The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #981  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Lets face it, this isn't about how many engagements W&K carry out. William doesn't collect a salary from the government. Everything he receives comes from the Queen and she is the only person to answer to parliament.

The same people who criticise William and Kate for not working enough are usually the first people to bash them when they do public engagements. Most times a mixture of Americans and Aussies republicans and members of team Harry.

The other argument people seem to use against the Cambridges is that because William is 2nd in line to the throne he should do more but if we use this yardstick then all the Queen's grandchildren should do more. Up until last year Harry was 3rd in line and did hardly no official engagements.

Same with the York girls. If the Queen is in such a clamour for more "working royals" she could enlist Beatrice.

I've long ago accepted the fact that certain people just don't like Kate and it wouldn't matter what she did they still won't like her.

Imo Kate should just keep on doing what she is doing because for the critics they look to have a pop at her regardless of what she does.

I'll repeat what I stated earlier. If Camilla after 10 years of marriage and our next Queen, married to the heir to the throne, if she can do around 250 engagements a year than Kate is in the clear.

Camilla's numbers put her in 8th place overall behind even the Duke of Gloucester. Now if this is acceptable for out next Queen than Kate should be given all the time in the world.

But then, some of those same people use "royal" when it is convenient to use it against Kate and then do not hesitate to remind us that she is not a "real royal". As I've said before .... sometimes ya just can't win.
__________________

  #982  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:38 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
Just pointing out I am American and I am a supporter and a defender of Kate and William. I have defended them many times on this numerous issue over the years, now the defense is just getting tedious. I don't think she should be on the same level as Anne, Charles of continental royals, I just think she needs to do more than she is currently doing.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
  #983  
Old 07-23-2014, 01:22 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 8,114
I think that at this point in time, Catherine's first priority should be her son. Yes, she has a full time nanny, but nothing replaces a mother's love and attention. I'm sure as George gets older, Catherine will step out more, but now, she is doing what is best for her, and her son. I'm sure if this was a big issue, Her Majesty would have spoken to William and Catherine, and made sure that they changed their ways. However, I have a feeling that Her Majesty supports their approach, and if she does, then who are we to criticize? She's been on the job for over sixty years, so she definitely knows how it all works. No need to sit here and constantly bash the Duchess for her choice to currently spend more time with her child.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
  #984  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:53 PM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Sophie's first two years as a working royal was also while she was running her own business and thus she was holding down a full-time job and she managed way more than Kate.

My figures for Sophie in 2000 - her first full year as a royal having married in 1999 - are 120 and as I said she was also running a business.

Sophie's first year of marriage -- 1999 through 2000 -- she did not undertake official engagements of her own. She did accompany Edward to some functions, but it was very much publicized that she would be a career woman and not an official engagement undertaking royal.

This is from her pre-wedding interview:

" . . . Asked how she saw her future, she told a television interviewer: ''I certainly see it more in a supporting role to Edward rather than rushing off and forging my own path, going off and taking on the mantle of various charities.''

Showing her practiced hand at public relations, she added: ''I also think there is the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family doing an exceptionally wonderful job in a public role. I don't see a massive need for me to go out there and do the same thing.''


At Windsor, Royal Wedding Has a Common Touch - NYTimes.com

The undercover investigation of Sophie's firm is what catapulted her into a full-fledged working royal.
  #985  
Old 07-25-2014, 12:06 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NorCal, United States
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It is very possible in my book that Kate goes about doing a lot of things for her charities and the Royal family that just isn't called to our attention.
I'm American, so it's possible I don't understand the purpose of royal patronage duties. But it seems to me that the whole point is to call attention to the charity, for the purpose of fundraising. I might add that I think this is a very worthy "job" and one which the royals are uniquely qualified to do. A private visit from a patron would be a lovely thing for the few people involved, and I hope they all do it from time to time. But as a fundraiser, it wouldn't be very effective.

As I said above, I have been a huge fan of the Duchess since I first learned about her right before the engagement. HUGE. I'm one of those people who stayed up all night long to watch the wedding, which was at 4:00 a.m. my time. I've followed her every appearance. Almost every day as I'm googling for news, I google her. She hasn't put a foot wrong in 3 1/2 years (except for her puzzling refusal to wear underwear in public).

So it's with disappointment that I say that it's beginning to seem that she's more a pampered housewife than a working royal. I don't begrudge the royals their lavish lifestyle, because most of them seem to work hard at a job only they can do. But if I were a UK taxpayer, I would be getting a little upset about the Duchess' obvious enjoyment of the "lavish" part of the bargain, while having little apparent interest in the "work" part.
  #986  
Old 07-25-2014, 12:59 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by LasMa View Post
I'm American, so it's possible I don't understand the purpose of royal patronage duties. But it seems to me that the whole point is to call attention to the charity, for the purpose of fundraising. I might add that I think this is a very worthy "job" and one which the royals are uniquely qualified to do. A private visit from a patron would be a lovely thing for the few people involved, and I hope they all do it from time to time. But as a fundraiser, it wouldn't be very effective.

