The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 08-31-2013, 10:17 PM
Argie's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chatham, Canada
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I absolutely agree. It's one thing to blame your parents in your early 20's, but to blame them for an action you took when you were in your 30's is ridiculous--and to still be blaming them in your 40's is pathetic.
I suppose they were both victims:
Charles: a victim of the sense of duty. Of course he must have been pressured by his parents to marry a suitable girl . Only his parents are not ordinary people, they are part of the Establishment. You can say no to your parents, but can you say no to the Establishment? I'm pretty sure Charles was brought up to take full responsibility of his duties. Duty, that's why he married Diana. He knew he could not have married Camilla, who would have been a divorcee. It was 1980, not 2013.

Diana: show me one 19-year old girl who does not fall in love with the idea of being the future queen of Great Britain. One. She must have fooled herself that she loved him, maybe had a crush on him that faded away once married life, duty and the inherent rigors of the Establishment took over. Add to that her native emotional instability and Camilla's shadow lurking in their bedroom and you have the perfect makeup for marital disaster.

I don't blame Charles. He kept himself more in check than Diana did. Throughout the divorce scandal and subsequent behavior, he came out on top.

In a twisted way, the tragedy of Charles' marriage (and Andrew's marriage fiasco, for that matter), modernized the monarchy. Things that seem acceptable for William and Harry today would have never been acceptable for Charles or Andrew.
__________________

__________________
"I grew up in Europe, where History comes from." - Eddie Izzard.
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 08-31-2013, 10:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Argie, you are so right. You see the real problems and how they were at the time. Charles has the advantage, because he has lived and can create an image for himself in these years. Diana cannot. Neither were good nor bad. I was 19 years old when I first married. But he was wonderful man who loved me and carried me through the first years, when I was a "child". He died after we were married 28 years, which was 25 years ago. I remarried, and have been married for 23 years, but I was much older at that time. Charles never could, really, give of himself. It was not required. And, he, really did not love her. Neither's fault. And, yes, the whole unseemly mess brought the RF into the new century.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 08-31-2013, 10:47 PM
Argie's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chatham, Canada
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Charles has the advantage, because he has lived and can create an image for himself in these years. Diana cannot.
Countess, it's more than that: let's fast forward to our days and imagine Diana would have lived. By now, she would have had her share of romances with men from all walks of life, as she did not seem to be very selective. Or, she would have married Dodi and produced step-siblings of William and Harry with a man of another culture and another religion. I believe she could have been more aware of all the implications of her actions. While she hated the Establishment, she should have remembered that her children were, without any fault of their own, forever part of it.
__________________
"I grew up in Europe, where History comes from." - Eddie Izzard.
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 08-31-2013, 10:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I don't think there has been much Diana bashing at all on here, if there is any bashing it has been directed much more at Charles then Diana....A failing of a marriage is always 50/50.
Gordon Lightfoot's song "If You Could Read My Mind" is about the breakup of his first marriage. His eldest daughter Ingrid made him change the line "I'm just trying to understand the feelings that YOU lack" to "...the feelings that WE lack". She said "Wasn't it a two-way street, Daddy?" at which he replied "You know, you're right. I can't do anything about the record, but (comforting voice here) for the rest of my life, I promise you, I'll say the feelings that we lack." You could just see a twinkle in his eyes during the interview footage.
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 08-31-2013, 11:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryr0249 View Post

I think it was the only way, although imperfect, to assure the legitimacy of a royal heir before early pregnancy tests, DNA or psychological profiles (would that have helped - hmm).
Mette-Marit had a child from a previous relationship when she married Haakon, and it was allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 08-31-2013, 11:04 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post

Mette-Marit had a child from a previous relationship when she married Haakon, and it was allowed.
Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 08-31-2013, 11:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.
You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 09-01-2013, 12:43 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Also, Mette-Marit made a tearful statement of regret for her past lifestyle on television. Scandinavia is has been more liberal than the UK, traditionally. I don't think that William would have been allowed to marry someone like Mette-Marit, even in 2010.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Yeah, but 20 years had passed between when Charles and Diana married and when Haakon and MM married. Opinions changed.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 09-01-2013, 03:47 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post

Charles was just as equally damaging to this marriage and embarrassed the Monarchy (which wasn't perfect in it's self) and caused a great deal of heartache and pain to others. He too made his mistakes and the Camillagate tapes were even worse than Diana's Squidgygate tapes.

Charles also cooperated with a book and admitted on national TV of his adultery. That was embarrassing just as Diana's interview was embarrassing. Charles also had his friends intimidate Diana and some even went on TV to publically criticize her.

Give a break with this one-sided attitude towards Charles & Diana's marriage.
You really just aren't listening now? Just reading the first few sentences and then making a reply. Charles cheated on Diana no one is denying that no one is excusing it! But How Diana dealt with it is what people are criticizing now. There are a number of facets being duscussed here; the affairs and the public attacks are 2 separate issues. I find it very telling that people have posted numerous links to back up their opinions yet Dman never does; just states something is a fact with no proof.
I can't say a man in his 30s shouldn't marry a woman barely out of her teens; I believe it has world for Queen Raina. I think the problem was the individual not necessarily the age. I'm not sure if Diana was older if she would have faired any better.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 09-01-2013, 05:26 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 397
I have been reading this thread this evening going back the past 5 days. As usual this is a volatile subject. Because of the fanfare about the wedding in 1981 and the strong feelings that P. Diana's life and death brought out this discussion always sounds like a family argument. We talk as if these are two of our relatives that got divorced instead of royals that we have never met. But that is what being part of a global village brings about.
That being said- just a couple of observations.

1. Good parents do argue in front of their children. No one is perfect. My parents didn't argue in front of me everyday but I remember when they did. And I have had arguments with my husband in front of our kids. Couples have different fighting styles- one person is usually the yeller and the other withdraws. That's not grounds for a divorce-just a good marriage counselor.

2. From reading various books, I see that this relationship had problems during the first 5 years. It seems that P. Charles's parents were also trying to intervene/counsel. Parents shouldnt do that. The couple doesn't work it their problems and blame gets shifted to the parents. I have read that Diana was sent for counseling and medication was discussed but I have never read that they went to a family counselor. That would have helped.

3. When P. Charles broke his arm in 1990 the couple was already drifting apart and P. Diana had already had some affairs. I am sure her husband knew that and made a decision (not the best one) to start his own affair. If P. Diana wanted to be at Highgrove with her husband she would have been there. Who was going to stop her? That might have been a good time to reconnect as a couple.

4. I wish people would stop saying he didn't love her. He did. He didn't know her and vice versa. And he wasn't equipped to deal with anyone's problems beside his own. I would say the same about P. Diana. In many ways they both had a messed up childhood. Two people like this should not marry it each other.

5. They did try to be good parents and the princes love both of their parents. I think that's most important. And by the teen years children do not love their parents unconditionally. If a child has an abusive/absent parent, by 14-15 y.o., that child like love goes aware and you have a troubled young adult.

6. Finally I don't think P. Diana was against the Establishment. I think she was at the end against her in-laws and the whole way the Windsor family firm runs on a day to day basis. In a way in their TV interviews P. Charles and P. Diana did the same thing- blame the Queen/Monarchy for their problems instead of putting their big kid pants on and taking responsibility for themselves. They both showed an immaturity that took aware from all of their positive attributes.
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 09-01-2013, 06:58 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
You're most welcome to set me straight if I get one of the facts wrong. It has been a few years since I read all the books on the subject, and some details are getting a big fuzzy. When I said "Spencers" I was thinking father and maternal grandmother rather than mother, even though Baroness Fermoy was not a Spencer. I had in mind that Diana didn't really listen to her mother. Actually, I doubt she would have listened to any of them if they did counsel her against the quick marriage. She had her mind set on marrying Charles.


Roslyn, how WONDERFUL to find a voice of calm reason in the middle so much emotion, but I feel that this particular Royal marriage will always give rise to it.

The bottom line is, they should NEVER have married each other and at 19 Diana can't be credited with the emotional maturity to realize it wouldn't work long term because whilst she may have known of his friendship with another, older woman, she would have had no idea of the long term implications of it. Realization may have informed her that his commitment to her couldn't be 100% whilst there was someone else he could turn to. Adultery, of itself is just a physical thing. An emotional attachment to another person is FAR more damaging to a relationship. However, I don't want to be seen as Charles "bashing." I think it was probably a relief when a pretty young girl agreed to marry him but a shock when he realized that he had no idea WHO he'd married. Neither truly knew the other and maybe neither WANTED the other to see who they really were. I suspect that psychological wool was pulled over both pairs of eyes. In fairness to Charles, I really don't think that Diana would have been truly happy with whoever her husband was, she was too insecure, too needy of the constant affirmation from others that she was THE BEST but at least with any other man her insecurities could have been played out in private, away from the public gaze. The irony was, that because of what happened to her psychologically when her parents divorced, she made the ONE marriage which she believed couldn't possibly end in the same way, a divorced heir to the throne COULDN'T happen. She didn't seem to realize that the Spencer pattern of failed marriages had been established over hundreds of years and patterns repeat.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:17 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie View Post
I suppose they were both victims:
Charles: a victim of the sense of duty. Of course he must have been pressured by his parents to marry a suitable girl . Only his parents are not ordinary people, they are part of the Establishment. You can say no to your parents, but can you say no to the Establishment? I'm pretty sure Charles was brought up to take full responsibility of his duties. Duty, that's why he married Diana. He knew he could not have married Camilla, who would have been a divorcee. It was 1980, not 2013.

