The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 09-22-2020, 02:01 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,013
Corinna wouldn't be the first disgruntled mistress who dislikes the wife of her lover. Neither would JC be the first lover who tells his mistress that he wants a divorce but that due to practicalities he can't. These kind of stories are as old as the road to Rome.

In how far there were actually plans for a divorce is open to question. I can't see the King -while in full possession of his mental capabilities- being naïve enough to think in the 2010s that he could get away with making Corinna Spain's queen. Although JC may have told Corinna that he wanted a divorce I think it does not necessarily mean that he was planning a divorce himself.
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 09-22-2020, 02:43 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Corinna wouldn't be the first disgruntled mistress who dislikes the wife of her lover. Neither would JC be the first lover who tells his mistress that he wants a divorce but that due to practicalities he can't. These kind of stories are as old as the road to Rome.

In how far there were actually plans for a divorce is open to question. I can't see the King -while in full possession of his mental capabilities- being naïve enough to think in the 2010s that he could get away with making Corinna Spain's queen. Although JC may have told Corinna that he wanted a divorce I think it does not necessarily mean that he was planning a divorce himself.

I'm utterly with you on that!



As we are not living in an ideal world, and I'm not judging people on their private lives; having a lover is a private thing - not public; as long as people are discreet. I abhore the modern media who think they have a right to snoop on the most private matters in peoples lives. Having said that, Sofia bore admirably with JC and keeping their official duties of monarchs in good working order.



Due to circumstances the spanish Monarchy is quite poor, so I can understand why JC became so greedy and took money, where he shouldnt have, not paying taxes on it, etc. Giving it all to Corinna was 'careless'; promising her to marry her? I thought she was clever enough to know it wouldn't happen. I cannot see why she is complaining, she doesn't has the bother with an old cranky and ill man, and loads of tosh.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 09-22-2020, 08:28 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
In how far there were actually plans for a divorce is open to question. I can't see the King -while in full possession of his mental capabilities- being naïve enough to think in the 2010s that he could get away with making Corinna Spain's queen. Although JC may have told Corinna that he wanted a divorce I think it does not necessarily mean that he was planning a divorce himself.

This!!! I refuse to believe that JC actually had an action plan to divorce Sofia and marry Corinna - either only in Corinna's imagination or he was ready to be confined to a mental asylum.
JC was always aware of Sofia, who he called the 'ultimate professional', and her value to the Spanish monarchy. It was her who brought the discipline and work ethic along to make the mission a success, groomed Felipe to be the monarch he is today, why all the effort and then marry Corinna and put everything in jeopardy? Obviously they had an arrangement, Sofia would look the other way but had the freedom to live a life of her own too, I am sure she did just that.

A divorce/marrige would never have been accepted by any part of Spanish society, under no circumstances, and even the thought of it is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 09-22-2020, 11:23 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 103
I find it difficult to believe that there is any truth in these marriage rumours. The source is Corinna herself and she has an agenda to make money and print in the tabloids, and damage JC in the process. Perhaps at some stage JC had a romantic idea that he would abdicate and marry Corinna, but I can't see it ever having been more than that.

With regards to a Palace Coup I am sure Sofia fought tooth and nail to protect the institution, and the best way to do that was to replace JC with Felipe. The monarchy is in Sofia's blood, it is what has defined her since birth, and its survival would be paramount to her. It was clear that JC had become a liability and needed to be removed.
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 09-22-2020, 05:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,224
I can 100% believe that JC would promise Corinna something he knew he couldn't deliver on. At first it may have been because he genuinely wanted it to be true and by the end because he knew it would keep her happy and thus quiet.

I don't blame Sofia for doing everything in her power to protect the crown for Felipe and i that means forcing JC out of it, so be it. To be fair to her, the agreement of whatever you view it as between JC and Sofia seems to have been by the end - JC got to do as he pleased being unfaithful while Sofia got her status which she had tbf to her worked hard for in the early days of the marriage and the new monarchy in Spain as well as the close bond with her children. Irony of all ironies if JC had divorced Sofia and married Corinna he almost certainly would have been made to give up the throne to do so, and Felipe would have stood by Sofia in it all.
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 09-22-2020, 07:31 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I can 100% believe that JC would promise Corinna something he knew he couldn't deliver on. At first it may have been because he genuinely wanted it to be true and by the end because he knew it would keep her happy and thus quiet.

I don't blame Sofia for doing everything in her power to protect the crown for Felipe and i that means forcing JC out of it, so be it. To be fair to her, the agreement of whatever you view it as between JC and Sofia seems to have been by the end - JC got to do as he pleased being unfaithful while Sofia got her status which she had tbf to her worked hard for in the early days of the marriage and the new monarchy in Spain as well as the close bond with her children. Irony of all ironies if JC had divorced Sofia and married Corinna he almost certainly would have been made to give up the throne to do so, and Felipe would have stood by Sofia in it all.
At the risk of contradicting myself or being a hypocrite I would add something. All the points that have been raised are valid but there is something else. On an purely emotional level, for whatever reason, JC and S have not made one another happy for some time and are too set in their ways to change. For anyone else a divorce would be the best solution. Indeed their daughter and a number of their relatives have done so with little consequence. The idea that somehow this would have been impossible or taboo has always struck me as far fetched. I aways thought letting all this fester was more dangerous, and the events of the last decade I believe prove my theory correct. The main opposition has always come the most strongly from S herself and the government opposition to me smacks of execissive caution and a lack of imagination. Although in fairness they got spooked by what happens in the UK at the same time.

And I can’t help having some sympathy for JC in all this, scathing as I have been in other posts. Being in effect held prisoner by someone who has made their indifference and contempt for you clear, and refuses to let you go despite being able to do so, is a particular kind of living hell that should not be underestimated. This dynamic more than anything explains a lot of his behaviour over the last twenty years and his behaviour to S I believe needs to be Seen in this context. At least that’s how I see it.
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 09-23-2020, 02:35 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 549
20 Swiss MPs ask the Swiss parliament to block JCs bank accounts:

https://www.omnium.cat/en/omnium-cul...ss-parliament/
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 09-23-2020, 03:03 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
No surprise the Swiss officials have said no.

There is a reason that people like to put 'hide' their money in Swiss banks. The Swiss banks are notoriously top about keeping records hidden and sealed, and its hard to get any information from them. Its the place to hide assets if you can if going through legal proceedings. Its no shock that JC put his money there in the first place. It will be a hard time to get the Swiss to cooperate with any requests.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
At the risk of contradicting myself or being a hypocrite I would add something. All the points that have been raised are valid but there is something else. On an purely emotional level, for whatever reason, JC and S have not made one another happy for some time and are too set in their ways to change. For anyone else a divorce would be the best solution. Indeed their daughter and a number of their relatives have done so with little consequence. The idea that somehow this would have been impossible or taboo has always struck me as far fetched. I aways thought letting all this fester was more dangerous, and the events of the last decade I believe prove my theory correct. The main opposition has always come the most strongly from S herself and the government opposition to me smacks of execissive caution and a lack of imagination. Although in fairness they got spooked by what happens in the UK at the same time.

And I can’t help having some sympathy for JC in all this, scathing as I have been in other posts. Being in effect held prisoner by someone who has made their indifference and contempt for you clear, and refuses to let you go despite being able to do so, is a particular kind of living hell that should not be underestimated. This dynamic more than anything explains a lot of his behaviour over the last twenty years and his behaviour to S I believe needs to be Seen in this context. At least that’s how I see it.


JC is no victim in this. In reality he is getting what other royal men seem to get, a pass for bad behavior. He cheated on his wife for years, he isn't a victim because his wife didn't run off into the darkness and let him marry his lover instead. These aren't the days where a king could set aside his wife, put her in the most convenient convent he could find, and marry again.

Even if Sofia agreed to a divorce she wouldn't simply disappear. She would still be the queen. There is no slipping Corrina into the position of queen and having Sofia fade away. Nor should she have to. She had dedicated decades to being queen and in some ways seems to care more about serving the country then her husband does.

The UK and Spain are not the same. Spain is a very catholic country traditionally and that is a major factor here. Catholics don't believe in divorce. Annulment yes, but not divorce. Its one thing for a daughter who is not heir to the throne, or distant relatives to get divorced. But for the Catholic king of a Catholic country to divorce his wife to marry his mistress is another matter all together. Its even worse then the Edward VIII situation as in Edward's case he wasn't a married man. The woman he wished to marry was a divorcee, but he himself was not setting aside a wife. As well as the whole not being a catholic issue. Charles is also very different as by the time he married Camilla his ex-wife was dead, so even very religious people would see him free to marry. And the Anglican church allowed for marriage after divorce by the time they married. The Catholic church does not.


I guess one could argue that he could apply for an annulment. But if he had any concern at all for PR and the future of the monarchy, that would have been the worst decision he could make. Setting side his dutiful catholic wife for his mistress wasn't going to go down well with much of the public. Even if he could convince the Pope to give him the divorce in the first place.


There is a sense as well at least with the older generations that duty comes before personal emotions. And the idea that divorcing your wife to run off with some mistress, would not be thought appropriate by many.


If Corrina thought she was going to be anything but a mistress she was in a fantasy. At the very best if JC divorced Sofia, he may have been allowed a morganatic marriage with her. And she would have been some private citizen perhaps invited to the odd event. With Sofia still there.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 09-23-2020, 12:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 103
I can't see divorce ever having been an option. A divorce in the 70's would have killed off JC's standing with that most Catholic of dictators, Franco; in the 80's threatened the stability of the transition; in the 90's it might have opened the flood gates of scrutiny and criticism we are seeing today, and later in the reign with an arrangement that seemed to work, I suppose the thinking was why bother...
In any case as monarchs of the Catholic faith it would have been difficult and an annulment would have been undesirable raising the issue of a putative marriage and the consequences it might have for a future King of Spain to have been born of such a union. Much too messy.
They were stuck with this situation and for years it seemed to work.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 09-23-2020, 12:53 PM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
No surprise the Swiss officials have said no.

There is a reason that people like to put 'hide' their money in Swiss banks. The Swiss banks are notoriously top about keeping records hidden and sealed, and its hard to get any information from them. Its the place to hide assets if you can if going through legal proceedings. Its no shock that JC put his money there in the first place. It will be a hard time to get the Swiss to cooperate with any requests.

.

I beg to differ - that is not true anylonger; Switzerland has adapted, and is quite harsh on illigal money, and money laundering!
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 09-23-2020, 01:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
I can't see divorce ever having been an option. A divorce in the 70's would have killed off JC's standing with that most Catholic of dictators, Franco; in the 80's threatened the stability of the transition; in the 90's it might have opened the flood gates of scrutiny and criticism we are seeing today, and later in the reign with an arrangement that seemed to work, I suppose the thinking was why bother...
In any case as monarchs of the Catholic faith it would have been difficult and an annulment would have been undesirable raising the issue of a putative marriage and the consequences it might have for a future King of Spain to have been born of such a union. Much too messy.
They were stuck with this situation and for years it seemed to work.
As a Protestant, I'm unfamiliar with the 'Declaration of nullity' which is a judgement on marriage declared by the Roman Catholic church.
How could the marriage of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia be considered by the Pope for an annulment?
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 09-23-2020, 02:15 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
At the risk of contradicting myself or being a hypocrite I would add something. All the points that have been raised are valid but there is something else. On an purely emotional level, for whatever reason, JC and S have not made one another happy for some time and are too set in their ways to change. For anyone else a divorce would be the best solution. Indeed their daughter and a number of their relatives have done so with little consequence. The idea that somehow this would have been impossible or taboo has always struck me as far fetched. I aways thought letting all this fester was more dangerous, and the events of the last decade I believe prove my theory correct. The main opposition has always come the most strongly from S herself and the government opposition to me smacks of execissive caution and a lack of imagination. Although in fairness they got spooked by what happens in the UK at the same time.

And I can’t help having some sympathy for JC in all this, scathing as I have been in other posts. Being in effect held prisoner by someone who has made their indifference and contempt for you clear, and refuses to let you go despite being able to do so, is a particular kind of living hell that should not be underestimated. This dynamic more than anything explains a lot of his behaviour over the last twenty years and his behaviour to S I believe needs to be Seen in this context. At least that’s how I see it.
I can understand your view I have to say, and if they were your ordinary 'kids have moved out so lets get divorced' couple I would agree actually, but the added complication here is that divorcing would mean Sofia loosing her position as well as her marriage. I would also say, given JC cheated on Corinna with another woman I don't think its as if he wanted to really marry Corinna and settle into a blissful life. I wonder if actually he was quite happy to stay married - not just for the public show of a King & Queen for Spain but also as a reason not to be able to commit further to one woman...or even two. I wonder how many times he 'had to run back to Sofia' or so he told Corinna or another woman and was actually running off another woman altogether. Everyone he was in a relationship would have known he was married to Sofia so it was in many ways perhaps the perfect cover.
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 09-23-2020, 02:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_royalist View Post
As a Protestant, I'm unfamiliar with the 'Declaration of nullity' which is a judgement on marriage declared by the Roman Catholic church.
How could the marriage of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia be considered by the Pope for an annulment?
I am not a Catholic either but I certainly remember the huge outrage in Hoboken NJ when Frank Sinatra got an annulment from his first wife Nancy after having three children by her so that he could marry Barbara Marx in a Catholic Ceremony. Barbara was a widow with a son. The Pope had no problem allowing the Declaration of Nullity. Nancy and her family extremely hurt and their children furious at the time. Plus Frank had two marriages in-between with Ava Gardner and Mia Farrow to boot. Always a way, I guess.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 09-23-2020, 11:26 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_royalist View Post
As a Protestant, I'm unfamiliar with the 'Declaration of nullity' which is a judgement on marriage declared by the Roman Catholic church.
How could the marriage of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia be considered by the Pope for an annulment?
There are a number of grounds on which an annulment can be granted:

-marriage ceremony was invalid: like performed outside of the church
-contract: mainly if there was deception from the start which can be proven. That can include things like not intending to be faithful. Or not intending to have children.
-free will: mental incapacity, fraud, fear, force and so on that means one of the two didn't act of their own free will in entering the marriage
-capacity: too closely related, already married, taken a vow of chastity


Those are the general categories and many reasoning for each one. I guess they could argue that JC never planned to be faithful to his wife from the start so he entered it never intending to honor the contract.
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 09-24-2020, 04:36 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
There are a number of grounds on which an annulment can be granted:

-marriage ceremony was invalid: like performed outside of the church
-contract: mainly if there was deception from the start which can be proven. That can include things like not intending to be faithful. Or not intending to have children.
-free will: mental incapacity, fraud, fear, force and so on that means one of the two didn't act of their own free will in entering the marriage
-capacity: too closely related, already married, taken a vow of chastity


Those are the general categories and many reasoning for each one. I guess they could argue that JC never planned to be faithful to his wife from the start so he entered it never intending to honor the contract.

JC and S needed papal dispensation when they got married on the grounds of consanguinity (too closely related in the eyes of the church) and that S was not a catholic at the time of the wedding, so both would be valid reasons, and popes have been happy to nullify dispensations of previous popes when called to do so.

Arguing that JC was planning to be unfaithful from the start sounds like a stretch - even if it was true, it would be impossible to prove to any real satisfaction and he’d almost certainly deny it.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 09-24-2020, 11:36 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 103
I think it would have been an unfortunate position to put Felipe - born of a putative marriage and would have sullied the monarchy's image in the early bonanza days of the reign.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 09-25-2020, 10:58 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 4,676
King Juan Carlos may return to Spain in October.

Carlos Herrera, a Spanish journalist, says King Juan Carlos can return to Spain on October 12 on a regular flight.

https://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial...rrera_2762423/
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 09-26-2020, 02:06 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
King Juan Carlos may return to Spain in October.

Carlos Herrera, a Spanish journalist, says King Juan Carlos can return to Spain on October 12 on a regular flight.

https://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial...rrera_2762423/

That's on national day, why not return on a day when you get maximal attention. Maybe he can even gatecrash the parade. I only believe that JC returns to Spain when I see it. Where should he stay without being chased by the paparazzi? That's something only the Arabs could do for him, total privacy in luxury.
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 09-26-2020, 05:44 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 43
These are the ten reasons why a catholic person can ask for the annulment of the marriage, I am not good at translating, but I will try.

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/20140220...402191716.html

King Juan Carlos cannot request the annulment of the marriage.


1. Impediment of impotence in both men and women (canon 1084).

2. Impediment of link (canon 1085). If you were married previously and that bond has not been broken

3. Inhibition of consanguinity (canon 1091). Between two brothers (of the same father and the same mother), a marriage cannot be contracted because there is an impediment of natural law. In the case of first cousins, the bishop may dispense this impediment. .


4. Vice of consent due to lack of use of reason (canon 1095, 1º).
5. Vice of consent due to serious lack of internal discretion (canon 1095, 2º). It can occur in the case of a wedding couple who, after two years of relations, realizes that she is pregnant. When their parents hear the news, they pressure young people to marry even though they are not determined. If during the process it is possible to prove that one or both have not been internally free to express consent, that marriage can be declared void.

6. Nullity due to inability to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of a psychic nature (canon 1095, 3º).

7. Error about the person (canon 1097). It occurred in the Middle Ages when the kings agreed to a marriage and the future spouses saw each other for the first time on the wedding day. There they realized that the person who had introduced himself was not the future husband or wife. Today it is difficult to produce.

8. Fraud to obtain consent (canon 1098). Being sterile is not a cause of marriage annulment if the other party is aware of this circumstance. On the other hand, if the person knows that she or he is sterile and hides it because if not the marriage is not celebrated, then it is a cause of nullity.

9. Simulation of marriage by exclusion of one of its essential properties --unity or fidelity, indissolubility and openness to life-- (canon 1101). This is the case of a person who simulates consent at the time of marriage. In her inner forum she is excluding some of the characteristics of marriage such as fidelity, indissolubility or procreation. For example, you are getting married but not with the intention of having children and your spouse does not know it. The problem in these cases is the evidence, but usually there are witnesses who have heard one of the parties express their true intentions.

10. Defect of form (canon 1108).This is when, for example, they were married before a priest who was not titled to celebrate the marriage..
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 09-26-2020, 06:21 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
JC and S needed papal dispensation when they got married on the grounds of consanguinity (too closely related in the eyes of the church) and that S was not a catholic at the time of the wedding, so both would be valid reasons, and popes have been happy to nullify dispensations of previous popes when called to do so.

Arguing that JC was planning to be unfaithful from the start sounds like a stretch - even if it was true, it would be impossible to prove to any real satisfaction and he’d almost certainly deny it.
Why would he deny it? JC would have been the one seeking an annulment. He isn't going to deny one of the reasons to get him out of the marriage. We're not talking Sofia trying to get the marriage ended and JC fighting her on it.

Her not being catholic at the time is hardly a valid reason. Even commoners catholic priests had an issue marrying a couple who were mixed. All they had to do was agree that the kids would be raised Catholic. As their three children were raised catholic, and Sofia converted, they would be hard pressed to convince a pope that was grounds to nullify a dispensation.

Catholics forbid marriage within four degrees of consanguinity. Sofia and JC are not within four degrees so no dispensation was required for that. They are both the great-great grandchildren of Queen Victoria. As third cousins they are in the 8th degree of relationship. Even back when they went all the way to 7 degrees of relation or you needed a dispensation, JC and Sofia are still beyond that need.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/...D/AJUD599G.pdf
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abu dhabi, corruption, dubai, juan carlos, spain, uae customs


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
William and Harry's Inheritance Duchess British Royals 125 08-24-2019 01:33 PM




Popular Tags
abdication anastasia 2020 baby names bangladesh biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi hill historical drama history hochberg hypothetical monarchs introduction italian royal family jewellery jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×