The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1201  
Old 03-18-2021, 08:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
Meghan wanted to live in SoCal because her mother lives there and Hollywood is there (not necessarily in that order). I don't think there's much in SoCal that bears any resemblance to any of the royal palaces - just a very different architectural style.



Well there are buildings here that can be called "Tudor" or "Georgian" in design but they certainly weren't built when either dynasty reigned. Keep in mind that they're living in a state where an "ancient" residence means it was constructed 50 plus years ago. (I can say this as a lifelong resident of the Golden State.


Their house would be considered "Tuscan" or "Mediterranean" inspired which is fairly common here.
__________________

  #1202  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:00 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,148
My own opinion is that as they seemed happy in their place in Oxfordshire then perhaps Charles could have assisted with a house there. Reports were that Meghan liked it there. There would have had to be adjustments made to security but it would have been manageable.

I just didn’t like FC. Didn’t like the location, the look of the house, (in fact I think it ugly) near a public pathway/road where people could have peered in and apparently did, very different to most of the other properties lived in by the royals, didn’t think that it was appropriate.
__________________

  #1203  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Probably because, of all the Queen’s grandchildren, Harry was (a) a full time working royal. As was Meghan. The others werent/aren’t with the exception of course of William. (B) Harry was high profile and popular. The PTB had hopes of ‘Fab Four’ etc. (C) Harry is the only other offspring of the Prince of Wales, the heir. The other grandchildren obviously aren’t. (The Sussexes received a small property owned by the Crown.)
And? Not one of those things means anything. As a working royal and a grandchild of the monarch Harry was provided with housing that was more than adequate and newly renovated to he and his wife’s specifications. He may have been a child if the heir but he was not the heir or really even the spare. His profile and popularity have zero to do with where or in what fashion he is housed. He got less than William and more than the other grandchildren. This is precisely equal to his position. Less than/lower than William and more than/higher than the other grandchildren. Absolutely nothing about this was unfair.
  #1204  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Probably because, of all the Queen’s grandchildren, Harry was (a) a full time working royal. As was Meghan. The others werent/aren’t with the exception of course of William. (B) Harry was high profile and popular. The PTB had hopes of ‘Fab Four’ etc. (C) Harry is the only other offspring of the Prince of Wales, the heir. The other grandchildren obviously aren’t.

Because he was a working royal, he was offered a 20-room apartment at Kensington Palace (one, which by the way, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester offered to and did move out of, reportedly so that Harry and Meghan could live there). Because he was a working royal, he was then given Frogmore Cottage when it turned out that he apparently did not want the KP apartment after all, even though renovations were already underway. Whereas the other grandchildren, Beatrice and Eugenie are paying commercial rent on their smaller places in St James and Kensington Palace.

Popularity is an even stranger measure for these things than hierarchy. Zara Phillips, despite not being a working royal, is incredibly popular, so perhaps she should also be offered a big mansion?

Being the child of the heir still isn't the same as being the child of the monarch, that's what much of this is about. Harry was not offered a mansion because he isn't a child of the monarch - if he had waited until then, he probably would have gotten one. It's the same as with Archie's title, he would have gotten the HRH & title of Prince eventually, but they just couldn't wait. In no European monarchy are the grandchildren of the monarch treated like the children of the monarch, unless we're talking about the grandchild that is the heir.
  #1205  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:14 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 260
Harry and Meghan couldn't have been part of the "Fab Four" without being treated as equal, or in Edward's case better than the monarch's own children?



This wasn't Cinderella's fireplace, this was a five-bedroom house renovated to their exact specifications.


And popularity is a strange measure for such things anyway. I suppose Beatrice and Eugenie should have been sent to said fireplace because the press took care to make them broadly disliked and went after them for years for the crime of being their parents' daughters and having had a sometimes subpar fashion choices. I remember the glee when the decision was made for them not to be working royals. One would have thought that between the two of them, they were mooching all the riches of the British Empire. At this point, they should have been evicted in the street if popularity was the decisive factor.
  #1206  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,148
I am doubtful about whether Harry and Meghan were going to be offered Apartment IA. As I’ve already stated the plans were in place for FC with the local Council. They’d hardly have needed both.

