The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 03-13-2021, 11:44 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 530
I fully expect that Louis’ future children won’t get an HRH either. I can see HRH being restricted to the children off the current Monarch, heir etc. so, basically only George’s future kids would get the HRH
__________________

  #322  
Old 03-13-2021, 11:52 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 284
Quote:
AC21091968I think similar principles will happen to Archie and his sister. It may not appear good, but it's better in the long run. Many people on this forum have speculated that Charles maybe restricting HRH Prince/Princesses to
Children of the Sovereign
Children of the heir of the Sovereign (rather than children of the sons of the sovereign)
Children of the heir of the heir of the Sovereign

By following this rule, when Charles becomes King, in his grandchildren generation, only George, Charlotte and Louis would be HRH Prince/Princess, but not Archie and his sister. Again, this rule is draw up not because Archie and his sister are biracial nor an agenda against Harry & Meghan. This "stream lining" rule would also applied to George, Charlotte and Louis's children, where only George's kids get HRH Prince/Princess even when William is King.
This actually very confusing
__________________

  #323  
Old 03-14-2021, 12:02 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
This actually very confusing
May I also suggested you to visit and even read the Questions about British Styles and Titles thread, because the explanation and response are more comprehensive. You could also see some predictions on what Charles may do on the stream lining the number of HRH Prince/Princesses. Feel free to pop a question there (without worrying the post to be off-topic). If you are worried about asking the same question as before, there is a "Search this thread" button near the top of the page, just below the page scroller, where you can type in keywords and phrases before hitting "go". After you clicked one of the search results, the keywords/phrases you searched are in coloured in red.
  #324  
Old 03-14-2021, 12:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
That's true, the Sovereign can change the LP's and the fact that it can happen is a valid point. The Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex are both sons of a future King. You can argue that under the LP's there was nothing untoward in not granting Master Archie an HRH, (I'm not convinced it was racism) and I accept that. However, you can also ask since all of The Duke of Cambridge and The Duke of Sussex's children would (under the current LP's) be granted HRH's, when the POW takes the throne, it can equally be asked why did the Cambridge's not have to wait while the Sussex's do?
Same question and same reason to George VI and his LP. Elizabeth's children would be HRH Prince/ss when she's queen anyway.

If monarchy is about that kind of "fairness/equality" George VI (or Elizabeth II) should grant the title for Margaret's future children too, right? Afterall just like Charles only has two sons, George VI only had two daughters.
  #325  
Old 03-14-2021, 12:09 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Plus by allowing Archie and his sister to have HRH Prince/Princess before Charles ascend to the throne goes against his plan to reduce the number of HRH Prince and Princesses




There is no need to accuse some forum members of being archaic or stuck in the past simply by not being convinced that some royal family members deserve better or equal treatment as the heirs, because it's the 21st Century
The first half of this is rumor and speculation there has been no proof of what the POW will do when he is king!

The second half is an unnecessary accusation. I know I never said any such thing.
  #326  
Old 03-14-2021, 12:45 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
The first half of this is rumor and speculation there has been no proof of what the POW will do when he is king!

The second half is an unnecessary accusation. I know I never said any such thing.
You came across badly in some of these post, when many of us tried to explain to you the whole concept of Royal Titles and Church of England and you seemed to dismiss them as old fashioned, without realising that some of us actually took time and effort in making each posts. I understand that you are coming from a 21st Century lens and are relatively new to this forum. There are lots of back & forth clashes at times, when there seems to be no common ground. And that's why I think reading the Questions about British Styles and Titles thread, could potentially make you understand the titles and styles much better, given how complicated the topic is. It took me at quite a while to get around the topic of titles/styles. I also thanked you for apologising in the beginning of some of the posts and recognising that these may appear/sound confrontational

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Forgive me if I have come across as angry or unreasonable. I certainly don't want to add to the drama. I only thought to bring out that the system can and has changed over the course of 1000 yrs.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
That's quite an accusation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.
Perhaps, I will just leave the discussion here and move on
  #327  
Old 03-14-2021, 01:02 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
There is a difference between not understanding the Titles and Styles, and the LP's and asking why the 'rules' are not altered. As I said I don't care if they are or not. I understand the 'rules' I neither agree nor disagree with them.

However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.
  #328  
Old 03-14-2021, 01:03 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I would be interested in seeing those reports, as the consensus among the reputable sources and British royal family experts I have come across is that the Queen never considered making Princess Anne's children HRH or Prince/ss.
Anne was neither antiquated nor rigid in her own child-rearing. Keen for Peter and Zara to have ordinary childhoods, she broke with royal tradition by choosing not to give them HRH titles when they were born, a peerage she would have been offered from the queen. “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles,” she says. “So I think that was probably the right thing to do.” (Our interview happened to take place a month after Harry and Meghan announced they would be giving up their HRH titles.)

From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...ime-as-a-royal

Princess Anne was reportedly offered the chance to give her children a title, but she refused (as did her husband, Captain Mark Phillips, who had been offered a title on their marriage).

From https://www.tatler.com/article/georg...d-some-are-not

There is an article I'm trying to find that after Zara's birth, the Queen offered to give Anne's children HRH Prince/ss titles

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
There is a difference between not understanding the Titles and Styles, and the LP's and asking why the 'rules' are not altered. As I said I don't care if they are or not. I understand the 'rules' I neither agree nor disagree with them.

However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.
Thankyou!
  #329  
Old 03-14-2021, 03:58 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its also possible that what they envisioned would have become the perfect reality for them if they had been able to leave as working royals yet retained all the perks of being royal. It's like living at home with mom and dad yet working at a profession where all of your paycheck is free and clear to use as one wants to. No responsibility to provide for oneself.
My sense is that H&M were deluded enough to believe they could have it all. This was clearly evidenced by their public statement in January 2020 and the website they launched at the time.
  #330  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,426
where is the evidence that the queen wanted to give Ann's children HRH and the title of Prince/ess. i have never heard this. I believe she DID want to give Mark a title so that he would be an earl, and his son would inherit that title in due course but that is not the same as the Phillips children being HRH
  #331  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:19 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
I am going to throw something in the mix for discussion, we have no idea of the context of any discussions that took place around titles and security.
I have made a comment on here that I felt Meghan said a sentence out of a paragraph , with no context, as a result led people down a particular train of thought.

I have wondered if the no security for Archie was more in connection with when he became an adult, as with Beatrice and Eugenie, just a thought.

What I did want to add to our conversation was that according to Meghan and Harry, they did not blindside the queen as they had been in discussions for 2 years, even told her when they would issue the statement. We have all noted that they were prepared with the website etc so it wasn't a spur of the moment thought to move on. Which would go back to early 2018, before they were married.
They had been looking at Canada, New Zealand and Africa

So is it possible that the decision with regards no titles could have been in connection with them moving on as non working royals. The couple have agreed not to use HRH in their business dealings.
If they had already told the family that they wanted to work in a different way it was possibly thought prudent not to give Archie a title at a young age.
Interested in your views.
  #332  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I am going to throw something in the mix for discussion, we have no idea of the context of any discussions that took place around titles and security.
I have made a comment on here that I felt Meghan said a sentence out of a paragraph , with no context, as a result led people down a particular train of thought.

I have wondered if the no security for Archie was more in connection with when he became an adult, as with Beatrice and Eugenie, just a thought.

What I did want to add to our conversation was that according to Meghan and Harry, they did not blindside the queen as they had been in discussions for 2 years, even told her when they would issue the statement. We have all noted that they were prepared with the website etc so it wasn't a spur of the moment thought to move on. Which would go back to early 2018, before they were married.
They had been looking at Canada, New Zealand and Africa

So is it possible that the decision with regards no titles could have been in connection with them moving on as non working royals. The couple have agreed not to use HRH in their business dealings.
If they had already told the family that they wanted to work in a different way it was possibly thought prudent not to give Archie a title at a young age.
Interested in your views.
Archie wasn't entitled to a HRH title until Charles became king. Simple as that. But the fact that Harry now seems to be claiming that he and Meghan were talking to the queen even before their marriage about not being full time royals seems strange. I thought that they had fully intended tot take on a royal role and do the job.. and that it was only the pressure of the press being so unkind that drove them to leave the UK and walk out...
If they did raise theses issues with the queen I'm amazed that she gave THEM a title and didn't just say "OK if you dont want to be full time royals, you can have a small private wedding, no titles and go on and lead your private life however you wish, when you get married."
  #333  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:35 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 138
https://mol.im/a/9359065

Slammed the door in the face? That sounds a little far-fetched, even to me.
  #334  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
There is a difference between not understanding the Titles and Styles, and the LP's and asking why the 'rules' are not altered. As I said I don't care if they are or not. I understand the 'rules' I neither agree nor disagree with them.

However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.
Why should they be changed? I am delighted that Archie and sister wont be HRH. For them. They will have a degree of self determination in their lives not permitted to their royal cousins. Even Beatrice and Eugenie dont have anywhere near a normal life.

It is a good thing.
  #335  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:39 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Archie wasn't entitled to a HRH title until Charles became king. Simple as that. But the fact that Harry now seems to be claiming that he and Meghan were talking to the queen even before their marriage about not being full time royals seems strange. I thought that they had fully intended tot take on a royal role and do the job.. and that it was only the pressure of the press being so unkind that drove them to leave the UK and walk out...
If they did raise theses issues with the queen I'm amazed that she gave THEM a title and didn't just say "OK if you dont want to be full time royals, you can have a small private wedding, no titles and go on and lead your private life however you wish, when you get married."
Exactly, another question raised as a result of the interview.
They do not appear to be able to make up their mind what the story is.
It is because of these quite easy to spot discrepancies in their story that doubts are raised, it is possible that there have been issues with regards the treatment of Meghan I do not know but if you want to be believed then you need to be really clear and transparent about everything, not be selective.
Maybe even admit your own mistakes.
According to Harry it all went wrong after the Australian tour, well why had they been asking to get out before then.
So was Christmas at Sandringham 2017 so bad that Meghan thought I need to get out of here.
The truth as opposed to ' their truth' maybe wasn't as headline grabbing for Oprah.
  #336  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:48 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I am going to throw something in the mix for discussion, we have no idea of the context of any discussions that took place around titles and security.
I have made a comment on here that I felt Meghan said a sentence out of a paragraph , with no context, as a result led people down a particular train of thought.

I have wondered if the no security for Archie was more in connection with when he became an adult, as with Beatrice and Eugenie, just a thought.

What I did want to add to our conversation was that according to Meghan and Harry, they did not blindside the queen as they had been in discussions for 2 years, even told her when they would issue the statement. We have all noted that they were prepared with the website etc so it wasn't a spur of the moment thought to move on. Which would go back to early 2018, before they were married.
They had been looking at Canada, New Zealand and Africa

So is it possible that the decision with regards no titles could have been in connection with them moving on as non working royals. The couple have agreed not to use HRH in their business dealings.
If they had already told the family that they wanted to work in a different way it was possibly thought prudent not to give Archie a title at a young age.
Interested in your views.
I never thought New Zealand was one of their destinations to live in, I thought it was Canada, Africa and USA. What I have heard is that Australia was not exactly on their plan.

If being non-working royal was always the ultimate plan for Harry & Meghan, I could understand why there are outrage on the cost/fanfare of the wedding, especially when they are no longer in the UK. The critics of the Sussexes argued that Harry & Meghan should have married like what Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall did, or even Princess Beatrice in private (with no notices). Princess Eugenie's wedding caused a stir when £2 million of taxpayer money were spent, due to the fact that she is not a working royal nor the future king's children. But then again, had Harry & Meghan wedding not being a public fanfare with no television broadcast (like Peter and Zara), I don't think there is even a chance that Princess Eugenie's wedding will be broadcast.
  #337  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:48 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
There is a difference between not understanding the Titles and Styles, and the LP's and asking why the 'rules' are not altered. As I said I don't care if they are or not. I understand the 'rules' I neither agree nor disagree with them.

However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely.
Maybe that is a question Oprah should have asked, we know the impression that was given in the interview by Meghan, the point is we do not know the answer.
There are a number of possibilities and unless somebody is prepared to come out and tell us it is all a guessing game,

Whatever the reason the palace or Charles gave them , it is obvious they are not happy and even hurt.
  #338  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
Exactly, another question raised as a result of the interview.
They do not appear to be able to make up their mind what the story is.
It is because of these quite easy to spot discrepancies in their story that doubts are raised, it is possible that there have been issues with regards the treatment of Meghan I do not know but if you want to be believed then you need to be really clear and transparent about everything, not be selective.
Maybe even admit your own mistakes.
According to Harry it all went wrong after the Australian tour, well why had they been asking to get out before then.
So was Christmas at Sandringham 2017 so bad that Meghan thought I need to get out of here.
The truth as opposed to ' their truth' maybe wasn't as headline grabbing for Oprah.
I thought that at Christmas they were all happy and Meghan was syaing tht the RF were the family she had never had...
I dont know what was going on, but I doubt if they told the queen they wanted to make their own money and be half in half out of the RF, prior to the marriage. If they did, I would imagine that the queen might have agreed to them having some time off while she was still around, but NOT to make money...I think that maybe it was envisaged that they could live in Africa for a few months of the year and have a break from royal duties.. but the logisitics of that were difficult to work out...So perhaps when this was discussed it was decided that it was too hard to do, and that if they wanted time off, it was simply to have private time, like Will and Kate had had..and that that was agrreed... but it wasn't good enough for the 2 of them and they continued to plan for a complete break out...
  #339  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:52 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I am going to throw something in the mix for discussion, we have no idea of the context of any discussions that took place around titles and security.
I have made a comment on here that I felt Meghan said a sentence out of a paragraph , with no context, as a result led people down a particular train of thought.

I have wondered if the no security for Archie was more in connection with when he became an adult, as with Beatrice and Eugenie, just a thought.

What I did want to add to our conversation was that according to Meghan and Harry, they did not blindside the queen as they had been in discussions for 2 years, even told her when they would issue the statement. We have all noted that they were prepared with the website etc so it wasn't a spur of the moment thought to move on. Which would go back to early 2018, before they were married.
They had been looking at Canada, New Zealand and Africa

So is it possible that the decision with regards no titles could have been in connection with them moving on as non working royals. The couple have agreed not to use HRH in their business dealings.
If they had already told the family that they wanted to work in a different way it was possibly thought prudent not to give Archie a title at a young age.
Interested in your views.
Well he wasn't entitled to HRH under the current LPs. He was entitled to use Earl of Dumbarton or possibly even Baron Kileel if his parents wished but didn't like DUMBarton. Although it probably wouldn't go down well in Scotland to be snubbed.

It's possible one of the reasons HM didn't issue further LPs as she did for the Cambridges was because she knew Harry and Meghan wanted to leave and what would be the point in changing the rules if they weren't going to be working royals anyway. It just makes things more difficult.

It's also possible that unlike the Cambridge family which has the direct heir she didn't see any benefit in changing things and was leaving it up to her son and grandson to discuss when the time came.

I think it's true that the the issue for Archie's security would be when he became an adult ala Bea and Eugenie. For one thing he was almost always at their home or with them when he was a baby and child so would be covered. But security as has been proven not to be tied to HRH at all.

Also with all the privacy, even secrecy surrounding Archie's birth and everything since then does not sound like two people who would want the extra attention that being made HRH Prince Archie would generate. Demands to see more pictures, know more of his life, "justified" reporting on his schooling/behaviour because after all he's a "public figure" if he's HRH even as a baby. It certainly didn't help his HRH cousins.

They wanted none of that but still wanted the bragging rights of a title? Or none of the restrictions that William and Kate have in "exchange" for everything.

They're definitely not being truthful about the security issue.

They might well have wanted HRH Prince Archie from the beginning for some reason and were disappointed when HM said no.

However their mouth piece reporter (Scobie) said that they wanted Master Archie so he could have a normal life which is consistent with everything else they did.

Discussion on limiting the HRH Prince/ss has been going on for over a decade but nothing has actually been decided about Archie's title once Charles becomes King. It was all just a discussion at this point.

It's possible they brought it up now to ensure Archie does become HRH when/if his grandfather becomes King so Charles can't issue LPs stating otherwise without "confirming" every other thing they said.

It's ridiculous that two people who now seem to hate everything the BRF stand for want to use the titles themselves, let alone "trap" their children with them.

They seem to want everything their way and have all the perks and don't understand that's not always possible.
  #340  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:54 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I never thought New Zealand was one of their destinations to live in, I thought it was Canada, Africa and USA. What I have heard is that Australia was not exactly on their plan.

If being non-working royal was always the ultimate plan for Harry & Meghan, I could understand why there are outrage on the cost/fanfare of the wedding, especially when they are no longer in the UK. The critics of the Sussexes argued that Harry & Meghan should have married like what Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall did, or even Princess Beatrice in private (with no notices). Princess Eugenie's wedding caused a stir when £2 million of taxpayer money were spent, due to the fact that she is not a working royal nor the future king's children. But then again, had Harry & Meghan wedding not being a public fanfare with no television broadcast (like Peter and Zara), I don't think there is even a chance that Princess Eugenie's wedding will be broadcast.
I thought I picked them up as saying New Zealand but maybe I am wrong, fair enough, the point I was making is that there were discussions that according to them went back 2 years.

I also think if it had been a low key wedding, by royal standards, there would have been criticism from certain quarters that it was because he was marrying Meghan as opposed to an English Rose.

Beatrice was restricted by the COVID outbreak, but I believe that it was to be a smaller event than her sisters anyway.
__________________

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
america ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography britain british british royal family brownbitcoinqueen camilla china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy dna doge of venice doll dubai duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! highgrove imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark meghan markle nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince dimitri princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima royal ancestry royal court royal jewels serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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