The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 12-14-2014, 12:37 AM
Queen Penelope's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Camrose, Canada
Posts: 712
My feeling is, as much as I believe they should have been better represented, they and the government were represent by the Ambassador. Ideal? no, but someone of influence felt that this was the way to go. The BRF have maintained cordial relations with their continental contemporaries, but have never been accused of fostering close personal ties. This is just maintaining the status quo, as it were. A shame, because It's rather lovely when they all get together.

Just to put this out there - wouldn't having someone attending (who didn't know Queen Fabiola) just because they were availiable seem to be a rather hollow gesture? (The Ambassador notwithstanding, as he was also representing the British Government). My guess is HM, The DoE and The PoW knew Queen Fabiola. After them, how far down the line before it becomes more showing up for the sake of showing up and less paying respects to somone you knew? What is an acceptable "degree of separation"?

On a personal note - I've only attended funerals of someone close to me, my family or if it is a family member of a close friend. With that criteria, I could understand if no one attended. Funerals are hard. A few of my relations and I have this morbid joke of "see you at the next one" as it has been the only time we've seen each other for years. Needless to say, I don't like seeing them anymore😉.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 12-14-2014, 01:51 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 278
QEII didn't attend the funeral of her first cousin, the late George, Earl of Harewood, a grandson of George V. Why would she attend this funeral?

Of course, someone from the RF could but they (jointly the FCO and someone from the Queen's household or the Gov. alone?) decided to limit their representation to the most convenient form of an ambassador.

However, I remind you that in a foreign country, the Ambassador is the highest and definitive representative of his or her sending country (in this case, Her Majesty's formally), so it was not a low-profile representation. However, QFabiola's funeral's case is something different, because the two countries are both monarchies and traditionally and historically, there were close and direct links between their royal families (thus, we could expect some more personal and more familial rep. than the Ambassador, who is simply an official) but it doesn't seem to last anymore...

I repeat my question - were there any other foreign ambassadors at the funeral? I wonder, because Fabiola was neihter the queen regnant nor the queen consort of the current Sovereign, thus her funeral was not of full state level. It was rather a nationally important and celebrated event with foreign attendance limited only or almost to those few remaining monarchies in the world (except for the British )
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 12-14-2014, 03:28 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 845
I am no longer involved in the royal press coverage but as I was in London I asked old colleagues, but can't vouch for their validity. There appears to have been some confusion and perhaps a mix up.
The Earl and Countess of Wessex were expected to go _ but they are considered too junior royals for such an occasion. Either the foreign office never confirmed them going or they, their office, were told a senior royal was attending. No senior royal attended, so something went wrong. Complete speculation here - it might have been considered better for no one to attended over a lesser royal. This is a protocol problem, the foreign office has to match the stature of the other royals attending to the royalt they are sending, if we look at who attended that would have been the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince Charles. If none of them were available then it is in lieu of the Queen and anyone can represent her. Another problem could have been that the Foreign Office thought Edward and Sophie were attending on their own accord - in a personal capacity not as the Queen's representative. They often get invited to European events in their own right, and since they are going anyway they end up representing the Queen as well.
Either way it was a mess up and is been investigated. The journalists appear to be taking it as a miscommunication between the Foreign Office and the Palace. It really appears to have been a problem between their distinction of private and state occasions. Protocol is rigid and often doesn't leave room for politiness.

Would you have preferred if Edward and Sophie attending? I get the impression that another thread, bemoaning the fact that it wasn't William and Kate would have taken its place rather easily.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 12-14-2014, 03:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
That view may have made some sense in 1914, when there were still semi-absolute monarchies in places like Germany or Russia. Of course, that is no longer the case now when most European countries are republics and, in those few that are still monarchies, foreign policy is directed by elected politicians and not by royal houses. Furthermore, most of Europe is already united under the European Union anyway.
In 1914 the view held by the BRF was that they should intermingle with the European monarchies but the war changed that as George V felt that was the best way to preserve the British throne was to separate his family from the Europeans and I suspect that the British people today would still feel the same way.


Europe may be officially united but from an outsider who visits occasionally it is far from united in spirit with massive differences in living standards and attitudes to a range of issues.
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 12-14-2014, 04:44 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I am no longer involved in the royal press coverage but as I was in London I asked old colleagues, but can't vouch for their validity. There appears to have been some confusion and perhaps a mix up.
The Earl and Countess of Wessex were expected to go _ but they are considered too junior royals for such an occasion. Either the foreign office never confirmed them going or they, their office, were told a senior royal was attending. No senior royal attended, so something went wrong. Complete speculation here - it might have been considered better for no one to attended over a lesser royal. This is a protocol problem, the foreign office has to match the stature of the other royals attending to the royalt they are sending, if we look at who attended that would have been the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince Charles. If none of them were available then it is in lieu of the Queen and anyone can represent her. Another problem could have been that the Foreign Office thought Edward and Sophie were attending on their own accord - in a personal capacity not as the Queen's representative. They often get invited to European events in their own right, and since they are going anyway they end up representing the Queen as well.
Either way it was a mess up and is been investigated. The journalists appear to be taking it as a miscommunication between the Foreign Office and the Palace. It really appears to have been a problem between their distinction of private and state occasions. Protocol is rigid and often doesn't leave room for politiness.

Would you have preferred if Edward and Sophie attending? I get the impression that another thread, bemoaning the fact that it wasn't William and Kate would have taken its place rather easily.

I would have preferred it, as I don't see a Son of a Current Monarch and his Wife as "Junior Royals" and there would have been someone from the BrRF there. Then again, while I do follow the Cambridges, I also know they really don't know that Generation that well, if at all, whereas the Wessexes do. Just because they're the " cool kids" at the moment does not mean William and Kate should be sent automatically to these Events. Besides, William was one w/Engagements on Friday & while he could have changed his schedule, I also think that this time it was more fitting (for lack of a better term) if it had been either his Father, his Aunt or one of his Uncles.

Just my now obsolete 2cents Canadian.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 12-14-2014, 05:52 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
I thought the whole point of the BRF was to represent the British government, NOT act like it's the job of an ambassador to represent them? The BRF is supposedly the people that go to things like this to maintain non-political diplomatic goodwill between nations.

So to me, the BRF have failed to do their job. No matter how 'low' Fabiola might be to the BRF, she meant something to everyone in Belgium and certainly to the royal family of Belgium and the people of Spain since she was on of their aristocrats.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 12-14-2014, 05:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151
The thread has derailed a bit. The British royal family has been represented at all major European royal events. This time, for some mysteriously reasons, they were not represented at the funeral of a grande dame which was the late Doña Fabiola Fernanda María-de-las-Victorias Antonia Adelaida de Mora y Aragón, Queen of the Belgians, Princess of Belgium.

So be it. Let us assume it was an unlucky error.
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 12-14-2014, 06:35 AM
Tarlita's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: small town near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,049
At the end of the day I am sure the good people of Belgium will not lose any sleep over the fact that no one from the BRF attended. However, I find it disappointing that no one from the Royal Family represented Her Majesty in this. As Aristocat says the royal family are their Countries representatives, if not the Commonwealth's representatives.
As this thread is now 18 pages goes to show people feel very strongly one way or another about the issue.
As Claire has suggested it may have been a miscommunication by the foreign office.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 12-14-2014, 06:35 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 128
I think emotions are running high after the funeral, seeing children crying and the current queen and her king becoming emotional also, can cause the blood to boil. However, the general feeling is not that the BRF are all bad. Maybe rather than trying to argue with people it may be a better idea to shush and allow the emotions to run its course and the thread to petter out naturally. Asking for the thread to close is wrong, I have learnt that if you don't like the thread, don't tune in 🙈


