The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 07-27-2014, 12:02 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 898
I'd say it is more about the "system" rather than the people, if you get my meaning.

The system works, so why change it? I think that is what is appealing about it not so much the love for a monarch or weather the person is a foreigner...although that doesn't help I guess.

I could be wrong.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-29-2014, 11:14 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I apologize to the mods for the off topic-ness of this post.

I've come to wonder if Australians would be happy to retain the monarchy if something was done to rectify the foreigner aspect of it. If, say, when HMQEII dies her realms were to be divided 4 ways, amongst each of her children, then divided further as they pass, and so on, until each of the current 16 Commonwealth Realms has its own monarch.
Again, it is off-topic, but I find it interesting to compare the similarities and differences in the governments of Australia and Canada. Here is what comes off the top of my head.

Similarities

  • Both countries have a federal system characterized by a division of jurisdiction between the national government and the governments of the constituent units of the federation (called "provinces" in Canada and "states" in Australia).
  • Legislative power at the national level is vested in both countries in a bicameral parliament consisting of an Upper House styled the Senate and a Lower House, styled the House of Commons in Canada and the House of Representatives in Australia.
  • Both in Canada and Australia, the number of members to which a province/state is entitled in the Lower House is proportional to its population.
  • In both countries, executive power at the national level is formally vested in the Queen represented by a resident Governor General appointed by the Crown. In practice, however, executive authority rests with a cabinet of ministers drawn from parliament and responsible to the Lower House. The cabinet is chaired and picked by the prime minister, who is normally the leader of the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats in the Lower House.
  • Executive orders issued by the Governor General on the advice of and with the countersignature of one or more politically responsible ministers (e.g. to enact regulations, implement treaties, or appoint state officials like judges or ambassadors) are referred to as "orders in council" both in Canada and in Australia.
  • Each province in Canada or state in Australia has its own elected legislature, an executive council responsible to that legislature and chaired by a premier, and a Crown-appointed governor (in Canada, styled "lieutenant-governor") who represents the Queen.
  • The judicial branch is appointed in both countries by the Governor General in council, but judges are independent of the government and, in the higher courts, can be removed exclusively on grounds of misconduct or inability to perform their duties by a resolution adopted by both houses of parliament.


Differences


  • The Canadian constitution enumerates the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the federal (national) government. Conversely, the Australian constitution enumerates the matters under jurisdiction of the federal government and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the states. Most notably, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, but under state jurisdiction in Australia.
  • Australian senators are popularly elected and serve for a maximum term of 6 years. In Canada, on the other hand, senators are still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister and serve for life or until they reach the age of 75. Due to its non-elected nature, the Canadian Senate refrains from vetoing or introducing legislation, performing instead a legislative review role similar to that of House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
  • General elections to the Australian House of Representatives are held at most every 3 years, with the possibility of a snap election if the House is dissolved by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister before its term expires, e.g. in the event of a vote of no confidence of the House in the government or a request by the prime minister for an early election. In Canada, on the other hand, the maximum term of the House of Commons is 5 years subject to a dissolution by the Governor General and an early election in conditions similar to those previously described in the Australian case. However, under Canadian electoral law, barring any early dissolution, general elections to the House of Commons are now always held in a fixed date in the month of October of the fourth calendar year following the last general election.
  • The Australian Senate can also be dissolved together with the House of Representatives, for example in a scenario of deadlock between the two chambers, triggering a general election for the two houses. In Canada, since senators serve for life, subject only to compulsory retirement at age 75, their mandates, like that of the life peers in the British House of Lords, are not affected by a dissolution of the House of Commons.
  • All Australian states are represented by the same number of members in the Australian Senate. In Canada, the provinces are grouped in 4 divisions with an equal number of senators per division plus a smaller number additional senators from the federal territories and the province of Newfoundland specifically (which only joined Canada after 1949).
  • The Canadian constitution includes an entrenched bill of rights styled the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"and the Canadian Supreme Court can disallow acts of parliament or of the provincial legislative assemblies in case of conflict with the Charter. Australia has no constitutional bill of rights.
  • The legislature of all provinces in Canada now consist of a single, popularly elected legislative assembly. The Australian states, with the exception of Queensland, still retain bicameral elected state legislatures, typically consisting of a more numerous legislative assembly (or "house of assembly") with shorter terms and a less numerous legislative council, usually with longer terms.
  • Australia has a single formula for amending the federal constitution, which requires double approval in a popular referendum by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there are multiple, different amendment formulas depending on the afffected matters in the constitution, including: approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all provinces; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the two-thirds of the provinces having in the aggregate 50 % of the national population; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the affected provinces only, or approval by the federal parliament alone.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-30-2014, 09:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Again, it is off-topic, but I find it interesting to compare the similarities and differences in the governments of Australia and Canada. Here is what comes off the top of my head.

