The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 03-08-2021, 02:54 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
if they were marred in 1997, they could not legally get married again in 1999. Same goes with Meghan.
You can have as many religious ceremonies as you like. The legalities of the ceremony, I.e. the signing of the marriage contract can only be signed once. So theoretically, they could have been married 2 days before, where only the non-legal aspects were conducted on the 19th May

Remember- we don't see the signing of the register, that happens away from the cameras
__________________

  #442  
Old 03-08-2021, 03:31 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
I'm back, briefly.

I haven't watched the interview, nor will I because I can get enough of the sense of what's included without.

I will say that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex need to have their titles removed, not because of their interview but because they clearly want them removed. See this quote

"When asked if it was 'important' for Meghan that Archie be called a prince, she said she doesn't have any attachment to the 'grandeur' of official titles." If that is true, then petition parliament to have them removed and your life will become completely unattached from the royal family.

Also, the main reason I won't be watching nor will I be commenting any further is that the interview is clearly made for show and to drum up interest in themselves and likely contains very little fact. How do I know you ask?

"But she said it was about 'the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be."

The above line is a lie. Archie would have been styled in the same way as his second cousin James, Viscount Severn. He would not have been titled in the same as William's children, and that is down to their position in line for the throne. I think she understands that, but would much rather turn the whole saga in a "The Royal Family is racist and that's why we left". I hear Oprah didn't ask a single question about Meghan's family.....I wonder why.

Truly, if any of the things that have been mentioned in that interview occurred, why marry in? Why did they stay for as long as they did when they (and the world) could have been much happier and settled had they left before the wedding. I think deep down we all know it was never the family who had the problem, it was Meghan and Henry.

It is such a shame the royal family can't respond to these allegations. But just like those said by Diana this interview will fade into memory, and the monarchy will move on.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #443  
Old 03-08-2021, 03:45 AM
SOS SOS is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 13
It seems there is a lot of miscommunication. Not just between Meghan and the royal family, but also between Meghan and Harry.
  #444  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:02 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
As it stand if Charles became king tomorrow - Archie automatically becomes HRH Prince Archie. Are the Sussex's going to say that the rules were changed due to them talking out and that they made a difference in the world.
Without a patent release - that it what it is.
  #445  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:14 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,735
I have not watched the interview and at this point, I'm not certain if I ever will. I, still, have no idea of what good was to be accomplished by this interview. I was one of those people that was hoping that the interview would be centered on moving into a positive future and outlining their hopes and dreams and goals of what they wanted to accomplish. From reading through the pages and pages of posts here from those that have seen the interview, I get the feeling that the majority of the interview focused on the past and what led up to Harry and Meghan finally leaving as senior working royals.

My first thought is that with doing all the explaining and airing their feelings of how they were treated by the "Firm" and even family, it did sound as if they're not letting go of the past and holding onto animosity and hard feelings that getting away from that "toxic" environment was supposed to cure. Why does the public deserve an explanation? Every word they've uttered is going to make it a gold mine for the press that'll put any bad press they've had before seem like praise. For a couple starting up Archewell Foundation, PR and "getting the word out" to the general public is crucial for support and donations. To state that their aim back in Janurary 2020 was to be "financially independent" and then have this interview reiterating that financial support was cut off, it leads me to think people will wonder exactly where their donations would be going supporting an Archewell incentive. I have to think I'd think twice before donating.

It doesn't make sense that it was mentioned that Archie would need a title in order to have security. It's actually not up to the BRF nor the "Firm" or even the UK government/Parliament to decide on the level of security. That is, and always has been, an internal decision made by the Metropolitan Police Protection Command. Stepping down from royal service deemed the Sussexes on their own. No one owed them protection. It's expensive, that's for sure, but that's something the Sussexes should have taken into consideration ahead of time.

On the issue of Meghan receiving professional help for the mental stress and suicidal thoughts that she was experiencing, all I could think is why didn't she go to a private professional which could have been handled without anyone on the "outside world" being made aware? Surely she wasn't cash strapped at the time that she couldn't afford the best of care. If she wanted it.

So much for "upholding the values of the Queen". They didn't have to do this interview which put so many things into a bad light for them (and I would imagine that most Americans watching this interview did it for "entertainment purposes") but it also cast a black pall over anything positive they plan on doing to "make a difference" going into the future.

Nope. I don't see them coming back from this. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for the longest time but this interview, like Andrew's, signed, sealed and delivered a perspective of this couple that darkens their character.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #446  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:17 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
You can have as many religious ceremonies as you like. The legalities of the ceremony, I.e. the signing of the marriage contract can only be signed once. So theoretically, they could have been married 2 days before, where only the non-legal aspects were conducted on the 19th May

Remember- we don't see the signing of the register, that happens away from the cameras
But the wedding blessing service is different to the service that Harry and Meghan had -which was basically the current standard CofE wedding from Common Worship.

We saw Harry and Meghan go off to sign the registrar with witnesses among other things. It's possible that the AofC gave them a blessing before hand "in case anything goes wrong, you've already made your vows" but he couldn't preside over a legally binding service "just the three of us" in a garden three days before the big event and then preside over a full on wedding later. Neither could Michael Curry who's a Bishop not an Archbishop anyway so they were talking about Justin Welby.
  #447  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:19 AM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
As it stand if Charles became king tomorrow - Archie automatically becomes HRH Prince Archie. Are the Sussex's going to say that the rules were changed due to them talking out and that they made a difference in the world.
Without a patent release - that it what it is.
Perhaps. Then the narrative would be that Meghan fought for her children. Remember who else said that?
  #448  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:19 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
The royal reporters have gotten so much wrong in the past, why should I believe him about this?
I have never said that was the truth. I just mentioned that according to Chris Ship (who is the more reliable royal reporter), it was not The Queen and Prince Philip.

I am also sceptical of the Sussexes claim that one senior working royal made a comment on Archie's skin colour. Meghan herself has lied about her contribution to Finding Freedom by initially claiming that she has no involvement, but then later admitted that she released information to the authors via third parties.
  #449  
Old 03-08-2021, 04:50 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
I'm also sceptical about it, as there is no senior working royal whom I can imagine saying something like that. And, even if anyone actually did wonder, I think they'd be more likely to look it up on Google than to say it to Harry's face. However, none of us can know what one person said to another when no-one else was there, so we can't say for certain.


But there's now going to be a lot of speculation, just as there always is when anyone says that "An unnamed Premier League footballer did this" or "An unnamed daytime TV personality said that" or anything else along those lines, which puts everyone in a very awkward position. People will be claiming that they know that it definitely wasn't one person, or that they know who it was but aren't going to say.
  #450  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Well no doubt the press will wonder if they were planning to change the letters patents to prevent the Sussex children from becoming HRH once Charles is King. I mean people on this board speculated and suggested it TL happens.

As for the skin color comment? Why is anyone surprised?

Overall I felt Meghan went out of her way to talk positively about the family. It was Harry would really went into specifics.

That said — truly fascinating interview.



Meghan's account of Archie's title (or lack thereof) was confusing.


First, she seemed to imply Archie was not made a prince as a great-grandson of the Queen and presented that as something exceptional when it is simply a straightforward application of the Letters Patent of 1917 and 2002 and applies to all of HM's great-grandchildren, except George, Charlotte and Louis.


Next, she changed the narrative somewhat implying, I think, that there was some discussion about the rules being changed in the future for Archie not to become a prince when Charles is king. That is very suspicious, first because , at the time Archie was born, a member here at TRF posted a reply from the Palace confirming, when asked about it, that the Letters Patent of 1917 would be followed and Archie would become a prince upon Charles' accession. Second, and that is my personal opinion, Charles would never openly discussion new LPs upon his accession while his mother is still alive because he knows the hierarchy and knows that titles of the RF are a matter for the Sovereign to decide, not the heir.


Third, Oprah then tried to suggest that Archie being deprived of his title was somehow tied to his race, which Meghan, in the best case scenario, did not deny. Even assuming Charles might one day as king limit the HRH to children of the heir only, that would simply be following a common trend in Europe which already applies to grandchildren of the monarch for example in the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Moreover, Archie wouldn't even be the first grandchild of a monarch who does not use or have the HRH as there is already a precedent, albeit voluntary, in the case of James and Louise. In any case, there would be no reason to assume that would have anything to do with Meghan or Harry personally (other than the fact tha Harry is a second-born son) and, much less, that it has anything to do with Archie's "race" or "skin color".


The part about the title is not really significant though, other than hurting Meghan's credibility (like the part she admits she had an illegal wedding, which I can't honestly believe). The most damaging parts of the interview IMHO actually were:


1) When Meghan claimed she was suicidal and the Palace was unresponsive or even uncooperative.


2) When Harry said he was sorry for Charles and William for being "trapped" into a system they can't get out of , implying, as I interpret it, that he is calling for the monarchy to be abolished so that his family can be set free, and that they don't do their job on their free will, but because they are forced to. Keep in mind that is not the first time Harry makes that kind of claim; he had already said something similar at least once, even before he left.


3) When Harry claimed that the RF was afraid of Meghan's star power after the Australia tour and that she could become a new Diana, and that caused a change of attitude towards her.
  #451  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:18 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,155
From the headlines and the evaluation here I did not find the interview all that shocking.

The remarks about the tabloids should not be surprising to anybody, this is mostly well-known.

I think they have a point about the security. Although many members do not agree with me, I thought it irresponsible to take the security away. Harry needs security due to his birth, wherther he is in the UK, in Canada or on the moon. He did not chose to be born into this family. For now his son will be much better known that many of the Queen's grandchildren, which brings much more security risks to the table too.

As for Charles and William being trapped: I don't see why this is harmful for their reputation. If anything it will make people sympathise with them more. I don't think it is a surprise to anybody that the royals live in a golden cage and that this can be difficult at times.

I found the wish to carve out a life of their own understandable. I never saw an issue in them actually stepping down as senior royals and finding a job & still doing some events on the side. But I can see why the preferred carreer path in the public eye would be a problem for the palace. It would set up a rival court that could do exactly as they pleased, no matter the backlash it would bring in the UK. If they would have chosen to pursue a carreer as a civil servant, an architect or a banker I don't think we would have seen an escalation as we have seen now.

Titles: seems they have made a bit of a mess out of this part. But for outsiders it is an obvious question and rightly or wrongly many were wondering about it at the time of Archie's birth.

Nice that they revealed the gender of their child to us!

In general:

I don't think this interview is as damaging as it could have been. Compared to the Diana interviews it was rather mild.

Some issues seemed to lack context. Motivations and details that might explain why the palace reacted the way it did were often left out - it could be that the duke and duchess are not aware of them. The part where Charles is not taking telephone calls from Harry will certainly have a bigger backstory to it than was given in the interview for example.

I can't see the pair of them returning to anything but the bare essensials in the UK in the near future. I imagine relatives & courtiers would be mistrustful that anything they do or say would immidiately be reported to the press. And of course the duke and duchess may have the same fear, that 'sources in the palace' will leak new negative stories about them. Trust comes on foot and goes away on horse, so that will obviously take time to re-build, if it is possible at all.

I hope that at least the Duke and Duchess can move on from this and that they will not fall into the same trap as Edward VIII did: spending decades obsessing over his family while getting increasingly bitter. What is done is done and it would be best for everybody to move forward.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
  #452  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:18 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
All a can say is : clever girl
C L E V ER GIRL

She thinks she's the smartest of the bunch is she ? I don't blame her, she's quite impressive, quite.

I don't blame people who are ambitious, who want to be someone. I'm positive she's the kind of woman who has, from an early age, decided she wanted to be famous, world famous, at any cost. Her enter into the BRF could have been the pinacle of her life, except she figured out quite early , because she's smart, that it would be far more profitable to be out than in.

And boy, last night didn't disapoint on that level.

Pass the smoky eyes , the "look-at-me-i'm-sad-but-combative" Diana 1995 style, Meghan Markle gave the performance of her life. I found her bitter, bitter because she found at Court some people who dared resist to her. She expected a front seat, and the pecking order just gave her a foldable chair. She was not pleased.

I give her the hability to feel the air, to see the oportunity when it happens. Nowadays in this oh-so-binary social medias dictated world, in this climate of defiance toward institutions , toward the established order, especially during the Pandemic, to play The Victim (not a victim mind you, but the somewhat mothership oh all the victims of the Establishment , because Meghan didn't think small) was of course her golden ticket she waited for so long. Screaming "Racism" was of course the insurance of a Twitter trending asap.

I'll pass of her astonishing naivety about what to expect in the BRF, who was who. It was bordeline "The Queen from where ?". C'mon, who can believe that ? The same about the allegedly Suicide thoughts and the lack of help for that matter. Harry sought the help from professionals for years, he admitted it. I find rather odd that his own wife didn't manage to find a decent psy around. It was one of the limit of her performance. Like the unfamous Africa interview, Meghan overdid it. Well she's not Meryl Streep.

So we passed from "They are all welcoming", "Catherine is wonderful", 'she found the family she never had" etc to "they are all mean, mean mean and oh, racists too" like in 2 years time. Even for the Windsors it's impressive. Something is fishy, and i don't talk about the rivers at Balmoral.

And Harry, or i can say poor Harry. The real victim here. Harry was never very bright, it's a fact, but he's a good man with a good heart. And we all know what happens to weak, nice men, with titles with that : a more Formidable wife suddently appears, somewhat manage to calm your anxieties, tells you that the problem is them, not you :'I was trapped until I met Meg, I just didn't know it'. Well Harry escaped from a prison to go directly to another one : hers. Because, let's face it, the interview was all about her , her , her. Reminds me of the scenario from 'The Adams family values". Meghan sure knows her classics.

Now i'm just calmly waiting for the counterfire because the Sussexes are expendable, they have always been and they didn't fully understand that. Poor Meg, still on the foldable chair after all.

It's a pity, and its just the beginning of the ride.

(all IMO of course, to spare me the usual attacks from you-know-who-you-are)
  #453  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:25 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Bergamo, Italy
Posts: 31
I didn't see the interview but it sounded bad, on so many ways.
A lot of heavy things were said that I have not the knowledge to comment on so I will not but it is surely not a good look for anyone.
The thing about the BRF being terrified by press make me laugh because IMHO anyone who has a tiny bit of visibility and/or power is terrified by the press. The press and social media can make or destroy a reputation in a matter of hours. Royals, politicians, actors, business people, sport people, they all try their best to keep on the press good side.
Meghan was an actress quite known (not super known but not the one that works in your local tv station) so she probably had a publicist that was trying to use the media for her and was aware of the power of press way before Harry.
For the title matter, I am confused especially because Harry apparently felt trapped within the institution and yet they wanted their son to have the title that represent the Institution. In all the other RFs but also in the BRF (see Zara and Peter or James and Louise) they tend to give a lot less people titles, both for a matter of tax payers money and a matter of allowing people that won't have the throne to live a more normal life so I really don't understand their thoughts process. Also because there is no correlation between the HRH and receiving RPO.
This sounds like they don't understand the difference between a heir and a spare.
  #454  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:25 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Personally I feel this is deflection - the whole interview is a bad example of deflection.

When Harry and Meghan left the said a number of things that people have always wondered about - like they left for Meghan and Archie's safety, or it was due to the racism of the British press.
Okay - so now they have an Oprah interview and it is the narrative is about mental health, just to be to clear when you speak about someone's mental health in context it is not seen as safety it is seen as well being.
The racism is because Meghan accused the firm of been racist so now she has to come up with the goods - so she accuses an unknown person. She knows that half the world thing all old British people are racist so what harm.
She didn't make the accusation about the British been institutionally racist as that didn't go down well in her polling. It should be remembered that Meghan and Harry do want to do some charity work in the UK still - and have recently setup an Archewell London Office for you to do donate.

I don't think Sunshine Sachs is going to last the month. For a interview that was planned months ago that they could edit review revise everything - this is quiet amateurish . Lets take away the royal aspect - if this was a Democract who left the party who wanted to tell his truth. How would you view it? If this was a senior exec at Disney ?
  #455  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:26 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
I haven't seen it yet but context is everything. Is it not normal to talk about what a child may look like.

Zadie Smith identifies as black. Jamaican mother and white British father, and she married a white Irish man. She herself has talked about her children being white. And how shocking that was to her when they were born and that she presumed her children would look like her. How they look like their father from that point of view and how he is out with them no one questions he is their parents but they can think she is a nanny. How it gave her empathy for her own parents experience. I think context is everything in this conversation and we weren't given any
  #456  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
You can have as many religious ceremonies as you like. The legalities of the ceremony, I.e. the signing of the marriage contract can only be signed once. So theoretically, they could have been married 2 days before, where only the non-legal aspects were conducted on the 19th May

Remember- we don't see the signing of the register, that happens away from the cameras
Nope. As Meghan said: "The ceremony was "just the two of us in our back yard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Now this:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/fa...tting-married/
Quote:
You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:
  • the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district
  • the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.
And
Quote:
A marriage can take place in:
  • a Register Office
  • premises approved by the local authority such as a hotel
  • a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales
  • a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
  • a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
  • any registered religious building (England and Wales only)
  • the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound or detained, for example, in prison
  • a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover, for example, in hospital
  • a licensed naval, military or air force chapel
Thus, their marriage in their back yard is not legal. It's UK, not Vegas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I'm back, briefly.

(...)

The above line is a lie. Archie would have been styled in the same way as his second cousin James, Viscount Severn. He would not have been titled in the same as William's children, and that is down to their position in line for the throne. I think she understands that, but would much rather turn the whole saga in a "The Royal Family is racist and that's why we left". I hear Oprah didn't ask a single question about Meghan's family.....I wonder why.

Truly, if any of the things that have been mentioned in that interview occurred, why marry in? Why did they stay for as long as they did when they (and the world) could have been much happier and settled had they left before the wedding. I think deep down we all know it was never the family who had the problem, it was Meghan and Henry.

It is such a shame the royal family can't respond to these allegations. But just like those said by Diana this interview will fade into memory, and the monarchy will move on.
This!!
Considering the majority of unsavoury reportings about her were coming/caused by her family (father and sister), I wonder why there's no "my truth" about her family saga.

Like Osipi above, I'm hoping that this would be mainly about Archewell and promoting their future plan. They have the stage and audience, what a waste of opportunity.
  #457  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
OH MY! She said there were conversations about how "Dark Archie" would be. Oprah asked for a name. She said "I think that would be very damaging to them".

Has to be the Queen, Charles or William right?
Doubt it is any of the three. the fact she is refusing to name is kind of shitty! either name the person or don't bring it up!

I wonder if it was brought up not as a shade, but as a concern for the child and how best the family would be able to support him if he does end up darker (which is an lol, given he has a white dad and a very light skin biracial mother).
  #458  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post

I hope that at least the Duke and Duchess can move on from this and that they will not fall into the same trap as Edward VIII did: spending decades obsessing over his family while getting increasingly bitter. What is done is done and it would be best for everybody to move forward.
I think that is it. Best they just get on with their life.

As for getting help. Could she not have gone to see someone. Got a therapist. Even many times a week. I dont here she couldn't get help it's that she wanted to 'go somewhere' but there is other help.

My own mother suffers from depression and has had horrendous episodes of it my entire life. She has told me now I'm an adult, she thought of ending it all. With encouragement from all of us she has gotten therapy and continues to take medication. I mean going to rehab was not an option for her.

Kate own brother has talked about his therapy and how Kate supported him. Doesn't ring true really. I get they may have said no to a residential placement...but that wasnt the only help available.
  #459  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:41 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvingdoors View Post
Doubt it is any of the three. the fact she is refusing to name is kind of shitty! either name the person or don't bring it up!

I wonder if it was brought up not as a shade, but as a concern for the child and how best the family would be able to support him if he does end up darker (which is an lol, given he has a white dad and a very light skin biracial mother).
It was very strange to me that they had different stories about the context / when it happened. Harry talked about it happening pre-marriage and said it was one conversation he had, while Meghan said it happened while she was pregnant and happened with multiple people.
  #460  
Old 03-08-2021, 05:41 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
In the process i salute, because i'm a naughty boy, the members on this forum who said they "will eat their hat" if something remotely against the BRF had to come out from this interview because, you knwow, the Stellar Susssexes, obviously, were too busy with their amaaaaazing charitable work.

I can bring the sauce ...
__________________

Closed Thread


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 - Marengo The Electronic Domain 746 03-12-2021 05:30 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baptism british british royal family british royals camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan speech st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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