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
 
  #121  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:00 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
I am not just talking about marriage it is more than that their are too many problems going on with the royal family the need to settle out their problems. And taking care of the royal family is way too expensive all of those millions a pounds a year some of it on useless things.
__________________

__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:50 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
What problems exactly? I don't see any major problems. I notice you're from the USA. Did you know that you pay 5 times more to keep Mr and Mrs Bush and the past Presidents and First Ladies than we pay for our monarchy? The monarchy costs us 62p a year and we get every penny back from the work the Royal Family do. So the expensive argument really is blown out of the water when simple facts and figures are put together. What useless things do you mean?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:05 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
Parades, jewelery and horse racing just to name a few who nows what less their spending their money and the president of The United States does not make that much money just a little bit over a thousand but were not talking about me or the president of The United States were talking about will the British monarchy last.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Star
Parades, jewelery and horse racing just to name a few who nows what less their spending their money and the president of The United States does not make that much money just a little bit over a thousand but were not talking about me or the president of The United States were talking about will the British monarchy last.
Frankly, Next Star, I think the ceremonial aspect of the British Royal Family is very much what the public wants to see, but on special occasions such as weddings and coronations, not as an everyday expense.

The public does wants value for money from the Royal Family. They don't want to see a spoilt group of layabouts living in luxury at the taxpayers expense. They want to see a living, working monarchy and I do think at present that is what they are getting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:21 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Parades are part of the tradition of this country. Every country has parades of some kind, even Communist China. Having a Monarchy doesnt automatically mean parades. Jewellery - well, the Queen hasn't bought anymore. Every tiara she wears is part of a collection built up over time and if we're penny pinching for past expenditure then we could equally ask why the Prime Minister's wife had a personal stylist to follow her around on the General Election trail who was paid for by the tax-payer at a cost of 60,000 pounds. Horse racing? Oh please. All sorts of people gamble on the horse racing and the Queen never gambles massive amounts. If she has a bet, it's with her private funds not with tax-payers money.

You said that monarchy was expensive as a form of Government. I used the Presidential system you have as a counter-argument because it's a fact that Americans pay for Mr and Mrs Bush, Mrs Reagan, George Bush Sr and Barbara Bush, Betty Ford etc etc. We only pay for our Queen who dishes out the money as she sees fit and the tax we pay for our monarchy is 5 times less than the tax you pay for your system. So, whilst it's not convenient for you to hear, the fact remains that a monarchy isn't nessecarily more expensive than a republic which is the argument you put forward.

In short, I'm afraid what you've said is factually incorrect. Expenditure is not an issue - indeed, most people think 62p a year is extremely good value. Some years we pay 61p, some years we pay 60p and as the Royal Family slims down, that'll go down even more. The monarchy is good value for money, something that even republicans can't argue with. The Queen pays tax. Money isn't an issue and certainly won't threaten the British Monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:37 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 872
Why are chancing the subject please talk about what is in the thread ?. I think that spending too much money on unnessary things will end the monarchy. spent your money wisely that is the term.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:42 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
But that's what monarchies are like in Europe today, except maybe in Monaco. We give them money just for looking pretty. But that's what it's like today. The kings and queens doesn't rule their countries anymore. They just do promotion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:43 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I'm not changing the subject Next Star - you bought up money as an issue and I've discussed it. You seemed to be suggesting that monarchies are always expensive and I think I've put forward enough evidence to show that that isn't factually correct, especially in the areas you made an example of. I agree that money spent on unnessecary things could play a part in a republican argument but that isn't the case and from your previous posts, you seemed to be suggesting that the monarchy was already spending alot extravagantly and it was this and this alone that would end the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:44 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
But that's what it's like today. The kings and queens doesn't rule their countries anymore. They just do promotion.
I dont agree at all. Margaret Thatcher once said that the Queen's role was a very real one and one that she had always been aware of as Prime Minister. The Queen isn't just a promotion tool - she's a monarch. One of the last proper monarchs left in the world with the exception of the Emperor of Japan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-06-2006, 10:45 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
I'm sorry, Next Star, but I'm with BeatrixFan on this one.

