The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4121  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:40 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

Because first of all, a younger son is a younger son, no reason to treat one fifferently than the other. The queen's second child's children are even not titled at all... In addition, when Edward married the queen had 4 royal grandchildren. Charles already has 3.



But then they should not have tre4ated Edward's children different then Andrew:s. Both are younger sons of a monarch.
__________________

__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #4122  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4123  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:09 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
But then they should not have tre4ated Edward's children different then Andrew:s. Both are younger sons of a monarch.
I fully agree. The only somewhat reasonable explanation imo is that this is how the queen wanted it going forward. So, given that the latest decision was to not grant princely titles to children of the younger son, that should be continued -especially keeping in mind the new gender neutral rules- (or completely reversed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.
Currently, Louise is treated differently than Peter and Zara but more like Beatrice and Eugenie (riding in the carriage at Trooping), so it seems that nowadays they want them to be treated like royals but without the formal titles. I would be surprised if they would do the same with Harry's children.

I mainly argue for consistency. If they want grandchildren to be royals it should be applied to all (at least in male line) not to some. If they only want the children of monarchs and heirs to be royal, that's fine with me as well, as long as it's consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
But nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen besides Charles and four other Kent and Gloucester HRHs , plus wives whenever applicable. Under current rules (with patrilineal transmission only), the potential number of HRHs in the future will be smaller because Charles only had two sons and William so far only has two sons also. And William only has two HRH cousins whereas his father has none.
Indeed, regarding born Royal Highnesses:
Queen's generation: 7
Charles's generation: 4
William's generation: 4
George's generarion: 3 (would be at least 4 if Harry's chikdren were to be granted it as well)

So, the slimming down took already place in Charles' generation and continued in William's, extending princely titles to Harry's children opens up the very real possibiliy of increasing the number which is contrary to the slimming down that you argued would be in line with giving Harry's childen titles (if I understood you correctly).
Reply With Quote
  #4124  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:29 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

EDIT: A possible compromise would be to do as in Denmark and just downgrade Harry's children to HHs, but that would be silly in my opinion and ineffective (a prince is a prince in people's mind, whether he is an HRH, HH or HSH).

Talking about Denmark - this kingdom accepted foreigners as part of their Royal family when they agreed on the title "Princess of Greece and Denmark" for the Greek branch of the family and issued Danish deplomatic passports for the former king and queen when they abdicated and moved to London. Okay, the ex-queen of the Hellenes is the sister of the queen of Denmark who had married her cousin.


But the British did not force Meghan to get rid of her US nationality on marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #4125  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:31 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

I mainly argue for consistency. If they want grandchildren to be royals it should be applied to all (at least in male line) not to some. If they only want the children of monarchs and heirs to be royal, that's fine with me as well, as long as it's consistent.

If the Queen wants consistence she should issue new Letters patent regulating the Titles. And they can still make a provision that it doesn't apply to those who are still alive. This way the York Princesses would remain Princeses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Talking about Denmark - this kingdom accepted foreigners as part of their Royal family when they agreed on the title "Princess of Greece and Denmark" for the Greek branch of the family and issued Danish deplomatic passports for the former king and queen when they abdicated and moved to London. Okay, the ex-queen of the Hellenes is the sister of the queen of Denmark who had married her cousin.



But the British did not force Meghan to get rid of her US nationality on marriage.



.
That was always the case since Prince Vilhelm became King of the Hellenes in 1863. Probalby it is because to do that he never renounced his danish Title.



And on the other hand the danish Goverments made special regulations for the daughter-in-laws of Queen Margrethe that receice danish citizenship on with ther respecitve marriages what the british goverment didn't in the case of Meghan.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #4126  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
But nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen besides Charles and four other Kent and Gloucester HRHs , plus wives whenever applicable. Under current rules (with patrilineal transmission only), the potential number of HRHs in the future will be smaller because Charles only had two sons and William so far only has two sons also. And William only has two HRH cousins whereas his father has none.
If I understand your statement that "nowadays, in addition to the Queen's grandchildren, there is a stock of three more children of the Queen […]", you are comparing the current number of HRHs to the potential number of HRHs after Queen Elizabeth's children have passed.

By including Queen Elizabeth's cousins, children, and her grandchildren, the "nowadays" number is measured across three generations. A useful comparison then necessitates measuring the "future" number across three generations as well (King William's brother and cousins, children, and grandchildren).

Applying the 1917 rules, that would necessarily include the children and daughters-in-law of Prince Harry as well as the wives, children, and daughters-in-law of Prince George and Prince Louis. According to my counting, there would be expected to be 18 HRHs in those three generations (there are 20 in the three older generations mentioned earlier) even if Harry, George, and Louis limited their families to one daughter and one son.

