The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 08-26-2016, 09:57 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 423
I think that Diana's actions were a threat to the monarchy, maybe not enough of a threat to topple the monarchy, but a threat nonetheless, as was Edward VIII's abdication, Victoria becoming invisible, Hanoverian dissipation, etc. I think that the British have benefited from having one or more people invested in the monarchy and guiding it in the way it needed to be guided at that time. They've also been "lucky." I put the word lucky in quotes because sometimes that luck has come in the form of wars and assassination attempts.

I think that at numerous junctures Britain could have rid itself of the monarchy and did not, and at those junctures there were machinations combined with luck that ended up preserving the monarchy.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 08-26-2016, 04:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
In the
During this period, it wasn't only Diana and Charles that were headed towards the divorce court but so did Anne and Mark and Andrew and Sarah. Out of all of them, Diana was the most vocal and I believe she was seen more of an embarrassment to the family rather than actually able to damage the monarchy in any way. As it became apparent that Diana on a show of public unity was next to impossible so divorce was the only solution.
Yes of course there has been adultery, Good lord of course there has... what was unprecedented was for people to go and admit it, to say "my husband was horrible to me, I didn't fit into the RF" etc. For the two parities in a royal marriage to both publicly admit to other lovers was completely unprecedented..
And yes Diana wasn't going to let go, she went on making a fuss till the queen who Hates to interfere, clearly felt that the monarchy was in danger unless Diana was firmly stopped and excluded.
IMO there was a very serious wobble, and if Diana had not been controlled, there was enough public discussion of "is the monarchy really necessary" and distaste for the way the RF were behaving, to worry the queen very much, and possibly to end the monarchy or damage Charles' chances of succeeding. There were some churchmen who felt that he wasn't fit to succeed because he was going to be either separated form his wife or divorced, and that he had caused the divorce by his affair with Camilla.. who clearly was not going out of his life.
AS I recall the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the C Of E didn't have a problem with Charles succeeding provided he and Diana, if they were separated, put their children first and didn't engage in any adulterous affairs. Well that was not going to happen so clearly there had to be a divorce.. and then there was the problem of remarriage.
Some of the "distaste" was due to the other problems, like Andrew and Sarah.. (I don't think people took much notice of Anne and Mark's divorce), but mostly it was Diana. She went public, she wouldn't shut up.
She was even said to have dialled telephone lines when there were discussions about ending the monarchy and voted for "ending the monarchy"...Clearly she wasn't going to go quietly, she wanted ot damage the monarchy in spite of saying that it was her son's future...

The queen was very clearly angry and rattled and Diana's interview was the last straw, at which point she finally put her foot down, ordered a divorce and I believe that that the agreements would have had clauses stopping Diana from discussing her marriage in public again. And I dont think that Diana would ever have been really forgiven for her indiscretion because she HAD scared the RF into a real fear that the monarchy was in danger...
SHe was treated politely because of her sons, but she wasn't going to be liked or trusted or considered part of them, ever again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
I think that Diana's actions were a threat to the monarchy, maybe not enough of a threat to topple the monarchy, but a threat nonetheless, as was Edward VIII's abdication, Victoria becoming invisible, Hanoverian dissipation, etc. I think that at numerous junctures Britain could have rid itself of the monarchy and did not, and at those junctures there were machinations combined with luck that ended up preserving the monarchy.
Not enough perhaps to topple it but enough to give it a serious whack and scare and anger the Royals. Generally even at its worst the British monarchy has never been as bad or tyrannical as other Monarchies. There was a parliamentary democracy of sorts developing from the 18th Century, so the Upper and middle classes (and gradually the working classes) had a role in ruling the country and weren't excluded from the political process and angry. So they were generally content to reform the monarchy but not to get rid of it. It wasn't like Russia (or France) where the Monarch was an autocrat who stopped all reform, or Germany where it was associated with defeat in War...
but noting lasts forever and I think that if the British were more ideologically minded, there was enuogh of a problem in the 1990s, to scare the RF.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 08-26-2016, 07:44 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Most French in the late 18th century, Spaniards in the 19th or Russians in the early 20th century didn't have the vote either, but it didn't stop the storming of the Bastille, the cutting off of the King and Queen's heads, nor the murders in Ekaterinburg, or the permanent exile of Queen Isabella.

