The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 09-04-2017, 09:04 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Honestly, the only thing I'd be bummed about if the wedding is at Windsor is we won't have a balcony kiss.
There's the St. George's steps though. Then there's that intimate carriage procession through Windsor.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #302  
Old 09-04-2017, 09:47 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I suspect all we will see will be a church service at the Abbey as they did for the 40th, 50th and 60th wedding anniversaries and maybe a lunch at the Guildhall.

I very much doubt there would be a tiara event for such an occasion. That isn't the British way anymore.
Charles also threw them a party at CH for their 60th. So while we probably won't see tiaras we might get a black tie picture of the extended BRF like we did for their 60th. The Queen & The Duke Of Edinburgh 60th Diamond Wedding Anniversary Photos and Images | Getty Images
__________________

  #303  
Old 09-04-2017, 09:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I've always thought Windsor is the best place for weddings. Especially for Harry's position. We don't see enough of St. George's Chapel too.

Yes, the restorations at Buckingham Palace do make Windsor the best location.
To be honest, I think of Windsor as second-rate.
It's not the Abbey!

I admit it is a pretty venue, but it is not for the top tier royals.
  #304  
Old 09-04-2017, 10:00 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
To be honest, I think of Windsor as second-rate.
It's not the Abbey!

I admit it is a pretty venue, but it is not for the top tier royals.
No, its not the Abbey, but it's the most glorious and intimate place for royal weddings. I just get the feeling Harry and his bride will want a more intimate setting for their wedding.

The Abbey could do as well. When one think about the vast friends and charitable organizations they would invite.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #305  
Old 09-04-2017, 10:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
To be honest, I think of Windsor as second-rate.
It's not the Abbey!

I admit it is a pretty venue, but it is not for the top tier royals.

It was good enough for Queen Victoria's heir apparent in 1863. You don't get much more 'top tier' than that. Most of her children married there - actual children of the monarch not the younger son of the heir to the throne.

St George's is plenty grand enough for a minor royal such as Harry who will be even lower in importance by the time he marries in all likelihood.

Westminster Abbey has only been the home of royal weddings since 1919 as the previous wedding before that was in 1382 - hardly all that traditional a venue it seems.
  #306  
Old 09-04-2017, 10:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,457
Harry is hardly a minor Royal, nor will he be in the foreseeable future. He's one of the only two children of the Prince of Wales. When Charles becomes King he will be a sovereign's son. In which universe does that mean minor Royal status? In William's reign Harry will be the King's only sibling and if the monarchy lasts that long he will be the only Royal uncle to King George.

It isn't as if George, Charlotte and the new baby are going to come rushing home from school to perform Royal duties. It's likely to be twenty five years or more before George becomes a full time Royal and we don't know if Charlotte or the new baby will ever take up Royal duties like their great aunt and uncles did.

There's no need IMHO to try and denigrate Harry to minor Royal status simply because the Cambridges are having a third baby. In Charles's reign the minor royals are likely to be the Yorks and probably the Wessexes, though Anne and the Wessexes are likely to still carry out engagements.
  #307  
Old 09-04-2017, 11:03 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Harry is hardly a minor Royal, nor will he be in the foreseeable future. He's one of the only two children of the Prince of Wales. When Charles becomes King he will be a sovereign's son. In which universe does that mean minor Royal status? In William's reign Harry will be the King's only sibling and if the monarchy lasts that long he will be the only Royal uncle to King George.

It isn't as if George, Charlotte and the new baby are going to come rushing home from school to perform Royal duties. It's likely to be twenty five years or more before George becomes a full time Royal and we don't know if Charlotte or the new baby will take up Royal duties.

There's no need IMHO to try and denigrate Harry to minor Royal status simply because the Cambridges are having a third baby. In Charles's reign the minor royals are likely to be the Yorks and probably the Wessexes, though Anne and the Wessexes are likely to still carry out engagements.
No, Harry isn't a minor royal. He's a senior member of the royal family indeed. It's just that Harry isn't for the grand theatrics. He's a simple guy.

