The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 07-15-2007, 08:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Wallis was denied the rank of HRH by letters patent issued in 1937 by George VI. Sarah and Diana both enjoyed the qualification of Royal Highness, as the wives of sons of the Sovereign, not in their own right. The Queen also issued letters patent in 1996, stating a former wife of a prince of the UK would be not be entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce.

As discussed in previous threads, the rank and style of Royal Highness is not constitutional and is granted by the fount of honour to provide a personal style to their children and grandchildren. Before the Hanovers came along, the children of a reigning King of England were simply Lord/Lady until raised to the peerage. The titles of Prince of Wales and Princess Royal were the only princely styles granted until 1714.

A person can be a member of the royal family without being a Royal Highness, such as Peter and Zara Philips, who are commoners. Peerages can be bestowed by The Sovereign as they see fit, but the rank of HRH is enjoyed at the discretion of the fount of honour.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 07-15-2007, 09:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
Chrissy, you're seeing a lot more consistency than I am in all this.

1. Wallis married an HRH and remained plain old Wallis despite the fact that the LP granting the Dukedom of Windsor specified the dignity of a son of the sovereign for Edward.
2. Sarah became HRH when she married Andrew, lost it along with membership in the RF when they divorced.
3. Diana became HRH and lost it when she divorced Charles, but remained a member of the RF.
I never mentioned Wallis and wouldn't do so as times change and her situation was different in that she married an abdicated king who had caused a lot of angst within his family, the government and the Empire at the time.

Diana was given a one off special treatment as she was the mother of the future king and for no other reason. Had she had no children she would have been treated the same as Sarah.

Another way of looking at this is how would Sarah be treated if William and Harry both died without legitimate issue of their own meaning that Sarah would be the mother of the future Queen. I am sure in that situation that she would be given the status offered to Diana for that simple reason.

In general terms Sarah and Diana were treated the same - loss of HRH on divorce but Diana was given a separate treatment due to being William's mother only.


Quote:
Looking at that, I cannot come to the conclusion that Sarah and Diana gained the HRH as a consequence of marriage to an HRH, because Wallis did not get HRH.
Why else would Diana and Sarah get the HRH. When they entered the Abbey/Cathedral they weren't HRH but when they left they were. What had happened in between - they got married. The same with the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent - got the HRH when they got married, as did the Queen Mum and the present Duke of Gloucesters mother (the Duke of Kent's mother already had it in her own right as a Princess of Greece).

In other words Wallis is the only exception and not the rule.

The rule is very clear - on marriage to a male HRH the lady gets the HRH.

Quote:
Nor can I conclude that HRH denotes membership in the RF because Diana lost the HRH and stayed in the RF. You clearly can be a member of the RF and not be HRH.
Of course you can or do you say that the children of Princess Anne aren't members of the Royal Family?

Quote:
All I can conclude is that the sovereign bestows and takes away HRH as she sees fit.

No - the monarch has general guidelines which are used except in very exceptional circumstances - of which there have been two in the last century.

Take another look at the number of sons/grandsons of British monarchs (those with the HRH) in the 20th century since the 1917 LPs who married non royals and tell me how many of those wives did not get the HRH on marriage.

6 sons, 3 grandsons - of whom ONE wife didn't get the HRH on marriage. The sons are George V sons - David, Bertie and Henry (George's already was HRH), and the grandsons are Richard, Edward, Michael, Charles, Andrew and Edward. In other words the exceptional circumstances surrounding Edward's abdication have to be considered in understanding why she was treated differently to the wives of his brothers, nephews and grandnephews who wives all got the HRH on marriage.


Quote:
They are not properly termed courtesy titles; they function more like the GCVO or KG. Diana being the mother of a future king, and Wallis being hated, are reasons that explain why the Queen did what she did, but they are not Constitutional principles that explain how this process works. I'm ok with everything the Queen did, I just wish she'd done it in a way that establishes clear and consistent principles for the future.
The rules are consistent - marry an HRH Prince and you get HRH - unless you do something really bad such as cause an abdication.

Divorce an HRH Prince and lose the HRH unless you are the mother of the future monarch.

Quote:
But I believe HRH/princes have divorced before, not the heir but HRH/princes nonetheless. What happened in those instances?
Since the 1917 LPs this hasn't happened except for Diana and Sarah so earlier examples would have been covered by different conventions.

Quote:
PS - edit to add, Princess Michael doesn't need princely dignity to be Princess Christine, all she needs is a peerage in her own right. (I think authorities split on the issue though.)
No she needs the LPs to give her a title of Princess. e.g. the wife of most titled people in Britain are not entitled to call themselves Princess xxx. The title is of a lower rank.

