The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1201  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I expect that Harry and Meghan will be back for family events - jubilees, Trooping, Christmas and Easter as soon as covid allows. I expect that they will be at Garden Parties next, commonwealth and other thanks giving's and then after about 3 years - appearing at some engagements for the royals.
Iroyals.
I don't see Bea and Eugenie becoming half royals. Charles does not want to end up with other people to whom he will have to pay an allowance perhaps for the rest of their lives.. and I think that the 2 of them have long since lost any interest in being working royals.. They have their own jobs, are married, E has a baby. Why would they want it?
I don't think that Harry would be welcome as a working royal after his behaviour, possibly if he did break up with Meghan which I dont think will happen.. but if it DID happen... I think he'd have to be back in the fold, living in the UK and showing himself reliable and trustworthy. I think that the most that's likely to happen (if they stay togehter as I think tehy will) is that they'll come back for visits and occasionally be seen in public with the RF....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:31 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Beatrice and Eugenie aren't 'half royals'. They attend only full family events and maybe a garden party. They have full-time jobs.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:47 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,834
Stripping the HRH of the Kents and Gloucesters just as they retire would be extremely poor thanks for lifetimes' worth of quiet service to the Crown. I personally would be furious on their behalf. Especially if it was because of a couple that caused chaos and did the exact opposite and only spent a couple of years serving together.

Beatrice and Eugenie's titles who knows? I don't think so but I might be wrong. I think it will be about the future generations not a cull of HRH's from people who've had them all their lives.

Harry and Meghan. I expect them back for things like Trooping and other big family events. But how can the family be sure that they won't won't "feel silenced" or "prisoners" if they're told no or asked not to so X political issue if they want to be part-time? And then give Oprah an update on how sadly "things are even worse".

Besides Harry is one thing because he's blood family and grew up in it, but why would Meghan want to do engagements when she apparently thought everything about "The Institution" and her place in it was toxic? She was only there for 18 months, including a few breaks. And I don't see that he comes back to the UK for work unless they break up (and I am NOT predicting this) for a few weeks/months without her.

I don't see them turning BP into a museum. Among other things it was designed specifically for a celebrating public to walk down the Mall and congregate outside to cheer the sovereign and it's their iconic base in London even if HM will now mostly be at Windsor and Charles prefers other places.
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 04-19-2021, 04:52 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,869
Unless there is a formal statement from the Palace I will not be lead astray by these anonymous sources or royal reporters who think they are psychic. Does anyone else think that there could not be a worse time to announce a so-call Way-Ahead redux? Good heavens, the Duke is barely cold in the grave and the media are stirring the pot. Contrary to the breathless reporting, HM the Queen is not yet lying beside her husband and it is and obscenity to treat her as if she does not even exist, that she has no say in what will be happening in her own home and family.

The state of the BRF has never been in more of a perceived shaky situation and the notion that Prince Charles is about to make instant changes, a la The Way Ahead mythical report that has never been released because it doesn't affect anyone but the BRF or more probably as time and situations change it was rendered irrelevant. Right now, we need to see our Royal Family united firmly behind HM and visibly supporting her.

If there is one thing that Charles needs to do is be ruthless in rooting out those Aides and Courtiers that are leaking like a sieve. If they had shut them before the Sussex situation got out of hand the may not look as hopelessly impotent as they do now, at the mercy of those who would shape the BRF the way they see it and not as the BRF want or would ever consider. Its time to shape up and ship out the dross not rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:01 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
If they're having meetings to plan the future then I hope it will go further than just tinkering around the edges of the current system. They need to start with "What is the purpose of the monarchy in 21st Century Britain?" Once they've established the purpose, it will be clearer what the tasks and responsibilities are and how they can be ranked eg 'essential' and 'desirable'.
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:15 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
I am not against the idea of part time royals and think it preferable to stripping patrons from such a drastic number of charities. Having part time royals also means that a charity is more likely to have a patron who is genuinely interested and involved in their work. Very few people have as many interests as Philip and it would make sense that anything related to dyslexia and scoliosis for example was offered to Beatrice and Eugenie respectively if they wish to do it. If they don’t, that’s fine, they have lives and jobs but I believe they should be offered. If they had not been the only Princesses of the blood royal in their generation (until Louise who was born many years later and obviously doesn’t use the title) perhaps the Yorks would have been managed better when they were younger.

Given criticism from Charles (I had not heard about him referring to his nieces as twits before) it may be that they only form part of the plans in the event that Charles does not accede to the throne or does not reign long enough for George, Charlotte and Louis to become working royals (by which time Edward and Sophie are likely to want to do less or retire.)

On Harry, part of me has an issue with giving him exactly what he wanted when he went about it so badly, then went along with that interview and stuck the boot in himself. The idea itself was the right thing, where would he suddenly get a job from in 15 years if expected to be part time or no time then? In terms of reducing the expense, perhaps a solution is to have Harry doing the overseas engagements where he is closer.

In some ways he’s probably done his father a favour, no longer the least popular Wales it seems. I would certainly prefer to see any of Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise or James given some sort of role if they wish ahead of the Sussexes.

In these talks presumably the CoS system will have to be amended in some way. The 4 are currently Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. I understand from reading another thread that they need 2 to act, so things being as they are that’s basically Charles and William then. It would make sense if any child or grandchild of age qualified in some ways, as Anne and Edward know what is involved, have royal duties and yet can’t act. Either that or the domiciled in the UK requirement is clarified and Harry is taken off. The current system is something of a roadblock.
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
A note about CoS - you don't have to be royal or have ever been a working royal e.g. in the early - mid-50s one of the CoS was Gerald Lascelles, Earl of Harewood. He occasionally appeared at royal events as the son of The Princess Royal and cousin of The Queen but he wasn't HRH, even though he was the eldest grandchild of George V.

I do think 'domiciled in the UK' needs to be clarified though.

Beatrice and Eugenie could easily do what is needed as it is largely meeting incoming or outgoing High Commissioners or Ambassadors, chairing the Privy Council and the weekly audience with the PM. As CoS haven't been used since about 2002 according to the CC and The Queen isn't going anywhere any time soon there isn't going to be a need for the rest of this reign I suspect.
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 04-19-2021, 05:43 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 278
I think the half-royal thing would be workable if the only difference between them and full-time royals was that they worked a reduced and flexible engagement schedule, and in exchange were allowed to work at paid jobs that didn't trade on their royal status or otherwise generate controversy. I'll even go so far as to say that I think Harry and Meghan might have been allowed to do that had it actually been what they wanted. But it would never have been enough for them - or at least, not for Meghan. Her problem wasn't that the work was difficult or unpleasant, it was that she didn't like feeling silenced. But for any part-time arrangement to be workable, the part-time royal and their spouse would need to follow the same media protocols as the full-time ones.

I could easily see Beatrice or Eugenie and their husbands being willing to do that, because they've basically been doing it this whole time anyway. I could even see Harry himself being willing to do it - before he met Meghan, he'd rightly complain about the media doing dangerous and illegal things, but never seemed too upset about untrue or unfair headlines. But Meghan is never going to accept that. So unless they split up, I don't think Harry's coming back in any official capacity unless they work out some agreement where Harry follows the rules and Meghan can do what she likes. And I don't think the family's going to agree to that, because it's a pretty obvious trainwreck waiting to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
We will see Camilla as the queen because who will tell the mourning new king that his wife is not good enough to be what the wife of the king always was: his queen? I doubt the papers will demand it and the politicians will do nothing to diminish their new king with that. And neither will Archie M-B be denied his rightful title of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. I mean, we already accepted his first name as "Royal"...
It was the future king and not the papers or politicians who told the public that his wife would not be his queen. HRH Prince Archie of Sussex is considered his "rightful" title only on the basis of the will of previous monarchs, which future monarchs will have an equal right to reverse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Interesting article in the Telegraph ...I suppose it was to be expected, but there will be a summit - led by Charles and William - to determine the future of the Monarchy.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...harles-prince/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
The Daily Mail is now reporting that Prince Charles and Prince William will hold a summit within the next few weeks to decide the royal family's future, including who will have an official role.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-future.html
The Daily Mail is not reporting it, merely quoting from Gordon Rayner's report in the Telegraph.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Unless there is a formal statement from the Palace I will not be lead astray by these anonymous sources or royal reporters who think they are psychic. [...] HM the Queen is not yet lying beside her husband and it is and obscenity to treat her as if she does not even exist, that she has no say in what will be happening in her own home and family. [...] If there is one thing that Charles needs to do is be ruthless in rooting out those Aides and Courtiers that are leaking like a sieve. [...]
There has been no suggestion that this royal reporter thinks he is psychic, or that the Queen will have no say in what happens in her own home and family. And I would personally not assume at this stage that the leak is unsanctioned.
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:10 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
I think the half-royal thing would be workable if the only difference between them and full-time royals was that they worked a reduced and flexible engagement schedule, and in exchange were allowed to work at paid jobs that didn't trade on their royal status or otherwise generate controversy. I'll even go so far as to say that I think Harry and Meghan might have been allowed to do that had it actually been what they wanted. But it would never have been enough for them - or at least, not for Meghan. Her problem wasn't that the work was difficult or unpleasant, it was that she didn't like feeling silenced. But for any part-time arrangement to be workable, the part-time royal and their spouse would need to follow the same media protocols as the full-time ones.

I could easily see Beatrice or Eugenie and their husbands being willing to do that, because they've basically been doing it this whole time anyway. I could even see Harry himself being willing to do it - before he met Meghan, he'd rightly complain about the media doing dangerous and illegal things, but never seemed too upset about untrue or unfair headlines. But Meghan is never going to accept that. So unless they split up, I don't think Harry's coming back in any official capacity unless they work out some agreement where Harry follows the rules and Meghan can do what she likes. And I don't think the family's going to agree to that, because it's a pretty obvious trainwreck waiting to happen.
I agree with you in the BIB on how part-time working royal could work if they put these three into practice.
  • Stay out of politics, social issues or other controversies
  • Be working in a job that is not trading their royal status/connection
  • Be flexible with their scheduling

I think Beatrice and Eugenie have down quite well in following the first two criteria, but I'm not sure about the third one. I have to agree with some posters here that I prefer Beatrice and Eugenie to pick up royal patronages and representative roles (of the Royal Family) than Harry & Meghan, mainly because the York Princesses have managed to avoid getting into politics/controversies and not trading on their royal titles for business/commercial purposes.

I'm actually quite undecided on whether a part-time royal is a good idea. However, if the Royal Family and The Palace staff are adamant on not cutting down the number royal patronages and engagements, part-time working royal may be one of the last solution. The other solution is to let full-time working royal pick up more patronages from those members who have step down from royal duties or sadly passed away.
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie aren't 'half royals'. They attend only full family events and maybe a garden party. They have full-time jobs.
yes but that's the point. Some think that Charles will have to take them on, at least part time, in order to make up the numbers of workers, now htat h'es lost Harry Meg and Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:11 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
He wants a smaller working royal family but no reduction in the Sovereign Grant which funds the official work of the royal family - something doesn't add up.
I brought this before and I still think that this is something that is not widely discussed by the media but will come home to roost eventually.

Random thoughts that I will hopefully be able to tie together:
Even without proactive streamlining, the number of working royals was going to be reduced by attrition anyway due to the lower birth rate.

The time needed to do royal work has also been being reduced due to the "the empire" shrinking, along with modern technology enabling things particularly the advances in transportation, and more recently the acceptance of doing work remotely.

Charles supposedly was given a lot of say in The Way Ahead group, which was formed in the early-mid 1990s because the decisions made would affect his reign, even though presumably, it was not felt that his ascension was imminent. This same sentiment has been expressed about subsequent self-examination and reform efforts by the BRF. Given this I believe that William will also be given considerable say in any self-examination and reform efforts because it will affect his reign.

I suspect that research and analysis has been taking place over the years and that will be a key driver in decisions made. What I assume is being examined is does having the Duke of Gloucester visit a pensioner group in New Castle increase or sustain the British Royal Family's relevance and affection? What about his work with his patronages? Now ask the same question for more visible non-heir royals like Princess Anne or Prince Edward.

If it turns out that bread and butter visits and support of patronages add materially to the BRF's relevance and affection, and the work is beyond the capacity of the monarch and the heir, then yes, other royals will be conscripted to help out as older royals pass away, reduce their activities or retire. If needed, I can see Princess Beatrice being asked to take on royal duties, as opposed to Prince Harry being asked to return to royal duties. Even though it is expected for Charles to be the next monarch, serious consideration has to be given to laying the groundwork for William's reign, ergo, it does not matter if Charles has issues with Andrew and thinks his daughter is a twit, what William feels he needs during his reign is paramount.

Again, this is an "if needed" scenario, if the research supports that the British Royal Family's can sustain relevance and affection with it only being the monarch, heir and their spouses being working royals, then that makes things rather simple.

Now back to the money. Right now the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall provide income to their respective Dukes. There is no requirement that these funds be used to fund royal work but that has been exactly what has been happening for decades, and the BRF has made this known and used it for their own PR purposes. It will be interesting to see what the blow-back will be when it sinks in that one of the byproducts of a slimmed down monarchy is likely to be an increase in the personal wealth of the monarch and heir. My guess is that, assuming that the BRF has competent image management, that the monarch and heir will weather any blow-back and no restructuring of the duchy income scheme will be undertaken, especially since that will be a very complicated, if not, futile endeavor. I do foresee that the Sovereign Grant will be examined and restructured due to there being far fewer working royals, although it should be noted that the Sovereign Grant does fund more that just royal work.
Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 04-19-2021, 06:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
I don't think Charlotte and Louis having a limited role would be about Harry but about the overall trend of smaller monarchies. I think that's probably where it was going anyway.
I fully agree. In no other European monarchy are siblings of (future) monarchs what I would deem to be full-time working members of the royal family per their workload, even though some could be deemed to be full-time royals because they do not have private careers and live off of state or family funding.

The UK is currently out of step compared to the other European monarchies, and while every monarchy has its individuality, the UK monarchy is not more of an exceptional monarchy than the other European monarchies. In this regard, I see no reason to think the British monarchy will be indifferent to the same social changes which have convinced other European monarchies to slim down their full-time working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
The UK monarchy has one thing that the other European monarchies don't have - more realms. The Queen is not only the Queen of the UK but of 15 other realms. Sure that number will drop over time no doubt but still the monarch is monarch of 16 countries.

They are also head of the Commonwealth - a huge group of nations representing about one-third of the world's population.

To keep the Commonwealth together it is important that they are visited by royals from time to time. Can the monarch and heir and their spouses do that?
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:45 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
George V and Queen Mary recognised the importance of the Royals being seen visiting coal mines, factories, schools etc. And one thing that's really come out of the pandemic is the acknowledgement of the importance of "ordinary" people such as nurses, bus drivers and supermarket checkout staff. It's going to look very poor if we now see the Royals draw back from low key visits to unglamorous places, and mainly only be seen in black ties and tiaras as they welcome foreign heads of states for banquets - and, if the number of working royals is reduced, that will inevitably happen.


But I don't know who's going to take on what. There are only 4 full time working royals below normal UK retirement age. I'm sure Beatrice and Eugenie would help out, like anyone else with a job and a family might find time to help run the local Scouts/Guides or the church committee or any other sort of voluntary work, but not full time or even half the time. The "slimmed down monarchy" might have worked if Harry and Meghan had stayed on board ... but they haven't.
Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:49 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
The flexibility requirement may well be the biggest barrier to part time royals. It all depends how flexible they’re required to be. The Royals having more distant relatives on essentially a zero hours contract and expected to be available for duties whenever asked isn’t going to work, since they can’t expect the employer of a part time royal to let them drop everything for an engagement at a moment’s notice (or to expect an employer to want to employ Charlotte or Louis’s future children on that basis.) It’s not good for their business and it won’t be good for workplace relations either. “HRH Prince(ss) X / Lord Y / Lady Z gets to come and go as they please.”

If it’s a case of the family member concerned having their diary set out for them far enough in advance to book annual leave if an engagement falls within their working hours, there’d be no problem (assuming of course that the family member does not get their leave allocated for them, as that could end up with others having to accommodate the part time royal.) If it’s as simple as part time royals being expected to step in at short notice at a time that it is known that they are not working from time to time, then that seems reasonable.

Slimming things down might be achieved via the spouses to some degree, following the example of Anne. Only the spouse of the heir might be a working royal. Everyone has different favourites within the family and that would allow us to see more of them at a lower cost while those born royal wouldn’t be shuffled down the order by the spouses of relatives closer to the throne than them.
Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
George V and Queen Mary recognised the importance of the Royals being seen visiting coal mines, factories, schools etc. And one thing that's really come out of the pandemic is the acknowledgement of the importance of "ordinary" people such as nurses, bus drivers and supermarket checkout staff. It's going to look very poor if we now see the Royals draw back from low key visits to unglamorous places, and mainly only be seen in black ties and tiaras as they welcome foreign heads of states for banquets - and, if the number of working royals is reduced, that will inevitably happen.


But I don't know who's going to take on what. There are only 4 full time working royals below normal UK retirement age. I'm sure Beatrice and Eugenie would help out, like anyone else with a job and a family might find time to help run the local Scouts/Guides or the church committee or any other sort of voluntary work, but not full time or even half the time. The "slimmed down monarchy" might have worked if Harry and Meghan had stayed on board ... but they haven't.
yes I agree about King George but that was 100 years ago. I think that in that time, it was "good" to be seen doing charity work, giving recognition to voluntary organizations and trying to help the less fortunate. (and I think that to Georges credit he was sincere in what he did).
. but over time, society became a bit more egalitarian and that sort of patronage gradually began to look a bit out of date. It can look as if "there's a big royal family, they need to be seen doing something "good" with their free time..and if they do these engagements, it gives them something to fill up their time and look like they are using their free time to support a worthy cause." And now, the public just does not want to support RFs with 15 members doing engagements..
I agree that it sitll looks good if a royal goes to a provincial city to see some unglamourous volunteer body or open a hospital wing or the like.. as opposed to mainly being seen shaking hands on a red carpet... but I think that in the battle between a desire to do "unglam good things" and saviig money, saving money is going to win out.
If Harry Meg and possibly Andrew had stayed, I think that fo the next 20 years, things could have continued as they were, with the older cousins dropping out gradually and the younger ones taking on "umbrella patronages"... but for personal reasons, all three went and I dont htink tehy can be replaced...
Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 04-19-2021, 08:03 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
It's going to look very poor if we now see the Royals draw back from low key visits to unglamorous places, and mainly only be seen in black ties and tiaras as they welcome foreign heads of states for banquets - and, if the number of working royals is reduced, that will inevitably happen.
I agree with the first part of your statement but not the inevitability of the outcome with fewer royals. The glitzy events aren't numerous and the bulk of visits by Charles, Camilla, William & Catherine can still be made to those communities, societies and workplaces where a royal presence has the most benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 04-19-2021, 08:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
From Richard Kay:

Kay says in the article that the Summit and Charles/Harry walk to view floral tributes are “wide of the mark”. That could be true of the latter, but I do believe the former.

Before Charles tried to reunite his sons, he has to reconcile with Harry.







https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ring-sons.html

Odd that this was moved to this thread....But anyway, this IS the article that Rebecca English claimed stated there was a 2 hour meeting between Charles, William and Harry....and her there is nothing in it that even suggests a meeting. Kay also said that there was no summit, but no one claimed the summit had happened yet...
Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 04-19-2021, 08:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
I doubt it. There will still be some but with so many people having left (Andrew was quite a hard worker in spite of his faults) and older cousins like the D of Kcent, Pss Alexandra, and probably the Gloucesters cutting back as they get older and maybe have more health issues, i just dont see how the remaining number can do the same work.. Camilla is not young and has had health issue over the past years, also...
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family tradition united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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