The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:04 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I am not sure if she could, even if she wanted to. The Instrument of Government provides for a voluntary abdication by the King, but AFAIK it says nothing about royal princes renouncing their succession rights. In order to remove Victoria from her current position as heiress to the throne, another law would be required amending the Act of Succession. Since the Act of Succession is however a basic law, I understand that would require the same procedure as in the 1970s, i.e. two separate votes in the Swedish parliament with a general election in between.

Victoria could have stepped down though, with no further legal action required, if she had married Daniel without the consent of the King and the government.
But she could have not asked the King and goverment for permission for her marriage.
As the Act of succession has the clause that anyone on line of succession beeds the permission of the King and goverment for a marriage she would have probably out when not asking.
__________________

__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:18 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It wouldn't have been an issue if Carl Gustav and Silvia hadn't made it one.
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Carl Philip was a baby when the amendment came into effect and he wouldn't have known about it if his parents hadn't told him
Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
and, since resentment of the "injustice" seems to burn deep within them, I am sure they have told him more than once and made a fuss about it.
All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
There was nothing for CP to accept. The changes were underway before he was conceived. It was a fait accompli before he was a year old.
But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 06-19-2015, 01:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.

I'm in agreement with Lady Nimue here. There is no way Carl Philip could not have been told about the change to the Act of Succession and the related circumstances as those are now historical facts he would have learned about anyway.

Second, there is no evidence, as some posters claimed here, that the King or the Queen tried to "subvert the legislative process" (something they lacked the power to do anyway). The government, on the other hand, has a constitutional obligation to keep the King informed about state affairs and I'm pretty sure they consulted with Carl Gustaf about the proposed changes to the law. At that point, it was also the King's obligation to voice his opinion to the government, which I believe he did. After a decision was taken and the law was passed, the King had to comply with it, which he did and has been doing since. As I said, he raised Victoria, and not Carl Philip, as heir to the throne. Victoria has her own household and state funding whereas her siblings do not and she takes up official and diplomatic duties which, again, are not shared with her siblings. The King's behavior in that regard has been strictly constitutional and perfectly appropriate IMHO.

Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 06-19-2015, 06:16 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?
The reason the press continues to ask is because both the King and Queen continue to vent their displeasure with the change. As long as the King and Queen continue to discuss their feelings about the change the press will continue to push the story. At this point thirty plus years on a good PR strategy would be to simply say that the act passed long ago and they are now only focused on supporting the Crown Princess. That would presumably meet both the honesty quotient and end any need for Victoria to comment on the stories.
As to what I'd expect I'd think as parents of both CP and Victoria that they'd be more concerned about supporting both of them, and avoiding placing them in the awkward position of having to address these issues rather than venting their feelings about a decision made 30 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 06-19-2015, 06:18 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.
To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 06-19-2015, 06:34 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.
Exactly. The King and Queen believe (rightly) that their son was unjustly stripped of his birth rights. But, at the same time, they made sure their daughter received the necessary education, preparation and support for her future role.

If anything, Their Majesties succeeded in raising an outstanding future Queen and a Prince who knows his place in the Royal House and is more than willing to help his older sister.

It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 06-19-2015, 07:27 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.
The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic. As to the suggestion that the King and Queen are horrible parents-neither are bad parents. At worst I'd argue they are clearly myopic and have allowed their feelings on the issue to slip out more than they should. Again this is diplomacy. Regardless of their feelings about succession they should have accepted the decision and not continued to address it in a way that makes their feelings so clear.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 06-19-2015, 09:10 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.
Of course Carl Philip would have become aware of what had happened. It is the way his parents responded to his questions at that time that would have made all the difference. And no, I don't necessarily believe it was better to have learned it from his parents than historians.

What his parents said would have informed his opinions, or at least presented him with a greater or lesser degree of conflict. They had the option of acknowledging the change calmly as a fact of life that was underway before he was born, and a consequence of living in a constitutional monarchy in a modern, liberal, society with a strong belief in gender equality, and where it is the people, through their elected representatives, who run the country, or they could have tainted him with their own personal prejudices. The fact they still, after all this time, publicly express opposition to the change, leads me to believe that they emphasised the latter.

As Kavan has said immediately above this post, it is a matter of diplomacy, something that a hereditary Head of State in a modern constitutional monarchy should be very careful about.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 06-19-2015, 10:33 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,556
I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 06-20-2015, 09:42 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavan View Post
The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic.
But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.
People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 06-20-2015, 09:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.

That is an odd comparison as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 06-20-2015, 10:53 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is an odd comparsion as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leeonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justicedepartment objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 06-20-2015, 02:36 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 06-20-2015, 03:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
The discussions may have happened simultaneously in Sweden and Denmark. Good for Denmark that they did something about it at the time. But they only had what they considered suitable options in the daughters of King Frederik. Sweden had Prince Bertil and I am sure no-one imagined that he would remain childless and single for so long. If for some reason Carl Gustaf had not been able to ascend the throne, Prince Bertil would next in line.

But if they had made the change in early 50's the same issue would be there. If it was retroactive then the King's sisters would have been in line as heirs (at least Birgitta) and Carl Gustaf who became Crown Prince on the death of this father would have lost his place.
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:22 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
Perhaps it woiuld have been done in Sweden in the 1950's if Carl Gustasf would not have been born. I don't think Denmark would have changed the succession law in 1953 if King Frederik IX., and Queen Ingrid would have had a son in 1946 insteed of a third daughter.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:45 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.
It's also very possible that they saw in the two children that Carl Philip was the one with the better temperament to be heir and then monarch. We will never know the cost to Victoria of having to constrain herself into that role. We really don't know anything at all about what the King and Queen were seeing in their children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justice department objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
A good summation. It's the way I have always understood it as well but am never able to articulate.

Also, by indicating such, the King and Queen are supporting both their children, both Victoria, and Carl Philip. It's a pretty big matter for that family because it was something that was 'taken away'. Had to have been disruptive and a difficult adjustment. As Queen Silvia has said: thankfully Carl Philip is okay with what transpired with his destiny (as he must have learned about later). That's a credit to him, and also an indication of what a mellow and relaxed Kingly presence he would have been. (Can you imagine refusing Carl Philip the woman he loved, forcing him into a non-royal union, or to side-step his 'place in line' - on top of all that? Pretty unsettling - maybe - for Carl Philip all round were that to have happened).

It could be reasonably argued that had Victoria been free to follow her own ambitions, she may have been a less stressed teenager. Possible. But it is what it is, and I for one think the King and Queen handled it well, both Victoria and Carl Philip themselves being the evidence for that, and the obvious closeness of the whole family.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not. It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.

When Denmark changed it's succession laws in the 1950s from agnatic primogeniture to make preference primogeniture it displaced the heir presumptive, Knut, Hereditary Prince of Denmark, in favour of his niece, the then Princess Margrethe. When Denmark later introduced absolute primogeniture there was no need for retroactivity as there were no females who were being displaced by younger brothers at the time.

When Norway went from agnatic primogeniture to absolute primogeniture in the early 90s there was a degree of retroactivity - Märtha Louise wasn't in the succession at all previously, but was after the law passed, which said that women born in the 20 years before the law passed were granted succession rights under male preference primogeniture, while women born after it were granted succession rights after absolute primogeniture. You could argue that this is what Sweden should have done, except doing so fails to consider that in Sweden the individuals affected by the law hadn't been born when the process of passing it started, and weren't out of diapers when it was passed, while in Norway Haakon and Märtha Louise were almost adults.

When Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Commonwealth each introduced absolute primogeniture they also did so with retroactivity to their laws, the heirs not being changed only because the eldest born was male. When William and Kate were expecting their first child as the Connonwealth succession was being changed it was made clear that the child, regardless of gender, would be the heir. And let's be honest, that's the kind of attitude that Carl Gustav and Silvia should have taken when Sweden's succession was being changed - rather than ignore the changes being made and make it clear that they didn't support them, they should have treated Victoria as the heir and Carl Philip as the second in line from the get-go. Having done otherwise simply makes them look like they didn't support their government - when the government is supposed to be the representative of the people, and the monarch is supposed to reign at the will of the people.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
The former Mr Westling is the great-grandson of Brita Westling and Anders Andersson.
Can you fill me in on the relevance of the people quoted?
It's what makes it amusing when people claim that Estelle will be the first queen of the Westling line, rather than a queen of the Bernadotte line. If that were the case, she'd be carrying on the surname of her great-great-grandmother, not a patrilineal surname.
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 06-20-2015, 05:01 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not.
That's not what I have been reading, and responding to. It's the suggestion that the King and Queen are somehow purveying on a topic that must cause Victoria great distress and discomfort. Plus the suggestion that they have said things privately to their children that must be painful to them. Such statements have no basis in any credible evidence imo. The suggestion that the parenting of the King and Queen is in question is what I am pushing back against.

In fact, this family, that I have watched with great interest all my life, have always manifested the utmost love for all their children imo. It would be hard to imagine Silvia, for example, dealing in any way but with understanding and sensitivity with Victoria and Carl Philip on this matter'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.
Then that's all sorted.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 06-20-2015, 09:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,609
I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
carl gustav, constitution, constitutional change, crown princess victoria, king carl xvi gustav, prince carl philip, succession, sweden


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
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 07:09 PM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-05-2011 11:20 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Popular Tags
abdication abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british chittagong cht clarence house danish history diana princess of wales dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals earl of snowdon facts family tree games heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie king salman king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 norway norway history palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess laurentien princess ribha random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts uae customs unsubscribe videos visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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