The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #641  
Old 10-24-2013, 11:38 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
There was talks of a divorce going ahead but Mary being allowed to stay in the succession but Katharine said no. So it was not all for her daughter. Henry also wasnt going to send Katharine back to Spain if he did get an easy divorce, she was still the Princess Dowager of Wales if she was not the Queen.
The whole point of a divorce was for Henry to remarry and beget an heir...a male heir. In Henry's view there was no place in England for a Queen to rule in her own right, as previous female monarchs had proven disastrous for England.

Mary was not going to remain in the Succession after the birth of a legitimate male heir.The Succession would have gone to Henry's hoped for son and his male(hopefully) descendents. Henry hoped that that the pope would declare his marriage to Catherine invalid on the basis that the dispensation granted to allow them to marry in the first place should never have been granted at all.

No legitimate marriage=no legitimate offspring from that marriage.

Mary-along with Katharine-was going to be downgraded.

As for Anne Boleyn, once she realized Katharine was truly vulnerable she tasted blood in the water and went in for the kill so to speak. She goaded Henry both by encouraging his genuine doubts about the legitimacy of his marriage to Katharine, and as time went on and his frustration and anger grew at the Holy See's reluctance to do his bidding on the divorce, she encouraged him to challenge the very authority of the pope himself.

Anne was a highly intelligent woman who had become an enthusiastic proponent of the "New Learning" which challenged orthodox Catholic teaching. She was never an out and out Lutheran/Protestant, but did lean in that direction.

Last, and extremely important, she very cleverly imo refused to give into his sexual demands and become his mistress as her sister Mary had been. By insisting on marriage...the "prize," she raised the stakes considerably by taking advantage of his frustrated lust for her and making him even more motivated to get a divorce and make her, Anne, Queen of England.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 10-25-2013, 01:57 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,285
Because of KOA and Mary refusing to accept the divorce Mary ended up being out of the succession for years. The argument of some is that if Katharine had accepted the divorce Mary would have remained in the succession if only behind the legitimate sons of the new Queen, the same thing would have happened to Mary if Henry and Katharine had had a son in 1528 or 1529 or anytime during their marriage.
Now if Katharine's whole problem was that she refused to be seen as living in sin for 20 + years that is fine, but Mary's fate was not necessarily going to end up as bad just because KOA had accepted a divorce.

As for Anne when did she start denying full sexual favors because she was wanting marriage? From day 1, Isn't it possible that she started out denying him in good faith because she just wasn't interested and when he persisted and said he would marry her then it turned into her not giving in until marriage thereby securing a legitimate child rather than an illegitimate one?
I'm not stating these as facts I'm just trying to understand what makes People say Anne was sexually manipulating the King from day 1? Why is it the general consensus that Anne refused the King because she wanted to be Queen?
Again it is not just Anne Boleyn but Elizabeth Wydeville as well; I think in the case of Elizabeth she could never have fathomed he would want to marry her.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:11 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Another topic of discussion please.
I've been watching and reading up on both Elizabeth Wydeville and Anne Boleyn and it has become apparent that historians paint them as sexually manipulative holding sex in front of the faces of their respective husbands so they will marry them. Why is that always the automatic assumption? Isn't it possible that both Elizabeth and Anne truly had no desire to be any man's mistress King or not? Why do some historians, most notably David Starkey, assume that by saying no to the King they were pushing for marriage?
Bravo - good point
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:36 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 378
History was and still is written by men not womens hands - so that's why! And as men are never responsible for their failures but women...

Anne was engaged to Norfolks (?) eldest son and wanted to marry him - why should she accept to be maitress, when she could have been duchess of Norfolk?

It's all about men wanting to demonise women, to get what ever they want. Look at poor Johanna 'la loca' - who wasn't particulaly mad in the first place, but first her father and then her son did want to rule so she was declared mad and they kept her in harsh and very bad condition - not visiting and doing nothing but making her live miserable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 10-25-2013, 04:07 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of Elizabeth Woodville's portrayal. Granted, it's been awhile since I read up on her and I never read all that much, but the impression that I got from Starkey's depiction of how she met and ended up with Edward IV was very... rapey. The way I remember it was that Edward repeatedly tried to rape her, even once pulling a knife on her, and she resisted until he finally proposed marriage. I didn't see it so much as her manipulating him as her resisting an assault, before finally realizing that she wasn't going to win and making the best out of a bad situation - it probably didn't help that her family very likely would have pressured her into consenting given as he was the king.

With Anne I think there was a lot more manipulation at hand, although not necessarily by her design. Once again we have a very powerful man trying to get into the bed of a rather defenceless woman. There Henry wanted to make Anne his mistress, but Anne knew how he treated his mistresses and resisted. Given how much her family could gain from her becoming Queen, however, they pushed her into manipulating him.

The problem with the way the two women are remembered and portrayed within film, tv, and books, is because they (and their families) made many enemies. Thus contemporary sources depicted them as witches who bewitched the king and made him do horrible things. When fictional sources then depict the story they go with the more dramatic version - the temptress who ensares the virtuous man, instead of the borrish man who doesn't understand that no means no.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 10-25-2013, 10:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
History was and still is written by men not womens hands - so that's why! And as men are never responsible for their failures but women...

Anne was engaged to Norfolks (?) eldest son and wanted to marry him - why should she accept to be maitress, when she could have been duchess of Norfolk?

It's all about men wanting to demonise women, to get what ever they want. Look at poor Johanna 'la loca' - who wasn't particulaly mad in the first place, but first her father and then her son did want to rule so she was declared mad and they kept her in harsh and very bad condition - not visiting and doing nothing but making her live miserable.
I agree that history has been written by men, and you have posted an example of how facts can be twisted to make women look more evil and powerful than they really were. However, historians have not treated Henry VIII well at all. Most historians I have read describe him as a tyrant who was vain, selfish, and cruel. Although Anne Boleyn was unpopular, most historians agree she was innocent of the crimes for which she was executed.

I don't think Anne was manipulated by her family, although they certainly encouraged her. She was an intelligent and ambitious person in her own right, and marrying the King would have made her rich and powerful.

That said, it's true that she wanted to marry Henry Percy and was very upset when the King broke them up. How different history would be if she had been allowed to marry Percy. No Queen Elizabeth I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
A post on a different thread raised the question about divorce and how the Church of England was established. Henry was never divorced; three of his marriages were annulled. In an annulment the marriage was never valid, usually because it was never consummated. However, a marriage can be annulled if, from the beginning, there was an impediment which made the marriage invalid in the eyes of God or the law.

His marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annulled because he claimed the marriage between Catherine and his brother Arthur was consummated (Catherine vigorously disputed that to her dying breath). Under Catholic Canons, a man can't marry his widowed sister-in-law (based on Leviticus 18:8).

Interestingly, this issue was considered before the marriage. The Pope was consulted and actually granted a special dispensation that allowed Henry to marry Catherine. This complicated Henry's efforts to have the marriage annulled after they failed to produce a living male heir. Henry claimed that Catherine had lied and did consummate the marriage to Arthur. If that were true, the marriage would have been legally invalid. But how do you prove or disprove something like that? Catherine certainly had not gotten pregnant by Arthur. Regardless, there were many reasons the Pope declined to annul the marriage.

Henry desperately needed an heir and couldn't persuade the Pope to annul his marriage. I don't think he felt that he had any choice but to break with the Catholic Church.

Henry's reasoning was that a king was divinely chosen by God so no king should be subject to the authority of the Pope. But other than the question of whether a king was subject to the Pope's authority, he did not change any of the basic Catholic teachings (although he appropriated a lot of the church's wealth for his coffers). As someone upthread said, Henry died a Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic.

Regarding his second marriage, Anne Boleyn agreed to have her marriage to the King annulled, but I can't find the grounds. Obviously, she was hoping to either be allowed to enter a nunnery or was hoping to spare her family. It's possible that the marriage was annulled because of an alleged precontract with Percy, but I can't find anything to back that up.

Henry also annulled his marriage to Anne of Cleves when they both agreed the marriage was never consummated.

I'm not sure if Catherine Howard's marriage to Henry was annulled before her execution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:46 AM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,075
Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn was annulled (conveniently) because of his previous carnal relations with Anne's sister Mary.

It would've been difficult for Anne to retire to a convent in England as they were all pretty much dissolved by this time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessmary View Post
Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn was annulled (conveniently) because of his previous carnal relations with Anne's sister Mary.

It would've been difficult for Anne to retire to a convent in England as they were all pretty much dissolved by this time.
Your reason for the annulment makes sense. Yes, most of the nunneries were dissolved by that time. But according to Claire Ridgeway, who wrote The Fall of Anne Boleyn, Anne had hoped to be allowed to enter a nunnery.

According to Ms. Ridgeway, the marriage was declared null and void "in consequence of certain just and lawful impediments which, it was said, were unknown at the time of the union, but had lately been confessed to the Archbishop by the lady herself."
Ridgway, Claire (2012-04-25). The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Countdown (Kindle Locations 2354-2355). MadeGlobal Publishing. Kindle Edition.

That sounds like precontract to me, but apparently other historians have concluded it was on the grounds of Henry's relationship with Mary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 01-15-2014, 04:18 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
What Ridgeway says almost makes it sound like she's talking about Catherine Howard, not Anne Boleyn.

I looked it up, and on the Wikipedia page for Henry's wives it says that the marriage to Catherine Howard was annulled before her execution, on the grounds of precontract.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
I wanted something other than Wikipedia, although I certainly believe that Henry had his marriage annulled. The quote from Clair Ridgeway has a footnote but I can't make it work to see her source. I'll keep trying to figure it out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:12 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,439
I think it's very significant that Henry never raised the issue of the validity of his marriage to Katherine based on her previous union with his brother Arthur.....until he became obsessed with marrying Anne Boleyn. He never once questioned her virginity before then, and in fact at the famous Blackfriar's trial when she openly challenged him on this point(..."As God be my judge I came to you a true maid without the touch of man, whether or not this be true I leave to your conscience")

http://www.sixwives.info/catherine-o...rce-speech.htm

Henry did not utter a word of denial or protest, and there is no evidence to suggest that he ever categorically refuted this in private either.


Henry's reason for demanding an annulment with Leviticus as the basis was it's assertion that the union between a man and his brother's wife would be childless.

In other words, he was convinced that his marriage to Katharine was cursed due to his lack of male heirs, because Leviticus stated that that would be the punishment for such a union as theirs. If Katherine had given him living sons, he would never have raised the question of either her virginity or the validity of their marriage.

In the 17 or so odd years before Anne entered the picture, he never expressed doubts about it.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 919
Katherine gave him more than one son, however none of them lived very long.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:54 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,439
Precisely. But Henry considered the dead sons a punishment from God for his marriage to Katherine.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 01-15-2014, 10:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 919
Only when he wanted a new wife.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 01-16-2014, 03:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Only when he wanted a new wife.


LaRae
I agree that he wanted to be with Anne Boleyn but I don't think he would have ever considered marriage to her if he and Catherine of Aragon had a living son. It was more than just wanting a new wife, there is no doubt in my mind that he was absolutely convinced that he needed a legitimate male heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 01-16-2014, 04:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
What Ridgeway says almost makes it sound like she's talking about Catherine Howard, not Anne Boleyn.

I looked it up, and on the Wikipedia page for Henry's wives it says that the marriage to Catherine Howard was annulled before her execution, on the grounds of precontract.
"In consequence of certain just and lawful impediments which, it was said, were unknown at the time of the union, but had lately been confessed to the Archbishop by the lady herself."

The quote above is referring to Anne Boleyn, not Catherine Howard. It's from a letter from Cranmer to the King. Ridgeway's source is a book, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559. ed. Camden Society 1875 by Charles Wriothesley.

Based on this quote, it seems Cranmer based the annulment on a precontract between Anne and Percy rather than the King's relationship with Mary Boleyn. On the other hand, Alison Weir's book states that the annulment was based on the King's affair rather than Anne's precontract. As I indicated earlier, Claire Ridgeway says the basis of the annulment is unclear.

Regarding Catherine Howard, I don't see any reference to the grounds of the annulment, but her marriage was annulled. Weir describes Cranmer's interrogation of Catherine regarding her relationship with Dereham. I think it is safe to assume the grounds of annulment was the assumption that there was a precontract with Dereham.

So Henry annulled four of his marriages. He was widowed once and was never divorced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 01-16-2014, 04:15 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
Ithink what people fail to consider when judging Henry for his attitude towards his wives - his first one in particular - is the attitudes of the times and, importantly, the ages of the people when big events happened.

I don't think Henry simply decided to drop Catherine becaue he wanted Anne (regardless of whether or not Anne would only sleep with him if he made her his wife), so much as he was doing what he felt was best for both himself, his lineage, and England. In 1533 Catherine of Aragon was 48. Her only living child was 17, her last pregnancy had been sometime before. Henry knew that the only child he was going to get out of Catherine was Mary, and politically speaking having only a daughter was not a good thing.

Henry's father gained the throne through conquest and a shakey claim. There were other claimaints, and rebellions against the crown based on these claimainst occurred during both HVII and HVIII's reigns. Henry knew this, and knew that a daughter would not be seen as an acceptable heir to the throne. Previously only one woman had almost inherited the English throne, Matilda, and her attempt at doing so and the subsequent usurption of the crown plunged England into a period of time now known as the Anarchy. Henry didn't want that for his legacy; he didn't want the dynasty that his father had fought to achieve and struggled to maintain, and that he himself had struggled to maintain, simply because his wife could not give him a son (and, remember, with a 16th century understanding of the human reproductive system, the failure to produce a son was on Catherine, not Henry).

Catherine had to go not because Henry was simply some sexist pig who didn't respect women, but because at the time women were viewed as lesser and he needed a son in order to ensure the continuation of stability in England. The Pope's resistance to granting Henry an annullment wasn't because the Pope disagreed with Henry's stance, but because he was a prisoner of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was Catherine's nephew. Catherine didn't want a divorce not simply for religious purposes - Henry was religious himself - but also because a divorce or annulment caused her to lose power, and she was past the age where she could feasibly marry someone else and produce heirs for them.

With Anne, I think the need for a separation was fueled more by how unpopular the Boleyns were in court and the continued lack of a son than s simple desire for a "new wife." The Boleyns upset a lot of people in their rise to power, and in doing so ultimately sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Similarly, Catherine Howard courted disaster when she entered into the affair with Thomas Culpepper, knowing full well what had happened to her cousin, Anne.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 01-16-2014, 04:23 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
"In consequence of certain just and lawful impediments which, it was said, were unknown at the time of the union, but had lately been confessed to the Archbishop by the lady herself."

The quote above is referring to Anne Boleyn, not Catherine Howard. It's from a letter from Cranmer to the King. Ridgeway's source is a book, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559. ed. Camden Society 1875 by Charles Wriothesley.

Based on this quote, it seems Cranmer based the annulment on a precontract between Anne and Percy rather than the King's relationship with Mary Boleyn. On the other hand, Alison Weir's book states that the annulment was based on the King's affair rather than Anne's precontract. As I indicated earlier, Claire Ridgeway says the basis of the annulment is unclear.

Regarding Catherine Howard, I don't see any reference to the grounds of the annulment, but her marriage was annulled. Weir describes Cranmer's interrogation of Catherine regarding her relationship with Dereham. I think it is safe to assume the grounds of annulment was the assumption that there was a precontract with Dereham.

So Henry annulled four of his marriages. He was widowed once and was never divorced.
Sorry, I totally didn't mean to question the validity of your source or suggest that Ridgeway had mixed up the wives - from what I understand, Ridgeway is a very knowledgeable person on these matters.

I merely meant that while Ridgeway was discussing Anne, she could have been discussing Catherine as well. If I remember correctly, Catherine Howard was executed on the grounds that she had committed adultry with Culpepper and to commit adultry against the king was treason, but the marriage was annulled on the grounds that she had entered into precontract with Dereham.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 01-16-2014, 04:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
If I remember correctly, Catherine Howard was executed on the grounds that she had committed adultry with Culpepper and to commit adultry against the king was treason, but the marriage was annulled on the grounds that she had entered into precontract with Dereham.
I think it is interesting that the marriage was annulled but she was convicted of adultery. If the marriage wasn't valid, then there can't be adultery. Weir's opinion is that Catherine may have saved her life if she had admitted to a precontract. (Catherine tried to convince Cranmer that Dereham raped her).

I disagree with Weir on that point. It's hard to believe that Henry would have annulled the marriage and let her go. What if she had gotten pregnant? It seems to me that she was guilty of treason whether the marriage was valid or not.

I don't mean to sound like I have no sympathy for her. I do. It's possible, even probable, that she was being careful not to get pregnant.

Some movies and books speculate that Henry was impotent and she seduced Culpepper hoping to bear a son. Again, it is hard to believe that Henry would have played along and accepted the child. Henry truly believed that he ruled by divine right and never would have pretended another man's child was his own, regardless of how embarrassing the truth was. I'm not sure what would have happened had she gotten pregnant with Culpepper's child, but I could see her suffering a convenient "accident."
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anne boleyn, anne of cleves, biography, british history, catherine howard, catherine of aragon, catherine parr, catholicism, church of england, elizabeth i, henry viii, jane seymour, pope, queen consort, syphilis, tudor


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
Illegitimate Offspring of King Henry I (1068-1135) CarolinaLandgrave British Royal History 23 07-18-2014 05:01 PM
A Potential Wife for Prince Harry Zonk Prince Harry and Prince William 1781 07-12-2014 12:25 PM
Who is your favourite of Henry VIII's wives? lexi4 British Royal History 287 07-03-2014 12:51 AM
Arthur, Prince of Wales, brother of Henry VIII (1486-1502) iowabelle British Royal History 23 11-24-2011 08:02 PM
"Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" by David Starkey (2003) ysbel Royal Library 12 11-19-2011 02:44 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


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 07:54 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]