The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/)
-   -   Letters Patent Issued (Dec 31, 2012): All Cambridge Children to be Princes/Princesses (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/letters-patent-issued-dec-31-2012-all-cambridge-children-to-be-princes-princesses-34382.html)

Lumutqueen 01-09-2013 10:37 AM

Letters Patent Issued (Dec 31, 2012): All Cambridge Children to be Princes/Princesses
 
According to twitter The Queen issued new letters patent today granting the title Prince or Princess to the future sons or daughters of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

I personally thought this deserved a new thread, but it can be moved to the pregnancy thread perhaps.

The patent reads

Quote:

'all the children of the eldest son of the POW should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince and Princess prefixed to their Christian names'
https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail

Artemisia 01-09-2013 10:41 AM

An expected move but pleasant birthday "surprise" for the Duchess nonetheless.
Edit: the Letters Patent are actually dated 31.12.2012 and were issued on the same day via the London Gazette.

branchg 01-09-2013 10:43 AM

Makes sense given the change to equal succession rights regardless of gender beginning with William and Catherine's descendants.

principessa 01-09-2013 10:48 AM

A nice birthday present for HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

TLLK 01-09-2013 10:56 AM

I agree that a new Letters Patent would be required due to the upcoming changes in the succession laws. Prior to the new letter only the eldest grandson of the PoW would be given HRH Prince ____ status.

Artemisia 01-09-2013 11:01 AM

I think even if no changes had been planned, the Letters Patent would have still been issued.
It was always almost a certainty the children of the Duke of Cambridge - Heir Apparent to the Heir Apparent - would not be "mere" Lords and Ladies.

Princess Luna 01-09-2013 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1503219)
...new letters patent today granting the title Prince or Princess to the future sons or daughters of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

...as they should be:smile:

An Ard Ri 01-09-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503220)
An expected move but pleasant birthday "surprise" for the Duchess nonetheless.
Edit: the Letters Patent are actually dated 31.12.2012 and were issued on the same day via the London Gazette.

I agree Artemisia,its good news especially as its Kate's birthday!

branchg 01-09-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503236)
I think even if no changes had been planned, the Letters Patent would have still been issued.
It was always almost a certainty the children of the Duke of Cambridge - Heir Apparent to the Heir Apparent - would not be "mere" Lords and Ladies.

It is consistent with prior practice. George VI issued Letters Patent in 1948 granting the style of HRH Prince/Princess to Elizabeth's future children since she was heiress presumptive. Victoria issued Letters Patent in 1898 elevating The Duke of York's children to HRH as children of the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales.

George V limited the 1898 Letters Patent grant to the eldest son only when he issued the 1917 Letters Patent, but now The Queen has restored the provision to all the children.

Dman 01-09-2013 11:38 AM

This is a beautiful gift to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge on her Birthday. I bet it made William & Catherine smile even more on this day.

AdmirerUS 01-09-2013 11:42 AM

I looked but could not find it in the Royal Gazette. Does anyone know the category/subcategory under which this would be posted?

For Harry Potter fans though, on Jan 4 a notice was printed (under the "other: category) to search for Tom Riddle. I am not kidding. :lol:

Found it - Here it is in entirety:
Date: 8 January 2013 Issue Number: 60384 Page number: 213 Publication Date: Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Notice Code: 1108
Crown Office
House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW
31 December 2012
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.

C I P Denyer

(1738680)



Read more: Search Results

hkittybaby 01-09-2013 11:47 AM

BBC News - Royal baby girl 'would be princess'

Duke-of-Earl 01-09-2013 11:54 AM

Great news and entirely expected.
I wonder does the Queen know something we don't, although its not really much of a surprise.

hkittybaby 01-09-2013 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl (Post 1503284)
I wonder does the Queen know something we don't, although its not really much of a surprise.

What do you mean by that?:smile:

Rebafan81 01-09-2013 12:43 PM

I was happy to see this, but will the children outrank their mother who is a "mere" Duchess?
Also, I would love to see HM do this for Prince Harry when he marries, like it was for Andrews children.

Kataryn 01-09-2013 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkittybaby (Post 1503290)
What do you mean by that?:smile:

I guess we all realise that the Cambridges already know if it is going to be a child or twins. Not sure about the gender, though. That can be tricky and I can't remember from which week onwards you could tell of the "little difference" for sure. But they know and then surely HM and Prince Charles know if it's going to be one or two babies.

Lumutqueen 01-09-2013 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebafan81 (Post 1503294)
I was happy to see this, but will the children outrank their mother who is a "mere" Duchess?
Also, I would love to see HM do this for Prince Harry when he marries, like it was for Andrews children.

You do know that Catherine is not a mere Duchess, she is a Princess but as Prince William is now known as The Duke of Cambridge, his wife is now known as The Duchess of Cambridge.

Well if Henry has children while The Queen lives, then she probably will. However personally I think Henry will have children in the reign of his father so new LPs aren't necessary.

Kataryn 01-09-2013 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebafan81 (Post 1503294)
I was happy to see this, but will the children outrank their mother who is a "mere" Duchess?
Also, I would love to see HM do this for Prince Harry when he marries, like it was for Andrews children.

Their mother isn't a "mere duchess", she is a Royal duchess, meaning that her husband, the prince, was elevated to the rank of Royal duke before his wedding, thus she as his wife is both a princess and a Royal duchess, but only used the higher title of duchess. But of course Catherine is HRH Princess William of Wales in addition to being HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

Prince/Princess is a courtesy title for relatives of the souverain in male-line while a Royal peerage is a "real" peerage, thus higher ranking than a mere courtesy title.

