The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 09-03-2017, 01:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
They were neither royalty nor aristocratic but the Queen granted permissions for their nuptials to take place regardless
ALL British Women, unless Royal or Peeresses 'in their own right' are commoners. ONLY the Peer himself is 'Noble'- not his wife, not his son & heir, not his daughter. They hold whatever title the have, as a 'courtesy title'. This system is very different from that operating in Europe, where ALL descendants/relatives of a Noble are Noble themselves.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-03-2017, 04:46 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
This reply is not directed to anyone's post. Just sharing my updated opinion on this matter which isn't important, just freedom of speech.

I do believe Harry will marry Meghan because he feels she's the only one that will take on the duties and he really wants to be married and have a family of his own.

But just visiting each other back and forth after just over a year of dating and proposing is crazy. I'm not saying it won't or has happened as I understand the supposed rush because of Meghan's age, but they really need to live together for one year while Harry introduces her to the BRITISH public gradually before an official engagement is announced. This rushing is nuts!

PS: Anyone that says "well I met my husband and we got engaged after only a few months" is not understanding this is not a normal simple life marriage. Meghan will be taking on a highly public job where she will be representing the British public and we will be paying her to do so.

My own opinion, Meghan is not suitable because of her reputation, involving sexualised scenes and photos. Sorry, but this is just my opinion and a lot of BRITISH public opinion. We are the ones paying the taxes and this is what we feel.

Harry will still marry her though because honestly, it's his choice and he's not going to be King. Still, she's unsuitable to be a member of the senior Royal family.

This is my own opinion and freedom of speech. You may disagree with me. I don't mind.
I respect your right to your opinion. Based on your opinion, do you believe Prince Charles is suitable to be King based on his "Camillagate" tape declarations? And no, I am not getting this off topic and on to Prince Charles. I am just trying to understand completely.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-03-2017, 08:51 PM
princesslily's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: West London, United Kingdom
Posts: 182
If you're talking about those audio tapes then yes visual evidence is a lot worse than audio. All you have to do is google Meghan Markle and a lot of sexy photos and sex scene youtube videos appear in the search. That is a lot worse.

And Charles gradually introduced Camilla to the British public as his partner before they got engaged. He didn't surprise everyone with an engagement and then introduce her.

This courtship has been badly handled with all the previous hiding after that girlfriend announcement last November. William never hid Kate. Harry should have gradually introduced her and not just snog her in public at the Polo to show he's serious about her.

I'm not saying he won't propose, I'm sure he will surprise us, but all I'm saying is it would be better to live together for one year and gradually introduce her during that year before announcing an official engagement.

All these Enews reports in my opinion have been leaked and Harry's change of attitude with all the bad PR interviews complaining. Ikonpictures on Twitter said his PR should be fired.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-03-2017, 08:59 PM
xenobia's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Near the artic circle, Sweden
Posts: 705
To me, the whole idea of being suitable or not is quite interesting. It implies that you can decide if a person should get the job (in this case, marry into the royal family) based on things like previous actions, background and other factors. Is that even possible? And if so, is it preferable?

We've had this discussion several times here in Sweden. The first wave came when Victoria started going out with her mysterious personal trainer and gym owner, Daniel from rural Ockelbo. He was a regular middle class guy with a hockey cap and totally without royal/noble manners and connections. Could he really marry our crown princess? Yes he could, and he did. And today, I would say that no one has any objections. He has proven himself to be a wonderful husband, father and support to his family, as well as an asset to the royal family in general.

To top things off, Carl Philip ditched his long time and seemingly perfectly suited girlfriend, and started going out with a girl who had been a glamour model and participated in reality TV-shows. She even had tattoos! And you probably all know how that ended: They had their second child just two days ago. Sofia has really proven to be an asset to the family. Being with her has really turned Carl Philip into a more self secure and calm person. She hasn't put her foot wrong since the engagement, and has ignored all the evil comments about her.

My point is: what is suitable and what is not? In my opinion, the most suitable person is one who is very much in love with his/her spouse, and gives him/her the best of support and strength. Just like in any relationship. If you are used to handle media, like Meghan, that is just a big plus. In fact, I can't see anything that would stop her from becoming a huge success as a new member of the royal family, and a supportive wife and mother.

And on a sidenote: I married young, and no, that didn't end well. At 43, I met my current husband. I knew from day one that we would end up together. He moved in with me five weeks later, and we married 18 months after that. We just knew, and he's the best thing that ever happened to me. I'm not saying that it's like that for everyone, but it's totally possible that Harry and Meghan knew from the start where they would end up, but chose to let things take their time due to the special circumstances. I wish them all the best, no matter what the future brings for them.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:05 PM
princesslily's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: West London, United Kingdom
Posts: 182
Those royals dated their BF/GF for several years and were gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged. That is the difference. AND they lived together before getting engaged.

This quicky one year visiting each other back and forth is madness to propose so soon. Only because of Meghan's age to have children!

You lived together and married 18 months later. That sounds good to me.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 5,711
But if it's really with them like Xenobia says - and they want to form a family - they rather don't have time to wait (Meghan turned 36 a month ago, her biological clock is already ticking).
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:09 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoShades View Post
Except Meghan is NOT a "low-rent" actress however much some would desperately like for her to be viewed as such. She may not have been a classically trained high profile actress but that surely doesn't classify her as low-rent. She obtained a full education and has work experience in other areas as others have already mentioned. Everyone will have their opinions though which they are completely entitled to and that's fine. Meghan's parents are not money-bags and it is actually quite an achievement what she's accomplished so far, considering...

Anyway, tabloids and a certain type of people will always be snide with their noses up in the air just as they previously were with the unkind narrative of DoC knocking her down as---'Waity Katie with her grasping social climbing mother & family desperately clinging on, hanging around for eons waiting for the ring'---.

That description was so unfair and I'm sure no one with any common sense ever gave that load of tosh any credence.

That being said, what has been happening to Meghan though is just plain nasty as well as sinister. The subliminal, underlying tones of racism & prejudice is undeniable, and most times it's just outright there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
Isn't Prince Charles' income funded by the public?

I understand we are going off topic here, but their palaces (including Prince Harry's accomodation), transport, everything is funded by the public as well as the Queen's investments.

I'm sure it isn't only her security. Their future country home's renovations will be funded by the public. Her lifestyle is paid by us, including her private holidays once she marries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
True I respect your opinion.

If it's true she has that much money, I hope she helped her parents out from both their separate bankruptcy. I would hate to think she isn't charitable to her family members. I certainly wouldn't leave my parents in that state if I had that kind of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Y.CII View Post
I thought it would be more important for what she did after her marriage rather who she was before marriage. We know nothing about Meghan AS a royal member, so I don't think we can say, she is not suitable to be a part of RF. Yes I agree she has to gain the acceptance from both British and RF if she want to marry Henry, but what I see is some people just say no while nothing really happen.

btw I don't think giving up his status can solve anything, probably some people would just say they are irresponsible. People always find reasons to complain
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoShades View Post
I and those I know never had a say on whom Prince Charles decided to marry or the choice of wife Prince William settled on, and we didn't expect to either. Both these women regardless of Camilla's connection to the gentry and Kate's English middle class background were still 'commoners', before marriage. They were neither royalty nor aristocratic but the Queen granted permissions for their nuptials to take place regardless. Which is just fine. I just find it ludicrous that some people other than the Queen feel they ought to a have a choice on Harry's preference for a wife, (for whatever reason.) It doesn't work like that.

I guess everyone has their own definition of what it means to be 'low-rent' and to whom it applies . It is not for me to read minds in order to spell it out. The point is the term is derogatory in nature.