Diana: show me one 19-year old girl who does not fall in love with the idea of being the future queen of Great Britain. One. She must have fooled herself that she loved him, maybe had a crush on him that faded away once married life, duty and the inherent rigors of the Establishment took over. Add to that her native emotional instability and Camilla's shadow lurking in their bedroom and you have the perfect makeup for marital disaster.

I don't blame Charles. He kept himself more in check than Diana did. Throughout the divorce scandal and subsequent behavior, he came out on top.

In a twisted way, the tragedy of Charles' marriage (and Andrew's marriage fiasco, for that matter), modernized the monarchy. Things that seem acceptable for William and Harry today would have never been acceptable for Charles or Andrew.
This is a very thoughtful post and you raise some excellent points. I don't see Charles as a victim though. He was 30 years old when he married Diana. He showed a lot of backbone when he finally stood up to the Establishment (and the world) and refused to dump Camilla. He should have shown that backbone during his courtship of Diana (on another note: I don't believe Camilla wanted to marry Charles when they first met, so I don't think the failure to marry Camilla was a matter of lack of backbone).

Diana and I were about the same age and I understand her wanting to marry Prince Charles, but I don't think every 19 year old girl in Diana's position would have acted the same way. For every girl who applied to St. Andrew's University after it was announced that William would be attending, there were literally thousands of girls who didn't even consider changing their plans. After several dates of fishing, hiking, shooting, and watching Charles play polo, it would have been obvious when most girls were bored.

1980 was a heady time for Diana and she convinced herself that she could adapt to his kind of life--but that is where family and good friends come in. They knew she hated polo and would rather go nightclubbing than fishing. They probably also knew that she had unrealistic romantic fantasies. Her parents should have explained their concerns to Charles or his parents. That would have given Charles and Diana more space to honestly assess their future.
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:36 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post

2. From reading various books, I see that this relationship had problems during the first 5 years. It seems that P. Charles's parents were also trying to intervene/counsel. Parents shouldnt do that. The couple doesn't work it their problems and blame gets shifted to the parents. I have read that Diana was sent for counseling and medication was discussed but I have never read that they went to a family counselor. That would have helped.
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post. The second point summarizes exactly where Charles (and his parents) failed in trying to save the marriage. A good counselor would helped him understand her illness and helped him develop strategies of how to respond in a constructive way.

But more than that, Charles needed to understand that the problem was not just Diana's mental illness and hysterics, his own behavior was causing problems. In the early years, I think he was emotionally distant, which is extremely destructive in a relationship. His parents, for all their good qualities, are not professional counselors and should have kept out of it.

Quote:
6. Finally I don't think P. Diana was against the Establishment. I think she was at the end against her in-laws and the whole way the Windsor family firm runs on a day to day basis. In a way in their TV interviews P. Charles and P. Diana did the same thing- blame the Queen/Monarchy for their problems instead of putting their big kid pants on and taking responsibility for themselves. They both showed an immaturity that took aware from all of their positive attributes.
Exactly.

Quote:
5. They did try to be good parents and the princes love both of their parents. I think that's most important. And by the teen years children do not love their parents unconditionally. If a child has an abusive/absent parent, by 14-15 y.o., that child like love goes aware and you have a troubled young adult.
I disagree here. Children of all ages love their parents unconditionally, they just don't like us very much with the teen years.
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:07 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
Roslyn, how WONDERFUL to find a voice of calm reason in the middle so much emotion, but I feel that this particular Royal marriage will always give rise to it.

The bottom line is, they should NEVER have married each other and at 19 Diana can't be credited with the emotional maturity to realize it wouldn't work long term because whilst she may have known of his friendship with another, older woman, she would have had no idea of the long term implications of it. Realization may have informed her that his commitment to her couldn't be 100% whilst there was someone else he could turn to. Adultery, of itself is just a physical thing. An emotional attachment to another person is FAR more damaging to a relationship. However, I don't want to be seen as Charles "bashing." I think it was probably a relief when a pretty young girl agreed to marry him but a shock when he realized that he had no idea WHO he'd married. Neither truly knew the other and maybe neither WANTED the other to see who they really were. I suspect that psychological wool was pulled over both pairs of eyes. In fairness to Charles, I really don't think that Diana would have been truly happy with whoever her husband was, she was too insecure, too needy of the constant affirmation from others that she was THE BEST but at least with any other man her insecurities could have been played out in private, away from the public gaze. The irony was, that because of what happened to her psychologically when her parents divorced, she made the ONE marriage which she believed couldn't possibly end in the same way, a divorced heir to the throne COULDN'T happen. She didn't seem to realize that the Spencer pattern of failed marriages had been established over hundreds of years and patterns repeat.
It's great to see this thread back on track.

I am very interested in your comments about the Spencer pattern of failed marriages. Limiting the discussion to immediate family: Charles and Diana's parents, grandparents and siblings: Diana and her sister Sarah admitted bulimia and depression and Diana's brother married at least one woman with similar problems. Although the Earl of Spencer's relationship seem even more volatile than Diana's, Jane and Sarah have been married for years.

At the same time, the Queen and her father had solid marriages (I don't know enough about the marriage of her grandfather to comment). There had to have been problems, but the marriages seemed relatively happy within the context of British aristocracy. But the Queen and Prince Philip apparently didn't teach their children about how to maintain a happy marriage: Edward has enjoyed a happy, stable marriage, but we know what happened to Charles, Andrew and Anne.

I have always thought the problem was more Diana's untreated mental illness and the fact that she married a man who was emotionally unsuited to cope with an ill wife. There are many children of divorce who get divorced themselves, but others learn from their parents, like I think William has and really work at their marriage.

I think Diana took what she thought was the easy route. She didn't want a divorce, but instead of thoughtfully choosing a husband who shared her values and interests and working hard at the relationship, she simply married a man she thought could never divorce her.
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.
Countess, you are direct, I give you that.

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:41 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 397
Thanks. What I meant is those children who have an abusive or absent parent.


I disagree here. Children of all ages love their parents unconditionally, they just don't like us very much with the teen years. [/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.

I don't know that ending the marriage was the best decision; I tend to agree with Robert Lacey that Diana was on a downward spiral following the divorce.

I can't think she'd have married Dodi or anyone like him, because I can't think she took a relationship with him seriously; I have heard she was bored and planned to dump him once she returned to London. Unfortunately, he was the type of man she was attracting.

Also, I don't see what (positive) things were in store for her; she seemed to be sliding into a lifestyle of socializing with Euro-trash and dabbling in New-Age philosophy. And her loneliness seemed palpable.

(I have always feared that she'd end up like her mother eventually).
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:16 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You bet. Different times. Different places. Norway is much more accepting. Sonja is hardly royal, whatever that is. They are a loving family, not as concerned with appearances. Charles needed a super bred philly. Diana was it, Camilla was in the stalls. Argie, I have always said that Diana, if she played it correctly, from a don't upset the applecart theme, could still be POW and front page and Charles could still be skulking off and pretending to be a Tampon. She was a foolish young lady.



COUNTESS, I hear what you're saying, but in order for Diana to have "played it correctly" I feel it would have been necessary for her to have been a much older and wiser woman. I believe that wisdom comes with age/experience. One comes to realize there's no such thing as a free lunch. There HAS to be compromise but there ARE compensations.
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:26 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,444
In this case, had Diana stayed in the marriage for convenience, what message would that have sent to William and Harry?

For commoners, children understand it as their parents sticking together because of money or appearances. Kids see through it, but they also see the problems that arise out of sticking it out.

But in the case of Royalty it can send the unique message that love is not possible in many Royal Marriages. That the job precludes love. Or worse yet that royal men are owed a pretty, unloved wife and a bit on the side. I think Diana might have found that a terrible message to give her boys.

Just my musing on the issue.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:35 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Countess, you are direct, I give you that.

I don't think Diana was foolish in ending the marriage. I think that was the best decision she could have made. Are you saying that you think it should have been more important to her to be Princess of Wales or Queen rather than in a happy home environment? I would choose my husband over being POW or Queen, and that is not a slight to Charles, William, or anyone else.

US Royal Watcher, after my reply to COUNTESS, this may seem like a contradiction. I spoke of compromise to her, but I feel that it would have been unfair to expect this of Diana at HER age because it would have HAD to be a lifetime commitment on her part. A DUTY. I've already said that I don't feel they should ever have married and I think the only chance she stood of being true to herself was by extricating herself from it, partly because she was still young enough to be capable of change. Charles wasn't. I doubt that he ever was, but then he understands duty and I think, to the best of his ability, lives by it. That was a very heavy yolk to place round the neck of a very immature 19 year old.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 434 08-12-2015 06:00 PM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 10:35 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall's fashion e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week poland state visit to norway prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises