The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:14 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Ok, call me late to finding this info.. but I would love to know why Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven did not become Queen. For that matter, her father Fernando, 5th Earl of Derby Stanley. Anyone know why this line was passed over for James of Scotland?

The act of Succession of Henry VIII followed this line... after Elizabeth I

1. Henry VII of England
2. Mary Tudor, Queen of France, third daughter, sixth line of Henry
3. Lady Eleanor Brandon, second daughter, third line of Mary
4. Lady Margaret Clifford, only daughter, third line of Eleanor
5. Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, first son of Margaret
6. Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven, first daughter, first line of Ferdinando
7. George Brydges, 6th Baron Chandos, first son of Anne
8. Margaret Brydges, first daughter, first line of George
9. George Brydges Skipwith, first son of Margaret
10. Elizabeth Brownlow, first daughter, second line of Margaret
11. George Brownlow Doughty, first son of Elizabeth
12. Henry Doughty, only child of George
13. Henry Doughty, only son of Henry
14. Elizabeth Doughty, only daughter of Henry Snr

Since Lady Anne Stanley’s line is thought to have become extinct with the death of Elizabeth Doughty, the line then passes to the descendants of Lady Anne's sister, Lady Frances Stanley:

1. Lady Frances Stanley, second daughter, second line of Ferdinando
2. John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater, first son of Frances
3. John Egerton, 3rd Earl of Bridgewater, first son of John
4. Scroop Egerton, 1st Duke of Bridgewater, third son of John, 3rd Earl
5. Lady Anne Egerton, first daughter, fifth line of Scroop
6. George Villiers, 4th Earl of Jersey, only child of Anne
7. George Child Villiers, 5th Earl of Jersey, first son of George, 4th Earl
8. George Child Villiers, 6th Earl of Jersey, first son of George, 5th Earl
9. Victor Child Villiers, 7th Earl of Jersey, only son of George, 6th Earl
10. George Child Villiers, 8th Earl of Jersey, first son of Victor
11. George Child Villiers, 9th Earl of Jersey, first son of George
12. Lady Caroline Child Villiers, only child of George's first marriage

Alternative Succession of Royal Houses
Descendants of Mary Tudor
House of Tudor: Henry VII • Henry VIII • Edward VI •
Mary • Elizabeth I
House of Stanley: Anne
House of Brydges: George I • Margaret
House of Skipwith: George II
House of Doughty: Henry IX • Henry X • Elizabeth II
House of Villiers: George III • George IV • Victor •
George V • George VI • Caroline
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:25 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Who is descended from him?

He had only three legitimate descendents who all died without legitimate issue and I have been unable to locate any descendents of his illegitimate children.

Certainly, as far as my research goes no member of the British royal family are descendents from such a person (assuming you are referring to Henry VIII).
That is correct. Some people do say that Mary Boleyn and others had illegit children so.. whatever. That doesn't really matter because the British line went the other way.. through another Tudor, Margaret(Henry's sister). So if the claim is true that they are related it's either through his father and mother or his sisters as cousins, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ann View Post
Wiki says HM Queen Elizabeth II is descended from The House of Tudor therefore, wouldn't William also be??? I get your point where as they are not descended from Elizabeth I, Mary I, Or Edward VI, but some how they are all still ancesters which is what was stated in the first place .. I am not sure if this is how but Henry VIII's mother was Elizabeth of York daughter of Edward IV. I don't know but they all tie in somewhere I thought maybe this could be where ...

Through Victoria, as well as several other of her great-great-grandparents, Elizabeth is directly descended from many British royals: from the House of Stuart, from Mary Queen of Scots,Robert the Bruce, and earlier Scottish royal houses; from the House of Tudor and earlier English royal houses stretching back as far as the 7th century House of Wessex.
Well if Queen Elizabeth II had Charles, Princes of Wales and then Charles had William... yes they are an ancestor of Henry VIII. The only way they are a direct descendant of The House of Tudor is through Henry VII, then his daughter Margaret.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
That is correct. Some people do say that Mary Boleyn and others had illegit children so.. whatever. That doesn't really matter because the British line went the other way.. through another Tudor, Margaret(Henry's sister). So if the claim is true that they are related it's either through his father and mother or his sisters as cousins, etc.



Well if Queen Elizabeth II had Charles, Princes of Wales and then Charles had William... yes they are an ancestor of Henry VIII. The only way they are a direct descendant of The House of Tudor is through Henry VII, then his daughter Margaret.

