The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Non-Reigning Houses > Royal Families of France

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 06-09-2007, 09:58 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
What this shows is that the dynastic position of Luis Alfonso regarding potential claims to the French (and Spanish) Thrones is supported whole-heartedly by those who see succession in "legitimist" terms. Others may see succession rights in a more practical or 'realpolitik' manner.

There is nothing to say one is right or wrong; they depend on two different points of view. Those who believe in a strictly traditional dynastic line of descent will accept Luis Alfonso as not only the Senior Member of the Royal House of Bourbon, but as the rightful King of France. Those who accept the legitimacy of the Orléanist succession in 1830, and of the legitimacy of Juan Carlos as rightful King of Spain will view Luis Alfonso's claims (if he ever makes such claims) as irrelevant and invalid.

Other Royal Houses have disputed successions which are passionately argued by both sides in terms of validity of renunciations, original intent, interpretation of Family Statutes, House Laws, royal decrees, etc etc. Apart from the Bourbons, these Houses include Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Orléans-Bragança (Brazil), Grand Ducal House of Mecklenburg, and the Romanovs. It's also worth mentioning the long-standing Carlist claim to the Spanish Throne (now largely abandoned), which was also based on legitimist principles.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-11-2007, 01:22 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
My position is a bit different.
For Spain, of course the duke of Anjou's grandfather was the right heir, and his early renunciations, not validated by the Cortès (the Spanish parliament) were not valid, but in 1969, him and his elder son (who was the duke of Anjou's father, still unmarried) accepted the instoration, proposed by Franco, of a new form of constitutional monarchy, led by Juan-Carlos who became "prince of Spain". This instoration was approved by the Cortès. So, from 1969, Juan-Carlos has adquired legitimity, he is the legitimate king of Spain.

About the carlist claim, the fact is that the carlist dynastic line was extincted, and the next one, in the carlist logic (that, to me, was the right one, i.e. one cannot modify the 1713 laws of succession without the same formality) was the one come from Don Carlos' younger brother, infant Francisco de Paula, whose son had married Isabel II; this made that, at the end of the carlist line, in 1936, the two dynastic lines were reunited in the person of Alfonso XIII, king of Spain (who also succeeded to French - as virtual - throne). So, the Carlists had, as kings, the hated constitutionnal king! Some Stopped fighting, others followed the "regent of the Carlist Communion", the duke of Parma, named by the last carlist king, but the duke of Parma is only a chief of a political, philosophical, tradition-keeping movement, they cannot reasonnably consider him a "de jure king of Spain".
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Russian's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Russia, Russia
Posts: 81
I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne. Luis Alfonso is the great grandson of the Spanish King Alfonso XIII and the descendant of the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe who became a Spanish King after the death of the previous suzerain of Spain Carlos II in 1700. But, unfortunately, there was a war for the Spanish inheritance, which ended with Utrecht Peacy Treaty. The Spanish King Philippe’s renunciation the French throne was one of the terms of the Utrecht Peacy Treaty. I read that the French legitimists consider Philippe’s renunciation as invalid because the right to the French throne was unalienable for each member of the Capetiens House. I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as the eldest representative of the Capetiens House. So this prince is the head of the Capetiens House and therefore legitimate claimant to the French throne. But I think there is a little “but”. I suppose that French laws of succession to the throne must concern France and French throne, but mustn’t concern any foreign state. I think that the Spanish kingdom must be separate from the French laws of succession to the throne. I read that the grandson of the French King Louis XIV Philippe received the Spanish throne under the condition that Spain and France shouldn’t be united by the United Kingdom. But Louis XIV made a mistake when he set Philippe as an heir to the French throne. The war for the Spanish inheritance is the result of the mistake of Louis XIV. Philippe became a Spanish King, but he abdicated the rights to the French throne. Sicilian, Parmesan and Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of the grandson of Louis XIV Philippe. But I do not know, if they have rights to the French throne because their direct ancestor abdicated the French throne.

The Orleans family is the part of the Capetiens House. But sadly known Philippe Egalite (who voted for the execution of Louis XVI) and his only survived son Louis-Philippe (who is revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades) are the direct ancestors of the current Orleans family.

What is an ironical smile of the fate!!!!!!!

The descendants of the regicide and revolutionary king of the crowd and barricades are real heirs of the french throne!

By all means I am not a supporter of the Orleans family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-19-2007, 10:07 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian View Post
I read that the French legitimists consider Luis Alfonso de Bourbon as a legitimate heir to the French throne...
According to the Legitimists there are the Fundamental laws of the Kingdom of France after which it was not possible to rennounce the succession rights of their unborn descendants and so Felipe V. renounciation for his descednats was not possible.

A lot of information can be found here
New Page 1
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-22-2007, 12:48 AM
Russian's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Russia, Russia
Posts: 81
As I understood correctly, the right of each member of the Capetiens House to the French throne is inalienable. The Spanish Bourbons are the direct descendants of Louis XIV, but also they are Capetiens, so they have an irrefutable right to the French throne. The princes of the Orleans family are the direct descendants of Louis XIII (the father of Louis XIV) and the youngest line of the Capetiens House. Therefore the Spanish Bourbons have a preference over the Orleans House. The renunciation of the Spanish king Philippe is invalid for the French legitimists, so Luis Alfonso de Bourbon is the rightful heir to the French throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-25-2007, 10:09 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading this thread, and now that I have registered, I can express my admiration.

The scholarship here is simply amazing.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-25-2007, 11:17 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 38470 Los Silos., Spain
Posts: 3
as France will never be a monarchy again this is ridiculous
furthermore Louis Alfonso is a great grandson of Franco he can never be anything in Spain- how could he ever be someone in France???
Orleans does not consider him worth talking about and in Spain
he ist just a joke

Gaston Roger Julier Freiherr v. Badenthal in Spain
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-26-2007, 06:50 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Well, I guess there is a third way of looking at dynastic issues, and that is to just offhandly dismiss them. However, for those who have an interest in lines of descent and the various positions and claims of legitimists, pretenders, pragmatists and even opportunists, it is an issue of substance involving not just historic precepts but living people. Within a dynastic context it is real, and for many, rather fascinating. Some even take sides with a passion, a good indication there is life in the subject yet.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-06-2007, 03:33 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
In fact, Russian, if one considers the Utrecht treaties still valid, which is doubtful as they have been violated several times very early, the renounciation itself could not be considered as it violates French dynastic laws, but one may admit that French and Spanish crowns cannot be on the same head. Clearly, this does not concern de jure crowns, only real ones. And, as the French dynastic laws cannot be derogated whatever the form, it is the Spanish crown that must go on another head. If Luis Alfonso's father, Alfonso (Alphonse II of France) had been chosen by Franco as king of Spain, his position as de jure king of France would have been complicated as it would have implied political tensions in Spain. Instead, he chose his cousin, which as French, I prefer : Luis Alfonso is "only" king of France.
Julier, I have no doubt upon the fact that many Orléans princes, who, unfortunately, bear only the title of princes, lacking the content, depreciate their elder the duke of Anjou. Fortunately, other Orléans princes are real ones, some legitimist, other orleanist, but keep their dignity as does the duke of Anjou who is in everything a genuine prince (it is not the reason why he is de jure king of France, but I am very happy of it).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:26 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canandaigua, United States
Posts: 21
I read through many if not all of the threads in this post. For years I had supported the Orleans branch of the French royal house as claimants to the vacant throne. I also have been posting on the The Franco-Iberian Royals Message Board as William F (I don't post often but lurk there daily) and from my experience there and reading the posts here I can say that on this topic I'm neutral. I believe both Louis Alphonse de Bourbon and Henri d'Orleans both have valid claims, which is why there are arguments from both sides. My point is: I would love for a constitutional and representative monarchy to be restored in France and I would support that situation whether it was under either Louis Alphonse de Bourbon or Henri d'Orleans. Right now getting the monarchy restored is more important in my opinion that who the rightful heir should be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-16-2007, 05:27 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
Lois fondamentales ?

That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.

-Where were they before the capetians ascended the throne of France in 987 ? Nowhere. During the Caroligiens or merovingiens times (they were the firts kings of France) the kindom was divided beteween all the heirs of the dead king. They were no "lois fondamentales" at the time.
-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.

-When did god precisely said that "'l'aîné des capetiens doit être roi de France" ?
-The truth is that monarchy in France has been ruled during centuries by a corpus of laws which were modified owing to the political state of the kingdom; A famous example is the establishment of the "salic law" which banned females from the crown. It was "invented" after the death of Louis le Hutin in 1314.
-The traité d'Utrecht was another example of the modification of the kingdom's laws at the beginning of the XVIIIth century. The spanish branch became spanish at the time and that is final.
-If one does admits that these laws existed at one point, what is the meanning of using them to solve a succession which was openend in 1883 at the death of the comte de Chambord. Using laws dating from the middle age to deny any validity to a treaty established at the beginning of the XVIIIth century does not make sens.

-As for the title of duke d'Anjou, it was never a right of the spanish branch of the bourbon family. Need I remind everyone that it has been used by Louis XVIII as one of his secondary titles when he was comte de Provence; When the duke of Anjou became king of spain, this title went back to the french king, or nowadays to the head of the french royal family. The comte de Paris was perfectly entitled to give it too his nephew prince Charles Philippe.

-Talking about the "ainé des capétiens" lets get rid of another legend. Everyone knows that the elder of the capetien dynastie is not Luis Alfonso de Borbon but the comte de Bourbon Busset who is a descendant of LOuis de Bourbon, prince bishop (laïc) of Liège. That Branch was declared unable too succed because they were said to be bastards. Many historians claim today that it was not true. All the other Bourbons, French, spanish, Parme and naples, descend from Louis's younger brother.

-One may not like the Orleans, but it has nothing to do with their rights to the crown which are, by the way, recongnised by all their cousins : the king of spain, the duc of Castro (Naples) ans the duke of Parme. For those who like the Middle Ages and the laws used at the time is this not what was called a "jugement des pairs" "judgement of the equals" ?
Vincent
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:55 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 14,358
A very sensible first post, vincent. Thanks for that! And I agree with you fully and suspected all along that the only reason for this entire Legetimiste-thing is people's dislike for the House of Orleans.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-16-2007, 12:42 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
really nice people

Thank you, the strangest thing is that the Orléans are awfully nice people very royal, as well easygoing and fun. The late comte et comtesse de Paris were very kind, chic, smart, and, above anything, so funny. I really don't understand why that family has that reputation of beeing wicked.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-16-2007, 04:44 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 14,358
Well, it probably dates back to the Orleans that betrayed Louis XVI. It was the father of Louis Phillipe I, if I am correct? Other than that, the internal quarrels doesn´t improve the families reputation either.
I don´t know anything about the late Count, though him spending the family fortune and jewels on his mistress didn´t strike me as terribly good. The late countess however comes across as an utterly charming lady. Her books are absolutely wonderfull.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-16-2007, 11:17 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canandaigua, United States
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent View Post
That story about the "lois fondamentales du royaume" has been going on for too long; They simply do not exist.


-If one admits that they were established, which i doubt very much, during the capetian era, (between 987 and 1793) it means that they were established by human laws. God has definitely nothing to do with the french monarchy. And if they were established by humans the can be modified very easily by humans.
This point you have made has been my contention all along. Furthermore, if there is ever to be a French monarchy, which I highly doubt even though it is my wish, any succession laws will be made by the French government and they will not adhere to those outdated laws.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-17-2007, 05:34 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Self-proclaimed "legitimists" will use whatever ammunition they can muster, and if they can beat the Orléans over the head with a "fundamental law" and the behaviour of Philippe Egalité, they will do so. More realistic and pragmatic royalists will simply point out that the current comte de Paris and Head of the Royal House of France has perfectly legitimate descent from the last reigning King of the French. The faint possibility of a restored Bourbon-style ancien regime died with the comte de Chambord in 1883, and there it should stay.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-17-2007, 06:13 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Laarne, Belgium
Posts: 5
France can only be ruled by descendant of Louis XVI

It is now more than 220 years that France is not aware of a big secret, kept in darkness by the Vatican and high ranked people in our society.

I know this sounds strange as my first official post that I come up with something related to this matter.

Since 1998, I have personaly investigated the matter of the only boy left from the french royal family Louis Charles de Bourbon.

I found many interesting information and evidence of his exitence in exile.

Not far away from his land and kingdom he lived his live between people that took care of him like he was of their own blood.

Louis Charles lived under the name of Franciscus Rombaut, later he ordered his descendants to change the name into Rombout, because they were not related with blood to this family.

Many people have warned me for the danger that looks around the corner if I would continue my efforts to bring this to public.

I have spoken to the Ambassador of Austria long time ago, and he in person warned me that it could lead to a very large conflict.

I went on personal invitation to the castle of descendants of king Charles X, the family Wurmbrand zu Stuppach in Frohsdorf in December 2000.

My communications lurned me that they knew about his living in exile but they where in acknowledge about his name.

At this moment he have more than 300 descendants and a man named Marcel Rombout is the first in line to become King of France.

I know that in Rome there are files that can bring this to a positive end.
But the anger of them is that it would bring many high positioned people in a difficult position.

Louis Charles de Bourbon became 90 years, he died November 1, 1875 in Wachtebeke near Gent. (Belgium)

Jurgen Schalck
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-07-2007, 12:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Warren, the Orléans are effectively the heirs of Louis-Philippe Ier, but to be true, as the only monarch of his kind, who usurpated consciously the French throne and ruled 17 years 1/2, his legacy remains far less significant than the Bonaparte one, as two Bonaparte emperors reigned, none usurpated the throne (they took vacant power) and ruled (including Consulate for Napoléon I and from power taking as president to emprisonment for Napoleon III) 32 years. Of course, the Bonaparte legacy is so, so far from the Capetian!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Russian, you asked many questions, a long time ago. I hope you managed to get answers for most of them.
May I answer them, anyway?

1) These laws exclude laws of succession of women on the French throne?

Women are totally excluded, wether as kings, whether to transmit rights.
Anyway, they have a prominent role : as only legitimate children are considered for succession, this means the queen's children get king or successible prince, not all the kings'. Furthermore, they can be regent, and most she-regents have shown great competence.

2) If grandson Louis XIV has borrowed the Spanish throne and could not apply simultaneously for the French crown on conditions of Utrecht contract, all the same new Spanish king from the French dynasty remains a member French Hugo Capet At home, all the same it kept the rights to the French throne, all the same its descendants are considered as members of Hugo Capet House and have the right to borrow the French throne?

In 1700, Philippe, grandson of Louis XIV, became king of spain, because Louis XIV's wife, eldest sister of the dead king Carlos II, had put a condition to her renunciation to Spanish rights, that was the payment of a dow that was never paid. In addition, Carlos II chose him as successor (he had not the power for it) and the Spanish parliament, the solemn assembly of the Cortès de Castilla, who had this power, admitted it (normally, it is Philippe's father who should have reigned, later his elder son, not Philippe, but Louis XIV chose Philippe and the Cortès accepted). Philippe kept his French rights.
Only in 1714, Queen Ann of England required a renunciation of Philippe, for him and all his descendants without exception, to the French throne; but, if the succession to the Spanish throne can find accomodation with the consent of the princes and the Cortès, the succession to the French throne cannot, it is compulsory, inalienable (except by regicide, I think). So, Queen Anne had not chosen the right solution.

3) the Spanish King Ferdinand has entered the so-called Pragmatical sanction in 1834 on which its daughter Isabella became the successor of the Spanish throne owing to absence of man's posterity at this Spanish king. But unless it did not contradict the French laws?

What made the Carlist war is that Fernando VII did not make a new succession law, which would have been theorically possible by convoking the solemn assembly of the Cortès, he merely published a law voted without required conditions, only as a test, by an ordinary session of the Cortès in 1789 and abandoned then because of troubles.
Anyway, this law concerned only Spain, not France.

4) Why carlist supporters considered the Pragmatical sanction as infringement of laws of inheritance of a throne?

Cf above... Felipe V, in 1714, modified the succession law, and introduced the salic law (as in France) (but after extinction of all his descendants by males, he stated that women could acceed to the throne, and after, the Savoy house), by vote of the solemn assmbly of the Cortés, each member having received from its electors a special mandate for voting this law.
The Carlists consider that the same form was necessary for a modification.

5) why carlist supporters lifted revolts against queen Isabella with the purpose to protect the rights carlist applicants for the Spanish throne?
There is the legal claim, but there is also a deeper problem : queen Isabelle was a little girl, and the persons who had the true power were liberal and anti-catholic; in 1836, they spoliated the Church by stealing all convents etc, and did hard persecutions.

6) whether carlist applicants for the Spanish throne have been recognized Le Comte Chambord as successors of the French throne in 1883?

He refused to make his opinion public, thinking the moment had not come, he wanted first pacified conditions but died before. Later, both parties pretended he had given an opinion favorable to them. I do not think it was true.

7) why Luis Alphonco it is considered chapter Hugo Capet of the House, in fact it is the lineal descendant of queen Isabella?

He is descendant of queen Isabella, but this has nothing to see with his rights : his rights come from Isabella's husband, her cousin Francisco de Asis, who was son of Infant Francisco de Paula, youngest brother of Fernando VII (who had no son) and don Carlos (whose line extincted by males in 1936, after a reconciliation with Alfonso XIII in 1931).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Vincent, your post is very interesting.
In fact, the Fundamental laws were not dicted by God, they rose one by one, but with the impression they were implicite before. Once meanwhile, God intervened appearently and spectacularly to rescue the laws, with St Joan of Arc (you may believe or not).
More pragmatically, and this is my point of view, we have, with this laws, a corpus that defines who is king, without doubt (OK, I recognize that in case of adoption, or in case of legitimation by marriage of an elder prince than the previous heir, there would still be problems of interpretation). This is a priceless treasure! Because the worst, when you have to name a king, is when there are several candidates. This is why, in case of a restoration of monarchy, I would support loudly the respect of the Fundamental Laws.

About the opinion of foreign kings,
1) it is not them who decide who is king,

2) their opinion is alterated, first by ignorance of the content of the Utrecht renunciation (that eliminates Orléans as well as elder princes), secundly by the fact most of them have Orléans ancestors and own parts of the fortune Louis-Philippe had taken.

3) King Juan Carlos of Spain recognizes the elder as chiefs of the House of Bourbon, and at the same time consider the Orléans as the French royal family, not as descendants of the kings of France, but as descendants of the usurpator Louis-Philippe, as queen Isabella has recognized him as king of the French.
The so-said duke of Castro is not the king of Sicilias de jure, he is only a prince, it is his cousin, infant Carlos, who is king of Sicilias, so recognized by the elder princes of the House of Bourbon, the princes of France (then, Alphonse II, father of Louis Alphonse), Spain (Juan Carlos I) and Parma, which makes legitimity for this realm as it is a part of the Spanish empire inherited by Felipe V, their common ancestor. The infant don Carlos married princess Anne of Orléans, sister of the present orleanist claimant, but is legitimist (maybe because his wife inherited nearly nothing from her father who had dilapidated his fortune?).
I have never heard any position from the duke of Parma.
__________________

__________________
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
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) TOMMIX British Royal History 327 09-29-2014 07:54 PM
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 136 09-28-2014 08:12 AM
Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants aj00192557 The Imperial Family of Russia 954 08-26-2014 05:28 AM




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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

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

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]