The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Queen Elizabeth seems to have chosen the scenario with fewer people and engagements by not requesting the Snowdon, Phillips, York, or Wessex children to become working royals and, aside from the York sisters, not titling them Prince and Princess.

The Snowdons and Phillips were never going to be HRH or Prince & Princess as their Royal parent is female. Therefore there was no expectation of carrying out royal duties--just like the family of Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood--the Queen's aunt.

The Earl & Countess of Wessex both had careers at the time of their marriage and did not expect to become working royals. I'm sure this affected the decision to ask that their children not be titled HRH & Princess/Prince. It was only after it became obvious that they, as close relatives of the Queen, could not continue working in their chosen fields did they shut down their businesses and begin full time royal duties.


I wonder, if the Duchess of York had not made some of the poor life choices she did, if her daughters would be viewed more favorably.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,363
How do we know that Charlotte and Louis will be chomping at the bit to perform royal duties fulltime in about twenty five years time? George's destiny is set out for him really, if the monarchy survives in Britain. That's not the case for his younger siblings, who might very well have some ambitions and vocations of their own.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The Snowdons and Phillips were never going to be HRH or Prince & Princess as their Royal parent is female. Therefore there was no expectation of carrying out royal duties--just like the family of Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood--the Queen's aunt.

That may change, however, following the introduction of equal primogeniture. Princess Charlotte's husband may be the first royal husband (other than a reigning Queen or future reigning Queen's husband) to be a full-time royal and her children may be titled. Or everything may stay the same as far as female lines are concerned. We simply don't know at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,007
If working royals are needed the Cambridge children would still come before any of Harry’s children.

As for the Wessex kids, the statement from BP said the Queen decided with the agreement of Edward and Sophie.

Since the statement was released on their wedding day and before any children were in the picture, I have a feeling it was probably mutual although Edward and Sophie would really have no choice but to agree
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That may change, however, following the introduction of equal primogeniture. Princess Charlotte's husband may be the first royal husband (other than a reigning Queen's husband) to be a full-time royal and her children may be titled. Or everything may stay the same as far as female lines are concerned. We simply don't know at this point.

Or it could change that neither Charlotte's or Louis's spouses have any title nor their children. As you say, we don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
How do we know that Charlotte and Louis will be chomping at the bit to perform royal duties fulltime in about twenty five years time? George's destiny is set out for him really, if the monarchy survives in Britain. That's not the case for his younger siblings, who might very well have some ambitions and vocations of their own.
I think as children of a monarch, it'd be difficult for them to carve out a for-profit career.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
If working royals are needed the Cambridge children would still come before any of Harry’s children.

As for the Wessex kids, the statement from BP said the Queen decided with the agreement of Edward and Sophie.

Since the statement was released on their wedding day and before any children were in the picture, I have a feeling it was probably mutual although Edward and Sophie would really have no choice but to agree

Honestly, that doesn't sound like something the Queen would have been first to put forth. I really think it was driven by Edward and Sophie because of where they expected their lives would be when they had children. I'm not sure different choices might not have been made if they'd known they'd become full time royals a few years into their marriage,
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,363
No, Jacqui, but they could go and live and work in other countries, the US for example.

I just feel that none of us know what the Royal landscape will be like in another quarter of a century or more. It could be a very minimalist one with just monarch, consort, heir (and wife.)

The monarchy could, heaven forbid, be gone, in which case every member of the BRF, including the youngest members now, will be in private life and pursuing careers.

I just don't think it is written in stone that Charlotte is automatically pencilled in as a future Princess Anne or Louis as a future Edward or Andrew, undertaking royal duties fulltime.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Or it could change that neither Charlotte's or Louis's spouses have any title nor their children. As you say, we don't know.

