The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #6041  
Old 05-29-2017, 11:26 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
[...] if Meghan seemed 'shy,' it was probably due to her feeling all eyes on her and thus behaving a bit reserved, as would be normal. Meghan Markle is not a shy person at all, from what I can detect.
Agree. She's an actress. She is not shy. But she knows how to modulate her behavior to the circumstances. She was a guest at a stranger's wedding. She was there because these folks are important to her boyfriend (and might be to her if she marries him). She adjusted accordingly. She was not the hostess. The comments (if true, and one supposes they likely are) say a lot about who Meghan is. She does not always have to be center stage, to be 'on'. She has a private self.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #6042  
Old 05-29-2017, 11:50 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Agreed. I'd be put off more if she was said to be out spoken and centre of attention. She is a guest and barely that, a plus one. She won't know most of them. This isn't Harrys social circle, other than Tom abd maybe Eugenie, she is not likely to have met them. It's natural she'd be bit more low key. Among Harrys friends, as she grows more comfortable, she will likely open up more. But she seems comfortable enough in her own skin, she doesn't need to steal focus.
__________________

  #6043  
Old 05-29-2017, 11:59 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Even for famous people it has to be a bit daunting to go somewhere and realize almost everyone is looking at you even if they are trying to pretend they aren't!

Takes some adjustment.

Reminds me of my son (not a famous person), he and his wife recently moved to Germany...something he's had to get used to is that where they are, the locals look at you...it's not meant to be rude but they just look you over a lot...almost like staring. For Americans this takes some getting used to...I can't imagine having to deal with the famous bit.


LaRae
  #6044  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:02 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
She won't officially be known as Rachel Meghan.....Not unless they get divorced. She will be Hrh Duchess of X. Like Kate. What the media calls her is another matter. She won't be Rachel again unless 1 they divorce 2 she is widowed and the monarch allows her to go by Princess Rachel when her possible son marries.

Nor could she sign it Rachel Wales. As soon as Harry is made a Duke, he will no longer be of Wales. Like William is now William Cambridge.

Catherine will have no number. Nor have the word consort in her title. She will simply be Queen Catherine. Only reigning monarchs have a numerical. The queen mother was not Queen consort Elizabeth III (possibly IV as two English Woodville and York, one Scottish ) she was simply queen Elizabeth.
Yeah sure, I think there will certainly be informal differences vs formal designation and official designation. That's mainly what the article is referencing, despite its inaccuracies. Of course, Kate will be known as Queen Catherine, just as Camilla is likely to be known as Queen Camilla rather than Camilla, Princess Consort.

But officially, Kate will be a Queen Consort, and apparently the sixth British queen named Catherine, although of course it's not done to call her Catherine VI, since she herself will not be a reigning monarch. Her name is certainly steeped in British royal history.

This site https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name states the following:
For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor... Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

I don't know why you are suggesting that Meghan won't be 'Rachel Meghan' again unless divorced? She would still have her same first and middle names, no matter what her official title becomes. The question some people have is whether she would formally use Rachel or Meghan? At a wedding ceremony, she would be called 'Rachel Meghan' during recitation of the vows. And of course, her official title would be HRH The Duchess of Sussex, or HRH Princess Henry of Wales if there's no dukedom given.

None of this negates the fact that Meghan would still use a formal first name. The Duchess of Cambridge's formal first name is Catherine, despite being called Kate informally by close friends and family, and Duchess Kate by the media, etc.
  #6045  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:25 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112



Kate being the sixth woman to have the name Catherine and be Queen consort is irrelevant. Consorts don't have regnal numbers as they aren't the reigning monarch; you'll find that the consorts in history to be given numbers are also ones who reigned themselves.

If Meghan and Harry marry she will become HRH Princess Henry of Wales unless Harry is given a dukedom of his own, in which case he will cease to be "of Wales", but rather HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Wherever, and Meghan will be HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Wherever.

She'll likely just sign her name as "Meghan" - the only person in the family who signs with anything more than their given name is the Queen, who signs as Elizabeth R. Charles, William, Harry, etc, all sign with just the one name, no last name.

It's not common, but she wouldn't be the first British royal to go by a middle name instead of her first name. Kate publicly using Catherine likely more has to do with not wanting to officially use a nickname - other than Harry himself, no other royal uses a nickname publicly. But a second name... Queen Mary did it, as did her daughter Princess Mary. So did Queen Victoria.
  #6046  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:50 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Yep @Ish, I already conceded that the article was inaccurate in referring to Catherine as Catherine VI, as you can see in my previous post.

Most of what you are stating, I already indicated in my post to which you are responding. The title of Queen Consort may be 'irrelevant,' or maybe you mean 'beside-the-point,' but Kate will still officially be Queen Consort, though not referred to by that antiquated designation.

I think there is discussion about Meghan's first name, Rachel, because it is more formal and traditional than Meghan. But I agree that Meghan is used to being called by her middle name and will therefore probably continue to use her middle name informally, and perhaps formally as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Agree. She's an actress. She is not shy. But she knows how to modulate her behavior to the circumstances. She was a guest at a stranger's wedding. She was there because these folks are important to her boyfriend (and might be to her if she marries him). She adjusted accordingly. She was not the hostess. The comments (if true, and one supposes they likely are) say a lot about who Meghan is. She does not always have to be center stage, to be 'on'. She has a private self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Agreed. I'd be put off more if she was said to be out spoken and centre of attention. She is a guest and barely that, a plus one. She won't know most of them. This isn't Harrys social circle, other than Tom abd maybe Eugenie, she is not likely to have met them. It's natural she'd be bit more low key. Among Harrys friends, as she grows more comfortable, she will likely open up more. But she seems comfortable enough in her own skin, she doesn't need to steal focus.
I totally agree with your post @Lady Nimue.

While I agree with you too @Countessmeout, I don't think soft-spoken is the opposite of outspoken. :) I think Meghan is both depending upon the circumstances obviously.

It's possible to be soft-spoken and still outgoing, confident and articulate, as Meghan is. Outspoken refers more to being frank, direct, candid and straightforward, which Meghan clearly is in the videos I posted. Soft-spoken means having a soft and gentle speaking voice, which Meghan does have.

Of course, there was no need for Meghan to be 'outspoken' at the wedding after-party of Prince Harry's sister-in-law's sister whom it's unclear whether Meghan ever had the opportunity to meet prior to that evening. Outspoken does not mean loud or aggressive or showy. I don't think anyone should have a need to be 'outspoken' at a wedding after-party in any case, where merriment and family celebration is uppermost in people's minds.

On the other hand, the pictures we've seen of the Inskip wedding in Jamaica, clearly show that Meghan is already quite comfortable in social situations with Harry's close circle of friends. It was reported that she'd already met prior to the Inskip wedding, most of Harry's friends either for dinner or get-togethers at Nott Cott or other outings, such as at Soho House, where it's said that Harry and Meghan frequent. Or possibly at the residences of some of Harry's friends.

So of course Meghan is soft-spoken, and she was apparently quiet and reserved at the after-party, which is understandabe. None of that means she's 'shy,' although it's not unreasonable for someone who'd never met her to gain that impression at that occasion.

Meghan is soft-spoken as well as outspoken, and certainly not shy in the below video which I hadn't seen before, and I find really interesting because of the family information she reveals:

  #6047  
Old 05-30-2017, 01:39 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Yeah sure, I think there will certainly be informal differences vs formal designation and official designation. That's mainly what the article is referencing, despite its inaccuracies. Of course, Kate will be known as Queen Catherine, just as Camilla is likely to be known as Queen Camilla rather than Camilla, Princess Consort.

But officially, Kate will be a Queen Consort, and apparently the sixth British queen named Catherine, although of course it's not done to call her Catherine VI, since she herself will not be a reigning monarch. Her name is certainly steeped in British royal history.

This site https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name states the following:
For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor... Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

I don't know why you are suggesting that Meghan won't be 'Rachel Meghan' again unless divorced? She would still have her same first and middle names, no matter what her official title becomes. The question some people have is whether she would formally use Rachel or Meghan? At a wedding ceremony, she would be called 'Rachel Meghan' during recitation of the vows. And of course, her official title would be HRH The Duchess of Sussex, or HRH Princess Henry of Wales if there's no dukedom given.

None of this negates the fact that Meghan would still use a formal first name. The Duchess of Cambridge's formal first name is Catherine, despite being called Kate informally by close friends and family, and Duchess Kate by the media, etc.
In private she could be called whatever. Rachel, Meghan, Meggy. Whatever.

In public, no she will never be Rachel again once she marries. Her legal name will be Princess Henry. If she is called Meghan, Duchess of X, it will be becayse they are divorced. What the press calls them is another matter. Kate is not Kate and only will be again when her husband is king.

Calling her any first name at all after marriage other than Henry, is wrong. Think Princess Michael of Kent.
  #6048  
Old 05-30-2017, 05:41 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 81
Thanks for sharing!

After seeing so many rumors concerning this couple who knows what to believe! I do think that any conversations that Harry has had with his grandmother would remain private between them until the time he was ready to announce it. It seems unlikely that the Queen would go blabbing to her staffers way before then. William & Kate were dogged for years about an engagement & every time it was reported the Queen had given her blessing. We now know none of this turned out to be true. I think Harry will handle his engagement similar to his bro William & no one will know when it is coming until the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
A poster on a certain other forum who knows a great deal about the comings and goings of the BRF and has been a source of some useful information in the past due to some contacts in BP itself, came online a little while ago and said that Harry went to BP to have a chat with his grandmother nearly a month ago. He stated that there are rumours all over BP that Harry proposed a while ago, Meghan accepted, and the Queen has already given her permission, presumably after consulting the Privy Council. There's further rumours that he was prepared to marry with or without permission, but who knows.

The poster stated that the announcement has been delayed until September because of Harry's engagements in Australasia, Spanish State Visit, Charles and Camilla's tour of Canada, then the anniversary of Diana's death and the Queen's holiday at Balmoral etc. The poster emphasised that it may all be groundless, but he has heard the same thing for some time. September will allow Meghan to be officially 'unveiled' as Harry's fiancée before the Queen and Duke's 70th wedding anniversary and she could perhaps accompany him to events after that announcement. I'm sorry I can't provide links to this post, but it will be exciting if it is true!
  #6049  
Old 05-30-2017, 05:53 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
Meanwhile, other women (so-called Harry hook-ups) are trying to cash in on the royal association:

Prince Harry’s former flame Camilla Thurlow to join Love Island | TV & Radio | Showbiz & TV | Express.co.uk

A reality show with a fling in front and behind the cameras. They want their 15 minutes, but I wouldn't be surprised they are pea green with envy that an American with show biz ties somewhat like theirs is being talked up as a future royal duchess. Stunts like this are the reason these two are out of the running, just sayin'.
  #6050  
Old 05-30-2017, 07:00 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 81
So Suits creator Aaron Korsh has been responding to questions on his official twitter account which I found very interesting!

He was asked if Meghan would be leaving the show & he said he couldn’t comment on the longevity of any of the actors. He did however say that MM was “killing it” during filming of this current season!

He was also asked if the show would be renewed for an eight season, and he said he believed it would.

It is common for shows not to announce in advance that any character is leaving as they don’t want to give away any spoilers. But if the show is picked up for another season but Meghan decides not to renew her contract then this would be the strongest indication that H&M have an understanding between them.

Suits is pretty much Meghan’s bread & butter, and an actress in her position (soon to be 36, biracial) will struggle to find other parts in Hollywood. If she ditches Suits then I think a wedding is pretty much guaranteed!

It will also be interesting to see where the direction of the show will go if Meghan leaves. Though she is not a lead character she has been on the show since day 1 & her character is romantically linked to one of the lead actors. The show already lost one lead actress last year but to lose another I think would be a death nail for the show.

So watch this space folks…!

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869420697012936704

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869392937624289280

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869384900285046784
  #6051  
Old 05-30-2017, 07:09 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
However as already pointed out why would he need to buy a house? He has access to several from the way it sounds on the property already owned by the BRF...as William did.


LaRae
William is in line to inherit Sandringham, the whole kit and caboodle.

Upon marriage, the Queen bought homes for two of her non-heir children so there is a precedent.

My guess is that it boils down to what Harry wants. If he wants a grand or even not so grand home in the Windsor area there is probably something that is already available to him.

If he just wants a base in the Norfolk area then there is probably something on the Sandringham estate that is suitable, but if he wants a country pile in the Norfolk area that he can make his own then I can see why he would want to get his own property for that reason, in addition to having an asset to pass on to his heirs.
  #6052  
Old 05-30-2017, 08:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
So Suits creator Aaron Korsh has been responding to questions on his official twitter account which I found very interesting!

He was asked if Meghan would be leaving the show & he said he couldn’t comment on the longevity of any of the actors. He did however say that MM was “killing it” during filming of this current season!

He was also asked if the show would be renewed for an eight season, and he said he believed it would.

It is common for shows not to announce in advance that any character is leaving as they don’t want to give away any spoilers. But if the show is picked up for another season but Meghan decides not to renew her contract then this would be the strongest indication that H&M have an understanding between them.

Suits is pretty much Meghan’s bread & butter, and an actress in her position (soon to be 36, biracial) will struggle to find other parts in Hollywood. If she ditches Suits then I think a wedding is pretty much guaranteed!

It will also be interesting to see where the direction of the show will go if Meghan leaves. Though she is not a lead character she has been on the show since day 1 & her character is romantically linked to one of the lead actors. The show already lost one lead actress last year but to lose another I think would be a death nail for the show.

So watch this space folks…!

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869420697012936704

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869392937624289280

https://twitter.com/akorsh9/status/869384900285046784
They're going to be so tight lipped about that for multiple reasons. Firstly, they don't want to spill future sl, Meghan leaving would be huge for the show. Mike and Rachel are the only couple on the show, and it would mean big changes for Mike as well. Added the fact, that if they announced Meghan leaving, the engagement gossip would triple straight away, like you said. With meghan being in the public eye herself, it's easier to follow their steps just by looking at her professional life changes.
  #6053  
Old 05-30-2017, 08:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
William is in line to inherit Sandringham, the whole kit and caboodle.

Upon marriage, the Queen bought homes for two of her non-heir children so there is a precedent.

My guess is that it boils down to what Harry wants. If he wants a grand or even not so grand home in the Windsor area there is probably something that is already available to him.

If he just wants a base in the Norfolk area then there is probably something on the Sandringham estate that is suitable, but if he wants a country pile in the Norfolk area that he can make his own then I can see why he would want to get his own property for that reason, in addition to having an asset to pass on to his heirs.
What about Highgrove?

Once Charles succeeds, he'll have no use for the place; won't Harry inherit that?
  #6054  
Old 05-30-2017, 08:33 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,687


Highgrove isn't owned by Charles, but the Duchy of Cornwall. It is unlikely that Charles would be able to leave it to Harry unless he purchased it from the Duchy first, before he becomes King.
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #6055  
Old 05-30-2017, 08:44 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
Folks, no one is going to know if Meghan is going to leave or stay on the show. No one from that show will spill anything.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #6056  
Old 05-30-2017, 08:51 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by JessRulz View Post


Highgrove isn't owned by Charles, but the Duchy of Cornwall. It is unlikely that Charles would be able to leave it to Harry unless he purchased it from the Duchy first, before he becomes King.
Highgrove will also fall into the realm of the things available to William once he becomes Duke of Cornwall when Charles becomes King. Its possible that if William isn't interested in using it himself that he could "lease" it to Harry and his family if that's what Harry seemed to be interested in doing.

One thing I do think though is that the two brothers will have places in close proximity to each other so that their families can grow together.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #6057  
Old 05-30-2017, 09:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
In private she could be called whatever. Rachel, Meghan, Meggy. Whatever.

In public, no she will never be Rachel again once she marries. Her legal name will be Princess Henry. If she is called Meghan, Duchess of X, it will be becayse they are divorced. What the press calls them is another matter. Kate is not Kate and only will be again when her husband is king.

Calling her any first name at all after marriage other than Henry, is wrong. Think Princess Michael of Kent.
Unless she is or becomes a princess in her own right. Think e.g. of Belgium where Elisabetta is sometimes referred to by the Court as Princess Amedeo, but Claire on the other hand is called "Princess Claire" as she is a princess of Belgium in her own right by royal decree issued by King Albert II.

Incidentally, I remember that there was previously an inconclusive discussion on TRF on how Princess Madeleine of Sweden would have been styled if she had married Prince William. Some posters believed that, since she was a princess by birth, she would be entitled to be called "Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Cambridge", while others believed she would still be called only "Duchess of Cambridge", but not "Princess Wiliam". I honestly don't know.
  #6058  
Old 05-30-2017, 09:15 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Folks, no one is going to know if Meghan is going to leave or stay on the show. No one from that show will spill anything.
Not only in regards to Meghan and Suits but basically everything that affects Meghan's life with or without Harry in the picture is just not something for public consumption.

We can think we *know* something but in all honesty, the best we can ever do is speculate, assume, add up 2+2 to end up with 1,392 different answers and dig and find "meaning" in every body position and facial expression from now until doomsday but we're still in the dark with no light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm going to sit, watch and follow though. Its what royal watchers do. Keeps me off the streets and out of trouble.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #6059  
Old 05-30-2017, 09:42 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Yep @Ish, I already conceded that the article was inaccurate in referring to Catherine as Catherine VI, as you can see in my previous post.

Most of what you are stating, I already indicated in my post to which you are responding. The title of Queen Consort may be 'irrelevant,' or maybe you mean 'beside-the-point,' but Kate will still officially be Queen Consort, though not referred to by that antiquated designation.

Sorry! You misunderstood what I was trying to say (or maybe I wasn't clear in it). Queen Consort is not an irrelevant title at all, and Kate will definitely be Queen Consort. What I meant was specifically in regards to how many Catherines have held that title before her - that's the irrelevant part. Consorts don't get numbered, so there could have been 100 Catherines before her and she would still remain "simply" Queen Catherine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Incidentally, I remember that there was previously an inconclusive discussion on TRF on how Princess Madeleine of Sweden would have been styled if she had married Prince William. Some posters believed that, since she was a princess by birth, she would be entitled to be called "Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Cambridge", while others believed she would still be called only "Duchess of Cambridge", but not "Princess Wiliam". I honestly don't know.

There is precedent in Britain for a scenario like this; Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark married into the BRF and became Princess George, Duchess of Kent within Britain, although she really only used Duchess of Kent (which is standard for the BRF). As a widow she got permission from the Queen to revert to her own title, becoming Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, to distinguish herself from her daughter-in-law, but that was an unprecedented move.

In the hypothetical where William marries Madeleine she likely would have followed a similar styling.
  #6060  
Old 05-30-2017, 09:44 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Not only in regards to Meghan and Suits but basically everything that affects Meghan's life with or without Harry in the picture is just not something for public consumption.

We can think we *know* something but in all honesty, the best we can ever do is speculate, assume, add up 2+2 to end up with 1,392 different answers and dig and find "meaning" in every body position and facial expression from now until doomsday but we're still in the dark with no light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm going to sit, watch and follow though. Its what royal watchers do. Keeps me off the streets and out of trouble.
It's just best to not follow endless speculations and just sit and wait and see. We've been through all this before.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Closed Thread


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





Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian baby names baptism birth britannia british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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