The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #861  
Old 09-10-2014, 11:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
It's been a long time since I read either Bedell or Tina Brown but it seems as though they used Stuart Higgins as the source, which makes sense. So far the only quote I can find from him indicates that he used Camilla to either confirm or deny information he already had. Apparently Higgins denied even doing that for a while and then acknowledged that they stayed in touch.

It makes some difference but not a lot to me. Diana was also briefing reporters. It just evens the playing field a bit.
Changing tune, are you? If Camilla was in fact, as confirmed by Stuart Higgins, briefing on Charles' behalf, now 'it doent make a difference'? If you are going to throw stink bombs at the first wife for talking to the press , while saying the then mistress, now second wife would NEVER do that, at least acknowledge that St Camilla aint so saintly. Sometimes I wonder if some of Camilla's fans here are not old enough to actually remember what transpired, as opposed to reading Penny Junor's poison rehashed over and over again.
__________________

  #862  
Old 09-10-2014, 11:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Changing tune, are you? If Camilla was in fact, as confirmed by Stuart Higgins, briefing on Charles' behalf, now 'it doent make a difference'? If you are going to throw stink bombs at the first wife for talking to the press , while saying the then mistress, now second wife would NEVER do that, at least acknowledge that St Camilla aint so saintly. Sometimes I wonder if some of Camilla's fans here are not old enough to actually remember what transpired, as opposed to reading Penny Junor's poison rehashed over and over again.
I know you won't agree but the difference is the type of information Diana leaked versus the type of information Camilla allegedly leaked. Camilla would have known that Diana was suffering from an eating disorder--but that story wasn't broken by Stuart Higgins, it was revealed by James Witaker. There are reports that Charles sent Diana to a psychiatrist early in the marriage, that didn't make it into The Sun. Stuart Higgins did not reveal any of Diana's affairs.

It doesn't seem as though Camilla was leaking negative information when she talked to Higgins. We know that Diana was very negative when she talked to reporters. I can't find any major story broken by Stuart Higgins until the Squidgygate tapes dropped in his lap. Apparently he was forced to sit on the story for months. Most of the information I can find online indicates that most editors admired Stuart Higgins for having accurate stories (until he fell for the hoax tape).

I can't fault either Camilla or Charles for wanting to set the record straight since we know that Diana often exaggerated stories or left out important details--such as writing a book claiming to be the true story about her marriage that failed to mention that she had several affairs of her own.
__________________

  #863  
Old 09-10-2014, 11:53 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
These days, she'd be called an "over-sharer." I'd think that the listener would be quite flattered by this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Diana was a ticking time bomb in several ways and when someone listened (stranger or not) she would flood you with stories about her private life. She also did this with Barbara Walters over an intimate lunch.
  #864  
Old 09-10-2014, 11:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Right the Mistress and the prince were so abused by the evil wife. Setting the record straight or twisting the record to their benefit? It just doesn't matter any more. They won, Diana is dead for over a decade and they go through this portion of their lives, basically unscathed. He does love Camilla, that is for sure and that is good. The rest is tawdry on all sides.
  #865  
Old 09-11-2014, 12:09 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,432
There was truly a war going on between both camps. Diana may have won over the people and some parts of the media to her side but I think Camilla won too. She won Charles.

I find myself thinking that Charles must be some guy to have these women fighting over him. Even Kanga was in the fight (or at least she thought she was) but lost in the end.

I think real love made the difference but its just sad that a family was broken up because of the actions of the couple and other parties involved.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
  #866  
Old 09-11-2014, 01:21 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
It's wonderful that her stepmother forgave her. It says a lot about the character of her stepmother.

However, this is about Diana. Pushing someone down the stairs is wrong. It is a crime. It is not nice. There is no excuse for it. I don't care if Diana made appearances for charity or said she cared about other people--pushing her stepmother down the stairs was a bad thing to do.

All families have drama--few people actually push another family member down the stairs. At least I hope it is only a few people. Some posters are making me wonder... I hope I don't met some of you in a back alley somewhere. Some posters sound really nasty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
US Royal Watcher, I did not say that my family has gone though this nor did I mention that we need some professional help. Don't try to turn this around on me and make it seem like I'm a victim of domestic violence within my family. Don't get it twisted.

