The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 09-24-2020, 07:26 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The King is formally part of the Government (executive power), Justice is formally spoken in the name of the King (judiciary power), the King is formally president of the Raad van State (Council of State) which has legislative and a judiciary powers.
Interesting! I read three times "formally". What does this mean de facto? I am afraid, that the Monarch has no say in this at all, but is only in a ceremonial way present.

Which powers the Council of State has, is hard to tell either. I read on wikipedia, that this is an instititution like a "Crown Council" between government and parliament.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-24-2020, 07:43 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Interesting! I read three times "formally". What does this mean de facto? I am afraid, that the Monarch has no say in this at all, but is only in a ceremonial way present.

Which powers the Council of State has, is hard to tell either. I read on wikipedia, that this is an instititution like a "Crown Council" between government and parliament.

The Raad van State (Council of State), established in 1531 (one of the oldert still existing legal bodies in the world) is no Crown Council. It has two divisions.
- The advisory division, which has to review any Bill and give a (positive or negative) critical opinion about it;
- The administrative law division, which functions as the highest Administrative Court of Justice.

The de-jure president is The King, the Voorzitter van de Raad van State. The de-facto president is the Vice-voorzitter.

The two divisions (the advisory body of the Government and the Administrative Court of Justice) are separated but together form the Raad van State.

The Advisory body (note the seat of the formal Voorzitter):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rgaderzaal.jpg

The Administratieve Court of Justice:
https://smeulders-ig.nl/wp-content/u...w-1200x430.jpg
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-25-2020, 03:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,300
With the personal popularity of the King, or Queen Máxima, or Princess Beatrix, etc. there is nothing wrong. They still can enjoy a warm public bath. But I absolutely sense stronger republican tendencies. I have already my mind set: "fasten yourself for shocks". After Trump, Brexit or Corona, I know that impossibilities are not so impossible anymore. The monarchy is not that safe in the Netherlands. And any falling monarchy elsewhere will have an unforeseen domino effect.

The latest shock was when I saw a Spanish delicatessen + restaurant in my street (with a lovely Spanish couple and young Spanish staff), re-opened after Corona. They were waving the republican flag (red, yellow, purple). The overwhelming majority of the Dutchies passing by will have no idea or are wrongfooted ("Oh, that surely will be a Spanish regional flag?"). I could not believe that Spanish ex-pats exploiting a Spanish commerce would openly wave the flag of the Spanish Republic.

Then I realized: be prepared for shocks. Most likely I will see the Dutch monarchy tumble down. It will hurt but at the same time I now feel: so be it. Worrying about that makes no any sense.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-12-2021, 02:38 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,683
The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.

It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.

The realities however may be quite different though.
A monarchy is in it's very nature a conservative institution, even if the royals themselves are progressive, and special rules apply for royals, otherwise there is no point in having a monarchy.
That's one thing.
Another matter is that a monarchy also has foreign political considerations to take into account. There are quite a few countries where same sex marriages are viewed with abhorrence and as sign of decadence. In most countries it's even outlawed.
So while I dare say most Dutch would have few problems with say Amalia marrying a women, that sentiment may not be shared worldwide - or in the Dutch Foreign Ministry...
After all a monarch and also an heir lives for the his/her country - not for their own happiness.

While I think the world can easily accept and accommodate secondary royals who marry someone of the same sex, a monarch doing so is a generation away at best.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-12-2021, 03:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.

It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.

The realities however may be quite different though.
A monarchy is in it's very nature a conservative institution, even if the royals themselves are progressive, and special rules apply for royals, otherwise there is no point in having a monarchy.
That's one thing.
Another matter is that a monarchy also has foreign political considerations to take into account. There are quite a few countries where same sex marriages are viewed with abhorrence and as sign of decadence. In most countries it's even outlawed.
So while I dare say most Dutch would have few problems with say Amalia marrying a women, that sentiment may not be shared worldwide - or in the Dutch Foreign Ministry...
After all a monarch and also an heir lives for the his/her country - not for their own happiness.

While I think the world can easily accept and accommodate secondary royals who marry someone of the same sex, a monarch doing so is a generation away at best.
I don't see in this day and age any problem with the heir to the throne or the monarch marrying someone of the same sex, especially in a country like the Netherlands. The only constitutionally relevant issue would be if, as a result of a same-sex marriage, there could not be any legal heir to the throne. However, since most monarchies have several people in the line of succession, it is very unlikely that such issue would ever arise.


EDIT: There is only one reference as far as I know in the Dutch constitution to royal marriages and, as long as the marriage is legal (which is the case now for same-sex marriages) and consented to by a bill approved in a joint sesssion of the two houses of Parliament, I don't see any constitutional impediment.



Quote:

Article 28 [Marriage without Approval by Act of Parliament]
(1) The King is deemed to have abdicated if he contracts a marriage without having obtained approval by Act of Parliament.
(2) Anyone in line of succession to the Throne who contracts such a marriage is excluded from the hereditary succession, together with any children born of the marriage and their issue.
(3) The two Chambers of the Parliament (Parliament) meet to consider and decide upon a Bill for granting such approval in joint session.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-12-2021, 03:57 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post

- In nation like the Netherlands with the policy it has in regards to same sex marriages, such a statement is hardly surprising. I don't think Mark Rutte could say anything else, without ending up in a political sh*tstorm.
He couldn't, esp. as it was his own conservative-liberal party (VVD) who suggested the change. I doubt he cares one way or the other, he is known to have a hands-off approach with any topic, which has served him very well over the years - so why would this be an exception.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:07 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,710
Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as there were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.

The question the PM refused to answer is whether any children of such a marriage would be eligible to inherit the throne. His reasoning was that at the time such a case might arise that question would need to be answered and it would be premature to do so now.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:21 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,256
Rather telling that our parlementarians only wake up when a book pushes the thing in the news, while this was known since the year 2000. At the time I thought it was hinted that Queen Beatrix herself had reminded the PM of the (succession) problems such a scenario would deliver.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:22 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
It does go against the current Dutch rules, which basically says that a Dutch monarch can only marry someone of the opposite sex. But Mark Rutte says that realities have changed since the rules were last reviewed in 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as their were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.
Are any links to the rules/statements/discussions from 2000 available? I have seen them mentioned in royalty discussions elsewhere (it was said, if I remember the comments accurately, that the then Queen and the then Prime Minister came to an agreement on not granting government permission to any future royal same-sex marriage), but no citation was given.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't see in this day and age any problem with the heir to the throne or the monarch marrying someone of the same sex, especially in a country like the Netherlands. The only constitutionally relevant issue would be if, as a result of a same-sex marriage, there could not be any legal heir to the throne. However, since most monarchies have several people in the line of succession, it is very unlikely that such issue would ever arise.

What I believe Muhler is saying, and I concur, is that in the Netherlands (and, in my opinion, the other European monarchies), sentiment imposes stricter "rules" than the law. For instance, there is no constitutional, legal, or diplomatic issue with any European heir choosing to remain unmarried and/or childless, provided there are other legal heirs in the next generation. Yet 100% of the present European monarchs and their heirs in direct line have chosen to marry and to produce children from (and not before) the marriage (excepting, of course, those who have not reached marriageable age).
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
What I believe Muhler is saying, and I concur, is that in the Netherlands (and, in my opinion, the other European monarchies), sentiment imposes stricter "rules" than the law. For instance, there is no constitutional, legal, or diplomatic issue with any European heir choosing to remain unmarried and/or childless, provided there are other legal heirs in the next generation. Yet 100% of the present European monarchs and their heirs in direct line have chosen to marry and to produce children from (and not before) the marriage (excepting, of course, those who have not reached marriageable age).
Wat about the Sovereign Prince of Monaco who had 2 children out of wedlock prior to marrying his wife?!

While most indeed waited with having children until after marriage, several of them did live together prior to marriage (William and Catherine being just one example) - although it seems the number is still smaller than in the general population (I don't think the Benelux monarchs nor married heir lived together prior to marriage - unlike many of their country men). And several of them have no issue marrying someone who was previously married (Felipe, Charles - a divorcé himself) or had a child out of wedlock (Haakon).
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Apparently, someone (Peter Rehwinkel who married prince Floris and princess Aimée) wrote in book in which he claimed the contrary based on statements by a previous PM (Wim Kok) in 2000. Peter Rehwinkel himself is gay and married, so he probably made this claim hoping to start a discussion - and did so successfully as their were parliamentary questions about this issue which is why PM Rutte had to discuss this.