If you look at British history at certain points, in the early 19th century before 1815, at the time of the Reform Laws in 1832 (people didn't have the vote then either) things could have gone either way. The state of political franchise has never prevented a mob determined to get rid of a monarchy from doing anything.

Anyway, that poll that I posted recently showed there was still support for the monarchy in the high 60's in the very week of Diana's funeral.
Scandals don't bring down monarchies, well not in the short term, and neither does unpopularity with the general public. What happens is when ruling classes feel their interests are better protected under a republic and that sacrificing the monarch is what may starve off something more radical - remember it was the provisional government that was mostly composed of urban liberals and the Russian equivalent of Whig nobles that ended the Tsarit monarchy, not the Bolsheviks. Scandals can undermine public standing but if monarchy fufils it's political function than its safe. Most of the ME monarchies are downright hated but they do what they need to do and defend the status quo - hence they are safe.

Ben Pimlotts bio of the queen looks at what happened the best - most of the Diana problem really came down to the RFs poor media management and the fact that the tabloid papers were locked in a race to the bottom for commercial reasons. The RF had lost control of the narrative and were reacting to events rather than setting them. This fused with long running concerns of a number of intellectuals about the nature of britains government and a series of scandals within the then Tory government (John major and Edwina Currie - anyone remember that?). On top of that the culture of deference that would normally have been relied on to provide cover was not available anymore and intellectual criticism was more mainstream than in the recent past. In other words a number of factors that converged at an in opportune moment w D as the catalyst. Without letting D&C off the hook, the RF really dropped the ball on this one, nothing was inevitable, and things could have been handled better.

This also raises questions about public interest vs double standards regarding the private lives of public figures. We may want to know but do we really have the right? And why did the head of state also need to be a religious leader? How much does moral character have to do with your competence for public office? Is adultury, although hurtful, really that much of a moral transgression when all involved were consenting adults? And what about the children, and not just the princes?

I'm not surprised the RF feel the way they do about D but for that to be the only reason you would need to ignore what I've pointed out above. It's not fair for them to be baling a woman who has been dead for two decades for their own mistakes and failures with regards to what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 08-26-2016, 10:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,580
With the French Revolution though, Laurels, it was a lawyer-led revolution more than anything, with their rhetoric stirring up the mobs, certainly not the elite throwing the royal couple on the pyre as sacrificial lambs.

Now I've driven this discussion completely off topic! Apologies all round!
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 08-27-2016, 01:10 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,736
It had to have been a nightmare for the Queen. There was the very public War of the Wales which both husband and wife were using the media to wage a war of words, with each day becoming more and more bitter. In the backround Anne and Mark's marriage crumbled, then the topper, the Yorks entered the failed marriage-go-round. Each of her 3 children's marriage involved adultery and came to flaming ends after the stories of romance and love plus the big Royal Weddings.
Even after Fergie's huge scandal with John Bryan and then the separation/divorce, Andrew kept his thoughts and statements to himself and never dissed Fergie to the press although he had a reason to. In that way, he was the more mature than his elder brother. Anne's divorce was handled the way Anne handles her life, it largely private and straightforward although I have to say Anne has never had the press attention as her brothers especially Charles.
I can only imagine that some of the Queen's and Philip's trust plus support of Diana dropped when she voiced her opinion during the Panorama interview about Charles's fitness in becoming the next King. I agree, I think that was the last straw. Then in a few months was the absolute disaster visit to South Korea which was horribly painful to watch the news segments of it because it was so clear the couple couldn't bear to be even next to one another let alone speak to each other. It was really rather embarrassing. HM had to do something and that was to divorce to finally end the bickering and animosity.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 08-27-2016, 02:22 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
With the French Revolution though, Laurels, it was a lawyer-led revolution more than anything, with their rhetoric stirring up the mobs, certainly not the elite throwing the royal couple on the pyre as sacrificial lambs.

Now I've driven this discussion completely off topic! Apologies all round!
well that's the point, it was a situaiton where everyone was fed up with the monarchy...because it had failed to rule well... and hte queen feared that everyone/ a large number would get fed up with the monarchy if htere was a situation where they lost respect, with her son and daughter in law admitting affairs, threatening divorce, and acting in a way that showed they weren't fit to be the "first family".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
It
Even after Fergie's huge scandal with John Bryan and then the separation/divorce, Andrew kept his thoughts and statements to himself and never dissed Fergie to the press although he had a reason to. In that way, he was the more mature than his elder brother. Anne's divorce was handled the way Anne handles her life, it largely private and straightforward although I have to say Anne has never had the press attention as her brothers especially Charles.
atto finally end the bickering and animosity.
I think that Anne's divorce was't such a big deal becuase she was well down the line of succession and simply nobody took much notice of her. But yes she too, was part of the whole mess where her marraiage had obviously been a facade for years, she and Mark were seeing other people and it wasn't quite what one expected of the country's flagship family, who were supposed to be exemplars of good behaviour and marital probity. Andrew remained loyal to Sarah in a way but he was insistent on a divorce.. -i beleive the queen DID want to try and save the marriage, but he wasn't having it.
But the really terrible mess was Diana and Charles and Diana was largely responsble for it. She had started it iwht the Morton book, she was IMO the one who played the Newspapers best in the War, and she had notched things up with a general "attitude". There were rumours that she was in private saying disrespectful things about the monarchy and RF as a whole.. at least.. (And I think that some of Wiliam's slowness at getting into the Royal lifestyle, is perhaps to do with her influence.. he may well feel that she was miserably unhappy in that life, and that if he could avoid it, he would).
when Diana went another notch up and did Panorama and admitted adultery, lied, (about her phone calls to Hoare), spoke of her unhappiness, and hinted that she felt Charles would not be happy as King or was not suited ot the job, I think the queen felt that things had gone as far as they could, without a serious crisis.
I think she wouldn't have intervened if she hadn't felt there was a real threat to the monarchy and her son's successon and so she finally put her foot down. And I think that her feeling of distaste for Diana's behaviour, her belief that she had been as indulgent as she coudl be, put up with her whims and wild carrying on, and tolerated her, and all it had achieved was Diana thinking she coudl do and say what she wanted.. all that climaxed when Diana died and she problaby DID feel as Margaret is supposed to have said, that Diana was as much trouble in death as she was in life.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 08-27-2016, 03:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,580
I don't feel that the Queen believed that the monarchy could fall or was likely to during the War of the Wales crisis. I think she felt that the goings on involved, culminating in the Panorama interview, certainly wasn't doing her son and daughter in law or the prestige of the Crown any favours and it was becoming more painful as it went on.

That's a very different thing, IMHO, to feeling that one's dynasty is about to fall into the dust and Britain would become a republic if this continued.

I do think that what did dent the Queen's confidence and belief in the British people's love for the BRF were those days after Diana's death and just before the funeral when polls were taken, the pile of flowers outside KP grew ever larger, and bitter words were spoken by several in newspapers about the perceived coldness of the BRF in reaction to Diana's death.

The Queen's actions, taking the rose from a little girl in the mourning crowds, "For me, oh, thank you?"; a policeman remembering, years later, the Queen mouthing a thank you to him through a car window when he saluted; the TV broadcast praising Diana, the bowing of her head as the cortège went past, speaks of a person whose confidence has been shaken.

Yet even then, in the midst of all that public sorrow and mourning and questioning, polls showed that belief in the monarchy still stood at nearly 70%. It was never in any danger of falling to republicanism (in my opinion, short of a huge almighty scandal, only longterm indifference will do that) and, unknown to her perhaps in those weeks, Elizabeth's personal prestige still remained high.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 08-27-2016, 03:22 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
I think she was worried. Perhaps not exaclty that Britain would be a republic within a few years, but that charles might not be accepted succeeding, or that the Monarchy might end with her life. I think that in the 70s the RF were worried by left wing governments wanting to slim down or end the monarchy, and that was one reason they were concerned to make sure Charles made a sutiable marriage by the age of 30 or so. The whole Wales mess eroded respect for thte monarchy, so did the introduciton of someone awfully silly and vulgar like Sarah F.. THere were plenty of debate, even conservative newspapers were IMO pretty worried that the whole Wales marriage was going to cause the Monarchy to fall.
Yes it survived,but I think the risk was real..and the queen worried.
I am sure she felt that if Di could do something like a sneak attack of her Panorama interview without anyone finding out about it, she coudl do anyting and that she must not avoid the Diana problem any longer, she had to act and basically kick her out... and ensure that she did not do any more talking..
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 08-27-2016, 03:59 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
Absolutely, it was a huge mess and went so far that things went beyond repair. Diana felt that the RF didn't understand her situation and needs so gave up on them, but as you've written didn't seek help for herself from legitimate doctors. The RF at the same time did, sympathize and care, but after a while became fed up with her behaviour and couldn't understand where she was coming from and gave up. As we all know the situation kept spiraling downhill for many years.
It was never perfect; but it could have stood a fighting chance if there had been no Camilla.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 08-27-2016, 04:00 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,175
Lets get back on topic now please. If members wish to discuss specifics of the Wales's marriage or the impact members of the Royal Family have or had on the monarchy, they can do so in the relevant threads. This thread is specifically about the relationship between Diana and the Queen and other members of the Royal Family.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 08-27-2016, 05:15 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 356
If this has already been reported on apologies, but what was Diana's relationship like with Princess Margaret?

Did it change as the years passed and the Wales marriage crisis grew?

They would have been KP neighbours.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 08-27-2016, 06:36 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,580
Yes, it did change as the years passed. At first they were quite good friends, enjoyed the ballet, each other's wit. Diana admired how Margaret had dealt with her broken marriage while being a Royal.

Don't know whether they discussed the end of it though. Snowden had been consistent in his infidelities, (if you can call adultery consistent) while all it took was one tab getting photos of Margaret and toy-boy Roddy Llewellen hanging about on Mustique and it was curtains for the Snowden marriage. That was the ready made 'get out of jail' card! Even though, after the public rows for years, it was probably a relief all round.

They got on well until there was trouble over Diana sacking a butler and Margaret re-employing him, and gradually things unravelled. Margaret was always close to the Queen and although she had shown some sympathy to Diana over the breakup with the marriage with Charles, she was pretty appalled. I think she regarded it as an attack upon one, an attack upon all, especially her sister as head of the family.
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 08-27-2016, 12:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Y



They got on well until there was trouble over Diana sacking a butler and Margaret re-employing him, and gradually things unravelled. Margaret was always close to the Queen and although she had shown some sympathy to Diana over the breakup with the marriage with Charles, she was pretty appalled. I think she regarded it as an attack upon one, an attack upon all, especially her sister as head of the family.
that wasn't Margaret's only affair, and I thought that the marriage ended over Snowdon's getting Lucy Lindsay Hogg pregnant..obviously they could hardly go on being married in those circumstances. OK that's OT, but I doubt if Diana was being told chapter and verse about the bad side of M's marriage. Mgt didn't come out of it too well...
I just would not put money on Margaret ever being a very faithful friend for Diana. I think that one would not be wise to have depended on her too far as she was notoirous for actng friendly and then going "IM a princess, and you're a pleb -call me Your Highness."
I think that it maybe suited Margt to be friendly with Diana at first, they were neighbours.. Di was pleasant, I think that Diana DID try hard when she felt a bit of sympathy from anyone, to be nice to them..
but I suspect that at heart, Margaret was too selfish to be very friendly to anyone -esp if she problaby regarded Diana as an incomer to the family and not royal...
And when the row erupted over the butler, I think that Margaret reverted to "Im royal and you're not" role and was reminding Diana that she's only married into the RF and should not be putting her wishes before those of hte queen or the born royals. And I think from then on, it was downhill and they were at odds esp over Panorama and Diana's behavour in courtng the press and using her popularity against the RF.. as they saw it.
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 08-27-2016, 05:35 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,093
They seemed to do better when they were away from the usual crowd, that's for sure. In the pictures that came out when they were on holiday more-or-less alone (such as at the beach) they seemed to be doing fine. I think that they needed more time alone together in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
It was never perfect; but it could have stood a fighting chance if there had been no Camilla.
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 08-27-2016, 07:28 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
They seemed to do better when they were away from the usual crowd, that's for sure. In the pictures that came out when they were on holiday more-or-less alone (such as at the beach) they seemed to be doing fine. I think that they needed more time alone together in general.
Very true indeed.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 08-28-2016, 01:54 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
well this thread is about Diana's relationship with the RF, not with C's friends? or with him per se. But I agree that some of the marital problems were to do with their attidudes TO The RF. naturally chalres is part of it, and its part of his life. He is Ok with it, enjoys the lifestyle, (even if he has more intellectual interests than most of his relatives).. and he is happ with the whole sporty country life. But Diana wasn't. She didn't like all that. I think when she visited Balmoral at first, it was quite luxurious . She was a favoured guest as Charles' new girl, and she liked it for a weekend. But when she was stuck there for weeks, when she had to take part in "house party life" iwht the various guests, she was scared and bored. And I think when she was stuck with the Royals for weeks, she found them cold, disapproving, and very dull, banging on about shooting and whatever they do talk about. So she was left wit her embroidery.. She coudlnt find any point of contact with them, except perhaps Margaret and later Katherine Kent..
But it was a given that the Princess of Wales had to go to these long shooting times in Scotland, spend Xmas with the Royals etc etc.
Perhaps If Charles had been the Duke of X, and even if he had been a country squire sort of aristocrat, preferring living at his home and farming and managing his tenants affairs etc, she might have adjusted if he had been able to take her away to London or sunny places at times.. and they had then been able to be home and rear their children and be iwht each other without a host of staff and equerries and in laws milling about...
There were SO MANY things that they were "not on the same page with".. their interests, their work interests, their attitudes to life, his family etc.. and maybe taking ONE thing like his family away would have helped.. but it was the part of his life that was really impossible to give up. I think it is true that when they were alone, in Austraila with William, maybe, they had some happy times.. but they were still royals with the queen as part of their family, they couldn't leave that out of their life...
in short I just don't think that they could be alone, in the way normal couples can..
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 08-28-2016, 03:47 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, it did change as the years passed. At first they were quite good friends, enjoyed the ballet, each other's wit. Diana admired how Margaret had dealt with her broken marriage while being a Royal.

Don't know whether they discussed the end of it though. Snowden had been consistent in his infidelities, (if you can call adultery consistent) while all it took was one tab getting photos of Margaret and toy-boy Roddy Llewellen hanging about on Mustique and it was curtains for the Snowden marriage. That was the ready made 'get out of jail' card! Even though, after the public rows for years, it was probably a relief all round.

They got on well until there was trouble over Diana sacking a butler and Margaret re-employing him, and gradually things unravelled. Margaret was always close to the Queen and although she had shown some sympathy to Diana over the breakup with the marriage with Charles, she was pretty appalled. I think she regarded it as an attack upon one, an attack upon all, especially her sister as head of the family.
Thanks Curryong! It's interesting not only because William and Kate are now living in Margaret's home and "next door" to Diana's. I had forgotten about the butler firing / hiring incident.
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 08-28-2016, 05:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I think that Sarah was as she appeared to be. However, I think that Diana could be sly and unpredictable.
I have to agree Mermaid and IMHO this affected how the relationships Queen and the other members of the family with Sarah and Diana. Sarah was certainly boisterous and foolish. However with Diana I do believe they were wary of her unpredictable behavior and were likely to distance themselves from her.
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 08-28-2016, 05:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
Are they? I visited Margaret's apartments a few years ago and it was very disappointing.. Not as big or luxurious as you would imagine for the Queen's sister...
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 08-29-2016, 11:05 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
I have to agree Mermaid and IMHO this affected how the relationships Queen and the other members of the family with Sarah and Diana. Sarah was certainly boisterous and foolish. However with Diana I do believe they were wary of her unpredictable behavior and were likely to distance themselves from her.
I think it is possible they regarded Diana as more of a threat because Fergie was pretty stupid. She too was unpredictable but she was so foolish, in a hapless helpless way that she soon wore out public goodwill. The public got sick of her within a few years, and she was basically not able to muster much support in a row iwht the RF, Diana was smarter, she was more charismatic, and she had the papers on her side fofr a long time, and so she may have scared the RF more...
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, diana princess of wales, diana's family, princess diana, relationships


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
Relationships between Members of the Spanish Royal Family kil Royal Family of Spain 471 09-17-2016 07:21 AM
Relationships between Members of the British Royal Family Ava Elizabeth British Royals 254 07-21-2016 01:35 AM
Relationships Between Members of the Swedish Royal Family Grandduchess24 Royal House of Sweden 56 11-02-2015 01:32 PM
Relationships between the Members of the Danish Royal Family jellybeans Royal House of Denmark 303 01-04-2014 06:11 AM
Relationships between members of the Norwegian royal family. Dennism Royal House of Norway 78 11-22-2012 07:04 AM




Popular Tags
affair albania ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit brunei coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion death denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge e-mail fashion poll history iran jewels 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 marie princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit in canada princess sofia queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima at the women deliver conference 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 royalties 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 zog


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 11:59 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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