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
 
  #141  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:57 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
The arms are "broken" by the red border around the arms of France (that are of golden lily flowers upon blue).
The history of this bordure, is that when renouncing the duchy of Anjou, Philip V kept the arms (these arms of France with bordure) and these were the arms of the Bourbons of Spain, when cadets. In 1936 the last de jure king of France of the carlist line, died. Alphonse XIII, exiled king of Spain, then became de jure king of France, suppressing the bordure, but after his death, not his elder son became king of Spain, so were separated again, the head of the House of Bourbon, who kept with plain arms, and the Royal House of Spain, who uses the Anjou arms (upon the arms of Spain).
Thank you for your help! I don't know, in fact, terms of heraldry in English.

The marriage of don Jaime was unequal, but for more explanations upon the difference between unequal and morganatic, I think the best would be to go to the excellent site of François Velde, in English (he is orleanist, I must precise) : Unequal Marriages in Spain: the Pragmática of 1776 . It is a fact that a great majority of Spanish, today, believe that a 1776 laws excudes people in case of unequal marriage. Probably, they have not read the laws, even less the case law about it.

I read none intervention of H.M. the king of Spain, upon the French succession question, after the death of HRH the countess of Paris. The one I evoqued, was of 1990 or 1991.

The Utrecht renounciation, that can also be read (in French and English) on François Velde's site, is very clear, and the formula is repeated several times in the promise : "moi et mes enfants, héritiers et descendans perpétuellement pour exclus et inhabiles, absolument et sans limitation, différence ni distinction de personnes, de degrez, sexe et tems" ("me and my children, heirs and descendants, perpetually for excluded and inhabile, absolutely and without limitation, difference nor distinction of persons, degrees, sex and time"). It was what required Queen Anne, who refused to consider, in any way, the specificities of her ennemies' dynastic laws.

Sixte de Bourbon-Parme: Documents
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-02-2007, 12:57 AM
BurberryBrit's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: onthenet, United States
Posts: 1,439
I'm just starting to understand this whole thing after doing some research on the internet but there is much more to learn! I need to look up the treaty of Utrecht. It seems to me that the Bourbon line would be the rightful heirs, then princes of the Blood (orleans).
__________________

__________________
Für Gott, Fürst und Vaterland

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" Pride and Prejudice
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-02-2007, 04:05 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
I don't know if there is an English version of this renunciation.
What I find funny, is that Louis XIV considered Philip V too honest to make a renunciation he would know invalid, so Torcy (French Minister of Foreign Affairs) wrote the princess Orsini (Philip V's closer councillor) to make him believe the renunciations would be valid, as his previous promises to the Spanish people forced him to sign the renunciations... They explained him much later!
And Louis XIV, foreseing the difficulties such a solemn signature could develop, made publish by his best legists, who had participated to the negociations (trying to convince Queen Anne of the invalidity of such renunciations, at first, he was not "totally dishonnest"), a book explaining their invalidity...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:46 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5
Lightbulb Duke of Anjou (Louis XX)

I find the renunciation of Philip V of Spain to be completely invalid. Royalty is based on blood and tradition, and the King has no legal right to disinherit his heirs in perpetuity. As such, Louis Alphonso the Duke of Anjou and Bourbon is the rightful heir to the throne. He is descended directly from Louis XIV.