Dman 01-09-2013 01:00 PM

Very true, Catherine is a Princess by marriage.

Artemisia 01-09-2013 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 1503262)
I looked but could not find it in the Royal Gazette. Does anyone know the category/subcategory under which this would be posted?

For Harry Potter fans though, on Jan 4 a notice was printed (under the "other: category) to search for Tom Riddle. I am not kidding. :lol:

The PDF file and the announcement in the London Gazette.

Dman 01-09-2013 01:26 PM

Queen issues formal decree to guarantee princess title if Duchess of Cambridge has a girl - Telegraph

Kit 01-09-2013 01:36 PM

Wait a moment it says "all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". Does this Letters Patent then only apply to Prince William's children or automatically also to future generations like his grandchildren?

Artemisia 01-09-2013 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 1503259)
...
George V limited the 1898 Letters Patent grant to the eldest son only when he issued the 1917 Letters Patent, but now The Queen has restored the provision to all the children.

The change is or William's children only though, isn't it? That is to say, in future the younger children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would still not be Princes and Princesses or Royal Highnesses until and unless new Letters Patent are issued.

While we are there, I have always found the wording of the 1917 Letters Patent interesting.: if the Heir Apparent hasn't been created The Prince of Wales and is still the Duke of Cornwall, then does that mean his eldest son will not be a Prince? I assume the Prince of Wales clause was added for the eldest son of the Heir Apparent who is not the Sovereign's eldest surviving son himself.

Kit 01-09-2013 01:47 PM

I also think this applies specifically to Prince William's children.It could get quite complicated in the future if the Equal Primogeniture gets through and William and Kate have a daughter followed by a younger brother.


When Prince William is created the Prince of Wales with his eldest child being a daughter his grandchildren would not bear the title Prince/Princess unless a new LP would be issued.
But what about his grandchildren through his eldest son ? They would bear the title.

Princess Luna 01-09-2013 01:54 PM

If they having a girl, will she be Princess of Wales or Cambrigde?

Artemisia 01-09-2013 02:04 PM

:previous:
Depends on when William's daughter is born.
- If the girl is born during the current reign, she'll be Princess Name of Cambridge.
- If she is born during Charles' reign but before William is created The Prince of Wales, she'll be Princess Name of Cornwall and Cambridge.
- If she is born during Charles' reign and after William is created The Prince of Wales, she'll be Princess Name of Wales.
- If she is born during William's own reign, she'll be The Princess Name.

A girl to William and Kate can be a Princess of Wales only in one case: if she becomes one in her own right. Technically speaking, there is actually no law forbidding a woman to be a Princess of Wales in her own right; if William's first-born is a girl and she becomes Heiress Apparent in due course (once the proposed Equal Primogeniture laws are adopted), then when William becomes King, he can create his eldest daughter and heiress The Princess of Wales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit (Post 1503318)
Wait a moment it says "all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". Does this Letters Patent then only apply to Prince William's children or automatically also to future generations like his grandchildren?

I'm pretty sure only the children of the eldest son of the current Prince of Wales are meant.

The Letters Patent applies only to William's children. If William's grandchildren are born during the Queen's reign (highly improbable but theoretically possible), then they would not be Royal Highnesses and Princes/Princesses unless new Letters Patent are issued. If William's grandchildren are born during Charles' reign, they would also not be entitled to princely title and style of a Royal Highness, again unless new Letters Patent are issued (which, if this scenario were to take place, is extremely likely).

hkittybaby 01-09-2013 02:39 PM

The Queen declares future Royal daughter of Duke and Duchess will be a Princess! (But we still don't know if it will be a boy or a girl) | Mail Online

Stefan 01-09-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503333)
I'm pretty sure only the children of the eldest son of the current Prince of Wales are meant.

The Letters Patent applies only to William's children. If William's grandchildren are born during the Queen's reign (highly improbable but theoretically possible), then they would not be Royal Highnesses and Princes/Princesses unless new Letters Patent are issued. If William's grandchildren are born during Charles' reign, they would also not be entitled to princely title and style of a Royal Highness, again unless new Letters Patent are issued (which, if this scenario were to take place, is extremely likely).

I don't think so. It would have to be stated to this effect. If during Charles reign William becames a grandfather through this oldest son then hid children would be affected by this Letters patent as then he is the Prince of Wales (if he is created as such).
The Letters Patent doesn't say that only the children of the oldest son of the present Prince of Wales are meant.

Sister Morphine 01-09-2013 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503319)
The change is or William's children only though, isn't it? That is to say, in future the younger children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would still not be Princes and Princesses or Royal Highnesses until and unless new Letters Patent are issued.

While we are there, I have always found the wording of the 1917 Letters Patent interesting.: if the Heir Apparent hasn't been created The Prince of Wales and is still the Duke of Cornwall, then does that mean his eldest son will not be a Prince? I assume the Prince of Wales clause was added for the eldest son of the Heir Apparent who is not the Sovereign's eldest surviving son himself.

I'm not sure, but I would be comfortable in speculating that this is going to be the norm from now on, seeing as equal primogeniture has been adopted. From the wording of the document, it sounded to me like in the future, all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be HRH Prince/Princess, instead of just the eldest son being HRH Prince ______. As for your second question, if William is the Duke of Cornwall but not yet the Prince of Wales, that means his father is King and as such, all of his kids, as grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line, will be HRH Prince/Princess regardless. The 1917 Letters Patent no longer apply. George V wanted to downsize the number of people who carried the HRH Prince/Princess title (and did away with great-grandchildren in the male line being HH Prince/Princess), so it was limited to just those in direct line to the throne; the children of the sovereign, the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Luna (Post 1503327)
If they having a girl, will she be Princess of Wales or Cambrigde?

Seeing as the Queen doesn't appear to be on her deathbed, the child will be born during the current reign. Thus, the baby would be HRH Prince/Princess _____ of Cambridge. The senior most title is what the children would carry. If the Queen did not make him a duke on his wedding day, they would be "of Wales" as that would be his only title. When the Queen dies, and William immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall, that child and any other children they'd have at that point, would become HRH Prince/Princess ________ of Cornwall and Cambridge, with Cornwall as the senior most title coming first. Then if William is made Prince of Wales, they'd be HRH Prince/Princess ______ of Wales, just like William and Harry were when they were born.

EIIR 01-09-2013 02:54 PM

A necessary bit of housekeeping from HM. I think 'Prince George of Cambridge' sounds quite nice.

sophie25 01-09-2013 03:18 PM

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

HRHHermione 01-09-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela (Post 1503357)
If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign, they are automatically prince/princess as children of the son of the monarch.

I honestly don't see any reason why that should change. Now, if Harry wishes, he can have his children styled with a lesser title, like the Wessex family has chosen to do, but that's up to Harry and his future wife.

NGalitzine 01-09-2013 03:23 PM

As things currently stand as male line granchildren of the monarch Harry's children would be HRH Prince or Princess if born during the reign of Charles III. All these things are of course subject to change.

Iluvbertie 01-09-2013 03:37 PM

As William was promoted from a commoner Prince to a peer Duke on his wedding day Catherine is known as The Duchess - the wife of a peer - rather than Princess William - the wife of a commoner.

The only wife of a HRH Prince to use the style of Princess is Princess Michael - the lowest ranked of all those wives because the others have more senior titles to use.

The current Duchess of Gloucester started her married life as Princess Richard of Gloucester but then her father-in-law died and she became The Duchess of Gloucester.

Princess is the default position for a wife whose husband has nothing better to offer - such as being a peer.

As for the new LPs - I note that they apply to the 'eldest son of the Prince of Wales' which to me means that the next time this happens and the heir is a girl they will have to be issued again to cover that possibility.

I think issuing the LPs this early in the pregnancy suggests that she has done this to cover the possibility of a girl not that she knows that it is - particualarly as they were issued at the 3 month or so mark of the preganancy.

I don't see any need for new LPs to cover any children of Harry. They will probably be following the styling of Edward and not using the HRH anyway, even if entitled to do so - particularly given the negative press that Beatrice and Eugenie get for having it even though they are the children of the second son - the same position that Harry's future children will be in at some time in the future - the children of the second son. Of course he first of all has to find a woman who wants to marry him, give up her career, her privacy and live in the straightjacket of the royal family.

branchg 01-09-2013 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kataryn (Post 1503296)
I guess we all realise that the Cambridges already know if it is going to be a child or twins...

I think The Queen would have issued the same Letters Patent regardless of whether Catherine may be carrying twins. Prior to 1917, the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales enjoyed the rank of HRH under Letters Patent issued in 1898 by Queen Victoria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit (Post 1503318)
Wait a moment it says "all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". Does this Letters Patent then only apply to Prince William's children or automatically also to future generations like his grandchildren?

The change is applicable to all future children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales. If it was limited to William only, the LP would be worded differently "all children of HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge, etc.".

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela (Post 1503357)
If Harry's kids are born during Charles' reign will they be prince/princess? I read somewhere things were getting changed so they would just be lord/lady.

Currently, they would. But I predict they will not hold royal rank and use the style of children of a Duke ("Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor"), similar to James and Louise Wessex.

GracieGiraffe 01-09-2013 04:02 PM

Oh, thank heavens! I was so afraid we were going to have another "Lady Diana" come July 1st ......:eek:

Artemisia 01-09-2013 04:03 PM

A silly question but please do remember English is not my first language.

If the Letters Patent meant all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales from now on, wouldn't the wording be "children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales" and not "children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales"? Doesn't the latter imply a specific (current) Prince of Wales?

GracieGiraffe 01-09-2013 04:05 PM

I think it means from now on from the wording and now just Will but I guess I'd have to look at the wording of other Letters Patent to be clear.
If it were just Will I think she'd say all children born to the Duke of Cambridge.

Stefan 01-09-2013 04:11 PM

The Wording of the 1917 LP was also the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales and not a Prince of Wales.

Artemisia 01-09-2013 04:14 PM

I see. Thanks Stefan and GracieGiraffe. :smile:

Based on the wording, I have to change my opinion and agree with those who think the changes will be applicable to the children of all eldest sons of the Princes of Wales in future, unless and until new Letters Patent are issued.

Kit 01-09-2013 04:30 PM

Not sure if it really applies to future generations. What if the eldest son has an elder sister who will become Queen because of Equal Primogeniture? Then the children of the future Queen would not be Prince and Princess as long as they are grandchildren of the PoW whereas the children of her younger brother would bear the title and therefore outrank her children. Hypothetically of course but it could happen.

Dman 01-09-2013 04:36 PM

I think this is just for William & Catherine's children.

Princess Robijn 01-09-2013 04:37 PM

I assume the Queen is unwilling to make such a statement (as stating the oldest child of the Prince of Wales) without the law being changed. (as opposed to trying to change the law, which is what they are currently doing (and are very likely to succeed).)

Kit 01-09-2013 04:50 PM

I assume this as well Princess Robijn!

cepe 01-09-2013 04:57 PM

There is only ever one Prince of Wales so the does apply. A Prince of Wales implies that she means anyone of many.

This is an amendment to the LP of 1917 which mentioned the "son of" so all she has done is make an amendment to include all children which covers all eventualities (ie twins). Nothing else has changed so it does not apply to Harry whilst she is Queen. When Charles becomes King, everyone moves up and Harry's children are prince/princesses but whether he uses those titles is another matter.

Sorry if I'm repeating stuff but I'm having probs with my computer.

EIIR 01-09-2013 05:03 PM

I think in future this whole thing should, and probably will be, simplified. We should just say that any children of the monarch are HRH Prince/Princess, as are the children of the heir to the throne. Everyone else gets Lord/Lady titles if they want one.

I also feel that when women marry a prince, they should automatically become Princess X in their own right. Same goes for an untitled male marrying an heir to the throne. The reason Kate is still often referred to by her maiden name is that 'Duchess of Cambridge' doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as 'Kate Middleton'. Camilla would also benefit because if she was Princess Camilla then the media etc. wouldn't refer to her as Camilla Parker Bowles nearly so often, which was the name by which most people knew her.

This whole thing is just unnecessarily complicated IMO.

branchg 01-09-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503377)
If the Letters Patent meant all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales from now on, wouldn't the wording be "children of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales" and not "children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales"? Doesn't the latter imply a specific (current) Prince of Wales?

No, because there is only "The" Prince of Wales at any one time. The LPs apply to the current and future holder of that title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit (Post 1503388)
Not sure if it really applies to future generations. What if the eldest son has an elder sister who will become Queen because of Equal Primogeniture? Then the children of the future Queen would not be Prince and Princess as long as they are grandchildren of the PoW whereas the children of her younger brother would bear the title and therefore outrank her children. Hypothetically of course but it could happen.

You are correct. In the case of the eldest child of the POW being female, the 2012 Letters Patent as currently worded would not apply and this would have to be addressed by issuing new Letters Patent.

padams2359 01-09-2013 06:05 PM

George V had several children, he was planning ahead to keep the RF from exploding down the line. George VI only had two, so the Kents and the Gloucesters are seeing those HRH titles going away. QE2 had four children, which gave her several grandchildren who she loves, and like George V, she needs to steer the Firm where it needs to go. She is not concerned about titles for William's grandchildren. Things will change, and that will be Charles's concern. She knows what she needs to do give Charles a defined Royal Family as she was given.

Iluvbertie 01-09-2013 06:21 PM

However it doesn't cover the future possibility of the grandchildren of an heiress presumptive who won't be The Prince of Wales - simply because she will be a Princess and not a Prince.

It also doesn't cover the idea that the heir may not be created Prince of Wales anyway e.g. if William isn't created Prince of Wales and he becomes a grandfather in his father's reign then there will need to be new LPs.

These LPs could have been better worded in my opinion.

Osipi 01-09-2013 06:57 PM

As we've seem in the current reign, LP are not difficult to issue as they are at the discretion of the monarch. Most likely when Charles ascends the throne, he will have to issue LPs for 1) creating a heiress apparent The Princess of Wales in her own right (if needed) and 2) the LPs just now issued to change to eldest child of The Prince/Princess of Wales. Perhaps HM somewhere in the back of her mind thought this is something that might give Charles practice when he becomes King. :whistling:

Depending on how old Charles is when he does become King, there really is a good chance that William will not be created Prince of Wales. If the longevity in the family continues (for example: Charles becomes monarch at 74), he may realize that it will only be a short reign before William is King and decide to let things stand as they are. With William's eldest child perhaps close to 20 when his/her father becomes monarch, establishing that child as Prince/Princess of Wales creates once again a role to fill with the example of Charles to follow. I do really think that Charles has redefined the meaning of Prince of Wales.

All of this discussion has really made me realize just how much things could change in Charles' reign. The process has already begun and gradually, things will be exactly as what is needed for a modern yet traditional constitutional monarchy for the 21st century.

Iluvbertie 01-09-2013 07:26 PM

If Charles becomes King at 74 he could still have a reign of 20+ years given the longevity in his family (when Charles is 74 his mother would be nearly 97).

William could easily have another 40 years to wait and be approaching 70 himself with grandchildren of his own on the way or already here by the time he ascends the throne.

LPs aren't that hard to issue but why not get it right the first time rather than leave it to be done again in the future?

Duke-of-Earl 01-09-2013 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1503403)
I think in future this whole thing should, and probably will be, simplified...

AS usually EIIR. you cut right to the chase and make this issue as clear as crystal. The arm chair politicians on the other hand make things as clear as mud. Thanks for another excellent comment

branchg 01-09-2013 07:59 PM

The Queen is addressing today's reality, not every possible future scenario. Since Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth nations have agreed William's children will be in succession in birth order without preference to the male gender, Letters Patent have been issued in conformity with that change.

No one knows what the future will bring to the monarchy and future situations will be addressed as they come up.

padams2359 01-09-2013 09:01 PM

QE2 will never speak publicly for doing anything, but I think this is a sign to the commonwealth that this is the direction the palace wishes to go, and they will quickly follow suit.

LauraS3514 01-09-2013 11:48 PM

I agree that the new LP is a stop-gap to cover just William's children until new rules come about in Charles' reign, otherwise this new LP could have stated something like this: "...the children of the eldest child of the Heir or Heiress Apparent." That would have covered every possibility. :smile:

Osipi 01-09-2013 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 1503505)
I agree that the new LP is a stop-gap to cover just William's children until new rules come about in Charles' reign, otherwise this new LP could have stated something like this: "...the children of the eldest child of the Heir or Heiress Apparent." That would have covered every possibility. :smile:

but couldn't be stated that way yet as its not been put through and formally ratified by all the commonwealth parliaments correct?

Jessgan 01-10-2013 12:03 AM

I'm sorry, I still couldn't grasp the concept that prince William is a commoner prince. To me, he's royal and a prince. When he was created a duke, why did he used the duke title? Isn't a duke lower than a prince?

NGalitzine 01-10-2013 12:28 AM

In the UK the only people who are not commoners are the monarch and the peers. So even QEII before she came to the throne was a commoner while Philip as Duke of Edinburgh was a peer and not a commoner. William was also a commoner until he too became a peer of the realm as Duke of Cambridge.

Osipi 01-10-2013 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessgan (Post 1503511)
I'm sorry, I still couldn't grasp the concept that prince William is a commoner prince. To me, he's royal and a prince. When he was created a duke, why did he used the duke title? Isn't a duke lower than a prince?

Actually if you really get into it, you find out that a title of Duke outranks a title of Prince in some cases. A Duke is a peer. A Prince is not. Its still confusing to me too. A Prince could not sit in the House of Lords but a Duke as a peer could. As Prince of Wales, Charles couldn't sit in the House of Lords but as the Duke of Cornwall... he could. (It would never happen though as close as he is to being the monarch and add in the royal factor)..

The difference is the Royal part methinks. One can be a Duke and not be royal but in the UK, all Princes are royal. Royal designates to many as representing the Crown. Dukes, Dames, Knights, Earls and Sirs are esteemed peers of the UK.

Somebody help me out here? The more I type, the more I get comfuzzled.

NGalitzine 01-10-2013 12:38 AM

As I said in my post above yours in the UK we have only the Monarch and the Peers of the Realm (dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons) who are not commoners. Everyone else is a commoner. Kinghts/Dames/Baronets are not peers of the realms so they are also commoners.
The style of HRH and the titular dignity of Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom are essentially courtesy designations for members of the royal family but unless they also hold a peerage of their own (Cornwall/York/Wessex/Gloucester/Kent/Cambridge) they remain commoners.
The same goes for the younger children of ordinary peers who may enjoys various styles and courtesy titles (Viscount Linley, Viscount Althrop, the Marquess of Worcester etc) but remain commoners because they themselves do not hold a peerage of their own.

Osipi 01-10-2013 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1503520)
As I said in my post above yours in the UK we have only the Monarch and the Peers of the Realm (dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons) who are not commoners. Everyone else is a commoner. Kinghts/Dames/Baronets are not peers of the realms so they are also commoners

As I was musing and calculating the words (of which some of them are wrong) of my post, you posted your reply in the same minute I did. Glad you got there first. :rofl:

PrincePatrick 01-10-2013 05:22 AM

Just throwing this in there because it was asked a couple of times earlier in the thread... They likely still don't know the sex of the baby. Even if she was 11 weeks pregnant at the announcement of her pregnancy they'd only be able to tell the sex THIS WEEK (16 weeks gestation). However, most obstetricians wait until 18-20 weeks to do the sex-identifying ultrasound because you have to wait until this time to rule out any number of physiologic/anatomical defects. Of course, this is the likely future sovereign, so I suppose they could be doing ultrasounds every two weeks!

Osipi 01-10-2013 05:35 AM

I have to laugh .. its up to the parents themselves to want to know the sex of their unborn child. As far as i know, there's been no LP issued that all unborn children's sex shall be made known to the monarch as soon as possible. I do think Henry VIII would have loved that one though . :biggrin:

Reminds me of an old episode of the sitcom "Full House" where they didn't want to know the sex. Walking out the door, it sunk in the doc said "babies".

Iluvbertie 01-10-2013 06:17 AM

The Prince of Wales did take his seat in the House of Lords as did The Duke of Edinburgh for those who are interested.

All these LPs have done is reverted from the 1917 LPs to the 1898 LPs issued by Queen Victoria which took George V's children from HH to HRH (at the time George V was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales so his children were in the same position as the unborn child). Two future monarchs were born as HH - Edward VIII and George VI. They were then upgraded to HRH by LP in 1898 and Queen Elizabeth has simply reverted to those LPs rather than her grandfather's 1917 LPs with regard to the children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Non-royal Dukes are actually referred to as 'princes' but not HRH - usually only heard at their funerals.

csw 01-10-2013 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit (Post 1503324)
...When Prince William is created the Prince of Wales with his eldest child being a daughter his grandchildren would not bear the title Prince/Princess unless a new LP would be issued.
But what about his grandchildren through his eldest son ? They would bear the title.