Now if the future wife-to-be want the Abbey, she'll get the Abbey with the blessing of The Queen and Prince of Wales.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #308  
Old 09-04-2017, 11:07 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
This is a job, not just a marriage, sadly. She will be representing us and we are paying for it.

With all the complaining he's been doing since dating Meghan, maybe he should step down from his title and tax benefits and live off his mother's inheritance? I'm sure Meghan will stay with him. She does love him right?
Hmmm, I'm not sure about all the ins-and-outs of how royalty is 'paid for' in Britain. But if you're upset about 'paying for the royals,' why not start up an effort to vote out the monarchy, similar to the Brexit vote?

I don't think many royals will have such a hard time being relieved of their royal duties. The British royal family is independently wealthy and will do just fine should they be relieved of the British public having to 'pay' for all the pomp and circumstance. Harry & Meghan would probably just as soon have an intimate, private family wedding, rather than a royal wedding.

Meghan has worked very hard in her life to achieve the success she has attained in her career. She's very well-off financially and she does not need the royals. Nor does she need any unhappy Britishers whining or warning in high-minded fashion about having to 'pay for' whatever you clearly are begrudging in advance having to pay for in terms of taxes (in connection with Prince Harry's public duties, his probable royal wedding, and subsequent public support for the roles that he and his wife will take on).
  #309  
Old 09-04-2017, 11:11 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,667
It will also depend on the government. Royal weddings are good for tourism and with Brexit it could be considered a timely asset. Conversely, TPTB may advise Windsor for security reasons.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #310  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:02 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen6010 View Post
... I do not understand the push for any marriage to happen so quickly. As you say she would be taking on a job, and the entire BRF, not just Prince Harry. She would need to understand how the whole systems works and the part she would be expected to play, and that is to be supportive and not upstage the BRF. There is no "Princess School " and Diana and Sarah suffered as a result. Catherine and Sophie had the benefit of very long courtships in which to observe and learn. After all, this is the way the royals themselves learn the job.

I also agree that British public opinion is important. If there is to be a marriage, Meghan needs to be properly introduced and this takes time. The sort of publicity they are attracting at the moment is not IMHO terribly helpful. A longer courtship, with time in the UK, is needed.
H&M are not out trying to 'attract' attention and publicity. Quite the opposite. It's the pushy media and over-anxious vs over-fascinated royal followers doing all the haranguing, hand-wringing and speculating. As well, H&M to me seem to be moving carefully and at their own pace. Why such hurry-scurry worrying on your part?

I've already addressed most of your other OTT worries in my previous posts. What's up with all your peremptory warnings and anxiety?! How do you know what Meghan is learning during her stays at Kensington Palace re royal protocol and the inner workings of royal life? She surely already has had conversations with Prince Harry, his mentors and royal staffers regarding what marrying into the royal firm would entail. I truthfully do not understand your and others' rush to such negative and judgmental perceptions and questionings. Were you as concerned for Harry's other serious girlfriends?
  #311  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:32 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I think even for a smallish wedding, for a royal wedding they would need more than 2 months to plan it.
More than two months, certainly, but not much more:
Elizabeth and Philip - four months from engagement to wedding.
Margaret and Tony - three and a half months.
Charles and Diana - five months.
Andrew and Sarah - four months.
Edward and Sophie - six months.
William and Catherine - five months.

The BRF doesn't really do long public engagements like those of the Continental Royals. Peter and Autumn's ten months was extremely long by BRF standards, as was Mike and Zara's seven months. If there's a wedding in their future, Harry and Meghan could announce their engagement in December after The Queen's 70th anniversary or early in the new year, before the birth of Cambridge #3, with the wedding in June after the birth. Those timelines work.
  #312  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:45 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
More than two months, certainly, but not much more:
Elizabeth and Philip - four months from engagement to wedding.
Margaret and Tony - three and a half months.
Charles and Diana - five months.
Andrew and Sarah - four months.
Edward and Sophie - six months.
William and Catherine - five months.

The BRF doesn't really do long public engagements like those of the Continental Royals. Peter and Autumn's ten months was extremely long by BRF standards, as was Mike and Zara's seven months. If there's a wedding in their future, Harry and Meghan could announce their engagement in December after The Queen's 70th anniversary or early in the new year, before the birth of Cambridge #3, with the wedding in June after the birth. Those timelines work.
Yes, June would be better than July. July will probably be baby Cambridge's Christening, before HM and DoE head to Balmoral
  #313  
Old 09-05-2017, 02:51 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by princesslily View Post
... 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.

Right, it would be better for them to live together for one year and during that time gradually introduce her to the British public.

I still believe she's not appropriate for the job because of her sexualised career. Though I have no say apparently as a member of the tax paying British public.

I also thought Harry inherited millions from his mother? He could happily live without a title and royal duties, join the army, and visit Africa as often as he likes. He would love that. Would Meghan?

It must seem romantic going back and forth visiting each other, but living together for one year and getting into the routine of a "married" couple would really prove they are compatible. I don't believe they are compatible, but again just my opinion. Harry loves the safari camping holidays, Meghan loves the luxury resort holidays. I hope I'm wrong and Meghan isn't just putting up with these holidays...
Why such a negative rap on sexuality? Are you perturbed that Harry seems to find Meghan most attractive and very sexy? Acting is an honorable career, very highly regarded in Britain. I would not call it a "sexualized occupation." Meghan has worked diligently at being successful in her career and in all aspects of her life. From all accounts and appearances, she has conducted herself professionally and with a great deal of decorum on the set of Suits. Acting requires courage, professionalism, and a degree of vulnerability and creative versatility. And there's no indication whatsoever that Meghan doesn't possess the highest of characters in the way she has conducted her personal life.

Are you as concerned about funding current members of the royal family, to the degree that you've expressed re Meghan?

Is it the royal title then that you're so worried about? You don't want Meghan to automatically hold a royal title upon marriage to Prince Harry??

You seem to be suggesting that enjoying stays at 'luxury resorts' is somehow inappropriate and not a good thing. Meghan highlighted travel tips and vacations on her Tig site, but she's no longer active on social media. Why are you getting so overwrought about what you think she 'loves'?

Neither Harry nor Meghan need to prove anything to any of us regarding their personal relationship. Are you a dating/marriage counselor? What qualifies you to claim what's best for Harry & Meghan? How would you know whether or not they are compatible? To the contrary, all of the available evidence indicates that they are quite comfortable as well as compatible with each other. Your queries and worries all seem to carry an unwarranted negative connotation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
... 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...
Meghan has friends in the U.K. independent of Prince Harry's friends, and she's known these British friends since before she met Harry. Also, one of her long time girlfriends lives in the U.K. Meghan has visited Britain on other occasions prior to meeting Harry, and even more-so since she's been dating Harry and spending time with him at K.P.

Meghan has already had years of experience adjusting to life in a country other than the U.S., and she's seemed to have thrived in the process. Even if your concerns are valid, I'm not sure why you seem so overly concerned about Meghan taking to life in Britain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
...Harry should drop the secrecy if he wants the Brutish public to warm up to Meghan.
As someone already pointed out, there's nothing at all 'secret' about the relationship. The fact that H&M are staying out of the public eye as much as possible is for a reason. The tabloid press frenzy is irresponsible, and H&M are not going to play into it.
  #314  
Old 09-05-2017, 03:38 AM
Helen6010's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4
Harry and Meghan: Relationship Musings

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
H&M are not out trying to 'attract' attention and publicity. Quite the opposite. It's the pushy media and over-anxious vs over-fascinated royal followers doing all the haranguing, hand-wringing and speculating. As well, H&M to me seem to be moving carefully and at their own pace. Why such hurry-scurry worrying on your part?

I've already addressed most of your other OTT worries in my previous posts. What's up with all your peremptory warnings and anxiety?! How do you know what Meghan is learning during her stays at Kensington Palace re royal protocol and the inner workings of royal life? She surely already has had conversations with Prince Harry, his mentors and royal staffers regarding what marrying into the royal firm would entail. I truthfully do not understand your and others' rush to such negative and judgmental perceptions and questionings. Were you as concerned for Harry's other serious girlfriends?


What exactly are you trying to imply in your final sentence? As it happens, I was. I thought he and Chelsy were too young and Cressida a poor match.

Nor did I say they were deliberately attracting attention to themselves.

I fail to see why the fact that some believe a longer courtship would be beneficial should generate such concern. At no point have I stated that I think her in anyway unsuitable. But I do believe that there is no reason they should not take their time so that, if they wed, Meghan is as well prepared as she can be and walks in with her eyes wide open.

Lovely interview with Meghan in this months vanity Fair. "We're a couple. We're in love"
  #315  
Old 09-05-2017, 06:17 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 332
Oh geez, I thought I was able to avoide all of this they aren't ready stuff when I was out for the weekend and came back after the Cambridges announced baby #3.

I highly doubt a marriage would happen it the first half of 2019. As it stands with Meghan's schedule and having to make a transatlantic move after Suits wraps, an engagement will probably not be announced until Spring of 2019, followed by a Fall wedding. By that point, they would've been together for 2+ years. That's plenty for people in their 30s to know if they are with the right person. If they know, then get on with it. If they know it isn't, they'd get on with it in a different way obviously, but still get on with it. They won't have a 5 year relationship like people who met in their teens or twenties. Just like most of us won't.

As for those who like to consider Harry a minor royal, do you consider Princess Anne to be a minor royal when she married or Prince Andrew when he married? Bottom line is that they are all senior royals, but gets less important with time as the direct line expands. However, at this point in time, Harry is a senior royal and will continue to be. In fact, I'd argue he'd be more important to Charles and William's reign than the PoW's siblings are right now for the sheer reason Charles only has two kids versus the Queen's four.
  #316  
Old 09-05-2017, 06:23 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 54
Harry & Meghan will have the final say on the type of wedding they want. They are both strong willed so I doubt they will be forced to have a wedding that neither of them want. Harry is now going to be 6th in line to the throne which also means the couple will be under less pressure.

As much as some would like for them to have a big wedding at the Abbey or St Pauls, it doesn’t mean H&M necessarily want that. I honestly do not see them having a big wedding in London simply because it doesn’t seem to fit with what we know of H&Ms personality. Also Meghan’s first wedding was on a beach in Jamaica so she doesn’t strike me as someone who would be pushing for a lot of pomp! I don’t think Meghan’s family would be pushing for a big wedding either and she has said a few times that her mother is a free spirit! As for Harry he now has the look of someone who has been yearning to break free hence why he keeps talking about wanting to be ‘normal’, and having a large pomp wedding won’t fit into that image he’s trying to create for himself.
  #317  
Old 09-05-2017, 06:57 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Oh geez, I thought I was able to avoide all of this they aren't ready stuff when I was out for the weekend and came back after the Cambridges announced baby #3.

I highly doubt a marriage would happen it the first half of 2019. As it stands with Meghan's schedule and having to make a transatlantic move after Suits wraps, an engagement will probably not be announced until Spring of 2019, followed by a Fall wedding. By that point, they would've been together for 2+ years. That's plenty for people in their 30s to know if they are with the right person. If they know, then get on with it. If they know it isn't, they'd get on with it in a different way obviously, but still get on with it. They won't have a 5 year relationship like people who met in their teens or twenties. Just like most of us won't.

As for those who like to consider Harry a minor royal, do you consider Princess Anne to be a minor royal when she married or Prince Andrew when he married? Bottom line is that they are all senior royals, but gets less important with time as the direct line expands. However, at this point in time, Harry is a senior royal and will continue to be. In fact, I'd argue he'd be more important to Charles and William's reign than the PoW's siblings are right now for the sheer reason Charles only has two kids versus the Queen's four.
Andrew has been regarded as a 'minor' royal since William was born - so since he was third in the line of succession. By that definition Harry is a 'minor' royal with a child in his generation and the next ahead of him in the line of succession.

Margaret was moved to 'minor' status with the birth of Charles for the same reason - one in her generation and one in the next.

She too was the second child of the monarch and then the sibling of the monarch but for most of her adult life she was seen as a 'minor' member of the family and Andrew, Edward and Anne are in that position now - the younger children of the monarch and Harry has joined them.

All the monarch's children are important but when there is an heir in the next generation then the younger children move to 'minor' and 'hanger-on' status in the minds of many in the public.
  #318  
Old 09-05-2017, 07:04 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,021
Harry and Meghan don't really have the final say in their wedding. For example, say they want 2500 people at St Paul's with the Household Guards lining the route and escorted by the Household Calvary with a RAF flypast over BP afterwards and the Government say no. They aren't getting that.

Anne and Andrew were both 4 in line to the throne when they got married and children of the monarch. Margaret was also 4th in line and child of monarch when married. If Harry gets married during the Queen's reign, he is going to be sixth in line and only a grandchild of the monarch.

The opposite scenario is also true. If William and Kate wanted a wedding like Pippa's, that wasn't going to happen either because of William's position as future King.

It's going to be a compromise of what the couple, the royal family and the government want unless they do something private like Peter's or Zara's wedding.
  #319  
Old 09-05-2017, 07:23 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Harry and Meghan don't really have the final say in their wedding. For example, say they want 2500 people at St Paul's with the Household Guards lining the route and escorted by the Household Calvary with a RAF flypast over BP afterwards and the Government say no. They aren't getting that.

It's going to be a compromise of what the couple, the royal family and the government want unless they do something private like Peter's or Zara's wedding.
As I mentioned I don't think H&M would want a big wedding. The point I was making is that they won't be forced to have a big pomp wedding just to please others. If they choose to have a smaller wedding it is their decision.
  #320  
Old 09-05-2017, 07:27 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,341
Meghan is on the cover of the October issue of Vanity Fair, and in her interview speaks about her relationship with Harry.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...le-cover-story

Quote:
Markle, new to fame, has handled the hoopla with surprising aplomb. “It has its challenges, and it comes in waves—some days it can feel more challenging than others,” she says. “And right out of the gate it was surprising the way things changed. But I still have this support system all around me, and, of course, my boyfriend’s support.”
Quote:
How does Markle handle the tabloid nonsense about her and Harry? “I can tell you that at the end of the day I think it’s really simple,” she says. “We’re two people who are really happy and in love. We were very quietly dating for about six months before it became news, and I was working during that whole time, and the only thing that changed was people’s perception. Nothing about me changed. I’m still the same person that I am, and I’ve never defined myself by my relationship.”
Quote:
“We’re a couple,” she explains. “We’re in love. I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time. This is for us. It’s part of what makes it so special, that it’s just ours. But we’re happy. Personally, I love a great love story.”
Quote:
The couple met in London through friends in July 2016, Markle says.
__________________

__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 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
"Harry and Meghan: The Love Story" eya Royal Library 20 09-13-2017 04:21 PM




Popular Tags
albania assassination beatrice (1986- ) beatrice borromeo bernadotte best outfit birthday crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria hats cymry denmark duchess of cambridge evening wear duke of cambridge e-mail english books fascism fashion poll fashion poll october 2016 fashion suggestions fashio poll killing monarchy myth november november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week pierre casiraghi prince charles prince felix prince harken in canada princess charlene princess charlene eveningwear princess claire of luxembourg princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess sofia prince william queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia suits queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion rohans royalties sally bedell smith state visit succession sweden swedish royal family 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 06:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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