The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4541  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:06 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
According to Buckingham Palace, the announcement that Prince Edward's children would not be Princess and Prince was legally binding.

The Queen's recent prorogation order , made under royal prerogative, was also thought to be legally binding until the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled otherwise.



Even though royal titles and styles are a royal prerogative, there is a legitimate question in law as to whether "the significance of the Queen's pleasure" by a press release can override letters patent from a previous sovereign. The courtiers might think so, but they are not a court of law, so their opinion doesn't immediately warrant any conclusion about the legal right of James and Louise to be styled HRHs or not.



Again, a definitive answer to that question would only be given if the matter was brought before the courts, who can rule on the extent of the royal prerogative in law and on the proper manner to exercise the prerogative. In practice, however, I doubt James or Louise will ever sue the Crown for the right to use a princely title and, since nobody else besides them would have an interest in the matter which could be recognized by the courts, I am afraid we will never know for sure.


PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4542  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:43 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.
It worths to add Letters Patent dated 21 August 1996, which stripped of Diana and Sarah HRH titles.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4543  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Queen's recent prorogation order , made under royal prerogative, was also thought to be legally binding until the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled otherwise.



Even though royal titles and styles are a royal prerogative, there is a legitimate question in law as to whether "the significance of the Queen's pleasure" by a press release can override letters patent from a previous sovereign. The courtiers might think so, but they are not a court of law, so their opinion doesn't immediately warrant any conclusion about the legal right of James and Louise to be styled HRHs or not.



Again, a definitive answer to that question would only be given if the matter was brought before the courts, who can rule on the extent of the royal prerogative in law and on the proper manner to exercise the prerogative. In practice, however, I doubt James or Louise will ever sue the Crown for the right to use a princely title and, since nobody else besides them would have an interest in the matter which could be recognized by the courts, I am afraid we will never know for sure.
I agree with your analysis of the theoretical possibility of a legal challenge, but as you said, in practice, Queen Elizabeth's announced decisions will remain in effect unless and until there is a ruling from a court or other authority in law that overrides them (just as "her" prorogation order did bind Parliament in practice, barring it from convening, until the Supreme Court ruling was announced).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
PS: If you read I Luv Bertie's post above, it is worth noting that all changes to rules on royal titles and styles in the 20th century and in the 21st century so far (1917, 1948, 2012 , also Prince Philip's title in 1957) were/have been made by LPs except the odd 1999 decision that James and Louise would not be HRHs, which was announced by a press release.
Iluvbertie's post discussed the rules of who is and is not a royal Princess/Prince under the 1917 Letters Patent. But there have been other changes to royal styles and titles which were made by announcement only, including the latest decision that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor would not "enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms" as set out in the 1917 Letters Patent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Miss Peach ...

The rules around who is and who isn't a Prince or Princess in the UK are largely governed by a series of rules set down in 1917 by George V in a document referred to as Letters Patent or LPs for short on this forum.

Under those rules the following are HRH Prince/Princess:

1. Children of the monarch - Andrew and Edward (I will come back to Charles and Anne shortly)

2. Male line grandchildren of a monarch - Elizabeth (the Queen - born to the second son of George V), Richard (now Duke of Gloucester - born to the third son of George V), Edward, Alexandra and Michael (the current Duke of Kent and his siblings - born to the fourth son of George V), William, Harry (born to the 1st son of Elizabeth II), Beatrice and Eugenie (born to the 2nd son of Elizabeth II); and the deceased Princess Margaret and Prince William of Gloucester

3. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George

Now to the additions or changes to these rules:

1. In 1948 George VI issued LPs to ensure that the soon to be born baby and any subsequent siblings would be born HRH Prince/Princess - Charles and Anne

2. In 1999 The Queen announced that the children of her third son would not be HRH Prince/Princess but styled as the children of an earl - Louise and James (I have personally written to BP to check on whether this means they are never going to be HRH Prince/Princess and been told that is the case)

3. In 2012 The Queen extended HRH Prince/Princess to all of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - Charlotte and Louis (George was covered by the 1917 rules)

With the exception of the Queen herself under the 1948 LPs all those who are HRH Prince or Princess are the children of a son of the monarch. None of the other children of the daughters of a monarch since 1917 have been royal - the two sons of Princess Mary, the two children of Princess Margaret and the two children of Princess Anne. Princess Mary married a many who became an Earl so her children were titled via their father (this is the Harewood branch of the family although they are rarely seen at royal events these days). Princess Margaret insisted on the Queen giving her husband a title so that her children would be Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah while Princess Anne refused a title for herself, her husband or her children - all of which reportedly were offered.
Interestingly, the Letters Patent do not set out different rules for legitimate and illegitimate children, so, unless there is a law I am not aware of which would override the LP, a child born out of wedlock to Prince Louis of Cambridge during William's reign would automatically be HRH Prince/Princess unless another change was made.
Reply With Quote
  #4544  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:33 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 41
When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?
Reply With Quote
  #4545  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:42 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Would of just depended if they made it 'retroactive'.

In Sweden this actually happened...Prince Carl Phillip was the heir until they changed the law which then made his sister Victoria become the Crown Princess since she was born first.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #4546  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:45 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?
Actually the changes with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is retroactive only back to October 28, 2011. If Charles and Diana had a daughter for their eldest child ahead of William and Harry, William would still be the heir apparent.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4547  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interestingly, the Letters Patent do not set out different rules for legitimate and illegitimate children, so, unless there is a law I am not aware of which would override the LP, a child born out of wedlock to Prince Louis of Cambridge during William's reign would automatically be HRH Prince/Princess unless another change was made.
The Letters Patent in 1917 didn't need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as illegitimate children didn't have inheritance rights then. Even now they can't inherit peerages or be in the line of succession to the Crown - and descendants of such an illegitimate child is also permanently excluded from the succession e.g. the descendants of Benjamin George Lascelles - eldest son of the Earl of Harewood. As he was born before his parents' marriage he can't inherit his father's titles nor is he in the line of succession to the throne.

The line of succession would be so much longer if the descendants of illegitimate children were included in addition to a lack of certainty e.g. if illegitimate children were allowed to inherit imagine the chaos if it turned out that Charles had a son older than William but that son didn't prove his case until Charles was on his deathbed ... William is about to become King and this person comes our of nowhere and claims the throne.

If Louis were to have an illegitimate child that child would not be HRH Prince/Princess at all. Every time the British parliament has changed the rights of illegitimate children they have specifically excluded the rights to titles and the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #4548  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually the changes with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is retroactive only back to October 28, 2011. If Charles and Diana had a daughter for their eldest child ahead of William and Harry, William would still be the heir apparent.
None of the changes (correction: succession changes) were technically retroactive, but the elimination of male preference applied to those born after October 28, 2011. Please see my complete answer in the British Line of Succession thread.
Reply With Quote
  #4549  
Old 09-28-2019, 10:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
When Prince William was born the law was that males had precedence over females in the line of succession, so even if Diana and Charles had had a daughter before William was born, William would still be next in line after Charles. Now...the law has changed, making the eldest child, male or female, the next in line. So if Charles and Diana HAD had a female before William, would she have replaced William as heir to the thrown behind Charles, or would they have skipped a generation with the new rule, since William had already been giving that "right" at birth before the law had changed?
There was talk when Diana was expecting William that if the baby was a girl they would change the law ... I remember it clearly and know that there was discussion at my place of work about it with the men being opposed to the idea while the women were supportive.

The first children, in the UK, where the older daughter stays ahead of her younger brother are the children of Lady Davina Lewis and her ex-husband Gary Lewis - Senne and Tane Lewis. They were the first born AFTER October 2011 and so Senne stays ahead of her younger brother Tane.

The Earl of Wessex's children are Louise born first and then James but because they were born before October 2011 James is ahead of Louise in the line of succession - just as Anne and her children are behind her younger brothers and their children and Princess Mary's (George V's daughter) line is behind that of her two younger brothers.