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 12-14-2014, 02:42 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 7,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I am no longer involved in the royal press coverage but as I was in London I asked old colleagues, but can't vouch for their validity. There appears to have been some confusion and perhaps a mix up.
The Earl and Countess of Wessex were expected to go _ but they are considered too junior royals for such an occasion. Either the foreign office never confirmed them going or they, their office, were told a senior royal was attending. No senior royal attended, so something went wrong. Complete speculation here - it might have been considered better for no one to attended over a lesser royal. This is a protocol problem, the foreign office has to match the stature of the other royals attending to the royalt they are sending, if we look at who attended that would have been the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince Charles. If none of them were available then it is in lieu of the Queen and anyone can represent her. Another problem could have been that the Foreign Office thought Edward and Sophie were attending on their own accord - in a personal capacity not as the Queen's representative. They often get invited to European events in their own right, and since they are going anyway they end up representing the Queen as well.
Either way it was a mess up and is been investigated. The journalists appear to be taking it as a miscommunication between the Foreign Office and the Palace. It really appears to have been a problem between their distinction of private and state occasions. Protocol is rigid and often doesn't leave room for politiness.

Would you have preferred if Edward and Sophie attending? I get the impression that another thread, bemoaning the fact that it wasn't William and Kate would have taken its place rather easily.

Claire-

Thank you very much for your interesting and thoughtful post. It makes since that there was simply a RARE AND UNFORTUNATE mix-up. I will not and can not believe that HM QEII for whom I have so much respect, would deliberately choose to insult the Belgian RF. She was nothing but gracious to Philippe and Mathilde when they visited her recently.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 12-14-2014, 03:19 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 18,684
This thread has been cleaned up and is now re-opened. Several posts have been removed for either being too hotheaded, OT or simply because they were written as a reply to a deleted post. We did not send any warnings so far, as we understood that emotions were running high. However, we will be less understanding for new posts that do not follow the TRF Rules & FAQ that will be posted in this thread. Note that all of you agreed to follow these TRF Rules & FAQ when you joined this forum.

Please contact the TRF mod. team or simply report a post that is still deemed offensive but that we failed to remove. Those who have questions about their deleted/edited posts or want to use the content of their deleted post elsewhere, can send a PM to the Belgian moderators (MAfan or me).

As announced: the thread ' British non-attendance of Fabiola's funeral' has been merged with this one, as the topic is British and not Belgian.

Marengo,
for the Belgian Mod.team
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 12-16-2014, 07:41 PM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 420
I think it was a disgrace that nobody from the Windsors attended the funeral and I think many in the UK are disgusted with them including a friend who usually thinks that they can do no wrong. I also think it terrible that the British press largely ignore weddings, funerals etc of foreign royals. Even when they do report things such as state visits by foreign monarchs they use capital letters when talking about Queen Elizabeth or Prince Philip but use lower case when speaking about a foreign (k)ing or (q)ueen. This is because many British people don't regard foreign royals as "real" royalty. A friend once told me of overhearing a conversation between two ladies, one of whom said that the Windsors were the only royalty left in the world. When the other lady pointed out that there was royalty in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands etc, the first lady said "oh but they are not real royalty, they only have their titles because our Queen allows them to use them, but if she wanted, she could take their titles away and they would just be commoners." Sadly, I think that is an opinion held by many in the UK. When Elizabeth had her Diamond Jubilee and she held a dinner for foreign monarchs there were protestations of horror that none of those monarchs bowed or curtsied to Elizabeth because, after all, "she is superior to them." I think that the Windsors themselves seem to think that they are superior to other royals.

Throughout her reign Elizabeth has never attended foreign royal occasions and I once read that this was because her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had forbidden her from doing so. The reason being was because when monarchs attend royal occasions in another country they are seated in order with the longest reigning monarch first. As Elizabeth was the new kid on the block she would be last wherever she went and there was no way that old Churchill was going to have a British monarch last, after all, by his thinking she was superior to them all and should have been in the place of honour. Elizabeth is a creature of habit and throughout her reign has never moved with the times so even after Churchill left the scene she just continued with what he had said as if it was set in stone.

