The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 03-10-2021, 08:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I was not aware of that Harry said this, but I have not re-watched the interview. Can you provide the quote where Harry said this? That the comment was made by someone linking a concern about his future children's skin color to concern about the reputation of the family?

I am unable to find it myself.
Meghan said that Harry told her about the conversation. Harry would not say what was said when he was asked by Oprah.

This is what Meghan said:

Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: And . . . 

Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?

Meghan: So . . . 

Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.

Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.

Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ? 

Meghan: With Harry.

Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?

Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.

Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?

Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.

Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?

Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . . 

Oprah: Whoa.

Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.

Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?

Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?


This is what Harry said:

Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.

Harry: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: What was that conversation?

Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.

Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?

Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.

Oprah: OK.

Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?

Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?

Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?

Oprah: What will the kids look like?

Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.
__________________

  #442  
Old 03-10-2021, 08:54 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,689
You know... has anyone else observed Harry and Charles are repeating the same curse that has plagued British Royal History: Fathers and Sons at war, disappointed, antagonistic or just dysfunctional and toxic? Some times it’s been the fathers, sometimes the sons, sometimes both. And rarely has a happy ending for either party. Hopefully William and his sons will break the cycle.
__________________

  #443  
Old 03-10-2021, 08:54 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
I found some articles (unsure about the reliability) on Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie's security.

From Vanity Fair, Beatrice and Eugenie apparently now paid for their own security (or with the help of their husband)
Quote:
The debate around security for members of the royal family is an old one, and there are no publicly available rules about who does and doesn’t get it. Until 2011 Prince Andrew’s daughters, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice, had received protection at a reported cost of £500,000 per year; since then they have provided their own, and both princesses and their husbands make their own incomes. A police task force, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, handles a list of essential public figures and royals who have round-the-clock protection funded primarily by the state.
Why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Security Protection Was Such a Big Deal
The debate over who protected them while they were in Canada went public—but according to Meghan, it started when she was pregnant with Archie.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...arkle-security

From Honey Nine News, Andrew lost his royal protection (tax-payer funded) after ceasing to be a working royal. I'm not quite sure if he still pays for his own security or does The Queen pay it from her own personal pocket. The article also mentioned about other members of the royal family.

Quote:
Prince Andrew, Duke of York
When Andrew retired from royal duties in November 2019, after his disastrous BBC interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, he lost his armed protection.
Quote:
Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice
As part of Prince Charles' plans to strip back the monarchy, and as a way to cut costs, the York sisters lost their security in 2011.

They support Her Majesty on various occasions but are not working royals and do not receive any public money, instead holding private jobs.
Quote:
Princess Anne, Princess Royal
The only daughter of the Queen and Prince Philip, Princess Anne is entitled to security on all official engagements. She is frequently the busiest of all the working royals.
Quote:
Prince Edward and Sophie, Earl and Countess of Wessex
The Queen's youngest son and his wife receive protection on official duties but their children Lady Louise, 17, and James, Viscount Severn, 13, won't be protected when they turn 18.
Quote:
Zara and Mike Tindall
Princess Anne's daughter Zara does not have royal protection despite being a high-profile member of the royal family and sportswoman. Nor does her husband Mike, a former English ruby player.
Why some royals get security and others don't
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/bri...2-8b39efe0c056

According to some royal commentators/contributors in the Channel 5's documentary, Beatrice and Eugenie: Pampered Princesses?, Prince Charles reportedly decided that the York Princesses will not be working members of the royal family. This (possible indirectly) led to their royal security (tax-payer funded) being removed. There was also the controversy around Eugenie's security during her gap year.

Quote:
Biographer Angela Levin said that Prince Charles decided that Eugenie and Beatrice, were not required to have such costly security arrangements especially since they likely won’t ever be senior royals.

“Prince Charles decided that as they were not likely to be very senior royals, that this was too much for the public to pay, so he stopped that,” Levin revealed.

Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have been at odds for years. But things got pretty ugly in 2016 when it was reported that the Prince of Wales had revealed his future plans to “slim down the monarchy” which would only include himself, Camilla, his sons, and their families representing the Crown. Andrew was so worried about how this move would affect his daughters that he wrote a letter to the queen requesting that the princesses receive full-time royal duties. That request, however, was denied.
Prince Charles Put His Foot Down Over Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice’s Outrageous Security Costs
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...ty-costs.html/
  #444  
Old 03-10-2021, 08:55 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't think that Harry's belief is all that matters. Charles' beliefs should factor in as well.

I didn't understand Harry's argument here. Charles was also born into the royal family, so why should he have to pay for Harry's security.

Harry is also very wealthy. He inherited millions of dollars from his mother and his great - grandmother. The money has been invested for all this time because Charles has been paying his bills up until he stopped working. I don't now what your personal situation is but most adults I know pay their own way - especially when they can afford it.

On the contrary, I think this interview demonstrated a lack of awareness on Harry's part. It also shows how self-centered Harry and Meghan are if Harry believes that only his feelings matter but no one else's feelings do.
I do somewhat understand Harry's argument. However, I am quite sure that he could have continued to benefit from the basic level of protection offered by living at Frogmore Cottage. So, it is primarily his decisions that lead to much more expensive bills.

However, if Harry sh/would be entitled to at least a minimum level of security because part of his need for security is at least at first still based on him being born in the BRF (based on what he might need if he had chosen to live a mostly anonymous life from now on), the question is who should pay for that type of security? Would that be the British tax-payer as they keep his family in office; his father because he at least earns an income from being a member of the royal family; the queen as head of the family; someone else? It seems the other royals do indeed fund it themselves (including Andrew who was also born in the family and due to his own decision is now 'outside').
  #445  
Old 03-10-2021, 08:56 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
How are they going to make a living in the UK, or do they expect Charles to support their lavish lifestyle. I just don't see that happening, they are better off in the US with contracts in place. Anyway, I don't think Netflix will let them out of the contract after such a heavy payment
Sorry, I don't expect them to come back to the UK permanently perhaps occasionally for events like the Trooping, a funeral or a coronation. Otherwise I very much expect them to never be working royals again and to have to make their own way in life.

I meant welcome back into the family in a general sense as in a being seen at any public events at all. Not in a working sense.
  #446  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:03 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Charles floated the Sussex lifestyle as long as they were working for the "Firm" as full time royals. The duties and engagements they performed as royals did not earn them any income so Charles paid for their lifestyle, their working expenses, their office and staff and their wardrobe. It was like having a job with all expenses paid. When a high profile executive leaves a corporation, he is not able to take his expense account with him nor the company car/jet or residences. Whatever Charles pays out for himself, Camilla, William, Catherine, their children now are deemed "business expenses". This is what has been cut off for Harry and Meghan as they wanted "financial freedom".

Charles not paying for Sussex security in the US as private citizens shouldn't have surprised Harry nor being cut off from an "allowance". They wanted to be free to do things their way and make their own money. They now have that. They're 100% on their own from here on out. I wish them loads of success and hope things work out good for them. The birdie has left the nest and now needs to learn how to fly.
I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.
  #447  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:06 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.
Yes, as long as they were working members of the royal household. Harry isn't so he's now on his own.
  #448  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I do somewhat understand Harry's argument. However, I am quite sure that he could have continued to benefit from the basic level of protection offered by living at Frogmore Cottage. So, it is primarily his decisions that lead to much more expensive bills.

However, if Harry sh/would be entitled to at least a minimum level of security because part of his need for security is at least at first still based on him being born in the BRF (based on what he might need if he had chosen to live a mostly anonymous life from now on), the question is who should pay for that type of security? Would that be the British tax-payer as they keep his family in office; his father because he at least earns an income from being a member of the royal family; the queen as head of the family; someone else? It seems the other royals do indeed fund it themselves (including Andrew who was also born in the family and due to his own decision is now 'outside').
I understand what you are saying but Harry's wealth is also tied to his being born in the BRF. He got money from his great-grandmother and most of Diana's money was the divorce settlement paid by Charles. If the UK were to abolish the monarchy tomorrow, Harry would still be high profile but should British taxpayers, who have a lot less than Harry fund his security for the rest of his life and possibly his children's lives. At what point does it end.

Life is not fair. There are a lot of innocent people who feel unsafe. In the United States, we generally don't pay for round-the-clock the security of domestic violence victims of people who are being stalked - none of them asked to be in that position either Many of them do not have a fraction of the money Harry has..
  #449  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:12 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.
From www.duchyofcornwall.org:
The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337 to provide independence to his son and heir, Prince Edward.
  #450  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseroyal View Post
I want to apologize. It has come to my attention that I started a disruptive and offensive conversation by stating that a certain word wasn’t offensive. I truly did not know it was. Now that I have had the meaning explained to me I agree it was.

roseroyal. Likewise today I learned a little more about that particular word and the emotions that are attached to it. Over the years I have found this site to be an excellent learning opportunity and not just about royals.
  #451  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:16 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I do somewhat understand Harry's argument. However, I am quite sure that he could have continued to benefit from the basic level of protection offered by living at Frogmore Cottage. So, it is primarily his decisions that lead to much more expensive bills.

However, if Harry sh/would be entitled to at least a minimum level of security because part of his need for security is at least at first still based on him being born in the BRF (based on what he might need if he had chosen to live a mostly anonymous life from now on), the question is who should pay for that type of security? Would that be the British tax-payer as they keep his family in office; his father because he at least earns an income from being a member of the royal family; the queen as head of the family; someone else? It seems the other royals do indeed fund it themselves (including Andrew who was also born in the family and due to his own decision is now 'outside').
If you go on the born into the Royal Family argument for security then ALL the royals deserve it. Clearly they don't go by that rule. Princess Anne works more than most royals and she doesn't have her own security. This is a HUGE reason why the "I was born royal" holds no weight with me.

So were loads of other royals. Royals who are still working royals. Royals who only get security when they are at events. Yet none of them have complained except Andrew and Harry.
  #452  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:16 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
You know... has anyone else observed Harry and Charles are repeating the same curse that has plagued British Royal History: Fathers and Sons at war, disappointed, antagonistic or just dysfunctional and toxic? Some times it’s been the fathers, sometimes the sons, sometimes both. And rarely has a happy ending for either party. Hopefully William and his sons will break the cycle.
Exactly. And I will go beyond that. It is so easy to say that Charles should not pay for Harry's security expenses now that he is no long a working royal. But the issue is larger than that. The monarchy has never addressed the problem of "the spare". That's why I think Charles should have bent over backwards to consider Harry's feelings about having security cut off.
  #453  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:16 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Charles floated the Sussex lifestyle as long as they were working for the "Firm" as full time royals. The duties and engagements they performed as royals did not earn them any income so Charles paid for their lifestyle, their working expenses, their office and staff and their wardrobe. It was like having a job with all expenses paid. When a high profile executive leaves a corporation, he is not able to take his expense account with him nor the company car/jet or residences. Whatever Charles pays out for himself, Camilla, William, Catherine, their children now are deemed "business expenses". This is what has been cut off for Harry and Meghan as they wanted "financial freedom".

Charles not paying for Sussex security in the US as private citizens shouldn't have surprised Harry nor being cut off from an "allowance". They wanted to be free to do things their way and make their own money. They now have that. They're 100% on their own from here on out. I wish them loads of success and hope things work out good for them. The birdie has left the nest and now needs to learn how to fly.

My first post here but I have been following this thread for the past few days and this brings up something that has been bothering me. Harry and Meghan have made the financial independence argument multiple times and referred to other members of the RF having jobs. They seem to be referring to Beatrice and Eugunie but there are some issues with that. They both have jobs as private individuals and occasionally represent the Queen at events but beyond having residences on Royal grounds they do not receive income from the Sovereign Grant. M&G also received a home and they were looking to commercialize their connections to the RF when they sought a half in half out model. The York girls' work is not connected to their roles as members of the RF. Peter Philips also got into hot water for his milk commercial recently and was accused of commercializing his connection to the RF. If I recall correctly, Sophie and Edward had tried a half in half out model at the beginning of their marriage with E's film production company and Sophie's consultancy firm. The subsequent controversies with these jobs were what led to their becoming Senior Royals and doing more overseas trips on behalf of the Queen. M&H seem to misunderstand the differences in these situations and the there are precedents to show why what they wanted is a problem.
  #454  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.

Quote:
What is the Duchy of Cornwall?

The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family. The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable, commercial management of its land and Properties. The Duchy also has a financial investment portfolio.

It's not all about funding his family as there are many people not related to the PoW who are involved in the business side of the Duchy: agriculture, commercial work related to agriculture, etc..
  #455  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:25 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post

Prince Edward and Sophie, Earl and Countess of Wessex
The Queen's youngest son and his wife receive protection on official duties but their children Lady Louise, 17, and James, Viscount Severn, 13, won't be protected when they turn 18.
This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....
  #456  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
Exactly. And I will go beyond that. It is so easy to say that Charles should not pay for Harry's security expenses now that he is no long a working royal. But the issue is larger than that. The monarchy has never addressed the problem of "the spare". That's why I think Charles should have bent over backwards to consider Harry's feelings about having security cut off.
That would be enabling an adult child who had already been given in to plenty; Sometimes a parent has to just let his chick fall so they can learn to fly on their own. I would also argue it takes two:Harry is a grown man and needs think of his fathers feelings and be realistic about where he is in life. I have seen painfully little of either from him.
  #457  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
An interesting perspective from Sir Kenneth Olisa the first non-white Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, who shared his own experience of when his mother-in-law innocently asked what colors might suit her biracial grandchild. She wanted to choose the best colors to knit garments for the baby.


He's asking for calm since the context of the remark said to Prince Harry in 2017 are not known to the public.




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ls-racist.html


Quote:
One of the most contentious claims made in Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey this week was that one about race.
A member of the Royal Family is alleged to have raised questions or concerns about ‘how dark’ the skin of Meghan’s child might be.
And the uproar that ensued has been deafening, with the word ‘racist’ recurring in almost every news report.
But I would ask for a moment’s pause and reflection. Before we leap to the conclusion that this was a vulgar, racist question, we should recognise that we know neither the context nor the intent behind the supposed inquiry.
I’m drawing on first-hand experience here. My wife Julia and I were asked exactly the same question — in a spirit of benign interest — by my mother-in-law Muriel shortly before the first of our two daughters was born in 1980.
I should point out here that, like Meghan and Harry, I am black and Julia is white.
  #458  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Yes, as long as they were working members of the royal household. Harry isn't so he's now on his own.
I cannot find where it says that they have to be working members of the royal household.

I found this article but I do not know if it is accurate:

THE DUCHY of Cornwall is an estate that helps fund the Prince of Wales’s family and his public, private and charitable activities. Some of those funds are given to members of the Royal Family, including Prince Harry.

In a shock announcement on their Instagram, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said they plan to “step back” as senior royals and split their time between the UK and North America.

However, the Duke and Duchess will still be members of the Royal Family.

That means the Sussexes are still expected to receive money from the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...s-prince-harry
  #459  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:32 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
If it had been in the UK I think that would have been doable. I think a huge part of the problem is that H&M chose to live in California. I'm sure that would make security more expensive and problematic.
I read somewhere that security costs for them in California can be as high as $10 million a year. I don’t think Charles can afford that
  #460  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
If you go on the born into the Royal Family argument for security then ALL the royals deserve it. Clearly they don't go by that rule. Princess Anne works more than most royals and she doesn't have her own security. This is a HUGE reason why the "I was born royal" holds no weight with me.

So were loads of other royals. Royals who are still working royals. Royals who only get security when they are at events. Yet none of them have complained except Andrew and Harry.
True, but many royals require less security since they live in a policed area like KP.
If Harry and Meghan had remained at Frogmore Cottage, which is on the Windsor estate, security would be less expensive.

But living in California means security costs are huge.
I don't think they have any right to demand that.

I really hope the Queen doesn't pander to Harry and give in to his demands in the interest of peace.
Appeasement never works.
__________________

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 II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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