The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
"As far as Di and Charles's love, I think there was a mutual affection between the two for quite a while, dozens of pictures attest to this. But I think she was naive and in love with a Prince, someone she had idolized since she was very young, not the real man. I don't think she was deeply in love with him till the day she died, you don't wage such a holy war of slandering, propaganda and media manipulation against someone you love deeply. Not that Charles's camp didn't work hard against her too, but I don't claim that he was deeply in love with her either.

Answering yes to a proposal and getting married is optional, especially to someone who repeatedly said that she knew for sure in the months leading up to the actual marriage that she was the lamb to the slaughter.
I will always be surprised and suspicious of young women marrying much older men with great power... Too many times, the young woman is psychologically vulnerable to start with and her marriage to a powerful figure doesn't help at all, quite the contrary. Margaret Sinclair, with her marriage with Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 70s, is another perfect example of a naive romantic girl marrying her hero then losing her illusions and turning vindictive. We can only extrapolate that with time, Diana would have heal her wounds and find peace in her heart and for her ex-husband, like Margaret did.
__________________

__________________
  #202  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:48 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Bulimia and anorexia are particularly difficult to treat even if you have the right specialists involved. Families of the sufferers need a lot of support too because dealing with it that close to you is very emotionally draining.

I think both the Spencers and the Royal Family pushed this marriage and that was a mistake. The Spencers had had their share of public and nasty family spats, particularly the divorce between Diana's parents. In addition to Diana's young age, I always wondered why her family situation wasn't a warning sign to the Royals. When Diana conducted a public battle with the Royal Family she was just doing what her parents had done before.

At any rate, I think the Royal Family has some problems with the way they are choosing their spouses. There seems to be prejudice in Britain against a member of the Royal Family marrying a non-Brit. When Charles and Diana married, the British press was fawning over the fact that she was an English princess. I personally found that offensive.

Its also problematic. In Britain, the Royals mainly socialize with the aristocracy and the British aristocracy has enough history of scandals, affairs, ruined marriages, and multiple marriages, and emotional neglect of children to make the emotional health of any girl coming out of this gene pool questionable at best. The Spencers are relatively more healthy than their close relatives, the Dukes of Marlborough so you can imagine how many problems the Marlboroughs have.

One thing has definitely come out of the Royal Marriages of the 90s. Any woman that marries into this family has got to have the thick skin of an elephant and be successful in internal politics. Marrying into the Royal Family is more a job than a marriage. Its similar to taking a job in a company in a highly charged political atmosphere where your job security depends on knowing how make your way among the key players.

Camilla seems to know how to play the internal politics within the Royal Family. I don't know about Sophie. But it will be interesting to see who the younger royals, ie., William and Harry end up marrying.
__________________

__________________
  #203  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:16 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, with luck things will have changed somewhat before then. I think that with the Queen Mother living so long and being so dominant, old-fashioned standards were encouraged long past the time when they were actually relevant. Between that situation and the nature and background of the Queen's senior advisers, the royal family was caught in a time warp for too much of the later part of the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised to see that changing somewhat as the Princes become more senior and have more knowledge of thew world outside the Palace and Household.
__________________
  #204  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:39 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
The Spencers are relatively more healthy than their close relatives, the Dukes of Marlborough so you can imagine how many problems the Marlboroughs have.

why are the spencers relatively etc??

Its also problematic. In Britain, the Royals mainly socialize with the aristocracy and the British aristocracy has enough history of scandals, affairs, ruined marriages, and multiple marriages, and emotional neglect of children to make the emotional health of any girl coming out of this gene pool questionable at best.


one royal comes to mind to contradict that your background does not determine your future: queen victoria came from a very difficult family background and she managed to have a happy marriage and familylife.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Bulimia and anorexia are particularly difficult to treat even if you have the right specialists involved. Families of the sufferers need a lot of support too because dealing with it that close to you is very emotionally draining.

I think both the Spencers and the Royal Family pushed this marriage and that was a mistake. The Spencers had had their share of public and nasty family spats, particularly the divorce between Diana's parents. In addition to Diana's young age, I always wondered why her family situation wasn't a warning sign to the Royals. When Diana conducted a public battle with the Royal Family she was just doing what her parents had done before.

