The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:40 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Precisely what about the situation requires flouting centuries of tradition and law?

Nothing. Royals have divorced before--lest you forget, that's the whole reason that the Anglican church even exists. Royals have had wives die before. And never has there been any ridiculous assertion that the new wife should not potentially get the title to which the previous wife was no longer entitled to--twice over, no less; divorce and death.

As of August 28, 1996, Diana no longer had any potential future claim to the title of Queen. Whether Charles married Camilla, Tiggy Legge-Bourke (thank God he didn't! I mean really, Queen Tiggy? Eeesh), or Miss Maria Lumpyfastener, 17 The Poplars, Brighton, his new wife would still be called Queen upon accession. Period.

The only circumstance under which I could even come close to understanding this absurdity would be if Charles had acceded to the throne before Diana's death, they had not divorced, and she had died while he was on the throne. In that case alone, I could see an argument for not making Camilla Queen.

Seeing as that's not the case, however.

Quote:
then it’s “okay” as long as both parties understand that from day one.


If you think that Diana wasn't sat down for a very long and very frank conversation about precisely how Royal life works--including such 'delicate' subjects as mistresses and so on, then I have a bridge to sell you. The Grey Men of Westminster would not allow someone like her to come so close to the throne without it being made extremely clear what was expected of her, and what she could expect in return. I would think that Camilla has had precisely the same conversation, as has Kate Middleton (yes, they're not even engaged, but it could turn out that way and they need to cover their bets).

But moving back to the issue: can you provide any citations which would indicate that this has been done in the past, ever? Any sources which would back up the concept of not giving a woman her husband's title? ('Duchess of Cornwall' doesn't count; Camilla still received the title of Pss of Wales, she just doesn't use it. As the wife of the Sovereign--who is unable to hold dignities from himself--there would be no lesser title that she could use.)
__________________

  #442  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:43 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)
Ermmm.. the Lords now only seats a few hundred, by election. Peerage no longer automatically confers a seat in Lords (except for 92 hereditary peers who were kept for the transition, including three who must retain their seats due to hereditary duties--Earl Marshal, Lord Chamberlain, and I forget the other).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina
Who is guilty in this awkward situation?


All three of them, of course. But what people continually forget is that Charles made the vows; Charles broke them. Ditto Diana.

Quote:
What could the most ardent and staunch fans of late Princess Diana do, if Duchess of Cornwall were announced to be Queen Consort?


Wail and gnash their teeth, and then realize that oh hey, she becomes Queen as a matter of law and tradition, and anything else is an utter absurdity.
__________________

  #443  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:45 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Ermmm.. the Lords now only seats a few hundred, by election.
There are 628 life peers, all of whom are in the Lords still. No change has been made yet to that. The only elections for membership in the Lords are when hereditary peers with seats in the Lords die, the other hereditary peers of that party elect another hereditary peer to fill the vacancy.

Edit: There are also 92 Hereditary peers and 26 Lords Spiritual, for a grand total of 746.

http://www.parliament.uk/directories...omposition.cfm
  #444  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:48 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Precisely what about the situation requires flouting centuries of tradition and law?

Nothing. Royals have divorced before--lest you forget, that's the whole reason that the Anglican church even exists. Royals have had wives die before. And never has there been any ridiculous assertion that the new wife should not potentially get the title to which the previous wife was no longer entitled to--twice over, no less; divorce and death.

As of August 28, 1996, Diana no longer had any potential future claim to the title of Queen. Whether Charles married Camilla, Tiggy Legge-Bourke (thank God he didn't! I mean really, Queen Tiggy? Eeesh), or Miss Maria Lumpyfastener, 17 The Poplars, Brighton, his new wife would still be called Queen upon accession. Period.

The only circumstance under which I could even come close to understanding this absurdity would be if Charles had acceded to the throne before Diana's death, they had not divorced, and she had died while he was on the throne. In that case alone, I could see an argument for not making Camilla Queen.

Seeing as that's not the case, however.



If you think that Diana wasn't sat down for a very long and very frank conversation about precisely how Royal life works--including such 'delicate' subjects as mistresses and so on, then I have a bridge to sell you. The Grey Men of Westminster would not allow someone like her to come so close to the throne without it being made extremely clear what was expected of her, and what she could expect in return. I would think that Camilla has had precisely the same conversation, as has Kate Middleton (yes, they're not even engaged, but it could turn out that way and they need to cover their bets).

But moving back to the issue: can you provide any citations which would indicate that this has been done in the past, ever? Any sources which would back up the concept of not giving a woman her husband's title? ('Duchess of Cornwall' doesn't count; Camilla still received the title of Pss of Wales, she just doesn't use it. As the wife of the Sovereign--who is unable to hold dignities from himself--there would be no lesser title that she could use.)
[/font][/size]
Sorry, but I can't make it clearer. IMO, the 'consort' issue is due to the fact that THIS PARTICULAR second wife was in the shadows all along.

