The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5781  
Old 05-08-2021, 05:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post


More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.
A controversy unnecessarily turbo charged by you know who.

I think differently. Face any controversy head on & get it done. It's in the best long term interests of the monarchy to resolve questions over titles without being seen to give in to what amounts in effect to a form of blackmail.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5782  
Old 05-08-2021, 05:26 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
A controversy unnecessarily turbo charged by you know who.

I think differently. Face any controversy head on & get it done. It's in the best long term interests of the monarchy to resolve questions over titles without being seen to give in to what amounts in effect to a form of blackmail.
Well, since we've been told that it wasn't HM or the DoE who made the racist comment that fueled so much of the recent controversy, I think that doing it now while the Queen is still alive actually provides a degree of protection from any further accusations of racism. If it happens during Charles' reign there's nothing that will convince those who already believe he's the one who said it that it was anyone but him.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5783  
Old 05-08-2021, 05:59 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,782
I think the worse mistake that could be made would be to tackle this "problem" with the idea in mind that one couple, living in California that have walked away from anything to do with the monarchy could be reflected as being the "need" for the actions taken. I think it's best to just have the monarchy go ahead as it would if that said couple didn't exist anymore. I just don't think I'd like to see the monarchy do something and have it seem to be reflective of two people that have gone rogue.

The Queen may live for quite some time yet as she seems to be in pretty good shape for her age. By the time Charles does become the monarch, who knows what the situation within the family is going to be like.
__________________
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
  #5784  
Old 05-08-2021, 06:13 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Well the recent interview certainly muddied the waters over Archie & sibling(s). Either the desire to have fewer hrh's was not explained properly to his parents or it was & they didn't like it. Either way this would be best resolved sooner rather than later.

I agree that the Gloucesters & Kents (at least the duke & his sister) are a different case & should just be left as they are. I think the York princesses would have been best advised to voluntarily relinquish their titles/styles on marriage like Patricia of Connaught.
As soon as Charles ascends the throne, Beatrice will be one of the Counsellors of State (and Eugenie might be called upon if it would be decided/concluded that Harry is no longer 'domiciled' in the UK); so recommending a future counsellor of state to relinquish her titles when no decision has been reached on the future use of titles seems premature.

Of course, previously, there have been other Counsellors of State who weren't royal highnesses but given that Beatrice will have this royal duty; I would not have advised her to relinquish her title and style that are related to being a princess of the blood (by the second son of the monarch - which makes her the 'most important' cousin in terms of the line of succession of the future king).
Reply With Quote
  #5785  
Old 05-08-2021, 06:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I agree that, in Archie's case, it would be better to change the rules now, so that he never becomes an HRH, than to strip him of the HRH after he gets it.

That doesn't change my point though that any such decision has to be agreed to and announced by the Queen, rather than the Prince of Wales, as it is not his prerogative to do so. And I don't think the Queen will make such move at the age of 95 and at the end of her reign.
Of course, she has. I haven't read anyone disputing that. But Charles could make his case and see whether his mother agrees that this would be the best way forward (if he indeed intends to limit it to children of the monarch and (heirs) only).

Based on Louise and James, I don't see why she wouldn't agree with that approach; but she will need some kind of justification for the announcement (not formally; but it would help to explain why it was made at that point in time).

Quote:
More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.
We don't know what controversy they might cause in the long run (if they would follow in their parents' footsteps a lot could happen); so, it could also be pragmatic to avoid having two HRH's that are primarily American in culture and don't grow up within 'the system' unlike previous HRHs - so don't feel the same respect and responsibility in relation to the royal family they would represent as Royal Highnesses.

Quote:
That was merely an intention, not a statement that Mrs Parker Bowles would be known as HRH The Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes the Throne as such decision, again, is something that is beyond Charles' authority. Since Charles' opinion or intention as PoW doesn't change the current common law rule under which Camilla will be queen when he is king, my interpretation of the announcement is that it was merely a PR stunt to boost popular support for the his second marriage and one that, unfortunately, he might regret now. It may not be illegal, but it is legally meaningless.
Yes, and so would be any other statement that Charles makes nowadays. So, I'm not sure what your point is. It seems everyone agrees that no formal action can be taken by Charles until he is king. The only thing he could do is announce 'intentions'; which he did. If he changed his 'intentions' and thinks the public should know to avoid outcry when he ascends the throne, he might want to consider making that public knowledge. Only in the case of the grandchildren action would be needed in advance to avoid them being 'stripped off'; while in Camilla's case the expectation is that she will be 'stripped off', so not doing so could be seen as elevation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the worse mistake that could be made would be to tackle this "problem" with the idea in mind that one couple, living in California that have walked away from anything to do with the monarchy could be reflected as being the "need" for the actions taken. I think it's best to just have the monarchy go ahead as it would if that said couple didn't exist anymore. I just don't think I'd like to see the monarchy do something and have it seem to be reflective of two people that have gone rogue.

The Queen may live for quite some time yet as she seems to be in pretty good shape for her age. By the time Charles does become the monarch, who knows what the situation within the family is going to be like.
That makes sense. Although I also don't think they should avoid doing what might have been intended to do either because of the upheaval they may cause; because that would mean to basically let yourself be blackmailed.
Reply With Quote
  #5786  
Old 05-08-2021, 06:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
More likely, any changes to titles of grandchildren of a sovereign will be implemented only in William's reign. The only affected persons in Charles' reign would be Archie and his future sister, which, pragmatically, is not worth the controversy.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?
Reply With Quote
  #5787  
Old 05-08-2021, 08:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?

Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.

It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.

By playing the race card, Meghan effectively set a trap for Charles , which he doesn't have to fall into. Even more appalling is the suggestion here that his 95-year-old mother should take the fall for him and be the one who will deny Archie his future title.
Reply With Quote
  #5788  
Old 05-09-2021, 09:15 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

Of course, previously, there have been other Counsellors of State who weren't royal highnesses but given that Beatrice will have this royal duty; I would not have advised her to relinquish her title and style that are related to being a princess of the blood (by the second son of the monarch - which makes her the 'most important' cousin in terms of the line of succession of the future king).
I understand the point but eventually these cousins inevitably drift so far down the line of succession that it seems silly to keep making them hrh's. Richard of Gloucester is the 'most important cousin' in HM's generation but he's now 29th in line & may well end up nearly fortieth after being born 5th in line.

And as you point out a C of S doesn't need to be an hrh. If HM had stopped at two children then Peter Phillips & Zara Tindell would be C's of S. And Lord Snowden would be one in the next reign.

There is of course a question over whether C's of S are even needed anymore because of modern communications. And even if C's of S continued I don't see any reason why they have to be relatives of the monarch other than those in direct line.

The emerging scandal over Michael of Kent is another reason for keeping the number of hrh's as low as possible. The less potential for reputational damage to the crown the better.
Reply With Quote
  #5789  
Old 05-09-2021, 01:20 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I understand the point but eventually these cousins inevitably drift so far down the line of succession that it seems silly to keep making them hrh's. Richard of Gloucester is the 'most important cousin' in HM's generation but he's now 29th in line & may well end up nearly fortieth after being born 5th in line.

And as you point out a C of S doesn't need to be an hrh. If HM had stopped at two children then Peter Phillips & Zara Tindell would be C's of S. And Lord Snowden would be one in the next reign.

There is of course a question over whether C's of S are even needed anymore because of modern communications. And even if C's of S continued I don't see any reason why they have to be relatives of the monarch other than those in direct line.

The emerging scandal over Michael of Kent is another reason for keeping the number of hrh's as low as possible. The less potential for reputational damage to the crown the better.
We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.

Not awarding them for future generations (starting with Charles' grandchildren/the change of the line of succession), is a very different decision - and I am sympathetic to the view that the smartest solution - especially given the changed rules on the line of succession - could be to limit it to children of monarchs (and direct heirs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.

It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.
Archie only turned 2 last week, so he won't know the difference either.

Quote:
By playing the race card, Meghan effectively set a trap for Charles , which he doesn't have to fall into. Even more appalling is the suggestion here that his 95-year-old mother should take the fall for him and be the one who will deny Archie his future title.
Not falling into the trap to me means doing EXACTLY what he planned to do, whether that means letting the grandchildren by his younger son be HRH or making sure that they aren't. He should NOT let himself be blackmailed by Meghan.

The only reason many of us propose that the announcement needs to be made in advance, is to avoid Archie and sibling to ever be HRH. Or do you think it doesn't matter whether he isn't awarded it at all versus the title and style being removed from him after he just got it upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne? I'd say it is much better for each and everyone that IF the decision has been made that they won't be HRH, that this is arranged before the fact than just after.
Reply With Quote
  #5790  
Old 05-09-2021, 02:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.
.
The suggestion was that they could have voluntarily relinquished them on marriage. Not remove them.
Reply With Quote
  #5791  
Old 05-09-2021, 04:06 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The suggestion was that they could have voluntarily relinquished them on marriage. Not remove them.
Yes, you are right; but that would still result in their styles being removed instead of them never having those titles... The only difference would be the way of the removal: 'voluntarily' (which could mean: being pressured into it) relinquished or taken from them by an external source.
Reply With Quote
  #5792  
Old 05-09-2021, 05:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
We aren't talking about 'making' them HRHs. This question is about REMOVING HRHs; and I would say that you would need a very good reason to do so. And removing it from Beatrice, who currently is an HRH, and might serve as a C of S, doesn't make sense to me.

Not awarding them for future generations (starting with Charles' grandchildren/the change of the line of succession), is a very different decision - and I am sympathetic to the view that the smartest solution - especially given the changed rules on the line of succession - could be to limit it to children of monarchs (and direct heirs).

Archie only turned 2 last week, so he won't know the difference either.


Not falling into the trap to me means doing EXACTLY what he planned to do, whether that means letting the grandchildren by his younger son be HRH or making sure that they aren't. He should NOT let himself be blackmailed by Meghan.

The only reason many of us propose that the announcement needs to be made in advance, is to avoid Archie and sibling to ever be HRH. Or do you think it doesn't matter whether he isn't awarded it at all versus the title and style being removed from him after he just got it upon his grandfather's ascension to the throne? I'd say it is much better for each and everyone that IF the decision has been made that they won't be HRH, that this is arranged before the fact than just after.

Trying to answer your question:


1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.



2) The Queen herself probably doesn't believe in slimming down anyway. In her reign, the classes of persons eligible to the HRH have been increased, rather than being cut down, as she made Charlotte and Louis HRHs too. She also drafted Anne as a full-time working royal (unlike previous holders of the Princess Royal title) and kept her cousins (the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra) as working royals until today. I don't think it is reasonable to call upon the Queen to make a major change in royal titles rules at the end of her reign when that is something she herself never felt necessary. On the other hand, if she makes changes applying exclusively to Harry's children, Meghan's supporters will claim her insinuations to Oprah have been proven true. If Charles feels that taking the HRH from the Sussex kids when he is king is something that is necessary and important for the future of the British monarchy, he should own it and take responsibility as monarch for this act, rather than shifting that burden to his mother while she is still alive.
Reply With Quote
  #5793  
Old 05-09-2021, 05:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Princess Anne was not the first Princess Royal to be a working royal. The Queen's Aunt Mary most certainly was and was one of the busiest during the Queen's own reign. I am currently doing a full analysis of the CC from 1952 onwards and it is striking the number of years where Princess Mary is the first royal to undertake a duty each year.
Reply With Quote
  #5794  
Old 05-09-2021, 06:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Princess Anne was not the first Princess Royal to be a working royal. The Queen's Aunt Mary most certainly was and was one of the busiest during the Queen's own reign. I am currently doing a full analysis of the CC from 1952 onwards and it is striking the number of years where Princess Mary is the first royal to undertake a duty each year.



I said unlike previous Princesses Royal (in the plural), not necessarily Princess Mary specifically.
Reply With Quote
  #5795  
Old 05-09-2021, 06:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I said unlike previous Princesses Royal (in the plural), not necessarily Princess Mary specifically.
By stating that the Queen 'drafted Anne as a full-time working royal (unlike previous holders of the Princess Royal title)' you definitely implied that Anne was the first full-time working Princess Royal. That is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #5796  
Old 05-09-2021, 06:37 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Trying to answer your question:


1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.
Their generation is the first to be born after the change in the line of succession. In addition, Louise and James are already known as Lady and Viscount, so why have two children in-between them and William's grandchildren to have an HRH.

Even more so, when they are living in the States and their parents have been forbidden to use their HRH because they feared they would use it to make a profit instead of to serve the monarchy. There is no reason to give them that title while the children born in a similar position prior and after them don't receive that same treatment.

Quote:
2) (...) On the other hand, if she makes changes applying exclusively to Harry's children, Meghan's supporters will claim her insinuations to Oprah have been proven true. If Charles feels that taking the HRH from the Sussex kids when he is king is something that is necessary and important for the future of the British monarchy, he should own it and take responsibility as monarch for this act, rather than shifting that burden to his mother while she is still alive.
It would indeed have been easier if William had more than one sibling; as 'proof' that it had nothing to do with their specific background. But I don't believe in giving in to blackmail. And as the couple praises the Queen at every possibility, it would be hard to suddenly attack her for making a decision that reflects the future of the monarchy.

And the queen's position is different than Charles's as she can act BEFORE the fact and Charles can only act AFTER the fact. If that wasn't the case, I would agree with you that it could wait until his reign.
Reply With Quote
  #5797  
Old 05-09-2021, 07:11 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Well, since we've been told that it wasn't HM or the DoE who made the racist comment that fueled so much of the recent controversy, I think that doing it now while the Queen is still alive actually provides a degree of protection from any further accusations of racism. If it happens during Charles' reign there's nothing that will convince those who already believe he's the one who said it that it was anyone but him.
Excellent point about HM doing it now and explaining why!
Reply With Quote
  #5798  
Old 05-10-2021, 02:47 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,129
Public opinion will IMO fall into three possible areas,
1. Those who do not care one way or another.
2. Those who follow royalty and would understand the historical reasons for Archie and his siblings not receiving HRH.
3. Followers of royalty because they follow Meghan , who might not appreciate the full picture.
Reply With Quote
  #5799  
Old 05-15-2021, 02:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't necessarily disagree, but the same applies in the next generation - the only affected persons would be Louis's children. What would your expectation be if Louis or his future wife held an interview resulting in a comparable degree of controversy over their children not having the status of princess or prince? Would the implementation of the changes need to be put back until a generation in which the younger sons and the mothers of their children are willing to cooperate with the change?
Louis is 3. By the time he is 30, William most likely will be king already. Chances are then that the new rules will be in place even before Louis gets married or has children of his own.
The rules directing that Archie will not be a prince during the present reign were in place for over a hundred years before Prince Harry got married or had children of his own, and that was insufficient to ward off the controversy over that fact. It was contended that Queen Elizabeth had a duty to change the 1917 rules in favor of the Sussex children, and the same argument could be utilized in regards to King William and Louis's children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is already unlikely that a Harry/Meghan type situation will repeat itself with Louis and, given my point above, I would say even more so.
With Prince Louis being (as you point out) only 3, and his future wife an unknown quantity, for the moment there is no indication whether the likelihood of similar interview statements will be lower or higher in the next generation. In the scenario you raise (i.e. if Prince Charles had plans to withdraw princely status from children of younger sons but the interview and resultant controversy spurs him to renege), it may be learned from by future younger sons and daughters-in-law who wish to retain princely status for their children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
1) I don't think it is necessary to strip Archie or his sister of the HRH. Their being HRHs has no impact on Charles' proposed "slimming down" of the monarchy as one can be an HRH and, at the same time, not be a working royal, or have state funding or state security (see e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie). Any future changes can be easily delayed to apply first to Louis' children and then to subsequent grandchildren of George in collateral line, without raising any unnecessary controversy in Charles' reign.
Adding to Somebody's reply, should it be deemed unnecessary to strip Prince Harry's children, I can't see why it should be deemed more necessary to strip Prince Louis's children (and that is all assuming there will not be another controversy in 30 years). The gender discrimination between Louis's children and the children of his sister could be cured by extending the HRH to Princess Charlotte's children.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
2) The Queen herself probably doesn't believe in slimming down anyway. In her reign, the classes of persons eligible to the HRH have been increased, rather than being cut down, as she made Charlotte and Louis HRHs too. She also [...] kept her cousins (the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra) as working royals until today.
She also decreased the class of persons eligible to be HRH through her agreement that HRH would not be used by Prince Edward's children, and decreased the class of working royals by excluding the York princesses who were in the same position as the Duke of Kent or Princess Alexandra.
Reply With Quote
  #5800  
Old 05-17-2021, 01:37 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
May I ask, if a female descendants of Windsors wants to change their surname to x-Windsor, like Princess Anne’s son Peter wants to change to Phillips-Mountbatten-Windsor, does he need a permission from The Monarch? As he’s adding The Royal Family’s surname.

Also, is Windsor MUST always be put at the back, like X-Windsor, because the surname put at the back seems senior than the original one.

My question is inspired by The possibly change of succession to nobility, if it does happen, Lady Louise would be Duchess of Edinburgh in the future, what if her descendants want to change to X-Mountbatten-Windsor?
__________________

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 11:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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