At any rate, I think the Royal Family has some problems with the way they are choosing their spouses. There seems to be prejudice in Britain against a member of the Royal Family marrying a non-Brit. When Charles and Diana married, the British press was fawning over the fact that she was an English princess. I personally found that offensive.

Its also problematic. In Britain, the Royals mainly socialize with the aristocracy and the British aristocracy has enough history of scandals, affairs, ruined marriages, and multiple marriages, and emotional neglect of children to make the emotional health of any girl coming out of this gene pool questionable at best. The Spencers are relatively more healthy than their close relatives, the Dukes of Marlborough so you can imagine how many problems the Marlboroughs have.

One thing has definitely come out of the Royal Marriages of the 90s. Any woman that marries into this family has got to have the thick skin of an elephant and be successful in internal politics. Marrying into the Royal Family is more a job than a marriage. Its similar to taking a job in a company in a highly charged political atmosphere where your job security depends on knowing how make your way among the key players.

Camilla seems to know how to play the internal politics within the Royal Family. I don't know about Sophie. But it will be interesting to see who the younger royals, ie., William and Harry end up marrying.
__________________
  #205  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:27 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Hi Susan Alicia,

The Marlboroughs had some fantastic divorces in the late 1800s before divorce became commonplace elsewhere in society. I don't have those details but the current heir to the ducal seat, Jamie Blandford, has been a heroin addict and has been brought up to Old Bailey, England's highest criminal court, on drug dealing and other charges.

He stole money from his stepsister, Christina Onassis after she had tried to help him with his addiction. He's not in the news much anymore but when talks of reforming the House of Lords first started, Jamie was listed as a prime example why the peerage shouldn't be allowed in the House of Lords.

He's a veteran of two failed marriages and the Duke, his father, married and divorced twice before inheriting the dukedom and is currently on his third wife. The Duke's second marriage to Athina Onassis, Aristotle Onassis' first wife, was not regarded as a serious marriage by either the Greeks or the British.
__________________
  #206  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Wasn't his father actually trying to disinherit him in favour of his half-brother at one point?
__________________
  #207  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
I think it is. If the whole nation and and the world were expecting the wedding of the century b/t Diana and Charles I think that would make anyone stay in the relationship. She said she felt on her wedding day that she felt like a lamb to the slaughter. If she felt these things earlier it was probably late in the engagement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
I'm sorry, but "Too late Duch, your face is already on the tea towels," is hardly a gun to the head. And if Diana was so naive and bewildered(yet was perceptive enough to "know" she was the lamb to the slaughter and doomed) and had such unrealistic expectations about being a princess and being married to Charles, that is nobody's fault but her own. Like I said, it was optional to accept his proposal, and nobody forced her to walk down that isle.
__________________
*Under Construction*
  #208  
Old 08-04-2005, 05:52 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Yes Elspeth. Apparently the Duke was trying to keep Jamie from ever controlling Blenheim by creating a trust but it didn't work.

http://victoriahinshaw.com/blenheim.html
__________________
  #209  
Old 08-04-2005, 06:50 PM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reina
I think it is. If the whole nation and and the world were expecting the wedding of the century b/t Diana and Charles I think that would make anyone stay in the relationship. She said she felt on her wedding day that she felt like a lamb to the slaughter. If she felt these things earlier it was probably late in the engagement.
Well that was her choice. To go through with it no matter what massive doubts were plaguing her, no one else can be blamed for that decision.

