The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 09-03-2007, 02:06 AM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Prince Charles’ grown-up stepchildren are not capable of earning their living?! Have the children of Duchess of Cornwall got any legal grounds to claim financial support from the British Royal Family?
If it is true with these trust funds than it is from the privat money of a stepfather who loves his stepchildren and not ´money from the Royal Family´.
Tom is a successfull author, Laura has a gallery in London, i don´t think that they have to live off someone.
__________________

__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-03-2007, 02:10 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
ah, again this disregard for the female line and inheritance through a grandmother, not a grandfather....

But I write it again. Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI./I., born a princess of Scotland and becoming a princess of England after her father inherited the English crown from Elizabeth I., was queen of Bohemia and the mother of the electress Sophia and grandmother of George I. George's father, prince elector of Hannover, was the Head of the oldest European Royal family, the Welfs - they can prove that they ruled since the 800s as independent rules somewhere (not only Hannover, but Bavaria, Saxony , Bohemia, as Guelfs in Italy etc.)

So where is the "historical sense" that the Spencers were ever superior to that august ancestry?
Oh, I absolutely agree. Nonetheless, the Salic Law has little to do with Great Britain which has enjoyed the benefits of honouring and valuing more than one Queen.

As for the Electress Sophia and her progeny: well, so far as I'm aware, the difficulty, to which a great many objected, was that her heirs were selected only because they were Protestant. Alternatively, of course, there were many Protestants who objected to George I on the basis that he was only 50th (or somewhere around that) in line to the throne, and, it must be said, was immensely unpopular. George I was also regarded as being exceptionally coarse and vulgar, uncouth and very smelly! Invited to be King of England, he didn't even bother to learn one word of the language, not even 'yes' and 'no' - consider this, against those people who criticise and rail against Mary of Denmark for her far from pefect Danish accent!

Sophia and her offspring had another, insurmountable problem: they were not regarded as being sufficiently English. Never have been, to this day! Elsewhere in Europe they manage their affairs, no doubt, as best they may, and according to their own needs and priorities. In England, I dare say, many thought likewise, but George I fell far short of expectations. What his Kingship did accomplish, however, was to ensure that Parliament and the cabinet system became all important in the governance of the land, which may well have been the desired and surreptitious outcome, all along.

The Spencer family, like many other comfortably imbued noble families, had a prestigious British lineage. It is not too surprising that they, amongst others, developed a belief that they were, in their own country, worth more to the nation than an imposed and exceptionally unpopular monarch. The Georges, 1 - 4, fell far short of monarchial prestige, and not one of them excited the nation or engendered any of the support and loyalty which we can all easily and readily ascribe to, say, Elizabeth II, today. They were, without exception, ugly, greedy, gross and vain, and rather stupid, as well.

It's also why I think that the Queen of Australia is a neat number and a great Lady. She's successfully discounted all of this awful, historical baggage pertaining to her ghastly and unworthy ancestors and made her realms very much her own.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-03-2007, 11:12 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
The Georges, 1 - 4, fell far short of monarchial prestige, and not one of them excited the nation or engendered any of the support and loyalty which we can all easily and readily ascribe to, say, Elizabeth II, today. They were, without exception, ugly, greedy, gross and vain, and rather stupid, as well.
Interesting -- where'd you get this information. The only thing I remember is that most of them seemed to have terrible relationships with their parents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-03-2007, 11:40 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Oh, I absolutely agree. Nonetheless, the Salic Law has little to do with Great Britain which has enjoyed the benefits of honouring and valuing more than one Queen.

As for the Electress Sophia and her progeny: well, so far as I'm aware, the difficulty, to which a great many objected, was that her heirs were selected only because they were Protestant. Alternatively, of course, there were many Protestants who objected to George I on the basis that he was only 50th (or somewhere around that) in line to the throne, and, it must be said, was immensely unpopular.
Well, parliament at that time didn't want catholic heirs, that's for sure. After they deposed James II., the throne went to his daughters and his nephew. marriage. But there this branch of the Stuarts ended - and the alternative (of course excluding both James' (Old and Young Pretender) and Bonnie Prince Charlie) to George was catholic Anne Maria, princess d'Orleans and grand-fille of France, married duchess of Savoy and queen of Sicily, wife of Victor Amadeus of Savoy, king of Sicily and future king of Sardinia. Even if Anne Marie's mother Henrietta of England had not forfeited her rights to the UK-thrones due to her marriage contract, I doubt the newly crowned king of Sicily would have loved to see his wife and firstborn son gone to London for good (ääähmmm, ruling there...)

So, there was not that much alternative to Sophia of Hanover (she died only shortly before queen Anne, thus her son inherited), who was next after Anne Marie d'Orleans if we don't take catholic Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans, born Princess Palatine, into account, Anne Marie's stepmother and born as grandchild of Elizabeth Stuart by her firstborn son, the prince elector of the Palatinate - Sophia of Hannover was her aunt, born a princess of the Palatinate as well. Elisabeth Charlotte could have been queen of the UK from 1714 to 1722 - and her son and heir would have been the prince regent of France of that time, having to hold both the posts of regent of France and king of the UK for a year, till Louis XV. became of age... what a choice.

So if look at it this way, Sophia Princess Palatine, married Princess Electress of Hannover was a much better choice for the British parliament than her niece and grand-niece.
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-03-2007, 11:49 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
I don't think Charles wanted to marry Camilla at all when he was young................................
Diana wanted it all and Charles was not able to give her what she wanted. So it began...
This makes sense -- young people in-love stick to each other like crazy glue. There is no way to pry them apart. If Charles had really loved Camilla back then, he would have married her no matter what anyone said. Charles certainly shows that he is perfectly capable of doing what he wants with little regard to propriety or the expectations of anyone else.

Furthermore, I think Charles did fall madly in love with Diana, as everyone did, and she rejected him first and early on -- probably even before the marriage. I've often suspected this because:

1) Look at Diana's subsequent boyfriends. It's easy to see what her type was, and it was not Charles's type.

2) Diana's mother wasn't keen on her getting married. She asked her if she loved Charles or if she loved becoming the Princess of Wales, and Diana replied something like what's the difference?

3) During Charles and Diana's wedding, both Queen Elizabeth and Diana's mother looked grim and unhappy, which supports the above scenario.

4) Later on, Charles's family and friends became exceptionally spiteful and nasty towards Diana, which is something that normally doesn't happen to a loving wife who has been spurned by her husband.

5) The lack of any evidence of remorse or guilt by Charles and Camilla and what their affair had done to Diana has always been somewhat puzzling. Could it be they both know their affair took hold when picking up the shattered pieces after Diana had already moved on?

6) The seemingly easy acceptance of Charles and Camilla by William and Harry is also somewhat puzzling.


So what is more preferable: a cheating Prince of Wales or a cuckolded Prince of Wales? No doubt, Charles's pride wanted to at least appear to emulate the history of other Princes of Wales, so a bit of spinning started..............

As the PR genius she was suppose to be, would Diana ever have admitted she never really loved Charles? Never. But she would protest her love -- a little too much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-03-2007, 12:21 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I think this is an interesting topic that can never really go anywhere because we are all playing the "what if" game.
Charles was a bit of playboy back in the day and I think that when he met Camilla he liked her a lot, they got on well, and there was an instant chemistry. BUT, he just wasn't ready to give "it all up" for one woman. So, she got irked and married APB. She wanted a family and didn't want to wait around and APB probably really loved her and she loved him, too. This was several years before Charles got married. But, everyone was driving Charles mad telling him to get married, produce an heir, etc... but she had to meet the criteria. In pops Diana. Now, I have to say, that Diana was beautiful--especially in her younger days. She had a softness to her that make her look almost fairy tale like. I love those pictures of her up until after Harry's birth--maybe its because her hair was longer and fluffier--anyway......
I think it would have been hard for Charles to not love Diana and want to help her. I think what zhontella has a strong point with her post, a very strong point. Diana's fairytale became a job--really. Being in the BRF is a job, and the bubble burst. And, we all know she was prone to hysterics, eating disorsders, etc....now, this should have been handled better than it was ...but Charles did not grow up with a lot of sympathy, so she wasn't going to get that from him!
I think, for me, they were just too different and she was just too young to understand what she was really marrying into--the weights and responsibilities. To a young girl, marrying the PoW is romantic and exciting--not a lot of public responsibilites. She was disappointed. It's sad--because seh really had charisma, and he did, too. They were a good team in the beginning.
It was a different time them, I don't think Charles would ever have been allowed to marry Camilla then. Maybe he would have had a different, older wife who just turned a blind eye (such as Queen Alexandra did) and they would have had a comfortable marriage and Camilla would have always been a mistress. BUT, I like it that they married each other in the end. That "true love conquers all" is a fairytale in its own right.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-03-2007, 12:56 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
This makes sense -- young people in-love stick to each other like crazy glue. There is no way to pry them apart. If Charles had really loved Camilla back then, he would have married her no matter what anyone said. Charles certainly shows that he is perfectly capable of doing what he wants with little regard to propriety or the expectations of anyone else.

Furthermore, I think Charles did fall madly in love with Diana, as everyone did, and she rejected him first and early on -- probably even before the marriage. I've often suspected this because:

1) Look at Diana's subsequent boyfriends. It's easy to see what her type was, and it was not Charles's type.

2) Diana's mother wasn't keen on her getting married. She asked her if she loved Charles or if she loved becoming the Princess of Wales, and Diana replied something like what's the difference?

3) During Charles and Diana's wedding, both Queen Elizabeth and Diana's mother looked grim and unhappy, which supports the above scenario.

4) Later on, Charles's family and friends became exceptionally spiteful and nasty towards Diana, which is something that normally doesn't happen to a loving wife who has been spurned by her husband.

5) The lack of any evidence of remorse or guilt by Charles and Camilla and what their affair had done to Diana has always been somewhat puzzling. Could it be they both know their affair took hold when picking up the shattered pieces after Diana had already moved on?

6) The seemingly easy acceptance of Charles and Camilla by William and Harry is also somewhat puzzling.


So what is more preferable: a cheating Prince of Wales or a cuckolded Prince of Wales? No doubt, Charles's pride wanted to at least appear to emulate the history of other Princes of Wales, so a bit of spinning started..............

As the PR genius she was suppose to be, would Diana ever have admitted she never really loved Charles? Never. But she would protest her love -- a little too much.
this is a very interesting scenario. never really thought of it this but it does make some sense. i don't know if diana actually loved charles in the romantic sense as much as she loved the idea of being a princess. i think she knew her greatest strength lay in her ability to comfort and this life would provide ample opportunity to be able to put those strengths to use. i especially like your point about her PR geniousness and the admission of never loving him would have been a bad PR move on her part. in an earlier thread here in the forum somewhere i'd mentioned that i didn't think she was such PR genious in so much as most of her good press was a lot good luck and timing but i'm seeing more proof of her PR skills.

i think the Queen's "grim" look at the wedding was the fact that she knew it probably wasn't a good match but then again HM is a master at keeping her emotions in check and not showing them in public.

as for diana's taste in men her personality shows that she constantly needed to hear that she was doing good and she i think she thought these men would fill that need. as for charles, he wanted the same thing in that he needed a mother figure and diana certainly didn't have the emotional where withall to provide that because she was so needy herself.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-03-2007, 01:00 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brooklyn, United States
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, it sort of depends what VuMom had in mind when asking the question. I think she's asking whether Charles and Camilla would have married earlier if there hadn't been a requirement for him to marry someone like Diana (if he married at all). I think it's really hard to say, because he was in the Navy and she, by all accounts, was in a serious relationship with Andrew Parker Bowles and didn't have ambitions to be a royal wife (although she did appear to have ambitions to be a royal mistress if it's true that her first words to Charles were an invitation to repeat history!). The trouble is that there was this requirement for Charles to marry a sweet young daughter of the top drawer of the aristocracy, and he knew it, and everybody else knew it, and that coloured what happened in reality.
That is what I meant.

I;d like to think, perhaps it's silly, that if so many people had not been forcing Charles to be something he was not romance wise, he and Camilla would have been together earlier. Whether it be marriage or a type of public campionship.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-03-2007, 01:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,440
As an American, I probably shouldn't be saying this, but George III, was neither stupid nor gross and vain. He became mentally ill. He loved his wife and children. His illness caused him and the nation great problems.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-03-2007, 01:58 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
As an American, I probably shouldn't be saying this, but George III, was neither stupid nor gross and vain. He became mentally ill. He loved his wife and children. His illness caused him and the nation great problems.
I guess he was ok as a family man, but the way he kept his daughters virtual prisoners always bothers me a bit.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-03-2007, 02:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
I guess he was ok as a family man, but the way he kept his daughters virtual prisoners always bothers me a bit.
You are right in that he prevented his 6 daughters from marrying. Perhaps, part of his mental illness. But with 9 sons and 6 daughters, two died in infancy, he had his hands full.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-03-2007, 03:02 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
I agree with many of the points and arguments posted above by zhontella, jcbcode99 and Duchess. However, I'm not sure that the Queen thought (at the time of the wedding) that it was a bad idea. It's my feeling that she was happy that her eldest son was marrying and on the way to enjoying the support of his own family and domestic life. It also seems very reasonable to me that the Prince of Wales went into the marriage with every intention of making it a success on every level, and that the Queen knew this. As for her "grimness" at the ceremony, I didn't see it as any different from her usual demeanor when attending services in a church; indeed there are images of her in the videos which seem to show her as barely being able to suppress a grin. Besides all this, though, I suspect that within a few months she was aware of some of the early problems between the couple and that she found certain behaviors of the Princess of Wales unexpected and worrisome.
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-03-2007, 03:09 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I saw a special about King George III some time back on the History Channel and it was fascinating. Not only is it believed that he suffered from a blood disease, porphyria--and recent studies have shown that he contained high levels of arsenic in his hair (a sign that he was being poisoned). Porphyria is a blood disease that can affect the mind neurologically. That could account for his "madness".
Obviously, King George III and his wife, Queen Charlotte, were quite happy. They had 15 children. They also were protective of their children, but I've not read anything that would suggest they were locked away. I do recall that King George would not let his younger daughters marry until the older ones were wed.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-03-2007, 03:11 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You are right in that he prevented his 6 daughters from marrying. Perhaps, part of his mental illness. But with 9 sons and 6 daughters, two died in infancy, he had his hands full.
Hm, three of them were married - especially the eldest daughter, princess Charlotte is still remembered in Germany's Stuttgart as queen Charlotte of Wuerrtemberg. The square named after her (in between the old and new palace) is the most important transfer point for public transport in Stuttgart.
__________________
'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.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-03-2007, 03:21 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I did some quick reading and several of his daughters did get married, but it was very close to his own death. How sad that they had to wait to get married until his illness kept him from even knowing about it.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-03-2007, 05:18 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
I saw a special about King George III some time back on the History Channel and it was fascinating. Not only is it believed that he suffered from a blood disease, porphyria--and recent studies have shown
This is very interesting. I previously thought the porphyria gene was from Queen Victoria. I don't think she actually had the disease, but could have carried the gene from the Hanover line. One of her children suffered from it, right? The gene must have carried down through Edward VII, George V, and actually afflicted Prince Henry of Gloucester. I think Prince William of Gloucester also suffered from it.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-03-2007, 05:25 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think you're thinking of haemophilia, which originated with Queen Victoria. That's the disease which prevents blood clotting and which was passed to the Hessian, Russian, and Spanish ruling families through daughters of hers who were carriers. Her youngest son, Leopold, suffered from haemophilia and died young as a result.

Porphyria is a metabolic disease which is caused by a buildup of porphyrins in the bloodstream and can lead to symptoms similar to those experienced by George III. It's been theorised that his bouts of mental trouble were due to porphyria rather than directly to mental problems, and the researchers who put forward this theory claim to have traced porphyria back as far as Mary Queen of Scots. There are claims that Princess Margaret and also Prince William of Gloucester suffered from it, but nothing has been substantiated, and as far as we know, the disease (even though it's inherited as a dominant gene) isn't in the British royal family these days.

I think the arsenic in George III's system is thought to be due to some of the medicines he was being given for his symptoms. Unfortunately, back in those days, doctors tended to do at least as much harm as good.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-03-2007, 05:27 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4 View Post
I agree with many of the points and arguments posted above by zhontella, jcbcode99 and Duchess. However, I'm not sure that the Queen thought (at the time of the wedding) that it was a bad idea. It's my feeling that she was happy that her eldest son was marrying and on the way to enjoying the support of his own family and domestic life. It also seems very reasonable to me that the Prince of Wales went into the marriage with every intention of making it a success on every level, and that the Queen knew this. As for her "grimness" at the ceremony, I didn't see it as any different from her usual demeanor when attending services in a church; indeed there are images of her in the videos which seem to show her as barely being able to suppress a grin. Besides all this, though, I suspect that within a few months she was aware of some of the early problems between the couple and that she found certain behaviors of the Princess of Wales unexpected and worrisome.
i think as a parent she certainly hoped that her son's marriage would be a happy one and last a life time and i agree that her demeanor during church services is usually very reverent so you're probably right about that. i also agree that she saw, very early on, that there were problems with behaviors that were coming to the forefront. i just can't help but feel that charles didn't go into his first marriage with an honest heart(and i'm beginning to feel that diana didn't either). i think he's got the right idea on this one though.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-04-2007, 09:29 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Interesting -- where'd you get this information. The only thing I remember is that most of them seemed to have terrible relationships with their parents.
From my university books and studies, specifically:

The Oxford History of England -

Vol. 10 - The Later Stuarts 1660-14, by Sir George Clark
Vol. 11 - The Whig Supremacy. 1714 - 1760 by Basil Williams
Vol. 12 - The Reign of George III 1760 - 1815 by J Steven Watson
Vol. 13 - The Age of Reform. 1815 - 1870

and sundry other pertinent publications.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-04-2007, 10:56 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post

So, there was not that much alternative to Sophia of Hanover (she died only shortly before queen Anne, thus her son inherited), who was next after Anne Marie d'Orleans if we don't take catholic Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans, born Princess Palatine, into account, Anne Marie's stepmother and born as grandchild of Elizabeth Stuart by her firstborn son, the prince elector of the Palatinate - Sophia of Hannover was her aunt, born a princess of the Palatinate as well. Elisabeth Charlotte could have been queen of the UK from 1714 to 1722 - and her son and heir would have been the prince regent of France of that time, having to hold both the posts of regent of France and king of the UK for a year, till Louis XV. became of age... what a choice.

So if look at it this way, Sophia Princess Palatine, married Princess Electress of Hannover was a much better choice for the British parliament than her niece and grand-niece.
They were still not regarded as sufficiently English. That is the rub, which continues to this very day in some circles. Princes or princesses of other places simply don't count, unless they're spouses, and even then, not always.

I don't know how many of you know how much overt resentment there was towards Queen Victoria when she ascended the throne. She was, commonly, called 'hausfrau' and positively disliked, and amongst some very influential aristos. Luckily for her, she reigned at a time when England was politically supreme and a world leader in innovation, letters and exploration, unlike our own current Queen who's had to enforce her individual sense of values and worth on the monarchy to nurture and preserve it. I wouldn't hesitate for one moment in nominating who's the more successful Queen.

The dumb and dull Hanoverian monarchs of England were all immensely fortunate in that they had a slew of brilliant politicians and statesmen to maintain them and their dignity.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince frederik prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]