In relation to the racial abuse etc directed at Meghan that I referred to earlier, I don't do pm's unless absolutely necessary but I feel the statement released by Kensington Palace late last year was in itself self-explanatory. I haven't the time or inclination to go back wading through numerous agenda-ridden article pieces laden with nasty sarcasm and dog whistles just so I can link to the reams of vile comments. It's there in black & white if you care to look yourself. And if you have an actual understanding and appreciation of what racial prejudice really is.
You are correct, Meghan is not a low-rent actress, I was merely pointing out that utterly vile rubbish is already well-established on forums (NOT TRF) and YouTube clips. Nobody with a whit of intelligence watches them let alone believes them. Unfortunately, because I watch a lot of royal clips they are "Recommended" when I log in as a computer cannot distinguish between truth, honest speculation and hateful lies. Fortunately, this forum keeps threads that veer into inappropriate avenues, well under control.

As to comments about money, the BRF cost the British taxpayers the princely sum of 62p as at June 2016. I don't believe the size of that "investment" qualifies anyone for a seat at a shareholders meeting to decide who can marry whom within the BRF.

As to Meghan's suitability as a royal wife? I think she has a lot more going for her than many other women of Harry's acquaintance. she is a confident, savvy, well-educated woman with a lucrative career and a "life" outside that career that is, by her own choice, public through her humanitarian work. Her address at the UN where she described herself as a feminist was well worth listening to. Surprisingly she still manages to maintain a high degree of privacy by being discreet and not coy.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:11 PM
princesslily's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: West London, United Kingdom
Posts: 182
Well that pressure is like giving an ultimatum so soon and in my opinion feel it is too rushed to test if you are really compatible with one another and able to take on life as a royal which is completely different to being a celebrity and comes with a lot of protocol so I don't see Meghan's media background giving her an advantage. It's a completely different lifestyle with expectations and restrictions.

Would you please provide me a list of how much humanitarian work Meghan's has done? Did she volunteer on a regular basis or just pay a few visits? All I see is two PR based visits, one to Africa and the other to India, and one speech talking about how she feels.

I would hope she's not one of those celebrities that exaggerates her "humanitarian" work as so many celebrities seem to use that for PR.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:14 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,008
No one on this thread has either said (a) the public should decide who Harry should marry or whether (b) publically again decide (en masse??) if the candidate is suitable.
That's not an issue for the public, but an issue for HMQ and Harry.

All that has been said is that whoever he marries will also marry "the job" (and Harry has also said this) and that if it is Meghan, she has more obstacles to overcome than previous brides as she is not British. She has not lived here, doesn't have her own friends here (personal support mechanism) and there are cultural differences. From personal experience there is a huge difference between living in the UK and living in US.

This last comment isn't racist - its about the differences in US/UK culture.

All you Meghan fans - don't get irritated about these type of comments. They are just practical and realistic and therefore positive because those posters saying this do understand the issues and therefore would cut her some slack if it comes to being a new member of the BRF.

BTW - met and married my husband within 10 months. Our 30th anniversary is next week.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:16 PM
princesslily's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: West London, United Kingdom
Posts: 182
Maybe I'm too conservative, but acting in sex scenes, lingerie is a low-rent actress to me.

Right I'm not dictating that it's my choice or the public. I'm just stating my opinion here online as freedom of speech.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-03-2017, 09:52 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
. . . . . All that has been said is that whoever he marries will also marry "the job" (and Harry has also said this) and that if it is Meghan, she has more obstacles to overcome than previous brides as she is not British. She has not lived here, doesn't have her own friends here (personal support mechanism) and there are cultural differences. From personal experience, there is a huge difference between living in the UK and living in the US.

This last comment isn't racist - it's about the differences in US/UK culture.
I agree that she definitely has some cultural mountains to climb, but if that is what Harry and she want then have at it. However, I am not of the opinion it will be easy, in fact, I think it would be easier if she had to learn a foreign language because the supposition is that that part will be a cake walk.

The English language as spoken in the UK versus the USA are two very different languages as the context and idioms can be quite opposite as with Australia and NZ. I watched an American political commentator become confused when reading an Australian twitter comment: "Couldn't organise a p***up in a brewery". He said he understood what p***ed meant but couldn't understand what being angry had to do with a brewery. I always wonder if someone cleared that up for him.

I am a Meghan fan because she is the one that Harry seems set on. She seems to make him happy and I very much remember the photo of he and William arriving at Pippa's wedding. William seemed quite happy and relaxed, Harry not so much!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
Isn't Prince Charles' income funded by the public?

I understand we are going off topic here, but their palaces (including Prince Harry's accomodation), transport, everything is funded by the public as well as the Queen's investments.

I'm sure it isn't only her security. Their future country home's renovations will be funded by the public. Her lifestyle is paid by us, including her private holidays once she marries.
Back in the middle ages the government established two sources of income to provide a 'private income' for the monarch and the heir to the throne - The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Although the monarch and heir don't 'own' these properties as personal properties they are the only ones who can get the income from them, when there is an heir apparent who is also the eldest son of the monarch.

In that sense Charles isn't supported by taxpayers any more than say the Duke of Devonshire is as his income is generated by property held in a sort of trust to fund the private and public lifestyle of the heir to the throne and his family.

The same with The Queen - she supports the extended family from the income of the Duchy of Lancaster's income.

There are clear rules around these Duchies which means that aren't exactly the same as other 'private property' as anything that belongs to the Duchies can't be sold on the whim of the 'holder' of the title. For instance, that means that when Charles becomes King, Highgrove will become the property of Prince William as Highgrove belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall and William with then be the Duke of Cornwall and so the 'owner' of Highgrove but he can't actually sell it either.

They aren't given taxpayer's money anymore than any other landowner is.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:36 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,008
Travel costs for royal engagements are paid for by public money. It is detailed in the annual accounts.

Upkeep of the fabric of royal premises which the monarch is responsible for, including KP, is via public money but not internal decoration etc.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-03-2017, 10:43 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,096
Security is also paid by public money. So trips to Africa, visits to Toronto, the wedding in Jamaica, skiing in Verviers, multiple public funded RPOs have to go with him.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-03-2017, 11:30 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
If you're talking about those audio tapes then yes visual evidence is a lot worse than audio. All you have to do is google Meghan Markle and a lot of sexy photos and sex scene youtube videos appear in the search. That is a lot worse.
This courtship has been badly handled with all the previous hiding after that girlfriend announcement last November. William never hid Kate. Harry should have gradually introduced her and not just snog her in public at the Polo to show he's serious about her.
I'm not saying he won't propose, I'm sure he will surprise us, but all I'm saying is it would be better to live together for one year and gradually introduce her during that year before announcing an official engagement.
I don't see how video of Meghan acting in a "sexy scene"--not doing something actually herself but being an actress in a part-- is worse than what was at the time Charles's sex talk with his mistress. Meghan is not and never has been a star of adult films. She is an educated woman who is also an actress in a long running television show--not anything shameful.

I think the courtship has been handled magnificently--low key and private. If and when they are at the point that Meghan needs to be "introduced to the public" I'm sure they will do that. William didn't hide Kate precisely but they had lots of privacy at university when they first got together. I believe they dated a year before the news that they were a couple came out when Kate went skiing with William's family. But then quiet life at school again until graduation (and Kate did have a rough time for awhile with paparazzi when she lived in London later.) Since they met as college students they also knew each other for 8 or 9 years before getting engaged, a vastly different scenario than Meghan and Harry meeting as 30 somethings.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-03-2017, 11:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
Those royals dated their BF/GF for several years and were gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged. That is the difference. AND they lived together before getting engaged.

This quicky one year visiting each other back and forth is madness to propose so soon. Only because of Meghan's age to have children!
How were BF/GF gradually introduced to the public before getting engaged? Gradually because they mostly dated for many years?

Living together before marriage is not a necessity--commitment to your spouse and life together is the necessity.

If Harry and Meghan have spent their times together wisely, (and since they are not hitting the nightclub scene, I'd say they may be) they are finding out about each other and their commitment to each other, and the possibility of building a life together.

And BTW--there are cell phones and skype nowadays for the times apart.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-04-2017, 12:24 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Woodbridge, United States
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
Maybe I'm too conservative, but acting in sex scenes, lingerie is a low-rent actress to me.
Using those standards Hellen Mirren and Judi Dench are low-rent actress.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-04-2017, 12:51 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
No one on this thread has either said (a) the public should decide who Harry should marry or whether (b) publically again decide (en masse??) if the candidate is suitable.
That's not an issue for the public, but an issue for HMQ and Harry.

All that has been said is that whoever he marries will also marry "the job" (and Harry has also said this) and that if it is Meghan, she has more obstacles to overcome than previous brides as she is not British. She has not lived here, doesn't have her own friends here (personal support mechanism) and there are cultural differences. From personal experience there is a huge difference between living in the UK and living in US.

This last comment isn't racist - its about the differences in US/UK culture.

All you Meghan fans - don't get irritated about these type of comments. They are just practical and realistic and therefore positive because those posters saying this do understand the issues and therefore would cut her some slack if it comes to being a new member of the BRF.

BTW - met and married my husband within 10 months. Our 30th anniversary is next week.
Perhaps cepe, it hasn't been said in so many words, but the implication that the public should decide suitability was read by some of us in some posts (not yours.)

I totally agree with you- if Meghan and Harry marry, Meghan of course will have culture shock with both everyday life in Britain as well as life in the royal family both privately and publicly. I think given her background she would have a smidge of a head start on some of the public aspects.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-04-2017, 12:58 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
Maybe I'm too conservative, but acting in sex scenes, lingerie is a low-rent actress to me.

Then 95‰ of actresses and actors are 'low rent' actresses and actors.

Looking at the history of royal families, so many of these royals do these things in real life, though, that Imo it's crazy when an actress does them in a few scenes here and there, they get called 'low rent'.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-04-2017, 01:16 AM
princesslily's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: West London, United Kingdom
Posts: 182
Those GFs/BFs were gently eased and introduced to the the public for a few years before an engagement was announced.

Generally, entertainers and models behave low-rent IMO. Those actresses mentioned built their careers to greater roles. *added* (royal members do these things in real life) ok did they film it and share publicly because I want to watch with popcorn!

There are some hypocritical posts replying to my posts claiming how should I know if she would be suitable and fit for the role, then I can ask the same to you so why this push to claim Meghan as suitable and pull down others who don't agree? Unless you know her right? We are all equal here and it's just a discussion.

A lot of these media "facts" are part of her PR to mould us into believing she is suitable when she has A LOT of baggage e.g. ambition to be famous, controversial photos and screen scenes, very politically minded (the royal family must show they are politically neutral), family, and divorce.

This is a very important and rewarding job and I still don't feel she is suitable, but it's not my choice. This is how I feel as a British citizen and if Harry wants to marry her then at least it would be better for him to live with her for one year before an official engagement is announced and during that time gradually introduce her to the British public. All other royal partners were gradually introduced before engagements. This rush is just me thinking the pressure is on to have children by the media. Women in their late 30s can still have children!

There was no pressure when members here got married within a year was there? This marriage will come with a lot of responsibilities through their reputation (past and present), their behaviour, their associations AND a lot of pressure publicly. They would need to make sure they really are compatible to take on this lifestyle together.

All I hear from MM fan members is she will be fine. Seems like you know her ok

At the end of the day, no one here knows. I'm just sharing my opinion.

My main concern is Meghan getting fed up of not being able to voice her strong minded opinions and finding it difficult with all the restricting protocol both in public and in private during family gatherings. This isn't just about dealing with the media.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 34 (7 members and 27 guests)
Alliec76, AlowVera, American Observer7, JuliSt, O-H Anglophile, Princess of Durham, teddymac
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
"Harry and Meghan: The Love Story" eya Royal Library 30 10-28-2017 02:39 AM




Popular Tags
affair best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge style duke of cambridge dutch earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king abdullah in australia king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news official visit picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire 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 mathilde 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 united kingdom victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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