And NO, I don't think for one moment that anyone sat Diana down and told her this is how it's going to be as it pertained to a mistress, etc. And ditto for Camilla. (She would never have done to her what she did so willingly to another woman.)
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #445  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:51 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
That is not my understanding; only 92 hereditary members are still automatically part of Lords. But we are digressing rather too far afield, I think.
  #446  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:52 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Oh, I respectfully disagree. It only required a yes or no response. Diana was quite clear with her emphasis on 'of course,' as if to say that any other scenario was unthinkable. But for Charles it hit a nerve. He didn't expect the question and he couldn't think of a good answer.
He should have; it's not as though it's an unlikely question given the circumstances. But he struck me as more embarrassed than romantic or taken aback. He doesn't come from a background where exposing your feelings in public comes easily, and I think it showed in that interview.
  #447  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:54 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Sorry, but I can't make it clearer. IMO, the 'consort' issue is due to the fact that THIS PARTICULAR second wife was in the shadows all along.
And again... that doesn't matter. Please provide citations and sources that show there is any precedent for doing this. The memory of a dead adulteress is not enough to contravene centuries of established law and precedent. If you're going to make value judgements about Camilla, then they should be made about Diana, too.

Quote:
And NO, I don't think for one moment that anyone sat Diana down and told her this is how it's going to be as it pertained to a mistress, etc. And ditto for Camilla. (She would never have done to her what she did so willingly to another woman.)
Then I am afraid you are, to put it gently, not very well-informed as to how the world works at those levels. Nobody gets into that world without having a very clear explanation of how everything works.
  #448  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
That is not my understanding; only 92 hereditary members are still automatically part of Lords. But we are digressing rather too far afield, I think.
I did not disagree with that. Hereditary peers are not the only peers in existence. There are a total of 746 members of the House of Lords.

UK Parliament - Analysis of composition
  #449  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:54 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,039
To Prince Of Canada

Actually, I meant the Princess Consort situation, but not trite never ending debate "Who is the guiltiest party in the Waleses' marriage?"
You are quite right pointing that the super-staunch supports of late Princess Diana would not have organized any revolution and overthrown the established order. Thus, Prince Charles and his advisers are responsible for brewing this awkward situation for themselves. We can sit and wait for developments after Prince Charles' ascension.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #450  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:54 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
He should have; it's not as though it's an unlikely question given the circumstances. But he struck me as more embarrassed than romatic or taken aback. He doesn't come from a background where exposing your feelings in public comes easily, and I think it showed in that interview.
Precisely. It was front-page news when HM showed emotion at her mother's funeral. That alone should give an excellent insight into the mechanisms of emotional distance at play in that household.
  #451  
Old 07-25-2008, 11:58 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I did not disagree with that. Hereditary peers are not the only peers in existence. There are a total of 746 members of the House of Lords.

UK Parliament - Analysis of composition
For some reason I glossed right over 'life' in 'life peers'. My bad, sorry.
  #452  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:01 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Then I am afraid you are, to put it gently, not very well-informed as to how the world works at those levels. Nobody gets into that world without having a very clear explanation of how everything works.
Well, yeeesss, but from what we hear about the people in the upper echelons of royal advisors, they can be awfully circumspect about how they say things. Diana was 19 years old, in love with Charles and the whole "becoming Princess of Wales" business, with a huge wedding to prepare for, very little educational background or experience with critical thinking, on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine, and generally in the middle of an emotional whirlwind. She may well have been given the explanations. Whether she absorbed them is quite another matter.

I've said before and I'll say it again now - I think her family really failed her. The royal advisors are there to serve and protect the royal family, but it was her own parents who should have made her understand what she was getting into, and it doesn't sound as though they tried very hard.
  #453  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
I lay precisely none of that responsibility there. However, the absurdity of this whole 'princess consort' affair is entirely and solely the result of pandering to the Diana worshippers. Unless someone can cite reputable sources which show that this has been done in the past? No? For crying out loud, even Henry VIII's multitude of wives were all called Queen. And there is simply no question that he was, shall we say, spreading his favours far and wide before, during, and after marriage.

In fact, it is much more common for Royals to hop from bed to bed than most people are comfortable accepting. The idea of lifelong monogamy is relatively new in those circles. Indeed, the whole concept of Royal (and, to a somewhat lesser extent) noble marriages is that they represent the transaction of property, titles, and duty. Once the heir (and a spare) was begat, most historic royal/noble couples would then proceed to have their own liaisons on the side. Look at how many Dukedoms were provided to illegitimate--even adulterous--children, for example.



I'm neither a Camilla nor a Diana worshipper. I'm just sick of watching the Diana zealots continue to punish Camilla for something that, to be brutally frank, is much more Charles' responsibility than that of the two women involved. It takes two to tango, but it takes someone--in this case, the Heir to the Throne, who was deliberately abrogating his wedding vows--to get things started.

'Princess consort' is a nonsense. It is a title which means nothing. Not only that, but it absolutely contravenes centuries of Royal practice, tradition, and law. Women take dignities from their husbands. Period. When a woman marries a man, she takes his title until divorce (and subsequent remarriage) or widowhood (in which case she would generally become the Dowager Title of Wherever). That's it. That's how it works. 'Princess consort' is a ridiculous made-up bit of foolishness meant as a sop to those who are unable to accept that not only did Diana behave as poorly as Charles, but that they were divorced and she subsequently died in a tragic accident. Frankly--and I know I'm ranging a bit far afield here--this cult of Diana serves to cheapen her memory and legacy, not to celebrate it; portraying her as the poor little victim of Charles and Camilla is to completely remove any agency she had over her own life. Or, to put it another way:



All of this handwaving about 'princess consort' is just that. As I have already pointed out, there is no precedent whatsoever for the title. As I have also pointed out, changing Camilla's title upon Charles' accession will require Acts of Parliament from all sixteen Commonwealth Realms. Every single one! Westminster may not act unilaterally in this case. And do you really think that the Palace would like to give Australia (which currently has the strongest republican movement within the Commonwealth) the perfect opening to abolish the monarchy? Charles' Accession alone will be more than enough; a tempest in a teapot over his wife's title will practically guarantee a republican victory in Australia. For goodness' sake, the republican talking points practically write themselves: "Is this all the monarchy is good for? They force us to pass an Act of Parliament so that Charles can call his bit on the side a Princess! Vote for an Australian Republic and be done with this Royal ridiculousness!"

Seriously. This is so silly.
Once again, the precedent of withholding a married woman's title within the BRF was set when HRH was with held from the last divorcee to marry into the immediate family (and I dont consider Princess Michael to be an equivilant position), ie the Duchess of Windsor. In fact, the only reason that Charles is the heir apparant and his mother and grandfather were king/queen is that the divorced lady in question was not regarded as fit to be queen. It's mighty convenient that it worked out that way, hmmm? Although in the earlier case, public opinion was much more in favor of Queen Wallis, to keep the very popular last PoW. I just finished reading the Duke of Windsor's autobiography. Most enlightening and with so many parallels to this case.
  #454  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:10 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
That's incorrect. The title of a Queen Consort can only be changed by Act of Parliament. So that's some 1300 people who have something to do with it (although 700 never actually come to vote in the Lords)
Who said anything about changing it? Therefore, there's nothing incorrect there. The monarch is the fount of all honors, or are you disputing that too? The present Duchess of Cornwall can indeed automatically have the title of Queen Consort and still be using something else, therein does lie an historic anomaly but it's only an anomaly. Get it yet? All the talk about needing acts of parliament is overstated because no one has said she will not be Queen by law, just that she won't be actively and publicly using it. That decision was between her and her husband and the Queen. The government was informed and the government went along with it. Parliament was not required to do anything then and parliament won't need to have anything to do with it later, or their constitutional lawyers would obviously have pointed that out immediately when they came up with this formula for present and future usage.
  #455  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:12 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, yeeesss, but from what we hear about the people in the upper echelons of royal advisors, they can be awfully circumspect about how they say things. Diana was 19 years old, in love with Charles and the whole "becoming Princess of Wales" business, with a huge wedding to prepare for, very little educational background or experience with critical thinking, on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine, and generally in the middle of an emotional whirlwind. She may well have been given the explanations. Whether she absorbed them is quite another matter.

I've said before and I'll say it again now - I think her family really failed her. The royal advisors are there to serve and protect the royal family, but it was her own parents who should have made her understand what she was getting into, and it doesn't sound as though they tried very hard.
Elspeth I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, in the matter of her being given explanations and not absorbing them, I highly doubt anyone layed out on the table the real scenario vis a vis Camilla. Regardless of how in love etc she was, I dont see any bride signing up for that regardless of how young and undereducated she was.
  #456  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:22 AM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Well, yeeesss, but from what we hear about the people in the upper echelons of royal advisors, they can be awfully circumspect about how they say things. Diana was 19 years old, in love with Charles and the whole "becoming Princess of Wales" business, with a huge wedding to prepare for, very little educational background or experience with critical thinking, on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine, and generally in the middle of an emotional whirlwind. She may well have been given the explanations. Whether she absorbed them is quite another matter.