The rationale to treat female lines and husbands of princesses differently from male lines and wives of princes was twofold:


  1. The patrilineal definition of family, under which husbands of princesses and their children technically belonged to a "different family" (e.g. the Phillips or the Armstrong-Jones families) other than the Royal Family.
  2. Male preference primogeniture, which pushed female lines down in the line of succession, especially when monarchs like George V or Elizabeth II had multiple sons.
Male preference primogeniture is, however, gone now. Charlotte's children will be ahead of Louis's children for example in the order of succession (and also ahead of Louis himself BTW). As for the patrilineal concept of family, the Queen herself was the first person to ignore it when she decreed that her descendants with an HRH style should continue to be known as the House of Windsor, and there are several examples in other countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, or Sweden) of children of princesses who do not use their father's family name.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-27-2018, 01:12 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The rationale to treat female lines and husbands of princesses differently from male lines and wives of princes was twofold:
  1. The patrilineal definition of family, under which husbands of princesses and their children technically belonged to a "different family" (e.g. the Phillips or the Armstrong-Jones families) other than the Royal Family.
  2. Male preference primogeniture, which pushed female lines down in the line of succession, especially when monarchs like George V or Elizabeth II had multiple sons.
Male preference primogeniture is, however, gone now. Charlotte's children will be ahead of Louis's children for example in the order of succession (and also ahead of Louis himself BTW). As for the patrilineal concept of family, the Queen herself was the first person to ignore it when she decreed that her descendants with an HRH style should continue to be known as the House of Windsor, and there are several examples in other countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, or Sweden) of children of princesses who do not use their father's family name.
True, and the patrilineal concept of family was often more than a technicality: Children of princesses normally were raised in their father's native land instead of their mother's, inherited their paternal family's lands and estates instead of their maternal family's, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I think in the case of Wessex's children, it was at the request of their parents?
As far as I am aware, the Palace never officially explained the Queen's decisions about titles or official duties. But it would have looked odd had Louise and James been allowed to become working royals while their older and royal cousins were not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The Snowdons and Phillips were never going to be HRH or Prince & Princess as their Royal parent is female. Therefore there was no expectation of carrying out royal duties--just like the family of Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood--the Queen's aunt.
Agreed, but if Queen Elizabeth II had thought the idea of reducing the royal family's engagements was unacceptable, she could have requested that they become working royals with or without a title or even elevated them to Prince and Princess, as the Fifes were. The Yorks, in any case, already were HRH Princess, and as you mentioned, the same would have applied to the Wessex children had she not decided otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-27-2018, 01:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As far as I am aware, the Palace never officially explained the Queen's decisions about titles or official duties. But it would have looked odd had Louise and James been allowed to become working royals while their older and royal cousins were not.
I wasn't referring to future duties. I was talking about HRH title.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-27-2018, 01:43 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I wasn't referring to future duties. I was talking about HRH title.
Yes, I meant that the statement from Buckingham Palace did not explain either the decision about titles or the decision about duties.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-27-2018, 03:40 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them?
Well, as we know, Anne did not refuse titles for her children being children of the matrilineal line. Just as both Beatrice and Eugenies children will also be commoners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
The problem with that is they've explicitly stated she'll be Princess Consort when the time comes back when they got married. And I am supportive of Camilla being Queen Consort, but just pointing out that they've kind of backed themselves into a corner here.
On the advice of little grey men from both within the palace and the government. However, changing her title requires and act of parliament and they are a little busy doing other things it seems. Then there's that whole Commonwealth thing . . .

The decision on the Wessex children was based on a premise that no longer exists i.e. that Edward and Sophie would pursue a life in private business and not become full-time royals. So too would Edward become the Duke of Edinburgh after the passing of his father and would thus be on a level with Andrew, Duke of York.

However, unlike the Netherlands, the media were of no mind to allow Edward and Sophie to be "private citizens" and with their active intervention, they torpedoed any chance of them pursuing their careers. They were the children of the Monarch and were shirking their Duty! Reluctantly they were forced to abandon their dreams.

However, things changed and suddenly Edward and Sophie were both required to become full-time royals, a totally unforeseen and unplanned situation. E & S became HM's go to couple for overseas royal weddings and birthdays and funerals among other things. The way the DM et al harass Beatrice and Eugenie show the media still has a taste for royalty and, as with Catherine Middleton, made any job they had very difficult.

