The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:44 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJudith View Post

I think it will be very hard in the future to have a monarch that was so little known and thus so good at representing all people than the Queen.
Excellent observation. I have always believed that the current monarchs extraordinary popularity is precisely because she is an enigma. Both known & yet unknown.

As Walter Bagehot wrote :

"We must not let in daylight upon magic"
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJudith View Post
I always find it weird when people are hoping that Harry will be put aside and made irrelevant as soon as the Queen dies... especially when said people adore the Cambridge family because, after all, the future of Charlotte and Louis will look a lot like their uncle Harry's.
Being 'irrelevant' to the future of the BRF doesn't mean being put 'aside'. Margaret worked for her sister, the Gloucesters and Kents work for the Queen, her younger children work for the family as well but the reality is that they are irrelevant to the future of the monarchy as the line doesn't go through them.

Quote:
I am not sure what example William would give to his children by casting aside his own brother who has done nothing that could be compared to what Andrew is accused of.
No one is suggesting that William 'cast aside' his brother at all. However there are many people who suggest Charles is going to do exactly that to his siblings and cut them off - what example would that be setting? I don't think he has any such intention by the way but many people do.

Being 'irrelevant' doesn't mean 'being cast aside'. One relates to the long-term future of the monarchy and to that end Harry is already irrelevant as William has three children. It would be a massive tragedy for the BRF if William and his three children were all to die without further issue on a personal level, especially for Harry. That is why he is irrelevant. His line isn't necessary. It has nothing to do with how much he is loved by his family or how much he will work for the family - it is that his line isn't the main line and so is irrelevant. If Harry had never married and had Archie how would that have effected the BRF - it wouldn't as William has three children. If William had never married and had children that would have had an impact but not if Harry hadn't married.

Quote:
As for accusations of hypocrisy, haven't we talked many times how a lot of other member of the BRF, William included could be accused of that?
Of course - especially William when he told people that the world should have fewer babies and within weeks the announcement is made that his wife was expecting their third child.

Harry's hypocrisy was just the most recent and was very much a 'do as I say not do as I do' situation.

Quote:
Harry and Meghan attract other people, than the already Cambridge fans, to be interested in the BRF, how could it be bad news? Classic people could identify themselves with William and Kate, trendy/ecolo/woke with H&M and etc
No one is saying it is 'bad news' that people are attracted to the BRF because of Harry and Meghan. It is bad when they start wishing that Harry would be the next King (and I have seen that suggestion made - not here but elsewhere) as that would mean some of the supporters of Harry and Meghan actually want him to lose his older brother and his nephews and niece - some supporters there.

Quote:
I think it will be very hard in the future to have a monarch that was so little known and thus so good at representing all people than the Queen.
And yet the other monarchies of Europe have monarchs that are much better known than the Queen and they are able to represent all their people as well if not better than Elizabeth II. Her approach (and I love her) is very much stuck in the Victorian age rather than the 21st Century.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:18 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: paris, France
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

No one is saying it is 'bad news' that people are attracted to the BRF because of Harry and Meghan. It is bad when they start wishing that Harry would be the next King (and I have seen that suggestion made - not here but elsewhere) as that would mean some of the supporters of Harry and Meghan actually want him to lose his older brother and his nephews and niece - some supporters there.
Do you seriously think that the people that say "I wish Harry was the next king" mean that they would like a whole family of five to be dead??? Honestly, it simply means "I wish he was born first", "I wish succession laws were different", "I wish tons of other things that are not going to happen but none of them is the death of anyone".

Of course Harry is not vital to the Crown anymore but irrelevant is a step further away. Zara and Mike Tindall are irrelevant, Beatrice and Eugenie are already a bit more relevant to the Crown as they sometimes escort the Queen but Sophie, Harry, Anne.. are very relevant to the BRF. Why would you spend money on secretaries, PR persons, for irrelevant people? Would Scotland yard really protect irrelevant people? As long as the public has an interest in them they will remain relevant. And this interest could last at least 10-15 years until George starts dating and Charlotte starts going out
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:16 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
[QUOTE=Iluvbertie;2252517]


"Of course - especially William when he told people that the world should have fewer babies and within weeks the announcement is made that his wife was expecting their third child."

Except that he didn't say anything of the kind, unless people on social media and tabloid journalists wilfully misinterpret his words.

https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-...usk-trust-ball
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
elsewhere)
And yet the other monarchies of Europe have monarchs that are much better known than the Queen and they are able to represent all their people as well if not better than Elizabeth II. Her approach (and I love her) is very much stuck in the Victorian age rather than the 21st Century.
I do like the Queen's dutiful undramatic style although I can see why some (many?) find it too old fashioned. Maybe that makes me a Victorian in my head

I think the monarch her/himself has to be incredibly neutral so as not to court the slightest whiff of controversy about anything.

