a lesser title or remain without title? I don’t think they would do it without Charles’ support, but it kind of gets him out of a jam PR wise.
Reply With Quote
  #4450  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:23 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 589
You may have a title but just not use it; the same is true for any style you have.


So the parents of Archie desire that he is known as Master Archie atm - without any further ado. That doesn't have any bearing on what his rightfull titles and styles are or will be in the futur.


Why is it so difficult for some persons here to just except that?



Your given name may be Augusta-Clementine but you / your parents choose to call you Tina .... as simple as that!


Harry is legally a Henry .. .so what?
Reply With Quote
  #4451  
Old 05-14-2019, 03:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
You may have a title but just not use it; the same is true for any style you have.


So the parents of Archie desire that he is known as Master Archie atm - without any further ado. That doesn't have any bearing on what his rightfull titles and styles are or will be in the futur.


Why is it so difficult for some persons here to just except that?



Your given name may be Augusta-Clementine but you / your parents choose to call you Tina .... as simple as that!


Harry is legally a Henry .. .so what?
but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older. Its different ot the situation of Edward and his children sicne it was announced that Edward would be an Earl, and that his children would not be HRH but would have the normal titles of the children ofn an earl. At the time Ed was not meant to be a wrokign royal and he was the youngest of 4 children. Harry is the younger of 2 children.. and he is NOT apparnelty letting his son be known by the normal title of the eldest son of a DUke...
Reply With Quote
  #4452  
Old 05-14-2019, 06:25 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
But someone posted the announcement on the day of the Wessex wedding, and Charles was mentioned in the agreement to give The Duke of Edinburgh title to Edward. However, he was not mentioned on the matter about Edward’s future children’s titles. That was entirely between HM and the Wessexes. Or at least that’s how the announcement read. So I do wonder if Charles simply went along with it or actively sought it.
The Prince of Wales had to be mentioned in the agreement to give the Edinburgh title to Prince Edward because he would need to take action, as king, to execute the agreement. No action would be needed from him in the matter of the Wessex children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
But having HRHs doesn’t conflict with his desire for a more slimmed down monarchy. They simply wouldn’t be working royals like the York princesses aren’t.
True, but if there is any substance to the reports that the decision to deny HRH status to the Wessex children was made jointly with him, or the reports that he wanted to strip the York children of their HRHs at the time, there will be a conflict with his desire for other children by younger sons not to have HRHs (unless he has evolved on the issue since the 1990s and is now open to elevating Louise and James in his reign as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older.
It was stressed to reporters that the decision is "at this time", and the courtesy styles will presumably continue to be an option once the child is old enough to express an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Mr Blair made it clear, in Question Time, that for Camilla not to be The Queen would take legislation - nothing to do with Charles but the parliament would have to strip her of the title - along with the parliaments of the other realms. That means that at his Accession Council Charles will have to ask parliament to pass the legislation to strip his wife of the title HM The Queen ... and what will happen if say Canada refuses to do so????
As far as I know, there have been no serious suggestions of stripping Camilla of the right to use the title of Queen via legislation. It is fairly clear that the Prince of Wales does intend that his wife will use it, but if he announced that she would be known as Princess Consort as stated in 2005, I cannot imagine any realm's Parliament passing legislation to force her to use Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #4453  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,244
They won't need to pass legislation to force her to use Queen. They would need to pass it to strip her of that right.

As she won't be a Princess but a Queen the instant The Queen dies legislation would be required to demote her. It can't be done any other way - according to the advice Mr Blair gave to parliament in 2005.

Using Duchess of Cornwall was easy - as Charles is The Duke of Cornwall but once he is King the only title she can use from him is Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #4454  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
They won't need to pass legislation to force her to use Queen.
In the scenario where King Charles did not want his wife to use Queen, what measures could Parliament take without passing legislation to force her to use it?

Is there any history of Parliament overriding the King's wishes in title matters, and/or forcing a person to use a title without their consent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As she won't be a Princess but a Queen the instant The Queen dies legislation would be required to demote her. It can't be done any other way - according to the advice Mr Blair gave to parliament in 2005.
Was he addressing her legal status, or how she would be known?
Reply With Quote
  #4455  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but they are making a decision for him, now as a baby.... that he may not want when he is older. Its different ot the situation of Edward and his children sicne it was announced that Edward would be an Earl, and that his children would not be HRH but would have the normal titles of the children ofn an earl. At the time Ed was not meant to be a wrokign royal and he was the youngest of 4 children. Harry is the younger of 2 children.. and he is NOT apparnelty letting his son be known by the normal title of the eldest son of a DUke...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing was take away from Archie. His parents said he won’t be known by his courtesy title, but if he decides he doesn’t want it, he can use Earl of Dumbarton. It’s still an option for him. Is his parents making a decision for him or letting him to decide for himself when he grows up? I’m not seeing how that’s worse than the case for the Wessex children. In their case, they actually don’t have the choice to go by HRH Prince/ Princess if they want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
True, but if there is any substance to the reports that the decision to deny HRH status to the Wessex children was made jointly with him, or the reports that he wanted to strip the York children of their HRHs at the time, there will be a conflict with his desire for other children by younger sons not to have HRHs (unless he has evolved on the issue since the 1990s and is now open to elevating Louise and James in his reign as well.
Like you said, all of this is nothing more than rumors regarding Charles. Do I believe he wants slimmed down monarchy? Yes. Do I think he wanted to strip his brothers’ children of their HRH title? I don’t know. And perhaps he has changed his mind on this after his mind was eased over the last 20 years on if the monarch has to support someone if they are HRH, and the answer is no. If I remember correctly, the Queen supported her cousins one way or another. Even Prince Michael of Kent, who is not a working royal, was only paying peppercorn rent. Things have come a long way since then.
Reply With Quote
  #4456  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:13 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Was he addressing her legal status, or how she would be known?
When Charles becomes King, his titles will be Charles the Third (unless he opts for another regnal name), by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.

As his spouse, Camilla can only be "known" and styled from any title that her husband has such as The Duchess of Cornwall or the The Duchess of Rothesay (in Scotland) or The Princess of Wales. If Charles only title she can take from is King, there is nothing else to be "known" as. Many of the Commonwealth realms where Elizabeth II is Queen have their own separate ways of looking at their Head of State.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth II is the first monarch to be styled sovereign of Australia. In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed two bills. The first was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. This added the word "Australia" to the Queen's titles. So here we can see where legislation would have to be passed in Commonwealth realms just how to handle Camilla's title if it is anything but "Queen".

A good conundrum to look at in regards to sorting out titles and styles when it comes to a King and the Parliament is to look back to 1936 and the back and forth flurry of discussions when it came to The Duchess of Windsor and not having the HRH honorific. David retained his HRH as a son of a monarch but it was not bestowed on Wallis. I believe there's quite a discussion on this in the thread pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing was take away from Archie. His parents said he won’t be known by his courtesy title, but if he decides he doesn’t want it, he can use Earl of Dumbarton. It’s still an option for him. Is his parents making a decision for him or letting him to decide for himself when he grows up? I’m not seeing how that’s worse than the case for the Wessex children. In their case, they actually don’t have the choice to go by HRH Prince/ Princess if they want to.
The way I see it right now is that it is similar to the way some married women prefer to be styled. Some women use Mrs. Some women use Ms. It doesn't mean that at some time they can't change their mind and use the other form of address.
__________________
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
  #4457  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
When Charles becomes King, his titles will be Charles the Third (unless he opts for another regnal name), by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'.

As his spouse, Camilla can only be "known" and styled from any title that her husband has such as The Duchess of Cornwall or the The Duchess of Rothesay (in Scotland) or The Princess of Wales. If Charles only title she can take from is King, there is nothing else to be "known" as. Many of the Commonwealth realms where Elizabeth II is Queen have their own separate ways of looking at their Head of State.

Interestingly enough, Elizabeth II is the first monarch to be styled sovereign of Australia. In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed two bills. The first was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. This added the word "Australia" to the Queen's titles. So here we can see where legislation would have to be passed in Commonwealth realms just how to handle Camilla's title if it is anything but "Queen".

A good conundrum to look at in regards to sorting out titles and styles when it comes to a King and the Parliament is to look back to 1936 and the back and forth flurry of discussions when it came to The Duchess of Windsor and not having the HRH honorific. David retained his HRH as a son of a monarch but it was not bestowed on Wallis. I believe there's quite a discussion on this in the thread pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
Thank you for the examples. The difference as I see it is that in neither situation did Parliament override the will of the reigning sovereign, and with the Duchess of Windsor, the letters patent were issued by the sovereign rather than Parliament.

In the hypothetical scenario under discussion, where a King Charles made it known that his will was that his wife would be known as Princess Consort (her legal status as Queen notwithstanding), it seems very unlikely to me that the British Parliament would battle him over the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #4458  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:07 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In the hypothetical scenario under discussion, where a King Charles made it known that his will was that his wife would be known as Princess Consort (her legal status as Queen notwithstanding), it seems very unlikely to me that the British Parliament would battle him over the matter.
The conundrum would be that there is no place where Camilla can get the "princess' to be "known as". She also is The Princess Charles but that reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. That's why I believe that if it is the King's will and pleasure that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort", the solution would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right. This is what the Queen, herself did. On 22 February 1957, she granted her husband the style and title of a Prince of the United Kingdom by Letters Patent, and it was gazetted that he was to be known as "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". From 1947 to 1957, his title was His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh. No Prince.

In this regards, Charles would be actually honoring his wife and elevating her status. No female spouse ever has had that honor. Perhaps it will become a tradition then and when William ascends the throne, he'll elevate Kate to the rank of being a Princess of the UK in her own right and so forth with George. To not make it a universal thing once done, its my opinion that it would significantly single out Camilla as an attempt to "punish" her because she's not fit in the public eye to be "Queen".

I do believe that when the time does come, Charles will be King and Camilla will be his Queen.
__________________
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
  #4459  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The conundrum would be that there is no place where Camilla can get the "princess' to be "known as". She also is The Princess Charles but that reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King. That's why I believe that if it is the King's will and pleasure that Camilla will be known as "Princess Consort", the solution would be to create her a Princess of the UK in her own right.
I am not sure that is necessary. Whilst Camilla will legally be Queen once Charles is King, I think she could be styled at HRH Princess Consort. It does not change her legal status and she does not need to become a Princess to be styled as such. This can be clarified as the will of the King shortly after Charles becomes King.
Reply With Quote
  #4460  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:52 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,594
I'm going to be a bit fanciful here but imagine all the pearls rolling around should King Charles' will and pleasure be known that Camilla, while legally Queen, will be known as "Empress of All My World and My Life in the Hereafter".

I would think that there would be some guidelines and reason used in a monarch's will and pleasure when it comes to being the font of honor of the British monarchy.
__________________

__________________
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
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
administrator alqasimi aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian british royal family corruption countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events daughter daughters denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex duke of york french royalty friendly city germany greece harry headship her children introduction jerusalem juan carlos kiko king king philippe meghan markle modernization monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram official visit patronages potential areas prince aymeric prince charles prince harry prince nicholas princess anne princess eugenie princess louise public image queen elizabeth queen mathilde rania of jordan relationship royal royal ladies sarah duchess of york savoy saxony south africa south korea state visit the crown titles uk styles trump united kingdom valois viscount severn windsor castle



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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