The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1961  
Old 08-12-2016, 10:57 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, I believe at one point, when Henry was near despair, he did think seriously about legitimising the Duke of Richmond. He of course, a bit like Henry's brother Arthur and later Henry's son Edward, didn't survive his teens, so I suppose it would have ended badly anyway. However, we've surely moved on since Tudor times!

One would think we have...but at times I am not so sure!


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 08-12-2016, 12:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I'm assuming the whole treason laws are still in place? ..... although rediculous that anyone would loose their head in this day and age for having an affair!
Yes, they are, though the death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
To change the laws of treason (where relationships at least are concerned) could be put forward as a change to meet the current role of the monarchy.

In such a way as to not present it as an Ok to cheat on your husband or wife!
The Treason Act was changed by the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. It is still "judged Treason" to "violate" the wife of a male heir, but not the husband of a female heir.

Quote:
The 1351 Act made it a treasonous act to “violate” the wife of the “son and heir” to the throne.

Under the Bill's changes, that protection will apply to the wife of the eldest son “if the heir”. The husband of a female heir will not be covered, parliamentary documents reveal.
Treason Act 1351
Succession to the Crown Act 2013
Kate Middleton's daughter to be protected by treason law - Telegraph
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1963  
Old 08-12-2016, 02:37 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,401
A reminder that discussion concerning Diana and James Hewitt and concerning Charles and Camilla can be found in the following respective threads:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ewitt-132.html

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-on-13676.html
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 08-12-2016, 04:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
I'm as
To change the laws of treason (where relationships at least are concerned) could be put forward as a change to meet the current role of the monarchy.

In such a way as to not present it as an Ok to cheat on your husband or wife!
IMO it is nonsensical to try and bring about any kind of "legal disapproval" for infidleity.
I still think it would be very bad for a royal wife to have children by another person, who were in line for the throne...However I dont believe that's ever happened.
The Monarchy is ceremonial and also has a role of charitable work and generally trying to "be well behaved" at least in public...
I think that as with other archaic laws, it should certainly be abolished but then there are loads of laws that are not enforced because they are so out of date. I beleive that there is a law that you can't use a car on Christmas Day, but that's not enforced..But there are better things that Parliament should be getting on with than getting rid of archaic laws...
Anyway to return to Charles and Diana, I dont blame ether of them for having affairs. Both of them were lonely and unhappy, but having embarked on having relationships, i think that they both should have looked the other way about the other person's relationships and kept their own discreet. I think that C didn't care much about Diana's affairs, and was willing to just ignore them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
her. She never used her brain when it came to these things. But, from beginning to end Charles had his way. 20 years later, when she could hardly defend herself, since she is dead, his life is just fine.
I agree it was foolish of her to do the interview. But she wasn't clever and she was hurt. But I think it is harldy right to blame Charles for living and having an OK life, just because very sadly Diana died. He is Still alive, and I'm sure he wishes Di were.. but he's hardy going to refuse to marry the woman he loves because his ex wife is dead.

IMO if she had stayed in the marriage, it would not have been perfect..but she had a nice life, in many ways. She had an interesting job, she had her children, she had hr friends and her looks and was attractive to many men.. and the RF clearly were willing to turn a blind eye to a discreet love life.
SHe didn't have to spend much time with Charles, just show up and be pleasant to him. I think she wold have been a lot better to have done that than to go public or try and break the marraige. I think when push came to shove and the queen ordered a divorce Diana panicked and was not really up for the idea.
Perhaps if they had tried to stay apart but together and overlooked each other's relationships, and concentrated on the children, they might have developed a friendship as they grew older...and she would have been respected and have the protection of her PPOs and not been dead at 36...
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:43 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
Thanks to a signature of a friend of mine who has posted in the Diana threads quite a bit, I've been rereading a very good book called "The Road Less Traveled" once again. When reading the section that discusses and defines "love", I had to think of this ongoing discussion here of Charles and Diana's courtship and marriage.

When we fall "in" love, its not real, true love but more based in physical attraction and being drawn to another person. It makes us feel really, really good and we revel in the fact that we're no longer alone but part of an "us". We strive to build on the us and that mostly involves liking what the other person likes, agreeing with the other person's point of view on things and even dressing and presenting oneself to be pleasing in the other person's eyes. This never lasts and its end is usually termed as "the honeymoon is over".

Real love begins when individuality can be expressed within the relationship with the other person wanting and embracing the other's differences enough to allow that person to grow to be the best possible person they can be. It takes a lot of work, communication and trust for this to happen. How many times when we hear of a partner that is stepping out, we hear "my wife/husband just doesn't get me"?

In the beginning, I do think Charles and Diana had a pretty good "us" going and they were happy in it and reveled in it and produced two beautiful sons. It was when the work was needed to support and encourage each other in the differences they had that the marriage failed miserably. Hence, why they felt they needed to move on and find someone that actually "got" them for a support system.

It happens. Its human nature.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1966  
Old 08-13-2016, 01:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
I don't think they had a good "us". Maybe not as bad as they both made out at a latter stage. I don't think that Diana was making suicide attempts, for example.. but all the same she was self harming, she was bulimic.. that's not normal behaviour. Right from very early on, they weren't really on anyting like the same page. They did not IMO have any real foundation, to build on and help each other to grow. Diana said that charles squashed her when she tried to grow, and there's probably some truth in that. I think she was so young and undeveloped at first, and when she did develop a bit she wasn't growing in ways that fit in with the RF's demands and expectations.
She was a townee type, they were country loving. She looked to the future and was modern minded, Charles was a romantic reactionary. She was from a family that enjoyed dramas and were always arguing, but his family are much more buttoned up. She was more natural and open with the children, I think that he half agreed but was conscious that they had to be seen behaving perfeclty in public, and didn't agree with her wholly about how to bring them up.
Apart from music, skiing and the kids they had nothing much in common.
And She had psychologicial problems.. I think with a private life and perhaps a marriage to an ordinary guy, they might have remained dormant but with a husband she really did not understand, who didn't understand her, and who had had a mistress he loved and was happy with, who was very different, Diana's problems came to the fore.. when you couple that with the enormous public attention and the very big "in law problem"..
and her social positon then made it harder for her to get effective help for her problems. Shrinks could not guide her to take time off, or suggest that she might need to consider the option of leaving her husband because a lot of the problems were probably related to her marriage. And I think the RF were very worried about it getting out that she was seeing psychiatrists, at a very early stage. I think that that secrecy about getting help added to the natural secrecy of the bulimic and so she did not discuss her bulimia for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 08-13-2016, 10:36 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,757
In King Charles III, Anthony Holden the author expressed that Princess Diana had, in short, a cruel penchant for upstaging her spouse.
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
If you consider warmth with the public and natural charisma a penchant, then yes!

Of course she did try to upstage him, later on in the marriage when the couple were at daggers drawn, and afterwards, during the separation. The media loved Diana until those last few months of her life, and all she needed to do really was turn up to an event in a glamorous new gown at a time when Charles was due to make a speech on a serious subject elsewhere. The report of Charles's speech would end up on page 4 and photos of Diana were front page.

I don't know that you could call it cruelty, however, though she certainly did that sort of thing deliberately on several occasions. It's more an illustration, I think, of how an increasingly visual medium operates, of the nature of the media and popular culture that Charles never really got to grips with ie that an attractive woman in a beautiful gown or dress will beat a man in a suit every time, however worthy that man is.
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:37 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,676
How many women married at age q20 could cope with their husbands mistress?.
Reply With Quote
  #1970  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Probably one in a hundred thousand, Frelinghighness.
Reply With Quote
  #1971  
Old 08-13-2016, 11:55 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Probably one in a hundred thousand, Frelinghighness.
And that one lone woman would most probably be in the marriage for her own ulterior motives and not care what the husband did.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1972  
Old 08-14-2016, 01:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
If you consider warmth with the public and natural charisma a penchant, then yes!