The question the PM refused to answer is whether any children of such a marriage would be eligible to inherit the throne. His reasoning was that at the time such a case might arise that question would need to be answered and it would be premature to do so now.

As we have discussed before, in the UK, a child of a same-sex marriage, either adopted or born of a surrogate mother, would not be eligible to succeed, As I said, that is the only constitutional issue to me, but it would be irrelevant if there are other people in the line of succession, wouldn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:55 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,505
What exactly does the Dutch law say about marriage, does anyone know? I'm assuming that royal marriage laws in most countries don't make any specific reference to opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage, simply because same sex marriage has only recently been legalised and so, when the laws were drawn up, marriage would have meant opposite sex marriage.


I don't think most people in most European countries would have a problem with the monarch or heir marrying someone of the same sex, but the issue of the succession would be more complicated.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-12-2021, 05:56 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
What exactly does the Dutch law say about marriage, does anyone know? I'm assuming that royal marriage laws in most countries don't make any specific reference to opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage, simply because same sex marriage has only recently been legalised and so, when the laws were drawn up, marriage would have meant opposite sex marriage.


I don't think most people in most European countries would have a problem with the monarch or heir marrying someone of the same sex, but the issue of the succession would be more complicated.
The problem is not the marriage but the result of it. A parliamentary consentend formal union of two ladies or two gentlemen needs a third -unknown- party for the procreation. And that third party will be a natural parent of a child born in this royal same-gender union, with parental rights, but is no part of the parliamentary approved royal union.

That was the reason why - back in 2001 - the Government was hesistant about approving an union of a Heir with someone of the same gender. Not because of the homosexuality (no any problem in the Netherlands) but because of this quite unspecified, unknown and undeveloped terrain about the "fruit" of such a marriage, which requires others from outside the marriage.

Imagine that Amalia has an union with Alexandra. But the baby is a product of Alexandra and a male donor. This means that the "product" of two outsiders will be the heir to Amalia, who will not be the mother of said child. How is that "hereditary succession"? Effectively it would be the same as makinh Tom Parker Bowles or Marius Høiby the "hereditary successor" because their mother happened to be married to a Heir. Just to name a possible dilemma.

For so far there is no indication that any of the princesses has the intention to engage in any marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-12-2021, 07:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As we have discussed before, in the UK, a child of a same-sex marriage, either adopted or born of a surrogate mother, would not be eligible to succeed, As I said, that is the only constitutional issue to me, but it would be irrelevant if there are other people in the line of succession, wouldn't it?
I don't think the UK laws are relevant for this question that was asked by Dutch parliamentarians to the Dutch PM

The nobility laws changed in the 90s to include children that were born out of wedlock, they can now inherit titles (which Willem-Alexander's cousin Carlos knows very well given that his son that he has no relationship with used to become a Royal Highness and prince de Bourbon de Parme).

I am not sure what the rules are regarding children born from other parents than the one in a marriage in the case of nobility (for example adoption, egg cell donation, sperm cell donation (or both) from either a known or unknown donor etc). Nonetheless, as the PM said: that will be discussed if the need ever arises.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it would be approved as long as the child is biologically the child of the 'born royal' - although it makes the marriage approval process somewhat moot as the child does no longer carry the partner's genes. Would the 'donor' also need to be approved by parliament? That would complicate things even further...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-13-2021, 03:03 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The problem is not the marriage but the result of it. A parliamentary consentend formal union of two ladies or two gentlemen needs a third -unknown- party for the procreation. And that third party will be a natural parent of a child born in this royal same-gender union, with parental rights, but is no part of the parliamentary approved royal union.

That was the reason why - back in 2001 - the Government was hesistant about approving an union of a Heir with someone of the same gender. Not because of the homosexuality (no any problem in the Netherlands) but because of this quite unspecified, unknown and undeveloped terrain about the "fruit" of such a marriage, which requires others from outside the marriage.

Imagine that Amalia has an union with Alexandra. But the baby is a product of Alexandra and a male donor. This means that the "product" of two outsiders will be the heir to Amalia, who will not be the mother of said child. How is that "hereditary succession"? Effectively it would be the same as makinh Tom Parker Bowles or Marius Høiby the "hereditary successor" because their mother happened to be married to a Heir. Just to name a possible dilemma.

For so far there is no indication that any of the princesses has the intention to engage in any marriage.
Well, they for one would certainly use Amalias egg and not that of her wife. Which removes half the problem.
Curious, why don't doctors use the DNA of two eggs. Should be possible, right. Though it of course then will always be a girl.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-13-2021, 04:02 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Well, they for one would certainly use Amalias egg and not that of her wife. Which removes half the problem.
Curious, why don't doctors use the DNA of two eggs. Should be possible, right. Though it of course then will always be a girl.

That is quite far-fetching. The royals already are discriminated as being the only citizens in the Netherlands whom needs public debate by 225 strangers in Parliament about any intention to engage in a marriage.

And now even that is not enough anymore: they need to give a DNA-sample to determine whether a baby indeed really is from the (future) hereditary monarch, or not ?

The parliamentary approval is an instrument to exclude undesireable partners, which indirectly had effect on Carlos Hugo prince de Bourbon de Parme and on Mabel Martine Wisse Smit: in both cases the Government did not offer a Bill of Consent. And in the cases of Claus von Amsberg and Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti (both approved) the debate was intense because both had problematic elements (a past in the German Wehrmacht during WWII resp. a father who was in the Government during a brutal military dictatorship).

With a third party outside a consented union, Parliament effectively is outmanoeuvred as it has no say in the desireability of said "donor" whom could be Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Vladimir Putin, to name any name laying a cuckoo's egg in the royal nest.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-13-2021, 07:26 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,256
Quote:
That is quite far-fetching. The royals already are discriminated as being the only citizens in the Netherlands whom needs public debate by 225 strangers in Parliament about any intention to engage in a marriage.
They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-13-2021, 08:04 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.

It was in the Handelingen, the written description of the debate in the two Chambers of the States-General in joint session, concerning the proposed Act of Consent for the intended marriage of the Prince of Orange in 2001.

And another one in the Handelingen, the debate concerning the proposed modernized Royal House Act in 2002.

The possibility of a successor engaging in a same-gender marriage came into discussion (a few years before this debate the Netherlands became the first state in the world to open legal marriage for same-gender couples, this also crippled into the mentioned debates in 2001 and 2002.).
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-13-2021, 09:36 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
They are perfectly allowed to get married without a public debate in parliament. It just means that they can not remain their succession rights. Of all the people in the country I am not sure the royals will be heading a list of being among those that are most discriminated.

--

This whole issue is just a spin by the governing VVD, who sees it as an easy point to score. Without any controversy, without any additional public spending, without any opposition. And all that over the back of a teenager - who I am sure could perfectly well do without half the country speculating about her sexuality. I don't find it very edifying for them to expose a 17 y/o to such a debate.

As for the legal text: did anyboy manage to find it? I have made an attempt but I did not manage to find it. Or is the whole thing just based on the letter that was sent by Prime Minister Wim Kok to the chamber/ oranjeklant Rehwinkel.
The Danish article that was the basis for my post use the word: "rules."

https://jyllands-posten.dk/internati...af-samme-koen/
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-13-2021, 12:10 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, has today stated that should a Dutch heir or monarch wish to marry someone of the same sex, it will be with the blessing of the government and there will no need for a monarch to abdicate, or heir to give up the claim to the throne.
Quite right too. If the monarch was LGBT if is far safer for them to open about it, rather than be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex and create two unhappy people, with the possibility of blackmail and intrigue.

In Britain Lord Ivar Mountbatten has married his male partner, and not had to give up his place in the line of succession (albeit is is a long way down the list), and I am pretty sure the British Royal Family is more conservative than the Dutch Royal Family!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
Dutch Buildings Connected with Dutch & Foreign Royalty Marengo Dutch Royal Residences 4 05-06-2021 02:50 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history house of windsor japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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