And BeatrixFan... Maybe I'm just too used with our royal house over here un Sweden, where the king and the queen just stand there waving, looking pretty, to realise that Elizabeth has more power than that over in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:19 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
And BeatrixFan... Maybe I'm just too used with our royal house over here un Sweden, where the king and the queen just stand there waving, looking pretty, to realise that Elizabeth has more power than that over in the UK.
I agree and I was going to say that I thought Sweden had a monarchy that was really just a promotional tool but I didn't want to offend anyone. I think that there are lots of things that are raised when we're talking about a Monarchy surviving that really show how ill informed people are on the subject. For example, in an argument with one republican, he told me that the Monarchy brought inequality with the honours system. What he failed to recognise was that China, the USSR and even Iraq in the Saddam days, gave out medals by the bucket load. Every country employs certain things as part of it's national identity.

Next Star mentioned parades. Well, didn't we see light parades in Nazi Germany and more recently in North Korea to celebrate their first nuclear test? Parades and Medals are not what make a Monarchy but they become vital to the survival of a monarchy like the Swedish model which is really only seen to be attending parades and handing out medals. In Britain, our Queen does alot more than King Carl Gustav does and so the parades and medals are not grounds for overhauling the system. They are minor issues that some people are unhappy with but as I've said, whether you have a communist state, a dictatorship, a monarchy or a republic, you'll always have medals, parades, a Head of State and some kind of class system whether it's unofficial or recognised by the state.

Let's look at North Korea and Britain. Both have a Head of State. In Britain we have Queen Elizabeth II and in North Korea they have Kim Jong-Il. Put politics aside and strip both down to the bare essentials and they are in fact - the same. North Korea is a socialist republic with a President but above him, is the Eternal President of the Republic - a former dead President who is accorded God-like status and is held in the same regard as our Queen is. You then have the Chairman of the National Defence Commission, the President of the Supreme People's Assembly and the Premier - all of whom hold certain powers that in Britain are held by the Queen who devolves them to ministers in the same way that these three men devolve their powers to their ministers.

North Korea has parades to show it's cultural achievements and to basically display what North Korea is to the world and to please the North Korean people. Great Britain has exactly the same thing. In Great Britain we have the Garter, in North Korea they have the Order of Kim Il-Sung. Kimg Jong-Il lives in a Palace. Queen Elizabeth lives in a Palace. Both carry out their duties and both recieve money from the tax-payers. So, whether living in a socialist republic or a monarchy, there are some things that will always be the same. Just as the Emperor of Japan lives in the Edo Palace, George Bush lives at the White House.

Now, what we - the people - decide is whether we want our Head of State to be elected or born into the role and the only way we can logically decide that is to look at the past and at the precedent set by our previous Heads of State. Mikhail Gorbachev eventually lost the support of his people and they rebelled against him and the USSR began to fall as the people made a decision on just how they wanted their Head of State to be selected and how they wanted their Head of State to behave. In Britain, we saw the work and life of George VI and made the decision that the Queen was the best person to follow her father as a Head of State. If we hadn't, there would have been the same feelings as in the USSR and people would have rebelled against the Queen in the same way the Russians rebelled against Mikhail Gorbachev.

The question is - when does the opening for debate come and realistically, the times people in Britain start to talk about the monarchy and it's role are when there are changes. So, when the Queen dies, there will be discussions about the future of the Monarchy and yes, cost will be mentioned. But it's deeper than cost and whether the Royals look pretty. It'll be about whether a non-elected hereditary system is the best for Britain at that time. It's also about what type of Government we have. They won't decide whether to dispense with the monarchy or not, they'll decide whether to have a referendum on the subject based on what the people put forward as their feelings on the matter. And if the majority want a Presidential system, it's a Presidential system we'll have but it would very ignorant to think that a Presidential system will end the things we see our Queen doing.

A President would probably live in Buckingham Palace. A President would give out medals as recognition and as reward. A President might cost less in the short term but in the long term, the cost of supporting every past President and First Lady would become quite heavy. A President would still have to sign bills into law, a President would have to do the job of the Queen and we'd need someone else to do the job of the Prime Minister unless we're prepared to put enormous responsibility with one man or one woman.

You see, Britain has been lucky in that we've always had the monarchy as a safety net. It isn't about parades or tiaras, it's about constitutional affairs. We've never had a radical Government - the closest we got was with Margaret Thatcher and that was a time when we saw the Queen showing, even though it filtered through from other sources, her displeasure at some of the actions Thatcher was taking. Now, if Thatcher had become Hitler-esque and dictatorial, the Queen would sack her, dissolve Parliament and we'd have elections where the people could decide if they wanted Thatcher or if they wanted someone else. In a Presidential system, we wouldn't have that safety net. It'd take a military coup or a huge revolution to shift or depose the leader we didn't want.

The British Monarchy isn't perfect but it's one of the best there is. Look at Thailand if you want a shining example. The Prime Minister was ousted in a coup and the people didn't look to the politicians but looked to the King. That doesn't happen here because the constitutional balance of power is quite soft and we're different in our way of dealing with things. But I've no doubt that if the Queen took a more political role, the reaction to some kind of coup here would be similar. Look to the permanent figure in the nation's recent history. In Thailand, the people know that coups happen so they look to the King who has seen it all before and because of his 60 years of service to his country, and his seeing 60 years of political development, he can give informed advice which a President simply couldn't offer.

It's about weighing up the pros and cons of a republic over a monarchy. And for that matter, why a republic? Who can tell what other system we might adopt. Malaysia chose to elect a monarch every 5 years. It works for them the duties of state are exercised well and stability follows. Whatever system we choose will have to offer stability and at the moment, nothing offers that stability like the monarchy. It could do more but it isn't just a group of celebrities in sashes and tiaras - it's a family, an institution that is always there and whilst we might not like some of the members of today's monarchy, the principles of monarchy remain the same. Personalities come and go but the actual system remains the same and whilst it works for Britain both socially, politically and economically - which at the moment it does - it'll stay afloat.

There. Rant over.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:58 AM
tenngirl's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 119
Actually, we vote our Presidents in and out every four years. The longest a President can serve is two terms.

Our President can be impeached by Congress. Can the Queen be impeached?

I think what Next Star is trying to say is that Monarchy seems to be a weight to people that a Republic is not. In a monarchy, who really does anything? Could the Queen have kicked Thatcher out if she was displeased? Isn't that taking a perogative in government that she does not have?

I deeply respect the Queen but what political power does she have? The woman sits in Parliament and reads a speech that was written for her. What is the point of that?

Even though we pay for previous Presidents and First Ladies, you must remember that we have 300 million people to help pay! I don't know what England's population is, but I know it is not that much.

I wish that after the Queen, Britain could get rid of the monarchy. Then, that money from all the Crown Estates and Jewels could be sold and put back into the country. Maybe it could be put into the Health System for the British people.
__________________
It'll be okay.
--last letter of Yoni Netanyahu
hero of Entebbe Rescue 1976
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-07-2006, 03:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenngirl
Actually, we vote our Presidents in and out every four years. The longest a President can serve is two terms.

Our President can be impeached by Congress. Can the Queen be impeached?

I think what Next Star is trying to say is that Monarchy seems to be a weight to people that a Republic is not. In a monarchy, who really does anything? Could the Queen have kicked Thatcher out if she was displeased? Isn't that taking a perogative in government that she does not have?
Her representative in Australia certainly has that power and has used it twice in the 20th century (1923 when the NSW governor dismissed the Premier of NSW and 1975 when the Australian GG dismissed the Prime Minister. So in one of her realms she has that power.

Quote:
I deeply respect the Queen but what political power does she have? The woman sits in Parliament and reads a speech that was written for her. What is the point of that?
She can refuse to sign into law any legislation and force an election on that issue - the fact that that hasn't happened since the early 1700s doesn't change the fact that she can.

Quote:
Even though we pay for previous Presidents and First Ladies, you must remember that we have 300 million people to help pay! I don't know what England's population is, but I know it is not that much.
The number isn't important as the cost per person has been mentioned many times already - 62p ($US1.18) per person - which is extremely cheap especially as the British people get a monarch, her spouse, three children, two spouses of children and cousins of monarchs - all of whom work for the public for that figure. How much per person do the Presidents and their First Ladies cost?

