The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 02-15-2016, 09:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Actually, our nation has the strongest economy in the world. We came out of the recession well, and the things aren't working nonsense is from a political party that isn't working and has candidates they are lunatics. But we always right ourselves. Frankly, the Head of State should be it's President, not some show piece, without power. And as I look at countries, as Australia, Canada etc., who have a Head of State (the Queen) who is a foreigner, makes no sense.

I don't understand your need to insult countries whose system of government is different from yours. You don't understand why some would chose to have a monarchy - you've made that very clear. But the fact remains that we chose to and it works for us. So why continually take pot shots at them?
__________________

  #262  
Old 02-15-2016, 09:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
We also have three three branches of government in a Westminster system, you know. I could say more will leave that to someone with a finer grasp of the workings of government.

What I will say though is that there is one very good reason for you to have a Vice-President: so we can have Veep!
The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.
__________________

  #263  
Old 02-15-2016, 09:39 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.
I believe it's the same in Canada.
  #264  
Old 02-15-2016, 10:07 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,336
The US Vice President was originally the one who came in second in the national election for president. Making the Vice Presidential role more formal was a correction to the system as originally laid out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
The US is going to pot because of people within the US knowing how to play the welfare (hand-out) system.
For clarity: it is not the genuine poor who are causing the problem (welfare fraud at that level is small potatoes) but the wealthy (the super-rich) who are draining this country of it's treasure while giving nothing back themselves. It's the corporate welfare system that is causing this country (USA) to 'go to pot'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Also, the US has too many people coming into the country expecting our government to care of them for the rest of their lives.
When this country starts losing it's immigrants (which it is starting to do from the countries south of us) it will be the beginning of a sad day. Our vitality as a nation is rooted in a healthy sustained immigration across the decades and two plus centuries. As for what such immigrants 'expect', it's usually freedom from fear, torture, and war and an expectation to work hard, sometimes doing the dirtiest and most exhausting jobs. They get nothing from our government that our own poor do not get (if they are poor) which is a sad day for all of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Yes, the US govt sticks their nose into other countries' business entirely too much, but many other governments in the world EXPECT a handout from tax-paying US citizens courtesy of the govt. We can barely take care of citizens of this country much less everybody in the rest of the world and want my govt to mind it's own business.
Start paying attention to the military budget. That's where our treasure is going down the drain: into armaments and war (and those hand outs to foreign dictators). The percentage of our national budget going into 'guns' is close to 60%. It's a national disgrace, and the condition for collapse of every other 'empire' in the past: over extension.

I usually don't talk politics on this site, but I couldn't resist today.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #265  
Old 02-15-2016, 11:07 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.
Yes, though that wasn't what I hoped someone like you might address in more detail. I had in mind other aspects of the post to which I was replying, about how the Westminster System operates, and the crazies taking over.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #266  
Old 02-15-2016, 11:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Yes, though that wasn't what I hoped someone like you might address in more detail. I had in mind other aspects of the post to which I was replying, about how the Westminster System operates, and the crazies taking over.

As I was replying during my lunch break I did a quick overview. I will do a more detailed one when I get home later tonight - but a staff meeting is calling....
  #267  
Old 02-15-2016, 11:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
The US Vice President was originally the one who came in second in the national election for president. Making the Vice Presidential role more formal was a correction to the system as originally laid out.



For clarity: it is not the genuine poor who are causing the problem (welfare fraud at that level is small potatoes) but the wealthy (the super-rich) who are draining this country of it's treasure while giving nothing back themselves. It's the corporate welfare system that is causing this country (USA) to 'go to pot'.



When this country starts losing it's immigrants (which it is starting to do from the countries south of us) it will be the beginning of a sad day. Our vitality as a nation is rooted in a healthy sustained immigration across the decades and two plus centuries. As for what such immigrants 'expect', it's usually freedom from fear, torture, and war and an expectation to work hard, sometimes doing the dirtiest and most exhausting jobs. They get nothing from our government that our own poor do not get (if they poor) which is a sad day for all of us.



Start paying attention to the military budget. That's where our treasure is going down the drain: into armaments and war (and those hand outs to foreign dictators). The percentage of our national budget going into 'guns' is close to 60%. It's a national disgrace, and the condition for collapse of every other 'empire' in the past: over extension.

I usually don't talk politics on this site, but I couldn't resist today.
Again, I disagree with you - but this is the wrong format to debate US politics. To stay on topic, I will state that the US already wastes too much money. So to waste it on a Head of Government and a Head of State (along with other members of the Head of State's family) plus all of govt waste on the taxpayers' dimes - not a good idea.
  #268  
Old 02-16-2016, 12:27 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I don't understand your need to insult countries whose system of government is different from yours. You don't understand why some would chose to have a monarchy - you've made that very clear. But the fact remains that we chose to and it works for us. So why continually take pot shots at them?
It may be a cultural thing, but I do not find Countess' post contained any insult at all. She was stating her opinions/feelings about this discussion topic. I thought that in Canada, along with other with a few other countries in the British Commonwealth, there is real consideration being given by it's citizens as whether to remain with the Commonwealth. This is one topic in the Royal Forums in which you write your opinion and there was not one mean, hateful, brutual, cruel, or insensitive thing written in Countess' post. Critiquing another form of govt is not insulting it; she was only stating her opinion and, to me, if you're insulted, then that's on you. In the US, opinionated political insults are a dime a dozen and can be very brutual and almost cruel - her words were very gentle and very tame and IMO were in no way insulting toward Canada or Canadians.
  #269  
Old 02-16-2016, 04:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
It may be a cultural thing, but I do not find Countess' post contained any insult at all. She was stating her opinions/feelings about this discussion topic. I thought that in Canada, along with other with a few other countries in the British Commonwealth, there is real consideration being given by it's citizens as whether to remain with the Commonwealth. This is one topic in the Royal Forums in which you write your opinion and there was not one mean, hateful, brutual, cruel, or insensitive thing written in Countess' post. Critiquing another form of govt is not insulting it; she was only stating her opinion and, to me, if you're insulted, then that's on you. In the US, opinionated political insults are a dime a dozen and can be very brutual and almost cruel - her words were very gentle and very tame and IMO were in no way insulting toward Canada or Canadians.
I don't think there is any serious consideration in either Australia or Canada about leaving the Commonwealth. There is a strong republican movement in Australia (and a somewhat feeble one in Canada), but that has nothing to do with leaving the Commonwealth. In fact, most Commonwealth member countries are republics.

Likewise, a country does not have to be a monarchy to have a parliamentary system of government or to separate the offices of Head of State and Head of Government. Germany, Italy and Israel for example are parliamentary republics with a ceremonial president as Head of State and a prime minister ( in Germany, the federal chancellor) as Head of Government.
  #270  
Old 02-16-2016, 07:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,085
BTW, going back to Rosyln's point about the West Wing, what she meant is that, in the US, the president is a one-person executive, with unelected cabinet members that he appoints (with the advice and consent of the Senate) and fires at will. In Australia, or Canada, or the UK, the PM also picks the other cabinet ministers, but cabinet members are also elected MPs who normally represent different factions of the majority party in the elected house. The executive branch resembles much more a collegiate body than a single-person autocracy then. The PM nowadays is probably more than just a "frst among equals" in the Westminster system, but, still, he cannot force his policies without the approval of other cabinet members; if he tries to do so; there is a risk one of the other ministers may actually resign from the cabinet and challenge the PM for the party leadership.

In the UK or Canada, the personal figure of the party leader (i.e. the "de facto" party candidate for the office of PM) is now more important than it used to be in the past. A party with a weak or unpopular leader, for example, has a hard time winning a general election. Nevertheless, there is still less "personalism" than in the US presidential system. I can't imagine a Westminster-system country ever having for example someone like Donald Trump rising to prominence on the national stage based on a direct populist appeal to voters without a national political party structure backing him.
  #271  
Old 02-16-2016, 08:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 304
Lady Nimue, to help make you feel better:


(1) The US has had some periods of high immigration (1990-today) and some periods of very low/nonexistent immigration (1790-1850 and 1924-1965). During the latter period, when immigration was sharply limited and immigrants were shipped home, we won WWII and put a man on the moon. So a period of lower immigration won't mean that the world will fall apart.


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...n_1930_to_2000


(2) Military-related spending is certainly not 60% of our national budget. In 2014, defense spending was only 17% of the federal budget; Social Security, healthcare and mandatory interest together were 54%.



See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._-_FY_2011.png

So I hope that you can rest assured that the world isn't falling apart.

This isn't the place to debate immigration or the like, but I just wanted to give you some reassurance about your concerns.
  #272  
Old 02-17-2016, 05:52 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,120
The idea of an American monarchy intrigues me!

How about a thought experiment?There has been a referendum and the Americans have decided to have a hereditary head of state. The family has been selected, a person from that family who is seen as the most suited to represent the Americans has been selected and the heir has been okayed.
What used to the the office of the president will now be re-titled prime minister. I.e. the political executive who can now focus full time on politics.

Now, you have been charged with outlying this new monarchy and you have completely free hands.

So:

What will be the title of your new head of state?
How should the head of state be addressed?
Your head of state will have four more or less grand residences, where should they be located? I.e. main residence, secondary residence, alternative but smaller residence (the heir's official residence?) and a holiday retreat (akin to Camp David).
How about the succession? Will that always be the firstborn? Should the heir be approved by the Congress and if rejected, the next in line selected?
How many in the "monarch's" family should receive money from the state?
What will be the political or ceremonial role of the head of state be in regards to the Constitution? If any?
What languages is the new head of state expected to speak?
Is the head of state expected to adhere to a specific religion?
Which annual American events would you suggest the head of state to lead? Ceremonial or otherwise.
What do you see as the primary role of the "first-spouse"? I.e. what should (s)he focus primarily on?
Should the new head of state have an annual address, say on Constitution Day?

And so on and so on.

This is your chance to create an ideal monarchy.
  #273  
Old 02-17-2016, 06:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The idea of an American monarchy intrigues me!

How about a thought experiment?There has been a referendum and the Americans have decided to have a hereditary head of state. The family has been selected, a person from that family who is seen as the most suited to represent the Americans has been selected and the heir has been okayed.
What used to the the office of the president will now be re-titled prime minister. I.e. the political executive who can now focus full time on politics.

Now, you have been charged with outlying this new monarchy and you have completely free hands.

So:

What will be the title of your new head of state?
How should the head of state be addressed?
Your head of state will have four more or less grand residences, where should they be located? I.e. main residence, secondary residence, alternative but smaller residence and a holiday retreat (akin to Camp David).
How about the succession? Will that always be the firstborn? Should the heir be approved by the Congress and if rejected, the next in line selected?
How many in the "monarch's" family should receive money from the state?
What will be the political or ceremonial role of the head of state be in regards to the Constitution? If any?
What languages is the new head of state expected to speak?
Is the head of state expected to adhere to a specific religion?
Which annual American events would you suggest the head of state to lead? Ceremonial or otherwise.
What do you see as the primary role of the "first-spouse"? I.e. what should (s)he focus primarily on?
Should the new head of state have an annual address, say on Constitution Day?

And so on and so on.

This is your chance to create an ideal monarchy.


I don't think it is possible to have a referendum in the United States on replacing the republic with a monarchy. The US constitution says:


Quote:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
  #274  
Old 02-17-2016, 06:31 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't think it is possible to have a referendum in the United States on replacing the republic with a monarchy. The US constitution says:
Yes, but the idea behind this thought experiment is that it has happened.
For whatever reason you've ended up in a situation where the people have demanded a completely new system and now you have a hereditary head of state.

The thought experiment is no different from changing a monarchy to a republic, it requires a major political and public change and constitutional changes as well, but it is still possible.
  #275  
Old 02-17-2016, 06:32 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,706
A simple vote can't change the constitution. The constitution says how it can be changed and it's quite difficult.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #276  
Old 02-17-2016, 08:22 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Lady Nimue, to help make you feel better:[...] So I hope that you can rest assured that the world isn't falling apart.

This isn't the place to debate immigration or the like, but I just wanted to give you some reassurance about your concerns.
Very funny, CSENYC. Many thanks for the solicitude.

As stated, not the place to be debating any of this. Please look further than the sources quoted. (Wikipedia is always a questionable source except for the most straight forward stuff, and even then one must be cautious). Just look around: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/c...united-states/

P.S. Be aware that pre-Civil War the slave population grew substantially. Those statistics are murky but getting better. Add the Irish immigration, pretty substantial, not to mention the explosion of population into the far west territories, even prior to the Gold Rush. Louisiana Purchase 'captured' new population, too. It's all been about people, and more and more of them. The Mormons pulled in a lot of Europeans to Utah (a territory, but still counts imo). Etc. I am not an authority on all this but as someone long interested in history I can vouch for the profound impact population movement/growth has had on the US.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
  #277  
Old 02-18-2016, 01:23 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Yes, but the idea behind this thought experiment is that it has happened.
For whatever reason you've ended up in a situation where the people have demanded a completely new system and now you have a hereditary head of state.

The thought experiment is no different from changing a monarchy to a republic, it requires a major political and public change and constitutional changes as well, but it is still possible.
Don'think your thought experiment is landing, seems one step to far

what i don't get though, if a thought like this unthinkable because we keep skipping back to the constitution, why have this thread in the first place
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #278  
Old 02-18-2016, 03:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The idea of an American monarchy intrigues me!

How about a thought experiment?There has been a referendum and the Americans have decided to have a hereditary head of state. The family has been selected, a person from that family who is seen as the most suited to represent the Americans has been selected and the heir has been okayed.
What used to the the office of the president will now be re-titled prime minister. I.e. the political executive who can now focus full time on politics.

Now, you have been charged with outlying this new monarchy and you have completely free hands.

So:

What will be the title of your new head of state?
How should the head of state be addressed?
Your head of state will have four more or less grand residences, where should they be located? I.e. main residence, secondary residence, alternative but smaller residence (the heir's official residence?) and a holiday retreat (akin to Camp David).
How about the succession? Will that always be the firstborn? Should the heir be approved by the Congress and if rejected, the next in line selected?
How many in the "monarch's" family should receive money from the state?
What will be the political or ceremonial role of the head of state be in regards to the Constitution? If any?
What languages is the new head of state expected to speak?
Is the head of state expected to adhere to a specific religion?
Which annual American events would you suggest the head of state to lead? Ceremonial or otherwise.
What do you see as the primary role of the "first-spouse"? I.e. what should (s)he focus primarily on?
Should the new head of state have an annual address, say on Constitution Day?

And so on and so on.

This is your chance to create an ideal monarchy.
I cannot wrap my head around this experiment. There are so many battle lines (racial/ethnic/religlious) drawn already, all I envision is utter chaos. No... not gonna happen...way too complicated. I realize this is just a thought experiment, but it would NOT be as easy as you explained it. The entertainment value of this topic is completely shut down after thinking about this for 3 seconds. Does any other American citizen see one positive image in their head when thinking about this?
  #279  
Old 02-18-2016, 03:52 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,120

Seems so, Lee-Z.

Well, IMO if the US Constitution is so rigid that major changes are almost impossible to make, then USA will have very serious problems at some point!
I mean if you can't vote your way to major changes, what options do you have?

Okay, let me rephrase my questions then.

Since the Constitution makes it impossible to have a hereditary head of state, is it possible to have an appointed (not elected) head of state?
That is, a more ceremonial, politically neutral, head of state, who is USA personified and who represent all Americans across the political divide. And who sits for a period of say six years.
A hero for example. An astronaut who has been on the Moon, or general Schwarzkopf or a Nobel Price-winner of physics springs to mind.
A head of state, who can represent USA PR-wise and also on state visits to Farawayland, so that the prime minister can concentrate on the politics and running the country. With some 300 million people the PM is hardly likely to be bored.

Okay, are you ready for some criticism?

As I see it the major problem in USA these past decades has been that a third of the population loathe the sitting administration, while a third support it wholeheartedly and the rest have given up and opted out. There are hardly any serious attempts to work across the political divide anymore. Those who try get voted out by the wings of their parties.
So there are few if any long-term reforms made, because they are likely to be rolled back by the next administration. And with a Congress that controls the budget and who appears to be more interested in annoying the sitting administration rather than to work on what is good for the country, even less is done.
IMO you need one (actually three) more parties. A center party, which will force the Democrats and Republicans towards the center.
On top of that you have a Supreme Court with politically appointed judges who wield way too much power and who sit forever. Who controls the guardians?

I can assure you it's damned worrying sitting on the outside and seeing that the only current super-power is becoming increasingly politically rigid!
Not least knowing that it may very likely change course politically 180 degrees every four or eight years.

And that's why I thought that the idea of the Americans at some point wanting to completely changing the system is not that far out. - A second American revolution if you will. (Third revolution if you count the Civil War.)

Thanks for your thoughts, NotHRH.
  #280  
Old 02-18-2016, 09:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Very funny, CSENYC. Many thanks for the solicitude.

As stated, not the place to be debating any of this. Please look further than the sources quoted. (Wikipedia is always a questionable source except for the most straight forward stuff, and even then one must be cautious). Just look around: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/c...united-states/

P.S. Be aware that pre-Civil War the slave population grew substantially. Those statistics are murky but getting better. Add the Irish immigration, pretty substantial, not to mention the explosion of population into the far west territories, even prior to the Gold Rush. Louisiana Purchase 'captured' new population, too. It's all been about people, and more and more of them. The Mormons pulled in a lot of Europeans to Utah (a territory, but still counts imo). Etc. I am not an authority on all this but as someone long interested in history I can vouch for the profound impact population movement/growth has had on the US.
Unfortunately you have your facts completely confused--just read both sources.

Military spending is not 60% of the United States' entire budget. Based on the chart that you provided, the military spending that you refer to is 54% of the "discretionary spending" portion of the United States' budget. The "discretionary spending" portion is a minority of the total budget. So you're flat wrong.

And you question Wikipedia (which has been found to have fewer errors than things such as Encyclopedia Britannica, since so many people are quick to correct mistakes), but you rely on National Priorities, an overtly partisan website?

And for immigration: population growth has impacted the US? Of course it has! The US has had periods of very high immigration and periods of very low/severely restricted immigration. If you don't believe the population records in the sources that I provided, then do your own research, such as the US Census Bureau website, which confirms that immigration levels have varied considerably throughout history, with almost no immigration throughout large periods of our history.

You need to get off your soapbox and get back on topic, please. We agree that this is not an appropriate topic to debate, so stop trying to pick a fight.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
monarchist, politics, royal, royalist tea party, united states


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
British Royalty and the United States ysbel British Royals 63 11-20-2014 04:04 PM
King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia's Visit to the United States: May 8-11, 2013 Lumutqueen King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia 42 05-28-2013 05:10 PM
United Arab Emirates and The Gulf States kashmiri Royal Genealogy 26 03-05-2013 12:11 PM
Prince and Princess of Asturias's Visit to the United States: June 20-23, 2012 lula King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 78 07-15-2012 02:20 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion death denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge fashion poll king abdullah ii king abdullah ii in new york 2016 king carl gustaf and queen silvia king philippe king willem-alexander lists margrethe ii member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles prince harken in canada princess marie princess marie curent events princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia rohans romania september 2016 shah state visit succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiaras valentino


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises