The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 12-18-2014, 07:03 PM
lucymae88's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
1. No Diana was not powerful. She only thought she was.
2. She had no power. She could not have prevented Charles from being King.
3. Diana was not a threat to Charles. By 1997, the media had enough of the 'poor me' Diana.
4. How could anyone had known that Diana & Dodi would change their plans?

Diana and Dodi spent the summer on a yacht. They were suppose to return to the U.K the next day. Instead of staying on the yacht or returning to London, they decided to have dinner in Paris.

1. They left the yacht and went to Dodi's apartment.
2. They left Dodi's apartment and went to the Ritz.
3. They left the Ritz and went to a restaurant.
4. They left the restaurant without eating and went back to the Ritz.
5. They left the Ritz to have dinner at Dodi's apartment.

There a no photos of Diana & Dodi in Paris until their 5th move.

How could anyone have known their plans?
Diana was very powerful, People loved her and admired her. I'm not saying she could have stopped Charles from becoming King. But she could have made it really difficult for him and made people really not want him to be king. I don't think Charles had anything to do with her death, I think he did care about her in his own little way. It would have been easy for anyone to had followed them and to know were they were going/doing that night. You don't have to no someone's plans to try and kill them. Will never no what happen that night.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 12-19-2014, 01:11 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucymae88 View Post
Diana was very powerful, People loved her and admired her.
popularity does not equal power

Popularity fluctuates as we have seen with The Queen - she was at her least popular in 1997 and is back up to almost universal popularity.

Diana's popularity was beginning to wane in 1997 which may have continued or she may have been able to stage a comeback - but the basis of her position had been taken away from her - her position as the future Queen. Charles was getting on with his life and doing his royal work while she was becoming a lose cannon and had to work on a world stage as she wasn't able to work inside Britain.

Power in Britain rests with the politicians, the businessmen and since 1999 the aristocracy has lost a lot of their power and influence since the hereditary peers largely losing their seats in the Lords - so where did she have the means to actually exercise power.

She couldn't force the government of the day to disinherit Charles, although the Labour Party might have been willing to disinherit him - if they could also remove the entire royal family and set up a republic - thus removing William's rights of inheritance as well. She could have stood for election to the House of Commons as she was always a commoner and so eligible to do so (like the rest of the royal commoners she didn't exercise that right or the right to vote but that doesn't mean she didn't have that right) but she would only have been one voice - so again not really powerful.

She was popular and that is all.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 12-19-2014, 01:24 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
I think we would never come to an agreement whether there are more people love Diana or more who hate her. There is never such a survey done around the world. So whenever I come into this kind of debate, I totally surrender. Why do we spend so much energy into this kind of debate which we know there won't be any universal conclusion. So only let the truth speak for itself. That is what I am trying to do right now -- finding more untold stories about her and make our own conclusion. To the end of day, only God can judge you. Other people's opinion just opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
popularity does not equal power

Popularity fluctuates as we have seen with The Queen - she was at her least popular in 1997 and is back up to almost universal popularity.

Diana's popularity was beginning to wane in 1997 which may have continued or she may have been able to stage a comeback - but the basis of her position had been taken away from her - her position as the future Queen. Charles was getting on with his life and doing his royal work while she was becoming a lose cannon and had to work on a world stage as she wasn't able to work inside Britain.

Power in Britain rests with the politicians, the businessmen and since 1999 the aristocracy has lost a lot of their power and influence since the hereditary peers largely losing their seats in the Lords - so where did she have the means to actually exercise power.

She couldn't force the government of the day to disinherit Charles, although the Labour Party might have been willing to disinherit him - if they could also remove the entire royal family and set up a republic - thus removing William's rights of inheritance as well. She could have stood for election to the House of Commons as she was always a commoner and so eligible to do so (like the rest of the royal commoners she didn't exercise that right or the right to vote but that doesn't mean she didn't have that right) but she would only have been one voice - so again not really powerful.

She was popular and that is all.
Two things I have to disagree with you. First, popularity can bring power. She was popular, so her voice can be heard by more people, her opinion can reach more places. That doesn't mean we just listen to her and don't think for ourselves. But at least attention can be drawn to some unnoticed issues and people will think over them and make their own conclusion.

Another thing I don't agree with you is her basis of popularity come from her position as future Queen. Well, even she would be a Queen, she would only be a British Queen. This position is quite irrelevant to the rest of the world outside Britain. She was phenomenal person, she must have something special.

If Diana was still alive, I think Charles would have married Camilla earlier than 2005. From the fact that Charles actually dare to intent to bring Camilla to Diana's memorial service in 2007 (actually he was quite stubborn on this for a long time), one can tell that at the bottom of his heart, he believed Diana wouldn't mind his marriage with Camilla. You know, all human being would sort of fear about anything unknown to them, for example the deceased. If he believed Diana would be offended by the presence of Camilla in her memorial service, he wouldn't do so.
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
Two things I have to disagree with you. First, popularity can bring power. She was popular, so her voice can be heard by more people, her opinion can reach more places. That doesn't mean we just listen to her and don't think for ourselves. But at least attention can be drawn to some unnoticed issues and people will think over them and make their own conclusion.
You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.

Quote:
Another thing I don't agree with you is her basis of popularity come from her position as future Queen. Well, even she would be a Queen, she would only be a British Queen. This position is quite irrelevant to the rest of the world outside Britain. She was phenomenal person, she must have something special.
If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 12-19-2014, 02:40 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.


If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.
There are two kinds of power, soft power and hard power. She didn't have any hard power, but she did have some substantial soft power, that is called influence.

Yes you are right, she was known to the world because of her marriage to Charles. But that is only the precondition. You can not deny her own merit--her extraordinary compassion -- in the establishing of her good image to many people.
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 12-19-2014, 10:39 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
Here is one more incident about her fear, told by her bodyguard when she was in the first holiday with Al-Fayed family.



You know, if there is only one single incident about her fear, then I will believe it is just due to some soothsayer' saying. However, she had showed this kind of fear for quite a period, like the morbid quotes from "The little Prince" to her friends, and those secret tapes, and the story above. It seems to me she had some true fear for her life.

BTW here is the link to the transcript of the hearing of the bodyguard
[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 9 January 2008 - Afternoon session
The testimony includes assumptions and conclusions about what Diana meant. There is no evidence that the assumptions are correction.

Any sane celebrity would reconsider his or her security after a high profile murder of another celebrity. The murder of Rebecca Schaffer by a deranged stalker helped fuel the explosion of companies that provide security for celebrities in California. Most non-celebrities have similar reactions when dealing with the death of a loved one. My husband was very shaken up by the sudden death of a friend several months ago. He was more cautious driving for a few months but has gradually returned to his normal routine.

We can't take a few conversations she had about her security (particularly after the death of a loved one) and make generalizations about Diana's whole outlook on life and death. She certainly was concerned about her own safety at times but the vast majority of her actions indicated that she wasn't obsessed by the thought of her own death. It's possible that she believed the royal family or the arms manufacturing industry would kill her but I don't think so. Her overall actions are not consistent with someone who was in fear for her life. She was often seen around London without a bodyguard. If she was so worried about a car accident, she would have worn a seat belt on the night she was killed.

We have no idea when the tapes were made--if they were made at all--or what prompted them. If they were made shortly before her death, perhaps it was Versace's murder that inspired them.

I will agree that she thought that she was safe while with Dodi and surrounded by Dodi's security. It's tragic that she was so wrong. Unfortunately, Dodi's father has spent the last 15 years trying to distract from his company's negligence and the bad decisions made by Dodi and Diana that night.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 12-19-2014, 07:34 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You are equating influence with power and they aren't the same thing.

She was able to manipulate the populace and thus influenced them but she didn't have any power to change the constitution or the law of the land - that takes power.



If she hadn't married Charles do you think she would ever have amounted to anything much other than some socialite wife? It was her marriage to Charles that made her popular and nothing else - on her own she had nothing much to recommend her. She would never have become someone of note on the international stage without that position.
She would never have had access - you make really good points here.

As she said herself - "thick as a plank" but manipulative. She had sexual chemistry (I do not mean that she used this physically) and it obviously influenced people such as Tony Blair. HMQ had the same impact on Churchill. But the Queen had real power; Diana, had she lived, would have seen her fragile power fade.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 03-14-2015, 04:39 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
She would never have had access - you make really good points here.

As she said herself - "thick as a plank" but manipulative. She had sexual chemistry (I do not mean that she used this physically) and it obviously influenced people such as Tony Blair. HMQ had the same impact on Churchill. But the Queen had real power; Diana, had she lived, would have seen her fragile power fade.
If you know the truth why she did those thing in her last month, and how she sacrificed her reputation and risked her own life to help the mine victims. You would know that her power would not fade at all. The real power comes from her HEART. She was powerful because she had a BIG heart.
__________________
"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true..."
-- The Road Less Travelled
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 03-14-2015, 05:24 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
The late Diana indeed was an excellent ambassador for a ban on the use of land mines. The phrase "she risked her own life to help mine victims" however is popular nonsense.

It is known that both the British and the Angolan authorities carefully checked and double-checked that there was no any danger for Diana. The area was zoomed with media and lots of public. The Angolan (and British) authorities would not take ANY risk on seeing Diana, Princess of Wales being blown-up, live before international television and media.

So the result: Diana, Princess of Wales walked into a cleared mine-field, wearing spic-and-span new protective equipment, all carefully staged to gain attention for the horror of those forgotten minefields, all over the world. Also politicians use this sort of publiclity, see US Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Elizabeth Frazer walking in a similar minefield in Angola: picture.

Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 03-14-2015, 12:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,321
As far as Diana's legacy, I don't think much will be impressive in years to come. Most young people {teens through early 20s} don't remember her and could care less. They might read about her in school or watch the infrequent documentary on history channel of Queen Elizabeth II which will mention Charles and his first wife. There are just so many more people that are now doing brilliant things for our world.


Yes, I still think of her and wonder what she would be like today, but that is just the older generation. Only the media brings her up constantly due to William's life and children, etc. If she had actually made it to queen, then she would always be a strong part of history. Now she will be only a footnote to future generations of historical scholars. Read your history and you will see that many queens and princesses have done great things [some going against their customs] to bring better living and working conditions to their citizens and parts of the world, yet we now rather over-look their accomplishments. I am not saying that this is right, it is just the way we are. Most people could just care less about history.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 03-14-2015, 04:54 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,930
Off-topic posts, together with incidental responses, have been deleted. Further controversial or disruptive posts will be deleted without notice.

Jacknch
British Forum Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 03-14-2015, 07:34 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Some things can be true, but a great deal of it where lies, but stuck over the years as the truth.
Often things we do in life come back to bite us and in Diana's case it did and, with her death, will continue to do so ad infinitum.

Diana's suspected but uncredited involvement in Morton's book "Diana, Her True Story, published in 1992 opened up the "idea" that "if she was, what else did she do". The release of 'Diana, Her True Story - In Her Own Words" with it's six C90 tapes, gallies with additions and corrections in her own hand and 69 new pages of her own to back it up, proved that she had.

After her death, that circumstance seemed to take on a life of it's own and reduced Diana to a resource to be exploited, a previously untapped well of "inside" information. Unlike all the other books and articles, Diana participated in Morton's book and Bashier's interview and the lines were forever blurred, if it was true, who was there to prove it wasn't and vice versa. The BP stance of "never complain, never explain" played into the media expose game. The floodgates were open and, to coin a hackneyed old phrase, no one can "put the Genie back in the bottle".
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:08 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I wonder how future generations will view "Her True Story" and the Bashir interview? When I look back on the 90s (which at times feel like they were just a few weeks ago), I remember it as a time when telling a story of victimisation was very popular. It was the time of the public confessional in which people like Oprah Winfrey were host to any number of celebrities or unknowns who went through terrible things and went on TV to talk about it. The way that Diana created her public story fit this narrative. She took what was a bad decision on her part (marrying the Prince of Wales) and made it into a story of martyrdom and heroism. This resonated with people at the time, I think, because it was the same story that we were hearing on TV talk shows: "Yes, I did that, but it was because I was victimised in this way." Will future generations see Diana's outpourings as self-absorbed drivel, I wonder? It will be, I think, largely academics who will be interested in studying her as an icon of her time and why she 'clicked' with so many people. There will always be people who are interested in Diana and her story, but there will be much fewer of them.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:17 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,930
I think future generations will be surprised at the frankness and openness of the interview (and the subsequent one that Charles did), because there will never be interviews like that again from members of the Royal Family. I myself look back in horror at the revelations, but at the time people revelled in the drama, like watching a soap-opera - none of it seemed real somehow.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:25 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I know what you mean, Jacknch. We forgot sometimes that Charles and Diana were real human beings. On occasion, I see clips of "Diana Her True Story" on YouTube and am struck by how the Charles presented there is like a caricature of the actual man--and that by a good actor! The interviews were awfully frank, yes.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:35 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,657
These interviews showed the level of despair reached by both sides. It's incredible how two smart and educated people, parents of two small boys, married for 14 years were able to fight like this so publicly.
It's a miracle that the Queen didn't die of apoplexy seeing all this mess ...
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 03-14-2015, 08:51 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
...I remember it as a time when telling a story of victimisation was very popular. It was the time of the public confessional in which people like Oprah Winfrey were host to any number of celebrities or unknowns who went through terrible things and went on TV to talk about it. The way that Diana created her public story fit this narrative...
I think you've offered an explanation that makes sense, as the whole thing completely puzzles me. You've made an excellent point about the social times being amenable to 'confessions'. Methinks it all went over-the-top and we are less inclined in that direction now. Pendulum swing. As a consequence, we're less sympathetic to such 'confessions', too, especially with someone who was so clearly socially privileged and living in the lap of luxury.

I was never drawn to her and to watch her now she comes across as painfully askew (I don't want to use the word phony). I haven't seen one interview where it feels good to watch her and listen to her, so for me the puzzle about her popularity is a deep mystery. Though I will say this: where she doesn't speak, in the videos of her, she does look natural and appealing, and could be stunningly turned out. There was something about her speaking, however, and especially in interviews, that grates (for me).
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 03-14-2015, 09:31 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Guangzhou, China
Posts: 367
Her popularity comes from her true heart. If one doesn't bear their head in the sand like an ostrich, they can see that she was genuine to care about people.

However, one thing is very interesting to study. Actually, before she died, the press she got was very terrible. No one can deny that, because many people said had she not died, her popularity would wind down very quick. However, even though she died at such an unfavorable moment, the spontaneous grief over her death expressed by people were phenomenal. In history, such level of collective grief seldom happened. On conscious level, that is irrational. However, the truth is she deserved every bit of tear people shed for her (if one is willing to open their eyes to see the truth).

So this might prove one psychology myth -- Human being are not only able to recognize goodness using their brain (consciously), but we might also have another mechanism built in us genetically, which make us able to recognize things unconsciously. We called this "collective unconscious" in psychology.
__________________
"Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true..."
-- The Road Less Travelled
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 03-14-2015, 10:43 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
Her popularity comes from her true heart. If one doesn't bear their head in the sand like an ostrich, they can see that she was genuine to care about people.
Dear anbrida I sense that you are someone who was touched by Diana. I would say that's good. We all have our idols (for me, growing up, it was Queen Silvia of Sweden). My mother and I had conversations about Diana when I was older so I understand a lot about the fascination, but it just never was there for me. One of those things.

I don't think my head is in the sand. I perhaps know more about her than I care to know, in fact. She was not an easy person. I think she came across in public, as I mentioned, better than she did in her personal life or when she spoke. That explains some of it. She was an actress, in a way, and I have known some. True heart? I will always have a hard time going that far as I think that raises her in a way beyond the normal, and I think she was normal. I think she suffered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
even though she died at such an unfavorable moment, the spontaneous grief over her death expressed by people were phenomenal. In history, such level of collective grief seldom happened. On conscious level, that is irrational. However, the truth is she deserved every bit of tear people shed for her (if one is willing to open their eyes to see the truth).
Well, she was young and in her stride. It was a shock even for those not interested in her, I would guess. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'the truth'. What truth? Care to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
So this might prove one psychology myth -- Human being are not only able to recognize goodness using their brain (consciously), but we might also have another mechanism built in us genetically, which make us able to recognize things unconsciously. We called this "collective unconscious" in psychology.
By her own words she admitted to a friend that she did the charity work because 'what else is there to do?' She was making the best of an unhappy situation, I think. In doing so, she did good, and when she was 'on' she was brilliant, but I would not ascribe to Diana a goodness that is in any way above the norm for any of us. Even I don't put Queen Silvia on that kind of pedestal though I feel she is about as decent a woman as there is, and likely good.

I'm curious: why do you seem to elevate Diana to a level of 'goodness' as a 'true heart' over any other royal? We have pretty grim evidence that Diana was a very difficult woman to deal with, more so than any other royal princess. How does that translate into goodness and a pure heart?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 03-15-2015, 12:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
But she did interesting kind things, she could have avoided. She touched AIDS patients and treated like human beings. She didn't walk around with gloves on. And not touching. She may have done charity work, because, truthfully, there was nothing else open to her, but she seemed to care about what she was doing. Charles on his interview just made a fuss that Camilla does work for Osteoporosis. Remember, that these people don't work, what they call work is charity time and appearances.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, legacy, memorial, 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
Left Or Right-Handed Royals? Peggy Royal Life and Lifestyle 49 02-03-2016 02:34 AM
The Legacy of Elizabeth II vkrish British Royals 21 12-18-2012 07:45 AM
Princess Grace's Legacy HMTLove23 Princely Family of Monaco 16 02-18-2011 06:15 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's eveningwear coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish royal family duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jean 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 prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess madeleine hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 spanish queen 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 11:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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