The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1461  
Old 02-24-2014, 07:38 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
We still need an overarching monarchy site - we mustn't lose that. A go-to place for engagements, how monarchy works, orders etc - the stuff that's on the existing one.

They dont need one each. They need a section within the single site. They could do what the Cambridges have done. Their own URL that takes you to their pages on the PoW site. Otherwise it will be a nightmare - and also time consuming for the royal office.
I agree. They can do it that way.
__________________

__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1462  
Old 02-24-2014, 08:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 398
The best way of slimming down the official family is probably to simply limit future titles to the children of the monarch and the children of the monarch's eldest child.

For example if Harry has children who are prince/sses then the family will be larger than it would if they were without these titles.
__________________

__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1463  
Old 02-24-2014, 08:55 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
The best way of slimming down the official family is probably to simply limit future titles to the children of the monarch and the children of the monarch's eldest child.

For example if Harry has children who are prince/sses then the family will be larger than it would if they were without these titles.

Except why does the monarchy need to be slimmed down?

Last year, the Queen, DoE, Anne, Wessexes, Yorks, Gloucesters, and Kents performed 2,463 duties according to Bertie's count. If the monarchy is to be "slimmed down" during Charles' reign then these people will not be doing any duties at all, either because they've passed on or been retired.

That means that Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Harry, and any hypothetical wife of Harry's will either have to cover those engagements or cut them out. Just to do that, each of them would have to perform 410 duties a year - which is fine, until you consider the fact that that would be on top of what they're already doing.

That's also not taking into consideration the fact that some of the numbers were down last year owing to health problems.

If you divide the total number of engagements done last year by these 6 royals (one of whom is a hypothetical), it means that they would each have to perform 614.5 engagements annually in order to maintain what is being done now. Without Harry's hypothetical wife, it's 737 engagements each.

Or instead of slimming down the monarchy the status quo could be maintained, with the monarch, consort, and the monarch's children performing the bulk of the engagements while others further down the line perform a smaller number of engagements.
Reply With Quote
  #1464  
Old 02-24-2014, 09:27 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,757
I think when Charles comes to the throne, the Wessex's, Duke of York, Princess Royal will still be doing their thing but will not be the current face of the Monarchy as they are now. I think the Kent's should be retired though. They've done they're bit and The Queen has awarded them with honors and has shown them her appreciation.

The Monarchy should be slimmed down but I don't think it means just putting everybody out of work but putting the focus on the new faces of the "Firm." The Cambridge's should be doing more and Prince Harry has even said that he's put off his official duties on the back burner.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:18 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Maybe under Charles as monarch, his siblings, the Kents and Gloucesters could simply be asked to retire and given a generous pension of, say 12k a year each. That way the public will simply stop seeing them working.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:59 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,152
I can't see any member of the royal family retiring unless they have to, they're all needed frankly. It's worked for 60 years+ I'm not sure why it has to change.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 02-25-2014, 03:57 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Maybe under Charles as monarch, his siblings, the Kents and Gloucesters could simply be asked to retire and given a generous pension of, say 12k a year each. That way the public will simply stop seeing them working.

Once again, why? What purpose would this serve, other than seriously limiting the number of engagements performed by the BRF?
Reply With Quote
  #1468  
Old 02-25-2014, 04:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
12 thousand pounds a year wouldn't cover the rent on their apartments for a month which would mean them having to move into very basic accommodation in many cases - hardly the way the new King should thank his relatives for a lifetime of work on behalf of his mother. Currently working royals pay a peppercorn rent on their apartments but when not working they have to pay the commercial rate e.g. the Michael's of Kent are reportedly paying 120,000+ per year for their apartment at KP while Andrew is reportedly paying 20,000 a month for Beatrice's in St James'. Edward rents part of Bagshot for close on 100,000 a year so the whole lot would need to be somewhat more than that - and you are proposing giving people who are used to living a high standard less than is paid to the gardeners at BP and people criticise the Queen for paying so little to her staff.

Look at the figures - about 4000 engagements a year currently being done by 15 people, including William, Kate and Harry.

Reduce that number to 5 or maybe 6 if Harry marries then they have to really up the numbers they are currently doing or many more organisations who send invitations to the royals to do things will miss out.

Another area that will miss out are the overseas visits to the smaller realms and Commonwealth countries undertaken by the younger siblings and the Kent's and Gloucester's.

I don't see the Kent's being around for long into Charles' reign given that they are so close to 80 now but the Gloucester's are the same age as Charles and Camilla so if they are deemed as too old to work then the argument can be made that Charles is too old to begin a new job. His brothers are more than 10 years younger than him so should also be allowed to continue their work especially as they have both taken over things from their father.

The discussion will have to come up at some point about Beatrice and Eugenie. I don't think they will be necessary, other than as Counsellors of State - and I certainly think one or both of them will serve in that capacity for a while as I don't see The Queen as still being with us in 20+ years time which she will need to be to prevent Beatrice being in that position. As for doing the day to day royal engagements - not so sure - I don't think Eugenie is even interested but Beatrice could be an asset, particularly if Harry doesn't marry.
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 02-25-2014, 04:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,320
I can both sides of this and actually agree with both sides.

I don't think any member of the RF should be 'retired' or pressured to stop doing public duties. They have worked hard and should be allowed to continue supporting their charities and organisations. I think if Charles did try to do this it would put him in a bad light. I do feel that the RF will naturally focus more on Charles, William & Kate, George & Harry, they will be 'the main attractions' with Charles' siblings in supporting roles and the Kents, Cambridges etc as minor (yet still important) roles.

However, I think in FUTURE the RF should be slimmed down. Personally I think limiting those who in the future have HRH status would be a good move (as in from birth onwards not taking titles off anyone) This will allow the Royal Household and the public time to change their expectations of the RF and what they should do. Clearly the fewer working, HRH royals, the less duties and organisations that will be supported. I'm okay with this, the public need to decide if they are.
Personally I feel this has started already in the way the Wessex children are not using the HRH titles.
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 02-25-2014, 06:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Currently there aren't that many people who can pass on HRH - William is actually the only one. Harry will be able to when married, Andrew could if he remarried a woman of child-bearing years but the others are no longer in that position.

As a result there won't be that many HRHs in the years ahead.

Assuming Harry marries and had two children and William and Kate have only one more child then the future will see Harry's two and William's second child added to the current HRHs with no more for another generation.

Since the 1917 LPs were issued there have been 18 people born with HRH (and 2 of them required special LPs in 1948).

Those 18 are aged: 88, 79, 78, 71, 69, 65, 63, 54, 49, 32, 29, 25, 22, 10, 6 and 6 months with two deceased. Of those there are three who can pass it on under the existing LPs - the 54, 32, 29 and 6 month old.

I know it is unlikely that Andrew would marry again, except to Sarah, but he is able to do so which is why I am including him.
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 02-25-2014, 09:58 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,070
The Monarchy under Charles

Technically speaking, Charles is capable of divorcing Camilla, marrying a younger woman, and having more children who will be HRHs. Unlikely, but possible.

Likewise, Edward could have more children as well. It's just unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #1472  
Old 02-25-2014, 10:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
I was only including those who were a) unmarried or b) married to a woman of child-bearing age.

Of course Charles and Edward could divorce their present wives, marry dolly birds and have more children or their wives could pass away and they could to that but...

let's not wish that on them.
Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 02-25-2014, 10:35 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Thanks, Ish. I was wondering whether someone would point out that technically Charles and Edward could end up producing more HRHs. I was tempted.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #1474  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:07 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I was only including those who were a) unmarried or b) married to a woman of child-bearing age.

Of course Charles and Edward could divorce their present wives, marry dolly birds and have more children or their wives could pass away and they could to that but...

let's not wish that on them.


I was just being a brat.

I honestly can't see Andrew getting married again unless Sarah is the bride, and I think the pair of them have decided that they work better when not married. Likewise, even if something happened to Camilla, I don't think Charles would remarry, although the scandal that would erupt if he divorced and married for a third time might be amusing. I've never followed Edward enough to say whether or not I think another marriage is in his future, but it does seem like unlike his siblings he waited a lot longer and put more thought into who he married, so it does seem a bit unlikely.

That said, I'm still not sure why people think the BRF needs to be slimmed down. Arguments for how to slim it down and why slimming it down isn't necessary have been provided, but the people who think it should be slimmed down don't seem to have provided a reason. Anyone care to venture on that one?
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:43 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I was just being a brat.

I honestly can't see Andrew getting married again unless Sarah is the bride, and I think the pair of them have decided that they work better when not married. Likewise, even if something happened to Camilla, I don't think Charles would remarry, although the scandal that would erupt if he divorced and married for a third time might be amusing. I've never followed Edward enough to say whether or not I think another marriage is in his future, but it does seem like unlike his siblings he waited a lot longer and put more thought into who he married, so it does seem a bit unlikely.

That said, I'm still not sure why people think the BRF needs to be slimmed down. Arguments for how to slim it down and why slimming it down isn't necessary have been provided, but the people who think it should be slimmed down don't seem to have provided a reason. Anyone care to venture on that one?
I dont understand it either, with the exception of security the royals aren't costing the tax payer.

