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
View Poll Results: When did your opinion of Diana start to change and why?
Morton book (1990) 25 9.80%
War of the Waleses (starting 1990) 20 7.84%
Squidgygate (1992) 12 4.71%
Hewitt affair (1993) 17 6.67%
Charles' interview (1994) 5 1.96%
Panorama interview (1995) 43 16.86%
Phone calls to Oliver Hoare (1994) 14 5.49%
Dodi al-Fayed (1997) 23 9.02%
Other (please explain) 96 37.65%
Voters: 255. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).
WELLLL, I have been monogamous to my gay mate since August 2003, I have been married to him since May 2005. :) I would NOT have it any other way. I expect that our marriage vows will be honored until one or both of us tells the other that a divorce is wanted. But maybe we are different?
__________________

  #382  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:48 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #383  
Old 01-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
On the mark, again, Beatrix Fan. Camilla is the "great loving mother" figure for Charles. The Mom he never had. Both Charles and Diana needed the same thing, which neither to give to the other.
  #384  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well no, because although I said it's rare to find a monogamous gay couple I didn't say they don't exist. And you may be totally secure too. I was just saying that in my experience, gay people tend to be insecure and so we tend to seek encouragement in the guise of various partners. I know I do. I just think that that was the same for Charles and Diana. Charles hadn't been encouraged or nurtured well by his parents, Diana felt replaced by Raine and so they both went into the relationship looking for the other to encourage. As we saw from Camillagate, Camilla does encourage Charles and so it's obvious why he kept going back to her - because he was insecure and he needed her style of love. Diana on the other hand wanted that from Charles who couldn't give it and so ended up going to various other men in the same way I think alot of gay men (and possibly straight women) do.
I think age has alot to do with that as well. My mate was in his mid thirties and I in my later forties when we met. I certainly was looking for a total and permanent relationship and he was too. How do I put this delicately, at almost 52, I would rather post to this board or read a good book 99% of the time as opposed to being "private" with someone. LOL
  #385  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:02 PM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 397
Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.
  #386  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Yes, there has to be fire in the bed, but she also panders to him. "Her greatest achievement was to love him" quote from the same tape. He needs to feel important, so did Diana. You're right. I don't think that Charles and Diana ever had anything really igniting their togetherness.
  #387  
Old 01-08-2008, 07:00 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, I agree with you Elspeth, I think it's alot to do with society putting parameters on things it really shouldn't but what I also wonder is whether sex outside of marriage/partnership is an insecurity thing. Diana was insecure, Charles was insecure and so one lover telling them it was going to be alright just wasn't enough, they both needed adoration. Charles got it from Camilla and Diana got it from her fan club. You see it alot on the gay scene, people being very promiscuous because generally we tend to be made insecure by out backgrounds whereas it's rare to find a gay couple who have been totally faithful to one another. Does insecurity breed the nessecity for more than one sexual partner? (And have I turned into Carrie Bradshaw?).
I don't think Charles or Camilla needed 'adoration' from each other. What they wanted and what they got was a loving willingness to put the other person first. To compromise, but also to be 'there' for one another.

It is the same with the husband who comes home from work and tells his wife the sort of awful day he has had and by the telling, they can laugh about it and if they can't laugh it off, there is the absolute knowledge that at the very least, they have each other. The same husband takes the time to listen to what she has been up to.

Diana perhaps wasn't able/willing to compromise or understand that, her news was always going to be more important. She imagined that her life would now read like a Barabara Cartland book automatically. Marriage/partnerships take work from both sides, with both people aiming for the same goal. Far from either of them being insecure, they were both used to getting their own way.

There is hope for you yet BeatrixFan, friends of ours met the partner of their dreams (each other) and are celebrating their 30th anniversary soon. They don't know it yet, but they are having a party rather than the quiet dinner they think they are coming for!
  #388  
Old 01-08-2008, 07:04 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.
Novice! definitely there has to be za za zu!
  #389  
Old 01-08-2008, 07:27 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
Sorry. I don't buy Camilla as the 'all loving mummy'. I too have read the Camillagate transcripts and I see two people still very passionate and sexual about each other after more than 20 years. Camilla talks about needing Charles 'desperately, desperately, desperately' and needing him so she can cope with her week. There are also the crude in-jokes and yes words of encouragement. I think (reflecting on my 21 years of marriage and my parents 45)--it's the 'za za zu' that brings you together and keeps you together thru all the trials. IMO Charles and Diana just never had the 'za za zu'.
Yeah, this is true and the "za za zu" is a funny way of putting it, but as I said, true. Or I buy it anyway. I do think that Camilla gives Charles a lot of nurturing, tenderness, and reassurance. But obviously, they have a great chemistry and fit together perfectly. I also remember from the Dimbleby biography, how they clicked immediately when they met, roughly in 1971, and they could almost instantly read each other's thoughts, finish each other's sentences, and always laughed hysterically at the same things for the same reasons. Dimbleby said they shared the same kind of "Goon Show" humor. They have that kind of enduring love where they can get through the bad days and enjoy the good ones.

As for the thing about insecurity mentioned in other posts, I have to say that I believe Diana was truly insecure. the thing is, insecurity combined with emotional/mental imbalance, I believe, caused all her inability to maintain a stable and loving marriage and happy life. When she could not deal with her lot in life, she coped with bulimia, and she even later talked about how she got the bulimia "high" and it made her feel all better, but it was a temporary fix.
  #390  
Old 01-08-2008, 07:44 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Alright, so you understand why they did it. But do you condone their affair?
I'm neither god nor a judge of morals nor their child or Diana's. What have I to condone? I have an opinion, right. I have always stated that I believe that while Charles and Camilla were friends on the day of his marriage to Diana, they were not (maybe not longer) lovers. I have believed Charles when he claimed that his marriage was irrevocably broken before he started his affair with Camilla. I'm convinced that at that point in his life if he had been "Mr. Ordinary" he would have asked Diana for a divorce and married Camilla. That was not possible in his situation. But I'm sure he tried to talk to Diana and come to some sort of agreement. "For the sake of the country", maybe, but still. He never humiliated Diana in public as far as I know. Camilla never appeared in public as the "new love" as long as Charles was married to Diana.

So I believe they tried their best. Okay, they had an affair but what could they do under the circumstances? Charles, besides being a prince, is a human being and we all need love. Camilla obviously gave him that love and received his love in return. As for Diana... that conversation she said she had had with Camilla at Annabel Goldsmith' house comes to mind.

Camilla allegedly ask Diana what she wanted, as she had all:title, position, kids. And Diana answered: I want my husband.

Now - you can't get a human being only because you married the other. People have to want to stay with their spouse. So for me it sounds as if Diana wanted to own Charles and was not interested in what he had found with Camilla, she simply wanted her husband, as if she had bought him on a slave market. No wonder Charles prefered to make his own choice.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #391  
Old 01-08-2008, 08:09 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I don't think Charles or Camilla needed 'adoration' from each other. What they wanted and what they got was a loving willingness to put the other person first. To compromise, but also to be 'there' for one another.

It is the same with the husband who comes home from work and tells his wife the sort of awful day he has had and by the telling, they can laugh about it and if they can't laugh it off, there is the absolute knowledge that at the very least, they have each other. The same husband takes the time to listen to what she has been up to.

Diana perhaps wasn't able/willing to compromise or understand that, her news was always going to be more important. She imagined that her life would now read like a Barabara Cartland book automatically. Marriage/partnerships take work from both sides, with both people aiming for the same goal. Far from either of them being insecure, they were both used to getting their own way.

There is hope for you yet BeatrixFan, friends of ours met the partner of their dreams (each other) and are celebrating their 30th anniversary soon. They don't know it yet, but they are having a party rather than the quiet dinner they think they are coming for!
Well this brings me to my next point, some people don't want that long haul relationship. I think it's fair to say that Charles was told he'd be going into an open casual relationship and when he didn't get that, it was a shock to all concerned. In the few short years I've been in relationships, I've always made it clear that I prefer an open arrangement, by which I mean that a partner is there until something better comes along or if someone pretty makes an offer, I at least want to sample the new line. Generally, I've been with people who can accept that but for others it was a huge no no and they couldn't cope. I think that's exactly what happened here. Charles was told by Uncle Louis that Diana would bear the kids and look good on the arm and he could have other partners (Camilla) as was his birth right. Diana was told that she'd be well compensated with a luxury lifestyle and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and she could have other partners as well. Unfortunately, no one seemed to listen to what Charles and Diana wanted, that being Camilla and a devoted long haul partner respectively. Any relationship that doesn't start with clear goals surely has to fail?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #392  
Old 01-08-2008, 08:51 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
As for the thing about insecurity mentioned in other posts, I have to say that I believe Diana was truly insecure. the thing is, insecurity combined with emotional/mental imbalance, I believe, caused all her inability to maintain a stable and loving marriage and happy life. When she could not deal with her lot in life, she coped with bulimia, and she even later talked about how she got the bulimia "high" and it made her feel all better, but it was a temporary fix.
I don't think she was insecure at all, she felt very sure of her position and in the belief that divorce would be out of the question and therefore she could get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour. Many women in the public eye, have coped with an 'out of love' marriage. But then again many women seem to have this 'need' to show who has the upper hand, by driving the partner away.
  #393  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:11 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well this brings me to my next point, some people don't want that long haul relationship. I think it's fair to say that Charles was told he'd be going into an open casual relationship and when he didn't get that, it was a shock to all concerned...... I think that's exactly what happened here. Charles was told by Uncle Louis that Diana would bear the kids and look good on the arm and he could have other partners (Camilla) as was his birth right. Diana was told that she'd be well compensated with a luxury lifestyle and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander and she could have other partners as well. Unfortunately, no one seemed to listen to what Charles and Diana wanted, that being Camilla and a devoted long haul partner respectively. Any relationship that doesn't start with clear goals surely has to fail?
While I agree that some people don't want to commit to someone else, I don't think that was the case with Charles and Diana. Although the marriage was arranged, I believe they both took their wedding vows seriously, to start with. Charles was too much a 'gentleman' to enter into a marriage with the view to having an affair, Diana too young to consider having umpteen sexual partners as long as she was discreet. I have no doubt that Diana was in love with The Prince of Wales, she just didn't realise that underneath that title, was a living breathing man, with hopes and dreams. Charles was incredibly fond of the young woman and probably thought they would grow to have a full and deep love for one another.

It is very easy in the first flush of romance to only see what you want to see in the other person. Any doubts are easy to brush aside as nerves, differences as getting to know one another.

We have all 'wanted' something or someone, only to be seriously disappointed when we got it! On the other hand, I had a female friend who separated from her husband but kept interferring in his life. When asked why, she said she didn't want him but she didn't want him not to want her.
  #394  
Old 01-08-2008, 12:43 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I don't think she was insecure at all, she felt very sure of her position and in the belief that divorce would be out of the question and therefore she could get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour. Many women in the public eye, have coped with an 'out of love' marriage. But then again many women seem to have this 'need' to show who has the upper hand, by driving the partner away.
But her outlandish behavior is the reason one can see she was insecure. It is only people who are insecure who feel they have to show their strength by pushing others around, trying to emotionally bully someone into making things a certain way. Secure people do not feel this kind of drive. They are comfortable with themselves enough to allow others to be themselves too.
  #395  
Old 01-08-2008, 04:27 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
But her outlandish behavior is the reason one can see she was insecure. It is only people who are insecure who feel they have to show their strength by pushing others around, trying to emotionally bully someone into making things a certain way. Secure people do not feel this kind of drive. They are comfortable with themselves enough to allow others to be themselves too.
I can't agree with you on this, . I hold firmly to the belief that many do it, and I quote The Stepford Wives, because they can! Control freaks do it and if the partner does escape, they soon 'select' another victim. Let's just agree to disagree.
  #396  
Old 01-08-2008, 05:42 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
^ Skydragon, you and I are just not communicating. We define secure differently. The Stepford Wives you call secure control freaks, I do not call them secure. If they were truly secure, they would not need so much control.
  #397  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:13 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,387
I see both of your points.

CasiraghiTrio is quoting the generally accepted theories that people who exhibit Diana's behavior (self-harm, vengefulness, etc.) do so out of an insecurity and a need to make themselves feel better.

skydragon is saying the same thing as some recent experts have said about vengeful people and bullies. They counter the prevailing wisdom that vengeful people are insecure; they argue that vengeful people aren't insecure but they want what they want and they can get it by bullying people and feel no remorse about it.

Who knows which is the actual truth about Diana? Its hard to tell; I do think with the public adulation, she felt that whatever she did, that her devoted public would always forgive her and love her. I do think however, that Diana had too much natural empathy with people to be a real remorseless bully.

I tend to think that she was mainly insecure and defensive.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #398  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:33 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
YSBEL

I agree with you, I can see both points of view.

I do think that bullies are bullies because they WIN from being so in whatever their objectives are. IF being pushy, shoving, demanding, grabbing and takes works, then it works. One cannot argue with success.

Of course it is the fault of those who give into and allow the bullies to experience that success. I remember when many people would grit their teeth, stand very still and firm and simply say "I will endure anything, I will suffer any loss, BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PUSH AND FORCE ME INTO ANYTHING." That worked too!
  #399  
Old 01-09-2008, 05:28 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
YSBEL

I agree with you, I can see both points of view.

I do think that bullies are bullies because they WIN from being so in whatever their objectives are. IF being pushy, shoving, demanding, grabbing and takes works, then it works. One cannot argue with success.

Of course it is the fault of those who give into and allow the bullies to experience that success. I remember when many people would grit their teeth, stand very still and firm and simply say "I will endure anything, I will suffer any loss, BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PUSH AND FORCE ME INTO ANYTHING." That worked too!
For the moment, yes. But normally a bully has several methods of bullying people. So if one doesn't work, he or she will try the next one to get what they want. The only thing you can really do is go away. But what if the bully is family or in a position where you can't simply go away?

I think the RF was in a very difficult position. The more the media worked on the fairytale myth, the more leverage Diana got. Yesterday I read an article that was very interesting - I'm not sure how reliable it is but still - interesting: Charles and Camilla: The Queen regards Camilla as the woman who led | Sunday Mirror | Find Articles at BNET.com

In it it says about Charles and Camilla (in 1998):
"His relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, though conducted almost entirely in private, is infinitely less furtive, infinitely more relaxed. They had both always been terrified of Diana's ability to launch a devastating pre- emptive strike against them. That terror is now a thing of the past."

The article is quite critical of Charles and Camilla, but has some quotes where the author cites the person who said it - so I wonder if this is really how they saw things. How terrible, if it is true!
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #400  
Old 01-09-2008, 10:33 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I see both of your points. Who knows which is the actual truth about Diana? Its hard to tell; I do think with the public adulation, she felt that whatever she did, that her devoted public would always forgive her and love her. I do think however, that Diana had too much natural empathy with people to be a real remorseless bully.

I tend to think that she was mainly insecure and defensive.
I never believed that Diana was a bully, just a manipulator supreme! Similar to the girl Bonnie Langford played in Just William, who said if she didn't get her own way, then 'I'll scream and I'll scream and I'll scream!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I think the RF was in a very difficult position. The more the media worked on the fairytale myth, the more leverage Diana got. Yesterday I read an article that was very interesting - I'm not sure how reliable it is but still - interesting: Charles and Camilla: The Queen regards Camilla as the woman who led | Sunday Mirror | Find Articles at BNET.com

In it it says about Charles and Camilla (in 1998):
"His relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, though conducted almost entirely in private, is infinitely less furtive, infinitely more relaxed. They had both always been terrified of Diana's ability to launch a devastating pre- emptive strike against them. That terror is now a thing of the past."

The article is quite critical of Charles and Camilla, but has some quotes where the author cites the person who said it - so I wonder if this is really how they saw things. How terrible, if it is true!
To be honest, as it is by one of the worst tabloids in the country, I would say it is 'less than accurate' in a lot of places. How on earth could they 'know' how Charles or HM thinks?

One thing they did get right about Camilla, IMO, is - "She's staggeringly un-pompous. She wasn't a good Army wife precisely because she couldn't stand all the regalia and buttering up. On the contrary, she's untidy, smokes and has a sense of humour which is as crude and lavatorial as his own". - she has as we know given up the dreaded weed, but otherwise that is still the Camilla we know and love!
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
andrew morton, diana princess of wales, dodi fayed, james hewitt, jonathan dimbleby, oliver hoare, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, squidgygate


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
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 08:09 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 05:29 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince oscar princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stéphanie's daytime outfits psychopath queen elizabeth ii 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 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed 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 05:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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