Quote:
I wish that after the Queen, Britain could get rid of the monarchy. Then, that money from all the Crown Estates and Jewels could be sold and put back into the country. Maybe it could be put into the Health System for the British people.
The money from the Crown Estates actually is used to fund the judiciary and other expenses that used to be paid for directly by the crown but is exchanged at the beginning of each reign for the Civil List. If they sell off the Crown Estates they will have less money to spend as they will then have to cover massive public expenditure without the income that currently pays for it.

Many of the jewels are already state owned and on display for much of the year (Crown Jewels) - things that you and I can pay to see and therefore brings in tourists who spend money in the country. Most of the rest of the jewel collection is actually the private property of the monarch or royal family so they couldn't be sold unless you are advocating that the private property of the family is confiscated. Would you also advocate the confiscation of the private property of other people?

For Britain the monarchy works - for other countries it doesn't - accept it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-07-2006, 04:49 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 128
Talking Freedom wears a crown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
I think the UK is the last country, that will get rid of their monarchy. Even with all the scandals, aren't they very much loved? It's a part of the Brittish identity and tradition. However, far away former colonies like Canada and Australia, and even the near-by North Ireland, might very well cut ties with the Brittish crown.
Furienna,Northern Ireland's Protestant majority are very anti-republican,as are a majority of Canadians & New Zealanders.I am from a fiercely Royalist background myself,as I served under former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys (who I still keep in touch with),who was the Governor-General of New Zealand from 1996 to 2001.He asked me for constitutional advice from time to time,especially in relation to the worsening race relations situation.He looked after me when I was going through some extremely tough times.

Monarchy is the most stable form of government,but I am a strong believer in increasing the power of the British monarchy,because the British & New Zealand Parliaments have become so arrogant & corrupt through & through.
As the Monarchist League of Canada has on its website,'Freedom wears a crown'.

Aidan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:52 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Star
I think that the monarchy will not last with conditions going on with the royal family espically by Pince Charles marrying Camilla... And taking care of the royal family is way too expensive all of those millions a pounds a year some of it on useless things.
I think you will find that it will last, most Britons are proud of the royal family and don't give a thought to the 60 odd pence it costs! Much better value than any politician!

A great many people, in the UK, are happy that Charles is married to the woman he loves, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the tabloids.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-07-2006, 07:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist0007
but I am a strong believer in increasing the power of the British monarchy,because the British & New Zealand Parliaments have become so arrogant & corrupt through & through.
If I may ask, increasing the sovereigns powers to what extent though, Aidan?

You have sighted corruption in today's politics (there is not a single authoritarian body in the world that does not posses factions of corruption), yet in reinstating powers that have either since been removed, or never existed, from a monarch's discreation (a relfection of the formation of democratic social agenda) would that not also be a form of corruption (or injustice) within the democratic states/nations we now live in? A corruption of the people's rights? Is that what democracy's represents? Neglecting the peoples rights to establish their own political & social futures? Taking the power from the people (or their 'representatives') and giving it to the monarch is, I believe, quite an uneasy thought to be had within the 21st century.

Although not Britain, I recently read in a thread (here) that the Belgian government (or parts of ?) have concerns regarding the Duke of Brabant's somewhat outspoken political views and that measures could quite possibly be taken to again limit whatever political influence the monarch still holds in Belgium.

If this were the case I firmly believe it would do the British monarchy more harm than good.

I dont mean or intend to take your words out of context so If I have grossly misinterpreted your statement can I ask you to again express what it was, exactly, you meant? I want to understand your post the way you intended it to be understood and not leave it open for misinterpretation which is not fair on you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-07-2006, 10:20 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
What problems exactly? I don't see any major problems. I notice you're from the USA. Did you know that you pay 5 times more to keep Mr and Mrs Bush and the past Presidents and First Ladies than we pay for our monarchy? The monarchy costs us 62p a year and we get every penny back from the work the Royal Family do. So the expensive argument really is blown out of the water when simple facts and figures are put together. What useless things do you mean?
I don't believe this is true but even so, the difference between our Gov. and the BRF is we ELECTED them into office. They EARNED their place in politics. Any moron can slide from his mother's womb and what does that entail? Nothing. No intelligence. No talent. Nothing. So please don't even compare the BRF who simply were born into their positions to an elected official. There is a HUGE difference, even in terms of supporting them. You have Tony Blair AND the Royal Family. Frankly, as comedienne Tracy Ullman once said, "Why pay for someone to be better than you." And why, because they were born??? Makes no sense that you still have a royal family but that's just MO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-07-2006, 10:23 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
The Queen is a Figurehead, and you can argue this to the grave but that's all she is. She has no power, influence or control. That is why there is Parliament and the PM. As a courtesy the Queen may be "consulted" on certain matters, but she is a Figurehead. Opening hospitals and orphanages and smiling on que. Putting on their "show" for the tourists. This is what it is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-07-2006, 10:42 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella
I don't believe this is true but even so, the difference between our Gov. and the BRF is we ELECTED them into office. They EARNED their place in politics. Any moron can slide from his mother's womb and what does that entail? Nothing. No intelligence. No talent. Nothing. So please don't even compare the BRF who simply were born into their positions to an elected official. There is a HUGE difference, even in terms of supporting them.
According to news reports, only some of you elected your government! IMO intelligence has very little to do with politicians, elected or not. There is no comparison between the BR's and politicians, who as you know, are here today, gone tomorrow.

There are not, as far as I can see, any tribute/fan based sites about past presidents or prime ministers with a membership anywhere close to TRF. No sites showing an interest in what any past politicians are now doing, no sites dedicated to what ie. Lyndon Johnsons children (if he had any and the only one I could vaguely remember) are doing.

I, as a taxpayer, would object to paying a single penny in support of an ex prime minister or president!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella
The Queen is a Figurehead, and you can argue this to the grave but that's all she is. She has no power, influence or control. That is why there is Parliament and the PM
I suggest you check our 'constitution' and laws, which will show you the error in your statement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-07-2006, 11:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella
I don't believe this is true but even so, the difference between our Gov. and the BRF is we ELECTED them into office.
Indeed. Which means that your head of state is a party politician, which brings a whole lot of problems of its own which are avoided under a constitutional monarchy.

Quote:
They EARNED their place in politics. Any moron can slide from his mother's womb and what does that entail? Nothing. No intelligence. No talent. Nothing.
Many party politicians BOUGHT their place in politics. Many of them are there because of family connections - as in "any moron can slide from his mother's womb." Please note that the head of state of North Korea is a president, not a king, as is the head of state of Syria. The head of state of the United States is the son of the last but one head of state, and his opponent in the 2000 election was the son of another family in the political aristocracy. Things aren't nearly as clear-cut between privilege on one side and merit on the other as you're making out.


Quote:
So please don't even compare the BRF who simply were born into their positions to an elected official. There is a HUGE difference, even in terms of supporting them. You have Tony Blair AND the Royal Family. Frankly, as comedienne Tracy Ullman once said, "Why pay for someone to be better than you." And why, because they were born??? Makes no sense that you still have a royal family but that's just MO.
The United Nations has an annual list of countries rated for quality of life. Year after year, a majority of the top five, the top ten, and the top fifteen are constitutional monarchies. We have what I believe is the very great advantage of separating the head-of-state position from party politics. That way, the head of state can be truly head of state and not just head of state for the people who happen to agree with her political opinions, whatever they may be. Personally I'd put up with a great deal in order to avoid having my country led by a powerful president who was also an ideological and political partisan.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchy, future of the monarchy


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
Victoria Day - Crown Princess Victoria's Birthday, Through the Years Helen_ Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 54 03-14-2014 02:24 PM
Norway's National Day, MAY 17 - through the years Mandy Royal House of Norway 56 05-18-2013 02:25 AM
Royal Ascot 1: all years to 2007 Josefine British Royals 244 06-15-2008 12:01 PM
Monarchy of Portugal 1: 2004 - February 2006 Queen of Portugal The Royal Family of Portugal 195 04-06-2006 06:29 AM
The 26th Birthday - 14 July, 2003 Yennie Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 19 08-17-2004 04:49 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 PM.

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]