I am intrigued about how some of the other European monarchs do represent their people better than the Queen?
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:24 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No one is saying it is 'bad news' that people are attracted to the BRF because of Harry and Meghan. It is bad when they start wishing that Harry would be the next King (and I have seen that suggestion made - not here but elsewhere) as that would mean some of the supporters of Harry and Meghan actually want him to lose his older brother and his nephews and niece - some supporters there.



And yet the other monarchies of Europe have monarchs that are much better known than the Queen and they are able to represent all their people as well if not better than Elizabeth II. Her approach (and I love her) is very much stuck in the Victorian age rather than the 21st Century.
I agree with you so often, Bertie, that I am surprised to disagree with you here. Wishing Harry was the next king doesn't mean people wish his family would die. More likely, they wish he was born first, or as another poster suggested, that the succession laws were different.

As to the proposition that other countries have monarchs better known than Queen Elizabeth II, she is perhaps the most recognized figure in the world, and I (personally) believe that we are living in what will historically become known as the Second Elizabethan Era. I would venture a guess that if a survey of all the world was taken, Her Majesty would be synonymous with the United Kingdom in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. I cannot think of any other monarch for whom this is even close to being true.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJudith View Post
Harry and Meghan attract other people, than the already Cambridge fans, to be interested in the BRF, how could it be bad news? Classic people could identify themselves with William and Kate, trendy/ecolo/woke with H&M and etc

I think it will be very hard in the future to have a monarch that was so little known and thus so good at representing all people than the Queen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
And yet the other monarchies of Europe have monarchs that are much better known than the Queen and they are able to represent all their people as well if not better than Elizabeth II. Her approach (and I love her) is very much stuck in the Victorian age rather than the 21st Century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
As to the proposition that other countries have monarchs better known than Queen Elizabeth II, she is perhaps the most recognized figure in the world, and I (personally) believe that we are living in what will historically become known as the Second Elizabethan Era. I would venture a guess that if a survey of all the world was taken, Her Majesty would be synonymous with the United Kingdom in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. I cannot think of any other monarch for whom this is even close to being true.
I think the argument which MJudith was making (to which Iluvbertie was replying) was that by allowing very little information about herself to be known to the public (though hundreds of millions of people could recognize Elizabeth II's face and role, the majority of them likely have very limited knowledge of her as an individual), Queen Elizabeth II has enabled a wider variety of people to identify themselves with her.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:34 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
We have seen in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Spain and in Japan that a new monarch indeed means another style but also a new boost. How could "folksy" Prince Willem-Alexander ever replace his Most Beatrixian Mother? How could the clumsy and goofy Prince Philippe ever function in that dysfunctional constitution of Belgian, Flemish, Walloon and Brussels politics? How could vulnerable Princess Masako be an Empress? But see: like Prince Felipe, all of them have taken over and so far with success. I have no doubt that King Charles, with the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, Rothesay and Cambridge and with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be an united front and show a new face of the British monarchy.
I guess we shall see. Iím not as convinced it will be as easy especially with people so openly against the monarchy. I do believe a lot of the current goodwill is directly related to The Queen but even recent events show how easily that can shift.

When she is gone there will be a drastic change. And frankly itís way to hard to guess how the monarchy will be effected. Hopefully we have many more years but itís coming and they all need to be prepared.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:44 PM
Ista's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think the argument which MJudith was making (to which Iluvbertie was replying) was that by allowing very little information about herself to be known to the public (though hundreds of millions of people could recognize Elizabeth II's face and role, the majority of them likely have very limited knowledge of her as an individual), Queen Elizabeth II has enabled a wider variety of people to identify themselves with her.
I think this is very true. Many times here and on other forums I've seen people make some kind of statement about the Queen for which there is, objectively, absolutely no evidence, but the statement stands because there is also virtually no evidence refuting it! It's one of her real strengths as the symbol of the monarchy, and one which Charles lacks.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,671
The Queen has certainly made herself more popular, IMO, by saying little on almost any topic which allows her to be "everyones Queen" as people can imagine her agreeing with their views and believes. All we really know is she loves racing, goes to church and likes dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I agree with you so often, Bertie, that I am surprised to disagree with you here. Wishing Harry was the next king doesn't mean people wish his family would die. More likely, they wish he was born first, or as another poster suggested, that the succession laws were different.
My point is that I have seen many comments wishing exactly that - that William and his family would die so that Harry could be King and Meghan Queen. Look around twitter and instagram, especially amongst the Meghan fans. The comments are there wanting William to die along with his children.

