The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 07-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Oh dear...Monserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes. Whatever should they do? If only they owned one or two large parcels of land with enormous manor houses, where they could be private and do all the horsey and watercolor and shooting things that they famously had in common.

My point is...with proper preparation there is no reason that the PoW could not take a commerical flight, as he did for many years in the past. When for example, he goes by private jet/concorde or yacht to the ballet or polo or to accept an award for being green and then lectures the rest of the world, it strikes me, in my humble opion as being hypocritical
So in your view it's perfectly fine to not visit Monserrat as it's not accessible by commercial planes? An isolated community is ignored because it is isolated?
Charles carbon ofsets his travel, and has done for a number of years. He is also actively working to reduce his CO2 levels, so actively infact that he publishes his CO2 levels with his annual report. (Feel free to inform yourself) That includes the CO2 levels of the Home Farm as well. He's not being hypocritical, he practises what he preaches, his role is such that he travels, therefore he makes sure that he makes that travel carbon neutral. Ill-informed sweeping statements do not make for facts, especially when factual information is available.
William and Harry also carbon ofset their private travel, that information was recently released. They flying they do as part of their training is ofset by the RAF.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 07-10-2009, 07:45 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Oh dear...Monserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes. Whatever should they do? If only they owned one or two large parcels of land with enormous manor houses, where they could be private and do all the horsey and watercolor and shooting things that they famously had in common.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. A little less sarcasm and a little more elucidation would be greatly appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
My point is...with proper preparation there is no reason that the PoW could not take a commerical flight, as he did for many years in the past.
I think the extra security and it's attendant inconvenience (last on, first off) is neither convenient not financially viable for most airlines particularly in these cash strapped times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
When for example, he goes by private jet/concorde or yacht to the ballet or polo or to accept an award for being green and then lectures the rest of the world, it strikes me, in my humble opion as being hypocritical
Oh dear here we go way back to the heady days of concorde, that deliciously beautiful and financially ruinous gas guzzling aircraft of choice to the exceedingly wealthy, the last "retirement" flight of which occurred on 26 November 2003! Just in case you were wondering, the Prince of Wales was not on it!
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 07-10-2009, 04:19 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. A little less sarcasm and a little more eucidation would be greatly appreciated.
I think the extra security and it's attendant inconvenience (last on, first off) is neither convenient not financially viable for most airlines particularly in these cash strapped times.

Oh dear here we go way back to the heady days of concorde, that deliciously beautiful and financially ruinous gas guzzling aircraft of choice to the exceedingly wealthy, the last "retirement" flight of which occurred on 26 November 2003! Just in case you were wondering, the Prince of Wales was not on it!
Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG? I did not suggest that the Prince of Wales rode every single run of the Concorde. Nor do I think inconvenience is an appropriate reason for someone constantly lecturing the rest of the world on climate change to travel solely by private jet..to the ballet, polo and to accept awards for 'being green'. Further, I think British Air or whatever carrier, 'in these cash strapped times', would be delighted to have the Prince and however many of his entourage on board, both in terms of fares as well as the free advertising and prestige. Whether the Prince and Company are on the plane or not, someone is always going to be the last one on. Someone is always going to be the first one off. Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla) have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'. Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 07-10-2009, 04:46 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG? I did not suggest that the Prince of Wales rode every single run of the Concorde. Nor do I think inconvenience is an appropriate reason for someone constantly lecturing the rest of the world on climate change to travel solely by private jet..to the ballet, polo and to accept awards for 'being green'. Further, I think British Air or whatever carrier, 'in these cash strapped times', would be delighted to have the Prince and however many of his entourage on board, both in terms of fares as well as the free advertising and prestige. Whether the Prince and Company are on the plane or not, someone is always going to be the last one on. Someone is always going to be the first one off.Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla)
Did you perhaps mean extension?
Quote:
have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'. Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.
Trouble with that is the FO has not asked them to visit either Birkhall or Highgrove on their behalf, both of which have extra security provided when Charles and Camilla are in residence, enjoying the country pursuits they genuinely enjoy! Perhaps you could point out the alleged 'spin' over 20 years from Charles or Camilla, in fact any statement at all from the couple?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 07-10-2009, 04:57 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
So in your view it's perfectly fine to not visit Monserrat as it's not accessible by commercial planes? An isolated community is ignored because it is isolated?
Charles carbon ofsets his travel, and has done for a number of years. He is also actively working to reduce his CO2 levels, so actively infact that he publishes his CO2 levels with his annual report. (Feel free to inform yourself) That includes the CO2 levels of the Home Farm as well. He's not being hypocritical, he practises what he preaches, his role is such that he travels, therefore he makes sure that he makes that travel carbon neutral. Ill-informed sweeping statements do not make for facts, especially when factual information is available.
William and Harry also carbon ofset their private travel, that information was recently released. They flying they do as part of their training is ofset by the RAF.
Charlotte, perhaps, as you are well versed in this subject, you could tell me how exactly one 'offsets' a cruise on the 4th biggest yacht in the world (400') which burns 10,000 gallons of oil per day? Does one plant a whole new Sherwood Forrest or what? That's quite a lot of trees. Where exactly are these 100s of thousands of trees (if not millions at this point) planted? Highgrove? Public Parks? Hospitals? As far as 'sweeping statements' exactly where are you getting your 'factual information' about CHarles' offset plantings? Thank you for your help. My personal area of expertise is not offset plantings. My education was in the law. Having spent much of my youth (such as it was) litigating cases, I tend to question statements such as Charles 'makes that travel carbon neutral' without any back up as to exactly how he does that, given the enormous carbon footprint he and his wife have, personally as well as when travelling for the Crown.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 07-10-2009, 05:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 285

Check out the article Carbon Offset, Caveat Emptor | GOOD . Also a few of the reputable sites: TerraPass | Fight global warming, reduce your carbon footprint , The Climate Trust , or NativeEnergy - Carbon Offsets for People and Planet .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 07-10-2009, 06:24 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Charlotte, perhaps, as you are well versed in this subject, you could tell me how exactly one 'offsets' a cruise on the 4th biggest yacht in the world (400') which burns 10,000 gallons of oil per day? .... ..... My personal area of expertise is not offset plantings...... ...... I tend to question statements such as Charles 'makes that travel carbon neutral' without any back up as to exactly how he does that, given the enormous carbon footprint he and his wife have, personally as well as when travelling for the Crown.
10,000 gallons of oil per day, my goodness, do you have the calculation that enabled you to work that out, or is that a repeat of a guestimate in the Mail? The Alexander by the way is only 11th in one of the league of yachts, it really depends whether you are using length or gross tonnage. However there is no accurate figure published for the diesel used by the Rio Rita (175ft) or The Alexander.

Many people have tried to explain to you about offsetting, even linking some of the sites that not only explain it but offer the service. What I would find hypocritical is someone who uses a large vehicle, horsebox, flights etc without offsetting, criticising the carbon footprint of someone who uses internationally recognised methods of carbon off setting.

Carbon offset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 07-10-2009, 06:37 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,805
I am sceptical ...

Does the so-called offsetting really work? I have read a bit about it. I think that when someone uses a yacht or a plane and harms environment in some way, it will take more than just internationally recognised methods to restore a particular ecological system(s) that was/were affected during a particular trip.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 07-11-2009, 05:27 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Does the so-called offsetting really work? I have read a bit about it. I think that when someone uses a yacht or a plane and harms environment in some way, it will take more than just internationally recognised methods to restore a particular ecological system(s) that was/were affected during a particular trip.
Having read many of your comments on Charles' work on environmental problems, I thought that you believed there is no such thing as Climate Change, does this mean you have had a change of opinion?

Does offsetting really work, yes, I believe it does and if there were evidence that A particular eco system was damaged by A particular trip, I am sure steps would be taken to restore or prevent the system from further damage. I cannot say I have heard that opinion before.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 07-11-2009, 08:03 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG?
Indeed I did and have corrected my abysmal spelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla) have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'.
I see. Members of the BRF are not to visit overseas if they have propeties within the Bristish Isles? How very undemocratic of you to say so. Freedom and all that . . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.
Scooter, do you think you could possibly post something on this or any other Charles and/or Camilla thread without using it as a none to subtle attempt to, in modern parlance, "disrespect" the royal couple. It is tired, it is mean, and it is off topic!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 07-11-2009, 12:54 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Having read many of your comments on Charles' work on environmental problems, I thought that you believed there is no such thing as Climate Change, does this mean you have had a change of opinion?

Does offsetting really work, yes, I believe it does and if there were evidence that A particular eco system was damaged by A particular trip, I am sure steps would be taken to restore or prevent the system from further damage. I cannot say I have heard that opinion before.
Your opinion on my perception of the climate change is wrong. I have never stated that there is no climate change. I am very very very skeptical about the so-called global warming and fear-mongering associated with it. I do my best to read and research both sides of the on-going debate related the global climate change. I tend to believe Nostradumus' or Mayan predictions more than preaching by modern eco-hypocrites.
When it comes to carbon offsetting, I view it as a new form of remorse to justify certain lifestyle (driving, plane trips or etc.) that might add too much carbon dioxide to the air. In other words, the carbon offsetting is a band-aid that appeases the consciousness of eco-warriors. Carbon offsetting is a human-invented business, which is likely to be/is already marred and corrupted like any other things invented by humans (e.g., banking).
It has been kind of you to re-phrase you post ... by the way ...
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 07-11-2009, 05:13 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I tend to believe Nostradumus' or Mayan predictions more than preaching by modern eco-hypocrites.
I tend to believe in things other than crystal balls, which is as well as according to one interpretation of the Mayan calendar, the world ended a couple of years ago, many people accept that people read into these prophecies what they want, as with the Brahan prophecies!

'Eco hypocrites', again it saddens me that common insults and name calling seem to be the order of the day.
Quote:
When it comes to carbon offsetting, I view it as a new form of remorse to justify certain lifestyle (driving, plane trips or etc.) that might add too much carbon dioxide to the air.
I am afraid some of us have no option but to travel by car or plane, whether it is to shop or try to educate people. I have to admit I often wonder whether those that criticise anyone who tries to limit their impact, actually drive hundreds of miles in a gas guzzling vehicle or use a horse and cart or grow/ make fabric etc themselves to avoid making any impact, or do they cling to the belief that global warming is nothing to do with them so why bother, of course under forum rules we are not allowed to ask, but it would be interesting none the less. At least Charles (and many of the Eco warriors) try to make a difference, by deed and education, better than sitting on ones behind doing nothing at all.
Quote:
corrupted like any other things invented by humans (e.g., banking).
It has been kind of you to re-phrase you post ... by the way
Not all bankers/banking systems are corrupt, many here were greedy. I couldn't judge any other country as to whether they are corrupt or not.
When one re reads a post, it doesn't quite convey or might cause offense, therefore the post was altered.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 07-11-2009, 10:36 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Indeed I did and have corrected my abysmal spelling.
I see. Members of the BRF are not to visit overseas if they have propeties within the Bristish Isles? How very undemocratic of you to say so. Freedom and all that . . . . .
Scooter, do you think you could possibly post something on this or any other Charles and/or Camilla thread without using it as a none to subtle attempt to, in modern parlance, "disrespect" the royal couple. It is tired, it is mean, and it is off topic!
Hi MARG,
If by disrespect you mean expecting Charles and Camilla to live by the parameters that Charles lectures the world on...then I plead guilty. As far as it being off topic, is the topic of this thread not Prince Charles and the Environment? He conspicuously does the 'do as I say not as I do' lecture on a very regular basis, IMHO.

Skydragon,
I looked up the consumption numbers on the Alexander. According to Science Daily (not the Mail), I was incorrect. The exact number is 2,400 gallons in every 24 hour period. So for Camilla's 10 day cruise 240,000 gallons of oil.

Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 07-12-2009, 07:56 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,252
Actually I was merely referring to your habit of inserting biased historical hystrionics 'to validate your stance, e.g.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.
And I reiterate Skydragons question: Perhaps you could point out the alleged 'spin' over 20 years from Charles or Camilla, in fact any statement at all from the couple?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?
Actually I, like millions of others out here, am quite open to the notion that Charles and Camilla are mere mortals, and are, therefore, fallable! And yes of course you are entitled to your opinion, just not stating your opinion as unassailable, irrefutable fact!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 07-12-2009, 08:15 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I looked up the consumption numbers on the Alexander. According to Science Daily (not the Mail), I was incorrect. The exact number is 2,400 gallons in every 24 hour period. So for Camilla's 10 day cruise 240,000 gallons of oil.
Did it also point out that the vessel only uses that amount of fuel when it is moving, not when it is moored up, (as it was for a large proportion of their honeymoon period). Camilla's cruise, taken along with a number of friends, was also moored for most of the time and was in the smaller vessel, the Rio Rita. Neither vessel was constantly on the move!
Quote:
Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?
On the whole MARG has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 07-12-2009, 04:11 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Did it also point out that the vessel only uses that amount of fuel when it is moving, not when it is moored up, (as it was for a large proportion of their honeymoon period). Camilla's cruise, taken along with a number of friends, was also moored for most of the time and was in the smaller vessel, the Rio Rita. Neither vessel was constantly on the move! On the whole MARG has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster.
Skydragon, have you ever been on cruise ship? Just because they are not steaming away does not mean the gas consumption is zero. Laundry, cooking, tenders to and fro, activities, etc. As far as it being moored up the whole honeymoon, what would be the point of being on a yacht if it stayed in one place?
Now I have to also say.....this is the second time you have jabbed at me recently "marg has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster'. The last time it was 'your comments are best ignored'. I do not ever personally bash anyone. Ever. No matter how I disagree with their opinions. It would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy. I take it that your answer to my question of 'Couldnt we agree to just disagree?' is no.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 07-12-2009, 04:59 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
read somewhere that taking a cruise is one of the most polluting vacations you can take (but I think that refers to those enormous boots with an enormous amount of people who eat all day)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 07-12-2009, 05:09 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Skydragon, have you ever been on cruise ship? Just because they are not steaming away does not mean the gas consumption is zero. Laundry, cooking, tenders to and fro, activities, etc. As far as it being moored up the whole honeymoon, what would be the point of being on a yacht if it stayed in one place?
Indeed I have, on more than one occasion but I would point out that we are talking about private yachts, available for hire, which I have also had the pleasure to have experienced, more than a few times. What is the point of being on it if it is moored - sunbathing and swimming just for starters and trips ashore! When they are moored, they are not using the main engines nor the amount of fuel you are stating they use in a 24 hour period.
Quote:
Now I have to also say.....this is the second time you have jabbed at me recently "marg has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster'. I do not ever personally bash anyone
It was purely a statement of fact regarding my ability to reply to a seemingly endless regurgitation of the, to me, skewed version of Charles' past. I referred you to MARG's reply, with which I agreed, (including the re-request for any information on the spin you state Charles and Camilla put out). I find the constant 'Charles and Camilla' did this or that, said this or that, as in this case with nothing to back it up in each and every post, as tiresome as you do my asking for a link to an actual article. I am a little surprised by your statement that you do not ever personally bash anyone, when you have constantly complained about 'a certain poster', just because it is addressed to a moderator in the thread, rather than to me, does not make it less visible or less of a 'personal bash', any less than the sarcasm oozing from some of your replies.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 07-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan alicia View Post
read somewhere that taking a cruise is one of the most polluting vacations you can take (but I think that refers to those enormous boots with an enormous amount of people who eat all day)
Yes, they are talking about the cruise ships rather than private yachts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 07-12-2009, 05:23 PM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
I, too, have been more than once on a smaller private yacht and can vouch for the fact that for a honeymoon it is much better being moored somewhere than at sea, but of course that is my opinion.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
environment, global warming, prince charles, prince of wales


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
Prince Charles being political? love_cc The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 184 Today 08:14 PM
PA2 & The Environment: Flash or Substance? Lozange Prince Albert and Princess Charlene 128 08-08-2011 05:08 PM
Haakon at the World Environment Day 2007 Larzen Crown Prince Haakon & Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 2 06-04-2007 02:30 PM




Popular Tags
belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 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]