The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > Royal House of Sweden

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 06-19-2015, 09:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I have no idea how the changes to the constitution as far as succession to the Crown was worded in Sweden but with a little light digging with a spoon back to when the UK instituted equal primogeniture to the British Crown while William and Kate were expecting their first child, I believe that although the changes needed to be ratified by the Commonwealth nations, it was worded with a specific date.

"As it was introduced at the time when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were expecting their first child, the Act stipulated that a daughter would succeed her father irrespective of whether later children were male. To allow for the delay in implementing the change to the law, the relevant provision was made retrospective to 28 October 2011(the date of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting agreement) so that the child would benefit if it was female."

Is it possible that something similar to this was done in Sweden?

The amended Act of Succession simply says that equal primogeniture applies to all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf. There was no specific date. If they wanted to make an exemption for Carl Philip, it would have sufficed to change the text and say that equal primogeniture would apply only to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf born after June 1979 for example.

BTW, as you correctly pointed out, the British Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is also retroactive for people born after October 2011. As a result, Tane Lewis and Rufus Gilman (both born in 2012) were moved down in the line of succession after the law came into effect in 2014. None of them, however, was the heir to the throne (Tane is now #30 and Rufus is #33).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-19-2015, 09:45 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty91charmed View Post
All I can say about this is that it is time for both the King and Queen to get over this, since, at least it seems so to me, CP doesn't look bothered by it, merely a bit uncertain as what to do with his life... But this, I think, can be attributed to his own character who has yet to find a suited path...

In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.

In another part of the interview, correcting a wrong statement by the interviewer, the Queen also emphatically says: "Depois houve a eleição, depois houve o segundo parlamento e aí ele tinha nascido. Ele tinha sete meses, quer dizer, ele nasceu como o príncipe herdeiro ! Mas é uma decisão do povo que nós aceitamos" ("Then there was the election, then the second parliament and, at that time, he had already been born. He was seven months old, that is, he was born as the Crown Prince ! But it is a decision of the people which we accepted"). There is no doubt in my mind then that is exactly how she and King Carl Gustaf felt at the time and that is why they baptized Carl Philip with the Crown Prince crown by his side.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-19-2015, 09:49 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.

In another part of the interview, correcting a wrong statement by the interviewer, the Queen also emphatically says: "Depois houve a eleição, depois houve o segundo parlamento e aí ele tinha nascido. Ele tinha sete meses, quer dizer, ele nasceu como o príncipe herdeiro ! Mas é uma decisão do povo que nós aceitamos" ("Then there was the election, then the second parliament and, at that time, he had already been born. He was seven months old, that is, he was born as the Crown Prince ! But it is a decision of the people which we accepted"). There is no doubt in my mind then that is exactly how she and King Carl Gustaf felt at the time and that is why they baptized Carl Philip with the Crown Prince crown by his side
I see, thank you. IMO, I still think CP as "rather modern" and I think that now he is happy not to be the crown prince... It is all speculation on my part, but I really believe he would se the role as too much of a burden. He looks like he wants to stay out of the light as much as possible... Again, I guess it was more a concern fo hi parents...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.

I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.

I wonder if Victoria was ever pressured to step aside, in favor of her brother?
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:24 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.
It wouldn't have been an issue if Carl Gustav and Silvia hadn't made it one. Carl Philip was a baby when the amendment came into effect and he wouldn't have known about it if his parents hadn't told him, and, since resentment of the "injustice" seems to burn deep within them, I am sure they have told him more than once and made a fuss about it.

There was nothing for CP to accept. The changes were underway before he was conceived. It was a fait accompli before he was a year old.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I wonder if Victoria was ever pressured to step aside, in favor of her brother?

I am not sure if she could, even if she wanted to. The Instrument of Government provides for a voluntary abdication by the King, but AFAIK it says nothing about royal princes renouncing their succession rights. In order to remove Victoria from her current position as heiress to the throne, another law would be required amending the Act of Succession. Since the Act of Succession is however a basic law, I understand that would require the same procedure as in the 1970s, i.e. two separate votes in the Swedish parliament with a general election in between.

Victoria could have stepped down though, with no further legal action required, if she had married Daniel without the consent of the King and the government.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:02 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The amended Act of Succession simply says that equal primogeniture applies to all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf. There was no specific date. If they wanted to make an exemption for Carl Philip, it would have sufficed to change the text and say that equal primogeniture would apply only to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf born after June 1979 for example.

[....]
Or simply state in the Act that the new rules will be enforced from the date on which the new Act will be published and will affect any successor born after that date. They did so in Norway. They also did so in the Netherlands with the change of the Royal House Act. In both cases the rules of the game were not changed retro-actively, affecting royals whom already had a position on base of the existing Act of that moment.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:04 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I am not sure if she could, even if she wanted to. The Instrument of Government provides for a voluntary abdication by the King, but AFAIK it says nothing about royal princes renouncing their succession rights. In order to remove Victoria from her current position as heiress to the throne, another law would be required amending the Act of Succession. Since the Act of Succession is however a basic law, I understand that would require the same procedure as in the 1970s, i.e. two separate votes in the Swedish parliament with a general election in between.

Victoria could have stepped down though, with no further legal action required, if she had married Daniel without the consent of the King and the government.
But she could have not asked the King and goverment for permission for her marriage.
As the Act of succession has the clause that anyone on line of succession beeds the permission of the King and goverment for a marriage she would have probably out when not asking.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 06-19-2015, 01:18 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It wouldn't have been an issue if Carl Gustav and Silvia hadn't made it one.
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Carl Philip was a baby when the amendment came into effect and he wouldn't have known about it if his parents hadn't told him
Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
and, since resentment of the "injustice" seems to burn deep within them, I am sure they have told him more than once and made a fuss about it.
All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
There was nothing for CP to accept. The changes were underway before he was conceived. It was a fait accompli before he was a year old.
But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 06-19-2015, 02:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.

I'm in agreement with Lady Nimue here. There is no way Carl Philip could not have been told about the change to the Act of Succession and the related circumstances as those are now historical facts he would have learned about anyway.

Second, there is no evidence, as some posters claimed here, that the King or the Queen tried to "subvert the legislative process" (something they lacked the power to do anyway). The government, on the other hand, has a constitutional obligation to keep the King informed about state affairs and I'm pretty sure they consulted with Carl Gustaf about the proposed changes to the law. At that point, it was also the King's obligation to voice his opinion to the government, which I believe he did. After a decision was taken and the law was passed, the King had to comply with it, which he did and has been doing since. As I said, he raised Victoria, and not Carl Philip, as heir to the throne. Victoria has her own household and state funding whereas her siblings do not and she takes up official and diplomatic duties which, again, are not shared with her siblings. The King's behavior in that regard has been strictly constitutional and perfectly appropriate IMHO.

Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 06-19-2015, 07:16 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?
The reason the press continues to ask is because both the King and Queen continue to vent their displeasure with the change. As long as the King and Queen continue to discuss their feelings about the change the press will continue to push the story. At this point thirty plus years on a good PR strategy would be to simply say that the act passed long ago and they are now only focused on supporting the Crown Princess. That would presumably meet both the honesty quotient and end any need for Victoria to comment on the stories.
As to what I'd expect I'd think as parents of both CP and Victoria that they'd be more concerned about supporting both of them, and avoiding placing them in the awkward position of having to address these issues rather than venting their feelings about a decision made 30 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 06-19-2015, 07:18 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.
To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 06-19-2015, 07:34 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.
Exactly. The King and Queen believe (rightly) that their son was unjustly stripped of his birth rights. But, at the same time, they made sure their daughter received the necessary education, preparation and support for her future role.

If anything, Their Majesties succeeded in raising an outstanding future Queen and a Prince who knows his place in the Royal House and is more than willing to help his older sister.

It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 06-19-2015, 08:27 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.
The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic. As to the suggestion that the King and Queen are horrible parents-neither are bad parents. At worst I'd argue they are clearly myopic and have allowed their feelings on the issue to slip out more than they should. Again this is diplomacy. Regardless of their feelings about succession they should have accepted the decision and not continued to address it in a way that makes their feelings so clear.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 06-19-2015, 10:10 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.
Of course Carl Philip would have become aware of what had happened. It is the way his parents responded to his questions at that time that would have made all the difference. And no, I don't necessarily believe it was better to have learned it from his parents than historians.

What his parents said would have informed his opinions, or at least presented him with a greater or lesser degree of conflict. They had the option of acknowledging the change calmly as a fact of life that was underway before he was born, and a consequence of living in a constitutional monarchy in a modern, liberal, society with a strong belief in gender equality, and where it is the people, through their elected representatives, who run the country, or they could have tainted him with their own personal prejudices. The fact they still, after all this time, publicly express opposition to the change, leads me to believe that they emphasised the latter.

As Kavan has said immediately above this post, it is a matter of diplomacy, something that a hereditary Head of State in a modern constitutional monarchy should be very careful about.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:33 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 06-20-2015, 10:42 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavan View Post
The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic.
But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.
People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 06-20-2015, 10:54 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.

That is an odd comparison as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 06-20-2015, 11:53 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That is an odd comparsion as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leeonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justicedepartment objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 06-20-2015, 03:36 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
constitution, constitutional change, crown princess victoria, prince carl philip, succession, sweden


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
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 08:09 PM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-06-2011 12:20 AM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 05:29 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september brunei royal family catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary and womens rights princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden 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


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 04:11 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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