The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 03-14-2021, 05:58 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,315
And now for something completely different.

It must be presumed that H&M and the BRF will try some sort of reconciliation, where they in private can discuss their differences. And what better occasion than at their daughter's christening, that could very well (likely in fact) take place in USA and be very low key.

Who will represent the BRF, you think?

Because that is IMO indicative as to the extent of the parts even talking, let alone having a meaningful discussion.

If the BRF sends Charles, I think we must assume that there are serious discussions going on.
If W&K are going, I think there is hope of some sort of reconciliation. (They will at least be able to attend the same event without turning their backs on each other!) But it's probably too much to expect that the wounds are healing.
But if only say Beatrice is coming? Would that be an indication of negotiations having broken down, and she is the only representative for the BRF, because she's the only one left who has some sort of relationship with H&M?
Or would it be an indication that she is some sort of go between? So that at least they are talking?
__________________

  #342  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,262
I dont see a reconciliation happening any time soon.... probalby when the baby's born and christened there will still be difficulties about travelling and possibly noone from the BRF will attend.
__________________

  #343  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:01 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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...
I agree, I think they would have been given ' down time' to settle in to married life , the early years especially with a baby coming along so soon.
  #344  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I agree, I think they would have been given ' down time' to settle in to married life , the early years especially with a baby coming along so soon.
so do you think that they DID tell the queen their apparent plans to be half royals and make money? I dont -. Im sure she would have put her foot down over that issue immediately....
  #345  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:12 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Bergamo, Italy
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
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.
I agree with that! Archie and his sister find themselves in a very lucky situation IMO or at least the would have if their parents stayed with the family (them being now private citizens make their future more uncertain).
Archie and his sister have basically the perks of a very upper class life without the obligation their cousins have. They have the perks of growing up with the family money and thus have the best education possible, travel budget and so on and being able to choose what to do with their lives. It's in a wonderful prospective.

I also think that Charles is trying to keep the monarchy alive. It's the 21st century, a lot of people view the monarchy as something outdated (to be kind) and QEII won't be alive forever.
A great justification for the existence of the monarchy is the money they bring in, through tourism, merchandise, support to charities or business.
The more difference there is between the money taxpayers spend to fund the royals (thus reducing the number of working royals) and the revenue they generate, the longest the monarchy will be able to survive IMO.
  #346  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:19 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
https://mol.im/a/9359065

Slammed the door in the face? That sounds a little far-fetched, even to me.
The Daily Mail must have picked the "door slammed in the face" story from The Times written by Valentine Low (without acknowledging the source).

Quote:
Bridesmaids’ dresses
One of the first stories to cast Meghan in a negative light was the claim that before her wedding there was a row over bridesmaids’ dresses in which the Duchess of Cambridge cried. According to Meghan, it was Kate who made her cry.

“She was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised. She brought me flowers and a note, apologising.”

Describing Kate as “a good person”, she added: “I’m not sharing that piece about Kate in any way to be disparaging to her. I think it’s really important for people to understand the truth.”

However, insiders tell a different story. One said the row happened when the bridesmaids’ dresses had to be altered a week before the wedding. Meghan told them when to come, but Kate wanted to come at a different time. She was told it would not be possible, and went round at the time that suited Meghan.

“Meghan was incredibly rude. The duchess cried and left.”

After William intervened to try to calm the situation down, the duchess took flowers to Meghan the next day in an attempt to make peace.

The source said: “Meghan slammed the door in her face.”
Harry and Meghan: Where Buckingham Palace disagrees with the duke and duchess
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...hess-tllqz9hv8

Archived link: https://archive.vn/yapl4#selection-1127.0-1139.147

Then there was the alleged conflict on whether or not the bridesmaids should be wearing tights. This was from the infamous Tatler "Catherine the Great" article.

Quote:
‘Then there was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,’ another friend of the Cambridges’ claims. ‘It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.’ The photographs suggest that Meghan won. Kate, who has impeccable manners, sought the opportunity to put Meghan in her place, reprimanding her for speaking imperiously to her Kensington Palace staff. ‘In the palace, you hear numerous stories of the staff saying so-and-so is a nightmare and behaves badly but you never hear that about Kate,’ says a royal insider. Another courtier says: ‘Kate keeps her staff whereas Meghan doesn’t. Doesn’t that say everything?’
HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is crowned Catherine the Great on the July/August cover
Kate Middleton's star is going stratospheric as the country looks to the monarchy for morale. Anna Pasternak charts her ascent
https://www.tatler.com/article/the-d...lyaugust-cover

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
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.
No, I think I might be missing something important

You raise some good points that there might be critics saying Harry is making it obvious that he is not marrying an English Rose. Perhaps a more ideal situation would be less taxpayer fund used compared to the May 2018, but with the remained BBC broadcast.

Before COVID-19 restriction, I was excited that Beatrice's wedding venue is going to be at Chapel Royal, not just because of the historical connection (wedding of Queen Victoria & Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, Princess Royal & Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia and future George V and Queen Mary), but also a change from St. George Chapel, especially when three royal weddings took place in a year. I was also relieved that there would probably less public access and hence less security costs from taxpayer (who most likely have not forget the cost from Princess Eugenie's wedding). Perhaps Beatrice chose Chapel Royal, because it's on the ground of St. James Palace, with historical connections and secluded from public view. I'm however not complaining that she get to married in private at Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor.
  #347  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
so do you think that they DID tell the queen their apparent plans to be half royals and make money? I dont -. Im sure she would have put her foot down over that issue immediately....
I think so to, and I do not think there would have been any royal patronages until the situation was resolved but it was Meghan and Harry that said it had been in discussions for 2 years before they left. He had discussed with his grandmother three times and his father twice. Maybe the family thought they needed time to settle in to their new roles and didn't want them making rash decisions, they maybe thought they were helping.

Two years takes you to before the wedding, about two months after the engagement. So all the stories about Archie, security , titles etc etc all take a different look.
Did they leave because of all these decisions or were the decisions made because they said they were leaving. Chicken and the egg.

He also said that he told them when he would be issuing the statement.

The bottom line is I have no idea but interested in all your views.
  #348  
Old 03-14-2021, 06:35 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
And now for something completely different.

It must be presumed that H&M and the BRF will try some sort of reconciliation, where they in private can discuss their differences. And what better occasion than at their daughter's christening, that could very well (likely in fact) take place in USA and be very low key.

Who will represent the BRF, you think?

Because that is IMO indicative as to the extent of the parts even talking, let alone having a meaningful discussion.

If the BRF sends Charles, I think we must assume that there are serious discussions going on.
If W&K are going, I think there is hope of some sort of reconciliation. (They will at least be able to attend the same event without turning their backs on each other!) But it's probably too much to expect that the wounds are healing.
But if only say Beatrice is coming? Would that be an indication of negotiations having broken down, and she is the only representative for the BRF, because she's the only one left who has some sort of relationship with H&M?
Or would it be an indication that she is some sort of go between? So that at least they are talking?
Hmm that's interesting. The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion but they're two separate bodies so for the BRF it's potentially a little more complicated then just getting Christened at a local Episcopal church in LA even though they're under the same umbrella body. But she wouldn't need to be baptised again in the CofE either.

When Maud Windsor was born in LA her parents waited to christen her in St James's.

If it did happen in LA I suppose they'd just invite who they wanted then they'd come or not. There wouldn't be "an official representative" from the BRF since it would be a private occasion like Archie's.

If Charles went then we can assume there's some attempt at personal reconciliation face to face and he wants to go to see his granddaughter (rather than as a representative) but him not going could also depend on a lot of other factors surrounding the pandemic and his own health etc. But I'm sure the media would make it a big deal either way.

