The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 07-17-2007, 04:27 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Of course she knows. HM knowing is immaterial, it's us knowing that will drop the Windsors in the turd.
Oh my God, I can see how that conversation would go:

Diana: Hmm, excuse me ma'am but there's a little something I forgot to mention about Harry...

The Queen: PARDON?

If the Queen knows that Harry is NOT Charles' son, the only way would be if Hewitt tried to blackmail the Royal Family with the knowledge.

I doubt if Diana would totally unprompted reveal news that Harry is not Charles' son to her in-laws.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 07-17-2007, 06:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 197
I keep having to remind myself that this is a Forum. And people have a right to discuss things they are interested in and have a query.

But I am trying to continue to see where and how these discussions build up and prove anything.

The most impressive post to me was I believe TonyaR's pics-squarely in the faces of the individuals.

Another post that impressed me was that "its all in the eyes of the beholder" Also all of us human beings are capable of many good bad and otherwise things.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 07-18-2007, 01:38 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Why? I find this sort of argument simplistic in the extreme. Diana was a child when Charles was dating her sister, IMO, Charles would not have looked at a child in that way, Hewitt and Diana were adults at the time. There are very many cases of men & women sleeping with their wife/husbands sibling, as there are many cases of a wife or husband, straight after marriage or a child, bemoaning the fact that the spouse doesn't understand, isn't spending the time with her/him, etc.
Anyway what I was saying is that it's not because you meet someone that you sleep with him. The Charles/Diana/Sarah thing was just an example.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 07-18-2007, 07:22 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by olga101 View Post
I keep having to remind myself that this is a Forum. And people have a right to discuss things they are interested in and have a query.

But I am trying to continue to see where and how these discussions build up and prove anything.

The most impressive post to me was I believe TonyaR's pics-squarely in the faces of the individuals.

Another post that impressed me was that "its all in the eyes of the beholder" Also all of us human beings are capable of many good bad and otherwise things.
i don't think anyone is really trying to prove anything, at least not to the world. people believe what they want to believe. for me, i have my opinion and i don't want to force it on anyone. if there's something to prove otherwise then i'm open to it. for example, i don't think harry looks at all like philip but others do. it's hard not to get emotional about some of the topics discussed here (i've been guilty of that!)but it's interesting to hear how/what others feel. some people are quite passionate about some topics and that's ok too.

it's hard not to get caught up in some of the discussions as some posters are quite passionate but all in all i don't think anyone believes they're going to change popular opinion (maybe i'm wrong). i'm always open to something that may change the way i feel about this subject. for me, i don't think harry looks at all like philip so that's not proof of parentage but other see a resemblance so that's all the proof they need and that's ok.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 07-20-2007, 05:02 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
Anyway what I was saying is that it's not because you meet someone that you sleep with him. The Charles/Diana/Sarah thing was just an example.
True, but they did both admit to having an affair and one wonders when and under what circumstances, it turned from knowing one another to the full blown thing. Was an instant attraction and if so when did they act on it.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 07-20-2007, 06:25 AM
tara1983's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SYDNEY, Australia
Posts: 66
let it go

The only person who knows who's harry's father is, is diana.

i really think the press really need to let this go so what if harry is not charles son at the end of the day he is a happy guy.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 07-20-2007, 07:13 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
I don't really think the press will let this go because natural bloodlines (not adoption) is the basis of royalty's inheritance.

If it were the matter that the son of the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of England or any other celebrity was not the natural son of his father, the papers may try to make it out into a scandal but it wouldn't have any other implications and there would be a limit to how much the papers could really go with the story and have people care. If the White House ever had a situation where the First Lady fooled around on the President and had a son which the President would claim as his own, it would really have no implications outside the immediate family.

With an institution based on bloodlines, there is more implication if one of the sons is not the natural son of his father. The royals are in a unique position that inherits its position by bloodlines which is not shared by celebrities or politicians.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 07-20-2007, 07:28 AM
GillW's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Nottingham, United Kingdom
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
But don't you think the Queen would've known if Harry wasn't her grandson.
Well I know that if I ever thought my son was not my husband's, then hell would freeze over before I let MY mother-in-law find THAT out!! - even more so if she was The Queen!!

On a personal note, I believe Harry gets his red hair and facial looks from the Spencer side of his family. As a child at his mother's funeral he was almost identical to one of his red-haired cousins (wish I could find a photo...)

I firmly believe he is Charles's son as, although Hewitt & Diana were at the occasional polo game at the same time before Harrry was born, I believe they did not become friends (or more) until after he was already here. I also don't feel that DIana "gave up" on her marriage until after Harry was born.

My belief is that as far as Manakee was concerned she may have been infatuated and that they were very close, but I don't have any conviction that they were truly lovers.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 07-20-2007, 07:40 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Southend, Canada
Posts: 144
I wasn't aware of any close connection between the two either until Diana had riding lessons from Hewitt for herself and then her sons- long after Harry was born.
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 07-20-2007, 10:49 AM
TonyaR's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: *, Canada
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by GillW View Post
Well I know that if I ever thought my son was not my husband's, then hell would freeze over before I let MY mother-in-law find THAT out!! - even more so if she was The Queen!!

On a personal note, I believe Harry gets his red hair and facial looks from the Spencer side of his family. As a child at his mother's funeral he was almost identical to one of his red-haired cousins (wish I could find a photo...)

I firmly believe he is Charles's son as, although Hewitt & Diana were at the occasional polo game at the same time before Harrry was born, I believe they did not become friends (or more) until after he was already here. I also don't feel that DIana "gave up" on her marriage until after Harry was born.

My belief is that as far as Manakee was concerned she may have been infatuated and that they were very close, but I don't have any conviction that they were truly lovers.
There are some photos of the Spencer side of the family in post 288 in this thread. There is a photo of George McCorquodale there, I believe he is the relative that you are speaking of.
__________________
“Promise me you'll always remember: You're braver than you believe, ..stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.”
~Christopher Robin to Pooh
(A.A. Milne)
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 07-20-2007, 04:42 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyaR View Post
There are some photos of the Spencer side of the family in post 288 in this thread. There is a photo of George McCorquodale there, I believe he is the relative that you are speaking of.
Yep, the sandy red hair is a Spencer trait. I don't think there was ever any doubt about that.
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 07-20-2007, 11:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 197
Harry and Hewitt

Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I don't really think the press will let this go because natural bloodlines (not adoption) is the basis of royalty's inheritance.

If it were the matter that the son of the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of England or any other celebrity was not the natural son of his father, the papers may try to make it out into a scandal but it wouldn't have any other implications and there would be a limit to how much the papers could really go with the story and have people care. If the White House ever had a situation where the First Lady fooled around on the President and had a son which the President would claim as his own, it would really have no implications outside the immediate family.

With an institution based on bloodlines, there is more implication if one of the sons is not the natural son of his father. The royals are in a unique position that inherits its position by bloodlines which is not shared by celebrities or politicians.

That's absolutely the truth-royalty is a whole new ballgame as far as natural born. But what I would like to know--is there a lot of concern in England in the press, spoken or otherwise concerning this?
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 07-21-2007, 12:23 AM
Royal Highness
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon View Post
Sometimes you sound more republican then Cherie Blair, Beatrixfan!

I'm pretty sure the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles all know who is Harry's father.
Based on the great likeness between Harry and his father & grandfather, I think I know that too.
Only my private opinion.
Yes, Avalon. That's exactly the same than I think. Sometimes, I suprised about how republican some members of the Forums are.

As for this question of Prince Charles paternity, I've stated the same than you: if Prince Harry was not his son, the Queen should already know it! England Intelligentsia is there for something...

Vanesa.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 07-21-2007, 04:59 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalon View Post
I'm pretty sure the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles all know who is Harry's father.
I too am pretty sure they all know, but whoever they know is the father, it will never be made public!
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 07-21-2007, 06:59 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by olga101 View Post
That's absolutely the truth-royalty is a whole new ballgame as far as natural born. But what I would like to know--is there a lot of concern in England in the press, spoken or otherwise concerning this?
Hi Olga,

Well my own experience is a little different. I don't want to state myself as an expert or scientific pollster by any means but I have spoken to several Brits who work in my area and kinda tested their reactions on royalty, Charles and Camilla, William and Harry, etc. I work in the financial services industry in downtown Manhattan and we get a lot of expatriate Brits in the area. The head of our HR department is a native of the southern England public school system and a graduate of Oxford. (in England, the public schools are historically the upper class very private schools) The population I talked to is more men who work in the area.

In talking with them, I find a consensus among them that they're not interested in following royalty, they're ambivalent with royalty as an institution, they like Charles and Camilla offhandedly but dont' adore them but they're pretty sure that Harry is not Charles' son.

The first time I heard this comment was when I had a conversation one night with a British man in a local pub and I asked him what he thought of the recent marriage of Charles and Camilla. He said he felt sorry for Charles, he wished both of them well and of course didn't we all know that Harry was not Charles' son. Well I hadn't brought up Harry so I was surprised he so readily mentioned it. He didn't hate Diana; he said he felt sorry for all of them and that it was a big mess for everybody. This man wasn't really interested in royalty per se but he definitely had an opinion on who Harry's father was.

I'm interested in what these types of Brits think rather than Brits who are either ferverently for or against anyone in the monarchy because I think that the royal family's fate is probably most closely hinged to what the disinterested masses think of them rather than the opinions of their most strident detractors or most ardent adorers.

My own opinion of Harry's paternity is that he is not Hewitt's son because the timing of Harry's conception is a bit too early I think for Diana to get disgusted with her marriage and heavily involved with Hewitt to have an affair that would produce a child. If Harry had been born two years later then my opinion would have changed.

I think in any case that people's willingness to discuss Harry's paternity so openly whether they think he is or is not Charles' son may be a sign of a growing public disrespect for the monarchy and so I think the subject has broader implications than just Charles, Diana, Hewitt, and Harry.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 07-22-2007, 06:26 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
Hi Olga,

Well my own experience is a little different. I don't want to state myself as an expert or scientific pollster by any means but I have spoken to several Brits who work in my area and kinda tested their reactions on royalty, Charles and Camilla, William and Harry, etc. I work in the financial services industry in downtown Manhattan and we get a lot of expatriate Brits in the area. The head of our HR department is a native of the southern England public school system and a graduate of Oxford. (in England, the public schools are historically the upper class very private schools) The population I talked to is more men who work in the area.

In talking with them, I find a consensus among them that they're not interested in following royalty, they're ambivalent with royalty as an institution, they like Charles and Camilla offhandedly but dont' adore them but they're pretty sure that Harry is not Charles' son.

The first time I heard this comment was when I had a conversation one night with a British man in a local pub and I asked him what he thought of the recent marriage of Charles and Camilla. He said he felt sorry for Charles, he wished both of them well and of course didn't we all know that Harry was not Charles' son. Well I hadn't brought up Harry so I was surprised he so readily mentioned it. He didn't hate Diana; he said he felt sorry for all of them and that it was a big mess for everybody. This man wasn't really interested in royalty per se but he definitely had an opinion on who Harry's father was.

I'm interested in what these types of Brits think rather than Brits who are either ferverently for or against anyone in the monarchy because I think that the royal family's fate is probably most closely hinged to what the disinterested masses think of them rather than the opinions of their most strident detractors or most ardent adorers.

My own opinion of Harry's paternity is that he is not Hewitt's son because the timing of Harry's conception is a bit too early I think for Diana to get disgusted with her marriage and heavily involved with Hewitt to have an affair that would produce a child. If Harry had been born two years later then my opinion would have changed.

I think in any case that people's willingness to discuss Harry's paternity so openly whether they think he is or is not Charles' son may be a sign of a growing public disrespect for the monarchy and so I think the subject has broader implications than just Charles, Diana, Hewitt, and Harry.
that's really interesting stuff ysbel..thanks for sharing! "IF" he's not charles son, and when that information is ever made public (either through official means or leaked out) it will be years after all the main players are gone. i remember reading somewhere that jackie kennedy had information about something (can't remember what it was about) and that it would be made public but it wouldn't happen until 50 years after her children were dead. now i don't know how she planned to to ensure the timing but i'm only using this as a comparison. there are illegitimate "royal" children throughout history so at some time, the information is made public and if harry is hewitt's son, that too will become public.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 07-22-2007, 06:42 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I'm interested in what these types of Brits think rather than Brits who are either ferverently for or against anyone in the monarchy because I think that the royal family's fate is probably most closely hinged to what the disinterested masses think of them rather than the opinions of their most strident detractors or most ardent adorers.
Most of the chaps who help on the farm are of the opinion that Harry is not Charles' son. They too are not particularly interested in royals, I would go so far as to repeat that quite a few describe them as parasites.

Most of our friends and close associates hold the same view regarding Harrys parentage, although with them you could say like attracts like and we would hardly be friends with a raving republican.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 07-22-2007, 10:54 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
i remember reading somewhere that jackie kennedy had information about something (can't remember what it was about) and that it would be made public but it wouldn't happen until 50 years after her children were dead. now i don't know how she planned to to ensure the timing but i'm only using this as a comparison.
I think there is a top-secret level of presidential documents where things can't be released until 50 years after the death of the president in question. So maybe that is how her supposed "secret" was protected. JFK died in 1963, making 2013 the half-centennial.
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 07-22-2007, 11:08 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
I think there is a top-secret level of presidential documents where things can't be released until 50 years after the death of the president in question. So maybe that is how her supposed "secret" was protected. JFK died in 1963, making 2013 the half-centennial.

yes i think that's exactly what i was thinking of.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 07-22-2007, 01:22 PM
TonyaR's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: *, Canada
Posts: 328
What I don't understand is how these 'chaps who help on the farm' and others have come to the "oh so sure" conclusion that Diana and Hewitt are just outright lying, and Prince Harry is Hewitt's son?

Is he supposed to be his son, because simply they say he is? It seems as if these 'chaps' are completely ignoring Harry's strong resemblance to his aunt Sarah McCorquodale and her son, his cousin George for starters.
Harry and George McCorquodale look so much alike they look like brothers; the resemblance is very strong. Their hair is the exact same shade of red and the exact same texture; it even has the same growth pattern. Once the red hair factor is eliminated, then what is left to call a resemblance?

The only thing left would be to start explaining away Harry's resemblence to his family and saying that all redheads look alike. But if they do that, then that would blow their own theory out of the water. Harry and Hewitt don't share any other physical characteristics, so they'd have to start making things up to fit their theory.
Which brings me back to my original question: why are these people so very certain that Diana and James Hewitt are just outright lying about the year they became involved?

It's as if they're trying to say that despite Diana's claims that she was still interacting with her husband when Prince William was a baby, they are absolutely determined to believe that she is lying, and that she was cheating on her husband almost from day 1.
There is only 2 years age difference between William and Harry, it was still early in their marriage when Harry was conceived. Diana said she was faithful at that time. Either she was lying or she was telling the truth. There is no in between. Hewitt has said that they were not involved in 1983. Either he's lying or he's telling the truth.

If they are both believed to be lying, then why? What else are they going on besides the hair colour?
There isn't any other physical resemblance that can beat out the physical resemblance that Harry has to his Spencer relatives. Other than both of them having red hair, Prince Harry doesn't look anything like James Hewitt. The red hair isn't even the same type. Hewitt's hair has a tendency to be curly or wavy. Prince Harry's doesn't.

Hewitt is a medium sized man with small hands and feet and a weak chin. Harry is tall (6'2". Another Spencer trait) and his hands and feet are large; he has a strong jawline that resembles Prince Phillip's. In some of the photos I included, you can see Harry from the side and he's smiling. Even his smile lines look like Prince Phillip's.

His eyebrows and brow bone look exactly like his grandfather's also, and the older he gets the more pronounced that resemblance becomes. When Harry gets older he'll have those exact same heavy, bushy brows that Prince Phillip has, they're just lighter in colour.

Given Harry's obvious and strong resemblance to the red-headed (or ginger for the non-americans) Spencer family members, and Diana and Hewitt's mutual claim that they weren't involved until 1986, what makes those people so convinced that she is a liar?
Personally I think it's because the scandal is more fun and more interesting to believe.

It's much juicier and more exciting to think that Diana is lying and she was cheating on her husband only 3 years after they married, and that in addition to cheating, she would be foolish enough to be married to a prince and have unprotected sex whilst she was cheating.
That is certainly a much more interesting assumption than the very mundane idea that Diana was telling the truth, and her second son is just as much her husband's biological child as the first son.

I hope Harry's strong resemblance to his mother's family isn't considered immaterial. Obviously the fact that Hewitt says he is not his son and the fact that he doesn't look like Hewitt is immaterial to these people.

The bottom line is that they feel that Diana is lying about her the date of her involvement, and I'd like to know why they are so sure she is lying? Is there any evidence of any kind that she and Hewitt were involved with each other intimately during 1983?
If not, then why disbelieve her just because she has a red-headed child? Has Diana given people a reason to think that she was an out and out liar of that caliber, not to mention foolish enough to have unprotected sex with the man in this day and age of DNA testing?

Even in the 80's DNA testing existed, and she knew it. She was also aware that her children were in the line of succession. She knew that it was her duty to give birth to the legitmate/biological heir and the spare(s). Why are they so convinced that she either forgot this or wasn't aware of it to the point that she wouldn't protect herself during a romantic liason with someone other than her husband?

If Harry had been a blonde, I don't think anyone would be having this conversation. But since he's a 'ginger' it's assumed that his father is Diana's ginger-haired paramour, never mind the fact that she says they weren't involved until Harry was 2 years old. Well Prince William is blonde, but Prince Charles isn't. Does that mean that one of Diana's blonde paramours is possibly William's father also? After all, if she is believed to be lying about not being involved with Hewitt prior to 1986, then why not assume she's lying about all of her involvements? Maybe she started a few months after the wedding.

After all, Prince William was conceived sometime around october 1981, more than a year and a half after they were married. Surely she was disenchanted by that time, huh? And then Harry was conceived at the end of 1983. More than enough time for her to have taken a whole brigade of lovers by then.
I guess there's really no need to let statements from the mouths of the people actually involved (Diana and Hewitt) muck up a good conspiracy theory.
__________________

__________________
“Promise me you'll always remember: You're braver than you believe, ..stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.”
~Christopher Robin to Pooh
(A.A. Milne)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, extramarital affair, james hewitt, paternity, prince charles, prince harry, 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
James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife (1929-2015) and Family betina British Royals 30 07-06-2015 09:12 AM
James and Julia Ogilvy and Family News 1: December 2003- flirtmooni British Royals 19 05-09-2014 05:23 AM
Why do you like Diana? juliamontague Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 222 12-21-2011 02:40 AM
Sophie Gives Birth to a Son: James, Viscount Severn - December 17, 2007 BeatrixFan The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 237 01-27-2008 05:11 AM
James James Mclean Member Introductions 1 10-30-2007 05:19 PM




Popular Tags
addresses albania ari behn ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall duchess of cornwall eveningwear duke of cambridge e-mail fashion poll french kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince charles princess charlene hats princess marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia princess stéphanie's evening gowns princess victoria birthday queen frederika 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 rania casual outfit queen rania daytime fashion queen rania fashion royal visits september 2016 state visit 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 12:25 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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