Similarities

  • Both countries have a federal system characterized by a division of jurisdiction between the national government and the governments of the constituent units of the federation (called "provinces" in Canada and "states" in Australia).
  • Legislative power at the national level is vested in both countries in a bicameral parliament consisting of an Upper House styled the Senate and a Lower House, styled the House of Commons in Canada and the House of Representatives in Australia.
  • Both in Canada and Australia, the number of members to which a province/state is entitled in the Lower House is proportional to its population.
  • In both countries, executive power at the national level is formally vested in the Queen represented by a resident Governor General appointed by the Crown. In practice, however, executive authority rests with a cabinet of ministers drawn from parliament and responsible to the Lower House. The cabinet is chaired and picked by the prime minister, who is normally the leader of the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats in the Lower House.
  • Executive orders issued by the Governor General on the advice of and with the countersignature of one or more politically responsible ministers (e.g. to enact regulations, implement treaties, or appoint state officials like judges or ambassadors) are referred to as "orders in council" both in Canada and in Australia.
  • Each province in Canada or state in Australia has its own elected legislature, an executive council responsible to that legislature and chaired by a premier, and a Crown-appointed governor (in Canada, styled "lieutenant-governor") who represents the Queen.
  • The judicial branch is appointed in both countries by the Governor General in council, but judges are independent of the government and, in the higher courts, can be removed exclusively on grounds of misconduct or inability to perform their duties by a resolution adopted by both houses of parliament.


Differences


  • The Canadian constitution enumerates the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the federal (national) government. Conversely, the Australian constitution enumerates the matters under jurisdiction of the federal government and delegates all other non-enumerated matters to the states. Most notably, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, but under state jurisdiction in Australia.
  • Australian senators are popularly elected and serve for a maximum term of 6 years. In Canada, on the other hand, senators are still appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister and serve for life or until they reach the age of 75. Due to its non-elected nature, the Canadian Senate refrains from vetoing or introducing legislation, performing instead a legislative review role similar to that of House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
  • General elections to the Australian House of Representatives are held at most every 3 years, with the possibility of a snap election if the House is dissolved by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister before its term expires, e.g. in the event of a vote of no confidence of the House in the government or a request by the prime minister for an early election. In Canada, on the other hand, the maximum term of the House of Commons is 5 years subject to a dissolution by the Governor General and an early election in conditions similar to those previously described in the Australian case. However, under Canadian electoral law, barring any early dissolution, general elections to the House of Commons are now always held in a fixed date in the month of October of the fourth calendar year following the last general election.
  • The Australian Senate can also be dissolved together with the House of Representatives, for example in a scenario of deadlock between the two chambers, triggering a general election for the two houses. In Canada, since senators serve for life, subject only to compulsory retirement at age 75, their mandates, like that of the life peers in the British House of Lords, are not affected by a dissolution of the House of Commons.
  • All Australian states are represented by the same number of members in the Australian Senate. In Canada, the provinces are grouped in 4 divisions with an equal number of senators per division plus a smaller number additional senators from the federal territories and the province of Newfoundland specifically (which only joined Canada after 1949).
  • The Canadian constitution includes an entrenched bill of rights styled the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"and the Canadian Supreme Court can disallow acts of parliament or of the provincial legislative assemblies in case of conflict with the Charter. Australia has no constitutional bill of rights.
  • The legislature of all provinces in Canada now consist of a single, popularly elected legislative assembly. The Australian states, with the exception of Queensland, still retain bicameral elected state legislatures, typically consisting of a more numerous legislative assembly (or "house of assembly") with shorter terms and a less numerous legislative council, usually with longer terms.
  • Australia has a single formula for amending the federal constitution, which requires double approval in a popular referendum by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. In Canada, there are multiple, different amendment formulas depending on the afffected matters in the constitution, including: approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all provinces; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the two-thirds of the provinces having in the aggregate 50 % of the national population; approval by the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the affected provinces only, or approval by the federal parliament alone.