King Baudouin had reigned longer than Elizabeth so when he died it was presumed that she was now the longest reigning monarch in Europe and would have place of honour but the British Government forgot about Prince Rainier who had not only reigned longer than Elizabeth about also Baudouin and would therefore take precedence over Elizabeth in the seating order. That was it as far as the British Government was concerned, she was never to be allowed out again.

Someone posted earlier that Elizabeth had gone because Baudouin had died during her summer break and had free time but she has a lt more free time than people realise. Throughout her reign she has only worked a three day week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and these are the only day she she performs official duties. On Friday morning she takes off for Windsor and returns on Monday Evening. When you consider that she has a months holiday at Christmas and New Year, another month at Easter and two months in the summer and doesn't undertake official duties during those time, then there are only eight months when she works. take away the long weekends and there are only 96 days (just over three months) in the year when she actually undertakes official duties.
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 12-16-2014, 08:09 PM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 432


What a load of nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 12-16-2014, 08:21 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Iain,
Queen Elizabeth II is 88 years old.
Last year she had public engagements on 181 days not 96 day. She also works every day of the year except Christmas.
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 12-16-2014, 08:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
She may not undertake an 'official duty' every day and so far this year she has undertaken public engagements on 141 days but... that doesn't include the reading of the red boxes which happens every day except Christmas Day and her ascension Day (6th February) so she works 363 days a year. It doesn't matter where in the world she is the boxes follow her so even if she is at Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral, BP etc the boxes still follow her and have to be done.


She hasn't always gone to Windsor on a Friday morning and returned to BP on a Monday either as she only started doing that after her Golden Jubilee in 2002 - aged 76 or 10 years past the normal retirement age. Prior to that she would go down Friday evenings and return either Sunday evening or Monday mornings - and would often undertake official engagements from Windsor anyway.


Windsor isn't that far anyway - less than an hour by train these days.


Why no one attended the funeral we will probably never know. My British friends have all said 'Fabiola - who was she?' That had no idea of who she was and so to them there is no issue as the foreign royals don't register in Britain or on the world stage as such - none of my friends and colleagues here knew that Belgium had a monarchy or that a Queen Consort had died - no coverage and no interest.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 12-17-2014, 03:34 AM
Arrjann's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Dordrecht, Netherlands
Posts: 72
I've had a discussion on Twitter about this issue. Bottom line IMO: it's a snub. Period. The FO gets the blame in many arguments, which I don't buy. The FO would surely advice to send a member of the RF to the funeral of a Queen Dowager of a neighbouring country with very strong ties. I think the Queen, for some reason, didn't send a representative from her own family, thereby making the wrong decision. It's about doing the appropriate thing and courtesy and the RF failed to do that in this case. It's absurd that the old Empress of Japan travels literally half the world to attend and the Brits stay away.


Follow me on Twitter: @houseoflemon
__________________
Avatar: HRH Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein (née Princess of Luxembourg) and I

Follow me on Twitter: @royalarjan
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 12-17-2014, 04:52 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
[...] My British friends have all said 'Fabiola - who was she?' That had no idea of who she was and so to them there is no issue as the foreign royals don't register in Britain or on the world stage as such - none of my friends and colleagues here knew that Belgium had a monarchy or that a Queen Consort had died - no coverage and no interest.
It speaks volumes for the view on the wider world and the interest for current affairs your British friends have. In all newspapers there have been juicy obituaries about how a Spanish aristocrat was allegedly coupled to the King of the Belgians by an Irish nun. How that marriage remained childless, the problems with the trust funds were also often mentioned, so it was just in the news. Not even knowing that there are other monarchies outside the United Kingdom and that Belgium is one, especially in the centenary of WWI which was mainly fought on Flanders' Fields... it speaks volumes for the lack of bildung as is the German word. Here in France, the southern neighbour, and there in the Netherlands, the northern neighbour, they know that Belgium is a monarchy. That the western neighbour (the UK) has no clue... tja....

Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:15 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She may not undertake an 'official duty' every day and so far this year she has undertaken public engagements on 141 days but... that doesn't include the reading of the red boxes which happens every day except Christmas Day and her ascension Day (6th February) so she works 363 days a year. It doesn't matter where in the world she is the boxes follow her so even if she is at Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral, BP etc the boxes still follow her and have to be done.


She hasn't always gone to Windsor on a Friday morning and returned to BP on a Monday either as she only started doing that after her Golden Jubilee in 2002 - aged 76 or 10 years past the normal retirement age. Prior to that she would go down Friday evenings and return either Sunday evening or Monday mornings - and would often undertake official engagements from Windsor anyway.


Windsor isn't that far anyway - less than an hour by train these days.


Why no one attended the funeral we will probably never know. My British friends have all said 'Fabiola - who was she?' That had no idea of who she was and so to them there is no issue as the foreign royals don't register in Britain or on the world stage as such - none of my friends and colleagues here knew that Belgium had a monarchy or that a Queen Consort had died - no coverage and no interest.
A very good post by Iluvbertie.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
I tend to think it was actually just an oversight; someone was meant to go but no one was confirmed as going, so...no one went.

It's a pity, because it does seem ungracious, even though the slight was probably not intentional.
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:59 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,408
originally posted by Iain Nobility

Throughout her reign Elizabeth has never attended foreign royal occasions and I once read that this was because her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, had forbidden her from doing so. The reason being was because when monarchs attend royal occasions in another country they are seated in order with the longest reigning monarch first. As Elizabeth was the new kid on the block she would be last wherever she went and there was no way that old Churchill was going to have a British monarch last, after all, by his thinking she was superior to them all and should have been in the place of honour. Elizabeth is a creature of habit and throughout her reign has never moved with the times so even after Churchill left the scene she just continued with what he had said as if it was set in stone.

King Baudouin had reigned longer than Elizabeth so when he died it was presumed that she was now the longest reigning monarch in Europe and would have place of honour but the British Government forgot about Prince Rainier who had not only reigned longer than Elizabeth about also Baudouin and would therefore take precedence over Elizabeth in the seating order. That was it as far as the British Government was concerned, she was never to be allowed out again.
[/QUOTE]

Again, nothing but speculation ("I once read that..."). Churchill was never in the position to "forbid" his monarch anything, nor would a staunch royalist like him ever dare to! He might possibly "advised" her to do things, but that´s another speculation.
Prince Rainier as a "Serene Highness" would never take precedence over a monarch, a "Majesty", which is the most highranking title we know of on the entire planet! So, when it comes to seating orders, the longest reigning King/ Queen will be placed at the most prominent seat, then the next longest reigning monarch and so on. I think even the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, who´s a "Royal Highness", takes precendence before the Prince of Monaco. The Princess of Monaco, although wife of a royal head of state, has to curtsey to these Majesties.

"When Elizabeth had her Diamond Jubilee and she held a dinner for foreign monarchs there were protestations of horror that none of those monarchs bowed or curtsied to Elizabeth because, after all, "she is superior to them."


That´s not possible - Elizabeth II knows and respects very well protocol. And protocol, or "royal etiquette" forbids a Majesty to curtsey another majesty, which the Queen of Britain is. So, if, let´s say the Queen of Sweden would suddenly start to curtsey the british Queen, she´d be mystified, to say the least!
It´s another case when it come to Kings. They do actually bow (their head), but not because of the other person´s superority, but rather because of chivalry and act of courtesy
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, elizabeth ii, european royalty, european union, queen elizabeth ii


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





Popular Tags
archduchess marie astrid aristocracy best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duke of york earl of snowdon general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia italy iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy morgan news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince liam prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary current events princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofia eveningwear princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes hats queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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