The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1701  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
Why do Harry and Meghan need two homes? Harry is a younger son. Traditionally the younger children have had ONE home - either in the country with a small apartment in London (in BP for Andrew, Anne and Edward for instance) OR they have had a large London apartment and nothing in the country e.g. Margaret.

Birkhall was not inherited by Charles. It is part of the Balmoral estate and thus belongs to the Queen in the same way that Anmer is part of the Sandringham estate. When George VI died The Queen gave Birkhall to the Queen Mum and from there to Charles but it is NOT his personal property.

Highgrove is Duchy property. When William is Duke of Cornwall he may decide that his father can no longer live there, or allow him to continue under the current arrangements or decide he wants to have it sold and put it through all the necessary processes for the Duchy to sell an asset (not a simple process).

Where the Sussexes turn up will be decided by a number of factors including how much Harry is prepared to put into his own pocket to spend on a home. He is a multi-millionaire thanks to his inheritance from his mother and so could afford to pay for a house of his own and shouldn't expect either his father or grandmother to provide him with a home. William is the future King and his situation is very different. Harry will move further and further from the centre of the BRF over the decades while William will only move closer - note that he has always been lower in the line of succession than Andrew was for the first 22 years of his life.
__________________

  #1702  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,387
No, reports that the Gloucesters were willing to move out of their apartment for the then newlyweds William and Kate were around in early 2011 and have resurfaced with regard to Harry and Meghan.
__________________

  #1703  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 821
Maybe Harry and Meghan are happy to stay in cosy Nott. Cott. for a couple of years at least.

They possibly have access to guest accommodation at all of Charles' homes and at William's house.
I can see Harry finding it quite attractive not to own a large house until they are sure where Meghan feels like settling and where they want to send their children to school and where they want to holiday.
A house in Hawaii might be an option.
  #1704  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:03 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,325
I would think that any residence for Harry and Meghan that would be deemed their main residence would be in the UK. As Harry is, and will be, a Counsellor of State most likely until the Cambridge children reach their majority, living outside of the UK is not going to happen.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1705  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why do Harry and Meghan need two homes? Harry is a younger son. Traditionally the younger children have had ONE home - either in the country with a small apartment in London (in BP for Andrew, Anne and Edward for instance) OR they have had a large London apartment and nothing in the country e.g. Margaret.

Birkhall was not inherited by Charles. It is part of the Balmoral estate and thus belongs to the Queen in the same way that Anmer is part of the Sandringham estate. When George VI died The Queen gave Birkhall to the Queen Mum and from there to Charles but it is NOT his personal property.

Highgrove is Duchy property. When William is Duke of Cornwall he may decide that his father can no longer live there, or allow him to continue under the current arrangements or decide he wants to have it sold and put it through all the necessary processes for the Duchy to sell an asset (not a simple process).

Where the Sussexes turn up will be decided by a number of factors including how much Harry is prepared to put into his own pocket to spend on a home. He is a multi-millionaire thanks to his inheritance from his mother and so could afford to pay for a house of his own and shouldn't expect either his father or grandmother to provide him with a home. William is the future King and his situation is very different. Harry will move further and further from the centre of the BRF over the decades while William will only move closer - note that he has always been lower in the line of succession than Andrew was for the first 22 years of his life.
I’m not sure what this is about. I think most of us are aware that the Sussexes will be provided with one major home as all previous precedents have indicated. The issue here is they haven’t been provided with even ONE main home. And hence the speculation. Some of us obviously disagrees with how they’ll go about it (city vs. country as main home). But I’m not sure how that would involve Harry popping into his own pocket. As a working royal, he cannot hold any for profit career like his cousins can. And therefore being provided with a sizeable home either purchased by his father or grandmother or something on the Crown Estate or Palaces is expected.

Unless the Cambridges have another child, Harry will remain in his place or move closer to the Crown for the next 20 some odd years. Although I simply don’t see why that matters as people lower than him in the pecking order have been and are continued to be provided with substantial homes.
  #1706  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
If Harry were to move his main residence outside the UK he would no longer qualify to be a Counsellor of State as residence in the UK is part of the qualifications. That is not a reason for remaining in the UK if he really did want to move elsewhere. There are plenty more to step up if necessary.
  #1707  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,387
Harry has never intimated that he wanted to live elsewhere fulltime. And I am sure that his father, grandmother and only sibling would not want him to or speak about him disparagingly.

Plus, there's at least 20 years before William's children are ready to take on fulltime royal duties, so Harry and wife are needed in the UK.

And how far is Edward down the line of succession, and Anne, and Andrew who is reputed to be worth a fortune but didn't buy a house of his own either. The Queen's younger children aren't direct heirs.
  #1708  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 821
I think they'll make their main home in the UK for sure, but where? Meghan is probably familiarising herself with all the counties and suburbs etc. It's early days so they can relax and see what happens.
Some royals do have holiday houses abroad, that's what I meant..
I think Meghan and Harry will continue to travel for the Commonwealth for part of every year.
  #1709  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:41 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
No, reports that the Gloucesters were willing to move out of their apartment for the then newlyweds William and Kate were around in early 2011 and have resurfaced with regard to Harry and Meghan.
Ah, ok. I guess I don’t remember that rumor regarding W&K. I had seen it about H&M. I know stories about Margaret’s old apartment being renovated for W&K were within 6 months of their wedding.

There seem to be even more stories about more possible homes for H&M.
  #1710  
Old 11-18-2018, 01:28 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Well, given that Meghan is at least three months pregnant, probably four, and the Sussexes will need an at least decent sized London residence of some sort in future years, a decision will have to be made by somebody soon.

Meghan has no convenient Bucklebury to take her baby to, Nott Cott is miles too small for the couple, plus nanny and baby, and so...? Do they go off to a rented property in the Cotswolds for several months, then?

Considering every one of the Queen's children has one property not bought by themselves, plus William has too, are Harry and Meghan just going to be left to their own devices, with the dismissive tone in that article 'Oh they have their own money, they can buy elsewhere in London' prevailing? Apparently Harry is to be treated differently to everyone else.

Plus, the report at the term of William and Kate's wedding that the Gloucesters were oh so willing to move out of their apartment in favour of the Cambridges was a bunch of lies apparently. Either that or the Press has decided to push 'The Sussexes want to throw a hardworking couple out of their old home' line!
Harper's Bazaar today made two announcements, the second an update from a royal source, the first probably repeating info being gossiped by Daily Fail. So, in the second update, according to HB's source at KP, the Duke & Duchess of Sussex have no plans to leave KP. They also do not plan to move into Apt 1 at KP. For the time being, "Harry and Meghan are happy with life in Oxfordshire and are using Nottingham Cottage at Kensington Palace as their London pied-à-terre."*
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...ington-palace/

*pied-à-terre = French for 'foot on the ground,' is a small living unit usually located in a large city some distance away from an individual's primary residence.

Earlier in this thread a poster provided the below very interesting blog post link, which includes lots of wonderful photos of Soho Farmhouse in the Cotswolds, the Great Tew Estates, and even a couple of lovely old photos of the Gloucesters inside Apt. 1. While this is a speculative blog post, I found it rather delightful and interesting to read. Of course reader comments are a bit rich, but the blogger herself is fun and lighthearted about her passion for the Sussexes.
https://cotedetexas.blogspot.com/201...t-i-found.html

The blogger relays as well as debunks a lot of the faux news that comes out almost daily from DF. For myself, I rarely if ever these days click on DF stories because they are generally so scurrilous and are always trying to stir something up about the British royals, and the Sussexes in particular. The blog post was written in late June of this year. It's definitely worthwhile checking out, especially for all the photographs.