Charlotte is the highest in the line of succession not affected at the moment but she isn't the first.
Reply With Quote
  #4550  
Old 09-28-2019, 11:28 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Letters Patent in 1917 didn't need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as illegitimate children didn't have inheritance rights then.
I am certain it was not King George V's intention to allow illegitimate children the status of Prince/Princess, but as far as I can see, that is the effect of his Letters Patent in the 21st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Even now they can't inherit peerages or be in the line of succession to the Crown - and descendants of such an illegitimate child is also permanently excluded from the succession [...]
Yes, I am aware. But the 1917 Letters Patent do not limit the status of HRH Prince/Princess to children who have rights to inherit peerages or the throne. Prince Michael of Kent was excluded from inheriting the throne by marrying a Catholic (before the Succession to the Crown Act), but the Letters Patent allowed him to remain HRH Prince. The Princess Royal is not in line to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because of her gender, but the Letters Patent allow her to be HRH Princess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If Louis were to have an illegitimate child that child would not be HRH Prince/Princess at all. Every time the British parliament has changed the rights of illegitimate children they have specifically excluded the rights to titles and the line of succession.
The British legislative acts which I have read specify that they do not grant illegitimate children any additional rights to titles or the throne, but nor do they remove any existing rights. For example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 states that "nothing in the provisions [...] affects the succession to any dignity or title of honour" (48(7)), but it does not say anything to restrict rights to titles of honour which an individual may already enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #4551  
Old 09-28-2019, 03:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
It worths to add Letters Patent dated 21 August 1996, which stripped of Diana and Sarah HRH titles.

Letters Patent dated 8 March 1937, the former king Edward VIII is created Duke of Windsor

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937, confer the style of HRH to the Duke of Windsor and exclude his wife and descendants if any

Will of the Monarch
On 10 June 1974, After the death of her husband HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, his widow is allowed to use the title and style HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (HRH Princess First Name as if she was a blood princess)instead of adopting HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester
. The Queen allowed her aunt to adopt this title, in part to avoid confusion with her daughter-in-law, the new and actual Duchess of Gloucester (Birgitte Eva van Deurs wife of HRH Prince Richard Duke of Gloucester)
Reply With Quote
  #4552  
Old 09-28-2019, 04:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
Letters Patent dated 8 March 1937, the former king Edward VIII is created Duke of Windsor

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937, confer the style of HRH to the Duke of Windsor and exclude his wife and descendants if any.
These letters patent really stand out for anyone that has read about the life and times of the Duke of Windsor after his abdication. He remained bitter about his wife not having the HRH honorific. Wallis was The Duchess of Windsor with no HRH so was styled as "Her Grace". Kind of sad to hold a grudge like that for so long.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4553  
Old 09-28-2019, 05:04 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
A
And if Edward is made 'Duke of Edinburgh', the line will be rather short:
1. Viscount Severn (who most likely will be known as 'Earl of Wessex' by that time)
Not if James has a son. The James's son (or grandson from his son) will become Duke of Edinburgh in due course.
Reply With Quote
  #4554  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I am certain it was not King George V's intention to allow illegitimate children the status of Prince/Princess, but as far as I can see, that is the effect of his Letters Patent in the 21st century.



Yes, I am aware. But the 1917 Letters Patent do not limit the status of HRH Prince/Princess to children who have rights to inherit peerages or the throne. Prince Michael of Kent was excluded from inheriting the throne by marrying a Catholic (before the Succession to the Crown Act), but the Letters Patent allowed him to remain HRH Prince. The Princess Royal is not in line to the Dukedom of Edinburgh because of her gender, but the Letters Patent allow her to be HRH Princess.




The British legislative acts which I have read specify that they do not grant illegitimate children any additional rights to titles or the throne, but nor do they remove any existing rights. For example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 states that "nothing in the provisions [...] affects the succession to any dignity or title of honour" (48(7)), but it does not say anything to restrict rights to titles of honour which an individual may already enjoy.
So you agree - illegitimate children don't have the rights to titles - they didn't 'already enjoy' them and no new legislation has given it to them.

As they didn't have any rights to titles or the throne and they can't be given additional rights under any subsequent acts.

You also have explained why Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he married and lost his place in the line of succession - he could have an 'existing right' removed.