I said that I've seen families go through ups and downs with each other and then can go on to be friends and buddies the next day. What Diana and her family went through is something a lot of families go through. If help is needed, some seek it and some don't. It seems like what Diana and her stepmother went through was a little incident and no one was harmed in the process. They moved on long ago and so should we.

Camilla had her friends do the dirty work for her. Her hands were just as dirty as Diana's.
Camilla is not the subject of this thread. Neither is Charles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
I dont understand what do you mean here. Are you implying if someone ever did something wrong, no matter what was the reason, these people are forever wrong person?

Diana's stepmother have forgiven her. They even became really good friend at the end. That told a lot about her step mother, but also a lot of Diana. I dont think her step mother would forgive a unrepenting person, right?
I think Diana had a very understanding and forgiving stepmother.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anbrida View Post
I dont believe Diana had pushed her step mother hard off the stairs. Use common sense, at her age, she would be definitely seiously hurt if she fell off the stairs. In this case, in no way the news would not go to the headline, and in no way the Charles's would not use this story to bash Diana.

I dont know how hard Diana had pushed her step mother. It could be ahard push or a light push. From the consequence, it was very likely a light push because no news ever talked about Raine Spencer had any injure.

I am saying her behavior was right
. I just think it was not appropriate to use this example to convince a person that Diana'd ever lightly pushed a person, or slapped a person, so she was capable to kill a person.

I think the Charles' camp havent used this story to bash Diana is not because they have any decency, it is because Raine Spencer is still alive, in this case they are unable to write the story as much as they like. Mark my words, once Raine Spencer died, the dead meat eater would come out. From the "Diana warned to kill Camilla" story, one can see how shameless they are.
The statement about "shoving Raine down the stairs" came from Diana herself via the Settelen Tapes. No his camp, no hers! I am amazed at the lengths some Diana apologists are willing to go to to protect their vision of a perfect Diana, even in essence, calling Diana herself a liar by saying she only lightly pushed her stepmother down a step! Downgrading the incident is chilling.

I am sticking with Diana's version. Having personally had the misfortune to fall down a steep set of stairs I can attest that it didn't kill me, but it might have. I had lumps bumps and bruises all over, a sprained ankle, and what was, at the time, a minor back injury that unfortunately never healed properly.

As to Raine, I think she was as good a stepmother as she could be but was in and out of Diana's favour like a merrygoround. Diana's glee about she and her brother shoving all of Raines clothes and belongings into rubbish bin liners and chucking them out the door after the death of her father was yet another self-proclaimed act of spite. Yet it was all tears and hugs at the funeral. Go figure.

These issues are facets of Diana and in no way are they connected to Charles or Camilla. That is not what this thread is about.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #867  
Old 09-11-2014, 01:31 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Yes, really sad. I watched the Settelen interview earlier this evening, and it left me more depressed than anything. Diana talked about kisses on the cheek from her parents but no hugs. She needed love so badly and had so much to give, but I don't think that she and Charles really had a chance at a normal marriage. Perhaps, in another age, one with less press intrusion and more privacy, things would have been different. If both of them were determined not to go looking outside their marriage for love and companionship, things might have been different. Marriages survive under worse conditions.

I still read about Diana and like to see pictures of her. I have quite a collection. She was so good at public engagements and private kindnesses, but yet she was tormented and difficult. Full of contradictions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think real love made the difference but its just sad that a family was broken up because of the actions of the couple and other parties involved.
  #868  
Old 09-11-2014, 01:36 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Marg, did Diana talk about that "on the record"? On the Settelen tapes, she talks about pushing her down the stairs but not about throwing out her things. I think it was in Tina Brown's book that the garbage bags full of Raine's things were mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Diana's glee about she and her brother shoving all of Raines clothes and belongings into rubbish bin liners and chucking them out the door after the death of her father was yet another self-proclaimed act of spite. Yet it was all tears and hugs at the funeral. Go figure.
  #869  
Old 09-11-2014, 01:38 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
He's supposed to be handsomer in person than he appears in the media and very personable. My husband saw him and Diana in Halifax in 1983 and mentioned how friendly both of them were. Plus, he's the Prince of Wales!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I find myself thinking that Charles must be some guy to have these women fighting over him. Even Kanga was in the fight (or at least she thought she was) but lost in the end.
  #870  
Old 09-11-2014, 10:11 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter
Changing tune, are you? If Camilla was in fact, as confirmed by Stuart Higgins, briefing on Charles' behalf, now 'it doent make a difference'? If you are going to throw stink bombs at the first wife for talking to the press , while saying the then mistress, now second wife would NEVER do that, at least acknowledge that St Camilla aint so saintly. Sometimes I wonder if some of Camilla's fans here are not old enough to actually remember what transpired, as opposed to reading Penny Junor's poison rehashed over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I know you won't agree but the difference is the type of information Diana leaked versus the type of information Camilla allegedly leaked. Camilla would have known that Diana was suffering from an eating disorder--but that story wasn't broken by Stuart Higgins, it was revealed by James Witaker.
This November 1982 'People' article says that a 1982 Sun headine was:
"Charles' Diet Fear for Di" and that "The Sun speculated that her 'craze for slimming' had sparked a fight with Charles."
While Baby William Grows, Diana Shrinks?but She'll Never Be a Shrinking Violet : People.com

Who "broke" the story isn't the issue. The issue is that Camilla Parker Bowles was interfering in Diana's marriage. Diana had the right to talk to whoever she wanted about her own marriage. Camilla was interfering in another couple's marriage. She was contributing --via The Sun -- to the perception that Diana was unstable. Reading this kind of stuff by the young Diana trying to sort things out could not be helpful and contributed to how Diana behaved -- or her many 'facets', if you will.

There's nothing more low than people who try to destroy another's marriage/family, in my opinion.
  #871  
Old 09-11-2014, 11:16 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Regarding the Headlines in The Sun, the People magazine article also mentions the Daily Mirror, which proves other tabloids were on the story, so Camilla may have just been responding and saying that Charles was concerned—hardly damaging to Diana. I’m not going to defend or condemn her because I can’t read the articles and Stuart Higgins was not the only royal reporter for The Sun.

If Diana had the right to discuss her own marriage—so did Charles. Do you really think that Diana’s friends weren’t on the phone with other reporters between 1982 and 1992?

The difference here is a matter of provocation and degree. If someone is spreading lies about you and you respond by spreading lies about them, that is ‘getting your hands dirty.’ However, I think it is okay to defend yourself by providing your side of the story. How many posters would just let someone run around saying terrible things about them without responding? How many stay silent while someone is trashing another person you care about. I think almost all of us would respond in some way. Diana always went on the attack when faced with any negative report, even when it was accurate.

Moreover, Camilla stopped in 1992, most likely at Charles’s request. We know Diana didn’t stop in 1992. She continued publicly attacking her husband and his family, regardless of the consequences to her children. Of course, some Diana fan will try and create a false equivalency between Charles and Diana’s television interview. They both admitted to infidelity, but Diana’s interview went so much further—and included an attack on a child who had done nothing to her. Can you imagine how that child’s family felt when the newspapers came sniffing around for information? The family must have been terribly stressed and upset. I think Diana deliberately causing pain to that child and family showed that she was capable of doing things even worse than destroying someone else’s marriage—and we know Diana also destroyed at least one other person’s marriage.

I was actually very sympathetic to Diana until another poster actually pointed this incident out to me on this board. Diana was in her 30s, she was a mother herself, and she actually made the calls in question. There is no excuse for her trying to divert attention towards a child.

I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize. You say that destroying someone else’s marriage is the lowest you can go. I think physically assaulting other people is actually lower. To be clear, I am not certain that it was true. Diana was perfectly capable of exaggerating and apparently never meant the Settelin tapes to be an accurate recounting of events. But if it were true, pushing her step-mother off a step or steps was a(nother) horrible thing to do. Everyone—including me—would be screeching if Raine had said she pushed Diana off a step(s).
  #872  
Old 09-11-2014, 02:31 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I wouldn't say that I'm "shocked" by it. I've been in these circles long enough to know that people will defend just about anything done by their favourite Royal. However, I do find it bewildering. It's intriguing how someone not personally known to us can capture so much of our hearts and minds. I suppose that's always been the case with famous people; but with our media today--and how it's used by those who want coverage as well as by those who consume it-- we know more about these people than we'd have ever known about them in the past. Perhaps the attachment is even stronger for that reason.

Diana couldn't control her impulses in private, although she usually could in public.



Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
[FONT=Verdana]
I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize...But if it were true, pushing her step-mother off a step or steps was a(nother) horrible thing to do. Everyone—including me—would be screeching if Raine had said she pushed Diana off a step(s).
  #873  
Old 09-11-2014, 04:08 PM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
This November 1982 'People' article says that a 1982 Sun headine was:
"Charles' Diet Fear for Di" and that "The Sun speculated that her 'craze for slimming' had sparked a fight with Charles."
While Baby William Grows, Diana Shrinks?but She'll Never Be a Shrinking Violet : People.com

Who "broke" the story isn't the issue. The issue is that Camilla Parker Bowles was interfering in Diana's marriage. Diana had the right to talk to whoever she wanted about her own marriage. Camilla was interfering in another couple's marriage. She was contributing --via The Sun -- to the perception that Diana was unstable. Reading this kind of stuff by the young Diana trying to sort things out could not be helpful and contributed to how Diana behaved -- or her many 'facets', if you will.

There's nothing more low than people who try to destroy another's marriage/family, in my opinion.
Quote:
US Royal Watcher;]Regarding the Headlines in The Sun, the People magazine article also mentions the Daily Mirror, which proves other tabloids were on the story, so Camilla may have just been responding and saying that Charles was concerned—hardly damaging to Diana. I’m not going to defend or condemn her because I can’t read the articles and Stuart Higgins was not the only royal reporter for The Sun.
Every paper in the world was talking about Diana. She was the world's number one cover girl in 1982 and beyond. That isn't the point, which is that Camilla Parker Bowles was talking to The Sun about Diana and her marriage.

Stuart Higgins is on camera speaking into the camera in the A & E Biography of Camilla -- I have it on tape somewhere -- saying that Camilla talked to him once a week for ten years. This is repeated in Sally Bedell Smith's book. And Stuart Higgins wrote a forward in Caroline Graham's book: Camilla, Her True Story, and AGAIN repeated Camilla's role in his tabloid stories. Here's a quote:

"Through this telephone relationship -- probably best called Higgygate -- given the later Squidgygate and Camillagate scandals, she guided me as to what may be right or wrong with a clear bias in favor of the man she loved, Prince Charles . . . "

He goes on to say that he was certain St. James Palace was aware of his dealings with Camilla. If Higgins was lying, he would have been soundly sued by now the way Charles went after the Highgrove housekeeper.

Quote:
If Diana had the right to discuss her own marriage—so did Charles. Do you really think that Diana’s friends weren’t on the phone with other reporters between 1982 and 1992?
Well, let's stay in 1982. Was Diana talking to tabs in 1982? I think in 1982 she was still cloistered away dealing with morning sickness, pregnancy, and post-partum depression. Her realization that she could use the press came later. I wonder why Prince Charles felt the need to have his mistress talk to a tabloid that early in the marriage?

Quote:
Moreover, Camilla stopped in 1992, most likely at Charles’s request.
In 1992, Charles and Diana separated. Mission accomplished for Camilla, eh? The marriage was over.

Quote:
I have been shocked in the last few days at how much Diana fans will overlook or minimize. You say that destroying someone else’s marriage is the lowest you can go. I think physically assaulting other people is actually lower. To be clear, I am not certain that it was true. Diana was perfectly capable of exaggerating and apparently never meant the Settelin tapes to be an accurate recounting of events.
Exactly. We don't know if this was true. However, we DO know that Camilla Parker Bowles interefered in another couple's marriage from the beginning because Stuart Higgins is on camera saying it, is interviewed by an author saying it, and wrote a forward in another book saying it. And he was not sued.

I think most of us would be labled "difficult" if we found out in our first year of marriage that our new husband's mistress was talking about us to a tabloid. So, in my opinion, in order to understand all the facets of Diana's personality, we must start with Camilla's role in Diana's life from the beginning.
  #874  
Old 09-11-2014, 06:15 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Stuart Higgins in July 1998 London Times stated, "she has hardly ever told me anything."
"My contact with Camilla broke off just over a year ago."

Miss Hathaway,
I cannot see how you or anyone can link Camilla to anything written about Diana. Putting and twisting words and dates doesn't help your point of view.

Your own informaton states 10 years. 1997-10=1987.

If you have a link to video please post. What year did it air?

Stuart may have asked Camilla's about her brother's love life. He was dating several famous women until he married.
  #875  
Old 09-11-2014, 06:34 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.
  #876  
Old 09-11-2014, 06:50 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 863
Different Facets of Diana

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.

Sorry to go off topic. I found out for the first time last year that Charles dated Diana Sister which I never knew before and found it quite interesting that Diana would go put with her Sister Ex Boyfriend. But I am not going to judge. I had a relative who married his Ex Wife Sister.

But I wonder if Sarah and Charles would have made a successful Marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
  #877  
Old 09-11-2014, 07:04 PM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Stuart Higgins in July 1998 London Times stated, "she has hardly ever told me anything."
"My contact with Camilla broke off just over a year ago."

Miss Hathaway,
I cannot see how you or anyone can link Camilla to anything written about Diana. Putting and twisting words and dates doesn't help your point of view.

Your own informaton states 10 years. 1997-10=1987.

If you have a link to video please post. What year did it air?
Yes, I remember The Times article. However, you can find the Stuart Higgins quote from Sally Bedell Smith's book published in 1999 where he states that the ten years is between 1982 and 1992. You can check the book out from the library or download it to your Kindle. I did not twist anything -- it's there in the book, a direct quote.

The A & E Biography of Camilla was on television.
  #878  
Old 09-11-2014, 09:07 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: virginia, United States
Posts: 26
Well Miss Hathway stating Camilla talked to the press isn't going to change my opinion of her, just like any different information which doesn't make Diana saintly doesn't change the opinions her fans have of her. Higgins claimed they spoke once in a while and she either said yes or no to something, he didn't go on and write an article to demonize Diana every week, so she wasn't exactly saying negative things to him (like Diana's reporters did and still do), also since charles knew about it and the whole of his set did the same, i don't see how she was interfering in a marriage as you say, (we all know they were wholly incompatible). No one comes out looking good in the whole saga, I always say it started with the ill-fated marriage which shouldn't have happened. As one poster said, Diana's contact with reporters was the most damaging, her words which were very negative and twisted caused great harm and still do, if Camilla collaborated with Higgins and wrote her true story to make her look like a saint, then there's a serious problem with that. At the end of the day Charles made his choice, he chose Camilla till the end...which he wanted to from the beginning.
  #879  
Old 09-11-2014, 09:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
For what it's worth, I think that Prince Charles would have made Camilla his ex-mistress if he knew she was talking to Stuart Higgins about his and Diana's marriage. He ended his relationship with Lady Sarah Spencer because she talked to the press, even though she was trying to downplay her relationship with him.
Oh no, CPB was talking to the editor with HRH's full backing. Otherwise there would have been an adverse response from HRH's staff. Just as Fatty Soames was on the news networks announcing that Diana was "The advanced stages of paranoia to think Charles was conducting an affair'. NO one briefs the press on HRH's behalf without HRH's knowledge. Charles, by definition, approved Camilla, then his adulterous partner, talking smack about his wife to the press for a decade. I always love to read about 'Camilla his discreet, never spoke to the media partner'...not so much...
  #880  
Old 09-11-2014, 09:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
It is all poppycock, you are right. Charles made his choice and that was that. What he had to do for public appearance and the throne he would do, the rest is all history. Had Diana been the usual compliant Princess of Wales, she would, probably, still be alive now and still princess of Wales and Camilla would still be Charles' mistress, as her grandmother was his great grandfather's mistress. But Diana couldn't buy the part, foolish or not on her part, so Camilla won, Diana is dead and Charles is happy.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
bridesmaid, dance, diana princess of wales, pregnancy, princess diana, princess diana lady spencer, style


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
A New Diana? Princess Maxima Royal Chit Chat 203 09-24-2016 02:21 AM
Why do you like Diana? juliamontague Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 222 12-21-2011 03:40 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit biography catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece haakon kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah in australia king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander madeleine 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 marie princess marie fashion 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 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 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 12:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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