I don't know that you could call it cruelty, however, though she certainly did that sort of thing deliberately on several occasions. It's more an illustration, I think, of how an increasingly visual medium operates, of the nature of the media and popular culture that Charles never really got to grips with ie that an attractive woman in a beautiful gown or dress will beat a man in a suit every time, however worthy that man is.
Hardly cruel. I think yes she did deliberately upstage him but it was one of her weapons, and she used it in the later years.. just as he, as some biographers have pointed out, used his intellectual superiority to put her down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
How many women married at age q20 could cope with their husbands mistress?.
but she wasn't being asked ot cope with her husband's mistress. I'm not saying his continuing affection for Cam wasn't part of the problem, but it was only one.. and not really the biggest part. There were loads of issues between them and Charles had IMO given up Camilla. he was still friends with her, but Diana had know prior to the marriage that he was still friends with her.. after all she stayed in Cam's house durng her courtship.. And she knew that she would be living near to Camilla in Highgrove..
the problems were much more to do with her own mental problems and her difficulties with "fitting in" to the royal lifestyle and the RF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In King Charles III, Anthony Holden the author expressed that Princess Diana had, in short, a cruel penchant for upstaging her spouse.
I didn't know that Holden wrote "King Charles III"? and he was generally speaking a fan of Diana's. I have just checked and King Charles III was written by a Mike Bartlett...?
Reply With Quote
  #1973  
Old 08-27-2016, 09:42 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Would you say that the courtship of Charles and Diana was too brief?
I think Charles and Diana were as close to the modern version of an arranged marriage as could be gotten. They didn't really 'date', they had 'getting to know you' sessions. I am also of the opinion that they both knew exactly what they were doing. Neither of them went into the marriage blind, say what Diana may have said ten years later. (My bias must be clear).

The question by the reporter that elicited the famous (or infamous, thanks to Diana's spin on it) 'whatever love is' reply, was (when you really think about it) peculiar. Did any reporter ask a similar question of any other royal couple? Carl Gustav and Sylvia? There was something intrusive, and very knowing, about the question, putting the couple on the spot, and revealing something obvious. Of course they weren't 'in love', but they liked each other 'enough', and the rest would come (I'm sure they, and the BRF, believed).

That's what I think.

P.S. I also think that there is a lot about the situation that has achieved the status of myth. One element being this notion of the surprise mistress (whoever it was, if it was). If there was anything Diana knew was part of the deal imo it was the notion of side interests. I would say she even relied on that accepted element.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1974  
Old 08-27-2016, 10:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
If she knew about 'side interests' going into the wedding, then it's extremely surprising don't you think, that Diana became so upset when she found out, before the wedding, about the bracelet Charles intended to give Camilla before the ceremony in which he was to be married to another woman?

If she knew and accepted the deal, why did she confront Charles about Camilla during the engagement, and why did he, according to Jonathon Dimbleby (whose biography of Charles is near to an authorised one) assure her that Camilla and others had been confidantes and friends but that had all now finished. That seems an extraordinary statement if Diana knew that he was going to have side interests and Charles knew that his young fiancée would accept it all.
Reply With Quote
  #1975  
Old 08-27-2016, 11:30 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
If she knew about 'side interests' going into the wedding, then it's extremely surprising don't you think, that Diana became so upset when she found out, before the wedding, about the bracelet Charles intended to give Camilla before the ceremony in which he was to be married to another woman?
These are things that Diana claimed, it is true, but all of her spin ten years later has to be seen through a sieve, in my estimation. There is a lot of intention behind claiming all that. There were reasons why Diana initiated the Morton book. In some ways I approach this whole affair like a mystery novel. Who had the motive......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
If she knew and accepted the deal, why did she confront Charles about Camilla during the engagement, and why did he, according to Jonathon Dimbleby (whose biography of Charles is near to an authorised one) assure her that Camilla and others had been confidantes and friends but that had all now finished. That seems an extraordinary statement if Diana knew that he was going to have side interests and Charles knew that his young fiancée would accept it all.
What I meant was that from her class she would have understood the practice of side interests. I don't for a moment believe that either of them would have intended side interests from the get-go. Not at all, only that both of them would have known that such arrangements would/could have eventuated far in the future (perhaps). This was a Royal Marriage (no divorce). That was the deal, or the great unspoken. Not a 'deal' the Middle Class would approve, though, which was why Diana could play that card with such effectiveness imo.

P.S. Regarding Diana's jealousy, that is another matter. Rather not address it.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1976  
Old 08-27-2016, 11:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
I do not believe that Diana went into her marriage believing that adultery would be part of it on either side, ever. Her childhood had been blasted by her mother's adultery and her father's divorce. Nor do I believe that Charles went into it thinking, "Oh well, others do it, so if it doesn't work out there's always Cam..or someone else." That would be an extremely cynical attitude to take.

Diana, before her marriage, didn't mix in terribly sophisticated aristo circles, where adultery was a given. Her flat mates were young single upper middleclass girls. I doubt they had that attitude. For most of her childhood, when she wasn't at boarding school she was at home in the Norfolk countryside. As she grew older she went and stayed with her sister and brother in law Jane and Robert Fellowes. I doubt that they would have been preaching that adultery is OK if things don't work out either. Not all aristocrats are cheating on their spouses, 'jumping into bed with each other every few minutes' types.
Reply With Quote
  #1977  
Old 08-28-2016, 12:04 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I do not believe that Diana went into her marriage believing that adultery would be part of it on either side, ever. Her childhood had been blasted by her mother's adultery and her father's divorce. Nor do I believe that Charles went into it thinking, "Oh well, others do it, so if it doesn't work out there's always Cam..or someone else." That would be an extremely cynical attitude to take.
I think we agree in sum, Curryong, if not in particulars. Certainly regarding Charles, who is not often credited with having entered the marriage with the best of intentions. Though I think you perhaps ascribe to Diana an innocent intent I have not found to be in evidence in all my reading. She was a sweet young woman in affect, for sure, but that doesn't translate to or preclude other traits. She took up a lover with ease when the marriage went south, and enjoyed it's comfort without giving any evidence of guilt, going so far as to bring her sons along on assignations with her lover. That speaks to great ease with the idea of 'side interests'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Diana, before her marriage, didn't mix in terribly sophisticated aristo circles, where adultery was a given. Her flat mates were young single upper middleclass girls. I doubt they had that attitude. For most of her childhood, when she wasn't at boarding school she was at home in the Norfolk countryside. As she grew older she went and stayed with her sister and brother in law Jane and Robert Fellowes. I doubt that they would have been preaching that adultery is OK if things don't work out either. Not all aristocrats are cheating on their spouses, 'jumping into bed with each other every few minutes' types.
To all this I cannot answer due to some constraints when posting on this forum. I think you are making some assumptions. Not sure I can support your guesswork, if that's what it is. If you have a source for these beliefs about Diana's state of thinking, can you say the source?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1978  
Old 08-28-2016, 12:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,399
Every single biography I have read of her, and I have read dozens of biographies of her, Charles and of other royals where Diana is mentioned, speak of her being young for her age, unsophisticated, in love with Charles and deeply upset during those incidents I've referred to in my previous posts about confronting Charles etc.

You write of my assumptions and guesswork, Lady Nimue. Do you have some source of your own that you can point to that says that Diana at 19 had a character that was extremely sophisticated, calculating and quite content and happy with the thought of adultery at some point in her future marriage, 'as other aristocrats do it'?

Can I also ask, is there anything at all that you like about Diana-- her fashion, style, looks, her parenting skills, her charity work, her style when greeting the public--anything at all?

Because I'm sorry, but I have read all your posts on the Diana threads and they have been unremittingly critical of her at every point. So I'd just like to know, if you wouldn't mind. Is there anything you do like about Diana?
Reply With Quote
  #1979  
Old 08-28-2016, 12:41 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,331
There is one thing that keeps popping up in just about everything I've read about Diana growing up in her teens and that was that she inhaled Barbara Cartland romances. I can identify with that as I found Harlequin romances in my teens and when you saturate your mind with these books where the hero is the closest thing to a Greek god, wealthy and falling heads over heels in love with the heroine, its not unusual for a young mind to start to believe that this is how "true love" is and should be.

It just has been shown in too many biographies written about Diana how she expected Charles to be. Put her on a pedestal. Have his thoughts, words and deeds center around her and have no interests of his own, no friends he associated with that she didn't like. She had the expectations, I believe, that marriage would be a glued at the hip to each other and a happily ever after ride into the sunset. She resented Charles' Prince of Wales role as it took him away from her too much. She resented his friends as she had absolutely nothing in common with them. She resented being at Highgrove or Balmoral as the social circle and activities were not ones she would actively seek out for herself.

Perhaps the biggest elephant in the room between Charles and Diana were that their expectations of marriage were totally and completely different to begin with.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1980  
Old 08-28-2016, 01:12 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Every single biography I have read of her, and I have read dozens of biographies of her, Charles and other royals where Diana is mentioned, speak of her being young for her age, unsophisticated, in love with Charles and deeply upset during those incidents I've referred to in my previous posts about confronting Charles etc.

You write of my assumptions and guesswork, Lady Nimue. Do you have some source of your own that you can point to that says that Diana at 19 had a character that was sophisticated, calculating and quite content and happy with the thought of adultery at some point in her future marriage, 'as other aristocrats do it'?
I have read several books as well, so not sure my countering will be of benefit. Duelling impressions from reading will get us nowhere. But I will say that while I read Charles thinking she was a 'jolly girl' and she was unsophisticated when it came to male-female relationships, she was far from being without cleverness and craft, knowing what she wanted and going after it. She was savvy enough to convince a much older man that she was a good bet for all the conditions he needed her to be. There was far more there than met the eye, or so the evidence indicates to me.

Again, the jealousy and upsets are something that is best not gotten into imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Can I also ask, is there anything at all that you like about Diana-- her fashion, style, looks, her parenting skills, her charity work, her style when greeting the public--anything at all?
Okay, I'll bite.

Her fashion evolved over time so I can't fairly answer that. Her fashion early in the marriage was odd, though not as cringeworthy as that first black ballgown she wore. Not sure what her 'style' was, but she took some great pictures later, mainly because she was so thin. I actually think she could have been a model and likely have been a great success at it. In a sense she was a model. After all, it's her clothes sense and 'style' that are always mentioned as noteworthy. Model.

Her looks (slightly above average, though not above the norm, augmented by what the camera demands by way of makeup and illusion) are overpowered (for me) by the uncomfortable nature of her persona. She is uncomfortable to watch. Maybe because it's all about her?

Which comes to the parenting. I trust what Charles has to say, and he is laudatory. I trust those who have commended her. However, what she showed to the public was always showy, and never persuasive imo. Consider the famous waterslide pictures. Diana is projecting everything to the crowd of on-lookers and the cameras. Her children are props. I trust she loved them, but it was a complicated love.

Her charity work was good as far as it went, but I know something of charity work. Give me an Audrey Hepburn any day, a Princess Anne or even an Angelina Jolie. Diana was a little too much of 'the talent' for my tastes. That's just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Because I'm sorry, but I have read all your posts on the Diana threads and they have been unremittingly critical of her at every point. So I'd just like to know, if you wouldn't mind. Is there anything you do like about Diana?
I am critical to off-set the adulation that seems unbalanced, perhaps.

But with all that said, what I really think of Diana is more nuanced. She is a tragic figure imo. There is nothing to hate about her, someone who was so far beyond just being deeply flawed. There is a might-have-been threaded through her story that I grieve for. Had she had a modicum of discretion and been more balanced and mature (even as a 30's something woman) we would have been spared her spectacle. In the end, though, she was actually a forerunner (in how she was reported and the tabloid press covered her whims) of all the nonsense to follow culturally and politically in the world. JMO.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales, princess diana


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
Charles and Diana Picture Thread Josefine Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 449 10-11-2019 12:46 AM
Charles and Diana: Visit to Italy - 1985 jun5 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 57 09-02-2012 09:35 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british royals chittagong countess of snowdon crown princess victoria diana princess of wales dutch dutch royals family tree future games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history house of glucksburg imperial household interesting intro israel jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewelry jumma kids movie king salman king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing maxima monaco history nepal nobel prize norwegian royal family prince charles prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen louise queen maxima royal balls royal events royal jewels royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spain speech spencer family sweden taiwan thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×