And if it was seriously going to be offered to the Sussexes then arrangements would IMO have been made to move the Gloucesters out in 2018 not wait for months when it was known Meghan was pregnant.


There was/is a huge difference between what a non working grandchild is going to be offered by the Queen versus a full time working royal grandchild. And the popularity of full time working younger royals is extremely important to the continuance of the monarchy. As I said, there were firm plans to push the Fab Four idea with the British public.
  #1207  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
To get away from talking about the overindulged housing arrangements in Englands most expensive area...This article is immense

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/meghan-and-diana-could-have-saved-royal-family/618318/
  #1208  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
Harry and Meghan couldn't have been part of the "Fab Four" without being treated as equal, or in Edward's case better than the monarch's own children?



This wasn't Cinderella's fireplace, this was a five-bedroom house renovated to their exact specifications.


And popularity is a strange measure for such things anyway. I suppose Beatrice and Eugenie should have been sent to said fireplace because the press took care to make them broadly disliked and went after them for years for the crime of being their parents' daughters and having had a sometimes subpar fashion choices. I remember the glee when the decision was made for them not to be working royals. One would have thought that between the two of them, they were mooching all the riches of the British Empire. At this point, they should have been evicted in the street if popularity was the decisive factor.
They are ironically very popular now. All the 3 grown up grand daughters are.
  #1209  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I am doubtful about whether Harry and Meghan were going to be offered Apartment IA. As I’ve already stated the plans were in place for FC with the local Council. They’d hardly have needed both.

And if it was seriously going to be offered to the Sussexes then arrangements would IMO have been made to move the Gloucesters out in 2018 not wait for months when it was known Meghan was pregnant.


There was/is a huge difference between what a non working grandchild is going to be offered by the Queen versus a full time working royal grandchild. And the popularity of full time working younger royals is extremely important to the continuance of the monarchy. As I said, there were firm plans to push the Fab Four idea with the British public.
The Gloucesters had to find somewhere to stay the queen was not putting them out in the street.
I say again they had already told the queen they were planning a different path.
Anyway we are all going round in circles they were given FC then moved out. End of story.
Night Night everybody.
  #1210  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:24 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,287
I know that this may tied into the rumour that Harry & Meghan were planning to leave the UK early on (i.e. early marriage or even before the wedding).

If Harry & Meghan were adamant not to live in a property that has renovation with cost from the Sovereign Grant on (i.e. Kensington Palace apartment or Frogmore Cottage), why don't they just stay in Nottingham Cottage? I get it's two bedrooms and might be a bit small with the arrival of Archie. But surely, if the Sussexes have been planning to leave as senior working royals and the UK for a while, what is the point of moving into a different property (Frogmore Cottage or Apartment in Kensington Palace)? Wouldn't that be redundant and generate unnecessary headlines?

William, Catherine and infant George reportedly live there for a few months before moving to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Prince Henry, (1st) Duke of Gloucester and the Duchess of Gloucester lived at Nottingham Cottage with their two children William (1941-1972) and Richard (b. 1944) before 1948, when it was gifted to Marion Crawford (former nanny of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret).

If the Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (as George VI's younger brother at that time) & Duchess of Gloucester could live there with his two young children temporarily, as well as William and Catherine with infant George, I don't see why Harry & Meghan cannot do the same.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-live-married/
Book citation on the Gloucesters living in Nottingham Cottage before Marion Crawford: Kate Williams (historian) (10 May 2012). Young Elizabeth: The Making of our Queen. Orion Publishing Group. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-297-86782-1.
  #1211  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I know that this may tied into the rumour that Harry & Meghan were planning to leave the UK early on (i.e. early marriage or even before the wedding).

If Harry & Meghan were adamant not to live in a property that has renovation with cost from the Sovereign Grant on (i.e. Kensington Palace apartment), why don't they just stay in Nottingham Cottage? I get it's two bedrooms and might be a bit small with the arrival of Archie. But surely, if the Sussexes have been planning to leave as senior working royals and the UK for a while, what is the point of moving into a different property (Frogmore Cottage or Apartment in Kensington Palace)? Wouldn't that be redundant and generate unnecessary headlines?

William, Catherine and infant George reportedly live there for a few months before moving to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Prince Henry, (1st) Duke of Gloucester and the Duchess of Gloucester lived at Nottingham Cottage with their two children William (1941-1972) and Richard (b. 1944) before 1948, when it was gifted to Marion Crawford (former nanny of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret).

If the Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (as George VI's younger brother at that time) & Duchess of Gloucester could live there with his two young children temporarily, as well as William and Catherine with infant George, I don't see why Harry & Meghan cannot do the same.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-live-married/
Book citation on the Gloucesters living in Nottingham Cottage before Marion Crawford: Kate Williams (historian) (10 May 2012). Young Elizabeth: The Making of our Queen. Orion Publishing Group. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-297-86782-1.
Well Finding Freedom never tired of talking about how small and pokey it was. In my eyes, not eye rolled, it sounds idyllic.
  #1212  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess_Eleanor View Post
Of course the tabloids also went to town about the Cambridge "extravagance" at the time of the renovation! I still remember that.

Quick Google search:
"Ripped out... the gleaming £38,000 kitchen that the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William didn't want"
"Kate spends £1.5m turning historic home into a 'WAG palace' with an orange roof after Queen kicks out tenant on Sandringham estate"
"Your bill to refurbish Kate's palace is now £4MILLION: New kitchen, nursery and several bathrooms quadruples the cost"
"Kate's 'Barratt home': Duchess angers Sandringham neighbours by replacing tiles on her Georgian mansion with bright brick-red roof"
"Tennis lover Kate forks out £60,000 'to move her court just 36ft': Duchess of Cambridge plans to spend an eye-raising sum to improve the view at Anmer Hall in Norfolk"
"So why wasn't this £50,000 designer dream good enough for Three Kitchens Kate?"
"So that's how Kate is going to iron Wills' trousers! From a fridge with NASA technology to a hands-free iron and taps you turn with your feet, secrets of Kate's super-bling new kitchen"

I really don't know where this idea comes from that the tabloids have never gone after any member of the BRF except for Harry & Meghan.
The tabloids have been vicious towards all of them at one time or another. Harry got years of mainly unquestioning, glowing press and Meghan’s coverage was initially almost ecstatic.

I do think as time went on Harry would have been treated unfairly in the press relative to William even if his behaviour had been exemplary. This seems to be the pattern in most of the European monarchies. The other children are initially as well liked as the heir, or even more so, but as time goes on the public feels like it’s getting more for its money from the heir compared to the others and the press closes ranks around the heir and his/her family while starting to look for faults with the siblings. It’s happened with CP Frederik vs Prince Joachim, the Spanish Infantas vs King Felipe, Crown Princess Victoria vs Prince Carl Philip and especially Princess Madeleine. The pattern didn’t hold as much with The Queen’s children, although I think it would have if Charles had married a different woman and had a reasonably successful marriage.

Someone here mentioned awhile back that they thought Harry was quite attached to the role the British press and public gave him in his 20s and early 30s. I think this is probably true, and it likely would have spelled trouble for Harry going forward because that same press and public were going to start changing their attitude towards him once William settled into family life, and certainly by the time Charles became King. Harry has made the process much quicker and more dramatic than it had to be with his behaviour, but he was never going to continue flying as high as he had been, no matter what he did or who he married.

Hopefully William and Kate will be able to better prepare Charlotte and Louis. I think having three children instead of only two makes it easier, as does the fact that there’s a girl between the two boys, but it’s still tricky.
  #1213  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:44 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,306
One thing that is a positive about the mansion in California is that should Harry and Meghan find they need time away from the children, they can just take a short trip to the other side of the house and order delivery from the kitchen, drink California wine and have a second honeymoon without being interrupted and return to the kids relaxed and refreshed.

I'd hate a house where it'd take 15 minutes to just find my way to the bedroom and 20 minutes to get to the kitchen. I'd definitely need me one of those Dukemobiles! (see Philip thread).
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1214  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I know that this may tied into the rumour that Harry & Meghan were planning to leave the UK early on (i.e. early marriage or even before the wedding).

If Harry & Meghan were adamant not to live in a property that has renovation with cost from the Sovereign Grant on (i.e. Kensington Palace apartment or Frogmore Cottage), why don't they just stay in Nottingham Cottage? I get it's two bedrooms and might be a bit small with the arrival of Archie. But surely, if the Sussexes have been planning to leave as senior working royals and the UK for a while, what is the point of moving into a different property (Frogmore Cottage or Apartment in Kensington Palace)? Wouldn't that be redundant and generate unnecessary headlines?

