The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Weddings > Royal Weddings General Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 02-04-2016, 08:50 AM
Bonnie Blue Butler's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Silesia, Poland
Posts: 104
What about Russia? I think they also have to marry an equal person to not lose the succession rights
__________________

__________________
Will we die, just a little?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-04-2016, 09:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,419
These house rules exist because the families don't rule or reign over anyone or anything. If by chance Austria became a monarchy once again, the Hapsburgs would have to fall in line with the rest of western European parliamentary democracies.

Every monarchy has an approval process for marriages, either the sovereign or the government but you can't rule someone out based on their 'unequal' background. It would never fly in liberal democracies
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:05 AM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Exactly - whether the government and people hold them in high esteem, which is the case according to certain forum member who is a university professor there, there ihas NOT been a monarchy in Brazil for well over 120 years. Besides, I think there were actually only two monarchs of the country. Yes, they were originally Portuguese royalty, but "were" is THE key verb here. It is pretentious, outright snobby, and utterly ridiculous for them to have to marry equally to maintain their succession rights to a throne that does NOT exist. The "faux " royalty of the world just really amazes me, especially this large bunch. There is a much-needed reality check for this family; time to let go of the past and move forward and quit misrepresenting themselves.
If you want to talk about me, at least have the decency to mention me by name. And again, in your rush to belittle the Brazilian Imperial Family and Brazilian monarchists, you committed some History mistakes.

Also, it's time for some American members to learn to show some respect for other people's opinions and beliefs. You are going through the process of electing a new President, right? Republicans and Democrats are allowed to express and uphold their views in your democratic system, right?

Well, here in Brazil, monarchists are allowed to express and uphold their views. So I see no reason for people to belittle them (unless they want to show how disrespectful and narrow-minded they are).
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I have trouble seeing how an aristocratic (at least through her mother) Baroness of wealth and a successful career, is not a suitable bride in these modern times. But who knows
Well,from her father's side she has also descended from many great noble families such as Esterhazy, Zichy, Bethlen, Karolyi , Bathori, Forgach, Palffy, Batthyany, Fugger etc.

And if we go back few hundred years from families such as Nassau, Baden, Lorraine and even Habsburg Emperors themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
If you want to talk about me, at least have the decency to mention me by name. And again, in your rush to belittle the Brazilian Imperial Family and Brazilian monarchists, you committed some History mistakes.

Also, it's time for some American members to learn to show some respect for other people's opinions and beliefs. You are going through the process of electing a new President, right? Republicans and Democrats are allowed to express and uphold their views in your democratic system, right?

Well, here in Brazil, monarchists are allowed to express and uphold their views. So I see no reason for people to belittle them (unless they want to show how disrespectful and narrow-minded they are).
The point was I was trying to make is that the people of Brazil still seem to hold their ex-imperial family in high esteem. I did not realize that until you pointed that out to me in another forum post. I was not trying to belittle anybody nor was I disrespectful toward you or anybody else with the same opinion. I DO respect your opinion. Each of our opinions on this topic are in direct contrast with other though, and we will never agree. I always try to keep an open mind and learn from others. I am sorry you felt I was being disrespectful, but realize our opinions about this family seriously contrast and probably always will. I do not understand why you take it so personally. Understand my views about this family has absolutely nothing to do with you at all.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-04-2016, 11:31 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I have trouble seeing how an aristocratic (at least through her mother) Baroness ...
Well,not just her mother,but also from her father!!!

Here is Francesca's line from Habsburgs via her father(I posted on another thread her line from from Habsburgs on her mother's side):


Emperor Rudolf I von Habsburg,reigned from 1273-1291
I
Emperor Albrecht I von Habsburg,lived from 1255-1308
I
Duke Albrecht II of Austria,lived from 1298-1358
I
Duke Leopold III of Austria,lived from 1351-1386
I
Duke Ernst I of Austria,lived from 1377-1424
I
Margravine Katharina of Baden,lived from 1424-1493
I
Margrave Christoph I of Baden,lived from 1453-1527
I
Margravine Sibylla of Baden,lived from 1485-1518
I
Countess Johanna von Hanau-Lichtenebrg,lived from 1513-1572
I
Countess Sibylla von Eberstein,lived from 1531-1589
I
Countess Maria Magdalena Fugger zu Kirchheim und Weissenhorn,lived from 1566-1646
I
Countess Katalin Palffy of Erdöd,died in 1639
I
Baroness Eva Forgach de Gasc,lived from 1613-1639
I
Count Istvan Csaky de Körösszeg et Adorjan,lived from 1635-1699
I
Countess Maria Klara Csaky de Körösszeg et Adorjan,lived from 1660-1688
I
Count Zsigmond I Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1677-1731
I
Count Zsigmond II Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1718-1777
I
Count Zsigmond III Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1750-1809
I
Count Janos Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1780-1840
I
Count Gabor Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1809-1877
I
Count Gabrielle Kornis de Göncz-Ruszka,lived from 1834-1902
I
Baron Gabor Bornemisza de Kaszon et Imperfalva,lived from 1859-1915
I
Baroness Margit Bornemisza de Kaszon et Imperfalva,lived from 1887-1971
I
Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kaszon et Imperfalva,lived from 1921-2002
I
BARONESS FRANCESCA ANNA DOLORES VON THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA DE KASZON ET IMPERFALVA,ARCHDUCHESS OF AUSTRIA,born in 1958
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-04-2016, 01:33 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
These house rules exist because the families don't rule or reign over anyone or anything. If by chance Austria became a monarchy once again, the Hapsburgs would have to fall in line with the rest of western European parliamentary democracies.

Every monarchy has an approval process for marriages, either the sovereign or the government but you can't rule someone out based on their 'unequal' background. It would never fly in liberal democracies
I think this is absolutely right. It seems that most of the current reigning royal houses have updated their rules and requirements as to who their members can marry in line with the laws of that country, which in turn would have been amended in line with changes in society.

Some of the non-reigning houses appear to have retained these strict rules, but I am not sure why really.
In hopes of their country becoming a monarchy again, one would have thought they would do what they can to become more acceptable to the people. On the other hand, if they know they will never reign again, I suppose they wish to keep on with the traditions so as at least to be set apart from normal society.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-04-2016, 02:25 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I think this is absolutely right. It seems that most of the current reigning royal houses have updated their rules and requirements as to who their members can marry in line with the laws of that country, which in turn would have been amended in line with changes in society.

Some of the non-reigning houses appear to have retained these strict rules, but I am not sure why really.
In hopes of their country becoming a monarchy again, one would have thought they would do what they can to become more acceptable to the people. On the other hand, if they know they will never reign again, I suppose they wish to keep on with the traditions so as at least to be set apart from normal society.
Only "officially" is it considered "tradition," it's really only a superiority complex and their refusal to accept reality. They refuse to accept their now "commoner" status. If the families allowed marriages to unequals, they would eventually assimilate into non-royal, albeit wealthy, society and that thought makes them stare reality in the eye. Somehow, they feel no government has the right to strip them of their royal status, but governments can and do, and it is legally binding. C'est la vie!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-04-2016, 02:40 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Only "officially" is it considered "tradition," it's really only a superiority complex and their refusal to accept reality. They refuse to accept their now "commoner" status. If the families allowed marriages to unequals, they would eventually assimilate into non-royal, albeit wealthy, society and that thought makes them stare reality in the eye. Somehow, they feel no government has the right to strip them of their royal status, but governments can and do, and it is legally binding. C'est la vie!
I do think this is the case for a lot of people, not only non-reigning royal houses. But it's up to them to decide I suppose.

One thing that springs to mind is that by restricting who one should marry means that surely potential spouses become fewer and fewer as time goes on. Wouldn't the Line eventually die out?

I've said this elsewhere on the forums, but it is hard enough trying to find a wife for some of the princes in reigning families (no names will be mentioned as there are separate threads for that!) where no such rules or restrictions exists, let alone narrowing the field to such a extent.

In many ways I am traditionalist myself, but I think it is enough to find what in the old days people would say "just find a nice young man/lady to marry".
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-04-2016, 02:52 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,788
I think you have a point there, NotHRH.

However, if these families eventually wish to become royals again, it's important they will not be considered too aloof. Otherwise their future subject cannot relate to them and as such will find them irrelevant. And why reestablish someone who are aloof and irrelevant?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I think you have a point there, NotHRH.

However, if these families eventually wish to become royals again, it's important they will not be considered too aloof. Otherwise their future subject cannot relate to them and as such will find them irrelevant. And why reestablish someone who are aloof and irrelevant?
Exactly - and also probably the biggest consideration why many countries had/have/will eventually dethrone(d) some royal families. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:07 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Only "officially" is it considered "tradition," it's really only a superiority complex and their refusal to accept reality. They refuse to accept their now "commoner" status. If the families allowed marriages to unequals, they would eventually assimilate into non-royal, albeit wealthy, society and that thought makes them stare reality in the eye. Somehow, they feel no government has the right to strip them of their royal status, but governments can and do, and it is legally binding. C'est la vie!

I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,223
Isn't Queen Margrethe technically a Regent? I know she is addressed as Queen and has all the powers (such as they are) of a monarch but I'm convinced I've read somewhere that she is a regent because she is female.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:25 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,788
QMII is a full Monarch.

It was QMI who was technically a Regent. But that was back in the 1400's.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:43 AM
LadyRohan's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sweden, Slovenia
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?
This is absolutely correct. The main reason that former royal houses and reigning families struggle with updating their own rules and ways, is that the families are often large and fragmented and they are often contested for leadership, like in Ital, France and Russia. If the head of a royal or noble tries to implement a change not universally supported inside the family, he will be contested. i wonder if anyone can think of any reason why someone in the family might contest a decision, or seek headship of a dynasty?

Look at the example of Romania. The former King has 5 daughters and no son. If Romania was a monarchy right now, a democracy within the EU, it would have amended its constitution to allow for equal or preferred primogeniture long time ago. The King therefore wrote a document with a proposed line of succession for parliament to consider, in the event of a restoration. Take a look around these forums to see how some people view, and talk about, that process.

Italy is the same. If it was a monarchy today, the young daughters of The Prince of Venice would be third and fourth in line. Instead, those looking to the long-abolished constitution point to a cousin of the current Crown Prince and his family, because he has sons who have sons. Is it the Royal Familys fault the rules within a Royal Family are out of date? How can they truly change something they know will be contested, and lead to family feuds and strife?

These things might seem trivial to outsiders, but they're not. They are not merely about status or aloofness, but more about the preservation of dynasties and history. They're about legal rights to fortunes and titles, and they're about representing the family outwards, possibly working towards monarchical restorations. The best way to deal with decisions involving Royal Families, is for them to be sidelined, just as politicians recuse themselves in matters where they have self-serving interests. For that to happen, you need to have a constitutional monarchy, and where that functions well, there is no superior form of government, in a world where no system based on human equations, can be perfect.

Just a quick note at the end: if a royal family or a dynastic house meet vocal and unyielding opposition in places like this forum, among monarchists and royalists, what chance do they have of changing the will of old and hardened members of their own families? :)
__________________
"He who has never failed to reach perfection, has a right to be the harshest critic" - Queen Elizabeth II
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-05-2016, 12:57 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Isn't Queen Margrethe technically a Regent? I know she is addressed as Queen and has all the powers (such as they are) of a monarch but I'm convinced I've read somewhere that she is a regent because she is female.

QMII is a Queen Regnant (a reigning monarch), as opposed to a Queen Consort (wife of a reigning monarch), or a Queen Regent (a queen who rules in place of the monarch, who is unable to reign in their own right).
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-05-2016, 01:43 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,788
Lady Rohan:

The questions of "equal" marriages and who is in line according to a long since abandoned constitution may be relevant to hardcore monarchists of a given country but not so much I believe to the rest of the population.

Example: We have a country that abolished monarchy 80 years ago. Today there is a growing majority for reintroducing the monarchy - for all sorts of reasons. Most of them no doubt because a monarch would provide a politically neutral head of state, who is also a national and cultural rallying point.
The monarchist may bicker among themselves about genealogy, and proper marriages and line of successions according to the constitution 80 years back.
But to the majority who are about to decide whether to reintroduce the monarchy it boils down to: Who do I find most suitable and who do I want to represent my country?

Because the first reintroduced monarch is elected! And that is very important to keep in mind. It it absolutely crucial that the first monarch is the one people want and not someone who may have a better pedigree but who is pretty irrelevant to the public.

We have princess A, who is wellknown to the public, has been engaged in the affairs of the country and who has proved dedicated and willing to serve her country. She's generally respected and well liked.
She has an appropriate age, say mid-40's. Has a couple of children, with the correct number of arms and legs, who are well-behaved apart from the odd mischief. She's married to a former racing driver. () A loving and supporting husband, who may be a foreigner but hasn't put a foot wrong.
The public like her, they want her!

But within the family clan there are two contestant who according to the old succession are in line for the throne before her. And who according to the family rules married an "equal".
One, prince B, is in his 70's. He has been abroad most of his life and his children have pursued careers on their own (they had to). Nothing wrong with him as such, but he isn't seen as being particularly relevant to the public. And due to his age he lacks the glamour factor.

Then there is prince C, in his early 20's. Just started at the university, unmarried, no children. Nothing wrong with him either, but he is a bit inexperienced in life.

Now, your job is to pursade the voters to vote for princes B or C, rather than princess A, because...?
The question you are going to face is: I want princess A. Why should I vote for reintroducing the monarchy only to get prince B or C, who I don't see fit the role?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-05-2016, 06:21 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?
I was only speaking of non-reigning houses - "NON-reigning" - they no longer represent their home country because their country's government, for whatever reason, implemented laws to get rid of the monarchy and to specifically impede any attempts at a restoration. There should be NO claimants, there is nothing that is theirs to claim. There are quite a few ongoing fiascos, mainly Russia, Romania, and Brazil. Just read today because the ex-king of Romania served as Prime Minister, then that means the ex-royal family accepts the validity of Romania as a republic. Yes, I also know about the other situation concerning ex-Prince Nicholas (Medforth-Mills). There are many divisions amongst the ex-royals everywhere.
Disappointment comes in all sorts of ways for everybody, not just for commoners. It's disappointing and emotionally painful for these people, I do understand that, but they need to learn to cope with that. So let them stab each other in the back for a throne that does not exist - shows their character, why their thrones were lost, and why many countries do not want restoration. I have never felt sorry for any person or persons that believe they are superior to everybody else. Learning to cope with disappointment is a very humbling experience indeed.:)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-05-2016, 07:15 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,948
There are still a number of Houses which have a requirement for an Ebenbürtige or a Standesgemäß marriage.

The marriage of Don Juan Carlos de Borbón with Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark is Ebenbürtig. This means: the partners are of equal birth.

The marriage of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia with Countess Donata von Castell-Rüdenhausen was Standesgemäß. This means: the partners are of the same standing.

The first one is more strict than the second one. Famous is the clausule in the Will of the father of the current Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg which stipulates that his Heir (his grandson Prince Gustav) has to marry Standesgemäß. Prince Gustav's current longtime companion Ms Carina Axelsson is not fullfilling that requirement and the couple still has not married.

Note that this couple has all freedom to marry, as all EU-citizens enjoy the freedom to choose the own partner. That the marriage has an effect on a beneficiary clausule in a Will, that is another matter and for the consideration of the affected beneficiant(s) indeed.

It is not illegal to make these conditions: "I leave all my worldly goods to my children on the condition that the properties will be given free when they have completed their secondary education and made a Christian marriage". The children still have all freedom to stay away from secondary school and not marry at all. That there are consequences attached to that, tja..., that is for their own consideration.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-05-2016, 07:33 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
I [...] There should be NO claimants, there is nothing that is theirs to claim. [...]
Most Houses claim nothing at all in terms of Government or so. Except being the continuation of the historic dynasty and often the considerable wealth which is attached to that.

The present Duke of Bavaria does not claim the kingship of Bavaria or something. He however is the head of the Royal House of Bavaria and as such he enjoys considerable privileges. For an example owning enormous historic collections, artworks, estates, having residence in various castles, like the mighty Schloss Nymphenburg (picture).

The present Fürst von Hohenzollern does not lay a claim on any state or something, not even on the throne of Romania. He however is the head of the Fürstliche House of Hohenzollern and as such he enjoys considerable privileges. For an example owning enormous historic collections, estates, having residence in various castles, including the famous Burg Hohenzollern (picture), co-owned with the Head of the other Hohenzollern House (Prussia).

So there is a LOT to claim.... when you disagree with someone else claiming to be the rightful heir and head of the House...

__________________

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
The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations Warren British Royals 755 12-09-2016 01:14 AM
Royal, Princely and Noble Families of Germany & Austria 2 Dulce Elena Royal Families of Austria and Germany 249 11-09-2016 08:13 AM
Royalty of Scotland and Ireland monos26 Other Non-Reigning Houses and Historical Monarchies 285 10-16-2016 03:56 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 belgian state visit to japan best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style christening of prince alexander coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events december duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll fashion suggestions grand duke jean greece jubilee kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament oscars picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises