The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post

The reality is if the Home Office thought he was that at risk they would insist on his security regardless of the costs, if they sign of on a plan for it to be privately paid for or withdrawn altogether then it shows the risk is no longer there.

Harry's choice to move half way around the world and as long as he makes that knowing doing so means no more paid for security that is up to him.

You are right. But it is up to the Home Office to evaluate the individual risk for Harry and before they are through with it, we shouldn't have an opinion, as we dont know enough about this exact case.
__________________

  #1562  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:23 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Plus, I doubt Harry’s money is all liquid, it will be invested. If he starts spending principal and investments his income will rapidly decrease.
Indeed. If Harry's accountants are worth their salt, the vast bulk of his net worth / inheritance would be investments - I'd be surprised if more than 10% was liquid.

That's then a lot of funds they would need to have easy, immediate access to to support themselves.
__________________

__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #1563  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:27 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Polling from the Sun now
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...aphicsheet.jpg

46% say they will probably not be able to be financially independent
62% vs 27% feel sympathy for Queen over decision
57% do not feel sympathy towards Harry and Meghan vs 33% that do
81% do not think they should receive any financial support from public money once they step back
48% think the decision is mainly down to Meghan, 33% both equally, 2% Harry
67% think they should not receive income from Duchy of Cornwall once they step back from royal duties vs 14% who think they should
46% say they shouldn't keep titles vs 34% who say they should
56% say they should not be able to still live at Frogmore Cottage, 28% say they should
46% support their decision to step back vs 27% who oppose and 27% don't know
66% say government should not continue to meet security costs, 19% say they should
46% say a slimmed down monarchy is a good thing, 11% say its a bad thing, 28% say its neither and 16% don't know


These results show as has been stated time and time again its the money side the public don't support, the rest, the idea of stepping back and even moving away, they support.
I believe this is the second or third poll that has come out on this since this began 72 hours ago. The Queen as the head of the firm needs to pay attention to the numbers and act accordingly. If she does not then there will be damage to the institution and I do not feel that the BRF (or any other constitutional monarchy) are in a position to ignore public sentiment for too long and survive
  #1564  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:29 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
Yep...I live in the same area as well and had never heard of Jessica Mulroney until Meghan came on the scene. I had seen Ben Mulroney on some entertainment show.

Canada does not have big-name celebrities like the U.S. does, so in a way it surprises me that Meghan has chosen Canada as the place to base herself and Harry. On one hand, here they would be "big fish in a small pond." On the other hand, all the money, celebrity and business connections, and big media outlets are in the United States.
Canada most certainly has a number of big name celebrities. They just happen to work in the US for the most part. Except when they are shooting movies, or performing in concerts back home.

And many of them have homes here in Canada, for the same reason Meghan and Harry likely chose it. Beyond the commonwealth link. There is a lot more privacy and anonymity for them in Canada, then living in LA or one of the areas where they work. Not so many paps invading their lives and such.

Canada:
-privacy
-lower cost of living (money conversion goes further)
-commonwealth connection
-close proximity to the USA when they want to go down for events

Toronto or if they stay in BC both make plenty of sense. Easy quick trip to NY/LA for work. Considerable market in both Vancouver and Toronto as well for show business and business connections on the Canadian market in both cities. For a Canadian you seem to think we are some backwater nation without any kind of business or celebrity links which really is not based in reality. Not as big as Hollywood or NY, but big enough to offer some of what they need along side the other benefits, and close enough for the US for rest.
  #1565  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:34 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,754
FWIW, the renovation of Frogmore Cottage was an already in-progress upgrade of a crown estate property, paid for to my knowledge by funds from the Duchy of Lancaster, not by taxpayers. British taxpayers pay about 80 pence each annually for the royals' security protection, from what I've recently heard.

It is explained on the new Sussex website that Apt 1 at KP was an option that didn't work out because extensive and even more expensive renovations were needed that would not be completed in time for the Sussexes to move in before their baby was born. The Queen then offered them Frogmore Cottage, which again was already under renovation as part of ongoing upgrades of a number of crown estate properties.

Frogmore Cottage was already undergoing renovation. And the Sussexes paid for their own furnishings, plus they paid for anything extra over the allotted budget for the renovation.

That is irresponsible speculation coming from the NYTimes (suggesting that Charles is asking the Sussexes to repay FC renovations). It is shameful the amount of vitriolic bile being directed at the Sussexes, which has always been happening, but now to a whole new level. The hate apparently knows no bounds.
  #1566  
Old 01-11-2020, 09:55 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: NY, United States
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaira View Post
What statement from the Obamas? They did not release an official statement. People has a sourced story that is it. Lets pls be accurate in our posting. And the People story is simply refuting tabloid lies which is their right. No matter how much I may like someone, I wouldnt want to be dragged into an international situation I actually have no part in.

The tabs have now dragged Elton in.

Again, the media is throwing everything at the wall.
This is one of the reasons why things have gotten so far. The tabloids keep dragging everyone the Sussexes have to share a country with, its ridiculous. It's all part of the narrative some keep pushing about them. One other one is "their HRH title." Does anyone truly believe the Sussexes will have problems landing gigs without their HRH? All the folks who actually know and work in the industry say not an issue, but some are still pushing that narrative.

If anything, it will make them more attractive. Some will be able to use that narrative about challenging the status quo. That's one thing adults keep preaching to kids about not accepting things as they've always done them. I can see commercials, movies etc... about challenging the status quo.
  #1567  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:07 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by toukale View Post
This is one of the reasons why things have gotten so far. The tabloids keep dragging everyone the Sussexes have to share a country with, its ridiculous. It's all part of the narrative some keep pushing about them. One other one is "their HRH title." Does anyone truly believe the Sussexes will have problems landing gigs without their HRH? All the folks who actually know and work in the industry say not an issue, but some are still pushing that narrative.

If anything, it will make them more attractive. Some will be able to use that narrative about challenging the status quo. That's one thing adults keep preaching to kids about not accepting things as they've always done them. I can see commercials, movies etc... about challenging the status quo.
It seems that they themselves do otherwise they would not be trademarking Sussexroyal. Even their new website goes by that name. If they did not, all this drama could have been spared.

Harry could has asked his Grandmother to issue Letters Patent to remove his titles and style (she granted him the Duke of Sussex title and she granted William's kids their HRH- so she has the power to remove them) and been on his merry way to Canada or anywhere else it suited them. No Fuss, No Drama
  #1568  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:12 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
I totally agree with both of you. The way they handled Archie's birth, the tour, and now this … just very disappointing.
Straw dogs, just like the relentless braying about Frogmore Cottage costs.

Archie is M&H's son, and they have a right to decide how to handle his birth. Harry is 6th in line to the throne. Why are people so crazily obsessed over Archie??? The Sussexes' tours have all been successful and well received.

The fact that the suit was announced at the end of the SA tour was for legal reasons. The Sussexes had brought suit in early 2019, but the Mail Online refused to settle out of court. The timing of the negotiations breaking down, and the legal strategy to file the suit when it was filed is not something that was within the Sussexes' control.

Harry and Meghan both came back from Vancouver to not only visit Canada House and meet with charities, but to also meet with the Queen. Their visit with the Queen was blocked by courtiers. Harry was told to put his plan in writing. He responded that he didn't want to put it in writing due to the dangers of it being more readily leaked. They reiterated for him to put his plan in writing, so he did. And parts of the plan were immediately leaked to Dan Wooten at The Sun... The Sussexes learned that the plans had been leaked and would be reported in The Sun, and that's when the Sussexes made the decision to move forward with their announcement and the launch of their website, so that they could stay in control of the narrative.

The Queen and Prince Charles should have interceded behind-the-scenes a long time ago. It didn't have to come to this.

The Sussexes did not say they were leaving, they said they wished to 'step back' as senior royals, but still wished to support the Queen, Prince Charles, and the monarchy. None of this was a surprise to the Queen, Charles, or William, as was initially bandied about.
  #1569  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
To repeat myself and other Canadians here NO THEY CAN'T. They aren't Canadian citizens and can't become Canadian citizens. Canadian citizenship is a process that takes years to acquire and neither of them qualify. You can't become a citizen just because you want to - all countries set up laws and rules that have to be followed. In Canada NO ONE is exempt from following our laws and rules, "the problem" is suggesting that someone is entitled to flout our laws or get an exception because of who they are.


There are many, many deserving people who want to come here and can't. Many of them can support themselves and pay taxes. If the Canadian government no longer allows investor/business class immigrants (very wealthy people who want to start companies here and employ many Canadians) why would we allow a British prince to bypass the rules? We are a separate independent country from the UK with our own laws and rules. The days of us being a mere colony are long over. They are welcome to visit here but they have no more entitlement to live here than other people. Just because Harry is royalty doesn't mean they they have the right to circumvent the rules that all our other immigrants have followed.


If Harry is given some special diplomatic role by the British government, it is possible that terms can be negotiated for him to remain although he doesn't strike me as qualified in that area.


For someone who lives in Denmark ,you hold very strong opinions about our government and aren't listening to the Canadians here who said it won't fly here. Our current federal government is a minority one and holding onto power with a very narrow margin (they were nearly defeated in the last election). In our system, the government can fall at any time especially when they have a narrow minority. All it takes is the opposition passing a non confidence motion which passes (the opposition parties currently outnumber the ruling party), the government falls and an election is triggered and defeat usually results. Often the new government undoes the action that caused the defeat of the previous government. (This has happened in the past a number of times.) Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals will avoid antagonizing the voters (the majority who are taxpayers) with an unpopular decision that could lead to a fast defeat.


I repeat they are welcome to visit here but they don't get to bypass our laws and rules and we don't want to pay for their security because they are not coming as a royal tour but privately. Canada only provides this type of personal security for visiting heads of state and royals on official tours. When Harry's been here before privately or doing charity work like the Invictus Games, our government has NOT paid for it. Visiting celebrities pay for private security THEMSELVES. BTW Canadian citizens ARE NOT entitled to taxpayer paid individual protection. You seem to be confusing regular police services for which all residents and visitors are entitled to (citizenship doesn't matter for that at all) with personal security and bodyguards which what we are talking about. If a Canadian needs bodyguards or personal security, THEY pay for it or someone else on their behalf (like a company or organization) pays for it, NOT our government. That is NOT a service provided for by our police to ANYONE here including Canadian citizens (which they are NOT and CANNOT become. The exception is our Prime Minister who is our HEAD OF STATE and therefore receives government paid personal security (BTW, it isn't the local police that provide it, it's the national police, RCMP). Prince Harry is NOT our head of state. Other people who need personal security here pay for it themselves. Yes Harry and Meghan will need security but we will NOT pay for it.
It's conceivable that they might make an immigration exception for Harry and Meghan. They are members of the Canadian Royal Family, but they would need to be fulfilling some type of role. Canada also pays for some of their protection even when they are making private visits. (Plain clothes Mounties were seen around Meghan's home when they were dating.)

BUT, it is the height of arrogance to announce their intentions like this is a done deal, especially since Canada is a country in mourning and dealing with an international crisis. Do they not think the Canadian government has anything better to do at the moment?

While I think many Canadians enjoy the connection to the Sussexes, and actually claimed Meghan with her Canadian history when they got engaged, any deal that involves public funds and special rules needs to be handled very carefully or it could cause a huge backlash.
  #1570  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Canada most certainly has a number of big name celebrities. They just happen to work in the US for the most part. Except when they are shooting movies, or performing in concerts back home.
Right - well, if you put it that way, then you are right, Canada does have celebrity connections. And yes, they can network with people and businesses here, but as you say, most of Canada's "celebrities" spend most of their time in the U.S.

And maybe that is what will end up happening with Meghan and Harry. Meghan doesn't strike me as someone who wants to just stay in Toronto and Vancouver for the most part, but rather someone who always is on a quest for bigger things. And I know they said they would divide their time between North America and supporting the Queen on official trips, so it looks like they expect a life of travel anyway.
  #1571  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dwelling, Australia
Posts: 2
I've read some of the posts here, not all. What I have read has given more of an insight into the opinions, likes or dislike of those posting of Harry & Meghan rather than facts. I don't claim to know anything about what H&M are thinking, because they haven't told me. I don't claim to have an insider in any palace, because I don't know anyone. I will certainly not venture an opinion as to how this will affect the royal brand, because I don't have one. I will however give an opinion on human nature. This life is not a dress rehearsal, we don't get a do-over, this is it! You can't live your life to suit other people. I don't live my life to gain approval from people that mean nothing to me or don't know me or care about my happiness or wellbeing.

I have read a few different articles, blogs & opinions on H&M since their announcement and I like this one (below). I like it because it humanises H&M, it reminds us that they are people, titles not withstanding. You aren't dealing with words on a keyboard or photos of a moment in time, you are talking about, casting opinions on and demonising human beings who deserve to live their life the way they deem appropriate. While it may not suit peoples perception of how royalty should live, it suits how Harry the father, husband, son, brother, friend, grandson and cousin chooses to live. Ditto for Meghan. We don't have to like it, we just have to respect that this is their journey, their life and their choice.

Have a read and while reading allocate some humanity to these two people.
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/pri...8-9a2a8f2a3b44
  #1572  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
She’s also the Queen and has been for almost 70 years. It it comes down to the Monarchy or her grandson-the grandson will be on the losing side.
She not going to let Harry be in Canada without security. I don't care what anyone says. He will always be a royal and he and his family need security.
  #1573  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,520
Wow...this is a no-holds barred look at Meghan from a former friend and business advisor. I believe her - I’m sure others won’t, but that’s fine. This rings true to me, from her wanting to “bag a prince” to her not understanding or caring about the Royal sense of duty to not getting the Royals as human beings...

This is terribly sad...


Quote:
And if that means dragging Harry out of the Royal Family and into her world – the 'real world' as she would feel – then so be it.

Yes, her decisions to move forward in her life can seem abrupt, even ruthless, to those left behind. It's happened several times before, including to me.

.....

It wasn't just the media attention. I distinctly remember explaining as we sipped wine in London's West End that she must cope with the enormous expectations of the British public, the Royal Family and their courtiers. Her reaction was to hold up her hand and silence me.

'Save it,' she said, in a steely manner I had not noticed before. 'I don't wanna hear it... this is a positive time in my life.'

At that moment I felt uncomfortable in her company for the first time. It wasn't as if we hadn't shared secrets before, but this time it was different.

She is a very ambitious woman and, when it is time to move on in her life, Meghan has a way of closing the door on the past, as she did with her father, her siblings, her first husband and with me.

I believed then, as I do now, that she was no ingenue, but a worldly-wise woman on the mission of her life, the mission to bag not any old prince, but The Prince!

That's why I thought it was disingenuous, to put it mildly, when she told Tom Bradby during their ITV interview that she had been 'naive when friends warned her against the dangers of the media'. Meghan was a proper, grown-up woman when she met Harry.

She has also said that, being American, she didn't even know who Harry was.

That made me laugh out loud – I know when nonsense is nonsense, and this was demonstrable rubbish.

.......

I am certain it has been her influence on Harry that is taking him away from his family. I don't mean to say he has no willpower of his own, but he put it well himself: 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.'

......


She wanted all the glamour and glory of being a Windsor, but I don't think she was ever truly up for taking on the daily grind that came with it.

I don't think she really understands the Royal world of altruism, history, tradition and low-key patronage for no personal gain.

She'll see Royal life as staid and stuffy. She certainly never showed me any interest in British life and traditions.

Even with that said, I don't think she could have dragged Harry away from his family unless part of him wanted to make some kind of grand gesture.

But from what I've seen of them together, I'm certain she played a large part in the current crisis.

.....

The saddest thing of all is that there is much to admire in Meghan, but I don't think she has really paid attention to the human side of the Royal Family.

And the fact that Meghan still thinks she can revolutionise the Monarchy shows how little she understands the British way of life. The Royal Family has its own codes, its own magnificent history, and it's going to take so much more than an actress from California to change that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ULE-world.html
  #1574  
Old 01-11-2020, 10:59 PM
Purrs's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks. In that case I don't understand the previous part about how someone with a work permit (who is clearly legally living in Canada and earning money) is not a permanent resident; is that person expected to leave every 5 months as if he/she were a visitor? Or is that person also a permanent resident in contrast to what you stated before (or at least in contrast in how I interpreted what you wrote)? So, basically, what is the immigration status as that person is neither a permanent resident nor a visitor in my book...

They are here on a work permit which is classed as a different category of immigrant than a permanent resident by the Canadian government (below I list all the categories). Being on a work permit is dependent on you remaining in the job for which the work permit was granted for the duration of the job. This is not the case, with a permanent residency which is not dependent on the person remaining in a specific job. (For a work permit, it cannot be just any job, the government determines which jobs are eligible.)
With a work permit, you can stay as long as the permit is valid (which is usually as long you have that job - can be a very short time or many years) and you don't have to leave every 5 months. The consecutive 5 month rule only applies to visitors.

To clarify:
Here's a summary of the different categories from most secure to least: note permanent residency and citizenship are linked - you must be a permanent resident for several years first before you become a citizen.The others are not linked, you can't progress from the others to permanent residency and/or citizenship.

1) citizen. You can only get citizenship after several years of being a permanent resident first, must apply and pass a citizenship test. It is not required to live here permanently but does have certain benefits ie. you need it to vote or hold political office, will get assistance if in trouble abroad, cannot be refused re entry or deported.)

2) permanent resident (used to be called "landed immigrant"). You must meet certain criteria (which have been discussed in many other threads) and apply. Unlike a citizen, permanent residents can be deported if they commit serious crime. You can make money and have most of the rights of other Canadians residents (healthcare etc) except for only those few mentioned under citizen. You can stay while your application is being processed (cannot work legally until it's approved or if you are "inland" - already living in Canada on a valid visa when you applied, you can't leave Canada until it is approved. If your application is denied, you must leave (usually you have the right of appeal and can stay until that is decided.) You must pass a medical test (can be waived on compassion grounds) and a background check in your home country to prove you don't have a criminal record.


3) work permit - must apply (usually done for you by company you are working for on your behalf), it is issued only for certain jobs that the Canadian government has chosen. With a work permit, you can make money in Canada as long as your permit is valid. (You'd pay taxes on this money like everyone else.) When job ends or if you are fired, you must leave (it never progresses to permanent residency). People can get a work permit for a short time or many years, it depends on the needs of the employer. Again you have to pass medical and background checks. I don't know about diplomatic visas but I assume it is similar.


4) Visitors can stay for up to consecutive 5 months, cannot make money legally in Canada. For certain countries with a high number of illegal immigrants (usually 3rd world countries), you must formally apply for a visitor visa in writing and it can be denied if they think you will stay illegally (this does not apply to either the UK or USA. Any visitor can be refused entry at the border.

There's a few other categories like international student visa but they aren't applicable so I'll skip them.
  #1575  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:03 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: city, United States
Posts: 2
His titles should be removed.
  #1576  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:13 PM
LadyGlendower's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: City of Light, France
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Wow...this is a no-holds barred look at Meghan from a former friend and business advisor. I believe her - I’m sure others won’t, but that’s fine. This rings true to me, from her wanting to “bag a prince” to her not understanding or caring about the Royal sense of duty to not getting the Royals as human beings...

This is terribly sad...




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ULE-world.html
Conventional wisdom dictates that you try not to step on too many people on your way up the ladder because you may encounter them again on the way down.
  #1577  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
It seems that they themselves do otherwise they would not be trademarking Sussexroyal. Even their new website goes by that name. If they did not, all this drama could have been spared.

Harry could has asked his Grandmother to issue Letters Patent to remove his titles and style (she granted him the Duke of Sussex title and she granted William's kids their HRH- so she has the power to remove them) and been on his merry way to Canada or anywhere else it suited them. No Fuss, No Drama
One of the little quirks about titles in the UK - the monarch gives them but only parliament can remove them.

HRH isn't a title but a style but Sussex is a title.

The British parliament, in the 20th Century removed TWO royal titles in the 20th via the Titles Deprivation Act, 1914. The reason - the two dukes were fighting against Britain in WW1 - effectively committing treason.

The only more senior royal to 'step back' from royal duties, in the 20th century - had the highest title he held removed (His Majesty The King) but the HRH was retained and months later he was given a peerage.
  #1578  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:55 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: South, Germany
Posts: 52
Is Meghan still a US citizen?
  #1579  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,826
Yes.

She hasn't been in the UK for long enough to even begin the process towards British citizenship.
  #1580  
Old 01-12-2020, 12:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Oakland, United States
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
The Firm's lawyers and the Attorney General will stitch together a watertight contract to prevent so tawdry a prospect - they may get away with 'Brand Sussex', but 'Sussex Royal', NEVER...
Talking of money, whatever is decided I hope a post marriage prenup is also signed (if one waan’t signed before the wedding) to make sure Harry’s assets before the wedding are 100% protected.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
The Duke of Sussex and The Invictus Games: 2014 and 2016-2018, 2020 Dman The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1150 09-06-2020 07:30 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history ancestry armstrong-jones baptism british british royals chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up daisy dutch dutch royals family life family tree games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history house of glucksburg interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech startling new evidence stuart swedish queen taiwan thailand tracts unsubscribe videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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