I wonder how much some of these differences are owing to a difference in the demographics of Canada vs. Australia. I haven't really studied much Australian history, so I could be completely off base, but to the best of my knowledge the Australian states originated in British colonies. As such, they would have entered into their confederation with the same cultural backgrounds - or at least similar. In contrast, Canada has Quebec and as such from the earliest moments of confederation has had to deal with the issues of combining French and Anglo cultures (other cultures were largely ignored, however present they were). The strength of the provinces is the legacy of this class - from the start Quebec ensured that it was protected from the Anglo-majority.

My initial question was more... Well, I'm aware that there are a number of Australian republicans on the site, Bertie being one. She often seems to be of the opinion that monarchy is good, but having a foreigner as monarch of Australia is not beneficial to Australia (an opinion that I wholeheartedly understand and in some ways agree with for Canada). Which is why I asked the question - would she, or some of the other Australian republicans, support an attempt to gradually make the Australian monarch more Australian and less British.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 08-01-2014, 04:47 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I wonder how much some of these differences are owing to a difference in the demographics of Canada vs. Australia. I haven't really studied much Australian history, so I could be completely off base, but to the best of my knowledge the Australian states originated in British colonies. As such, they would have entered into their confederation with the same cultural backgrounds - or at least similar. In contrast, Canada has Quebec and as such from the earliest moments of confederation has had to deal with the issues of combining French and Anglo cultures (other cultures were largely ignored, however present they were). The strength of the provinces is the legacy of this class - from the start Quebec ensured that it was protected from the Anglo-majority.

My initial question was more... Well, I'm aware that there are a number of Australian republicans on the site, Bertie being one. She often seems to be of the opinion that monarchy is good, but having a foreigner as monarch of Australia is not beneficial to Australia (an opinion that I wholeheartedly understand and in some ways agree with for Canada). Which is why I asked the question - would she, or some of the other Australian republicans, support an attempt to gradually make the Australian monarch more Australian and less British.
How would one make an "English monarch more Australian and less British"?

To me the bigger issue is about one holding such a position by birth only, no actual earning of it or working for it. Monarchy in Australia seems archaic but can hold its charm in England - although that is totally up to the English to decide of course. Would I be more accepting if the British monarch became an Australian? It would help I guess but I would wonder at why he/she became Australian and where their heart really was.

Naah! Too old fashioned and so not what I see Australia as. We are young, vibrant yahoos and so not into that old, stiff upper lip stuff...Hehehe!

Love to watch though...from far, far away...
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-01-2014, 05:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
If Queen Victoria had sent out one of her sons/daughters/grandchildren to be the Kings/Queens of places like Australia or Canada or New Zealand over 100 years ago - and thus they were now Australian, Canadian or New Zealanders it might have worked but I don't think any of us would say accept Beatrice being asked to become the Queen of Australia and come here permanently to live and take over the work of the GG.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 08-02-2014, 09:07 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 898
LOL!! I do agree...can you imagine it?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:35 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If Queen Victoria had sent out one of her sons/daughters/grandchildren to be the Kings/Queens of places like Australia or Canada or New Zealand over 100 years ago - and thus they were now Australian, Canadian or New Zealanders it might have worked but I don't think any of us would say accept Beatrice being asked to become the Queen of Australia and come here permanently to live and take over the work of the GG.

Thank you, Bertie. This was the answer I was kind of expecting. I wonder if it would be different if the Queen's grandchildren were somewhat different, and had been raised more to expect to lead a public life with public duties. If perhaps the divide happened in the 30s, between George V's children...

All very hypothetical, and off topic though. Thank you for the answer (and to you as well, AA).
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,223
It could have worked in the 1930s maybe but I suspect that after WWI the chance really was lost. Henry, as GG of Australia, didn't go down well - he was too uppity for the Aussies by then so I am not sure if the attitude with which George V's sons were raised would have worked in the dominions by then 30s even.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:10 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,887
Ah, yes.

I think right there you hit the differences between Canada and Australia on the head. In as much as both nations had WWI as a war of independence of sorts, and both have really tragic stories from the war, Canada didn't really emerge from it less-British while Australia certainly did. It seems to me that every nation has its "bad guy" within its national context, and for Australia that seems to have become Britain, while for Canada it's more the US (or Canada itself, if you're French or Aboriginal).
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08-03-2014, 02:32 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 210
There is an important difference between the Governor-General of Australia and the Governor General of Canada (apart from the hyphen in the title). The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia assigns specific responsibilities to the Governor-General, not to the Queen. Section 61 and 62 of the Constitution states that:
Executive power

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Federal Executive Council

There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor‑General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor‑General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.
In theory, this means that even if the Queen moved permanently to Yarralumla, we would still need a Governor-General to keep the wheels of government turning. On the Queen's first visit to Australia it was planned that she would open the Commonwealth Parliament and attend a meeting of the Federal Executive Council. The plans were interrupted when it was realised that Sections 61 and 62 did not allow the Queen to do so. The Royal Powers Act 1953 was quickly passed to enable the Queen to exercise her vested power.

I think there is also a difference between Australian State Governors and Canadian Provincial Lieutenant-Governors. If memory serves me right, Lieutenant-Governors are appointed by the Governor General, on the recommendation of the Provincial Premier. In Australia, however, since 1986 State Governors are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the State Premier. But State Premiers cannot advise the Queen on any other issue without prior agreement (e.g. if the Premier of South Australia advised the Queen to sack the Governor of Tasmania, the Queen is not bound to do so).

I have always liked the idea of a member of the Royal Family coming to Australia permanently as our King or Queen. I don't think it has been suggested as a serious option for many years now. I think it was in 1988, prior to a visit from the Duke and Duchess of York, that Ian Sinclair (National Party) said that the Duke should be invited to stay as King of Australia. Can you imagine what might have been? Queen Fergie!
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 08-03-2014, 09:37 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 898
I think you are right Ish...and of course, that is when our eyes turned to the US. By the end of WWII we were firm allies with the US, replacing the Brits.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 08-03-2014, 10:49 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,035
Not likely since a great deal of us consider it an insult that the republicans/tea party love calling our President king George III.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:25 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,832
Conservative here...never heard another conservative call Obama King George III ...


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:36 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Conservative here...never heard another conservative call Obama King George III ...


LaRae
Oh yes, it has happened several times and recently.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:38 PM
Imanmajed's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 1,743
There is no reason for U.S. to become a monarchy!
__________________
ماجد (engl. translation: Majid)


Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Oh yes, it has happened several times and recently.
Must be new...have yet to hear it. Who's saying it?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 08-03-2014, 01:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Must be new...have yet to hear it. Who's saying it?


LaRae
I've heard it but can't remember who to attribute the quote to. I think a lot of it probably has sprung in regards to Obama's misuse of executive power and the subsequent filing of a lawsuit against him by the House of Representatives.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 08-03-2014, 01:19 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I've heard it but can't remember who to attribute the quote to. I think a lot of it probably has sprung in regards to Obama's misuse of executive power and the subsequent filing of a lawsuit against him by the House of Representatives.

I can understand why it would be said in light of what you mention...just haven't heard it said yet.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 08-03-2014, 01:21 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I've heard it but can't remember who to attribute the quote to. I think a lot of it probably has sprung in regards to Obama's misuse of executive power and the subsequent filing of a lawsuit against him by the House of Representatives.
The whole idea of that lawsuit is just sad (good for the Dem's elections) and over the President doing his job and something many Presidents has done since George Washington and did it more than Obama.

I don't think we'll have a monarchy in America, although God knows what will become of this country once we're long gone. I do this country needs a start-over though. It's becoming less easy to follow the same doctrine's our founding father's put in place all those years ago. This nation has changed to a place our founding father's wouldn't have ever imagined.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 08-03-2014, 02:18 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I don't think we'll have a monarchy in America, although God knows what will become of this country once we're long gone. I do this country needs a start-over though. It's becoming less easy to follow the same doctrine's our founding father's put in place all those years ago. This nation has changed to a place our founding father's wouldn't have ever imagined.
I can see archaeolgists 3,000 years from now determining that the US once had a King and his name was Elvis.

Everything that starts out with the best and pure intentions, over time, changes and leaves itself open to corruption. Sometimes new and improved just isn't what its cracked up to be. I just hope that if we do have to start over, its not from a primitive state after WWIII
__________________

__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
Reply

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
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2015 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's fashion coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal family duchess of cambridge farah diba fashion and style fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece infanta elena kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander march 2016 member introduction national day norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince harry princess ingrid alexandra princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes evening dresses queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion state visit sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiaras willem-alexander


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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises