The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Non-Reigning Houses > The Imperial Family of Russia

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2281  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
What I would like to know, is why you call everybody who recognized AA as Anastasia liars and greedy, while Olga, who clearly recognized AA as her niece, is excluded from that category. Please explain. And I never admitted that Olga did not read the manuscript because she could not read German. What she said, was that her command of German was not great, and that is why she only read the part detailing her own visit to AA at the Mommsen clinic. And she found Frau Rathlef's account "quite correct".
And if you are so sure that "it's over", why do you even bother to take part in this discussion?
__________________

__________________
  #2282  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
Here is a letter from another relative. Was he lying as well?

Villa Alam, Cap d'Ail, A/M. 8th July, 1928

Mr. P. S. von Kügelgen
Berlin-Zehlendorf,
Kleistrasse 20.

My dear Paul Pavlovich,

In order to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding whatever, I should like to indicate in general lines the object of my work.
When I began my investigations, it became obvious to me that everything that had hitherto been done had been carried out unsystematically, that no accurate reports existed, and that no one had been inspired by a fixed purpose.

It is perfectly obvious that the question of the "Unknown," as she was called, must be dealt with in such a manner that the first point to be established is whether it was as all probable that one of the Princesses was rescued from Ekaterinburg. Inquiries made with this object in view have yielded no documentary evidence; but it transpired that the rescue of one of the Princesses was not merely probable, but might almost be regarded as an established fact. The absence of precise information admittedly renders it impossible to treat this hypothesis as proved, and for this reason many people disagree on the point. Nevertheless, facts are known to me which have convinced me, although at the moment I do not feel myself justified in divulging them, since this aspect of the case must be handled very carefully.
The question next arises, whether the "Unknown" who appeared in Berlin is identical with the Princess. As documentary evidence is lacking, we are forced to content ourselves with the interrogation of the patient herself, chiefly in regard to verifying her recollections. As far as this is concerned, I must state that her reminiscences, so far as I have been able ro examine them, yield a description, clear in every respect, of actual facts. Everything which she recalls is an absolutely accurate description of the life of the Royal Family, including details which have never appeared in the Press. My own opinion is that the things which the patient remembers are such as only the Princess herself could recall.
We next come to a question which has given rise to considerable doubt, whether the "Unknown" resembles the Princess in appearance. I have seen her personally, and was greatly impressed by the striking similarity; I was even more struck by the general family resemblance, which is in some respects of almost greater importance than a personal likeness. My impression was, of course, a personal one, but it was so strong and so convincing that I could come to no other conclusion than that the patient could only be the Princess Anastasia Nikolaevna herself.
All the doubts so far expressed by the Press are completely removed by the scientific and practical results of my investigations. ALthough I was prepared to admit that there might be objections, I have been compelled to regard them as entirely unfounded and unproven. My opinions are confirmed by the similar manner in which these objections have been treated by Duke George von Leuchtenberg.
As regards two other questions, it is absolutely necessary that they should be fully confuted: the first is whether any political influence enters into the case. The reappearance of the Princess can have no political significance, since, in view of the fact that male members of our dynasty survive, her chance of succession is a very remote one. The second question is that of material interests being involved. Long before the "Unknown" appeared, I carefully investigated all the rumours concerning the existence of the millions alleged to have been left by the late Tsar; in every case these rumours proved to be unfounded, as I expected. Unfortunately it has to be borne in mind that this statement is being used as a means of throwing suspicion on all who took any part in my inquiries, by accusing them of being influenced by self-interest and speculative motives.

The object which I undertook when commencing my work is and continues to be the same - to establish the truth, be it what it may. All who have helped me for nearly two years are inspired by the same aims, so that I am grieved and angered by the accusations levelled against them, even more so than by those of which I myself am the victim, The investigation has never deviated from the prescribed methods, and has embraced with equal readiness all material whether favourable or otherwise.

No matter how much time is required, the investigation will be pursued until the truth is established and proved, for it is just as inconceivable that a stranger should claim to be the Princess, as that the Princess herself should be in such a distressing position. I must not omit to express my gratitude to the German Press for its help in much of my work, and would like to express the hope that in the future it will devote to the matter the same attention and accord the same unbiased treatment, and thus help me to ascertain the truth.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the fact that I regard it as my duty to carry my investigations to a conclusion, and that I shall spare myself no labour in my efforts to endure that truth triumphs in the end.
Everyone may rest assured that I shall be the first to admit it, if in the future evidence is produced that I have been mistaken, and that the patient is not the Princess. If, however, proof is forthcoming that I was right, and that she actually is the Princess, it will afford me an extraordinary moral satisfacton that I and all who have so devotedly helped me have fulfilled this duty to the end. This will be the greatest reward for all of us.

Sincerely yours,
Andrew.
__________________

__________________
  #2283  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:31 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatNoir View Post
What I would like to know, is why you call everybody who recognized AA as Anastasia liars and greedy,
BECAUSE SHE WASN'T REALLY ANASTASIA! Some may have just been wrong, while others were lying and/or greedy. Everyone claiming to tell a tale of AA's "escape" WAS A LIAR since it DID NOT HAPPEN. Why would they lie? $= greed.

Quote:
while Olga, who clearly recognized AA as her niece, is excluded from that category.
She did not! Don't make me post for the hundreth time all the quotes where she states AA was not AN!


Quote:
And if you are so sure that "it's over", why do you even bother to take part in this discussion?
While the mystery is over, our discussion won't be until you finally accept the DNA results or give us a valid reason why you don't.
__________________
  #2284  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:36 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatNoir View Post
Here is a letter from another relative. Was he lying as well?


Andrew.
As Olga wrote in a 1928 letter, "our cousin Andre must have some vile motives to side against us."

Perhaps she felt, as I do, that he was in on AA's charade for some gain of his own. Things that need to be considered about him:

1. His family, the Vladmirovichi, were persona non grata and even enemies of N and A

2. He accepted AA sight unseen- who would accept a claimant he never met?

3. He never knew the real AN well enough to accurately pass judgement on a real or fake one (his family was not friendly with the IF, he was living with the ex mistress of the Tsar, when he did come around on business he certainly was not palling around with the kids) Olga, on the other hand, did pal around with the kids, having them to her home for dances, taking them shopping, out for ice cream, teaching them to spend money (which AA claimed not to be able to do) and being their friend. She was probably the family member closest to the girls, even more than the Dowager Empress who didn't spend much time with them due to her poor relationship with Alix.

4. His association with Serge Botkin, uncle of Gleb and head of the Russian emigre community is suspect.Andre(w) wrote to him "The number of people involved in this is very large." Involved in WHAT?

So in conclusion, I say his part in the story was very fishy. But remember, he abandoned it all after Gleb's nasty letter to Xenia, declaring 'he's ruined everything.' Ruined what? What were they up to?

One strange thing is, as a member of the Vladmirovichi, his brother the self proclaimed Tsar in exile, would be the last ones to want a real heir of Nicky to appear- making me even more sure he knew she wasn't really AN.
__________________
  #2285  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:37 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
So, the "others" were liars and greedy. And may we know who these "others" were?
__________________
  #2286  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post
As Olga wrote in a 1928 letter, "our cousin Andre must have some vile motives to side against us."
Actually, Olga was the one who gave him the go-ahead to investigate the situation.

Quote:
Perhaps she felt, as I do, that he was in on AA's charade for some gain of his own.
And when you read his letter, you will see that he knows there is no tsarist fortune.

Quote:
Things that need to be considered about him:

1. His family, the Vladmirovichi, were persona non grata and even enemies of N and A
He was actually aide-de-camp to the Tsar.

Quote:
2. He accepted AA sight unseen- who would accept a claimant he never met?
He met her in Paris and spent two days with her.

Quote:
3. He never knew the real AN well enough to accurately pass judgement on a real or fake one (his family was not friendly with the IF, he was living with the ex mistress of the Tsar, when he did come around on business he certainly was not palling around with the kids)
He was actually one of the last of the family to see them.

Quote:
4. His association with Serge Botkin, uncle of Gleb and head of the Russian emigre community is suspect.
Why?

Quote:
So in conclusion, I say his part in the story was very fishy. But remember, he abandoned it all after Gleb's nasty letter to Xenia, declaring 'he's ruined everything.' Ruined what? What were they up to? Eh?
It was his brother Cyril who ordered Andrew off the case.
__________________
  #2287  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:56 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatNoir View Post
Actually, Olga was the one who gave him the go-ahead to investigate the situation.
I'd investigate,too, and find out what was going on.


Quote:
He was actually aide-de-camp to the Tsar.
Exactly what I meant by 'on business.' However he was far from the most used or important ones, his name is barely mentioned, sometimes never, in real lists of those close to the Tsar. Anything someone there on business would do would not involve playing with children.



Quote:
He met her in Paris and spent two days with her.
Many years later. When he first supported her, he had never seen or met her.



Quote:
He was actually one of the last of the family to see them.
So says you, I see this nowhere else. Kyril may have been the last, after he betrayed them.


Quote:
It was his brother Cyril who ordered Andrew off the case.
He didn't need to, he voluntarily distanced himself from Gleb after the letter and the family's official denial.


Quote:
why
Since Gleb and Tatiana were among the biggest supporters, and their uncle the head of all emigres.' This had to have helped them.
__________________
  #2288  
Old 11-19-2008, 11:08 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
The most important thing to remember here is that AA has already been proven not to be AN. This means we can figure a lot of things out based on that reality. Unless Chat can tell us why the tests are not valid his old commentary is useless.
__________________
  #2289  
Old 11-19-2008, 11:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post

Exactly what I meant by 'on business.' However he was far from the most used or important ones, his name is barely mentioned, sometimes never, in real lists of those close to the Tsar. Anything someone there on business would do would not involve playing with children.
I think Andrew was a little too old to play with the Tsar's children.

Quote:
Many years later. When he first supported her, he had never seen or met her.
So he supported her, did he? You better back this up with sources.

Quote:
So says you, I see this nowhere else. Kyril may have been the last, after he betrayed them.
Read Peter Kurth.

Quote:
He didn't need to, he voluntarily distanced himself from Gleb after the letter and the family's official denial.
Gleb Botkin and the AA case were hardly the same. And the "family" did not issue an official denial, only Alexander's family plus the two aunts. Even Cyril refused to sign that statement. And of all the ones signing, only Olga had seen the claimant.


Quote:
Since Gleb and Tatiana were among the biggest supporters, and their uncle the head of all emigres.' This had to have helped them.
Helped them with what?
__________________
  #2290  
Old 11-19-2008, 11:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post
The most important thing to remember here is that AA has already been proven not to be AN. This means we can figure a lot of things out based on that reality. Unless Chat can tell us why the tests are not valid his old commentary is useless.
Not my commentary, but from the people who were there. And if it is useless, why do you get so riled up over it?
__________________
  #2291  
Old 11-19-2008, 11:29 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatNoir View Post
I think Andrew was a little too old to play with the Tsar's children.
That's my point. He didn't cme to pal around with the kids, and didn't know them very well.



Quote:
So he supported her, did he? You better back this up with sources.
You are the one who says he was a supporter!



Quote:
Read Peter Kurth.
As I was saying...where else?



Quote:
Gleb Botkin and the AA case were hardly the same. And the "family" did not issue an official denial, only Alexander's family plus the two aunts. Even Cyril refused to sign that statement.
Can you post a list of those who signed?



Quote:
Not my commentary, but from the people who were there.
And there are loads of other comments against her from 'people who were there.' As I keep saying, they can't all be right, but DNA proved which side was wrong (AA's)

Quote:
And if it is useless, why do you get so riled up over it?
I am only trying to show how your decades old commentary means nothing now that we have the DNA. I am tired of you ignoring my question- please state why you believe the DNA is invalid and why all these comments matter or even deserve equal consideration to the DNA.
__________________
  #2292  
Old 11-20-2008, 12:02 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 795
Read post 1928 again!

The Copenhagen Statement (made in Hesse) bore 11 signatures from Xenia, Alexander, 6 of their children, 2 cousins and Olga, who signed in the 11th hour.
__________________
  #2293  
Old 11-20-2008, 08:20 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post
Ever since reading "Lost Fortune of the Tsars" I have been thinking a lot about the money aspect of the AA case. It's really interesting that those who still deny the DNA results have mentioned- or even if they haven't,they have to think it, why else doubt them- that someone did a 'swap' or 'paid somebody off' to forge a bad result.

I'd prefer it if you didn't tell everyone what I am "thinking" since you don't know. The above is not my position at all and it isn't the position of everyone else either. (I know because we have discussed it, not because I can read their minds, like you claim to.) I don't believe that it necessarily means someone was paid off, I don't know what happened, nor do I pretend to. My stance is that it simply doesn't fit with other evidence.
__________________
  #2294  
Old 11-20-2008, 11:26 AM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter View Post
I'd prefer it if you didn't tell everyone what I am "thinking" since you don't know. The above is not my position at all and it isn't the position of everyone else either. (I know because we have discussed it, not because I can read their minds, like you claim to.) I don't believe that it necessarily means someone was paid off, I don't know what happened, nor do I pretend to.
You have stated here on this forum before you believed there to be 'anomalies' with the DNA. Someone other than me asked you what you meant by that but you were unable to elaborate. If you really read up on DNA, you'll know that there is no such thing as an 'anomaly' that would cause all four tests to have identical results, that AA was not AN. (and that she did match the FS family) Dr. Melton herself has told us that any random error would give a result that did not match the others, and that if all were in error none would match, since the same random error in all four is literally impossible. So please tell us what kind of 'anomaly' can make AA's DNA magically appear to match the FS family instead of the royals? Since you admit you 'don't know what happened' and Chat 'refuses to speculate' how do you know anything did happen? How can you be sure that the results aren't right, since you have no legitimate reason for them being wrong? (add to this the 2007 bone fragments in addition to the previous AA intestine and hair tests)

Quote:
My stance is that it simply doesn't fit with other evidence.
It all depends on what you choose to look at and believe. Actually quite a bit of the 'evidence' backs up AA not being AN, and being FS. Also if you really dig into the details behind some of the pro AA 'evidence' it turns out to be not so solid as some boldly claim, and falls like a house of cards when you blow on it. Holding onto a few decades old comments does not stand up against modern science.

So really it's the other way around, it's not that the DNA doesn't fit with the other evidence, it's that the pro AA evidence you are looking at doesn't fit with the DNA. But since the DNA is not wrong, we now know that the pro AA stuff is wrong, and has been refuted and proven false. That is, unless anyone can prove all the DNA tests are wrong, and why, they stand, and we just have to accept that some of the things said about AA were inaccurate, and are certainly insignficant compared to the DNA.
__________________
  #2295  
Old 11-20-2008, 01:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post
You have stated here on this forum before you believed there to be 'anomalies' with the DNA. Someone other than me asked you what you meant by that but you were unable to elaborate. If you really read up on DNA, you'll know that there is no such thing as an 'anomaly' that would cause all four tests to have identical results, that AA was not AN. (and that she did match the FS family) Dr. Melton herself has told us that any random error would give a result that did not match the others, and that if all were in error none would match, since the same random error in all four is literally impossible. So please tell us what kind of 'anomaly' can make AA's DNA magically appear to match the FS family instead of the royals? Since you admit you 'don't know what happened' and Chat 'refuses to speculate' how do you know anything did happen? How can you be sure that the results aren't right, since you have no legitimate reason for them being wrong? (add to this the 2007 bone fragments in addition to the previous AA intestine and hair tests).
Yes I did say that and it is not at all the same thing as saying that someone tampered with it, which is what you have said we appear to believe. I'm not a scientist and unlike some, I don't pretend to be which is why I don't claim to know WHY this may have happened . DNA is still a relatively new aspect of science - who knows what we'll find out about it in another 50 years? The 2007 bones are still being tested as you well know and there are more results to come, so let's just wait and see on those shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska View Post
It all depends on what you choose to look at and believe. Actually quite a bit of the 'evidence' backs up AA not being AN, and being FS. Also if you really dig into the details behind some of the pro AA 'evidence' it turns out to be not so solid as some boldly claim, and falls like a house of cards when you blow on it. Holding onto a few decades old comments does not stand up against modern science. .
Well you know I did history at university and we were always taught that primary sources (ie testimony of those who present at the time) is always more reliable than secondary sources. I don't know if you could call DNA a "secondary" source but as long as there is a conflict in the evidence, I reserve the right to question it and I don't know why that bothers you so much. I don't care if you disagree with me, I don't even care if you think I'm nuts but as I said, please don't presume to tell other people what I am thinking. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.
__________________
  #2296  
Old 11-20-2008, 01:44 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter View Post
Yes I did say that and it is not at all the same thing as saying that someone tampered with it, which is what you have said we appear to believe. I'm not a scientist and unlike some, I don't pretend to be which is why I don't claim to know WHY this may have happened
I never mentioned you by name or said all AA supporters thought the same thing, as I posted, I know what you said. But since there is no proof or even reason to believe 'something happened' how do you know something did?

Quote:
Well you know I did history at university and we were always taught that primary sources (ie testimony of those who present at the time) is always more reliable than secondary sources.
Are you openly stating that comments from this or that person that may or may not be truthful or accurate are more important than DNA? No court of law will agree. Time and time again we see men convicted on loads of eyewitness testimony set free once the DNA tests come in. Why? Because the DNA PROVES that all the things the people said were wrong. Some were lies, some mistakes, but all wrong. Same with AA.

Quote:
there is a conflict in the evidence,
There is no conflict, what we have is some things now being disregarded as inaccurate, just as happened in the legal cases where the men were freed. Do you call it a 'conflict of evidence' that people place a man at the scene, pick him out of a lineup and swear on a Bible he did it, yet the DNA says he did NOT do it? That is the FINAL answer. Same with AA. None of the old commentary matters, she's NOT AN.

Quote:
I reserve the right to question it and I don't know why that bothers you so much.
Quote:
I don't care if you disagree with me, I don't even care if you think I'm nuts but as I said, please don't presume to tell other people what I am thinking. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.
As I clarified, I never said you said there was any tampering, however, 'don't know what happened' leaves the door open to quite a bit of guessing and NO answers. To not accept the DNA is to not trust the scientists, not trust those involved in the handling. But since there are no reasons not to trust them, why doubt them? But IMO your 'questioning' is based a lot more on your own desire to hold onto a mystery than any real evidence. Yes, I admit it bothers me some people refuse to accept the obvious truth, but worst of all, they may mislead innocent information seekers into buying the snake oil.

I KNOW I'm going to regret this, but how about listing some of the things you feel so strongly about that you won't let the DNA prove AA was not AN?
__________________
  #2297  
Old 12-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Here is some valuable information I would like to share. I have had personal contact with Dr. Michael Coble, and he said we can be assured that:

1. They have FULL forensic DNA profiles for ALL seven members of the family, (including four separate Grand Duchesses) and we can finally put the issue to rest that all of the family died that night 90 years ago. (therefore all claimant stories are now proven beyond any doubt to be false)

2. Alexander III was NOT exhumed for the testing, that was a mistake by the Russian article, or relayed incorrectly in the translation. The 'father and son' mentioned were actually Nicholas and Alexei, not Nicholas and Alexander III as the one article implied. They did indeed test Nicholas's cousin, Andre Romanov, and his Y chromosome also matched Nicholas and Alexei perfectly.

3. It is true that we have astronomical evidence in the case. This puts an end to all speculation. Also, the argument that "It's some other family" is no longer viable.

4. He is in the process of writing the final report and scientific publication and should have something in the press soon. All results will soon be published in a scientific journal, and afterward will be posted here by Dr. Coble himself.

This is exciting news. I thank Dr. Michael Coble for his help and this information. You can all look forward to the upcoming publications.
__________________
  #2298  
Old 03-09-2009, 02:18 PM
Anna was Franziska's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 823
Here is the press release from Dr. Coble, I post it with his permission:

US, European Scientists Report Findings of the Two Missing Romanov Children

An international team of researchers confirm the identity of the Tsar’s two missing children using forensic DNA testing...the researchers developed a complete 16-marker autosomal STR profile for each member of the Russian royal family from the 1991 grave and from the two individuals in the 2007 grave.

The results demonstrate the presence of a family group, and represent the most comprehensive examination of the Romanov remains to date.
"Here we are able to give a full account of all of the Romanov family and can conclude that none of the family survived the execution..."

“It’s rewarding to finally conclude this mystery 16 years after the first analysis of the remains,” reported Dr. Gill.

###
PLEASE ADD THIS LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838 (link will go live tommorrow)

CITATION: Coble MD, Loreille OM, Wadhams MJ, Edson SM, Maynard K, Meyer CE, Niederstätter H, Berger C, Berger B, Falsetti AB, Gill P, Parson W, Finelli LN (2009) Mystery Solved: The Identification of the Two Missing Romanov Children Using DNA Analysis. PLoS ONE
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
anastasia, anna anderson, dr berenberg-gossler, ekaterinburg, franziska schanzkowska, grand duchess anastasia, pierre gilliard, prince michael romanov


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
Grand Duke Henri & Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, Current Events 5 (June 2006-Mar 2008) Danielle Current Events Archive 203 03-04-2008 12:55 AM
Grand Duke Henri & Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, Current Events 4 (February-June 2006) Alexandria Current Events Archive 196 06-04-2006 02:14 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 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]