The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 07-10-2021, 06:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,135
Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

I hope this isn’t true. This was Philip’s (and The Queen’s) wish. It would look very jealous, petty and small on Charles’ part not to re- create it for Edward.

It would be bad for his image to not do this IMO. Especially after the subject has recently been raised again. What a way for him to start his reign.

I do think it would be meaningful for Edward and Sophie to get it based on the recent interview where they tell the story of Philip asking if they’d like it. Though clearly he knows it’s not a done deal too. And, really, if anyone was to feel slighted it would seem like Andrew was a candidate. He was the oldest son who would have been able to use it day to day. (I’m sure that wasn’t Philip’s intent though. I figured he got DOY because it was a typical title of the 2nd son.)

Besides- Edward has done a lot of work for the DOE awards. It seems fitting. And he and Sophie are upping their profile. Some of that may have been coming anyway, but I have little doubt the loss of Andrew, Harry and Meghan have led to more on their plates.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 07-10-2021, 11:15 PM
kathl29's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 519
I have a lot of respect for Charles and am someone who feels that he will be a good King when his time comes.

I also agree with the slimming down of the monarchy in line with how this has been done in other Royal Families across Europe.

However, the DOE going to Edward was the wish of Philip and the Queen. Edward and Sophie are hard workers who provide a safe pair of hands and who in last 18 months have had to increase their profile which they have done with dignity and without complaint. Their work in the UK during the pandemic should be showing Charles why they should be getting the title rather than not unless there is an element of jealousy from Charles of all the positive media that Sophie in particular now gets. I would definitely be very disappointed if Charles decided to not honour the wish of granting this title to Edward and would actually lose some respect for him with that decision.

As much as I believe he has the potential to be a good king, Charles is going to need to tread very carefully at the start of his reign as whether he likes it or not some of these key decisions will shape how he is perceived by the media for the whole duration. Unlike his mother he is not going to have a long reign in which to change poor public perception if it gets off to a bad start.
__________________

__________________
Above all, be the heroine of your life ... (Nora Ephron)
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 07-11-2021, 12:20 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 440
This article sounds rather strange to me. Would Charles really share with a (very indiscreet) source that one of the first thing he plans to do after his mother's death is to disrespect her wishes, as well as those of his late father? And this at a time when nothing demands going into this matter. No one wails indignantly that Edward is going to get the title, no one insists that he should get it at all costs. It was just a non-matter. What would necessitate a conversation about this? This isn't a moment of crisis with leaks from the BP. Why would they leak about a matter no one was concerned about?

Honestly, I'm disappointed with Times. This article sounded like tabloid fodder. I've never seen a real royal source giving statements this firm.
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 07-11-2021, 12:36 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,215
This doesn't make sense as Charles has already agreed to this idea - as stated in 1999 when it was announced.
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 07-11-2021, 01:36 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 182
First, Charles can't pass the title until the Queen dies, making him King. And the Queen could absolutely live on for many more years, so what Charles may or may not be thinking in 2021 doesn't matter. I personally cannot imagine that Charles is discussing the DOE title with people right now, as he knows he can't personally do anything with it until he becomes King.

Second, though I have no issue with Edward getting the DOE title, it was bizarre to me that the Queen announced he would since she herself cannot grant it to Edward. By the terms of the letters patent that granted Phillip the DOE title, it had to pass down to his eldest living male heir. Yes, many people with multiple titles and children would like to split them up and spread them among their children, but that's not how the British peerage works. Perhaps the system should be changed. But personally, I have a minor issue with the person at the very top of the system publicly hinting that the rules should be bent for her kids, but no others. If the Queen wants to ensure her youngest son is a Duke, she should make him a Duke, and move on. Yes, the peerage isn't fair to youngest sons.

Third, Charles doesn't need it for his own sons, who are both royal dukes already. The York Dukedom is extremely likely to revert back to the crown unless Andrew shocks us all with a wedding and legitimate son. There are plenty of unused titles currently, and a future King can always create a new Dukedom as well. Charles is a bit peevish, IMHO, about status and right. However, there's really no reason to hold on to the DOE title.
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 07-11-2021, 08:48 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,607
I saw on another forum that Charles has a committee that will be advising him on the transition to monarchy and that it was discussed there. They are concerned that Edward and his family and family after that will do stuff that will degrade the title and by association the memory of Prince Philip. It has been noted that Prince Andrew has disgraced the title of Duke of York and that they want to prevent this from happening. This will essentially allow them to retain the title for use in the royal family and it will not possible run away with Edward's future descendants. When I saw that I think that any new creation of royal dukes will only be for the person and will be a hereditary title. I get the feeling that they are kicking themselves to loosing Kent and Gloucester.
It should be noted that the Duke of Edinburgh never wanted the DOE awards to be named after him and the awards are aware that they need to remain themselves in the future to break themselves away from the personality in general. So there will be no problem with Edward's continued involvement with the Awards.
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 07-11-2021, 01:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 182
I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

