The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 03-13-2021, 04:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Princess Royal is the second child of the reigning monarch, and is a full-time royal who undeniably plays a major role in the monarchy, given that she is its hardest-working royal according to some tallies of engagements.

Her children have never received any title at all, much less the same HRH Prince title as their cousins William and Harry.

The princess herself does not receive publicly-funded security outside of her official engagements.
Yes, I just edited my post to say that the Queen didn't change the LPs for her sister or daughter and the 5th in like David Armstrong-Jones used the courtesy title of the Earldom granted to his father. Otherwise he wouldn't have had any title what so ever, unlike Archie who is currently inline for HRH. They're welcome to use Dumbarton if they had wanted.

Peter Philips was the first grandchild and had no title at all at his parents request and to his own stated relief years later.

I struggle to think why Harry and Meghan even wanted him to have HRH. That was surprising. And I don't believe they were 100% sincere about the security issue because they know who has it and doesn't.

They were already talking about leaving, whether Canada, NZ, SA or even then LA. And they sure as hell wanted everything about him to be as private as possible (fair enough) and they've seen that being "the other HRHs" hasn't help Bea and Eugenie out - just made them "justified" targets of attack and derision. Nor has it given then security. If it's such a toxic "Firm" that you had to flee 5000 miles why do you want Archie connected with it?

Did they just want whatever William and Kate had? Or to market Prince Archie's bedtime stories for Netflix?
__________________

  #262  
Old 03-13-2021, 04:13 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I flatly refuse to believe Netflix paid them 100 million, or even pledged to pay 100 million.
What Netflix said is more along this line: "Here's a down payment for the rights to material you produce. If it's good, we will pay up to 100 million. If it really takes off, we will pay even more - to be negotiated.
If we can't use your material, we won't pay a dime. And we can pull the plug anytime we want."

Netflix or any other business is not going to hand out 100 million just because of H&M's pretty eyes.
On the contrary H&M may find it problematic to go somewhere else with video material.
If H&M can't come up with something that sells, Netflix may very well say: "Well, we have a few suggestions... - If you don't wanna do it, no money."

Netflix has seen that H&M can deliver a seller like the Oprah interview. They want something similar.
Now, what can possibly sell just as much as the interview? What topic could create just as high ratings, I wonder...

Hmmm, globalism? The environment? Racism? Well... Nah, not that much. How about some juicy insider stories about the BRF then?

If they refuse there are always plenty of reality shows out there that wouldn't mind having a real life, genuine Prince among the contestants. Robinson, Big Brother, Royals in the Jungle... You get the idea, right?

I think H&M are going to find out the hard way that there are some bad sharks out there.
But, Meghan should have known better about the sharks, she was supposed, to know all there is about Hollywood, did she really think that just having a Duchess title will open big doors for her?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
The rights to air/own whatever content they come up with if they want it and hope it attracts a lot of new subscribers at $13.99 per month.

I think if they'd been handed $100m for their personal, private use they wouldn't be bitching about Bank of Dad being closed.



My personal bugbear on all this is once again the wedding story (I know, I know). So now Lambeth Palace has apparently confirmed that it was literally just a rehearsal not a marriage ceremony or even a "personalised vows" type non C of E ceremony with a blessing.

How the hell can you hang that up on your wall as a certificate or even just picture of the two of you with him? It just doesn't compute how you can turn that into a "our real marriage was three days before even without witnesses" story.
Meghan seems to live in a dreamland which is fine, but she leaves a lot of corpses along the way, in this case, the Archbishop, I can't imagine how embarrassing it was the COE to actually have to issue a statement.
__________________

  #263  
Old 03-13-2021, 04:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
Meghan seems to live in a dreamland which is fine, but she leaves a lot of corpses along the way, in this case, the Archbishop, I can't imagine how embarrassing it was the COE to actually have to issue a statement.

I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.
  #264  
Old 03-13-2021, 04:58 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.
Look, it was definitely not a private wedding ceremony. A member of the royal family or not, Archbishop Justin Welby is not a stupid man, so he would refuse a request for such. Not only would it embarass the whole Church of England, it would end up in him in very deep well of disgrace and definitely losing his position as Archbishop of Canterbury. Church of England does not allow two wedding ceremonies. For anyone.

But of course Meghan can say anything, as the interview was "their truth" (which apparently doesn't have to be based on facts), and who cares if some white old man gets into world of troubles because of her lies?
  #265  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:02 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Princess Royal is the second child of the reigning monarch, and is a full-time royal who undeniably plays a major role in the monarchy, given that she is its hardest-working royal according to some tallies of engagements.

Her children have never received any title at all, much less the same HRH Prince title as their cousins William and Harry.

The princess herself does not receive publicly-funded security outside of her official engagements.




The public was not led to believe that by the Palace, which informed at least one royal reporter that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gave their blessing for their son to become an HRH Prince in the next reign.

They were led to believe it by the book Finding Freedom authored by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, which claimed that the Prince of Wales considered new future Letters Patent at the Sussexes' request.

See the quotations/links in the following post:
Actually, it has been reported several times that the Queen was prepared to make Peter and Zara HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britian and it was Princess Anne and her first husband who declined. There were reports she offered her oldest grandson an earldom on his wedding day and he refused.

Sounds like HM The Queen wanted equity amongst her children.
  #266  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:16 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,408
Just when Meghan was making complaint to Ofcom on Piers Morgan and criticising BBC for having three "middle-aged white men" on a panel discussing on the aftermath of Oprah's interview (as well as leading Ian Murray to resign as chief of Society of Editors), Boris Johnson has announced that the government is taking actions in protecting journalists from threats of violence and intimidation. The Prime Minister has mentioned along the lines of "freedom of speech", "free press" and "democracy"

Boris Johnson says 'cowardly' abuse of journalists must end as Govt publishes action plan
The Government has published its action plan to better protect journalists from threats of violence and intimidation, which includes every UK police force being given access to a designated journalist safety liaison officer.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/journ...ction-plan-uk/

Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative MP for Morley and Outwood) has tweeted a Daily Mail article on the YouGov poll of Royal Family and criticised Harry & Meghan for attacking their family in public
Andrea Jenkyns MP @andreajenkyns
Never attack your family publicly! Especially when the head of it has given 70 years of her life to public service. #GodSavetheQueen [Flag of United Kingdom]
6:20 AM · Mar 13, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/st...54705072132100
  #267  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.
He isn't stupid and he is a man and he believes in God (he talks about his personal faith a lot) so I actually doubt he'd proclaim

Quote:
In the presence of God, and before this congregation,

Harry and Megan have given their consent

and made their marriage vows to each other.

They have declared their marriage by the joining of hands

and by the giving and receiving of rings.

I therefore proclaim that they are husband and wife.

Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.
twice and once "just pretend for the spectacle" that makes a mockery of the whole thing.

He also knows that conducting the Authorised Ceremony without witnesses or the chance to object even though it wasn't legally binding is a terrible idea for actual legal/confusion reasons. And would get him in to trouble.

The fact that there must be witnesses and the chance to object is designed to *prevent* talk of secret/illegal/invalid weddings.

Lambeth Palace could have confirmed the earlier statement by "sources" that it was "just a garden commitment ritual" ala the Meredith and Derek "post it wedding" mentioned a few days ago, they didn't have to say it was a rehearsal with a blessing but not being pronounced married.

Whilst I suppose he could be lying I think Meghan has more of a track record of "her truth" not necessarily being factual.

Again I don't understand why she brought it up (and neither did Harry) it does nothing but cause more conspiracy theories and create a potential issue where no one even knew there was one. Not to mention annoying the taxpayers and those who sincerely celebrated their joy in Windsor in spite of all the chaos.
  #268  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I can't believe Meghan wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a rehearsal and a private wedding ceremony. So either the Archbishop is not telling the truth, or Meghan has changed the story for maximum dramatic effect. One wonders if she did the same in other parts of the interview too.
IMO it was for dramatic effect, to emphasize (for her American audience) that the Sussexes are just common, simple folk who don't care for all that pomp and circumstance. Never mind their $14.7 million mansion. And I agree, it definitely calls her other statements into question.
  #269  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
He isn't stupid and he is a man and he believes in God (he talks about his personal faith a lot) so I actually doubt he'd proclaim



twice and once "just pretend for the spectacle" that makes a mockery of the whole thing.

He also knows that conducting the Authorised Ceremony without witnesses or the chance to object even though it wasn't legally binding is a terrible idea for actual legal/confusion reasons. And would get him in to trouble.

The fact that there must be witnesses and the chance to object is designed to *prevent* talk of secret/illegal/invalid weddings.

Lambeth Palace could have confirmed the earlier statement by "sources" that it was "just a garden commitment ritual" ala the Meredith and Derek "post it wedding" mentioned a few days ago, they didn't have to say it was a rehearsal with a blessing but not being pronounced married.

Whilst I suppose he could be lying I think Meghan has more of a track record of "her truth" not necessarily being factual.

Again I don't understand why she brought it up (and neither did Harry) it does nothing but cause more conspiracy theories and create a potential issue where no one even knew there was one. Not to mention annoying the taxpayers and those who sincerely celebrated their joy in Windsor in spite of all the chaos.
A quote from an article in today's issue of The Times:

"The royal household, No 10 and Lambeth Palace agreed that the best thing to do was run what is known to cricketers as a “dead bat” strategy, minimising their response so as not to fuel the furore. Johnson repeatedly declined to make any comment and ministers were told to do the same. Lambeth Palace refused to correct Meghan’s mistake about the fake wedding, leaving Team Sussex to clarify their error."
  #270  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:27 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.
  #271  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:36 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
So what did Netflix paid them 100 million for?
Lots of people have responded to it so I’ll keep it brief: the deal is potentially worth $100 to $150 million, depending on what Netflix buys. However, the Sussex are responsible for delivery of a fully produced, ready to air program to Netflix. I’ve had sources on other boards claim that they were probably paid as little as 5% of that as a seed payment to get Archwell Productions off the ground and rolling.
  #272  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:43 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Meghan has been bashed by the UK press for four years for various reasons. Race did play a role. Adding on weaponizing Meghan's disgruntled and greedy relatives.... Add this into the mix:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/12/u...mpression=true

Black British journalists and some Black Britons of note have come on US news programs and backed up the aura of racism.
Thank you for sharing this article. The racism was very obvious in many of the bad press the Duchess received. No surprise there that journalists wouldn't admit to it.
  #273  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.
Well I'm personally annoyed because I'm an active member of the CofE but I know this isn't a huge deal to many people. This doesn't even really have to do with Harry and Meghan. If the ABC did agree to do a full "real marriage ceremony" complete with vows and declaration before God and agreed to fake it again three days later "for the spectacle", then yep that's a problem - For Him, he's in big trouble.

I agree if she/they want to consider their rehearsal their "real" wedding or wanted to say some personally written "I love you more than all the cheese in the moon" type vows in the garden and agree that's much more special/"real" than St George's with the world watching then fine.

However that's not what she said. She said
Quote:
'Three days before our wedding, we got married,' 'No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.'

'So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.' Harry added, singing: 'Just the three of us!'
Like she believes or is trying to say they literally got married and even called in Justin Welby specially to do it to make it real rather than just them alone. Which is what caused all the confusion even though she didn't mention anything legal. Because again he can still get into trouble for it.

Because 1) He pronounced them married without witnesses, which is against the rules
2) He allowed them to say two sets of vows/declarations before God, one of which he knew was fake and would be a reason for anyone who knew about it to object. And the "fake spectacle" ones were the ones with the actual witnesses.

It's problematic on a few different levels beyond "just three of us in the garden" sounds at first glance.

And if that's easily fact checked and proved to be stretching the definition of factual then it can be used as a barometer for many of their other eyebrow raising statements.
  #274  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:50 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.
Because that's not what MM said. She stated outright that she and Harry were married three days before the "spectacle" of their televised wedding. Period. She didn't offer any qualifiers such as..." our wedding rehearsal felt so special and intimate that we like to consider it as our real wedding". BAM.

I agree with the poster who wondered why she even broached the subject in the first place...?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #275  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:58 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,399
If you want to say whatever you want and it's not in a court of law, say whatever you want. But you probably should leave the troublesome priest out of it. Dragging him that publicly into something questionable and ecclesiastically problematic is not a good idea.
  #276  
Old 03-13-2021, 05:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,118
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Because that's not what MM said. She stated outright that she and Harry were married three days before the "spectacle" of their televised wedding. Period. She didn't offer any qualifiers such as..." our wedding rehearsal ceremony felt so special and intimate that we like to consider it as our real wedding". BAM.



I agree with the poster who wondered why she even broached the subject in the first place...?


I think she wanted to sound down to earth.

But it doesn’t sound very down to earth when you’re saying you called the Archbishop up and he agreed to do you a special favor. Lol Anymore than it sounds down to earth to whine about HRH for Archie, or complain about the Bank of Dad closing from your 14M mansion after quitting your job.

Agreed. She said they were married. Not that it was a blessing or a rehearsal. She said married. There were no qualifiers. To me, and I think most people, that means a legal marriage. For reasons that many posters stated, I don’t believe it was a legal marriage. So, she lied. I don’t like that.
  #277  
Old 03-13-2021, 06:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.
My problem with this is twofold: first, it sounded a lot like the princess condescending to the great unwashed, agreeing to lower herself to a spectacle for their sake. I'm quite sure people would have been happy to leave her to her ever so intimate wedding and spare themselves the multimillion cost of the public "spectacle" if they knew that was how she felt. To me, this is indicative of why Meghan was never destined to succeed as duchess and princess. She had no respect for people who were so happy for Harry - and I say Harry because it was him they turned up to see. If he had married Chelsy or Cressida, or Miss Jane from Plain Square, they would have turned up in the same numbers. He put her on the map, for all her fans like to claim she was a big Hollywood star in her own right.
Second: Harry's grandmother is the titular head of the CoE. He should have known better than demonstrating such disrespect to the rules and rites that dictate just one wedding legal. He cast shade upon his - and by extention his family's - devotion to the CoE, making a mockery of it. Is this the upholding of HM's values they both pledged? They did the same with CoE that they did with the Commonwealth, treating it as their chance to play up to their American audience who'd likely think it romantic.
ETA: Ah yes, I also disliked the reaffirming of their royalty, the claiming that they had the AoC at their beck and call. He isn't an entertainer, although I admit I didn't expect that he might get in trouble because of this. I was surprised when I saw it came to sources and explanations on his behalf.
  #278  
Old 03-13-2021, 06:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,681
Meghan either genuinely believes her own lies and fan fiction or she just lies very very smoothly with no compunction. I am not sure which is more frightening. Esp as Harry seems to follow her lead so blindly.
  #279  
Old 03-13-2021, 06:01 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
The UK is one of the most secular areas in the world. Why are people so angry? She never said it was a legally binding thing? Not a defense, but I'm baffled. I'm very religious person myself and to me, marriage is sacred. However, if she felt "married" when they did the Rehearsal with a blessing (something I've never heard of in my life) why is that suddenly terrible for her to say.
Well, I can pinpoint several issues that people can have with this. But before I get to them, a quote from the interview.
Quote:
Meghan: (...) I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married...Oprah: Ah!
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that... 
Harry: Just the three of us.
To me - and many other people - "we got married three days before the wedding" does mean exactly that, that there was a legally binding ceremony and they got married and are now married.

So now, to the many issues connected to that:
1. If it was a blessing, say it was a blessing and simply don't lie? People tend to have issues with other people lying.
2. If it was a blessing, by saying they "got married" Meghan could basically cause a HUGE problems for Archbishop of Canterbury. Two wedding ceremonies are not allowed and he's the top guy in the Church of England. He is supposed to enforce the rules, not break them.
3. If it was a wedding ceremony (which I REALLY DOUBT it was), and the second huge wedding was a farce, it invites so many questions about the validity of their marriage? It's UK, you can't get married wherever the hell you want to and you need five people present - (in this case) the Archbishop, the couple, two witnesses.
4. If it was a wedding ceremony (which I REALLY DOUBT it was), then Justin Welby should no longer be Archbishop of Canterbury, as that "wedding" would not be compliant with Church of England rules and that second wedding ceremonies are not allowed in the Church of England.
5. If they didn't want the big wedding, or the "spectacle", as Meghan said it, just don't..? We didn't see a thing from the second wedding of future king, we would be fine not seeing Harry and Meghan's? Just invite your closest friends and family (well, or just your mother ) and do the damn thing.
6. Their wedding was partially funded by British people, and it was not cheap. If they wanted it small and intimate, don't make taxpayers pay 30 milion pounds for "spectacle for the world"? If they got married three days earlier, don't make taxpayers pay 30 milion pounds for "spectacle for the world"..?
  #280  
Old 03-13-2021, 06:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,431
I would really love to see someone like Jeremy Paxman interview Harry and Meghan, and ask them to explain the tale about the wedding, how they can claim that Archie not being a prince was racist when he wasn't entitled to be a prince under the 1917 Letters Patent, why they think he should be entitled to state-funded security when Beatrice and Eugenie aren't, why Harry was apparently incapable of ringing a doctor if Meghan felt so bad that she was frightened of being left alone, and why they think a man in his 30s should be supported by his dad. It won't happen, but it would certainly be interesting.
__________________

Closed Thread


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 Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi america archie mountbatten-windsor asian biography birth britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing commonwealth countries countess of snowdon daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove jack brooksbank jewellery king juan carlos king willem-alexander książ castle liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers meghan markle mongolia mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess chulabhorn walailak princess dita princess eugenie queen louise queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry spain speech sussex suthida taiwan thailand unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×