The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4901  
Old 05-07-2020, 05:49 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
It will be up to Charles when he becomes king.
Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties. But Giving HRH to Archie would not mean that A was going to be a wroking royal. There is no correlation between the honours and doing royal duties.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4902  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:08 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties. But Giving HRH to Archie would not mean that A was going to be a wroking royal. There is no correlation between the honours and doing royal duties.
It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4903  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:16 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.
I don't think he will, no. But that's because (a) I think that Harry may well have said that he doesn't want Archie to be HRH... and also well now, the 2 of them are not working royals and an HRH is not going to be any use to Archie in california. But Charles is traditionally minded, and so is the queen so possibly they would like for Archie to have HRH.. However they're not gogn to go against the wishes of his parents.
Reply With Quote
  #4904  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:22 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes but he's not King yet. I believe that yes he does want to cut down the number of working royals and just confine It to his own sons and that he would not want ALL their children to be following in royal duties.
As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.
Reply With Quote
  #4905  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes. You seem to believe that this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when that day comes.
Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).
Reply With Quote
  #4906  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:36 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.
There are TWO people who get paid to carry out official duties - The Queen and Philip.

The others have their official expenses covered and that is all - they don't get paid to do duties. They have to live off their personal wealth or an allowance from The Queen, from either the Duchy of Lancaster or her personal wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #4907  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:37 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by janet14 View Post
As has been said there is NO evidence that Charles has ever said he wants a slimmed down monarchy. If he became King today, do you really believe he would say to those outside his direct line who have given lifelong service, that's it, you're out. Of course not. He knows that natural wastage is going to slim down the working royals anyway.

There are currently 13 working royals, ie getting paid to carry out public duties for the Crown:- The Queen (94), Philip (98. Included because he does still receive a "pension"), The Duke of Kent (84), Princess Alexandra (83), Duke of Gloucester (75), Duchess of Gloucester (73), Prince Charles (71), Duchess Camilla (72), Princess Anne (69), Prince Edward (56), Countess Sophie (55), Prince William (37), and Duchess Kate (38).

In 20 years time, by which time George MIGHT be a full-time royal (but probably not) the first 4 will almost certainly have died, the next 4 will be in their 90s, princess Anne 89, Edward and Sophie mid-seventies and only William and Kate still in middle-age. Realistically, the numbers will be reduced to 4 or 5, until George, Charlotte and Louis come of age and marry.

Even if Charlotte and Louis become working royals, their children won't be, so the numbers are never likely to go back to the 16 we had before Andrew, Harry and Meghan left.
Saying that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy does not automatically mean that he will kick out his cousins and siblings. I believe that, as you say, he will nature take it's course. I also believe that once Charles becomes king atleast Edward and Alexandra will go into retirement since he has said that there's no way he'd stop performing his duties as long as the Queen are doing hers. The Gloucesters and Anne will probably be around for as long as Charles is on the throne and I can see the Wessexes working into the reign of William where their support will be needed at least until George and his siblings are old enough.
Reply With Quote
  #4908  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:43 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).
Yes, I know but my English fails me sometimes. I do expect that to happen. I can't see that Archie and possible siblings will have much use of royal styles and titles given the sort of life his/their parents are seemingly planning for at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #4909  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Charles won't confer titles as they will be automatic. The instant Charles becomes King, Archie becomes HRH Prince Archie.

Charles will have to strip Archie, and any siblings, of their HRH Prince/Princess styling rather than the other way round (just as he will have to strip Camilla of HM The Queen styling ... although Blair said that will take legislation).
He can announce that Archie will not be HRH, just as the queen did with Edward's children.
Reply With Quote
  #4910  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Saying that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy does not automatically mean that he will kick out his cousins and siblings. I believe that, as you say, he will nature take it's course. I also believe that once Charles becomes king atleast Edward and Alexandra will go into retirement since he has said that there's no way he'd stop performing his duties as long as the Queen are doing hers. The Gloucesters and Anne will probably be around for as long as Charles is on the throne and I can see the Wessexes working into the reign of William where their support will be needed at least until George and his siblings are old enough.
Of course not. The cousins are getting older, have heatlh problems and are not going to go on forever. Charles has IMO been planning for a gradual slim down.. so that in the future there' wont be so many royals performing duties.. but hes not going to brutally insist that his cousins give up working as long as they are willing and able to do so. But his plans IMO were to put the major load of work in the future on his 2 sons and their wives and tha plan has now gone pear shaped.
Reply With Quote
  #4911  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It appears (see the links here) that, like the King's sisters who concluded unequal marriages, the grandchildren's title of Princess/Prince of Sweden was removed and they carry "only" the title of Princess/Prince.

Luxembourg and Belgium have implemented an almost identical system: Children (as well as grandchildren in Belgium) of heirs to the throne are Princess/Prince of Belgium/Luxembourg, while titled members outside this direct line are "only" Princess/Prince with their father's last name.

But I feel that the British system is superior in its clarity - one either is a royal Princess/Prince or carries no royal title whatsoever. What is apparently not clear, at least to the British public, is (as KellyAtLast mentioned) what benefits a British royal Prince/Princess can expect to receive on the basis of being a Prince/Princess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The alternative would be to have a 'lesser' princely (or nobility) title. The king of Sweden would probably have liked to create his grandchildren 'prince(ss) Bernadotte' (like previous princes were created as part of the Luxembourgish nobility) but he cannot do that. The Dutch and the Luxembourg houses have/had that practice with 'prince(ss) of Orange-Nassau' being the 'family title' - at least for one generation (now they've been demoted to 'count(ess)'), while 'prince(ss) of the Netherlands' was only for the children of the heir. In Luxembourg it's 'of Luxembourg' vs 'of Nassau'. In Belgium they could use 'of Belgium' vs 'of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha'.
In Sweden and Belgium, a Princess/Prince title does not need to include the princess's/prince's surname. For children who are not "of Sweden/Belgium" they simply use "Prince Alexander" and "Princess Anna Astrid", but the children retain their family names "Bernadotte" and "of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Lorraine)", respectively. (The latter is not "of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha" as in Belgium surnames are almost always inherited in male line; the Saxe-Coburg name will likely be used for the children of Prince Laurent's sons).

So, the kings of Sweden and Belgium had no need to create a separate title of "Prince Bernadotte" or "Princess of Austria-Este" (although I disagree with the belief that the king of Sweden could not do that).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
However, the British system is rather different, so this solution wouldn't work for them.
Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
It's my belief that Charles when king won't confer royal titles on Harry's child/ren. This would also seem to be in line with Harry and Meghan's wishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
But that's because (a) I think that Harry may well have said that he doesn't want Archie to be HRH...
The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.
Reply With Quote
  #4912  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:35 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In Sweden and Belgium, a Princess/Prince title does not need to include the princess's/prince's surname. For children who are not "of Sweden/Belgium" they simply use "Prince Alexander" and "Princess Anna Astrid", but the children retain their family names "Bernadotte" and "of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Lorraine)", respectively. (The latter is not "of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha" as in Belgium surnames are almost always inherited in male line; the Saxe-Coburg name will likely be used for the children of Prince Laurent's sons).

So, the kings of Sweden and Belgium had no need to create a separate title of "Prince Bernadotte" or "Princess of Austria-Este" (although I disagree with the belief that the king of Sweden could not do that).




Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.





The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.
Archie will become a prince/hrh once Charles is King.. but Charles can announce that like Edwards children, he wont be an HRH. And at the time of Archie's brith, assuming the Sussexes weren't thinking seriously then of leaving the RF, I don't believe they would be happy with the idea of his being HRH PRince Archie. They are not even using the normal courtesy title for a Dukes son so why would they want him to have a royal style. And if they are living in the USA, I don't know if they'll want him to be HRH...
Reply With Quote
  #4913  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:44 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Sussexes have never publicly alluded to wishing that their child not receive a royal title. As for unofficial stories of what they have said privately, the story is that they have given their blessing for Archie to become a prince.

I would find it difficult to understand why palace sources unofficially communicated to the press that Archie would become a prince, if that was not the true intention.
Under the current arrangements set out in the Geoge V Letters Patent, as explained upthread, Archie will become an HRH when Charles is King. The Palace briefings you allude to above would have, at best, confirmed the current arrangements.

Given the steps taken this year by H&M, the likelihood of Archie becoming a working member of the BRF is remote. So it does not quite matter whether H&M bless any title or not, it is really irrelevant now, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #4914  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Theoretically, I don't see why it could not; the children of the heirs could be "of the United Kingdom/of Great Britain" and the others could either be "of York/of Kent" or "(Mountbatten-)Windsor". However, Britain already makes the distinction by using "Duke of [dukedom]" for sons of heirs versus "Prince X of [paternal dukedom]" for other princes.
I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.
Reply With Quote
  #4915  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.
Yes that's right IMO, they are all princes of the UK.. but its a naming convention that they use their father's title as a distinction ie "Princess Beatrice of York" or Princess charlotte of Cambirdge...
Reply With Quote
  #4916  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think I'm correct in thinking that although of York, Kent etc are indeed used these are just naming customs or conventions brought in by the Hanoverians. Every British prince/princess is officially of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So in that sense the way other royal houses differentiate titles which you explained really clearly wouldn't make any sense here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Yes that's right IMO, they are all princes of the UK.. but its a naming convention that they use their father's title as a distinction ie "Princess Beatrice of York" or Princess charlotte of Cambirdge...

The British royal family has been extremely inconsistent on the issue of an official territorial designation, as Heraldica explains.

Quote:
When we speak of the title of Prince, is there a territorial designation attached to it? Not necessarily. In the letters patent and warrants that define or grant the title, it is described as a "titular dignity prefixed to their respective Christian names", a formulation that does not allow for the addition of any territorial designation when the title is properly used.

[...]

Actual practice shows little consistency in the matter. The expression "prince of Great Britain" appears under the Hanoverians (e.g., the styles of the prince of Wales in 1714, 1729, 1751) and that of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under Victoria and George V (e.g., the styles of the prince of Wales in 1841 and 1911). Yet the 2nd duke of Albany is called "born prince of Great Britain and Ireland" in the royal consent to his marriage. Princess Frederica of Hanover is called "princess of Great Britain and Ireland", while the members of the next generation of Cumberlands (1900-13) are called "born prince(ss) of Great Britain and Ireland". But Ernst August, in 1951, is called "prince of Great Britain". Army lists of the 1910s and 1920s list Prince Henry W.F.A. (son of the king, future duke of Gloucester) as "Prince of Great Britain".

The letters patent of Nov. 30, 1917, which grant the title of prince explicitly to children of a sovereign and children of sons of a sovereign, specify no territorial designation.

But you are correct that there is no differentiation, in this respect, between the direct and cadet lines.

As I said, I am not advocating that the British royal family follow the example of other royal houses and differentiate in this way (especially since there is already an existing tradition of differentiating by only granting dukedoms to the direct line). But I also don't see the concept as less sensible for the British royal family than for any other European royal family.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
And at the time of Archie's brith, assuming the Sussexes weren't thinking seriously then of leaving the RF, I don't believe they would be happy with the idea of his being HRH PRince Archie. They are not even using the normal courtesy title for a Dukes son so why would they want him to have a royal style.
The couple have never publicly mentioned the reasons for declining the normal courtesy title for a Duke's son, so it cannot be assumed that it would also apply to a royal style. For example, suppose that they disliked the sound of "Earl of Dumbarton": This would have no impact on their feelings about the sound of "Prince Archie".
Reply With Quote
  #4917  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The British royal family has been extremely inconsistent on the issue of an official territorial designation, as Heraldica explains.




But you are correct that there is no differentiation, in this respect, between the direct and cadet lines.

As I said, I am not advocating that the British royal family follow the example of other royal houses and differentiate in this way (especially since there is already an existing tradition of differentiating by only granting dukedoms to the direct line). But I also don't see the concept as less sensible for the British royal family than for any other European royal family.




The couple have never publicly mentioned the reasons for declining the normal courtesy title for a Duke's son, so it cannot be assumed that it would also apply to a royal style. For example, suppose that they disliked the sound of "Earl of Dumbarton": This would have no impact on their feelings about the sound of "Prince Archie".
If they dislike the Earl of Dumbarton, thten it wasn't a good idea to give it..because normally, it would be expected that their eldest son wuodl be known by that title...
I can quite understand that they may have feared headlines like "Dumbo", but there were surely other secondary titles Harry could have been given.
Reply With Quote
  #4918  
Old 05-08-2020, 03:35 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 121
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
He can announce that Archie will not be HRH, just as the queen did with Edward's children.
It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.
Reply With Quote
  #4919  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.
I think he'd be better of like the Wessex children but I've said already that I don't see the point of any cadet lines having royal styles. With the possibility (probability?) of living his life as an American, even more reason not to have the baggage of royal styles I would have thought.

In the next generation will the children of both Charlotte & Louis be HRH etc. It would seem weird not to treat their children in the same way since Charlotte's offspring would be higher in the succession than those of Louis. If giving dukedoms to the monarch's sons is to continue (which I hope it doesn't) then what about the monarch's daughters? Would such dukedoms then be created to the "heirs general" or "heirs male". What about Charlotte's husband?

This is all hypothetical I know but these questions will arise if the system stays unreformed.
Reply With Quote
  #4920  
Old 05-09-2020, 02:03 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
It would not surprise me in the least if the plan for Archie was to allow him to receive his proper titles and styles in due course, but to not formally use them. As an adult, he could choose to adopt the title and style in the unlikely event he would be needed as a working royal, or renounce it altogether and remain a private citizen. This would form some sort of middle-ground between the Wessex children and the Cambridge children. JMO.
This sounds like the half in half out scenario that Harry and Meghan wanted in January. Get all the privileges keep using their titles but pick and choose the responsibilities and live mostly abroad. Only in this case Archie gets the full title and style, be raised in the USA and never take on royal engagements for the crown because his parents want him to be a private person.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs 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 meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria 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 01:04 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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