To be Princess Christine she would need to be created it and the Queen want to that. To be given the title of Duchess in her own right wouldn't let her be called Princess Christine but Christine, Duchess of xxx. The same with any other peerage in her own right.

Quote:
I don't believe the Queen ever had the power to bestow princely dignity on Phillip anyway.
On what grounds to you say that?

The Queen is the Fount of all Honours and she could give him that title if she so chose. The only title she couldn't give him is King as Queen Victoria had already received advice to the effect that only the Parliament could create a King.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 07-15-2007, 09:51 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
There was a very big difference in the precedence of Diana and Sarah after their divorces, not the least of which Diana retained her dignity as a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

The Queen made it clear in a statement from the Palace that Diana remained a member of the royal family, would continue to enjoy her royal privileges including access to The Queen's Flight and her residence at Kensington Palace, and would retain her precedence on all national and royal occasions.

Sarah received none of those concessions and is no longer regarded as a member of the royal family.
Has this precedence ever become visible after the divorce? With other words: were there ever official royal events with more royals in which the precedence of the divorced Diana showed?

I believe on this board a fellow poster called it a 'dead letter' because most likely this precedence would only become visible on royal events regarding her sons in which she, as their mother, was expected to attend (weddings, baptisms).
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M. View Post
Has this precedence ever become visible after the divorce? With other words: were there ever official royal events with more royals in which the precedence of the divorced Diana showed?

I believe on this board a fellow poster called it a 'dead letter' because most likely this precedence would only become visible on royal events regarding her sons in which she, as their mother, was expected to attend (weddings, baptisms).

I can't think of any event off the top of my head between the divorce and her death but things such as the Queen's 50th wedding anniversary in November 1997 would certainly have seen this as an example.

Did Diana attend the Trooping of the Colour or Garter ceremony in 1997? These events would give some idea how it was to work if she attended.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 07-16-2007, 06:10 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Diana's new préséance at the Court was not given time

When HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Etc. divorced, Diana not only lost all these titles she could use by virtue of marriage but also the form of adress (HRH) and her social préséance as spouse to The Prince of Wales.

Officially after her divorce Diana became knwon with the style of divorced female spouses of Peers, namely Diana, Princess of Wales and returned to her social ranking as the daughter of an Earl. The same social standing she had before her marriage.

It is obvious that in the préséance at the Court, Diana would have been given a exeptional position, being the mother to Prince William and Prince Henry of Wales. I believe this was never practicized, simply because there were no royal events after the divorce with Diana involved.
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 07-16-2007, 06:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
That's correct. She was granted precedence on occasions where it was expected that her position as the mother of a future king outweighed her social precedence as the daughter of an Earl and former wife of a prince of the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 07-16-2007, 07:01 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M. View Post
When HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Etc. divorced, Diana not only lost all these titles she could use by virtue of marriage but also the form of adress (HRH) and her social préséance as spouse to The Prince of Wales.

Officially after her divorce Diana became knwon with the style of divorced female spouses of Peers, namely Diana, Princess of Wales and returned to her social ranking as the daughter of an Earl. The same social standing she had before her marriage.

It is obvious that in the préséance at the Court, Diana would have been given a exeptional position, being the mother to Prince William and Prince Henry of Wales. I believe this was never practicized, simply because there were no royal events after the divorce with Diana involved.
That is because she was focused on her charity work and various partronages its possible that if she didn't die the Princess of Wales would've attended some royal functions at the palace's invitation.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 07-16-2007, 08:12 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,845
I doubt that. This is not Denmark you know.
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 07-16-2007, 09:06 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Lightbulb

Looking at the posts above I guess it is a lot more straightforward than I've been thinking. But I still wonder why these exceptions are allowed regarding Wallis and Diana but the Queen insists on the letter of the 1917 LP regarding the HRH/prince for Zara and Peter. It's clear to me from this discussion that she could make them HRH/prince/ss, and no would care, and it might make please Zara. I keep hearing that she's miffed she doesn't have a title. No clue whether that's true.

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana. Which I think is a punk move on his part, don't care if he does it, but could you wait til the Queen is dead before you undo her actions?

Anyway I think my confusion on all this is because I'm approaching it legalistically. There's all sorts of outrages against the common law going on here and it bothers me.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 07-16-2007, 10:33 AM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post

But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana.
What form did this "declaration" take? (I don't count rumored second-hand accounts that attribute "Don't worry, Mummy, I'll give it back when I'm King" to a 14-year-old).
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 07-16-2007, 10:37 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,845
Over my cold dead but perfectly manicured and coiffed body. If he does do that then the House of Windsor deserves to die and whats more I'll make a placard.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 07-16-2007, 11:19 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Over my cold dead but perfectly manicured and coiffed body. If he does do that then the House of Windsor deserves to die and whats more I'll make a placard
I'll second that.
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 07-16-2007, 11:26 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4 View Post
What form did this "declaration" take? (I don't count rumored second-hand accounts that attribute "Don't worry, Mummy, I'll give it back when I'm King" to a 14-year-old).
Jesus please tell me this was more than an adolescent aside -- I read it in Daily Mail a long time ago. I understand DM is no longer reflexively pro monarchy anymore but I assumed higher standards when it comes to the RF.

A quick Google search yielded this:

Quote:
The Queen had set a precedent for her action by denying Sarah, Duchess of York the title "Her Royal Highness" following her divorce from Prince Andrew. However, the Queen could have allowed Diana, as the mother of the future King, to retain the title-but chose to issue the Letters Patent instead. This is supported by the fact that Prince William has stated publicly that he will restore his mother's title of "Her Royal Highness" following his ascension to the throne.
Site is The Diana Ring - Frequently Asked Questions. The statement is unsourced.

Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 07-16-2007, 11:28 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,845
The Diana Ring is not at all reliable and there is absolutely no evidence to support what they're saying. They are totally deluded - Prince William has never publicly said he'd give that woman her HRH back.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 07-16-2007, 11:52 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
The statement is unsourced.
What a surprise!
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 07-16-2007, 12:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
Jesus please tell me this was more than an adolescent aside -- I read it in Daily Mail a long time ago. I understand DM is no longer reflexively pro monarchy anymore but I assumed higher standards when it comes to the RF.

A quick Google search yielded this:



Site is The Diana Ring - Frequently Asked Questions. The statement is unsourced.

You must understand that there are heaps of statements in the press allegedly stated by various members of the RF attributed to 'friends', 'sources' etc but... in reality there is no evidence to support these statements.

For a statement to be believable the source must have a name and be clearly identified as being able to back up their statement.

There are many alleged comments that relate to private conversations for instance.

As for William's comment - there was some comment made shortly after the divorce attributed to some 'friends from school' but absolutely nothing officially from Wiliam directly.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 07-16-2007, 12:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
Looking at the posts above I guess it is a lot more straightforward than I've been thinking. But I still wonder why these exceptions are allowed regarding Wallis and Diana but the Queen insists on the letter of the 1917 LP regarding the HRH/prince for Zara and Peter. It's clear to me from this discussion that she could make them HRH/prince/ss, and no would care, and it might make please Zara. I keep hearing that she's miffed she doesn't have a title. No clue whether that's true.
Exceptional circumstances called for exceptions to the normal rules which accounts for Wallis and Diana.

As for Zara and Peter - Anne didn't want her children to have titles (a title was offered to her husband and was refused). Margaret's children have titles because of their father's title not because their mother was a princess.

Quote:
But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana. Which I think is a punk move on his part, don't care if he does it, but could you wait til the Queen is dead before you undo her actions?
William hasn't official said this - some of his unnamed 'friends from school' allege that he said this - there is a difference.

Quote:
Anyway I think my confusion on all this is because I'm approaching it legalistically. There's all sorts of outrages against the common law going on here and it bothers me.
Common law is what is being applied (along with the LPs of 1917) except where separate LPs have been issued e.g. the creation of the Duke of Windsor title. It is a later LP which denied Wallis - just as the LPs for Lord Mountbatten's title allowed female inheritance whereas the Duke of York's allows for only male inheritance.

Would you really expect Diana to be seated in the row with the other daughters of Earls at a royal function where her sons are present? That is why the precedent situation was allowed.

You are aware, of course, that Diana's continuing to use 'Princess of Wales' is no different to Sarah continuing to use 'Duchess of York'. In both cases they are using the correct form as divorced wives of peers.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:46 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Carmel, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57 View Post
Exceptional circumstances called for exceptions to the normal rules which accounts for Wallis and Diana.

As for Zara and Peter - Anne didn't want her children to have titles (a title was offered to her husband and was refused). Margaret's children have titles because of their father's title not because their mother was a princess.
When you say titles were offered for Zara and Peter, do you mean HRH/prince? Or a peerage? If it's the former, I owe the Queen an apology, because I've been thinking she was sticking to the 1917 LP and that on this score she is an appallingly bad grandmother. Anyway if indeed an HRH/prince was offered and Anne declined, I don't like that move on Anne's part. She should have asked for Peter and Zara to decide for themselves at age of majority. As it stands, if it's true that Zara wants the HRH, as a practical matter she cannot take it, even if the Queen offered. Oh and I've assumed all along that Zara and Peter will both get peerages when they marry, am I wrong?

By the way, if the Queen offered HRH to Peter and Zara, it seems the 1917 LP is completely dead now. She should formally declare it dead, if this hasn't been done already, since the sexism in that document is just appalling. Especially in light of the fact that Anne is the best of her generation.

Quote:
Common law is what is being applied (along with the LPs of 1917) except where separate LPs have been issued e.g. the creation of the Duke of Windsor title. It is a later LP which denied Wallis - just as the LPs for Lord Mountbatten's title allowed female inheritance whereas the Duke of York's allows for only male inheritance.
Imho common law is not being applied, it's being violated. The LP denying Wallis the HRH was probably not legally valid and the Queen was told as much; it just was never challenged because no one wanted to dwell on the issue.

The problem I can't get around is that courtesy titles are not a grant of the sovereign, they are a consequence of being in a certain relationship to someone who holds a substantive dignity, which may or may not have been conferred by the sovereign. As was noted during the time, Wallis is automatically HRH upon marriage; for that not to happen, Edward would have to lose his HRH. As a matter of common law. The Queen cannot just take away Wallis's HRH because it doesn't exist, it would be like trying to steal the Mona Lisa from MoMA.

My take on this is that it seems like a blatantly illegal action was allowed during a moment of crisis, and somehow established itself as a precedent. (That seems to happen a lot everywhere.) But as a matter of law, Sarah Ferguson, and Diana also, were both deprived of a common law benefit that should stand even against the sovereign.

Quote:
Would you really expect Diana to be seated in the row with the other daughters of Earls at a royal function where her sons are present? That is why the precedent situation was allowed.
Well -- if the Queen had followed the common law principles that ordinarily govern courtesy titles, Diana is HRH The Princess of Wales after divorce and this situation never arises in the first place. The precedent problem was created by the Queen's decision to issue the new rule that you lose HRH when you divorce.

Quote:
You are aware, of course, that Diana's continuing to use 'Princess of Wales' is no different to Sarah continuing to use 'Duchess of York'. In both cases they are using the correct form as divorced wives of peers.
But Prince(ss) of Wales is not a peerage. It's odd to me it should be treated as analogous to the dukedom of York rather than HRH. Actually does anyone know if Diana/Sarah were entitled to call themselves Princess Charles/Andrew after divorce?
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 07-16-2007, 06:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The styles, titles and rank represented by HRH Prince/Princess of the UK are personal only to the children and grandchildren of The Sovereign, recognizing their status as being close to the succession of the throne. Constitutionally, they are commoners until raised to the peerage, although obviously in official and social precedence, they outrank all Peers of the Realm due to proximity to the Crown.

These styles are expressly granted by letters patent and can be modified, withdrawn or granted as The Sovereign expresses as the fount of honour.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 07-16-2007, 09:54 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Nonsens for several reasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripitaka View Post
But I suppose everything that's said about this now becomes inoperative the moment William becomes king, since he's already declared that his first act will be to restore the HRH to Diana.
1. HRH, an abbrevation for "His/Her Royal Highness" is no title but a form of adress like "The Right Honourable" or "The Most Reverend" or "Mylady" or "Sir" or even "Madam". A form of adress reflects your standing in society and is used in social interaction. "Lady Diana" was no title, but a form of adress to reflect her standing in society as daughter of an Earl. The only ones with a title in her family were her father the Earl Spencer and her brother the Viscount Althorp.

2. A title can be a royal title (Prince, Princess), a title from the peerage (Duke, Earl, whatever), an academic title (professor, doctor, rector magnificus, etc.), an episcopal title (deacon, bishop, archbishop. cardinal). Diana never had a title on her own, but by custom and tradition she used the titles of her spouse, by virtue of marriage. By the end of her marriage she logically lost the use of these titles and, also logically, the corresponding form of adress. So she was not "robbed" of the HRH. It was a logical consequence of her divorce from The Prince of Wales. She reverted to her style as daughter of an Earl and her form of adress became 'Mylady' (but most used 'Madam').

3. A form of adress has a meaning in social interaction. The question is if a dead person is able to have any social interaction at all..... Also bear in mind that it eventually can be between 30 and 40 years after Diana's death that her son becomes The King. I dare to doubt that a King wants to "restore" a form of adress to someone who has lost it by divorce and is already almost dead for 4 decades then.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1115 01-14-2015 02:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
australia belgium best outfit brussels camilla chris o'neill countess of wessex crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown prince philippe crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll funeral hereditary grand duchess stéphanie jordan king abdullah of jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia london maxima nobility official visit philippe picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince of wales princess beatrice princess claire princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mette-marit princess victoria queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit stockholm sweden the hague victoria wedding 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 12:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]