If all I had seen were comments such as 'I wish Harry was born first' or 'I wish Harry was going to be the next King' I wouldn't have written what I wrote.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
My point is that I have seen many comments wishing exactly that - that William and his family would die so that Harry could be King and Meghan Queen. Look around twitter and instagram, especially amongst the Meghan fans. The comments are there wanting William to die along with his children.

If all I had seen were comments such as 'I wish Harry was born first' or 'I wish Harry was going to be the next King' I wouldn't have written what I wrote.
Those comments are as appalling and despicable as the ones that say Harry is a race traitor and make horrid comments about Archie. And unfortunately people posting in relative anonymity feel more free to make loathsome remarks.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:14 PM
Ista's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
My point is that I have seen many comments wishing exactly that - that William and his family would die so that Harry could be King and Meghan Queen. Look around twitter and instagram, especially amongst the Meghan fans. The comments are there wanting William to die along with his children.

If all I had seen were comments such as 'I wish Harry was born first' or 'I wish Harry was going to be the next King' I wouldn't have written what I wrote.
I've also noticed this. It's a relatively small subset of people, but it exists, so Iluvbertie's comments made sense to me. I don't really think that the vast majority of the people who make those statements seriously wish harm to come to the Cambridge family, but I do think it points up the element of fantasy there is for some royal followers: they aren't seeing the royals as real live people with an existence separate from what we see of them on the news or on social media, the royals are seen almost as characters in a very long-running TV show. And there is a lot of wish-fulfillment and identifying with particular royals as placeholders. It doesn't seem to be confined to any single royal, either. It's an interesting phenomenon, and one which shares some similarities with some celebrity fandoms.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:21 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
I've also noticed this. It's a relatively small subset of people, but it exists, so Iluvbertie's comments made sense to me. I don't really think that the vast majority of the people who make those statements seriously wish harm to come to the Cambridge family, but I do think it points up the element of fantasy there is for some royal followers: they aren't seeing the royals as real live people with an existence separate from what we see of them on the news or on social media, the royals are seen almost as characters in a very long-running TV show. And there is a lot of wish-fulfillment and identifying with particular royals as placeholders. It doesn't seem to be confined to any single royal, either. It's an interesting phenomenon, and one which shares some similarities with some celebrity fandoms.
Charles, himself, stated once upon a time that "they've turned us into a bloody soap opera".

Prince X may be the most popular prince on the planet right now and gain the most bandwidth and have his face splashed all over the glossy magazines and every one is waiting with bated breath to see who he will choose to marry. 50 years down the line, he's an old fart and boring. That's looking at popularity and an individual rather than paying attention to what that prince's actual role is within the monarchy, what he does with it and his place in the overall scheme of things.

If I were to do a "person on the street" poll in the center of London, today, I bet my last tomato that, if asked, very few people could rattle off the full extent of *all* of Prince Charles' titles and honors. Probably even the same with Harry or William even.

The wishful thinking of "wish X would be King" is putting a certain person on a pedestal more than it would be thinking of the benefits that person, as King, could have for the monarch and its people.

Popularity is fleeting. Even the 15 minutes of fame aspired by a lot of people has shrunk to the point where it seems like people have the attention span of a gnat sometimes.
__________________
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
  #235  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:59 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Those comments are as appalling and despicable as the ones that say Harry is a race traitor and make horrid comments about Archie. And unfortunately people posting in relative anonymity feel more free to make loathsome remarks.
Agreed. Hateful comments toward any of them should bit be tolerated but social media can be a awful as helpful. I've seen some pretty vile stuff about Meghan and Kate. Funny enough it seems to mostly be those two targeted.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:05 AM
Ista's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Agreed. Hateful comments toward any of them should bit be tolerated but social media can be a awful as helpful. I've seen some pretty vile stuff about Meghan and Kate. Funny enough it seems to mostly be those two targeted.
I have always felt that that has a lot to do with the fantasy aspects that some people lay on Harry and William. It ties in to what Osipi was saying about the handsome, popular prince who is the Prince Charming of the moment. And then Prince Charming gets married, and it wasn't to the (for lack of a better word) fan. I do wonder long-term what kind of implications these kind of fandoms have for the monarchy. It's certainly not something that the Queen had to deal with.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Agreed. Hateful comments toward any of them should bit be tolerated but social media can be a awful as helpful. I've seen some pretty vile stuff about Meghan and Kate. Funny enough it seems to mostly be those two targeted.
It must be my old age now but I see more hatred on all subjects in this world today. Social media, where people hide behind their true identity, seems to really make people nasty and vile. They will say things on Internet that they would never dare publicly say on TV. I honestly wonder if most is just to cause a bit of trouble because their lives are so shallow and useless. Maybe drugs or lack of ambition to seek jobs could be another. Anyway, I feel sorry for them if their lives revolve around making the lives of others, whether Royals, Politicians, Religious or just another human's life hurt with their malicious statements and actions. KARMA.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,194
I found out many moons ago with teenage boys coming into a "live chat" online experience that it was common to use every four letter word in the book for the shock and awe factor. Its coming into a place and wanting to stand out, to get attention and unfortunately hope this method helps them "fit in". I believe that is true today still but is far more rampant. To be negative and exhibit a "shock and awe" factor makes one stand out and gleans attention. I've had enough of that for a lifetime so rarely even venture into social media.

Here, we're different. We're actually talking about the future of the British monarchy in the years to come. We know our 93 year old Queen isn't immortal and we've followed Charles and the other family members long enough to know that no matter what the "popular" attitude is towards the British royals or who is the flavor of the month is in all the tabloids is or who has gotten himself into some really deep doo-doo lately is as fleeting as the lifespan of a gnat.

The monarchy, in and of itself is an institution that has prevailed for over a thousand years, is still going strong and we're actually in a period that hasn't been seen in most people's lifetimes. The transition of reigns between monarchs. From the Second Elizabethan Era to something totally new, different and will reflect all the traditions, the pomp and circumstance and the duty and responsibility that's always been there but with a different flavor and perhaps some really interesting changes.

We're looking ahead here. Its better than immersing ourselves in the mundane, superficial garbage that is out there elsewhere.
__________________
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
  #239  
Old 09-14-2019, 05:21 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 9,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
I have always felt that that has a lot to do with the fantasy aspects that some people lay on Harry and William. It ties in to what Osipi was saying about the handsome, popular prince who is the Prince Charming of the moment. And then Prince Charming gets married, and it wasn't to the (for lack of a better word) fan. I do wonder long-term what kind of implications these kind of fandoms have for the monarchy. It's certainly not something that the Queen had to deal with.
You are SPOT ON with the sentiment about why the wives of some of the Royal princes are singled out for attack. It's an unhealthy, borderline obsessive feeling of involvement and identification with the lives of these men that is rooted in low self esteem, narcissism, and envy.

This type of obsession and unhealthy involvement in the personal lives of celebrities, politicians and Royals was unheard of before the age of social media.

It seems to be predominated by females...at least I have rarely seen the commoner male spouses of Royal women singled out in a similar way.

I will never, ever forget a post I read on another Royal message board at the time HGD Guillaume's engagement to Countess Stephanie de Lannoy was announced...." I find it incredibly insulting...the implication that someone LIKE ME is not good enough!"

In other words the fact that a Royal prince whom she had never met in her life had not chosen to wed a regular working class woman was a slap in the face and a rejection of herself. Personally.

The indignation and sense of personal offense of this comment made me howl with laughter at the same time it sent a chill up my spine.

Even if I have been disappointed and in a couple of cases appalled by the choices of spouse made by certain Royals...I have never questioned their right as humans to love and choose who they want.

It's about realizing that we do not own these people even if we follow them and are interested in their lives.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:12 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
You are SPOT ON with the sentiment about why the wives of some of the Royal princes are singled out for attack. It's an unhealthy, borderline obsessive feeling of involvement and identification with the lives of these men that is rooted in low self esteem, narcissism, and envy.

This type of obsession and unhealthy involvement in the personal lives of celebrities, politicians and Royals was unheard of before the age of social media.

It seems to be predominated by females...at least I have rarely seen the commoner male spouses of Royal women singled out in a similar way.

I will never, ever forget a post I read on another Royal message board at the time HGD Guillaume's engagement to Countess Stephanie de Lannoy was announced...." I find it incredibly insulting...the implication that someone LIKE ME is not good enough!"

In other words the fact that a Royal prince whom she had never met in her life had not chosen to wed a regular working class woman was a slap in the face and a rejection of herself. Personally.

The indignation and sense of personal offense of this comment made me howl with laughter at the same time it sent a chill up my spine.

Even if I have been disappointed and in a couple of cases appalled by the choices of spouse made by certain Royals...I have never questioned their right as humans to love and choose who they want.

It's about realizing that we do not own these people even if we follow them and are interested in their lives.
Good observation. I have noticed that the only male commoner consort -Victoria's Daniel-is never attcked or criticized by these women in such rabid fashion.

Royal fangirls are livid that the destiny hasn't brought Prince Charming Millionaire on their doorstep. They love bleating about being hard-working women and feminists , while at the same time hating other women who managed to catch rich and influential husbands.

It's comical how they despise Harry-everything that he has ever done-his work with Invictus and Sentebale and army-is null and void because he married woman they don't like.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1504 10-23-2019 12:24 PM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 721 08-15-2019 01:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 10:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 10:53 AM




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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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