If Bea went then I assume that would also be personal and not necessarily about opening diplomatic relations again with an emissary.
  #349  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:27 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
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.
Is your question "What are the apparent reasons that the rules were not changed for the Sussex children?", or is it "For which confirmed reasons did the Queen conclude that the current rules did not need changing for the Sussex children"?

The second question clearly cannot be answered. It is not the Queen's custom to issue announcements explaining her reasons for maintaining unchanged rules. Even in cases where rules are changed, e.g. the Cambridge children, it is not her custom to issue explanations.

The first question, however, has already been answered at length in this thread, the Questions About British Styles and Titles and other threads, and in numerous news reports, blogs, social media accounts, etc.


To sum up some of the answers to the first question given by previous posters (with apologies to anyone whose answer I may have omitted):

1. The problematic optics of a future Queen (that is, a firstborn daughter) receiving a lower title than her younger brother, which was a potential issue for the unborn Cambridge children under the rules of 1917, was not an issue for the unborn Sussex children.

2. The Sussex children were not the children of a future monarch.

3. The Sussex children were not expected to become working members of the British Royal Family.

4. Letting the rules stand for now offered Archie, his parents, and/or the future King Charles the luxury of waiting until Archie is older and his future is clarified to make the decision whether Archie ought to take up an HRH Prince title. Giving a royal title at a later date is obviously preferable to renouncing or removing an existing royal title.

5. Likewise, allowing the Sussex children to remain non-princes/ses for the time provided Charles with the freedom to decide, when he ascends the throne, whether to issue new Letters Patent further restricting Prince/ss titles.

6. Expanding HRH Prince to Archie may have appeared archaic and outdated in the 21st century. Times have changed, and the modernizing trend amongst European monarchies is to slim down royal titles.

7. Changing the HRH Prince/ss rules for the Sussex children may have appeared unfair to the Princess Royal's children, Princess Margaret's children, and all of the other non-HRH descendants of George V for whom the HRH Prince/ss rules were not changed.

8. The Queen may be a believer in "if it it's not broken, don't fix it" and prefer not to override longstanding rules without a compelling reason.
  #350  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:46 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,359
The Kingdom Choir, who sung at Harry & Meghan's wedding has released an official statement on the recent media reports. Words have been put into their mouths that they did not say. They were asked by Prince Charles to perform at Harry & Meghan's wedding. Harry & Meghan have been very gracious and after the wedding. Charles, Harry and Meghan thanked & congratulated the Kingdom Choir for their performances.
The Kingdom Choir @TheKingdomChoir
TKC - The truth about recent media reports
1:34 AM · Mar 14, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/TheKingdomChoir/...45005254578179
  #351  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:48 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,556
Probably the best opinion piece I have read for a while - read it before it is taken down.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...rangement.html
  #352  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:03 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Probably the best opinion piece I have read for a while - read it before it is taken down.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...rangement.html
What a great article! Douglas Murray has raised some very good points on "the truth", freedom of speech, the importance of evidence when dealing with conflicts and war against not believing all accusation.

Thank you Claire for sharing the article

I would also recommend others to read it
  #353  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
But if only say Beatrice is coming? Would that be an indication of negotiations having broken down, and she is the only representative for the BRF, because she's the only one left who has some sort of relationship with H&M?
Or would it be an indication that she is some sort of go between? So that at least they are talking?

I'd think if so they'd send Eugenie. For Beatrice is the stepmom of another POC (half-Asian Wolfie) and that could be seem as "racist" choice like the "two peas in one pot" - image.
  #354  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:16 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 369
Was anyone sympathetic to Andrew when he insisted that his daughters remained working royals, with the future and security it entails? I don't remember many such people for sure. I, for one, wasn't, although I was sympathetic towards the girls. Having something and then having it taken from you didn't sit well with me. I've always been amused by Sarah's staunch attempts to not let her daughters be overshone but I'm starting to see even this in a different light. At least she didn't do it by casting aspersions and shades on everyone else.