This terminology is clear - illegitimate children do not have the rights of inheritance to titles or the Crown and as such an illegitimate child born as the grandchild of a monarch can't be a Prince or Princess.

Thank you for proving my argument.
Reply With Quote
  #4555  
Old 09-28-2019, 09:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
So you agree - illegitimate children don't have the rights to titles - they didn't 'already enjoy' them and no new legislation has given it to them.

As they didn't have any rights to titles or the throne and they can't be given additional rights under any subsequent acts.

[...]

This terminology is clear - illegitimate children do not have the rights of inheritance to titles or the Crown and as such an illegitimate child born as the grandchild of a monarch can't be a Prince or Princess.

Thank you for proving my argument.
We agree that illegitimate children do not have rights of inheritance to peerage titles or the Crown.

However, I don't see that as proof for an argument, one way or the other, regarding their rights to princely titles, since princely titles are not governed by the same rules as peerage titles or the Crown. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You also have explained why Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he married and lost his place in the line of succession - he could have an 'existing right' removed.
I am not sure I understand your explanation, but my explanation was that Prince Michael kept his status as a Prince when he lost his right of succession because the two rights are governed by different sets of rules.
Reply With Quote
  #4556  
Old 09-28-2019, 09:15 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Not if James has a son. The James's son (or grandson from his son) will become Duke of Edinburgh in due course.
Of course, I was talking about what would currently be the line. If he has several sons or male-line (great)grandchildren all of them well be incorporated but so far Edward would only have one successor the title. Just like Harry currently has only one for the Sussex dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #4557  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:21 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: city, United States
Posts: 2
Title

When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?
Reply With Quote
  #4558  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:37 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,996
Unless the law changes (i.e. Beatrice can inheirt the Dukedom, which I doubt that will happen), I believe the title merges with the Crown so that a future King William can possibly bestow it on his 2nd son, Prince Louis or it lays in wait for a future King George and his sons.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #4559  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTampon View Post
When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?
The Duke of York title, as created for Andrew, has the normal remainder 'heirs male of the body'. That means that without a son the title becomes extinct and is available for regrant by the King of the day. It isn't the 'done thing' however to recreate a title if there is someone alive still using the 'of xxx' designation so while the York Princesses are alive the normal convention is that the title isn't recreated.

When both George VI and Prince Andrew were created Duke of York the 'of York' princes/princesses had moved up to the titles 'The Prince/Princess' as their fathers had become The King.

There is also a move - going on now for about 20 years - to give the daughters of peers of the realm equality with the sons of peers. If that were to happen then Beatrice would inherit the York title.

The other option is for Her Majesty to actually reissue the Letters Patent to change 'heirs male' to one of 'heirs male, in lieu of heirs male heirs female' - giving preference so sons over daughters or to go with 'heirs of the body' leaving out the term 'male'. Had she been inclined to go that way I suspect she would have done so last year with the Sussex title but as she didn't I don't see her doing it for York.

The most likely outcome is that York will become extinct and after both Beatrice and Eugenie die a new Duke of York will be created. Note that Eugenie has become HRH Princess Eugenie OF YORK, Mrs Jack Brooksbank and I would expect Beatrice to do the same thing - keep the 'of York' as part of her name and title. Alexandra - the only other princess in this situation dropped the use of 'of Kent' when she married.
Reply With Quote
  #4560  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Unless the law changes (i.e. Beatrice can inheirt the Dukedom, which I doubt that will happen), I believe the title merges with the Crown so that a future King William can possibly bestow it on his 2nd son, Prince Louis or it lays in wait for a future King George and his sons.
A title only 'merges with the Crown' when the title holder also becomes the King e.g. when Charles becomes King the Edinburgh title will, at some time, 'merge with the Crown' as the holder of the Edinburgh title and the holder of the Crown are the same person.

Other titles go extinct.

While Beatrice and Eugenie continue to use 'or York' it wouldn't be the done thing to create someone else as Duke of York. It would also be confusing.

I do think, therefore, that York may have to wait for George or even for his child's second son.

Of course Andrew could remarry and have a son.
__________________

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: 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
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 american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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