The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 03-24-2014, 10:04 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 37
I actually don't think that's true

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes because she is automatically a counsellor of state whereas he wouldn't be.

She would get precedence for this role not necessarily in other areas.

NB Although Philip has been eligible throughout the Queen's reign he has never served because they have only been appointed when the Queen has been out of the country and Philip has always accompanied her.

Usually only one or two need to be appointed each time.

If the Queen passed away next year then Beatrice would immediately be eligible even if Philip was allowed to remain on the list as she would then be 4th in line to the throne whereas Philip would only be the father of the King and about 600th in line in his own right (I am sure that someone will tell be exactly where he is now).
At some point there were lists (on Wikipedia, linked to London Gazette articles) for much of the 1960s through the 1980s at least where the Queen traveled abroad and the Duke of Edinburgh stayed behind to act as a Counsellor of State. So yes, I'm quite sure the good Duke has served multiple times as a most faithful Counsellor in matters of state to Her Majesty.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-24-2014, 10:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
The Queen has never travelled abroad without the Duke and thus he has never served as a CoS.

https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsa...Edinburgh.aspx

#13 Prince Philip has accompanied The Queen on all 251 of her official overseas visits.

As he always has accompanied The Queen he has not had the opportunity to be a CoS.


He has, of course, done another 250+ overseas tours on his own but always accompanies The Queen on her overseas tours.

I will believe that official monarchy website on this issue methinks.

And again in 2012

https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsa...Edinburgh.aspx

#36 Apart from accompanying The Queen on all her Commonwealth tours and State Visits abroad, The Duke has made many visits to the smaller Commonwealth countries on his own.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-25-2014, 04:51 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I don't think those pages are completely correct. The Queen went on two short trips to Canada without Prince Philip in the early 90s. He was traveling overseas quite frequently at the time, though, so I don't know that he was in Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-16-2014, 08:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
In my analysis of past royal engagements I came across a few interesting things about CoSs:

1. the same two CoS's don't necessarily carry out all the duties during the one absence of the Queen e.g. in 2002 when The Queen and Philip were in Australia there were two occasions when CoS's had to carry out the duties of the monarch - first time it was Charles and Edward but a couple of days later it was Edward and Anne (note that Anne was replaced by William in 2003 and Edward replaced by Harry in 2005)

2. The Queen doesn't have to be out of the country. In May 2002 The Queen and Philip were carrying out duties in Cornwall while Charles and Edward carried out duties as CoS's at BP.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-30-2014, 08:25 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 37
sorry, wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen has never travelled abroad without the Duke and thus he has never served as a CoS.

https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsa...Edinburgh.aspx

#13 Prince Philip has accompanied The Queen on all 251 of her official overseas visits.

As he always has accompanied The Queen he has not had the opportunity to be a CoS.


He has, of course, done another 250+ overseas tours on his own but always accompanies The Queen on her overseas tours.

I will believe that official monarchy website on this issue methinks.

And again in 2012

https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsa...Edinburgh.aspx

#36 Apart from accompanying The Queen on all her Commonwealth tours and State Visits abroad, The Duke has made many visits to the smaller Commonwealth countries on his own.
As much as I wish I could believe you, I know that is not the case. For one thing, the British monarchy website is unreliable; I have found many errors of fact on it. For example, Prince George of Cambridge was listed as being born on October 23, 2013. Uh, no, he was born July 22, 2013 and christened October 23rd. Albert and Leopold Windsor are listed in the line of succession to the throne. Unfortunately they are also Catholic and under the Act of Settlement 1701 are like their father Lord Nicholas and grandfather Prince Michael of Kent, disbarred from the throne, so thusly there is no earthy way they can be in the line of succession to the British throne. They are in the line of succession for the Dukedom of Kent but I won't hold my breath waiting for either to secede. Doubtlessly there are other errors on the site that I can't recall and that haven't been discovered yet. But I have seen letters patent naming the Duke of Edinburgh as a Counsellor of State. In order for him to be listed, he had to stay behind, as under the terms of the Regency Act 1943, those Counsellors who are absent or accompanying Her Majesty are not listed among those acting. I will try to dig up the Letters Patent listing the Counsellors of State from the 1960s and 1970s.
My question is, who is staying behind to mind the store? Are either Prince Henry of Wales or the Duke of York accompanying the Queen or will either be out of the country for any period of time when she is not or a more senior member isn't named? Because if so, then amended legislation to the Regency Acts will need to be passed before Her Majesty leaves for France.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-30-2014, 08:47 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, United States
Posts: 37
Uh, no

I found them in the archive of the Counsellor of State page for Wikipedia, from Dec. 2009.
The Duke of Edinburgh stayed behind as a Counsellor of State on the following occasions:
June 25-July 5, 1973: Canada
October 17-October 22, 1973: Australia
January 30-February 28, 1974: New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Indonesia.
February 16-March 1, 1975: The Caribbean realms and Mexico
May 26-May 26, 1978: West Germany
July 6-August 8, 1978: Canada
The Duke was also listed as a Counsellor at varying points in 1976 before joining the Queen in Montreal with the Prince of Wales, the Prince Andrew, the Prince Edward and the Princess Anne to watch the Princess compete in the 1976 Olympics.
Since then he has almost always joined the Queen on her foreign trips, as he's not listed as a Counsellor. I've cited 7 separate occasions where he's served as a Counsellor. Just a friendly point: When I put something in writing, I always check my facts first. Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-30-2014, 08:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
I quoted from the British Monarch Website - their official website which would be to me more reliable than Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-30-2014, 09:24 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by democratnmonocole View Post
As much as I wish I could believe you, I know that is not the case. For one thing, the British monarchy website is unreliable; I have found many errors of fact on it. For example, Prince George of Cambridge was listed as being born on October 23, 2013. Uh, no, he was born July 22, 2013 and christened October 23rd. Albert and Leopold Windsor are listed in the line of succession to the throne. Unfortunately they are also Catholic and under the Act of Settlement 1701 are like their father Lord Nicholas and grandfather Prince Michael of Kent, disbarred from the throne, so thusly there is no earthy way they can be in the line of succession to the British throne. They are in the line of succession for the Dukedom of Kent but I won't hold my breath waiting for either to secede. Doubtlessly there are other errors on the site that I can't recall and that haven't been discovered yet. But I have seen letters patent naming the Duke of Edinburgh as a Counsellor of State. In order for him to be listed, he had to stay behind, as under the terms of the Regency Act 1943, those Counsellors who are absent or accompanying Her Majesty are not listed among those acting. I will try to dig up the Letters Patent listing the Counsellors of State from the 1960s and 1970s.
My question is, who is staying behind to mind the store? Are either Prince Henry of Wales or the Duke of York accompanying the Queen or will either be out of the country for any period of time when she is not or a more senior member isn't named? Because if so, then amended legislation to the Regency Acts will need to be passed before Her Majesty leaves for France.

I'm not going to comment on the bulk of this, but I will say that Albert and Leopold Windsor are included in the line of succession because while they're being raised Catholic they have yet to be confirmed as such. When they are confirmed in the faith they'll be removed from the line of succession.

Similar happened with their cousins, Lord Downpatrick and Lady Marina-Charlotte, and similar will happen with their other cousin, Lady Amelia. The elder two were in the line of succession but removed upon their confirmations, while the younger (their youngest sibling) is still in the succession because she hasn't been confirmed.

There is an increasingly popular belief that a person doesn't truly belong to a faith until they make the conscious decision to join it. If you look at Wikipedia, it lists the children of Lord Nicholas, and the youngest daughter of the Earl of St. Andrews as being in the line of succession as well.

Also, Prince George is listed as being born in July, not October.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-30-2014, 09:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,212
As the trip to France is for three days or less no CoS's are needed to be appointed at all.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-10-2014, 04:44 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
I just found these pictures of Andrew and Edward receiving the new Belgian ambassador in 2002. I think it's the only time I've ever seen counsellors of state photographed performing an official duty.

http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3cb9f853.jpg
http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/...ps06a12ad1.jpg
http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5f2ffec1.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-05-2020, 06:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Wikipedia has removed Harry from the list of "eiigible" Counsellors of State, but that depends really on clarifying his residence status. The law is very clear in terms of restricting the roles of Regent and Counsellor of State only to people who are domiciled in the United Kingdom.

If I read it correctly, the Regency Act requires only domicile and not residence in the UK.

Each country has its own laws defining domicile. I haven't read through it myself, but you will find legal guidance on the British definition of domicile on this page.

RDRM20010 - Residence, Domicile and Remittance Basis Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

My guess is that the Duke of Sussex remains domiciled in the UK and thus eligible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I'm not going to comment on the bulk of this, but I will say that Albert and Leopold Windsor are included in the line of succession because while they're being raised Catholic they have yet to be confirmed as such. When they are confirmed in the faith they'll be removed from the line of succession.

[...]

There is an increasingly popular belief that a person doesn't truly belong to a faith until they make the conscious decision to join it. If you look at Wikipedia, it lists the children of Lord Nicholas, and the youngest daughter of the Earl of St. Andrews as being in the line of succession as well.

Also, Prince George is listed as being born in July, not October.
But statutory interpretation is the prerogative of the government and the courts, not popular belief or Wikipedia.

The Act of Settlement itself bypassed Catholic infants (such as Prince Carlo Emanuele of Savoy) at the time it was enacted, and it prohibits even Protestants who are former Catholics, so it is hard to imagine they intended that interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-05-2020, 07:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
If I read it correctly, the Regency Act requires only domicile and not residence in the UK.

Each country has its own laws defining domicile. I haven't read through it myself, but you will find legal guidance on the British definition of domicile on this page.

RDRM20010 - Residence, Domicile and Remittance Basis Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

My guess is that the Duke of Sussex remains domiciled in the UK and thus eligible.




But statutory interpretation is the prerogative of the government and the courts, not popular belief or Wikipedia.

The Act of Settlement itself bypassed Catholic infants (such as Prince Carlo Emanuele of Savoy) at the time it was enacted, and it prohibits even Protestants who are former Catholics, so it is hard to imagine they intended that interpretation.

Wikipedia actuallly added a reference to support their decision to remove Harry from the list. It is not an official statement by the Palace, but rather someone's legal opinion. The author of that opinion seems to believe Harry would no longer be eligible should "his new life lead to him becoming permanently based overseas to the point that he is no longer a British subject and domiciled in the United Kingdom". To be fair, I don't think the author ever said that Harry is disqualified now (he was talking about a hypothetical reign of King Charles III), but the Wikipedia editors probably interpreted it incorrectly or rushed into conclusions.


https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020...-royal-family/


In any case, if Harry and Archie do become disqualified, that means Beatrice is likely to be an eligible Counsellor of State foir quite some time (at least until George and Charlotte are over 21, maybe longer depending on Charles and Andrew's longevity). That is another argument in favor of Beatrice taking a more senior position in the family.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:18 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,614
Counsellors of State are a constitutional reform waiting to happen. It's absurd to have members of the royal family even tenuously involved in government. It was a nonsensical arrangement in 1911 never mind today.

Adults in direct line only plus the Commons Speaker (& deputies) might be one possibility. Regents shouldn't be limited to members of the royal family either but that's a separate issue.

What arrangements existed before 1911 I wonder?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:25 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
RDRM20010 - Residence, Domicile and Remittance Basis Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

My guess is that the Duke of Sussex remains domiciled in the UK and thus eligible.
While I also think that the duke is at the moment domiciled at the UK (unless he already got a green card for the US); could you please point us to the part of the explanation given at this website that pointed you in that direction? The pages I've read talk about (or more 'around') the issue but didn't really state how domicile is to be decided upon.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:32 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Wikipedia actuallly added a reference to support their decision to remove Harry from the list. It is not an official statement by the Palace, but rather someone's legal opinion. The author of that opinion seems to believe Harry would no longer be eligible should "his new life lead to him becoming permanently based overseas to the point that he is no longer a British subject and domiciled in the United Kingdom". To be fair, I don't think the author ever said that Harry is disqualified now (he was talking about a hypothetical reign of King Charles III), but the Wikipedia editors probably interpreted it incorrectly or rushed into conclusions.


https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020...-royal-family/


In any case, if Harry and Archie do become disqualified, that means Beatrice is likely to be an eligible Counsellor of State foir quite some time (at least until George and Charlotte are over 21, maybe longer depending on Charles and Andrew's longevity). That is another argument in favor of Beatrice taking a more senior position in the family.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. While the concept of Counsellors of State currently isn't that relevant as the queen isn't leaving the UK any longer, it would become relevant again if she would be incapacitated or when Charles ascends the throne. In that case, Camilla, William, Harry (unless no longer domiciled), Andrew and Beatrice (and Eugenie - if Harry wouldn't be eligible) would be eligible. Among them, only Camilla and William perform royal duties. So, while that would be sufficient in case Charles travels on his own; if Charles and Camilla would travel together, one of the others would also have to step in. Harry would most likely not be available as he wouldn't be in the UK either, Andrew would most likely be available and delighted to do so but that might not be very smart PR-wise, so that would leave us with Beatrice; who would need to ask her boss permission to temporarily fulfill the role of head of state... Interesting request.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:38 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Counsellors of State are a constitutional reform waiting to happen. It's absurd to have members of the royal family even tenuously involved in government. It was a nonsensical arrangement in 1911 never mind today.

Adults in direct line only plus the Commons Speaker (& deputies) might be one possibility. Regents shouldn't be limited to members of the royal family either but that's a separate issue.

What arrangements existed before 1911 I wonder?



I thinj we are talking about two different issues here:


1. A regency that is set up when the King or Queen is a minor.
2. The temporary replacement of the King or Queen when they are not available, e.g. because of a long-duration overseas trip.



In the situation (2), which is the one where the Counsellors of State come into play, it could be argued perhaps that there is actually no need for the King or Queen to delegate powers (as the President of the United States for example does not delegate powers to the VP when he is overseas). Nevertheless, in the situations where such delegation of powers is constitutionally required, many other monarchies like Denmark or Sweden for example also turn to the next person in the line of succession who is over 18 and available (Denmark also allows the wife of the Crown Prince to be in the list now, but in Sweden it is restricted to princes/princesses in the line of succession, I think; the Speaker of the Parliament is next only when the former list is exhausted). So the practice in the UK is not at odds with other countries.


In the case of permanent regencies when the monarch is a minor, some countries have automatic rules like the UK (for example, in Spain, it is the living father or mother of the King/Queen and, then, the next adult relative according to the order of succession); other countries leave it to Parliament to decide it by election or by law, but even in the latter cases, they normally pick someone from the family (e.g., in the Netherlands, Parliament passed a law deciding that Máxima would serve as regent for Amalia).


Bottom line: either for a permanent regency or a regency ad interim (or something akin to the Counsellosr of State, who are not regents, but discharge royal powers), the norm in Europe (not only in the UK) is to prefer members of the Royal Family over politicians or elected officials. That makes sense to me as, otherwise, those monarchies would be a step closer to a republic.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-05-2020, 09:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,614
"Thanks for the link. Very interesting. While the concept of Counsellors of State currently isn't that relevant as the queen isn't leaving the UK any longer, it would become relevant again if she would be incapacitated or when Charles ascends the throne. In that case, Camilla, William, Harry (unless no longer domiciled), Andrew and Beatrice (and Eugenie - if Harry wouldn't be eligible) would be eligible. Among them, only Camilla and William perform royal duties. So, while that would be sufficient in case Charles travels on his own; if Charles and Camilla would travel together, one of the others would also have to step in. Harry would most likely not be available as he wouldn't be in the UK either, Andrew would most likely be available and delighted to do so but that might not be very smart PR-wise, so that would leave us with Beatrice; who would need to ask her boss permission to temporarily fulfill the role of head of state... Interesting request."

Succinctly highlights why reform is needed. It's plain daft for a modern state to arrange its governance in such a manner.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post


Succinctly highlights why reform is needed. It's plain daft for a modern state to arrange its governance in such a manner.

But the Queen (or the regent) reigns, but doesn't govern. That was alreay settled 300 years or ago (or at least 200 years ago, give or take).



If, however, you are claiming that is daft to have a hereditary Head of State, which is similar to having someone of his/her family as regent instead of a politician, then I take that you are a republican ?



I don't live in a monarchy and I am not a subject of the Queen, but I think it makes sense that all senior members of a RF, e.g. the first four adults in line as in the case of the UK Counsellors of State, should be ready to discharge state functions. I even have an old-fashioned (not to say archaic) view that the British monarch in particular should take advantage of the Commonwealth realm system and have senior British princes be GGs of Canada, Australia or New Zealand for example. And, yes, before anyone complains, I know that is not possible because it would have to be approved by the Commonwealth governments and they now think that the position of GG should be temporary and awarded by merit to their own national citizens only (in other words, they see it more like an appointed ceremonial "president" these days). Again, I am only saying it is my own, old-fashioned, personal wish list.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:15 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I thinj we are talking about two different issues here:


1. A regency that is set up when the King or Queen is a minor.
2. The temporary replacement of the King or Queen when they are not available, e.g. because of a long-duration overseas trip.



In the situation (2), which is the one where the Counsellors of State come into play, it could be argued perhaps that there is actually no need for the King or Queen to delegate powers (as the President of the United States for example does not delegate powers to the VP when he is overseas). Nevertheless, in the situations where such delegation of powers is constitutionally required, many other monarchies like Denmark or Sweden for example also turn to the next person in the line of succession who is over 18 and available (Denmark also allows the wife of the Crown Prince to be in the list now, but in Sweden it is restricted to princes/princesses in the line of succession, I think; the Speaker of the Parliament is next only when the former list is exhausted). So the practice in the UK is not at odds with other countries.


In the case of permanent regencies when the monarch is a minor, some countries have automatic rules like the UK (for example, in Spain, it is the living father or mother of the King/Queen and, then, the next adult relative according to the order of succession); other countries leave it to Parliament to decide it by election or by law, but even in the latter cases, they normally pick someone from the family (e.g., in the Netherlands, Parliament passed a law deciding that Máxima would serve as regent for Amalia).


Bottom line: either for a permanent regency or a regency ad interim (or something akin to the Counsellosr of State, who are not regents, but discharge royal powers), the norm in Europe (not only in the UK) is to prefer members of the Royal Family over politicians or elected officials. That makes sense to me as, otherwise, those monarchies would be a step closer to a republic.
I was only talking about number 2. The comment about regencies was an aside.

Only the monarch has any constitutional role in the UK. I don't know what the situation is other monarchies. The monarch's relatives (whoever they are or whatever their level of kinship) are irrelevant in constitutional terms.

We arrange out government as a "crowned republic". Royalty is not a necessary or indeed wanted part of that system by many. The Speaker is not directly elected (by the electorate), they are not partisan & they most likely understand government to a much finer degree than any member of the royal family.

To want a clear separation between government & random people who just happen to be related to the monarch is not to make you a republican. Lots of people support the existence of a constitutional monarchy without being in the least bit interested in royalty. Such people certainly don't want members of the royal family being involved in government.

*for government read governance or constitutional affairs*
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-05-2020, 10:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I was only talking about number 2. The comment about regencies was an aside.

Only the monarch has any constitutional role in the UK. I don't know what the situation is other monarchies. The monarch's relatives (whoever they are or whatever their level of kinship) are irrelevant in constitutional terms.

We arrange out government as a "crowned republic". Royalty is not a necessary or indeed wanted part of that system by many. The Speaker is not directly elected (by the electorate), they are not partisan & they most likely understand government to a much finer degree than any member of the royal family.

To want a clear separation between government & random people who just happen to be related to the monarch is not to make you a republican. Lots of people support the existence of a constitutional monarchy without being in the least bit interested in royalty. Such people certainly don't want members of the royal family being involved in government.
Thank you for that perspective. I hadn't realized some monarchists prefer a clear official separation between the head of state and their family members without a constitutional role, but it makes sense.

But so long as the monarchy remains hereditary, the closer relatives of the monarch will have a realistic likelihood of one day being constitutionally required to be involved in government, as a monarch or as a regent. Under the circumstances, is it not better if they obtain some experience in government?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchy, camilla, counsellors of state, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales


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





Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china 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 japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle 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 louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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