William, Catherine and infant George reportedly live there for a few months before moving to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Prince Henry, (1st) Duke of Gloucester and the Duchess of Gloucester lived at Nottingham Cottage with their two children William (1941-1972) and Richard (b. 1944) before 1948, when it was gifted to Marion Crawford (former nanny of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret).

If the Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (as George VI's younger brother at that time) & Duchess of Gloucester could live there with his two young children temporarily, as well as William and Catherine with infant George, I don't see why Harry & Meghan cannot do the same.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-live-married/
Book citation on the Gloucesters living in Nottingham Cottage before Marion Crawford: Kate Williams (historian) (10 May 2012). Young Elizabeth: The Making of our Queen. Orion Publishing Group. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-297-86782-1.
I believe the Gloucesters had a country property, Barnwell Manor, to escape to when they wanted, and the Cambridges spent a lot of time with the Middletons at their home after George’s birth. I doubt either family spent months living at Nott Cott full time.
  #1215  
Old 03-18-2021, 09:59 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,166
Needless to say the discussion about housing is a "champagne problems" discussion.

I have to admit that Frogmore Cottage is woefully unimpressive when compared to Gatcombe Park, The Royal Lodge or Bagshot Park. Yes these are homes of children of the monarch but it should be noted that it is not the norm to have a thirty-something grandchild of a monarch. To me I see it falling more to Charles than The Queen to set Harry up in a grand country house. I was on the verge of stating that it was a mystery as to why Charles did not gift the Sussexes a grand country house upon marriage but then I recalled that they did have a country house that they were renting, and my guess is that none of the principals involved were completely confident which area the Sussexes wanted to be their long-term country base.

The reason that I suspect that the Sussexes ended up with the unimpressive Frogmore had to do with them getting married and starting a family in a short period of time and needing / wanting more space and turning down a large KP apartment - my guess is because they could not bear that the KP apartment that was offered, albeit luxurious by most standards, was still lesser than the Cambridge apartment. However my understanding is that the London apartments of The Queen's non-heir children are much more modest that the KP apartment that was offered the Sussexes, so Harry and Meghan would have had better London digs than his uncles and aunt.

Regarding the Cambridges, they did not get their Kensington Palace and Anmer Hall residences from day one, although in the case of KP it was earmarked for them early in their marriage but not ready for occupancy. It seems to me that a key reason that the Sussexes had limited options was because they needed / wanted more space because they started a family very early in their marriage.
  #1216  
Old 03-18-2021, 10:22 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 538
A US YouGov poll on members of the BRF:

Diana is the most popular, followed the Queen, William, Kate, Harry, Anne, Philip and then Meghan.

https://mobile.twitter.com/USA_Polli...71577485066240
  #1217  
Old 03-18-2021, 10:26 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Hopefully William and Kate will be able to better prepare Charlotte and Louis. I think having three children instead of only two makes it easier, as does the fact that there’s a girl between the two boys, but it’s still tricky.
Yes, in thinking over what both sides could have done differently, and also how there are other "spares" that seem to struggle, I've come to the conclusion that Royals can be terrible at helping their non-heir children find their path, likely because it's completely alien to them.

I think Harry had mistaken beliefs in what Royal life would offer him and what he could expect in stepping away. It seems he very much needed guidance many years ago, and some of these misgivings have festered. But then again, how could Charles really know how to advise him? Charles, like the Queen & William, has always been on a straight path provided to him at birth.

[Personally, I think the biggest strength the Cambridge kids have to avoid this problem is their very involved non-royal grandparents who built their own fortunes and careers. In thinking about Harry's life, I think he would have immensely benefitted from the same.]

It just makes me very sad. I really do think Harry was uneducated on many things he needed to know as a non-heir, and Charles should have provided that education. But I also don't think Charles was capable of understanding there was a need for such, or even how to help if he did. And now I doubt there will ever be trust between William and his brother again.

(As to renovations not being complete prior to the arrival of Archie. That seems to be normal, as it was the same for the Cambridges and they were married even longer. Personally, I don't read it as a snub, just that the Queen is more a "slow and steady" giver. Also, given the historical significance of these homes, I doubt that renovations can be rushed. FC likely was taken down to the studs inside just to bring it up to code.)
  #1218  
Old 03-18-2021, 10:39 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
Needless to say the discussion about housing is a "champagne problems" discussion.

I have to admit that Frogmore Cottage is woefully unimpressive when compared to Gatcombe Park, The Royal Lodge or Bagshot Park. Yes these are homes of children of the monarch but it should be noted that it is not the norm to have a thirty-something grandchild of a monarch. To me I see it falling more to Charles than The Queen to set Harry up in a grand country house. I was on the verge of stating that it was a mystery as to why Charles did not gift the Sussexes a grand country house upon marriage but then I recalled that they did have a country house that they were renting, and my guess is that none of the principals involved were completely confident which area the Sussexes wanted to be their long-term country base.

The reason that I suspect that the Sussexes ended up with the unimpressive Frogmore had to do with them getting married and starting a family in a short period of time and needing / wanting more space and turning down a large KP apartment - my guess is because they could not bear that the KP apartment that was offered, albeit luxurious by most standards, was still lesser than the Cambridge apartment. However my understanding is that the London apartments of The Queen's non-heir children are much more modest that the KP apartment that was offered the Sussexes, so Harry and Meghan would have had better London digs than his uncles and aunt.

Regarding the Cambridges, they did not get their Kensington Palace and Anmer Hall residences from day one, although in the case of KP it was earmarked for them early in their marriage but not ready for occupancy. It seems to me that a key reason that the Sussexes had limited options was because they needed / wanted more space because they started a family very early in their marriage.
Excuse me for quoting myself but an additional thought.

Me comparing Frogmore Cottage to Gatcombe Park, The Royal Lodge or Bagshot Park is not really apples to apples. Yes they are all in the same vicinity but Frogmore Cottage is more the equivalent of the London residences of Anne, Andrew and Edward.
  #1219  
Old 03-18-2021, 10:43 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Wasn’t Anmer, a far bigger property, renovated to exact specifications with ‘someone else’s money?’ Actually the Sovereign Grant.

The Sussexes have paid back the SG money for the renovations to Frogmore, and some of their money was also spent on indoor decorations etc.
No, Anmer was not renovated with the money from Sovereign Grant. It's not a Crown Estate property, it's a private property of the monarch. Which, as the heir of the heir, William will inherit in the future. So he received a property that will eventually be his.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
They turned it down largely because of the renovation costs which were estimated to be costing more than FC did. And seeing the tabloids going to town about the Sussex ‘extravagance’ with their home (at the time they were working royals) though the royal reporters knew darned well that it was SG money that paid for the renovations there, it was no wonder they turned 1A down!

And Sovereign Grant money paid for the majority ofCambridges apartment renovation costs, no complaint at the time from any tabloid.
I'm sorry, so were the Sussexes offered the Apartment 1 and refused it because of the costs or were they not offered it at all? Because I'm getting lost here.

Yes, Sovereign Grant paid for the renovation of Apartment 1a. The same as Apartment 1 and every other apartment or cottage in KP. And every other Crown Estate Property. This is how the system works.

And - oh, the memory is so fickle - Cambridges got months and months of coverage about the cost of renovation. People were not happy. Remember the "three kitchens Kate" articles? They even got attacked for privately paid for renovations of Anmer Hall, the tennis court or the sunroom(?). These articles are really a Google search away.

So, if even the future King and Queen receive this kind of coverage and criticism, a former spare (while yes, then-working royal) and his wife will get it worse. This is how the system works, even if it's quite unfair. It's easy to anger ordinary people by telling them they have to pay millions for renovations on a luxury property for royals who have more money than they'll ever see in their lifetime.
  #1220  
Old 03-18-2021, 10:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,148
Andrew, the wessexes and Anne have flatlets in BP for London engagements, Queen Claude. But, as has been pointed out, all three have large, grand properties, with extensive grounds on Crown estates or in the countryside. Harry and Meghan had FC and that was it.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes america baby names background story biography britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life family tree fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima resusci anne royal ancestry royal court royal jewels russian court dress solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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