I am wondering that too. I suppose it won't be hard for a new letter patent to be issued if needed in future but more careful wording noe would make it unnecessary. Perhaps this does only apply to William's children similar to how the family female rankings are person specific in those letters patent

hkittybaby 01-10-2013 07:07 AM

Some more articles:
Queen issues formal decree to guarantee princess title if Duchess of Cambridge has a girl - Telegraph

Daughter For Kate And Wills Would Be Princess

Daughter for Prince William and Kate ‘will be a Princess’ | The Sun |News

Lady Ann 01-10-2013 08:19 AM

So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

hkittybaby 01-10-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1503599)
So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Has POW's opinion been confirmed?:flowers:

qzwxec 01-10-2013 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia (Post 1503236)
I think even if no changes had been planned, the Letters Patent would have still been issued.
It was always almost a certainty the children of the Duke of Cambridge - Heir Apparent to the Heir Apparent - would not be "mere" Lords and Ladies.

But then I don't understand why you need this. Once Cambridge becomes The Duke of Cornwall on his father's accession, his children then become HRH and Princes and Princesses as grandchildren of the new King, Charles.

HRHHermione 01-10-2013 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qzwxec (Post 1503617)
But then I don't understand why you need this. Once Cambridge becomes The Duke of Cornwall on his father's accession, his children then become HRH and Princes and Princesses as grandchildren of the new King, Charles.

Yes, but Her Majesty is in good health and could live for a long time... and it makes sense to have the Cambridge children styled as HRH from birth as they're in the direct line of succession.

Osipi 01-10-2013 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1503599)
So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Anything the Prince of Wales does is available through the Court Circular, his own wesbiste, the website of the British Monarchy and other sources people that know more than I can steer you towards.

Charles has said a lot of things and his views are known on a lot of subjects that are on the record. My rule of thumb is that if I read it in a newspaper first, its a supposition. :) You want to know the "real" Charles? Get his book Harmony. :biggrin:

branchg 01-10-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1503599)
So is all this true about the POW being againts the law or some parts of the law? Will anyone who knows.. help me out? or is it all hoopla I can see the points about the church and what of the Duke titles ..feel free to move this if it don't belong here..

The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Assuming the article is true (which is always questionable), it does not state Charles is against the changes, but has valid questions about the impact on hereditary peerages, inheritance of the Cornwall duchy, etc.

These issues will undoubtedly have to be addressed over time as constitutional and government officials review them. For now, the immediate issue of William's first-born daughter being allowed the style of HRH Princess at birth is taken care of.

AdmirerUS 01-10-2013 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1503517)
Actually if you really get into it, you find out that a title of Duke outranks a title of Prince in some cases. A Duke is a peer. A Prince is not.

Yes, and there is also the issue of making a living. Many Dukes still hold estates which earn livings for said Duke/Duchesses. Most Princes, however, lack estates and depending on their situation may be Prince in title only - when the government no longer recognizes the monarchy - but does recognize a Duke's landholding because of laws of possession. Likewise, as government financial support for royal families decreases the problem of income source becomes ever more critical.

I'd rather be a comfortable to wealthy Duchess than a poor Princess any day.

Lumutqueen 01-10-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkittybaby (Post 1503615)
Has POW's opinion been confirmed?:flowers:

The Prince of Wales opinion will never be confirmed.

misselle 01-10-2013 02:02 PM

This is good news for gender equality!
I wonder if there will be changes made to the title Princess of Wales for the heiress apparent? Or will the tradition remain that Princess of Wales remain the styling for the wife of the Prince of Wales?

Lady Ann 01-10-2013 02:19 PM

Thanks for all your answers and opinions... I was not sure just asking.. If it is true or not the article brings up vaild issues with the law change. Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

GracieGiraffe 01-10-2013 02:29 PM

I had no idea that princes/princesses were simply "commoners" until the Queen gives them, such as William, a peerage. I know that those with courtesy titles, such as "Lady Diana Spencer" were commoners.

You really do learn something new every day.

Iluvbertie 01-10-2013 03:43 PM

In the UK there are three levels of person:

a) the monarch
b) the peers - those people with substantive titles such as Dukes and the Bishops and above of the CoE
c) the commoners - anyone who doesn't have a substantive title including - Princes/Princesses, Lords, Ladies and plain Miss, Mr, Mrs, and Ms.

Not everyone who is called by a title has a substanative title: e.g. people call James Viscount Severn but he isn't The Viscount Severn - his father is. It is traditional in the UK for the son and heir to a title to use his father's second title as a courtesy title and if there is a grandson that grandson will use the third title as his courtesy title. In the meantime the holder of the substantive titles is the peer while his son and grandson, however grandiose their titles, are still commoners but will be peers one day.

Take the Duke of Gloucester. He is a peer of the realm, took his seat in the House of Lords and all the rest - lost his seat in the 1999 reforms to that house as well. His son has always been known as the Earl of Ulster (little 't' the) while his father is The Earl of Ulster (capital 'T' The). The Duke's grandson is known as Lord Culloden which is the third of the Duke's titles. When the Duke passes (many, many years from now I hope) and his son moves up to the title of The Duke of Gloucester, young Lord Culloden will take on the style of the Earl of Ulster and if by then he has a son that son will take on Lord Culloden.

The interesting thing in all this discussion about William's children and their titles is the fact that The Queen included the usual remainder in the title - heirs male of the body' so if the first born child is a girl and the second a boy the girl is destined to be the monarch while the boy could end up with the title Duke of Cambridge and that title, like Gloucester and Kent before it, and as Edinburgh is intended, being lost to the ranks of HRHs (that would happen if William died before becoming King and so his title didn't merge with the Crown).

Molly2101 01-10-2013 04:20 PM

I am glad this has been changed, it is only right that if the baby is a girl she can be a Princess, particularly if she will definitely be Queen if a girl is first.

This statement though only highlights that Louise and James can use their HRH style if they wish. No LP were issued regarding their styles, thus they are not permanent.

Alison H 01-10-2013 04:20 PM

Kate is the Princess William :-).

I doubt they know at this stage if it's a boy or a girl, and even if this one's a boy then they might have a girl in future: I think it's just been done to make sure there are no queries over titles when the baby's born.

The eldest son of a duke or an earl normally has his own title - Earl of Ulster, Earl of St Andrews, Viscount Linley, Viscount Severn, etc - so the Queen could even give the baby his (or indeed her, in keeping with the new spirit of equality!) own title. I'm not sure how old the Duke of Clarence (Queen Victoria's great-grandson) was when he was made a duke in his own right ... oh, not until he was 26, according to Wikipedia!

Just getting totally ahead of myself: the baby isn't due for months yet!

NGalitzine 01-10-2013 04:58 PM

^^^^
Prince Albert Victor,The Duke of Clarence was Victorias grandson not great-grandson.

SLV 01-10-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1503745)

Take the Duke of Gloucester. He is a peer of the realm, took his seat in the House of Lords and all the rest - lost his seat in the 1999 reforms to that house as well. His son has always been known as the Earl of Ulster (little 't' the) while his father is The Earl of Ulster (capital 'T' The). The Duke's grandson is known as Lord Culloden which is the third of the Duke's titles. When the Duke passes (many, many years from now I hope) and his son moves up to the title of The Duke of Gloucester, young Lord Culloden will take on the style of the Earl of Ulster and if by then he has a son that son will take on Lord Culloden.

I wonder why William then never uses his fathers secondairy title? It would be according to the rules you mention. And that would mean that ,without the newly published orders, the first son of W&C would have been allowed to use Charles' third title.

NGalitzine 01-10-2013 05:04 PM

^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.

padams2359 01-10-2013 06:26 PM

I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.

AdmirerUS 01-10-2013 07:00 PM

I look at the Letters Patent in a different light, maybe. Depending on if/when Prince Charles chatted up the pols on his concerns, the timing of the Queen's announcement certainly clarifies how she feels about the issue.

Princess Robijn 01-10-2013 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padams2359 (Post 1503789)
I see Prince Charles' concern. The first child is girl, she could be heir to the throne, but a second child, male could be Duke of Cornwall, and separate the Duchy from the heir. I think that is his concern. If the child is truly equal, they need the dukedom be it male or female.

The Duke of Cornwall has to be the oldest living son of the monarch AND the heir to the throne.

Jessgan 01-10-2013 08:21 PM

I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?

Iluvbertie 01-10-2013 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 1503756)
Kate is the Princess William :-).

Kate is HRH Princess William - no 'the'. Only the children of the monarch, and the spouse of the monarch in the case of Philip are entitled to the word 'The'. It is one of the distinguishing features between being a common or garden variety prince/princess and being the child of the monarch.


Quote:

The eldest son of a duke or an earl normally has his own title - Earl of Ulster, Earl of St Andrews, Viscount Linley, Viscount Severn, etc - so the Queen could even give the baby his (or indeed her, in keeping with the new spirit of equality!) own title.

The eldest sons of peer do NOT have their own titles. They usually use their father's second title as a courtesy but it isn't the title of the heir.

The full list of HRH The Duke of Gloucester's titles, for instance, are:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden.

As a result he is known by his first and most senior title while his heir uses the second title as a courtesy and his grandson uses the third one as a courtesy as well but the title-holder in each case is still The Duke of Gloucester.

corazon 01-10-2013 09:42 PM

this is a great news! well, we now can say WE HAVE A LITTLE PRINCE/PRINCESS ON WAY!

Iluvbertie 01-10-2013 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessgan (Post 1503813)
I still don't get it. Prince William was born into the royal family, thus he would have the title HRH. Since in his royal highness status, why was he a commoner?

There are three categories of people in the UK:

1. The monarch - he isn't the monarch and so can't be category 1.

2. Peers of the realm - he didn't have a substantive title until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he wasn't a peer of the realm - he couldn't have sat in the pre-1999 House of Lords until he was created Duke of Cambridge so he can't be category 2 which only leave category 3 - a commoner.

3. Commoners - as he wasn't either of the above he was a commoner. He was eligible to vote for and to stand for election to the House of Commons. Kate still can by the was as can Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine Kent, Michael and Marie Christine and Alexandra - all HRHs but all commoners.

I remember way way back when Britain first allowed 18 year olds to vote and there was a story in the paper about Princess Anne being eligible to vote in an election and she was asked about that and said something along the lines of :I am eligible to vote but like the rest of my family won't do so.

Queen Victoria often objected to being told to make her sons Dukes but when it was explained to her that if she didn't do that they could vote and stand for election to the House of Commons because they weren't peers of the realm she immediately agreed that she needed to promote them to the peerage. She didn't have to worry about her daughters as women weren't allowed to vote in the UK until 1918 (over 30) and 1928 (over 21 - the same age as men). It is for this reason the the younger sons of Kings have been made Dukes - to keep them away from the frontline of politics which they would have to have been involved in in the Commons but in the Lords they never needed to even turn up.

Interestingly if they were living in Australia they wouldn't have a choice as it is compulsory to vote in all elections here (and you will be fined - and even have to fill in forms and produce death certificates to get out of paying a fine - as we had to do for my father with the local government elections last year when the government sent him a fine notice nearly 12 months after he died).

The simple question to ask yourself is: Is this person able to sit in the pre-1999 House of Lords? If the answer is No, unless they are the monarch of the day, then they are a commoner.

So even though William was born a Prince of the realm he wasn't a peer of the realm until created Duke of Cambridge and so until that day he was a commoner.

The bit jump made on his wedding day was not made by Kate who went from commoner to commoner but William who went from commoner to peer.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to who is actually a peer and who is a commoner amongst many people because the Europeans do/did things differently. In Britain only the title holder is a noble - not his wife or his children. As William didn't hold a title he wasn't a peer and thus wasn't a noble. The only alternative is to be a commoner - a royal but still a commoner.

Duke-of-Earl 01-10-2013 10:37 PM

Whitehall, November 9, 1948.

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.

(London Gazette, issue 38452, Nov. 9, 1948, p. 1/5889.)

Interesting to compare the wording used in 1948 when the King issued similar but not exact Letters Patent for the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, with that issued by the Queen for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Another 'quirk' for us Royal watchers is the LsP refer to the Duke as Prince Philip, A title he supposedly renounced a year earlier, although Garter didn't think he had.

Iluvbertie 01-10-2013 11:27 PM

The reason for the different wording is that the 1948 LPs were specific for Elizabeth and Philip's children while the new LPs cover all future similar situations - where the PoW has an eldest son about to be a father.

The new LPs replace one section of the 1917 LPs ad infinitum.

I have always found it strange that the LPs from 1948 referred to Philip as Prince Philip when the King went to pains elsewhere to insist that he wasn't a Prince and that The Queen had to issue LPs in 1957 to create him a Prince.

I think what this points to is that he was still officially a Prince of Greece and Denmark, even if he didn't use those styles etc anymore but that he wasn't a Prince of the UK - which is what the 1957 LPs fixed. To me it has always suggested that the 'renounciation of his Greek and Danish titles' was more a gentlemen's agreement between Philip and the three kings concerned (Greece, Denmark and the UK) that he wouldn't use the foreign titles but that he really was still a Prince.

HRHThePrince 01-11-2013 12:17 AM

Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

Duke-of-Earl 01-11-2013 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince (Post 1503855)
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

I think you're correct. Iluvbertie is the expert if you will and I believe this is his contention as well
HRHThePrince You are becoming very knowledgeable in these matters

HRHThePrince 01-11-2013 12:34 AM

I can't wait to see whether a female heiress apparent will become Princess of Wales in her own right and hold the other hereditary titles automatically held by a male heir.

SLV 01-11-2013 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1503766)
^^^^^
Royal princes do not uses their fathers secondary titles. For instance HRH Prince William of Gloucester never was known as HRH Prince William, Earl of Ulster and HRH the Duke of Kent was never known as HRH Prince Edwaed, Earl of St Andrews during his fathers lifetime.


But why don't they?

wbenson 01-11-2013 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince (Post 1503855)
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?

However, the 1917 letters patent also said "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales," and it seems to have been intended to extend to the grandsons of future Princes of Wales.

Iluvbertie 01-11-2013 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLV (Post 1503872)
But why don't they?


Because the style of HRH Prince xxxx is senior to the courtesy title of Earl of Ulster so the late Prince William of Gloucester was called HRH Prince William of Gloucester and not The Earl of Ulster - which is simply a coutesy title for the son and heir to a dukedom to distinguish him from the myriad of others who are Lord yyy.

Imagine at school and there are a number of boys - e.g. Eton - there could be about 20 Lords in a year but maybe only 1 or 2 with a courtesy title of Earl of xxxx or Viscount yyyy and even fewer students with the styling of Prince.

If Philip's sons weren't HRH Prince then Charles would be known as Earl of Merioneth but Andrew and Edward would simply be Lord Andrew and Lord Edward Mountbatten (of course Philip wouldn't have been created a Duke if he wasn't marrying Elizabeth so this is totally hypothetical anyway).

In fact if the 1948 LPs hadn't been granted Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.

Iluvbertie 01-11-2013 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince (Post 1503855)
Is the new LP an echoe of Queen Victoria's 1898 patent? From what I've read it said "the children of the eldest son of 'the' Prince of Wales" ... while Queen Victoria's said.. "the children of the eldest son of 'any' Prince of Wales.


I know small words do make a difference... is this just for William's
children or all future children of the eldest son of the POW?


George V's LPs of 1917 use the words 'the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales' not 'any' Prince of Wales'. Based on that fact it would seem that either George V only intended his LPs to apply to the grandson of Edward VIII and that therefore no LPs actually applied to the current child or - as I believe - he intended his LPs to cover ALL future Princes of Wales as there can only ever be one Prince of Wales at a time and so The Prince of Wales would always be a specific person. The Queen has used the same form as her grandfather - The Prince of Wales - but undone part of his LPs and taken them back to the same point they were for his children.

Jessgan 01-11-2013 09:22 PM

Thanks iluvbertie for ur explanation. The word 'peer' means they dun need to vote. I guess it's easier to see it this way:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises