The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:11 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 16,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceKellyFan View Post
They should be allowed a retirement and the younger generations take over
They are allowed and nobody is preventing The Queen from abdicating. However The Queen and Prince Philip are never fully going to leave public life, even if HM does abdicate, until their death. There's no normal life for them, there's no normal retirement. I can't see Prince Philip sat at Windsor watching re-runs of keeping up appearances and having his 3 square meals a day at 9, 1 and 6 on the dot. They're not that couple.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
The more interesting question (rather than "would she consider...") is whether she should abdicate.

EDIT: But we probably can't discuss that
That is a more interesting question, and I can't see why we couldn't discuss it.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:12 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

That is a more interesting question, and I can't see why we couldn't discuss it.
I thought that what this thread was about
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:20 PM
xenobia's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Near the artic circle, Sweden
Posts: 148
One thought that crossed my mind is what wold happen if (or when, he's human) the DoE passes away. His health hasn't been the best lately. I have a hard time seeing the queen doing her job without his support.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I thought that what this thread was about
No. There is a difference between "would" and "should".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:36 PM
Duchess Marie's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Miami, United States
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Queen will never abdicate. Said it before the woman wants to pass QV and no matter what her health she's not going to let Vicky win. She'll slow down to a crawl but never ever quit.
Agree, i do want the Queen to pass Victoria as the longest reigning British monarch.
__________________
My skin has turned to porcelain, to ivory, to steel.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 07-03-2013, 03:49 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
That is a more interesting question, and I can't see why we couldn't discuss it.
i thought that there might be problems, but in my view I think she should.

this is a new idea for me which has developed following the abdication of Beatrix. HMQs duty is to the people and the monarchy itself and she is making it harder and harder for Charles to be accepted positively as King when the time comes. a 70/80 year old king at the start of his reign creates barriers to acceptance.

It would also clarify the position of the Cambridges and they should be full time royals, learning their craft.

There is a lot of talk about the bredth of the royals, but there is also the depth with 3 generations . And that costs a lot more money. And there will be pressure brought to bear on costs and the payment of taxes, particularly the sovereign to sovereign transfer which carries no tax liability.

If she abdicated, she would be seen the support Charles transition to kingship, there would be a positive response to the Cambridges moving up and the reduction of the BRF would start, at a time when it is needed.

I admit that these thoughts are "work in progress" and I am looking forward to reading other views.

what I think would be wrong, is for sentiment to get in the way of good decisions.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:02 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess Marie View Post

Agree, i do want the Queen to pass Victoria as the longest reigning British monarch.
Agree with you and Queen Camilla. I want the Queen to pass Victoria and become the longest Reigning Monarch in British History also and I can't wait for that day to happen. It only Two Years away and I have no doubt that she will live to that day and beat Queen Victoria Record! I wonder if there will be some sort of Guns salute or Fireworks that day?

You know the Queen is aware of how close she is too passing and breaking her Great-Great Grandmother record reign of 63 Years and becoming the longest reigning Monarch (And Queen) in British History. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe she would becoming the longest reigning Queen in Europe History as well?

She is aware just like I bet Queen Victoria was aware in 1894 when she was approaching her Grandfather (George III) record reign and was close to beating him and becoming the longest reigning monarch in British History.

I do wonder sometimes if Queen Victoria thought that someone would someday beat her Reign and overtake her as the longest reigning monarch or if she thought that she would always be number 1?

I wonder what she would have to say about Queen Elizabeth closing in on her record?
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 706
IMO the recent years have only improved my opinion of QEII (which was already good) and i don't see any reason why she should abdicate.
Further more I'm glad that she didn't retire at 65 or 70....IMO that would NOT have been good for the popularity of the BRF....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:14 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
HMQs duty is to the people and the monarchy itself and she is making it harder and harder for Charles to be accepted positively as King when the time comes. a 70/80 year old king at the start of his reign creates barriers to acceptance.
IMO she's making it a lot easier. Most of the unpopularity Charles has is from the Diana years. The more time that passes, the more it gets out of the public's mind.

The longer Charles and Camilla are together the more she will be accepted and the more likely it is that she will be Queen. I think Charles really wants that.

I don't get why a 70-year-old king would be negative. HM is more popular than ever in her old age. I think he would be seen more as a grandfatherly figure.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:20 PM
Calenei's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 176
Well since we are going to change the rules of The Monarchy why don't we just skip Prince Charles all together save even more money and just get to Prince William and Catherine right away. I mean youth loves youth and they have no patience to wait for him to become King.

This whole idea of Abdication is just wrong IMO. It's a top job for life. Pushing a Queen out who has done a remarkable job because Royalty is getting to expensive with all the different generations is just insulting to her imo.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:29 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 16,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calenei View Post
Well since we are going to change the rules of The Monarchy why don't we just skip Prince Charles all together save even more money and just get to Prince William and Catherine right away. I mean youth loves youth and they have no patience to wait for him to become King.

This whole idea of Abdication is just wrong IMO. It's a top job for life. Pushing a Queen out who has done a remarkable job because Royalty is getting to expensive with all the different generations is just insulting to her imo.
How would skipping Charles and going straight to William save money? Nobody's pushing The Queen out for anything, least of all money.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by monarchist-us View Post
IMO she's making it a lot easier. Most of the unpopularity Charles has is from the Diana years. The more time that passes, the more it gets out of the public's mind.

The longer Charles and Camilla are together the more she will be accepted and the more likely it is that she will be Queen. I think Charles really wants that.

I don't get why a 70-year-old king would be negative. HM is more popular than ever in her old age. I think he would be seen more as a grandfatherly figure.
I agree.
Our monarchs tend to enjoy their most popularity when they are very young and glamorous or when they are very old and grandfatherly/motherly. Its those middle aged years when they are stuck between an aged parent (The Queen Mum) and a young heir and his glamorous wife (Charles & Diana) that the monarch has trouble.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:33 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 841
I opened this thread with lot of apprehensions, but I am quite pleased with near-unanimous support to the Queen's wishes that she remains on throne for life.
Cepe, your "under progress" thoughts are good enough but I not sure I can agree with many of them..Here are some of my views to your points..

and she is making it harder and harder for Charles to be accepted positively as King when the time comes. a 70/80 year old king at the start of his reign creates barriers to acceptance.

Firstly no ones acceptance/non-acceptance can be fully influenced by their predecessors. Every monarch goes through the same cycle..an intense euphoria with curiosity, end-of-the-honeymoon monotony, increased criticisms, then some general indifference and then gradual reverence as national symbol and finally tremendous respect and loyalty. The Queen thoroughly went through each of these phases, so does every monarch. In fact, the older Charles is when he becomes King, the more they get used to him being their King one day. And the more the respect and reverence for him.
Secondly, just go through the popularities of all royals in the past half century. They generally peak in late 20s and 20s, start dropping in mid-40s, and start growing up again in late 60s and 70s. Trues for both Queen and Charles..So there's gonna be no "popularity/acceptance" problems for Charles when he becomes King in late 70s..

And that costs a lot more money. And there will be pressure brought to bear on costs and the payment of taxes, particularly the sovereign to sovereign transfer which carries no tax liability.

I dont think there will be huge difference in the costs once The Queen abdicates, since the number of enents/engagements and the persons carrying them roughly remains the same. And come on, regarding costs, those who complain complain anyway, and those who dont, dont.

If she abdicated, she would be seen the support Charles transition to kingship

I dont think Charles needs Queen's "support" for the transition. And if we observe the British royalism carefully, the biggest support of a new monarch is always the sympathy of the people due to death of previous one, and the spirit of continuation..Abdication is not continuation, abdication is overlapping. People are so used to Queen that we simply cant accept Charles as King as long as she is there..
Moreover, abdication actually complicates transition. New debates will start..is it necessary to have a 65y.o King? Let him be bypassed and so on..

there would be a positive response to the Cambridges moving up

The Cambridges ARE MOVING UP..and The Queen is slowing down..This is happening at a very enormous dynamic..but simply discretely without any announcements or documentations.The media and public are also acknowledging this..And THERE IS positive response to this. And of course Cambridges wont wait for Queen's death to become full-time royals..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 07-03-2013, 11:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,838
Cepe, while I disagree with your conclusion, I can see how you've come to it. While it might still be in development, it does seem like you've put a lot of careful thought into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
HMQs duty is to the people and the monarchy itself and she is making it harder and harder for Charles to be accepted positively as King when the time comes. a 70/80 year old king at the start of his reign creates barriers to acceptance.
The basis for this idea seems to be a common one, but I think it's based on a misunderstanding of the idea of a monarchy. A king (or a queen) is king for life, be that a long or short life. That's one of the key components of the idea as it has existed for thousands of years. Abdication is something that typically has only been done when the monarch is forced to do so. While voluntary abdications are becoming more popular, and may continue to do so as the lifespan of monarchs continues to expand, they are not yet common across the board or even all that common within most monarchies.

Abdications are, by far, the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Thus, if a monarch is expected to rule for his or her life, it isn't really a vote of non-confidence in the successor if he or she doesn't abdicate. HM isn't saying that she doesn't believe in Charles' ability to rule by not abdicating, she's saying that she believes it is her duty to continue to serve the country. It wasn't seen as a vote of non-confidence when KGVI was struggling with the cancer that would kill him and chose not to abdicate, nor was it a matter of confidence when KEVII insisted on trying to continue to work and refusing to go to bed in his last days, despite having severe bronchitis and having suffered several heart attacks.

There are, of course, cases where the monarch did not have faith in the successor and we can see that lack of faith in their behavior during their reign. William IV suffered from poor health during his reign, but was so adamantly against the then Duchess of Kent that he once swore at a dinner party that it was his intention to live just until the future Queen Victoria 18th birthday so a regency wouldn't be necessary. QV herself had no faith in her successor, and refused to let her Bertie help with the red boxes (while also blaming him for his father's death), and KGV was reported as having predicted that his eldest son would ruin himself within 12 months of his (KGV)'s death.

None of this is remotely similar to the situation with Charles. The Queen is not ill and refusing to relinquish her power. She is not being asked to abdicate by any huge group and refusing to do so. She is not (at least not publicly) speaking about how Charles does not have the makings of a good monarch in him. Instead what she's doing is showing that she does have confidence in him and the future of the monarchy under him, although she does so in ways far more stubble than abdications. Charles is consulted on the red books, he is appointed as HM's representative on overseas tours - notably at the Commonwealth meeting. Last year during the Jubilee celebration there were moments when she stood with just her eldest son and his family, clearly showing that she viewed them as the future of the monarchy. The idea that she isn't showing confidence in Charles by not abdicating only works if there is an expectation that she should abdicate. There isn't, there is no tradition of abdication within the British system so HM failing to do so (especially coupled with a very strong anti-abdication tradition) is not a vote against Charles' capabilities as a monarch.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, Charles is not exactly the most popular member of the BRF, nor is Camilla, although both do seem to have come great lengths from their all time low of the 90s. I agree with Vkrish in the idea that the more time and distance put between Charles the divorcee of the 90s and Charles the king of the future the better. It gives him more time to show the public that he is not the playboy he was once made out to be, and that his bride is not the Rottweiler or demon she's been made out to be.

I personally think the more we see Camilla and Charles interacting at events with HM, the DoE, the Cambridges, and Harry, the better and the easier it will be to have the two of them accepted when HM dies. Vkrish also pointed out that HM's popularity does not seem to be dwindling, despite her age. Personally I think that regardless of his age when he becomes King, Charles will shine and be accepted - this is a nation that accepted Edward VII and William IV despite their less than young ages. Sure he might not have the long reign or popularity of his mother, but I think he will be accepted and loved regardless of his age.

Quote:
It would also clarify the position of the Cambridges and they should be full time royals, learning their craft.
I don't really get the confusion surrounding the current position of the Cambridges. Right now William is the grandson of the monarch, and is working full time in the military. He also has some part-time royal duties. Catherine should not be expected to perform more duties than her husband. William's role is actually more active than the last individual in his position. When George V was simply the Duke of York it was said that he did "nothing at all but kill animals and stick in stamps."

Yes, we'd all like to see the Cambridges do more - and I think it's very likely that we're going to see that happen sooner rather than later, without an abdication - but there is no requirement for the grandson of the monarch to perform full time royal duties, regardless of his position in the succession, and particularly while he is working full time. Similarly, there is no requirement that the wife of a royal engage in full time duties when her husband does not.

Quote:
There is a lot of talk about the bredth of the royals, but there is also the depth with 3 generations . And that costs a lot more money. And there will be pressure brought to bear on costs and the payment of taxes, particularly the sovereign to sovereign transfer which carries no tax liability.
How would HM abdicating change the cost of the monarchy in any way? Currently the monarchy costs British taxpayers less than a pound per person a year. The monarchy is funded through the two Duchys and the Sovereign Grants. None of that will change with a new monarch.

Furthermore, the number of royals will not change with a new monarch. If HM abdicates then the only thing that really changes is the position of her, Prince Philip, Charles, Camilla, and the Cambridges. Charles will be responsible for paying for his siblings and their children, his parents, his mother's cousins, and his younger son, out of the Duchy of Lancaster. William will provide for himself, Catherine, and Baby Cambridge out of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Actually, if you think about it, HM abdicating would make the monarch financially responsible for more individuals and not less. As it stands now, HM pays for herself, her husband, her three younger children and their children, and her four cousins - a total of 15 people, not including spouses or great-grandchildren. If Charles were to move up without anyone dying, he'd be financially responsible for those 15 people, as well as himself, Camilla, and Harry, while Cornwall (which currently pays for 4 people) would be responsible for 2 people.

As for individuals paying taxes, both HM and Charles currently pay taxes on what they make from their respective Duchies - and at a high rate. Assuming that William will be paying taxes on Cornwall then it makes no difference who the monarch is or who the Duke of Cornwall is, the same taxes will be paid.

Quote:
If she abdicated, she would be seen the support Charles transition to kingship, there would be a positive response to the Cambridges moving up and the reduction of the BRF would start, at a time when it is needed.
I'm still confused as to how the BRF would in any way be reduced by HM abdicating. This is not a royal family that is established by degrees of relationship to the current monarch - a member of the BRF is determined either by their relationship to any monarch, and maintains that relationship for life or their relationship to an existing member, and remains a member so long as they're still married and/or alive.

The current BRF is the Queen, her spouse, the four children of the current monarch, the six male-line grandchildren of the current monarch, the child of Prince William (by LP), the four male-line grandchildren of KGV, and the 6 wives of the above, for a total of 23 people.

If HM abdicates, then the BRF will be the current monarch (Charles), his spouse, his 2 children, his male-line grandchild, the three other children and 4 other male-line-grandchildren of of QEII, the five male-line grandchildren of KGV (including HM), the 5 wives of the above, and the DoE (by LP), for a total of 23 people.

There is no downsizing unless new LPs are issued to further limit princely titles, which I can't see happening at all during the lifetime of HM. If it does happen, I think it's more likely to happen during the reign of William, after the grandchildren of KGV (who have dedicated a chunk of their lives to the service of QEII) have passed and the non-reigning grandchildren of QEII have all embarked on private lives.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 07-04-2013, 02:55 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 384
There is also the issue of Australia and other countries becoming republics after the Queen goes. My mother is a royalist until the Queen is no more. (She apparently becomes a republican thereafter as she absolutely hates Camilla and Charles. The Diana affair is still an issue with her and her friends.)

The RF may not care about that but if they do, it would be another reason for the Queen to stay put.

By the way, I think she would do just fine on the death of her husband. She has plenty of family members who will step in and out with her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 07-04-2013, 03:21 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
If she abdicated, she would be seen the support Charles transition to kingship

I dont think Charles needs Queen's "support" for the transition. And if we observe the British royalism carefully, the biggest support of a new monarch is always the sympathy of the people due to death of previous one, and the spirit of continuation..Abdication is not continuation, abdication is overlapping. People are so used to Queen that we simply cant accept Charles as King as long as she is there..
Moreover, abdication actually complicates transition. New debates will start..is it necessary to have a 65y.o King? Let him be bypassed and so on..
Great post. I agree with all of it, but this point in particular. Abdications turn monarchy into a popularity contest -- which is the antithesis of the whole system. Maybe it's so accepted in the Benelux countries that it isn't overtly a popularity contest...but the constant year-to-year speculation over Beatrix's abdication (whether she would or not) had to get tiring for everyone. I'm also not sure what the merits of having a 9-year-old heiress apparent are if you can help it (see below).

Also, think of it this way:
HM staying on the throne gives William and Catherine more time to be parents without the added duties being Prince/ss of Wales, and it gives Charles more time to be a grandparent. Also gives Charles more time to work on his pet projects (some of which I'm a fan of, others not so much ) and gives him even more time to prepare for kingship.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: HM abdicates, Charles gets the throne. Now let's say William dies shortly thereafter (we can only hope not -- but tragedies happen in the BRF just like in any other family), we're looking at a heir(ess) apparent who may ascend the throne as a minor, largely unprepared for the job. I think having three generations in the direct line is extremely valuable and I don't see any need to make it two prematurely.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 07-04-2013, 12:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 202
For the first time, I think the Queen abdicating would be a good thing. I have always preferred Charles, unlike his mum he seems to have a likeable personality.

There is no reason Charles and Camilla wouldn't make a good king and queen, and Liz would be able to advise Charles.

Liz and Philip could enjoy retirement at long last, and the core royal family could be reduced to Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, baby and Harry - considerably smaller than it is now. Anne could still help out but the others could be asked to give up their princely titles and become ordinary citizens. This would achieve the aims of making the monarchy smaller and cheaper.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 07-04-2013, 12:29 PM
EchoLynn's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chandler, Arizona, United States
Posts: 175
Unless God forbid something health related like a severe stroke happened to her, I think she will remain Queen Elizabeth II until she draws her last breath. She said it all those years ago... when she was 16 and was interviewed while in Africa on a trip, that she will devote her whole life to the service of her people.

I see HM living for many more years myself. :)
__________________
~{}~ Love is a choice... ~{}~
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 07-04-2013, 12:31 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoLynn View Post
Unless God forbid something health related like a severe stroke happened to her, I think she will remain Queen Elizabeth II until she draws her last breath. She said it all those years ago... when she was 16 and was interviewed while in Africa on a trip, that she will devote her whole life to the service of her people.

I see HM living for many more years myself. :)
That was her 21st birthday not 16th.
__________________

__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, regency, retirement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ABBA singing "Dancing Queen" for the Swedish King and Queen allison513 Royal House of Sweden 34 11-19-2011 01:24 AM
Queen Fawzia and Queen Soraya were they involved in their country's development ? FarahJoy The Imperial Family of Iran 15 12-15-2009 07:53 PM
Valdemar II the Victorious, Queen Dagmar and Queen Berengária norwegianne Danish Royal History 2 11-10-2007 04:54 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess charlene eveningwear princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]