As I said above, I have been a huge fan of the Duchess since I first learned about her right before the engagement. HUGE. I'm one of those people who stayed up all night long to watch the wedding, which was at 4:00 a.m. my time. I've followed her every appearance. Almost every day as I'm googling for news, I google her. She hasn't put a foot wrong in 3 1/2 years (except for her puzzling refusal to wear underwear in public).

So it's with disappointment that I say that it's beginning to seem that she's more a pampered housewife than a working royal. I don't begrudge the royals their lavish lifestyle, because most of them seem to work hard at a job only they can do. But if I were a UK taxpayer, I would be getting a little upset about the Duchess' obvious enjoyment of the "lavish" part of the bargain, while having little apparent interest in the "work" part.
One thing about royal patronages and charities is that the events that the public sees is often times booked months in advance. There is first the scheduling, then the work starts on just how the event is going to run and what will be done. Most times, to my understanding, its planned down to the very minute from start to finish. The security has to canvas the area and make sure all possible things that could go wrong are acknowledged and plans put in place for any kind of a scenario. The royal themselves, prepare in advance by reading up on the plans for the day, who they're going to meet and their connection to the charity, figure out the appropriate outfit to wear. They also meet from time to time with the people involved with the charity and get updates and such. Will, Kate and Harry also have The Royal Foundation which has been put together to kind of umbrella quite a number of their charities and patronages and such. The three main focus of the foundation are the military, young people and conservation. Sometimes we've even seen more than one of their causes band together in joint functions. They regularly attend board meetings and I imagine there's a lot of other areas with this foundation that they're involved with.

Basically we're never told what Kate does in her own time. It is just assumed that when she isn't in sight, she's living the high life and munching bon bons. We really don't know as the Cambridges are really quite adamant about their privacy and they're definitely not talking to the press about their future plans or what they do when they're not appearing for an engagement. Its all been speculations on unsubstantiated rumors, half truths from "a source close to the couple" or "a high ranking staff member" etc.

This is the difference between royalty and celebrity. Without being constantly in the public eye and being "followed" and admired on a daily basis, a celebrity soon becomes a has been and forgotten. Its the opposite for royalty. They do what they do for different reasons and the public is allowed to be a spectator when they're out and about in public but the royals definitely do not need to be constantly in the limelight to maintain who they are.

Also, about the tax payer and the "lavish" lifestyle. The tax payer does not pay for any part of Will and Kate's private life at all. They are supported by Charles and also Will has his own money from inheritances from family members such as his great grandmother (its an example. I'm not totally sure if he did inherit anything from the Queen Mum) and his mother.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #987  
Old 07-25-2014, 03:48 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,757
I far as I can see Catherine is enjoying a happy life as a "homemaker" being fortunate enough to not need to work.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that being a mother is a full time job and, to be honest, too many kids miss out on the joy of having mum or dad as their primary caregiver. That she is an at-home mum doesn't bother me at all, after all, being financially secure is not a sin.

I think that we need to look back and see the life that William's grandmother and mother lived when they were pre-schoolers. We all know that the Queen didn't get enough time with her children because tours took months and his parents took weeks. But his grandmother was the queen and his mother the wife of the heir.

Catherine doesn't have to do much of anything except be a wife and mother and, if that's what floats her boat, good for her.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #988  
Old 07-25-2014, 05:23 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 128
I'm an Australian who has no problem with Kate or Wills I am happy they are together. I wouldn't really have cared if she chose to become a full time mum after George, power to her! I have a problem with the fact she didn't work prior (both marriage and prior George). And now this indecision with what Wills is doing/not/maybe doing is becoming tedious. They are starting to come across as work shy or just plain........
I think people need to stop confusing "Lack-Of-Work" with a like or dislike of these two, one does not automatically infer the other!
  #989  
Old 07-25-2014, 05:43 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,012
It is interesting to note that in the Netherlands, after the accession to the throne, both the new King as well the abdicated Queen have laid down all their hundreds of honorary functions connected to charities. Reason: King Willem-Alexander wants to be "everyone's King" and has the opinion that being a honorary chairman or protector of so many groups d(the abandoned dogs, the Friesian ice-skating, the preservation of traditional regional costumes, playgrounds for children, the preservation of an old chicken breed, etc. etc.) does not necessarily fit in this idea connecting to modern kingship. Only a selected number of patronages were held.