Those descendants of the Duc d'Orlean hold no legitimacy based on their history (a history of traitors, supporting the throne only when they are on it).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:15 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 5
I believe that certain things are beyond the power of king, and line of descent is one of them. Simply because the Duc de Berry said that the only pretenders would be the Orleans does not make it just. We must also consider outstanding circumstances. Louis XIV never fathomed that his line would come to an end so quickly and so brutally. Also, the actions of the house of Orleans makes them traitors to the French throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-07-2007, 05:01 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: paris, France
Posts: 55
Once again we are changing the subject. These are very personnal remarks about a family which still exists.
However, trying to stick on the subject of "who is the rightfull heir to the throne of France" I would disagree on one point "it is beyond the power of kings to change the laws".
Of course it is not.
What power would prevent him to do so ? Where is it written "on the wall" ? The all disscussion is about that.
Was there ever a law in France stating that the elder son of the capetien family should be the king of France ?
When was it established ? Obviously after the years 800. Before that the capetiens ancestors were first, german or belgium peasants, and then unknown warriors who suddenly became famous when one of them became an important lord at the court of a french caroligien king.
By whom was it established once and for all ? God ? The french people ? The last carolingiens kings ?
Does this "law" applies to all France ? Or does it only apply to the kingdom as it was in the 10th century ? Mainly the center around Paris and a few other territories around.
One may not like the orleans family, this is not a reason to deny their rights.
Catherine the great killed her husband, her grandson alexander the 1st killed his father, not to mention Peter the great who killed his son, does that mean that all the Romanov after them were ursupators ?
In turkey it was customary to kill all your brothers when you became sultans , that never made anyone an usurpator.
Was elisabeth the 1st no longer queen of england because she had her cousin marie stuart executed ?
I am not excusing political crimes, they are bad, but they have never been a reason in a monarchy to exclude a whole line of the succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Quote:
I would disagree on one point "it is beyond the power of kings to change the laws".
Of course it is not.
In fact, this depends on the countries.
In Russia, clearly, dynastic laws should not be very rigid, as the dynastic discussers seem to believe it; even if since the accession of the Romanov dynasty, it became a bit less unforeseeable.
In England, there is a kind of a tradition of usurpations (at least, I call them usurpations, but if one consider the succession rules in England, admit unexpected successions, then they are not usurpations).
In Portugal, for instance, king Fernando I had legitimate daughters, and half brothers, of which one at least was legitimate, and it is an illegitimate half brother who succeeded.

Spain is much more legalist, with a process for alteration of the rules (the Cortes de castilla).
France is particularly legalist, too, with rules that appeared since the accession of Hugues Capet in 987, inspired by carolingian rules but different. They were told little by little, and they are supposed, every time, to be preexistent to the case, which makes that, if one situation already happened and was resolved in a way, the same situation happening later, cannot be solved differently. From what I red, it seems that theorisation of these rules, in the modern sense, started in XVth century with Jean de Terre-Vermeille : "La dix-huitième conclusion est que le roi de France ne peut ôter la succession à celui qui doit lui succéder dans ce royaume […]
La dix-neuvième conclusion est que l’ingratitude à l’égard du roi ou une autre semblable cause ne font pas perdre la succession au premier-né et autre successeur et que le roi ne peut, à cause de cela, le priver de la succession par une déclaration de sa volonté […] " (The eighteenth conclusion is that the king cannot remove the succession from the one who must succeed him in the realm (...)
The nineteenth conclusion is that the ungratefulness [in private French laws, ungratefulness of heirs can deprive them of the inheritance, NdT] to the king or another similar cause do not make lose the succession to the first-born and other successor and that the king cannot, because of this, deprive him of the succession by a declaration of his will(...)).
It was expanded later by many lawyers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-20-2008, 04:00 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
It sounds as though the majority of the people of France are pro-republic and appear to have no desire to have the monarchy restored in France. However, I wonder, if they are ever asked a question such as "if you have to choose a monarchy for France, which house will you choose to be the French monarchy; Louis Alphonse the Duke of Anjou, the Count of Paris or the Prince Napoleon ? I have a feeling that the majority will name the Prince Napoleon regardless of his current social position, his own personality etc.

The legacy of Napoleon I seems to have such an impact upon the history of France & the minds of the people of France.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-20-2008, 03:46 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Assuming a Napoleon would even want the job. From what I understand, the current Prince Napoleon shuns his royal title, even though there was a big stink about him keeping it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudia View Post
The real heirs to the French Throne are the Orléans.
It seems that it is a matter of dispute re: which house should be more legitimate etc. I understand that the Count of Paris claims to be the King of the French whereas Louis Alphonse claims to be the King of France.

The King of Spain seems to take his side to those who are related to his late mother that I do not know if his support makes the Count of Paris rightful over Louis Alphonse. The King of Spain also supports Infante Don Carlos, the Duke of Calabria, who is related to the king's late mother as the head of the House of the Two Sicilies but all the members of the House of the Two Sicilies as well as other royal houses treat Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro, as such. The Count of Paris is related to the King of Spain through the king's maternal side.

Oh, and, the Count of Paris, in an attempt to establish his legal rights as head of the Royal House of France, launched an unsuccessful court case (1987 - 1989) in which he challenged his rival Louis Alphonse's right to use the undifferenced Royal Arms. The French courts denied that they had jurisdiction over the dispute and did not address the merits of the case.

I suppose that the Bourbons in France has long forgotten and it is a republic after all that this sort of dispute is quite irrelevant to many French men and women today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.M. Margrethe View Post
I really don´t think that HM Queen Elizabeth II is the person who are going to be the real heir to the French crown and neither the rest of her family becaus they have allredy spoilede the English crown.
Traditinally, the English monarchs used the title of the King of France as one of their titles. Still today the Queen uses the title of the Duke of Normandy since she reigns over the Channel Islands as such.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-24-2008, 01:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Don Juan Carlos I supports Henri Philipe d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France as claimant to the French throne.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-26-2008, 04:25 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 255
It seems to me that you can't give up your rights to one throne (France) and marry into another family (Spain) with a reasonable expectation of getting close to the throne there, and then decide that you want to ignore all this at a later date.

I believe the last genuine claimant of the Bourbon line died without male heir in 1936. At this point, the right that the Bourbons had to the French throne moved across to the Orleans Branch. Louis Alphonse's line is a part of the Spanish Royal Family and out of the French one.

I believe it is the same for The Bourbon Two Sicilies line. The second son of Pr Alfonso, Head of the Royal House of BTS, Pr Carlo, became an Infante of Spain on his marriage to Infanta Maria de las Mercedes of Spain, and gave up any rights to the BTS line. This, as with the French case, was because the Spanish line kept looking as if it was going to die out, and there were only female heirs. When these Infantas married it was important that their decendants were only heirs to the Spanish throne and didn't muddy the waters by also being in line to any other throne . It is wrong to say, therefore, that Pr Don Carlos (who is married to Pss Anne of Orleans) is the Head of the Royal House of BTS. (The Don in his title gives it away - he is in the Spanish RF.) When Pr Alfonso of BTS's eldest son (Ferdinando) died without a male heir (1960), the right to be Head of the RH of BTS skipped over Carlo's line (who had 'abdicated') and landed on Pr Ranieri, the third son. With the death of Pr Ranieri's only son, Ferdinando, just recently, the Headship of this family passes to Pr Carlo. He is Fernando's only son - and at present he only has 2 daughters, I believe. So there may be problems with the succession in the future if this situation does not change!

I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies. After all their ancestors gave up their claims to become members of the Spanish Royal House.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-13-2008, 06:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Alison, there are things you seem not to know in European history.

Quote:
It seems to me that you can't give up your rights to one throne (France) and marry into another family (Spain) with a reasonable expectation of getting close to the throne there, and then decide that you want to ignore all this at a later date.
1) In France, a prince cannot lose his position by this way. It is a laws. Philip V went in Spain knowing he would keep his French rights, and he was, 12 years later, deceived by his own counsillors to make him believe he could resign them (only solution for him as he had jurated to serve the Spanish people and was forced by the war); his counsillors obeyed in this to the king of France, Louis XIV, who saw no other way of ending the war, and knew such renunciation would be invalid.
2) He didn't marry a Spanish woman, he married first a princess of Savoie, later an italian princess, heiress of Parma. His grandfather (Louis XIV) and grandgrandfather (Louis XIII) did marry spanish princesses.

Quote:
I believe the last genuine claimant of the Bourbon line died without male heir in 1936. At this point, the right that the Bourbons had to the French throne moved across to the Orleans Branch. Louis Alphonse's line is a part of the Spanish Royal Family and out of the French one.
The "last genuine claimant" you are citing, is the last prince of the Carlist line, who were descendants of Philip V, parts of the Spanish royal family (although they were excluded) and claimants to the Spanish throne. Why should it be different later? Alfonso XIII was in exile when he succeeded in 1936...

Quote:
I believe it is the same for The Bourbon Two Sicilies line. The second son of Pr Alfonso, Head of the Royal House of BTS, Pr Carlo, became an Infante of Spain on his marriage to Infanta Maria de las Mercedes of Spain, and gave up any rights to the BTS line. This, as with the French case, was because the Spanish line kept looking as if it was going to die out, and there were only female heirs. When these Infantas married it was important that their decendants were only heirs to the Spanish throne and didn't muddy the waters by also being in line to any other throne . It is wrong to say, therefore, that Pr Don Carlos (who is married to Pss Anne of Orleans) is the Head of the Royal House of BTS. (The Don in his title gives it away - he is in the Spanish RF.) When Pr Alfonso of BTS's eldest son (Ferdinando) died without a male heir (1960), the right to be Head of the RH of BTS skipped over Carlo's line (who had 'abdicated') and landed on Pr Ranieri, the third son. With the death of Pr Ranieri's only son, Ferdinando, just recently, the Headship of this family passes to Pr Carlo. He is Fernando's only son - and at present he only has 2 daughters, I believe. So there may be problems with the succession in the future if this situation does not change!
About the Two-Sicilies, I don't know enough to argue, sorry.

Quote:
I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies. After all their ancestors gave up their claims to become members of the Spanish Royal House.
This is absolutely wrong.
Felipe V went to Spain keeping with his French rights, twelve years later was forced (and deceived) to "resign" them, when he understood he could not valably do so, and his nephew king Louis XV of France, still a child, was ill, he sent letters to the French parliament to prepare his accession to the French throne, as unalienable laws entitled him. Eventually Louis XV survived and had descendance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-15-2008, 07:41 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison20 View Post
I do not believe that King Juan Carlos of Spain supports the claim of either of his family members to the hypothetical 'thrones' of France or the Two Sicilies.
Without gettring involved in the dispute over the rightful head of Bourbon-Two Silciles, the decison of King Juan Carlos to honour Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, as an Infant of Spain in 1994 made a most definite statement as to whom he believed to be the Head of the Royal House.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-29-2008, 05:25 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Sorry, I had not seen this part of Alison's post...
In 1983, the heads of the French (Alphonse of Bourbon, duke of Anjou and of Cadiz) and Spanish (king Juan-Carlos) royal houses (and of Parma ducal house? Not sure) published (in italian, later in spanish with a change in the order of signatures...) a joint statement, asserting that the head of the Two-Sicilies royal house, was the infant don Carlos.
It is not a proof of his legitimity, some kings of France or Spain have already failed in finding the right heir of a neighbour kingdom, but this shows the position of king Juan-Carlos.
More information here (site in English) :
Two Sicilies Succession, detailed examination of the dispute (Borbone-Due Sicilie disputa)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-02-2008, 06:09 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thribette View Post
1) In France, a prince cannot lose his position by this way. It is a laws. Philip V went in Spain knowing he would keep his French rights, and he was, 12 years later, deceived by his own counsillors to make him believe he could resign them (only solution for him as he had jurated to serve the Spanish people and was forced by the war); his counsillors obeyed in this to the king of France, Louis XIV, who saw no other way of ending the war, and knew such renunciation would be invalid.
2) He didn't marry a Spanish woman, he married first a princess of Savoie, later an italian princess, heiress of Parma. His grandfather (Louis XIV) and grandgrandfather (Louis XIII) did marry spanish princesses.
The Spanish inheritance war started because the male line of the Habsburgs of Spain got extinct and the right to the Spanish throne knew female inheritance (the Habsburg got to the power through the marriage of the heiress of the Spanish crowns to a Habsburg-archduke).

Both Louis XIII., his son Louis XIV and emperors Leopold I. and Ferdinand III: were married to Spanish Habsburg-princesses but the French kings had in both cases married the older sister with the more senior inheritance rights. Thus it made sense that finally the French contestor got the throne, even though the French inheritance law didn't know of the possibility to renounce the rights to the throne for a male descendant of the French king.

And as we talk Bourbons here, we should accept that Philip V.'s renounciation was invalid and thus his descendants still have the more senior right to the French throne of the Ancien Régime, pre-revolution.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 09-19-2008, 08:29 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
About the Spanish succession, normally queen Marie-Thérèse of France had lost her rights when she married Louis XIV, but 1) (as argued the French legists) her renunciation was not perfectly clear about the nature of her renunciation in case of unpayment of her dow (that was un paid), so they pretended her renunciation to Spanish throne was invalid, while normally the unpayment of the dow only entitled her to claim for Spanish possessions (provinces, colonies) as for a normal inheritance in these times; 2) above all, what made her right perfectly legitimate, is that both king Charles II, her brother, and the Spanish "Cortès" (special parliament), declared that they refused the validity of her renunciation. In Spain, the king and the Cortes, when they agree, can change the royal succession, this is what happened.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 10-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: *********, Spain
Posts: 1,176
In my opinion, if it would be posible, the king of France would be the descendents of Luis Felipe of France

About Luis Alfonso of Bourbon:

First, after being in the throne of France the Bourbons, they were the Bonaparte.
Secondly, Jaime, grandfather of Luis Alfonso, were not inheriting to the throne of Spain, because he was incapable, he was deaf dumb. The law that governed the Spanish monarchy until the Constitution of 1978, was the law of Felipe V, who was the first Bourbon of Spain, this law was the same that governed in France for the Bourbons, it said that a dumb deaf person could not be King, was incapable.
If Don Jaime could not be King of France ,neither could be Kings of France his descendents.
Third, Fernando VII of Spain 1812 had a brother, Carlos Maria, Los Carlistas.why luis Alfonso? and Los Carlistas?

Finally,In the web of magazine Hola! and other magazines, in section of news of the royals, it includes the news about Sarkozy and Carla Bruni as that they are royals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-11-2008, 10:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mutzig, France
Posts: 101
Well, Beltraneja, sorry for answering you so late, but all what you wrote is wrong.
1) If you consider the last reigning dynasty in France as the most entitled to reign now, then it is not the Orléans one, but the Bonaparte one.
2) For Spain. Don Jaime, second son of Alfonso XIII, who got nearly deaf and mute early in his childhood, was never excluded from succession while his father was on the throne (he was 22 when they went in exile), still his father knew that his elder son, don Alfonso, was haemophilic and was likely to die childless. When in exile, Alfonso XIII managed to obtain renunciations from Don Jaime, but these renunciations were never ratified by the Cortes, so after Alfonso XIII's death, Don Jaime was the legitimate heir of Spain, until 1969 (vote of the Cortes to introduce a new monarchy, with the assent of Don Jaime and his eldest son).
3) In France, never has a laws considered a handicapped person could be excluded from the throne, far the contrary (in Spain it is possible, with a king's wish and a Cortes vote; in France it is impossible to modify the order of succession).
In France, when a king cannot govern, whatever the reason, there is a regency, that's all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-12-2008, 08:28 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,387
The first son of the actual Count de Paris and Marie-Thérèse of Wurtenberg is François d'Orléans . He is unfortunataly "trisomique" and it is his younger brother Jean and not him who is now the Duc de Vendome and future Count de Paris
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 334 Yesterday 06:28 AM
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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 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]