I have always believed that royal watchers make too big a deal of Dukedoms leaving the mainline, as that is entirely the point of a peerage. But if Charles is also thinking this, then seriously, don't just stop at limiting the DOE title. End it all. Not titles, no monarchy. Because at its core, it's about passing privilege and titles through generations just based on the birth order of boys, and not on merit. And that has benefitted Charles far more than it has hurt him.

Though I maintain that the Queen shouldn't have publicly promised her youngest son a Dukedom that she couldn't bestow, I think it's equally bizarre for Charles to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable on the chance that a future holder will hurt the reputation of the title.

The current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are a credit to an inheritable peerage, not a detraction to it.
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 07-11-2021, 01:30 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,607
What I was trying to say is that they only want royal Dukes to be the sons of the reigning monarchy. No more younger brother or cousins and second cousins Dukes.

Is it possible that the problem is that is it a Scottish title?
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 07-11-2021, 02:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,948
Surely Charles wouldn’t want to begin his reign by...

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

For various reasons, Charles is unlikely to be a very popular king (at least at first). And if he breaks two promises immediately after his ascension, he’ll be just like any bloke at the corner pub telling porkies to suit himself.

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 07-11-2021, 03:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,951
I moved my reply to this post to Questions about British Styles and Titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Two elements of the story strike me as out of the ordinary: that there is not the slightest hint regarding the motivation for the alleged change of plans, [...]

If true, the only potential reason which comes to my mind is a plan to sideline his siblings when he accedes to the throne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Yes, I noticed there was no motivation given, that's why I wondered if it was an emotional reaction to his father's death. It does seem strange that there's no follow up just "nope".
Apologies, it wasn't my intent to dismiss your theory. I felt that given the ancient tradition of conferring dukedoms on royal princes and the publicly settled decision of 1999, there would need to be (not legally, but for the sake of optics) a rational reason for the decision even if emotional motivations are a factor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I saw on another forum that Charles has a committee that will be advising him on the transition to monarchy and that it was discussed there. They are concerned that Edward and his family and family after that will do stuff that will degrade the title and by association the memory of Prince Philip. It has been noted that Prince Andrew has disgraced the title of Duke of York and that they want to prevent this from happening. This will essentially allow them to retain the title for use in the royal family and it will not possible run away with Edward's future descendants. When I saw that I think that any new creation of royal dukes will only be for the person and will be a hereditary title. I get the feeling that they are kicking themselves to loosing Kent and Gloucester.
Did the person on the forum give a source?

While I agree that persisting in making royal dukedoms hereditary has its pitfalls, these could be avoided by granting the dukedom of Edinburgh to the Earl of Wessex for his lifetime only.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

I have always believed that royal watchers make too big a deal of Dukedoms leaving the mainline, as that is entirely the point of a peerage. But if Charles is also thinking this, then seriously, don't just stop at limiting the DOE title. End it all. Not titles, no monarchy. Because at its core, it's about passing privilege and titles through generations just based on the birth order of boys, and not on merit. And that has benefitted Charles far more than it has hurt him.
I respectfully disagree. Outside of the royal family, new peerages have been conferred on a non-inheritable basis for decades, and these peerages continue to serve a purpose. Within the British royal family, I believe the goal of conferring peerages is simply to carry on a tradition. If the point were for the peerage to be passed on through as many generations as possible, they would not have been granted with a limitation to the legitimate male line.
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 07-11-2021, 05:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 182
But the limitation to the legitimate male line was because, before modern reason finally took over, illegitimate men and all women did not have the same legal rights and status as legitimate men. So it follows that the peerage was set up the same, as all men likely thought they would father sons no matter what. (and not on topic, but I'm all in favor of expanding the inheritable peerage to women, and with DNA testing today, there could be a valid argument to include illegitimate children as well.)

Don't forget, Charles only has a right to be King as the oldest legitimate male child of the Queen. He has not earned the role of King. He can't. It's not how a monarchy works.

If Charles believes that his nephew shouldn't inherit a title just because of his relationship to his father Edward, where does that leave Charles? Should we just .... elect our head of state, rather than risk it passing to someone who will harm the crown's reputation? Is that what Charles wants us to do?

If the report is true, I don't think Charles has really thought about what he is saying. That it's too dangerous to give privilege and title to people only because of their patrilineal descent from a monarch. I actually think Phillip would call him an idiot for that reason, and not because Phillip's wishes aren't being respected.

(Also, though it seems unlikely, the monarch could grant an inheritable peerage to a non-family member. The monarch is allowed to do so. Churchill was going to be given a Dukedom, but he turned it down so that his son could sit in the House of Commons.)
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 07-11-2021, 08:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
What I was trying to say is that they only want royal Dukes to be the sons of the reigning monarchy. No more younger brother or cousins and second cousins Dukes.

Is it possible that the problem is that is it a Scottish title?
I did wonder about this myself. If Scotland gains independence and severs ties with the monarchy - not 100% likely at the moment, but not unimaginable either - Edinburgh would then become an unusable 'foreign' dukedom, similar to Connaught.
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 07-11-2021, 09:27 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 551
If this is true, and Charles doesn't make Edward Duke of Edinburgh after he is King, that would make me really sad for Edward & Sophie. Apart from a bit of a rough start, the Wessexes settled down into complete (and mostly ignored by the press) support for Queen and country. They accepted Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke on his wedding, then Sophie's position was pushed down from the third Lady in the land (behind the Queen and Queen Mother) when the Queen changed the rules and made it so that when Princess Anne was present, or Princess Alexandra, then Sophie became the lesser female Royal – no squeaks from the Wessexes regarding their position in the family. No scandals. No speaking to the press about anything other than their support for their patronages. And for all their hard work, especially for the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, I feel they well and truly deserve to take over the Dukedom, not at all forgetting it was Prince Philip's wish, and the Queen's too. However, I shall wait and see if this is true.
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 07-12-2021, 02:08 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

For various reasons, Charles is unlikely to be a very popular king (at least at first). And if he breaks two promises immediately after his ascension, he’ll be just like any bloke at the corner pub telling porkies to suit himself.

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.
THis is just speculation.

Anyways, not to be pedantic, but A was an intention, not a promise.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 07-12-2021, 08:33 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

[....]

In no any other monarchy these Dukedoms are hereditary. All of these titles are ad personam. This proves that not having hereditary dukedoms is not at all an end of a monarchy.

And there are monarchies which have scrapped these "territorial" titles because they are completely meaningless. The Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Lancaster have a real Dukedom, a real territory and an enormous fortune.

But the Duke of York has zero comma zero to do with York. His territory once was Sunninghill Park. That is it. Princess Madeleine of Sweden has zero comma zero to do with Hälsingland and Gästrikland of which she is Duchess. She lives in the United States. Likewise the Duke of Sussex whom is living a jet set life in California. The good people of Sussex never see "their Duke" whose title will eventually pass to Archie, possibly growoing up all his life in the States...

That Prince Charles wants to clean up archaïc meaningless fodder to create a lean, transparent and modern monarchy working in an ever-changing society is something to applaud.
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 07-12-2021, 09:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
In no any other monarchy these Dukedoms are hereditary. All of these titles are ad personam.
I am not sure if that is true for all of the monarchies worldwide, but as far as Europe goes, it is true only that the UK continues to grant hereditary territorial titles to younger sons (and only the UK continues to discriminate between sons and daughters in this regard).

But on the other hand, in every other monarchy in Europe with the exception of Spain, all males descending in legitimate male lines from monarchs are titled, even in lines which are excluded from the succession to the throne. In that sense, the UK monarchy is already leaner than the other monarchies of Europe but for Spain. The sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor are plain Master in spite of being males in legitimate patrilineal line from a King.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
If Charles believes that his nephew shouldn't inherit a title just because of his relationship to his father Edward, where does that leave Charles? Should we just .... elect our head of state, rather than risk it passing to someone who will harm the crown's reputation? Is that what Charles wants us to do?

If the report is true, I don't think Charles has really thought about what he is saying. That it's too dangerous to give privilege and title to people only because of their patrilineal descent from a monarch. I actually think Phillip would call him an idiot for that reason, and not because Phillip's wishes aren't being respected.
Just for clarification, the report in The Times did not speculate on the Prince's thinking. That speculation originated from a post on another forum which was discussed here.

My understanding is that the speculation was not about the Prince of Wales being opposed to hereditary privilege, but about the goal of slimming the number of distant relatives who will bear "royal" titles in future generations. It is true that the King himself could very well harm the Crown's reputation, but the greater the number of individuals who are associated with the Crown, the greater the probability that at least one of them will do harm to the Crown's reputation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
They accepted Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke on his wedding,
While the motivation for Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke has not been officially confirmed, the press reports stated that it was Edward's personal request, as he became fond of the title Earl of Wessex after hearing it used in the film Shakespeare in Love.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...im-a-duke.html
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 07-12-2021, 10:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

Plus stripping Harry's children of the HRH. Charles would be definitely shooting himself in the foot in all 3 counts.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 07-12-2021, 01:37 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

...

My understanding is that the speculation was not about the Prince of Wales being opposed to hereditary privilege, but about the goal of slimming the number of distant relatives who will bear "royal" titles in future generations. It is true that the King himself could very well harm the Crown's reputation, but the greater the number of individuals who are associated with the Crown, the greater the probability that at least one of them will do harm to the Crown's reputation.

...
Besides Prince Edward, the only future holder of the title (in that creation) that could be "royal" would be James, as any children of James would not have HRH. And since it is highly unlikely (according to Sophie) that James will ever use the HRH, I believe this is a moot point.

So after Edward, there really is no one that could possibly "sully" the royal title.
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 07-12-2021, 03:30 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

[....]
There are no such "promises".

A
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion, not a promise, to create the title Princess Consort for Camilla but this is impossible without a change of law. Charles is not in any position to change the law, to begin with: his very first moment as King simply sees his legally wedded wife as Queen.

B
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion that in due time Prince Edward once would become Duke of Edinburgh. But this is never a "promise" as Charles himself, heir of the body male - lawfully begotten to the very Duke of Edinburgh himself, was and is in no any position to do anything about this ducal title. And no any Sovereign lets him- or herself to be ruled "over the grave". The word says it: sovereign. It is the King, and the King only, who organizes his House to his own will and pleasure. It is possible the new King will make the Earl of Wessex and Forfar a Duke of Edinburgh indeed. And it is possible he does not. That is his prerogative to decide upon.

A and B were no "promises". And both are not "broken" as A and B are not even present time but something which might possibly happen in a future.
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 07-12-2021, 04:08 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
While the motivation for Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke has not been officially confirmed, the press reports stated that it was Edward's personal request, as he became fond of the title Earl of Wessex after hearing it used in the film Shakespeare in Love.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...im-a-duke.html
Edward and Sophie recently spoke about it in a joined interview. I would consider that a confirmation. They were personally asked by the duke of Edinburgh in advance of their wedding if they were open to being made the Duke (and Duchess) of Edinburgh in due time, i.e., after the title had merged with the Crown. They agreed to that, which meant that Edward would receive a lesser title for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
There are no such "promises".

A
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion, not a promise, to create the title Princess Consort for Camilla but this is impossible without a change of law. Charles is not in any position to change the law, to begin with: his very first moment as King simply sees his legally wedded wife as Queen.

B
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion that in due time Prince Edward once would become Duke of Edinburgh. But this is never a "promise" as Charles himself, heir of the body male - lawfully begotten to the very Duke of Edinburgh himself, was and is in no any position to do anything about this ducal title. And no any Sovereign lets him- or herself to be ruled "over the grave". The word says it: sovereign. It is the King, and the King only, who organizes his House to his own will and pleasure. It is possible the new King will make the Earl of Wessex and Forfar a Duke of Edinburgh indeed. And it is possible he does not. That is his prerogative to decide upon.

A and B were no "promises". And both are not "broken" as A and B are not even present time but something which might possibly happen in a future.
The word was 'agreed' - so, the relevant noun would be 'agreement' not 'option', 'intention' or 'suggestion'. An agreement should be kept. If Charles didn't want to follow through or be bound by the agreement in the future, he shouldn't have agreed to it and stated that he couldn't agree to it as he did not want to bind himself to anything that he might or might not do as a Sovereign. In that case Edward would have received a different dukedom instead of an earldom.

Quote:
On their wedding day, Buckingham Palace announced in a statement: “The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales have also agreed that the Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.”
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, styles and titles


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
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 25 08-22-2018 09:23 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 62 07-25-2018 04:50 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 08-08-2016 10:55 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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