The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Jewels

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 09-20-2011, 06:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by figtreecrossing View Post
Does anyone have any information on HRH Queen Elizabeth II pearl necklaces?
I would love to learn of any historical information or anecdotes particularly about her daytime pearls...........
You asked for anecdotes. I can only supply a 'partial' anecdote:

In the UK, there is an 'unwritten rule' that it is 'not the done thing' to wear a two-strand pearl necklace. A single strand is 'acceptable' and a 'three-strand' pearl necklace is acceptable. But not a 'two-strand'.

I was 'taught' this 'rule' when I was a little girl by my great-grandmother. She did not tell me why 'two-strand' necklaces were unacceptable, and I was too young to even think of querying it, and so I would be grateful if someone here could help me.

The 'pearl rule' appears to be part of the same sort of 'unwritten rules' that 'govern' tiara protocol. I am not an exert on Royal jewels, but from memory, I seem to remember that when I see the Queen, or when I saw the Queen Mother wearing pearls [these two royal ladies seemed to be the greatest 'wearers' of pearls] they do indeed seem to follow this 'unwritten rule'.

Alex
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 09-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 245
How interesting I have never heard of this rule. Incidentally most of the female members of the Royal Family all own double strands of pearls and wear them - for example the Hanoverian pearl necklace, worn by the Queen at the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of York, also the Crown pearls - the Queen Anne & Queen Caroline pearls - a double strand. The late Queen Mother also wore a double string occasionally and the late Princess Margaret owned a double row of pearls - a present from her Grandfather King George V. The other Princesses all wear two rows of pearls.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 09-21-2011, 04:43 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
What, inordinate, greed. Things that no ones uses that have monetary value, that can help others, locked away, is greed. I know many will disagree, but, as they are passed from "monarch ot monarch" without tax, it is the ulimate scam.
Greed? Scam? For that to be the case someone would have to be making cash on the deal and they demonstratively are not! They are preserving history and we will see it when we see it.

As to your general attitude . . . Oh bah humbug! If you loathe the Royal Family and everything they do and have to this degree, what on earth are you doing in these Forums?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 09-23-2011, 09:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,295
The sudden digression about taking photos in the Tower of London has been moved to the British Crown Jewels thread.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 09-25-2011, 05:53 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldmemail View Post
How interesting I have never heard of this rule. Incidentally most of the female members of the Royal Family all own double strands of pearls and wear them - for example the Hanoverian pearl necklace, worn by the Queen at the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of York, also the Crown pearls - the Queen Anne & Queen Caroline pearls - a double strand. The late Queen Mother also wore a double string occasionally and the late Princess Margaret owned a double row of pearls - a present from her Grandfather King George V. The other Princesses all wear two rows of pearls.
Thank you for your information Idmemail. I telephoned my truly ancient great aunt [99 years old and still as sharp as a pin!!] on Thursday and have now 'got to the bottom' of this 'piece of wisdom' and this appears to be the position:

Artificial and costume jewellery used to be very much frowned on in the UK at one point. Artificial gemstone jewellery was contemptuously dismissed as 'paste' and was regarded as 'not acceptable'. Artificial pearls were held in particular contempt. [bear with me, I am going to qualify this in due course.]

Amongst certain sets of people in the UK, a popular Christening present for a young girl is a gift of 2 or 3 natural (i.e. real) pearls from a generous Godparent or a kindly rich great-uncle. The expense is not inconsiderable - natural pearls are expensive. Thereafter, at each birthday / Christmas celebration, it is customary for the donor to give another natural pearl or two, so that by the time of the young lady's coming-of-age, there are sufficient pearls to make up a SINGLE strand of pearls [not double - there were insufficient pearls for this!!]. Therefore, in days gone by, the young girl would have one beautiful strand of pearls ready for her 'coming-out'. [I was given 3 pearls at my Christening by one of my godfathers - and another pearl on my birthday and at Christmas and when I was 21, I had enough to take to Garrard to have made up into a single strand necklace. Prince Charles and other royal godparents have often done the same for some of their goddaughters - it is also done in some families with pieces of china, so that you have a full dinner service by the time you marry]

Bear in mind what I have said above about the dispproval of all artificial jewellery: if someone was seen wearing a double strand of pearls, it was 'automatically' perceived to be fake. For some reason, this was felt not to apply if someone was seen wearing a 3-strand necklace, apparently because no one would contemplate the enterprise of producing a fake 3-strand necklace as everybody would automatically regard it as 'fake' as hardly anyone could afford a 3 strand necklace of natural pearls, and so any that appeared [usually on older women, not young girls, unless borrowed] were always 'bound to be real'.

There was obviously no difficulty in royalty wearing a double strand of pearls - no one would think that a royal lady was wearing a fake. I must look closely when I next see a Royal Lady wearing pearls - from memory, I can only remember either single or triple strands..

I mentioned above the changing attitudes to costume jewellery. According to my great aunt, attitudes began to change when 'cultured' pearls were invented by the Japanese around the end of the Great War. It took some time for these to 'catch on', as they were still perceived to be a bit 'vulgar' in some quarters, but one of the effects of both world wars was of course financial, and many of the old aristocratic families did not have the means to afford beautiful jewellery on the scale that they once did, with many pieces having to be sold. [Look at Sarah, Duchess of York - the Ferguson family was upper class, but there was no family tiara for Sarah to wear on her wedding-day].

When Diana joined the Royal Family, the last taboo about 'costume jewellery' had clearly been swept away. Despite having a large collection of beautiful modern and historic royal jewels, plus the posibility of borrowing from the Queen where necessary, Diana herself was not above wearing costume jewellery. She bought pieces from Butler and Wilson and Monty Don [the latter now a 'tv gardener'] and even a pair of artificial pearl earrings [not even cultured pearls] from the New York Metropolitan museum.

Hope some of this is of interest [and thank you for raising the point, Idememail, otherwise I would not have phoned my great aunt for a long chat this week; I usually phone her every fortnight on a Sunday night]

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 09-25-2011, 08:52 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Posts: 245
Thank you for clarifying your "rule" it does of course make perfect sense! Isn't it funny how the views on costume jewellery have changed; in fact anything which was not precious (ie of value) was denounced, yet the Victorians wore all sorts of items with little intrinsic value - eg wooden or polished pebbles...
However Queen Alexandra is known to have worn artificial pearls - they broke whilst travelling in a carriage en route from the opening of parliament. Princess Margaret owned a number of paste items as did Princess Marina - they were recently auctioned by Christies.
We all know how Princess Diana enjoyed mixing real and fake jewels.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 09-25-2011, 09:06 AM
blauerengel's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,732
Amongst certain sets of people in the UK, a popular Christening present for a young girl is a gift of 2 or 3 natural (i.e. real pearls) from a generous Godparent or a kindly rich great-uncle. The expense is not inconsiderable - natural pearls are expensive. Thereafter, at each birthday / Christmas celebration, it is customary for the donor to give another natural pearl or two, so that by the time of the young lady's coming-of-age, the were sufficient pearls to make up a SINGLE strand of pearls [not double - there were insufficient pearls for this!!]. Therefore, in days gone by, the young girl would have one beautiful strand of pearls ready for her 'coming-out'.

Diarist, I´ve also heard about that rule,I was told that it goes back to Queen Victoria-it is a beautiful tradition IMO:-) (Any historians here who know more?) I also sometimes wear artificial gemstones -especially for everyday life- but no fake pearls because it is so obvious if they are fake *lol*
There is a talented man who copies royal tiaras and precious jewelry with artificial stones and crystals as a hobby,I will try to find a link (I´ve watched a documentary on tv where they showed him with his artworks)because his replicas look so real in the pictures.He also copied many pieces of the British Crown jewels!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 09-25-2011, 10:50 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,295

We have a thread to discuss replicas: Royal Replicas
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 09-25-2011, 02:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
What do you propose should be done with them?

Why do you think it is a scam?

Those tiraras could be broken up and sold, if they are lying vaults, and no one uses them. The funds from that could be used to build hospitals, help unemployed workers, any number of things. Build homes for the homeless. Yes, it would be a finite amount, but it would help. I am not suggesting that the ones that she wears be used. But wealth lying in dust, when people are in need is unnecessary. The "scam" of sovereign to sovereign, is that not only are taxes from those who can afford it the most not collected, but the queen "loans" out to non-sovereign relatives the bounty of this tax free acqusition. Camilla has the Queen Mother's ring, the Boucheron Tiara, etc. Joe worker may inherit some bits and pieces from his father, but he is taxed and if he can't pay the tax he must divest himself of the "goodies".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 09-25-2011, 09:10 PM
blauerengel's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,732
Countess you are making a good point,if the jewels are lying around because they are not worn or shown in a museum it would be better to sell them to collect money for good causes!However the royals should also be allowed to use the pieces that they like-after all "normal" families also keep jewels or precious china and pass it on to their children or relatives and they represent history and tradition that need to be preserved for later generations so that young people can learn about their past and look at the real pieces instead of just reading about it in the books...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 09-25-2011, 11:50 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Those tiraras could be broken up and sold...
Camilla can have whatever pieces the Queen wants her to. They're gifts and it's anyone's prerogative to give and receive gifts.

There is no "scam" about Sovereign-to-Sovereign inheritance. The point is that wealth can be preserved so that the sovereign isn't cash poor after a few generations.

Sovereign-to-Sovereign is a constitutional convention. It's up to Parliament to change it, though it never will.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 09-26-2011, 06:47 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Those tiaras could be broken up and sold, if they are lying vaults, and no one uses them.
As we have seen this last year the Halo Scroll Tiara more than meets your criteria for being broken up and sold off.
Quote:
"The veil is held in place by a Cartier ‘halo’ tiara, lent to Miss Middleton by The Queen.
  • The ‘halo’ tiara was made by Cartier in 1936 and was purchased by The Duke of York (later King George VI) for his Duchess (later Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother) three weeks before he succeeded his brother as King.
  • The tiara was presented to Princess Elizabeth (now The Queen) by her mother on the occasion of her 18th birthday."
The last time it was seen/worn in public was in the early 1970's.
As we know from HM's gifts to her her daughter's-in-law, Diana and the Lover's Knot and Camilla and the Delhi Durbar and later the Bucheron, and now her granddaughter-in-law Katherine's Halo Scroll, that "loan" is, for all intents and purposes a "gift", albeit a gift with strings, in that it is supposed to stay in the main line of the BRF and, eventually revolve in and out of the vaults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
The funds from that could be used to build hospitals, help unemployed workers, any number of things. Build homes for the homeless. Yes, it would be a finite amount, but it would help.
A drop in the ocean but following your logic whatever tiara Katherine wore for her wedding, it would not have been the Halo Scroll as it would be "history", with a very small "h".
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I am not suggesting that the ones that she wears be used. But wealth lying in dust, when people are in need is unnecessary. The "scam" of sovereign to sovereign, is that not only are taxes from those who can afford it the most not collected,
That's big of you to allow her to retain those she "wears" but let's face it, the Sovereign's personal wealth is mostly in assets, property such as her jewellery and wouldn't the sale of them, less tax, fetch a magnificent amount paid by someone with access to the best tax Accountants and Lawyers that their billions can buy, and you can bet the government wouldn't get any tax out of them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
. . . but the queen "loans" out to non-sovereign relatives the bounty of this tax free acquisition. Camilla has the Queen Mother's ring, the Bucheron Tiara, etc.
The Sovereign to Sovereign transfer is enthroned in law to preserve the history and wealth of the Sovereign. Whilst Camilla is not a Sovereign, she is Royal. The wife of the Heir to to Throne. Camilla's style and title in full: Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. As such she represents "The Crown" at various State Dinners, etc. and if the Queen had sold off the contents of the Vaults, she would not have anything to wear, as indeed would her granddaughter-in-law, Katherine, who is now "entrusted" with the Halo Scroll which, if we are very lucky, we may see in action during the Diamond Jubilee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Joe worker may inherit some bits and pieces from his father, but he is taxed and if he can't pay the tax he must divest himself of the "goodies".
And if HM decides to sell hers she too must pay tax on the sale. On the other hand, if each generation of the monarchy sold off that jewellery not in current use, not only would they have to pay tax on the sale, they would then need to buy new jewellery every generation to cover the BRF on State Occasions.

The whole deal would be an exercise in diminishing returns however, as since they had to give away the profits from the previous sales, not only would they would not actually be able to afford to buy replacements, but within a short space of time they would be personally broke!

However, should HM start selling off such treasures as the Delhi Durbar, etc. I am sure the Government would end up in a bidding war on the open market in an attempt to retain what they would see as pieces of "Their History". If you actually believe that this is good for the Monarchy or the country and of positive economic value of that little exercise, you are the President of Fantasy Land!

It is obvious that you miss the point of the Monarchy as a whole and the position of Her Majesty in particular. Among other things she holds the contents of the "Vaults" in trust for the BRF for the use of future generations when carrying out their royal duties, as in the case of the Delhi Durbar Tiara, created for an especially significant historical event of international importance.

The Jewellery of HM is an historical treasure that you would have her dispose of as it is greedy for her to keep. Obviously your anti-monarchy sentiments blind you to the innate unfairness of what you advocate in that the Monarch has to give away her wealth but national and international billionaires and millionaires are allowed to accumulate as much wealth and jewelley as they wish. I think the Bolsheviks had much the same sort of ideals.

I would therefore suggest, that you apply your passionate Republican tendencies to the disposal of the cultural treasures of your own country and leave us to appreciate the rich cultural and historical treasures of our Monarchy.

Oh and by the way, not only does the Queen has every right to gift her mother's ring to her son to give to his future wife as an engagement ring, whatever else lies in those vaults, you can bet your calculating little booties, it is not covered in dust!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 09-26-2011, 03:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldmemail View Post
Thank you for clarifying your "rule" it does of course make perfect sense! Isn't it funny how the views on costume jewellery have changed; in fact anything which was not precious (ie of value) was denounced, yet the Victorians wore all sorts of items with little intrinsic value - eg wooden or polished pebbles...
However Queen Alexandra is known to have worn artificial pearls - they broke whilst travelling in a carriage en route from the opening of parliament. Princess Margaret owned a number of paste items as did Princess Marina - they were recently auctioned by Christies.
We all know how Princess Diana enjoyed mixing real and fake jewels.

I know very little about Royal jewels - apart from always looking very closely to see what British Royals - and particularly the Queen - is wearing.

I am fairly certain that the Queen has never been pictured wearing costume jewellery. In fact, I doubt if she possesses any such pieces! With the royal vaults containing so many pieces that some are unworn, I am sure that HM has no need for costume jewellery. So far as Diana was concerned, I believe that her fondness for Costume Jewellery arose from her need at times to 'connect' with a more 'normal' lifestyle...

I should imagine that Queen Alexandra's fondess for artificial pearls may well stem from the fact that she herself came from a 'poor' royal background; perhaps the pearls she was wearing came from the days before her marriage and therefore had sentimental value to her? Princess Marina I know did not come from a very rich [although royal] family, and after the death of the Duke of Kent [when his Civil list payment also ceased], I know that, certainly by Royal Standards, the Kents were not wealthy. Rumours persist that Princess Michael's tiaras actually have paste 'diamonds' - about 20 years ago, there was a story circulating round what passes as London Society that at a White Tie event, a large 'diamond' dropped out of the Tiara that Princess Michael was wearing, and in the confusion that arose, someone then trod on the 'escapee' stone, whereupon it got crushed - unlike a real stone. The implication at that time was that Princess Michael had sold the diamonds and replaced them with paste, but if it was one of the pieces inherited from Marina, perhaps it was PMK's mother in law who had undertaken the subsitutions!!

I was interested to hear that Princess Margaret had costume jewellery - perhaps that was because that, unlike the Queen, the Princess was moving in somewhat bohemian [albeit upper crust bohemian circles!] at the time of her marriage to Anthony Armstrong-Jones.

A fascinating topic!

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 10-01-2011, 05:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
The jewels held in the Royal Collection are The Sovereign's personal property and can be sold or gifted at any time. The only pieces which belong to the Crown and considered state property are the Crown Jewels and the pieces designated by Queen Victoria as part of the state regalia (i.e. George IV Diadem).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 10-01-2011, 06:00 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,319
I love this tiara

Does anyone know it's history like how it came into the hands of Queen Elizabeth II?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-3879762721.png
Views:	64
Size:	146.5 KB
ID:	280139  
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 10-01-2011, 07:11 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24
I love this tiara

Does anyone know it's history like how it came into the hands of Queen Elizabeth II?
That's The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland- possibly her most famous, definitely her signature piece- google it :) The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor has a nice overview of it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:10 AM
NoorMeansLight's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,969
Definitely a magnificent tiara, quite splendid -- Nice choice, GD24!!
__________________
With passion and poetry...
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 10-07-2011, 11:19 AM
StoneCold's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 172
The Splendour of the British Royal Jewels | Royal Insight

Detailed view of some tiaras.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 10-07-2011, 12:04 PM
blauerengel's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,732
Will the Queen's priceless jewelry collection go to the Duchess of Cornwall upon her crowing as Queen Consort?
-> Interesting: Ask Windsor: September 2011 | Royal Insight
answer:
"The private jewellery collection of Her Majesty the Queen is said to be worth several hundred million dollars, this collection will go directly to the Prince of Wales if no indication to the contrary is left in her last will and testament. The jewels in the Royal Collection will also go to the Prince of Wales to be held in trust during his reign; this collection is always made available to Queen Consorts and other members of the Royal Family and includes items such as the King George IV State Diadem."
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 10-10-2011, 06:22 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by blauerengel View Post
Will the Queen's priceless jewelry collection go to the Duchess of Cornwall upon her crowing as Queen Consort?
-
Yes, unless specific bits of the private collection were left to other members of the family / friends.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
elizabeth ii, jewels, necklaces, photo, queen elizabeth ii, tiara, tiaras


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
Queen Elizabeth II's Fashion and Style Part 3: February 2011 - April 2012 iceflower Archives 391 04-26-2012 02:07 PM
Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh: State Visit to Ireland - 17-20 May 2011 Warren Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 120 01-04-2012 04:55 PM
Ehrenbambi for Queen Rania: November 29, 2007 principessa King Abdullah and Queen Rania and Family 43 05-05-2011 07:29 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena jordan 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 pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy 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 elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

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

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

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

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

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

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

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

» More about our Marine Communities


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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.

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]