Didn't the idea come from some one off comment in the 1990's?
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:46 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,757
Ish, I just think a slimmed down Monarchy would be more effective and modern.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1477  
Old 02-25-2014, 11:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Regina, Canada
Posts: 361
When Zara got married, people were shocked to see William and Kate on the same discount flight as them. Andrew took a helicopter there costing thousands. Andrew has a reputation for such things. The Queen pays off his bills like that one but Charles is expected not to do the same. Many other second sons have jobs and Andrew will be expected to pay his way. The downside is you may see him in more questionable business deals, such as with the Kazakhstan people, like Prince Michael or Lord Linley. Charles makes about 16 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall and other enterprises and mostly pays his way from that, and is not on the public purse except possibly for security. Cornwall may be inherited but he works at it, and William is taking classes to be prepared to work at it and mostly pay his way when Charles is King. Harry has inherited much from Diana and may be expect to not take much from the public purse except possibly security. Charles will also probably cut security for Andrew's daughters, for whom Andrew was not able to acquire public roles. There will still be free tickets to wimbledon, but you won't be paid to attend or take a helicopter there. But as it stands presently the British Royal Family costs much less than the Presidents of other countries like the US and France and it is mostly for buildings that brings in money from ticket sales. Charles thinks he can make it even more affordable.
Reply With Quote
  #1478  
Old 02-26-2014, 12:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
How can it be more effective when the demands for a royal to do things is increasing to have fewer royals undertake all those duties - thus wearing them out more?

The idea of a slimmed down royal family I believe came from a staff member making an off the cuff comment about something he had heard said from someone else who may have been at a meeting - third hand at best and not confirmed.

The issue though was more about the roles of Beatrice and Eugenie rather than any suggestion of excluding those royals who have made their lives supporting the monarchy.

As I have said currently there are 15 royals who regularly carry out duties on behalf of HM and the government and receive official recognition in the CC. Of those 15 - 8 are over retirement age but also they do around 50% of the engagements with Anne only about 18 months away from retirement age and she does around 15% on her own.

There would be a huge drop off in engagements carried out is the number of royals is restricted too much and what sort of organisations etc would miss out - small towns and villages with a library or hospital to open, smaller realms who don't get the senior royals thus increasing their calls to remove the monarchy altogether if they aren't seen frequently. This is the role for people like Edward and the Kent's and Gloucester's - to fly the flag for the smaller and less fashionable causes and places leaving the big headlines events to the big names in the family.

Cut out Edward and who takes on The Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme for instance? What out Outward Bound or the National Ballet - both have Andrew as patron and both love having him as he is very involved behind the scenes as well as openly.

There are 1000s of invitations turned down now with 15 but reduce the number and another 2000 or so would have to be turned down. Make the family too small and the connections to the smaller places goes and they also look forward to the visit from a royal - why should only the big and prestigious art galleries for instance get a royal visit when the out of the way ones miss out because the big name royals are too busy but a minor royal could include the visit to the smaller art gallery and give that royal touch to their event.

A consequence of making the royal family smaller could be the loss of many smaller charity events and thus charity money as people do like to see a 'royal'. Would you go to the local fair if is was to be opened by the mayor or Princess Beatrice? Some people wouldn't care but having a real princess turn up would probably see the numbers grow, even if just the little girls still dreaming of being a princess take along one parent, and that increases the money coming into that event.
Reply With Quote
  #1479  
Old 02-26-2014, 01:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceallach View Post
When Zara got married, people were shocked to see William and Kate on the same discount flight as them. Andrew took a helicopter there costing thousands.
Please provide a link to this as I have been unable to find any mention of Andrew travelling by helicopter to the wedding, although he did have to travel back from Germany where he undertook an engagement on the 27th.

Quote:
Andrew has a reputation for such things. The Queen pays off his bills like that one but Charles is expected not to do the same.
The travel expenses of all royals when on official duties was paid by the Civil List with The Queen then reimbursing the government for the expenses of Andrew and many other members of the family so it is of no concern of anyone anyway as this is evidence of The Queen subisdising the work of the family - she should be applauded for this - how many other employers get their employees to pay the official expenses of their jobs but the British public have that arrangement at the moment - even if they don't realise it.

Charles won't do so because he believes that the British public should pay for the engagements undertaken on their behalf rather than the monarch.

[quote]Many other second sons have jobs and Andrew will be expected to pay his way. [quote]

Going back through the second sons in the royal family:

Andrew served in the navy for 20+ years and since then has worked for the monarchy and nation

George VI served in the navy for 10 or so years before taking on a life of royal duties.

George V served in the navy for about 10 years before spending the next 15 years doing nothing much with the occasional royal duty before he became King.

Prince Alfred - again in the navy for about 20 years and then inherited the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Frederick, Duke of York - served in the army until he had to step up to be Regent for his older brother in Hanover.

In fact for 2nd sons of the monarch the expectation is that they will do royal duties after 10 - 20 years in the military - exactly as Andrew has done and is doing.

Quote:
The downside is you may see him in more questionable business deals, such as with the Kazakhstan people, like Prince Michael or Lord Linley
You make a good point here as to why he should remain doing royal duties actually.

Quote:
Charles makes about 16 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall and other enterprises and mostly pays his way from that, and is not on the public purse except possibly for security.
Charles supports himself, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry from the Duchy of Cornwall income. Of course there security is paid for by the British public - as would be the case for any person deemed 'at risk' with Harry having more than others due to threats since his service in Afghanistan.

Quote:
Cornwall may be inherited but he works at it, and William is taking classes to be prepared to work at it and mostly pay his way when Charles is King.
Cornwall isn't 'inherited' as it is a different Duchy to the norm. To be The Duke you have to fulfil TWO criteria - eldest son of the monarch AND heir apparent. Being one of those doesn't make you Duke e.g. if Charles dies before The Queen, William couldn't be Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't be the eldest son of the monarch and so the Duchy income wouldn't go to him. Of course assuming Charles becomes King William will fulfil the criteria and so will become Duke of Cornwall and expected to support himself, Kate, George, and any future siblings until he becomes King.

Charles will then have access to the Duchy of Lancaster estate which currently provides The Queen with an income of around 13 million pounds from which she supports the rest of the royal family and thus subsidises the work of the royal family on behalf of the nation.

That is a separate income from the Sovereign Grant which is simply the payment to cover expenses, maintain the royal palaces and pay the transport costs. As, in real terms, it is about a third of the level it was in 1992 there is a massive backlog in works that need to be done - but that is because the British public and government refused to maintain their heritage - so be it.

William also has his inheritance from Diana but he doesn't need to touch that as Charles is supporting him although there are rumours that he has dipped into that money to assist the Middleton's buy their new home at Bucklebury.

Quote:
Harry has inherited much from Diana and may be expect to not take much from the public purse except possibly security.
Harry costs more in security due to his service in Afghanistan. His public duties will also be paid for by the taxpayers - so if he does a lot of engagements he will cost a lot but if he continues to do around 50 a year not so much.

Quote:
Charles will also probably cut security for Andrew's daughters, for whom Andrew was not able to acquire public roles.

Charles won't control who gets security as that is a decision for the Metropolitan Police and Andrew's daughters lost theirs when Eugenie left university. Most of the royals only have security now when doing public duties and not when on private time. Only the children of The Queen, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry have it 24/7 - not even Sophie has 24/7 anymore.

Quote:
There will still be free tickets to wimbledon, but you won't be paid to attend or take a helicopter there.
No royal gets paid to go to Wimbledon now and none take helicopters there. The Middleton's get as many free tickets to Wimbledon as do the York girls it seems.

The royals don't get paid any money to just be royal or to turn up to events. Their expenses in getting their are paid but they actually support themselves either from private sources or from The Queen with Charles supporting only his own immediate family.

Quote:
But as it stands presently the British Royal Family costs much less than the Presidents of other countries like the US and France and it is mostly for buildings that brings in money from ticket sales. Charles thinks he can make it even more affordable.
The problem with this section is two-fold - one no one can actually point to any statement from Charles suggesting that he is going to cut expenses. It is one of those statements that was reported as coming from him by a junior staff member and has grown into a fact with no evidence at all.

If they do cut down the number of engagements - fine - but they will also be seen less, and the ordinary people will miss out.
Reply With Quote
  #1480  
Old 02-26-2014, 01:54 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,757
I don't think the suggestion is to stop the minor members of the royal family from working and supporting their charities and other organizations but to raise the profile of the younger members of the royal family and bring them to the forefront of the "Firm."
__________________

__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 beatrice borromeo best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit camillas outfits catherine middleton style child countess of wessex coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria's maternity fashion current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll greece infanta elena style kate middleton king abdullah ii king willem-alexander martha louise member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles prince joachim prince philip princess beatrice eveningwear princess charlene outfits princess marie princess mary princess mary fashion princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion rohans september 2016 sheikha hind spanish queen 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 04:58 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises