The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:05 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The point of whether it was honest or not was raised by you.
AND????????
Quote:
Thats where the moral argument ends.
How, you haven't answered anything, just skirted around... again. Are you really saying that if you were a multi millionaire, that you would employ the best accountants you could to avoid paying taxes and still claim, using your example, child benefit?
Quote:
If government (or enough consituents told their MPs so) felt it appropriate for all agricultural grants to be means tested, they would be. The fact they are not only suggests that the vast majority of people (and MPs) in this country are happy with the current arrangements - if not, our democratic processes would ensure that the government of the day deals with the matter.
The majority of people in the UK do not seem to have any idea that agri grants are available to all and sundry. The vast majority who do know, are not happy with the situation or indeed the misuse of funds, that is set to change this year IB. Many are ripping up Hedgerows now so they can claim to replant them.
Quote:
What new shananigins might you be referring to? Ever since HM agreed to pay tax on her personal wealth since 1992, no material new tax arrangements have been agreed, as far as I know.
AFAYK, you mean you knew about the agri grants, the non payment of taxes, the lower rates and the actual rate Charles and HM pay, I would have thought not from your posts.
Quote:
There appears to be a small minority of people who seem to hold views to the contrary, and they are entitled to their views - you can't always please everybody
I asked if you have anything at all to substantiate your claim that the British Taxpayer is happy to bear the costs of the royal family. There appears to be a minority doesn't seem to answer that, the comments sections in the papers seem to disagree with your opinion, even the pro monarchy publications!
Quote:
Lets not forget that monarchy survives by the will of the people, and should that change, so will the form of government.
But, for how much longer if the taxpaying public realise they are supporting this family in such a way.
Quote:
There is an implicit system of checks and balances in place, and it has stood the test of time reasonably well. I don't think you can have too prescriptive a system - they never work. If the vast majority of people in the country felt that the monarchy was not "good value" I have no doubt we would see change.
No there is not a good system of checks, implict or otherwise in place. 'Prescriptive', = Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage. Because it was the custom, there is no reason not to change it.
Quote:
HM and Charles have no need to make public their personal financial arrangements, just as we do not. If the assessing officer is unhappy with the level of information he or she is provided with, I am sure the IR would ask the relevant questions.
Neither make clear the 'arrangements they have made with the Treasury and their businesses should have to disclose the nitty gritty, just as millions of other companies do. The difference between TRH and Mrs Ordinary is that, on the whole Mrs Ordinary does not receive any taxpayer money to help with her heating, food, clothing, cleaner etc, etc.
Quote:
This was discussed ad infinitum on the appropriate thread, till the modetors asked for the discussion to be halted. I have no desire to start it again, for you have taken a view based on some press articles that you have chosen to believe
You brought it up my dear. Ahh, the old a view based on questionable press articles, normally at least one of the media outlets gives a different view but not this time, not even a 'source' said they did pay for their bodyguards, or a 'close friend' feels the accusations are unjustified. Yes we could discuss theis ad infinitum, just as we did Williams misuse of RAF equipment, that you also pooh poohed as 'questionable press articles'.
Quote:
put another way, GI-GO
Personal insults disguised, are still personal insults and beneath contempt!
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:46 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Are you really saying that if you were a multi millionaire, that you would employ the best accountants you could to avoid paying taxes and still claim, using your example, child benefit?
Absoutely. What is due to you, either from the state or elsewhere, you should get.

"the best accountants you could to avoid paying taxes" - I believe the term you are looking for is "optimisation of the tax burden". Its not illegal to get professional help to make sure you fully understand the provisions of the tax legislation, and make sure you get your due. Thats what most rational people do, and what every company does.

Its no different from going into a supermarket, looking at what is available and buying a multipack of a certain product, as opposed to 3 singles of the same if that saves you money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The vast majority who do know, are not happy with the situation or indeed the misuse of funds
What "misuse of funds" are you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The vast majority who do know, are not happy with the situation or indeed the misuse of funds, that is set to change this year IB. Many are ripping up Hedgerows now so they can claim to replant them. AFAYK, you mean you knew about the agri grants, the non payment of taxes, the lower rates and the actual rate Charles and HM pay, I would have thought not from your posts.I asked if you have anything at all to substantiate your claim that the British Taxpayer is happy to bear the costs of the royal family. There appears to be a minority doesn't seem to answer that, the comments sections in the papers seem to disagree with your opinion, even the pro monarchy publications!But, for how much longer if the taxpaying public realise they are supporting this family in such a way. No there is not a good system of checks, implict or otherwise in place. 'Prescriptive', = Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage. Because it was the custom, there is no reason not to change it.Neither make clear the 'arrangements they have made with the Treasury and their businesses should have to disclose the nitty gritty, just as millions of other companies do. The difference between TRH and Mrs Ordinary is that, on the whole Mrs Ordinary does not receive any taxpayer money to help with her heating, food, clothing, cleaner etc, etc
Perhaps its an old fashioned view, but I believe that if the vast majority of people in a democracy felt a certain way, it is the duty of the MPs and the government of the day to make sure the will of the people is implemented. I hardly see that as happening. This is probably the best of the checks and balances one can ask for.

About 15-20 years ago, there was a view that perhaps the Queen should pay taxed on her personal income, and HM voluntarily announced in 1992 that she would pay taxes on her private income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
AFAYK, you mean you knew about the agri grants, the non payment of taxes, the lower rates and the actual rate Charles and HM pay, I would have thought not from your posts.
As I said at the outset of this conversation (either yesterday or the day before), I am not fully aware of the nitty gritty of royal finances, but am aware of the high level principles. None of this is news to me. I don't know te exact rate at which they pay taxes, (I think Charles pays 25% of the "surplus"), but it should be remembered that the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are not normal companies, and so normal rules do not typicaly apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Neither make clear the 'arrangements they have made with the Treasury and their businesses should have to disclose the nitty gritty, just as millions of other companies do. The difference between TRH and Mrs Ordinary is that, on the whole Mrs Ordinary does not receive any taxpayer money to help with her heating, food, clothing, cleaner etc, etc.
As I previously said, why should they make public there private financial position, or the deal they agreed with the Treasury in 1992? If the government of the day and successive chancellors have found it acceptable, then its not for us to second guess how the Chancellor of the day should do his job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The difference between TRH and Mrs Ordinary is that, on the whole Mrs Ordinary does not receive any taxpayer money to help with her heating, food, clothing, cleaner etc, etc.
And nor does either HM or the PoW for any of their private residences (PS: President Bush does not pay the electricity bill for the White House either)

[quote=Skydragon;861712]....their businesses should have to disclose the nitty gritty, just as millions of other companies do....... quote]

First of all, only public companies have to disclose detailed financial accounts to their investors. Private companies only have to file quite limited financial statements with Companies House. To the extent the royal family has any "companies", as defined in the Companies Act, they too must follow the obligations of the Act.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Personal insults disguised, are still personal insults and beneath contempt!
Quite right. Ands thats why I don't believe I have made any personal insults, despite the provocation from you (who mentioned Mary Antoinette?) We can agree to disagree, and I respect your view, but there is absolutely no need for contemptous comments
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 12-02-2008, 01:50 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Absoutely. What is due to you, either from the state or elsewhere, you should get.
Most would simply call it greed
Quote:
snipped Thats what most rational people do, and what every company does.
Oh dear so because I don't believe in helping myself to anything and everything, I am not rational. My company makes a tidy sum, without adding to the tax burden of ordinary people.
Quote:
Its no different from going into a supermarket, looking at what is available and buying a multipack of a certain product, as opposed to 3 singles of the same if that saves you money.
??????
Quote:
Perhaps its an old fashioned view, but I believe that if the vast majority of people in a democracy felt a certain way, it is the duty of the MPs and the government of the day to make sure the will of the people is implemented.
Fox hunting and Iraq ring any bells?
Quote:
About 15-20 years ago, there was a view that perhaps the Queen should pay taxed on her personal income, and HM voluntarily announced in 1992 that she would pay taxes on her private income.
Which for all you know is 0.005% instead of the 40%.
Quote:
Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are not normal companies, and so normal rules do not typicaly apply.
The only reason they are not normal companies is because they are tax exempt!
Quote:
As I previously said, why should they make public there private financial position, or the deal they agreed with the Treasury in 1992?
But you are the one who keeps saying that HM agreed to pay tax, if it is not at the 'normal' rate, then it is, as I said pages back, smoke and mirrors. It looks good, sounds good but was after all too good to be wholly accurate!
Quote:
And nor does either HM or the PoW for any of their private residences (PS: President Bush does not pay the electricity bill for the White House either)
Bush was elected to the post, the royals are not. It must come as a shock to HM when she has to pay for her food, heating etc when she is on holiday a couple of weeks a year.
Quote:
First of all, only public companies have to disclose detailed financial accounts to their investors. Private companies only have to file quite limited financial statements with Companies House.
News to me, when I file my company tax returns, they want to know how much I spend on paperclips.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ctsa/what.htm
Quote:
Quite right. Ands thats why I don't believe I have made any personal insults, despite the provocation from you (who mentioned Mary Antoinette?) We can agree to disagree, and I respect your view, but there is absolutely no need for contemptous comments
Calling other peoples posts garbage, is a deliberate insult IMO. My reference to Marie Antoinette, as I am sure you knew was a reference to her alleged attitude to the public ie, they can starve as long as I am OK, the attitude the royals appear to have and that you appear to echo. As far as I can see, I have not been contemptuous to you apart from my suggestion that it is my sense that you would disagree with anything, for your enjoyment, although I do have to say, I find it hard to respect someone who disguises insults in such a way.

Perhaps it would be best to ignore my posts if you find an historical reference provocation or contemptuous.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 12-02-2008, 08:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly9480 View Post
The Privy Purse is simply the revenues earned from the Duchy of Lancaster. It can be considered private because the Duchy of Lancaster is a hereditary property, but it can be considered public because the Duchy of Lancaster is tied to the Crown (he who wears the crown holds the the duchy).

She is required to maintain the Duchy and preserve it so that it can continue to provide private income for her successors (that requirement is something that can be considered to make it public, because a truly private estate can be handled however the owner pleases).

The Duchy of Cornwall operates in much the same manner as the Duchy of Lancaster, in that Charles gets the revenues, but has to preserve the Duchy for his successors.

Either way, they can be considered private sources of funding for a public institution, depending on your opinion of the monarchy.
Thank you, that response was helpful. It actually cleared some things up for me. As for the other posts, between when I posted a question on this thread, and now when I remembered to check back for an answer, a war seems to have erupted! For that reason, and because my brain doesn't like finances...I think I'll retreat back to the Prince Andrew thread...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:21 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Most would simply call it greedOh dear so because I don't believe in helping myself to anything and everything, I am not rational. My company makes a tidy sum, without adding to the tax burden of ordinary people
Its entirely your decision to decide whether you want to claim the tax exemptions due to you or not. I personaly don't think paying more tax than is due to one is necessarily achieving a higher moral standing. My own view is that I would much rather donate the sums "saved" to the specific charities I support, so I know it is going where it is intended - rather than funding yet another Whitehall quango!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Which for all you know is 0.005% instead of the .......if it is not at the 'normal' rate, then it is, as I said pages back, smoke and mirrors. It looks good, sounds good but was after all too good to be wholly accurate!
As I have previosuly said, if the gorvernment of the day (and successive governments!) considered the rate of taxation to be appropriate, then it is not for us to second guess the position. I don't believe it is for the public at large to second guess every step of government, when they do not ave access to all the information the government does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The only reason they are not normal companies is because they are tax exempt!
Inaccurate. They operate more akin to a trust, as opposed to companies. Their main purpose is to provide an income independent of government for the monarch and the PoW respectively. They are not commercial organisation in thems, though they may invest in commercial businesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Bush was elected to the post, the royals are not. It must come as a shock to HM when she has to pay for her food, heating etc when she is on holiday a couple of weeks a year.
If we accept that the monarch (and not a democratically elected leader) is head of state, why are we uncomfortable paying for the running costs of the monarchy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
News to me, when I file my company tax returns, they want to know how much I spend on paperclips.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ctsa/what.htm
You seem to confusing between filing tax returns and filing accounts with Companies House. All companies (public and private) in the UK are required to file their accounts, which depending on the status of the company, determines how much information is made publicly available (financial information, directors report, auditors report etc). It is completely distinct from the Inland Revenue. If you have a private company,you must have an obligation to file your accounts as well - though its not for me to remind you of your obligations under the Companies Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Calling other peoples posts garbage, is a deliberate insult IMO.
I am not disguising any insults. I have been very clear in my contention that as royal finances are not fully disclosed publicly, we do not have the full information on which to base our comments. It is as a result of this "imperfect information" that I have suggested that perhaps the conclusions you appear to be reaching are perhaps less than correct. If you have more information than is in the public domain, then perhaps you are better equipped to comment than I am, and it would help if you highlighted that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
it is my sense that you would disagree with anything, for your enjoyment, although I do have to say, I find it hard to respect someone who disguises insults in such a way.
Its seems to me that we have two main areas of disagreement:
1) In relation to royal finances, and any costs related to the royal family
2) You appear to have a view on William's career in the armed forces, which I do not support.

On either of these points, I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, I merely have a different point of view. If you find that difficult to accept, thats your outlook.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:18 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
- though its not for me to remind you of your obligations under the Companies Act.
Indeed it is not and no, there is no confusion.
< ed by Warren >
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 12-03-2008, 03:56 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel
By your rather limited response, I presume you have seen the flaws in your argument.
No, I do not accept there are any 'flaws' in my argument. As you have said yourself, you do not fully understand the way these things are worked out.

My 'limited response' was because I see no point in continuing a discussion with you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:02 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
As you have said yourself, you do not fully understand the way these things are worked out.
Are you suggesting you know more than there is in the public domain?

Anyways, for what its worth I do know the difference between the Companies House filing and the filing of a tax return, the difference between a duchy set up to "maintain" capital and a company....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 12-04-2008, 08:54 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Anyways, for what its worth I do know the difference between the Companies House filing and the filing of a tax return
Apparently not, -

HM Revenue & Customs: File a company tax return

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/abo...gba2.shtml#one
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 12-04-2008, 09:16 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
you are incorrect yet again, but clearly there is little point in contniuing this conversation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 01-23-2009, 06:24 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
The Queen and Prince of Wales may have escaped the worst of the recession as the value of their huge private estates rose sharply last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-per-cent.html
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 01-23-2009, 08:53 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
A curious article, which really tells us nothing.
The "value" of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall is irrelevant as 1. they aren't owned by either the Sovereign or the POW, and 2. it's the income that matters.
On the other hand, both the Balmoral and Sandringham estates are private property and their current land values may be of interest. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the article doesn't even hazard a guess.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 02-02-2009, 07:01 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Difficult to know where to post this, so apologies in advance if it's in the wrong place.

A committee will be set up later this year following complaints that it was unlawful to keep the contents of wills from the public.
It could mean that the legacies of the Queen and the Prince of Wales could be revealed after their deaths

Royal wills could be made public for first time - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 02-02-2009, 07:37 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
. . . . A committee will be set up later this year following complaints that it was unlawful to keep the contents of wills from the public.
Oh I do adore the English!

Quote:
Committe: A dark alley down which great ideas are lured and quietly strangled!
Here they are posing the question and answering it all in one go! How very efficient!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 02-02-2009, 08:06 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,800
I imagine that one topic the committee will be pondering is how to prevent details of the royal family's wills being made public. I have to say that I am not in favour of the government taxing berieved relatives when a loved one dies, but if ordinary folk have to pay death duties then the royal family should too, especially as they do pay other taxes.
With regard to publishing wills, it would obviously be very interesting to see how much was bequeathed and the various items left to people......"I bequeath to Anne, my grand-daughter, my silver tea service and chippendale tables. I bequeath to Princess Michael of Kent the breakfast tupperwear and a Racing Weekly back-copy of her choice..."! However, publishing wills would end up with the media having a field day!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 02-02-2009, 08:44 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
... but if ordinary folk have to pay death duties then the royal family should too...
They do, hence the auction by her children of some of Princess Margaret's possessions following her death. The only exception is a Sovereign to Sovereign transfer which is free of death duties. The late Diana, Princess of Wales's estate was also taxed following her death.

The publishing of the contents of royal wills is a separate issue to the duty payable on deceased estates.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 02-02-2009, 12:33 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Lib Dem MP Norman Baker said: “It is a matter of equity and transparency that people are able to see wills and it is quite wrong that the Royal Family is treated differently.

“They pass on gigantic sums of money without paying death duties. If we had the wills made public there might be fresh questions about whether they need quite so much money from the Civil List.”

Daily Express | UK News :: Queen ‘forced’ to reveal will secrets
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 02-02-2009, 06:08 PM
Emeralds and Opals's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: *****, United States
Posts: 582
Re: Royal Wills.

Royal wills could be made public for first time - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 02-03-2009, 06:35 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeralds and Opals View Post
The issue of what inheritance taxes may be payable and what is contained in the royal wills themselves are two completely different issues, IMO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 02-03-2009, 08:12 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The issue of what inheritance taxes may be payable and what is contained in the royal wills themselves are two completely different issues, IMO.
Without the full details of what has been left and to whom, it is impossibly to work out who pays how much Inheritance Tax, therefore the two subjects go hand in hand.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


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
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 109 02-06-2014 06:00 AM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 64 07-27-2013 05:49 AM
Royals and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 384 09-28-2012 02:27 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Germany and Austria 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]