The notion that Princess Charlotte's husband should be titled (Prince Charlotte?) would find a very strong pushback if the aristocracy were still locked into male primogeniture. It would open a whole other can of worms.

What I am saying is that we have no idea what the situation will be when H & M have children. They may still be the Queen's great-grandchildren or, they may be the King's grandchildren and, if indeed Charles was King, I believe he would want all his grandchildren to hold the same title as his own children did.

As to the requirements of the Monarchy? In the post-Brexit UK, the government may want them to step up their "soft diplomacy", hosting more State Visits and doing charm offensives all over the Commonwealth.

As I said, we none of us have a crystal ball and if this future is not the one HM saw as a young mother, there is nothing to say that the same would not hold true for the Sussexes, or even the Cambridge's. Therefore, hasty decisions should not be made and any idea of stripping the York girls of their titles is self-defeating as their titles end with them.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stamford, United States
Posts: 43
If Brits reject the ROYAL FAMILY. What would happen?

If I remember correctly the Crown "owned" or currently "owns' all the museums, castles and properties, but exchanged their direct control to the government. In exchange for these properties and the income they generate the Queen or King takes a purse for covering their family and upkeep.

Do you think the RF will simply hand over the goods and walk away if the populace rejects the monarchy? I wonder if the Royal Family continued to take the purse without the attendant "work" would that be acceptable? I bet they'd love to take off their shoes and kick back. I think that all the charities that underpin the British nation would continue on and they (the family) would still be around.

What do you think would happen?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:39 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,297
It would be quite challenging to handle such a situation. iluvbertie is probably the right person to talk about the ownership of museums, castles and properties. I believe recently there was a post in relation to what "the crown" owned and it came down to very little.

Found it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No. They aren't really 'private property' in the same way as Sandringham.

The 'Crown Estates' are lands that remained in 'crown' hands as the various monarchs gave lands to their supporters (remember William I claimed ALL the land of England as being his and thus established the 'Crown' as the owner of the land). Over the centuries the monarch lost their power to the extent that now they are mainly a figurehead and the income of the Crown Estates is given to the government to help fund the government expenditures. George III handed it all over as there wasn't enough to fund the army and the judiciary and other aspects of government still in the monarch's hands and he felt that it should all be funded and organised by the government of the day. He asked for enough back to fund his official duties and that of his family (the now defunct Civil List).

In 1992 the Queen agreed to repay the Civil List payments to all of her extended family - only The Queen, The Queen Mother and Philip kept their Civil List payments and the Queen repaid, from the Duchy of Lancaster, all of the other moneys paid.

In 2012 the government changed the way the official engagements were funded again - with the Sovereign Grant which is equal to 15% of the Crown Estates. The other 85% stays with the government to spend as it sees fit. That 15% also has to cover the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces.

As a result - with no monarch there would be no need for the BRF to receive anything from the Crown Estates as they wouldn't be living in the occupied royal palaces nor undertaking official duties on behalf of the nation. That money would presumably be needed to fund the President in their official duties.

The Duchies were set up as a source of private income separate to the Crown Estates so that there was a clear separation between the expenses involved in running the country and the monarch and heir's own personal expenses. As the monarch and heir will no longer have any position there would be no need for that income to go to them. They are also specifically for the 'monarch' and 'heir apparent'. The Sovereign Grant has guaranteed that the Duchy of Cornwall will go to the heir apparent regardless of gender or relationship to the monarch even if they aren't the Duke e.g. if Charles were to die before the Queen then William will have the income of the Duchy of Cornwall but not the title Duke of Cornwall.

They would keep Sandringham, Balmoral and Gatcombe as those properties have been purchased outright but none of the other homes e.g. Highgrove, Royal Lodge or Bagshot Park are although Andrew did pay the 75 year lease on Royal Lodge in advance so he would probably be safe to stay there until the end of the lease.

In short the government would take the Crown Estates, and the Duchies as there would be no reason for that money to go to the royal family if the country was a republic.

The younger royals would be expected to get jobs and earn their own way or live off their existing fortunes. They may pay a pension to the older royals - those over 65 definitely. Andrew has a naval pension but Edward would have to hope he has enough in trust funds to live the rest of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Royal Collection is like the Crown Estate - it belongs to the nation and not to the BRF personally so the Royal Collection would be available for whomever the government decided could use it or go on display in the various palaces that would be opened as museums no doubt.

Most of the jewels and art works have been placed in the Royal Collection to avoid taxes over the years - either gift or death taxes. All gifts given on official visits over a certain figure go into the royal collection these days and do not remain the personal property of the royal who received those gifts.
In this thread: Royal Wealth and Finances


I think if it's what the people wanted the RF would go, what they chose to become afterwards would be up to them. Unfortunately none of them in the top 5 seem particularly prepared for that scenario and would have to rest on their laurels a little bit. They would never be out of the limelight though, it would take decades for that to happen but i expect as private citizens to a degree their life becomes somewhat easier.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgtns View Post
If I remember correctly the Crown "owned" or currently "owns' all the museums, castles and properties, but exchanged their direct control to the government. In exchange for these properties and the income they generate the Queen or King takes a purse for covering their family and upkeep.

Do you think the RF will simply hand over the goods and walk away if the populace rejects the monarchy? I wonder if the Royal Family continued to take the purse without the attendant "work" would that be acceptable? I bet they'd love to take off their shoes and kick back. I think that all the charities that underpin the British nation would continue on and they (the family) would still be around.

What do you think would happen?
What "museums, castles and properties" are you referring to?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-16-2018, 02:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
How do we know that Charlotte and Louis will be chomping at the bit to perform royal duties fulltime in about twenty five years time? George's destiny is set out for him really, if the monarchy survives in Britain. That's not the case for his younger siblings, who might very well have some ambitions and vocations of their own.
I think the problem is that they’d run into the same issue Edward and Sophie did if they tried to branch out in the private sector. As a business woman I can say that scrutiny and press coverage like the royals get is really unhelpful in many ways. While some could be good publicity, any mistake (and there always are) is magnified and maligned. Among many other problem being the children of the monarch causes. The press isn’t going away. And I think being Prince Charles’ son did eventually lead to Harry’s decision to leave the military. We all saw the difficulty faced the two times he was deployed to Afghanistan. Iraq was completely out of question due to safety concerns, which frustrated Harry greatly. If he were to continue in the military, he would be relegated to desk duty, which really wasn’t what Harry wanted to do. He did, thankfully, find his own way eventually. However, I don’t see this problem going away for any younger sibling of a future monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-16-2018, 02:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
What "museums, castles and properties" are you referring to?
Do they own museums? Castles, yes some, and some are their private propery, others are State property..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-16-2018, 02:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,140
The only "museums" I can think of are the Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace and Holyrood. These display items from the Royal Collection which is held in trust by the "Sovereign", reality being it is State property placed at the Sovereign disposal to use as they want but not sold, destroyed etc.
I wondered if dgtns was asking if the Queen as Sovereign owned all the museums in the UK which would be a no. A lot of these are "state owned" which is also referred to as "owned by the Crown" (so as Head of State there is a very distant link to the Queen) but are certainly not owned by the Sovereign, some are privately owned or owed by charities and other non-for profits. The Crown is also used to refer to who owns the UK's embassies overseas (clearly HM isn't going to walk off with these), the Crown n that sense means the State.

The reality is if the monarchy ended very little would change - the UK's museums would still operate, the castles would still be there, the state owned properties still standing. The difference would be that the Royal Palaces and Windsor would not be used by the RF anymore (unless HM struck a deal with the government) and could be used by the new "President", likewise the artwork, furniture and other items owned by the Royal Collection could be used by the new Head of State for simply become part of the State owned collections. The Crown Estate would continue as before, except not paying a percentage of its profits to the Royal Household for its running costs, all profits would go to the Treasury. The State would keep BP and probably use it like the Royal Palaces in Amsterdam or Stockholm, open to the public most the time but also used for State dinners etc. Windsor would probably become a permanent museum. Knowing our governments they would probably sell of much of the Crown Estate to make a quick buck but sell for low prices and regret it in a few years.

The Queen and her family would walk away with Balmoral & Sandringham, the artwork they privately own, the jewels they privately own, the Queen's private investments, the Queen's horses and the Queen's stamp collection (I think). HM would enjoy the life of a lady in the country, riding horses. Anne would actually do the best as the only child of the Queen to have a privately owned property and is already a dab hand at managing it financially- Andrew and Edward would we assume be allowed to continue using their residences under the current lease contracts they have with the Crown Estate but when they expire there would be no guarantee they would be renewed, likewise Charles would not be in receipt of the Duchy of Cornwall so no guarantee he could expect to continue using Highgrove or his Welsh home (though he would still have Birkhall to use but I'm not sure he owns this or more likely its part of the Balmoral estate).

I do wonder how prepared the RF are for this ever happening, the Queen receives £12million+ from the Duchy of Lancaster that goes to her personally and is used to meet a lot of the costs of other royals etc but that still leave a fair amount going to her personally, could the RF cope even privately without this and just the income from Balmoral, Sandringham and private investments? Recently in the Norwegian RF threads it was said King Harald V's fortune was mainly held in trusts set up in case of an "emergency" to provide income independent of the State - maybe QE2 should think of something similar.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-16-2018, 03:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
The Queen and her family would walk away with Balmoral & Sandringham, the artwork they privately own, the jewels they privately own, the Queen's private investments, the Queen's horses and the Queen's stamp collection (I think). HM would enjoy the life of a lady in the country, riding horses. Anne would actually do the best as the only child of the Queen to have a privately owned property and is already a dab hand at managing it financially- Andrew and Edward would we assume be allowed to continue using their residences under the current lease contracts they have with the Crown Estate but when they expire there would be no guarantee they would be renewed, likewise Charles would not be in receipt of the Duchy of Cornwall so no guarantee he could expect to continue using Highgrove or his Welsh home (though he would still have Birkhall to use but I'm not sure he owns this or more likely its part of the Balmoral estate).

I do wonder how prepared the RF are for this ever happening, the Queen receives £12million+ from the Duchy of Lancaster that goes to her personally and is used to meet a lot of the costs of other royals etc but that still leave a fair amount going to her personally, could the RF cope even privately without this and just the income from Balmoral, Sandringham and private investments? Recently in the Norwegian RF threads it was said King Harald V's fortune was mainly held in trusts set up in case of an "emergency" to provide income independent of the State - maybe QE2 should think of something similar.
The private estates, Balmoral and Sandringham, are open to visitors during a certain period of the year to help pay for the upkeep. I imagine there is more That can be done to generate the income if needed. HM and Prince Charles are fairly conservative people, and there has been evidence that Prince Charles is a great business man himself, so I imagine they have saved a nice nest egg for themselves. The question is what to do with the rest? They obviously wouldn’t be able to support them at the level they currently do. Although you can argue that they wouldn’t need to if there is no work carried out on behalf of HM.
__________________

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 1492 12-10-2018 12:25 PM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 717 04-13-2018 03:24 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
aif australia book british royal family camilla charles china clothes countess of wessex crown princess victoria current events dailyfail discussão duchess of cornwall duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh fashion felipe and letizia germany gordon greece harry harry and meghan her children interesting facts iñaki urdangarín jacobite juan carlos king philippe lineage meghan markle monaco patron plantagenets porphyria prince aymeric prince charles prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas princess princess alexia princess anne princesses princess louise public image queen elisabeth queen mary of teck queen maxima relationship royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal wedding sarah duchess of york saxony state visit surname sweden swedish royal family tom bower viscount severn wedding windsor castle wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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