In fact, I did not even realize, as mentioned by the blogger, that the Duke of Gloucester grew up in Apt. 1. I never realized that residence had been his parents' London home at KP for many years. So, ding ding: Apt 1 is the Gloucesters' family home, and they aren't about to give it up. So much for them being 'empty nesters!' I would never have given any credence to the reports that the Gloucesters were willingly going to move, had I known that the Duke grew up there with his parents and his older brother, William, who died in a light aircraft crash in 1972. Now, I'm very suspicious too of earlier reports that the Gloucesters had offered to move out of Apt. 1 for W&K. I seriously doubt that! Probably all along there were plans to renovate Apt. 1A for W&K. Both 1 and 1A used to be one huge residence at KP many years ago before being divided, and that's why the adjoining door.

It now makes sense to me that H&M are not interested in living next door to W&K via adjoining door. H&W are close, but their lives are now diverging a bit since they are both married. Harry was the single man, and third wheel tagging along with W&K for awhile. Now, things have changed in a natural, organic way. As print sources indicate, and I think is true: W&K have their own set of friends who are somewhat different from H&M's set, in the sense mainly that Meghan brings an added group of friends to go along with Harry's closest pals. Will & Harry do have a number of similar friends of course, but their wives do not.

Osipi mentioned too awhile ago that M&H may have a totally different outlook on where they are comfortable making their home. For now, apparently Nott Cott is fine for them. It only has two bedrooms, but maybe there's an area where a third bedroom might be carved out. Meghan previously lived life simply and elegantly in her lovely three-bedroom home in Toronto. See the inside in a gallery of photos released by the realtor who put Meghan's former home on the market for $1,395,000:
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/meg...or-sale-253633

We've seen some pictures before that Meghan posted on Instagram (of parts of her former bedroom and the living area), but I've never seen a full view of the kitchen and the bathroom, which are interesting to see. This gives me a further sense of Meghan and Harry enjoying living in luxurious style, but also unpretentiously. They may both feel they don't want a huge 21-room apartment at KP, at least for the forseeable future. Perhaps they are nostalgic about Nott Cott. Perhaps Meghan's mother will visit initially for a period of time to help take care of baby Sussex before H&M decide on employing a nanny.

I think Harry is charmed by Meghan's normal, down-to-earth, yet well-bred, middle-class upbringing in California. It's likely a huge part of her appeal, because it is what has made her who she is, as much as her college days in Chicago, her experience on a Hollywood television set as a teenager, and her amazing life in Toronto have played important roles in her adult evolution. Meghan is classy and savvy, and she clearly enjoys the good things life has to offer, but neither she nor Harry may wish to live a grand, palace lifestyle. They have access to that on formal occasions, and when visiting Windsor and Sandringham. But for their personal lives, they may be seeking something a bit smaller, cozier, and less grand scale.

There may possibly be a smaller venue being prepared for H&M at KP that's somewhat larger than Nott Cott. Or, the Sussexes may feel comfortable residing at Nott Cott for another year or so, while they are in London, which apparently is not for long, extended periods of time currently.
  #1711  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Well, given that Meghan is at least three months pregnant, probably four, and the Sussexes will need an at least decent sized London residence of some sort in future years, a decision will have to be made by somebody soon.

Meghan has no convenient Bucklebury to take her baby to, Nott Cott is miles too small for the couple, plus nanny and baby, and so...? Do they go off to a rented property in the Cotswolds for several months, then?

Considering every one of the Queen's children has one property not bought by themselves, plus William has too, are Harry and Meghan just going to be left to their own devices, with the dismissive tone in that article 'Oh they have their own money, they can buy elsewhere in London' prevailing? Apparently Harry is to be treated differently to everyone else.

Plus, the report at the term of William and Kate's wedding that the Gloucesters were oh so willing to move out of their apartment in favour of the Cambridges was a bunch of lies apparently. Either that or the Press has decided to push 'The Sussexes want to throw a hardworking couple out of their old home' line!
Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.
  #1712  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:46 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
Oh, I don't think the media have any more idea than anyone else whether the Sussexes actually have a rented home in the Cotswolds, are moving to another apartment in KP, are planning a move to St. James Palace, or Windsor, or anywhere else. They are just trailing a bunch of stuff out there and hoping something sticks so that at some point in the future they can say "Aha! We told you so! And please ignore the 28 other theories we also floated that were wrong. Just pretend you never read those."
I agree, I just don't get the sense the media has any clue of what is being planned for H&M wrt housing.
  #1713  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:53 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.
How is this known about Princess Michael? Where has it been confirmed or discussed that Princess Michael has made such 'blatant attempts,' and in what way does the Gloucester 'story' play in to Princess Michael 'pushing her own agenda'?
  #1714  
Old 11-18-2018, 04:30 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,190
Princess Michael Prattles About Her Royal Neighbours | TMR

This reports on the original interview that Princess Michael made to Tatler where she talked about how she thought the Gloucesters would move out. It was widely reported on at the time. The fact she refers to them moving out of "their enormous apartment" because "their children have gone and their mother is dead" says it all to me personally.
Princess Michael is a clever lady and knows by saying something it distracts from her own apartment and the fuss around it. No one talked about the Gloucester's moving out until Princess Michael "mentioned" it.
  #1715  
Old 11-18-2018, 04:53 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
Ah, okay thanks. It's impossible to keep up with all the patter and gossip and royal snippets in this highly technological 24/7 social media age.

I suppose Princess Michael does have her agenda then for keeping the attention away from her residence at KP. Still, with the fact that Richard, Duke of Gloucester's parents lived in Apt. 1 for many years and he grew up there with his family, and then raised his own offspring there, it seems more like a family home they'd like to keep in the family (that is of course if his son would ever be interested in residing there upon his parents' passing). The Gloucesters' son, Alexander Earl of Ulster, will inherit the Gloucester title. It will be interesting if Alexander might also inherit the family home at KP, or if it will indeed be taken over by Charles' offspring in the future.

Isn't there a case where someone previously had to move out of their home at KP? I believe it was Princess Alexandra and her husband who gave up digs at KP and moved to St. James' Palace or some other location. Apparently, Prnce and Princess Michael of Kent live in Apt. 10 at KP, which is not far from Nott Cott.
  #1716  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:57 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,821
As Alexander won't be a working royal - or a royal at all - he won't be living in KP. He will need his own home and income as he will simply be an extended family member - like the Earl Harewood today (who is the same degree of relationship to the monarch - son of one of HM's first cousins).

Princess Alexandra lived at Thatched Lodge at Richmond Park and an office at St James' Palace.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were promised an apartment rent-free at KP by The Queen when they married. Then in 1992 when the public demanded the Queen pay tax and other financial arrangements around the BRF were questioned it came out that they weren't paying anything and so they started to pay a peppercorn rent while the Queen paid the rest of the commercial rent but now they pay that as well. They aren't working royals and so have to pay the commercial rate of rent.

That is the case for everyone living in a royal residence - if not a working member of The Firm they have to pay a commercial rate of rent, which in central London is astronomical.
  #1717  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:12 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.
Princess Eugenie lives at KP in Ivy Cottage. Rent is probably involved, but she does live at KP.

And Harry is in a different position than the Phillips or Yorks- their parent will not be King, their sibling will not be King. Harry’s position is more comparable to that of the Queen’s younger children.

I do not believe that the Queen would ask the Gloucesters to move just to give Harry their apartment. She would never treat her cousin, who gave up his career as an architect to support her, so shabbily.
  #1718  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:33 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
There's also the question of whether or not H&M even want to move into Apt.1 in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As Alexander won't be a working royal - or a royal at all - he won't be living in KP. He will need his own home and income as he will simply be an extended family member - like the Earl Harewood today (who is the same degree of relationship to the monarch - son of one of HM's first cousins).

Princess Alexandra lived at Thatched Lodge at Richmond Park and an office at St James' Palace.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were promised an apartment rent-free at KP by The Queen when they married. Then in 1992 when the public demanded the Queen pay tax and other financial arrangements around the BRF were questioned it came out that they weren't paying anything and so they started to pay a peppercorn rent while the Queen paid the rest of the commercial rent but now they pay that as well. They aren't working royals and so have to pay the commercial rate of rent.

That is the case for everyone living in a royal residence - if not a working member of The Firm they have to pay a commercial rate of rent, which in central London is astronomical.
Thanks for the info. So as not a working royal, it would make sense that Alexander Earl of Ulster would not move into his family's London home when his parents pass on. That's a shame in terms of the nostalgia factor. But indeed, it's also normal for families not to hold onto an old family home when their parents pass away.

In Alexander's case, he's had an interesting and distinguished military career, which I was not aware of. He even served in Iraq, in addition to Kosovo, and Northern Ireland. He's retired from the military and serves as a 'transitional crisis' advisor to nongovernmental organizations. So he did not follow in his father's 'architect' footsteps.
  #1719  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Princess Eugenie lives at KP in Ivy Cottage. Rent is probably involved, but she does live at KP.

And Harry is in a different position than the Phillips or Yorks- their parent will not be King, their sibling will not be King. Harry’s position is more comparable to that of the Queen’s younger children.

I do not believe that the Queen would ask the Gloucesters to move just to give Harry their apartment. She would never treat her cousin, who gave up his career as an architect to support her, so shabbily.
Eugenie pays "commercial rent" to stay at Ivy Cottage, in fact its said Andrew pays it for her. So the Queen has not provided her with her a home for free. Charities and other "well vetted" people can likewise rent space at KP and so a whilst yes Eugenie may have gone to top of the list as a member of the Queen's family she is paying rent which actually reduced the burden of upkeep of KP on the taxpayer.

To me the "rules" seem clear.

The Queen provides working HRH's with a city residence - at St James, BP or KP (though Alexandra seems to have dipped out here as she doesn't have an official residence but traditionally she wouldn't have had an official role in the RF anyway)

The Queen and Philip have chosen to provided their children with a country property - though in fairness only Anne was given a property outright - Ed and Andrew's homes are owned by the Crown Estates and they have the leasehold on them.

The Queen chose to provide William, a direct heir to the throne and future owner of Sandringham, with a property on the Estate for him to use.

The other grandchildren have been left to sort out their own houses, no-doubt with access to generous trust funds from the Queen and their parents.


Whilst the Gloucester's still carry out public duties for the crown I can't see the Queen kicking them out- she didn't do that for Prince & Princess Michael of Kent and they don't carry out official duties on her behalf - it was said the Queen was conscious of the commitment made to them when she promised them use of the KP apartment when they married so I suspect she would feel the same of the Gloucester's, who do after all have a longer family tie to their apartment now than Prince and Princess Michael have to theirs. The Queen is said to be well-mannered and always do the proper thing, I can't see her kicking her cousins who've served her for decades out for her grandson to have their house.
  #1720  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:27 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.
But Harry isn’t in the same situation as the rest of the Queen’s grandchildren. They are able to, and expected, to carry on a private and for profit career. He cannot as a working royal. So why should he be treated any different than and be given lesser than other working royals that are not direct heirs?
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
highgrove, prince harry, prince william, residences


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 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





Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh british british royals chittagong cht danish history diana princess of wales dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals family tree games haakon vii heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history house of orange-nassau imperial household intro israel jacobite japan jumma kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing maxima mbs monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 norway history popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen maxima royal balls royal jewels royal marriage royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon spain speech spencer family swedish royal family taiwan thailand tracts unsubscribe videos visit from sweden wedding gown wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×