And as far as the timing on Diana's sense of doom, she has talked about how even before the proposal that she knew Camilla was lurking around and giving her suspicions, how she felt "a sword through her heart" when the policeman remarked about her upcoming loss of freedom the night before the engagement was announced. She talked about the "many tears in the first three months of the engagement," how she was racked with bulimia throughout the entire time and a nervous wreck, how she knew her time at Clarence House (where she was before she was moved to Buckhingham during the engagement) was the "calm before the storm," and how she was locked up in her "ivory tower" the whole time. The cuff links, the flowers, her instincts about Camilla... Seems like she had plenty of doubts from day one.
  #210  
Old 08-04-2005, 06:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Yes Elspeth. Apparently the Duke was trying to keep Jamie from ever controlling Blenheim by creating a trust but it didn't work.

http://victoriahinshaw.com/blenheim.html
I recently visited Blenheim (as in two weeks ago) and when I asked the guide there about this situation his reply was that the trust is to ensure that Blandford can't spend his inheritance on drugs etc. He can only use the income from the estate and can't actually sell off the estate itself. In other words he will inherit everything but can't waste the entire inheritance and his (Blandford's son) will inherit the estate as it is now (less death duties of course) but it may not increase much under Blandford's stewardship although the household are more confident now that Blandford will turn out ok as the future duke.
__________________
  #211  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
Well I guess she trusted too much in Charles and thought they maybe everything would be ok. Also, when your whole family (if not the world) is pressuring you to marry, especially when they did not put trust in you b/f, woudl prompt anyone to marry anyway. SHe probably did not want to disappoint anyone and had faith in Charles. Poor young thing-to have all that pressure on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
Well that was her choice. To go through with it no matter what massive doubts were plaguing her, no one else can be blamed for that decision.


And as far as the timing on Diana's sense of doom, she has talked about how even before the proposal that she knew Camilla was lurking around and giving her suspicions, how she felt "a sword through her heart" when the policeman remarked about her upcoming loss of freedom the night before the engagement was announced. She talked about the "many tears in the first three months of the engagement," how she was racked with bulimia throughout the entire time and a nervous wreck, how she knew her time at Clarence House (where she was before she was moved to Buckhingham during the engagement) was the "calm before the storm," and how she was locked up in her "ivory tower" the whole time. The cuff links, the flowers, her instincts about Camilla... Seems like she had plenty of doubts from day one.
__________________
*Under Construction*
  #212  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:51 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
... although the household are more confident now that Blandford will turn out ok as the future duke.
Yeah, crissy I haven't heard anything about Jamie Blandford in awhile. I guess no news is good news.

Sorry, not to turn this thread into a discussion of the Marlboroughs. but if the Spencers were the relatively well-behaved branch of the family, I can see where the Royal family is going to have trouble if they keep recruiting brides from THIS particular group.
__________________
  #213  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
Well that was her choice. To go through with it no matter what massive doubts were plaguing her, no one else can be blamed for that decision.
Wow, reading some of your previous posts I must say you seem a little harsh! Yes Diana is responsible for her own desicions but the Spencer family and the BRF no doubt pushed and prodded her into it as well, not to say that she may not have found the idea of a royal marraige appealing at first. Not only was there pressure from both famalies but an entire nation as well, you can go so far as to say the entire world was rooting for this wedding could you not? Alot of pressure for a girl of 20. Please tell me what do you think her family would have done if she had backed out at the last minute? Supported her desicion, emotionally and financially? I think not! Especially the Earl. Had she backed out she would have been a lamb slaughtered anyways, the media would have mustered up all sorts of things, the people would have been angry wondering "Why don't you want to be our princess?" probably pelting her with bread instead of Camilla, her family humilated and Charles forever known as the prince jilted at the alter. Had she backed out Diana would have been ridiculed in the media for the rest of her life, like a plague.
You know backing out is easier said than done, much easier to say when your not in that position.
__________________
  #214  
Old 08-05-2005, 08:06 AM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Had she backed out she would have been a lamb slaughtered anyways, the media would have mustered up all sorts of things, the people would have been angry wondering "Why don't you want to be our princess?" probably pelting her with bread instead of Camilla, her family humilated and Charles forever known as the prince jilted at the alter. Had she backed out Diana would have been ridiculed in the media for the rest of her life, like a plague.
You know backing out is easier said than done, much easier to say when your not in that position.
Well that is a wide assumption. It probably wouldn't have happened like that at all. And the families pushing and prodding? They were happy (very) about the upcoming union, but no one told her she had to go through with it(aside from Sarah's little flippant quip), and had she backed out no one would have forced her to do it anyway. Backing out at the last minute? Remember, she had high doubts from day one, she had plenty of opportunities to flee the scene earlier than you're talking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reina
Well I guess she trusted too much in Charles and thought they maybe everything would be ok. Also, when your whole family (if not the world) is pressuring you to marry, especially when they did not put trust in you b/f, woudl prompt anyone to marry anyway. SHe probably did not want to disappoint anyone and had faith in Charles. Poor young thing-to have all that pressure on you.
It's her fault for getting herself into the situation in the first place. I read once that by the time of their engagement, they had only had like 13 meetings between them. It's her fault for being that naive, gullible and mealy-mouthed.

Personally, I don't think Diana was as suspicious(of Camilla) and fearful (of the doom she said she felt looming towards her during the engagement) and naive as she later always claimed to be at that time. There were signs of trouble and problems early on, but not to the extent of which she proclaims. I think she knew exactly what she was doing, only using these wild tales to gain sympathy in the War of the Waleses later on.
  #215  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
Well that is a wide assumption. It probably wouldn't have happened like that at all. And the families pushing and prodding? They were happy (very) about the upcoming union, but no one told her she had to go through with it(aside from Sarah's little flippant quip), and had she backed out no one would have forced her to do it anyway. Backing out at the last minute? Remember, she had high doubts from day one, she had plenty of opportunities to flee the scene earlier than you're talking.

It's her fault for getting herself into the situation in the first place. I read once that by the time of their engagement, they had only had like 13 meetings between them. It's her fault for being that naive, gullible and mealy-mouthed.
Pushing and prodding I don't think is an understatement. I mean isn't it almost every famalies goal to marry up in England? Aquire a title of some sort & if they have one already than a better one? They may not have forced her to marry but they certainly wouldn't have been supportive had she backed out either.

Again wow! Your either naive or your not! Life experiences teach you about naivety. At 20 your most likely to be naive and gullible, at 30 chances are your not naive anymore so please tell me who took advantage of who here! Diana was naive when she married Charles and definately not naive once they divorced. Charles certainly was not naive when he married Diana, he had had many romantic relationships prior to Diana. Everyone is born naive and gullible until the people of the world teach them otherwise, whether that be at age 5, 10, 20, or 30 that's certainly not the individuals fault. Hopefully your following my point!

Don't you think that Charles should be held responsible at least somewhat for choosing a bride that he must have surley known was not right for him?
For heavens sake he was older & must have been somewhat wiser???
__________________
  #216  
Old 08-05-2005, 06:04 PM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
I mean isn't it almost every famalies goal to marry up in England? Aquire a title of some sort & if they have one already than a better one?
I'm guessing that sounded a lot more offensive than it was supposed to so I'll let it go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Your either naive or your not! Life experiences teach you about naivety. At 20 your most likely to be naive and gullible, at 30 chances are your not naive anymore so please tell me who took advantage of who here! Diana was naive when she married Charles and definately not naive once they divorced. Charles certainly was not naive when he married Diana, he had had many romantic relationships prior to Diana. Everyone is born naive and gullible until the people of the world teach them otherwise, whether that be at age 5, 10, 20, or 30 that's certainly not the individuals fault. Hopefully your following my point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002

Don't you think that Charles should be held responsible at least somewhat for choosing a bride that he must have surley known was not right for him?
For heavens sake he was older & must have been somewhat wiser???
Charles thought he was doing the right thing, as the Prince of Wales. Was it the right thing? Certainly not! And did he have a choice? Yes he did. Just like Diana. Like she said, their marriage was 50/50. And as far as her parents forcing her to marry him, what in Frances and Johnnie's character tells you this? Or tells you that they would have reacted so negatively to her call-off?

I'm younger then Diana was at the time she married Charles, and I would never say yes to that proposal.

On another note, Charles was honest with Diana from the beginning about what being married to the Prince of Wales would be like, the pressure, the work, being Queen, and she knew all of his interests and hobbies, and had her "instincts" about Camilla ahead of time. She also said that he delivered the famous "whatever in love means" line for the first time immediately after the proposal. I don't see how he mislead her, she mislead herself with her alleged naivetee.

Charles however, I think he was naive at thirty. I think he's still naive now lol!
  #217  
Old 08-05-2005, 06:17 PM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by lashinka2002
Your either naive or your not!
That's what I mean. In later years during her battle for public popularity and sympathy, she repeatedly whined about being so helpless and naive, getting tricked into the marriage. And yet she constantly contradicted herself by at the same time talking about how she knew exactly what was going on with C&C and the RF the whole time, how she had such strong instincts and evidence....
  #218  
Old 08-05-2005, 09:36 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
I'm sorry, but "Too late Duch, your face is already on the tea towels," is hardly a gun to the head. And if Diana was so naive and bewildered(yet was perceptive enough to "know" she was the lamb to the slaughter and doomed) and had such unrealistic expectations about being a princess and being married to Charles, that is nobody's fault but her own. Like I said, it was optional to accept his proposal, and nobody forced her to walk down that isle.
Alicky, by reading all your posts, I can tell you are a Diana hater and there is no reasoning with you.

Back in 1981, (I was 13 at the time) it was possible to be that naive at the age of 19. Diana grew up with a mother who left the family, a father who was disappointed she wasn't the boy to carry on the family title. How do you think this would affect most young girls?? You have no heart!!

Diana, as was Charles, was besieged by all angles from the press, family, and the expectations of their country. If that wouldn't scare and bewilder you, I don't know what would!! Diana alternated between wanting to marry the man she believed she loved (I don't think Diana completely understood what being in love was at the time) and being scared of a future with a husband who may not have loved her, had an older female companion always hanging around who knew much more of his goings on than she, and her family pushing her to marry the heir to the throne as one Lady Diana Spencer nearly did in the 18th century. Gee, in all these heady issues, would you keep your head on straight at the age of 19 almost 20?? I don't think many women would even today! I would dearly love to see how you would cope with it all!!

By the way, the word is spelled aisle not isle. Isle is an island.
__________________
  #219  
Old 08-05-2005, 10:02 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Could you lot tone it down a bit, please? Everybody seems to be managing to inadvertently upset everybody else, which isn't helping the conversation. It really ought to be possible to agree to disagree without criticising each other for being harsh, offensive, or hateful. Or for giving other people cause to be saying so in the first place.

Thank you

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
__________________
  #220  
Old 08-05-2005, 11:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,083
Alicky,
Charles is anything but naive. He was not then and he is not now.
He has gone on to stratigically & successfully put in place his place his long term plans for Camilla as his wife the duchess of cornwall. This has been carefully thought out and planned for many years. I don't doubt for one moment that he does not have plans for her as his Queen eventually, once the public is comfortable with it. A naive man does not plan to manipulate the publics perceptions through the press. He knows exactly what he's doing just as he did when he married Diana. Apperantly he was meeting Camilla on a train the week of his wedding to Diana as well...& poor Diana took the blame for that in the press & he let her take the blame when he knew full well it was not her! He was not naive.

As for her knowing about Camilla, she knew that there had been a relationship but since they were marrying it was ended or either ending. She certainly did not expect it to go on while they were married.

Just because you wouldn't say yes to this proposal doesn't mean others wouldn't. I don't understand how you can compare what you would do in that situation to what she did. Everyone is different and there are always events that occur that we the public are unaware if. He no doubt promised her the world.
In regards to post number 217 I don't know what you mean by "letting it go"
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, diana princess of wales, duchess of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana, relationships


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana/Charles/Camilla's Relationships Part2 Warren The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 935 12-07-2005 07:49 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 4 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 17 05-16-2005 08:02 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 3 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 04-10-2005 06:33 PM
The Great Baby Guessing Challenge Part 2 Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 7 03-06-2005 12:20 PM
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, Current Events Part 1: November 2002-June 2004 Josefine Current Events Archive 300 06-12-2004 08:13 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth carl philip 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 duchess of cambridge engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility olympic games olympics ottoman poland prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 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]