But as we have no way of knowing how many wives and children there will be in the next generation, it seems more feasible to simply compare the number of born HRHs in George's generation with the number of born HRHs in William's generation, as Somebody did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
King Albert II has 12 grandchildren and all of them are HRHs, even though royal family funding is far more controversial in Belgium than in the UK. I don't see the impact of accomodating two more Sussex princes/princesses in the Royal House. It would be much ado about nothing.
I agree, but Queen Elizabeth II and the Prince of Wales seem to have take a different view. There would also be no impact on funding if the Wessex children (or for that matter the Phillips children) were princes/princesses, and they have nonetheless not been granted that status.
Reply With Quote
  #4127  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:24 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..
Reply With Quote
  #4128  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If Edward watned it, or was at least willing to have his children not be Princes.. then what's the problem. According to some reports he wished for them not to be seen as royal esp as at the time he and Sophie were not meant to be working royals.
That is precisely the point. James and Louis are not styled as HRHs because, apparently, , their parents didn’t want them to be , not because the Queen thought at the time that there were too many princes in the Royal Family. So I don’t think their case sets a precedent for Harry’s children unless Harry also asks Charles that his children be styled as children of a Duke only,

Moreover, as you said, Edward and Sophie at the time were not meant to become working royals whereas Harry and Meghan already.are and will continue to be working royals, which makes any claim of a precedent even less likely.
Reply With Quote
  #4129  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:32 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
I m not sure if Harry wouldn't want the children to be HRH.. but there doesn't seem to be any move from the Queen to arrange for this...
Reply With Quote
  #4130  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:40 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
If the Queen wants consistence she should issue new Letters patent regulating the Titles. And they can still make a provision that it doesn't apply to those who are still alive. This way the York Princesses would remain Princeses.
I agree but apparently she decided that she will leave it to the next generation (i.e. Charles - if William were to be her successor, Harry's children will automatically remain styled as children of a duke) to finalize it.

For now it seems extremely likely that Harry's child will be born a lord (with subsidiary title) or lady instead of a prince. Which I think he/she should be as a male-line great-grandchild of the monarch (and not a child of the heir's heir).
Reply With Quote
  #4131  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:44 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,757
The moment Charles becomes King the Sussex children will become HRH unless they decline it. I don't see the need to make them HRH now. They just letting it happen as intended... or not. Time will tell.
Reply With Quote
  #4132  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:56 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #4133  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,952
Countessmeout, you make very good points as things stand now. I truly believe that Charles and the Queen have talked over all of your points in detail and probably the Queen is agreeing with the future King's ideas and wishes. Charles wants a much smaller "Royal" presence during his reign. He wants to cut down the cost drastically. I can actually see him running many things more business-like. Of course he will certainly keep all the royal duties of over hundreds of years in tact with their showy splendor. That is English and should never be changed. I just feel that he will come up with a difference way of doing things which I know will still be good for country. JMO but in my heart I believe Charge has been working on these things for years.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #4134  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:38 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..
The idea of a smaller royal family was directly out of the Way forward group from the palace and Prince Charles is the major driving force behind it. The problem is now the press/people doesn't want popular royals to be sidelined when they should due to their distance from the throne. They cant have one rule for some and anther for another. If Charles was serious about this - which is appears to have been favoring his family over his siblings - then he should carry on with it. Harry's child/ren should be styled as children of a Duke nothing more. it might not be the fairy tale the press want - but it is what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #4135  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:42 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
I don't think that most people care one way or the other...
Reply With Quote
  #4136  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Perhaps it is true that Edward didn't want his kids to be princes.. I was dubious about this, I think that it was more to do with the fact that the RF was in a low at the time and it looked good to cut back on the titles and grandeur for the wedding and future children. and also because at the time Edward didn't intend to be a working royal. but although he is now a working royal, the children still are Lord and Lady.. so maybe he feels it is bsest for them not to have HRH's..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is precisely the point. James and Louis are not styled as HRHs because, apparently, , their parents didn’t want them to be , not because the Queen thought at the time that there were too many princes in the Royal Family. [...]
While acknowledging the spokesperson's explanation, there is also the potential that other factors such as the number of princes(ses) were at issue but, out of consideration for optics, the spokesperson made a point of the parents' wishes in order to send a clear message that the Queen's decision should not be perceived as a "snub", especially as Edward's children were to be treated differently from his brother's children. Time will tell which interpretation is the correct one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I m not sure if Harry wouldn't want the children to be HRH.. but there doesn't seem to be any move from the Queen to arrange for this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The moment Charles becomes King the Sussex children will become HRH unless they decline it. I don't see the need to make them HRH now. They just letting it happen as intended... or not. Time will tell.
Technically, it would be King Charles who declines it as HRH status is a matter for the monarch. It is also possible that the rules will have been changed by that time.

If there will be a move to bestow royal status on the child, it would seem most logical for it to happen either at the time of the birth (which is still months away) or at the time of Charles' accession to the throne, under the 1917 letters patent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.
Somebody performed the calculations earlier in the thread demonstrating that if the desire is to keep the number of royals performing duties consistent with current numbers, it will be necessary to utilize the York princesses (and even the other grandchildren) as much as the Sussex children, whilst if the desire is to slim the number of royals performing duties, then none of them will be needed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Taking a cut-off point of 85 years (it seems that most royals stay quite active until about that age; for example, the Duke of Kent at age 83 took on 92 engagements so far this year; comparable to his 10 year younger cousin the Duke of Gloucester):
- by January 2019 there are 15 full-time royals;
- by January 2029 this number will most likely drop to about 12 (still more than enough imo),
- 10 years (2039) the numbers will be at a relatively low point (if Charles is king at that point it will be 8-9 active royals; if it's William, we're talking about 7 - the Cambridge kids are in their early 20's and can take on an engagement here and there but most likely will focus on their studies);
- another 10 years (2049) later the numbers are going up again to 9-12 full-time royals (depending on whether the Cambridge kids have spouses that become active full-time royals) which should be more than sufficient;
- another 10 years down the line (so in 40 years/2059), we're still at 9-10 full time royals.
- by 2069 (50 years from now), we might get to another low point with William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan all being in their mid- to late eighties and only George and his siblings fully active; however, as king and queen William and Catherine will most likely still take on quite a large amount of engagements; and by that point George hopefully has grown children of his own supplying another generation of royals.

So, I truly don't see why Harry and Meghan's child(ren) (and spouse(s)) - who would start becoming active by 2049 at the earliest (in their late twenties) - would be needed; especially if the support of Beatrice and Eugenie is not needed now nor in the future; as they would be the ones that really could help out at the lowest point, unlike children by Harry and Meghan, but apparently that's not considered a need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected:) the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected:) princess Alexandra.

It seems that having about 10-12 active royals has been the Queen's average for most of her reign. The current 15 seem to be the highest number in many decades; imo mainly because the queen doesn't want to ask her eldest cousins (the Kents) to retire and also wanted to make sure that her grandsons became full-time royals (bad optics if they would wait another 5-10 years). Slimming down the monarchy (a wish Charles apparently has had for quite some time) could therefore very well include going down to 10 or less.
Reply With Quote
  #4137  
Old 02-23-2019, 01:02 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
We don't know if Harry and Meghan's kids will be completely private citizens. Yes the fact Charles only has 2 kids does play an impact.

If George is around 30 when he takes on full duties, like his father and Uncle:
-The queen, Philip, Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Alexandra will be gone
-Anne will be in her 90's and likely retired

Andrew, Edward and Sophie will be in their 80's. They may still be doing duties but that will likely be limited like the Kents.

William will likely be on the throne by then, or close to it. Unlike the queen, he will not have any cousins who will perform official royal duties for him. Unless things change with the Yorks. When William and Kate are King and queen they will have different duties to perform, and there is only so much that Harry and Meghan can do.

We are talking likely a good 50-60 years before George and his siblings have kids who are old enough to take on royal duties. Having some of their cousins take on royal duties would make sense.
I've made the exact calculations (posted somewhere here on TRF - edit: I just noticed that Tatiana Maria quoted them in her post) and the low point is in about 20 years; a few years before George, Charlotte and Louis are about to take on full duties. Any younger cousins cannot help in that effort. Once the three of them are full-fledged working royals, there is very little reason to start involving their younger cousins.
If William becomes king before his children are 30, I would not expect them to wait until their (mid)thirties to go 'full-time'. Mid- to late twenties would not be unlikely imo (given the ages of their great uncles and aunts).

By the time George turns 30, Edward and Sophie are mid-70s so very likely still active members - given that Charles and Camilla are early 70s right now and are expected to continue on working for quite some time. The British tend to go on longer than some of their continental colleagues because of the queen's longevity.
Reply With Quote
  #4138  
Old 02-23-2019, 01:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I fully agree. The only somewhat reasonable explanation imo is that this is how the queen wanted it going forward. So, given that the latest decision was to not grant princely titles to children of the younger son, that should be continued -especially keeping in mind the new gender neutral rules- (or completely reversed).
If she wanted it going forward, it would’ve been an easy announcement to change it for everyone going forward. It was specifically for the Wessex children. Andrew was a bachelor at that point. There was no guarantee that he wouldn’t remarry and have more children. Well, I suppose he’s still in that situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4139  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post
Countessmeout, you make very good points as things stand now. I truly believe that Charles and the Queen have talked over all of your points in detail and probably the Queen is agreeing with the future King's ideas and wishes. Charles wants a much smaller "Royal" presence during his reign. He wants to cut down the cost drastically.

The British royal family is the only truly self-funded royal family among the major European RFs. The need to "cut down the cost drastically" is far less clear then in the UK than in some other kingdoms.



I also agree with Countesmeout. The Sussexes will likely have a high profile in Charles's reign and in the early years of William's reign. It is unlikely that Harry and Meghan's kids will have a life as private as the Wessex children have today for example.
Reply With Quote
  #4140  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:39 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,993
What is happening here? This thread is all over the place.

Let's get back on topic...styles and topics...not citizenship, baby shower, diplomatic status, etc.

ETA: These off topic posts have been deleted. If you wish to discuss Meghan's citizenship, please do so here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-43937-49.html.

__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (1 members and 5 guests)
Prinsara
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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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