I've said before and I'll say it again now - I think her family really failed her. The royal advisors are there to serve and protect the royal family, but it was her own parents who should have made her understand what she was getting into, and it doesn't sound as though they tried very hard.
I agree with the first part of your statement. As for Diana's family failing her, well, I doubt they could have done more than the average parents of a young lady who is in love and believes life will be all she expects.

But I do believe that the RF failed her. Had they supported her more and not condoned some of Charles' actions, it's quite possible we would not have to discuss Andrew Morton or Panorama. I think she struck out when she was at the end of her rope. Perhaps they couldn't change Charles, but they did not have to publicly accept and include Mr and Mrs Parker-Bowles in their circle. And they certainly didn't have to stand by and allow some of Charles friends to question Diana's stability, etc. That was a terrible way to take the spot light off of the real problem.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #457  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:35 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
That was a terrible way to take the spot light off of the real problem.
There was no "the problem." There were multiple problems, of which no party had a claim on all.
  #458  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:36 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Elspeth I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, in the matter of her being given explanations and not absorbing them, I highly doubt anyone layed out on the table the real scenario vis a vis Camilla. Regardless of how in love etc she was, I dont see any bride signing up for that regardless of how young and undereducated she was.
Well, that's pretty much what I meant when I said that the royal advisors can be awfully circumspect. They probably tiptoed all round the subject and gave a few oblique hints and assumed she was enough of a member of the Establishment to understand what they weren't saying. And they probably didn't take into account that they weren't dealing with someone just like themselves.
  #459  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:46 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Once again, the precedent of withholding a married woman's title within the BRF was set when HRH was with held from the last divorcee to marry into the immediate family (and I dont consider Princess Michael to be an equivilant position), ie the Duchess of Windsor. In fact, the only reason that Charles is the heir apparant and his mother and grandfather were king/queen is that the divorced lady in question was not regarded as fit to be queen. It's mighty convenient that it worked out that way, hmmm? Although in the earlier case, public opinion was much more in favor of Queen Wallis, to keep the very popular last PoW. I just finished reading the Duke of Windsor's autobiography. Most enlightening and with so many parallels to this case.
Except that no title was withheld from her. Edward was created Duke of Windsor after his abdication, and Wallis duly assumed the title upon their marriage. The style of HRH was forbidden to her, not the title.

Further, Charles would still be Heir Apparent had Edward remained King; Wallis was unable to bear children, and Elizabeth would have acceded to the throne upon his death in 1971.

Quote:
Who said anything about changing it? Therefore, there's nothing incorrect there. The monarch is the fount of all honors, or are you disputing that too? The present Duchess of Cornwall can indeed automatically have the title of Queen Consort and still be using something else, therein does lie an historic anomaly but it's only an anomaly
Not quite. Camilla can use Duchess of Cornwall because it is a subsidiary title to the Prince of Wales, her husband. As King, Charles would have no subsidiary titles that she could use. The wife of a King is Queen; Princess is not something to which she would be entitled unless she were created Princess in her own right. Even then.. she would be Queen upon marriage. Period. That's how the law works. Unless you can provide a citation otherwise?
  #460  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:58 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Not quite. Camilla can use Duchess of Cornwall because it is a subsidiary title to the Prince of Wales, her husband. As King, Charles would have no subsidiary titles that she could use. The wife of a King is Queen; Princess is not something to which she would be entitled unless she were created Princess in her own right. Even then.. she would be Queen upon marriage. Period. That's how the law works. Unless you can provide a citation otherwise?
Who's to say she won't be created princess in her own right and that is what they intend to do? They haven't actually stated so but it would require a royal warrant for her to be created Princess. The monarch can grant personal titles and styles at their pleasure, and that's what they've intended. It doesn't require any act of parliament because they don't intend to strip her of the title of Queen Consort which is hers also by common law, but that title will become "silent" in public and court usage, that's all. The British monarchs have granted personal titles for life before and parliament had nothing to do with it. For instance, in the case of the Duke of Windsor, all they had to do was confirm his abdication by their own parlilamentary act, but they never had to confirm the King's orders in council creating the Windsor title. Nor did they intervene on behalf of the Duchess of Windsor to overrule the monarch in his withholding of the HRH. As I said, they've already checked their constitutional experts, and their constitutional experts obviously disagree with you.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, princess consort, queen consort, styles and titles


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
Title for Camilla - Part 2 wymanda The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 505 01-30-2008 01:07 PM
Title for Camilla - Part 1 TODOI The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 153 06-02-2004 04:12 AM




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 elisabeth fashion poll free hosting grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre magnus 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 swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 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 09:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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