The new King has decided to keep 12 patronages which he thinks is in line with the royal function and represent the whole of the Netherlands:
- the Orange Fund (to promote social cohesion)
- the Royal Society for the Arts (to promote arts)
- the Royal Academy of Sciences (to promote sciences)
- the Royal Society of Knights of the Militaire Willems-Orde (the highest royal Order)
- the Society for Industry and Trade (to promote industry and trade)
- the Society for Literature Sciences (to promote literature)
- the Netherlands Biblical Society (to promote awareness of the Bible)
- the Netherlands Nobility Accociation (the society of Dutch nobles)
- the Netherlands War Cemeteries (to maintain War cemeteries)
- the Old Limbourgian Marksmen Federation (the King is also Duke of Limbourg)
- the Historical Society Orange-Nassau

So we see an interesting change in thinking about patronages: instead of being honorary chairman, protector, benefactor, namegiver, etc. of hundreds of patronages, just a select group which in total represents the whole nation receive a royal patronage. Because it are only twelve, the King can have a real personal commitment and involvement instead of just being a name on a plaquette. I think it is interesting to note this change in thinking about the traditional royal patronages. We will see how it works out when the British royal family will downsize. It is simply impossible to bear the burden of countless patronages and maybe the Dutch example will be an inspiration.
  #990  
Old 07-25-2014, 06:43 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,046
William, Harry and Kate are sort of doing that now. Having a small number of patronage, doing things on a shorter term such as William was patron of the WWI centennial exhibit for the Imperial War Museum which just opened. Not the museum itself so he can move only to a different short term project. They are also using the Royal Foundation to help instead of always becoming a patron of something such as Walking with the Wounded. Neither Harry or William is officially connected with it but the RF gives money to several of its expeditions.

The Queen is patron of Wimbledon but she has only been there a couple of times. Wouldn't it be better for Queen to resign it and let someone who actually likes tennis such as Kate become patron?

By the way, Kate did work before the marriage. She worked at Jigsaw in London and got followed by paps all the time and then for her parents firm in Buckleberry where the people there protected her privacy. There isn't many jobs she could have done where she won't be accused of cashing in on her royal connections or get caught up in a sting like Sophie did.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #991  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:08 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,063
The curious thing is that I have no idea about Kate's future roles. It seems quite certain that William is going to work as a ambulance pilot. (According to reliable press it's only a matter of confirmation in September). So, IMO we should wait to see what William will take up and then Catherine will follow as always. I'd personally like her to dedicate more to her patronages regarding children who need palliative cares... It seems they quite fit her, And of course she might do more solo engagments...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
  #992  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
One thing about royal patronages and charities is that the events that the public sees is often times booked months in advance. There is first the scheduling, then the work starts on just how the event is going to run and what will be done. Most times, to my understanding, its planned down to the very minute from start to finish. The security has to canvas the area and make sure all possible things that could go wrong are acknowledged and plans put in place for any kind of a scenario. ....
....
All of which costs money and requires time by staff and those being visited, not to mention the costs of increased police/security to the location they are visiting when they do visit.
To really ramp up to the number of 'engagements' which some clamor for, William and Catherine would need to funded/staffed at a much higher level and there's only so much money to pay for the Queen and Philip, Charles and Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie etc., perhaps one solution would be to scale back these senior royals' events so as to free up money and staff for the Cambridges to do more, but somehow I think that's not going to happen in the near future.
  #993  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:42 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by LasMa View Post
I'm American, so it's possible I don't understand the purpose of royal patronage duties. But it seems to me that the whole point is to call attention to the charity, for the purpose of fundraising. I might add that I think this is a very worthy "job" and one which the royals are uniquely qualified to do. A private visit from a patron would be a lovely thing for the few people involved, and I hope they all do it from time to time. But as a fundraiser, it wouldn't be very effective.

As I said above, I have been a huge fan of the Duchess since I first learned about her right before the engagement. HUGE. I'm one of those people who stayed up all night long to watch the wedding, which was at 4:00 a.m. my time. I've followed her every appearance. Almost every day as I'm googling for news, I google her. She hasn't put a foot wrong in 3 1/2 years (except for her puzzling refusal to wear underwear in public).

So it's with disappointment that I say that it's beginning to seem that she's more a pampered housewife than a working royal. I don't begrudge the royals their lavish lifestyle, because most of them seem to work hard at a job only they can do. But if I were a UK taxpayer, I would be getting a little upset about the Duchess' obvious enjoyment of the "lavish" part of the bargain, while having little apparent interest in the "work" part.

I agree with 99% of this except the underwear thing. She wears them she just can't keep her skirt from flying over them.
I also am an American who likes Kate, I also stayed up all night to watch the wedding, think it was 5 am my time. And I also Am questioning what she does except look pretty and smile.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
  #994  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:45 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
I was one of their hugest fans... just set my alarm clock here on the East Coast and took morning off from work - had my eyes GLUED to the TV. But gradually I too started to wonder just what she did all day too.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #995  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:56 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
Haha I didn't go to work either. But I let them know a week in advance, my boss was older so I doubt he had any suspicions. I think it is not just.one or two things in regards to Kate and work, but a few things combinin and building on each other; again in regards to William I don't really have concerns because I view him as working, even if he takes the ambulance job.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
  #996  
Old 07-25-2014, 07:56 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,970
One of the things she doesis teacg her sonto swim. At BP. Right now she is doingallthe mom stuff that most moms would wantto do.

She also planning stuff like tripto Belgium and Malta. she is a typical p/t working mum.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #997  
Old 07-25-2014, 08:08 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Haha I didn't go to work either. But I let them know a week in advance, my boss was older so I doubt he had any suspicions. I think it is not just.one or two things in regards to Kate and work, but a few things combinin and building on each other; again in regards to William I don't really have concerns because I view him as working, even if he takes the ambulance job.
I even warned my kids that the cartoons would not be on at 6:30 in the morning and I would tolerate very little noise. My perplexed 10 year old asked the following:

"So he's a prince and she's a princess?"

"No - he's a prince and when she marries him she'll be a princess."

"So let me get this straight.. he's a prince and he's just marrying someone off the street?"

"Are you finished breakfast yet?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
One of the things she doesis teacg her sonto swim. At BP. Right now she is doingallthe mom stuff that most moms would wantto do.

She also planning stuff like tripto Belgium and Malta. she is a typical p/t working mum.
I do hope you're posting from your phone, Cepe....



"Right now she is doing all the mom stuff that most moms would want to do."

Serious question; then why does she have a full-time nanny?
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #998  
Old 07-25-2014, 08:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Serious question; then why does she have a full-time nanny?
I think its a good thing she is a full time nanny. That way she is integrated into the family and is a huge part of George's life regardless of if Kate is around and takes the primary caregiver role of mommy.

George is very much more likely to be content and there will be no strange ladies coming to take care of him when mommy has to be away overnight (such as to Malta and perhaps Belgium). Its also peace of mind for William and Kate that George is very well adjusted to having Maria around.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #999  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Sophie's first year of marriage -- 1999 through 2000 -- she did not undertake official engagements of her own. She did accompany Edward to some functions, but it was very much publicized that she would be a career woman and not an official engagement undertaking royal.

This is from her pre-wedding interview:

" . . . Asked how she saw her future, she told a television interviewer: ''I certainly see it more in a supporting role to Edward rather than rushing off and forging my own path, going off and taking on the mantle of various charities.''

Showing her practiced hand at public relations, she added: ''I also think there is the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family doing an exceptionally wonderful job in a public role. I don't see a massive need for me to go out there and do the same thing.''


At Windsor, Royal Wedding Has a Common Touch - NYTimes.com

The undercover investigation of Sophie's firm is what catapulted her into a full-fledged working royal.

I have said it very clearly that Sophie was working full-time in her PR firm in her first two years but managed 120 engagements in the first full year - 2000.

Kate, in her first full year - 2012 with the Jubilee and Olympics to pad her figures and no full-time job did 123.

That is an awful comparison for Kate whatever way you look at it or try to justify it.

Sophie accompanied Edward - sure - and Kate accompanied William. Edward was also working for his company Ardent at the time and managed nearly 200 while holding down a full-time job.

What excuses are there for how little William and Kate have done that really stand up?

If Sophie and Edward could do nearly 300 between them in 2000 while both working full-time then William and Kate should be able to do the same thing - but they don't - and as Edward and Sophie both had jobs the excuse that William was in the RAF doesn't hold water as he could have followed their example and done things when he wasn't at work as they did - remembering that his official duties actually count as part of his military service.

They have a child - sure but that is no excuse in this day and age to do nothing with all the privileges they have.
  #1000  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:06 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think its a good thing she is a full time nanny. That way she is integrated into the family and is a huge part of George's life regardless of if Kate is around and takes the primary caregiver role of mommy.

George is very much more likely to be content and there will be no strange ladies coming to take care of him when mommy has to be away overnight (such as to Malta and perhaps Belgium). Its also peace of mind for William and Kate that George is very well adjusted to having Maria around.
Then what does the nanny do all day?
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Closed Thread

Tags
charities, charity, duchess of cambridge, duties, kate, kate middleton, roles


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
best outfit birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events cymry denmark duchess of brabant fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king abdullah in new zealand king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein marriage monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 october and november 2016 picture of the week picture of the week december prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia soderberg 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 01:47 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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