I am not sympathetic to Harry and Meghan in this regard. I'm surprised that people refuse to see he's turning into Andrew... with far less grounds. It's been known for years that the monarchy is being slimmed down. It's something happening all over Europe. But no, it can't be about Harry, right? He is *this* special. The same for Meghan. She gets away with most outrageous misrepresentations because she "didn't understand", "was naive" and so on fairytales.


They are the new Andrew and Sarah, just worse in *this* respect. But people give them consideration refused to Andrew and Sarah who were generally seen as ridiculous.


As to the olive branch journalists see as having been extended by HM, I never saw one and even if there was, they happily broke it when they authorized Janina to retaliate in the rude way typical for Meghan (and now Harry) the very next day.


I believe she bullied staff. No one sends such an email about one of the most senior employers of theirs without having a reason. But let's the independant company do their investigation. BTW, Harry and Meghan managed to show how rude and self-conceited they are even about this. For people who incessantly talk about kindness and "their truth", they don't seem to acknowledge that other people's truth even exists. The possibility of even misunderstanding isn't a thing for them. Instead, they had to issue their rude statement that Meghan would continue to be "an example". Not even a word of regret that people felt this way. While the BP gave them this recognition.


Let's wait and see. I'm ready to eat my words but this far, I do think there's much truth in the bullying accusation against both of them.
  #355  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I think so to, and I do not think there would have been any royal patronages until the situation was resolved but it was Meghan and Harry that said it had been in discussions for 2 years before they left. He had discussed with his grandmother three times and his father twice. Maybe the family thought they needed time to settle in to their new roles and didn't want them making rash decisions, they maybe thought they were helping.

Two years takes you to before the wedding, about two months after the engagement. So all the stories about Archie, security , titles etc etc all take a different look.
Did they leave because of all these decisions or were the decisions made because they said they were leaving. Chicken and the egg.

He also said that he told them when he would be issuing the statement.

The bottom line is I have no idea but interested in all your views.
I think that they've told so many conflicting stories that it is hard to believe anything. I think that if they had raised the issue of "we don't want to be full time royals" before the wedding, things would have been very different. The queen would IMO have firmly told them that they could not do that, and that if they wanted to be "out" rather than in, they' wouldn't get a big wedding, and probably, they would still just be Prince and Princess Harry... I think she would have been totally bewildered by them saying they didn't want to be full time royals and that they wanted to make their own money...
So I think that they kept schtum about it and waited till they had done a few months of royal life... and then started to complain and ask for a change...
#
I think that they thought they'd be so popular as working royals that the public would be clamouring to keep them at least as part timers and they'd get the deal they wanted from the queen...but while they were well enough liked, they weren't crazy popular in spite of H comparing Meg to Diana. And the queen was not going to change things just for them...
Its possible that the queen was willing to give them a few years of private life, where they'd do some engagements but mainly have time to have their family and spend time out of the UK with their babies.. but that was always a bit difficult to arrange.. and It wasn't what they really wanted. (And I think they certainly didn't want the quiet time that Will and Kate had where they lived in Wales and concentrated on their new family).
H and Meg IMO wanted the USA and freedom to earn money, so they began to get more difficult to deal with. I think that was when they went into "complaining" mode and saying that they wouldn't give details about Archie or show him off, and they probably wouldn't talk to the rest of the family at all.. because they were plotting a getaway...
  #356  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
What a great article! Douglas Murray has raised some very good points on "the truth", freedom of speech, the importance of evidence when dealing with conflicts and war against not believing all accusation.

Thank you Claire for sharing the article

I would also recommend others to read it

I found the article typical for the Daily Mail. While Murray brought up some good points about tolerance of others opinions, gender, nationality etc. (I don't believe the pigmentation in the skin of different human beings or their religion (like it happened with the Jewish people) make them a different "race". We are all humans.



But to say the British media is not "racist" is difficult to stomach and not only because of Meghan's treatment. So IMHO he should begin with his employer and "their truth" and not with Harry and Meghan's who at least have the advantage that they were there. Even if the recollection is not always close to what others may remember. But that's life. I already discussed hat annoys me with them, what annoys me with the media is how they play the whole thing down to a rift in the RF when it IMHO was their muddling in the Royal's affairs and the deals that prevented the Royals from trying to stop this happening that brought that whole sad affair to a boiling point right now.
  #357  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:34 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that was when they went into "complaining" mode and saying that they wouldn't give details about Archie or show him off, and they probably wouldn't talk to the rest of the family at all.. because they were plotting a getaway...
Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.

Whilst this may seem sensible to those on the outside, especially given the difficult time BEa & Eugenie have had in the press, this did not work for Meghan. She probably convinced herself (and Harry) this was a personal affront to her, and I suspect that is why all the drama surrounding Archie's birth followed.
  #358  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Chiara View Post
I agree with that! Archie and his sister find themselves in a very lucky situation IMO or at least the would have if their parents stayed with the family (them being now private citizens make their future more uncertain).
Archie and his sister have basically the perks of a very upper class life without the obligation their cousins have. They have the perks of growing up with the family money and thus have the best education possible, travel budget and so on and being able to choose what to do with their lives. It's in a wonderful prospective.



Archie's and his sister's obligations would be no different than James's and Louise's, i.e. none since all indications are that they would never be working royals. Had H&M stayed in the UK, they would have lived in the Windsor estate though and would have gotten security at least until they were of school age, thus making them much safer than they are in California.



On the money issue, it is unclear whether H&M's business plan (e.g. the Netflix and Spotify deals) will work out in the long run or not. In the UK, they might never have become millionaires, but H&M would have a life-long guarantee of an allowance from Charles and, probably, later from William, not unlike the arrangements that are now in place for Anne, Andrew and Edward.


All things considered, I think the jury is still out there on whether Archie and sister are better off growing up as private citizens in California.


Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.

The Queen has shown no indication that she is willing to change the rules (e.g. strip grandchildren in male line of the HRH) in her reign. And, as I said before, I doubt Charles or any of the courtiers would openly discuss any new LPs or changes in the next reign while the Queen is still alive, as the titles and styles of the members of the Royal Family are a prerogative of the Sovereign only and Charles would be out of line bringing that debate forward now. Besides, as our fellow TRF member Tatiana Maria has reminded us, when asked about it, the Palace actually confirmed Archie would be a prince when Charles is king.
  #359  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Knowing what we now know, my sense is that sometime during the pregnancy H&M would have been told that special Letters Patent would not be issued to make Archie a Prince in the current reign, and given Charles' longer term plan of slimming the monarchy, Archie was not going to be a Prince in the next reign either.

Whilst this may seem sensible to those on the outside, especially given the difficult time BEa & Eugenie have had in the press, this did not work for Meghan. She probably convinced herself (and Harry) this was a personal affront to her, and I suspect that is why all the drama surrounding Archie's birth followed.
I dont know. They knew that Archie wasn't entitled to HRH.. and the way they usually go on, indicating that "titles werne't important to them" and "Call me harry" etc, why would they want him to be elevated sooner than when Charles became King?
I think that regardless of what they've said, truth is that Meghan never saw herself as a full time Princess. She thought that she could bow out whenever it suited her... and Harry seems to have also thought this, or agreed wiht her that it should be possible for them to cut a deal that left them free to do things in their own peculiar way.
I think that Meghan DID possibly get out sooner than they originally intended, because she found that while she got reasonably good coverage and was liked by the crowds, she didn't get absolutely adoring coverage all the time, and I think she didn't realize that even the most popular royals get criicism pretty often...and she got sulky over it..
  #360  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
So does anyone think Archie will get his HRH belatedly and the new baby will be made a princess on birth and given an HRH? Or has that ship sailed?
__________________

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 american archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism birth britain britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank jewellery książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spain speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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