Can you tell me how people born in the 20th C and still alive can be ancestors of someone born in the 15th C and dying in the 16th C?

An ancestor comes before someone not after.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-31-2009, 11:57 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Can you tell me how people born in the 20th C and still alive can be ancestors of someone born in the 15th C and dying in the 16th C?

An ancestor comes before someone not after.
What are you talking about?
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).
Two individuals have a genetic relationship if one is the ancestor of the other, or if they share a common ancestor. In evolutionary theory, species which share an evolutionary ancestor are said to be of common descent. However, this concept of ancestry does not apply to some bacteria and other organisms capable of horizontal gene transfer.
Assuming that all of an individual's ancestors are otherwise unrelated to each other, that individual has 2n ancestors in the nth generation before him and a total of about 2g+1 ancestors in the g generations before him. In practice, however, it is clear that the vast majority of ancestors of humans (and indeed any other species) are multiply related (see Pedigree collapse). Consider n = 40: the human species is surely more than 40 generations old, yet the number 240, approximately 1012 or one trillion, dwarfs the number of humans that have ever lived.
Ignoring the possibility of other inter-relationships (even distant ones) among ancestors, an individual has a total of 2046 ancestors up to the 10th generation, 1024 of which are 10th generation ancestors. With the same assumption, any given person has over a billion 30th generation ancestors (who lived roughly 1000 years ago) and this theoretical number increases past the estimated total population of the world in around AD 1000. (All of these ancestors will have contributed to one's autosomal DNA is concerned: this excludes Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA.)
Some cultures confer reverence to ancestors, both living and dead; in contrast, some more youth-oriented cultural contexts display less veneration of elders. In other cultural contexts, some people seek providence from their deceased ancestors; this practice is sometimes known as ancestor worship or, more accurately, ancestor veneration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-01-2009, 12:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
The act of Succession of Henry VIII followed this line... after Elizabeth I
1. Henry VII of England
2. Mary Tudor, Queen of France, third daughter, sixth line of Henry
I don't understand why you have Henry VII coming after Elizabeth 1 as he died nearly 100 years before her?

When Henry VIII died his will instructed that his heirs were his three children in order of Edward, Mary and then Elizabeth if the earlier ones didn't marry and have children.

His will also dealt with the sister who married into the Scottish family and her claim by excluding her but she did have a claim in law and her descendents would have fought for it. Elizabeth I, fearing a civil war or a war with Scotland named the heir of her father's eldest sister as her heir on her deathbed.

In other words at the time that Henry VIII became heir to the throne, having no younger brothers his sisters were his immediate heirs. His will wanted to exclude the elder sister and go to the younger but following strict laws of inheritance boys in order of age followed by girls in order of age the Stuarts had a stronger claim being descended from the elder sister, which is why James VI and I succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I.


In the end, despite Henry's will, the correct succession was followed - Henry's children - boy first then girls in order, followed by his elder sister's line with the younger sister's line being pushed further and further away from the throne. The succession has followed that since except for those who were barred, after the 1701 Act of Settlement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-01-2009, 12:16 AM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Um, I was just posting what I found... the way the Act would look under the succession of Mary Tudor. I am aware that he died before Elizabeth. I'm not stupid thank you. I've been researching this stuff for quite some time now. I was showing the full line.. the way it would have been.

According to the will of Henry VIII, Ferdinando was second-in-line heir to Elizabeth I following after his mother. But he predeceased his mother by two years and the queen by nine years.

From his marriage to Alice Spencer he had his eldest daughter, Anne, in 1580. According to Henry VIII's will she should have become queen in 1603, but she did not. Elizabeth was succeeded by James of Scotland, the descendant of a senior branch of Henry VII, Margaret's. So?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMeg
Well if Queen Elizabeth II had Charles, Princes of Wales and then Charles had William... yes they are an ancestor of Henry VIII. The only way they are a direct descendant of The House of Tudor is through Henry VII, then his daughter Margaret.


This was your post.

You state in this that Queen Elizabeth II, Charles and William ‘are an ancestor of Henry VIII’.

I asked how could this be?

Elizabeth, Charles and William are still alive and Henry has been dead for over 400 years so Elizabeth, Charles and William can’t be his ancestor as Henry came before them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMeg
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).


This is the start of your reply to my question in which you state that an ancestor has to come before which is what I was saying when I posed the question.

Your original post is the one that is wrong in the terminology used – Elizabeth II is an ancestor of Charles and William and Charles is an ancestor of William but none of them are ancestors of Henry VIII. They can’t be his ancestor as he died long before they were born and his ancestors have to have been born before he was born.

Do you see the problem?

Your original post has Henry as a descendent of people alive today when he has been dead for over 400 years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-01-2009, 01:18 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
Um, I was just posting what I found... the way the Act would look under the succession of Mary Tudor. I am aware that he died before Elizabeth. I'm not stupid thank you. I've been researching this stuff for quite some time now. I was showing the full line.. the way it would have been.
I never meant to imply that you were stupid and I apologise if that is what you thought.

I just found the way you worded your post confusing so I asked a question.

I have spend most of my adult life researching in this period and teach it as well so I do have a solid grasp of the time period which is why I explained what happened rather that what might have been - Elizabeth decided to overturn her father's will and follow normal procedure of the elder female line following the male lines - rather simple really.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-01-2009, 08:49 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is online now
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 629
Are there graphics (as in a drawn family tree) of how this worked?
All those names make my eyes cross.
Any visualisation would be very appreciated. :)

Found something myself.
Now everything you all wrote, makes much more sense.
Descent of Elizabeth II from William I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down for family-tree.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-01-2009, 05:21 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
This was your post.
You state in this that Queen Elizabeth II, Charles and William ‘are an ancestor of Henry VIII’...
I asked how could this be?
...Your original post has Henry as a descendent of people alive today when he has been dead for over 400 years.
You are thinking still that an ancestor means you have to come before the person, then that they are descendants or something like that.

That is not what I meant with Henry being a descendant of people alive today. That's not possible. Well from where I grew up and the way we discuss Ancestry - our ancestors are those who are related to us in every way. This includes great-grandparents how many times removed, etc. I never said Henry was a descendant of people living today. I said that Elizabeth II, Charles and William are ancestors of Henry VII - in my mind meaning that they are descendants.. meaning they are related through Henry VII being their great-grandfather how many times removed. The terminology between us for some reason is mixed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I just found the way you worded your post confusing so I asked a question.
Ok now that makes more sense to me. I think it's just the wording and being online. I swear, computers are making the world anti-social and have social skill problems. Thanks for clearing that up. No hard feelings. It's all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Nice. I liked that. Just soooo much info overload. That was a handy article though. Thanks!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-02-2009, 01:56 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
...Well if Queen Elizabeth II had Charles, Princes of Wales and then Charles had William... yes they are an ancestor of Henry VIII. The only way they are a direct descendant of The House of Tudor is through Henry VII, then his daughter Margaret.
Ancestors come before someone. descendnats come after. You quite specifically name QEII, Prince Charles and William as ancestors of Henry VIII. THEY ARE NOT. Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather etc of Henry VIII. Which is what he would have to be if he was an ancestor. YOU have got it wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Ancestors come before someone. descendnats come after. You quite specifically name QEII, Prince Charles and William as ancestors of Henry VIII. THEY ARE NOT. Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather etc of Henry VIII. Which is what he would have to be if he was an ancestor. YOU have got it wrong.
I am quite aware that Prince Charles is not the father, grandfather of Henry VII or Henry VIII for that matter. The reason I put the word 'ancestor' in there is because I had no clue that people thought the word meant people that came before. To me, the word ancestor means someone that you are related to - no matter what. I was trying to state that because Henry VII is a great-grandfather of the monarchs he is their 'ancestor' but for some reason quite a few people use the word in a completely different context then what I meant. So I guess I have to change my wording now so that every time I talk about genealogy on here people understand that I am talking about descendants of Henry VII. Geez. You people are so rude. If you had read the rest of my posts you would have noticed that I explained this already in an earlier post.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2009, 12:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
LadyMeg you are using the term ancestors to mean both ancestors and descendents which is actually wrong - it can't mean both those who come before and those who came after.

Ancestry is a more generic term that relates to the study of one's family but as you can't be studying those yet to come it also relates only to those who came before and so again usually only relates to those that came before.

When you say that "Elizabeth II, Charles and William are ancestors of Henry VII' you are wrong in your terminology as they simply can't be ancestors of Henry VII as they came over 400 years after him. - "in my mind meaning that they are descendants.. " you are now contradicting yourself as an ancestor is the opposite of a descendent with a particular person being in the middle e.g. Elizabeth II is a descendent of all those who came before her - her parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents etc while she is the ancestor of Charles, William, Harry, Anne, Peter, Zara, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise and James but she is NOT an ancestor of anyone else - she may be related to them but she isn't an ancestor for instance of the Linley's although they have some common ancestors such as George VI and Elizabeth the Queen Mother as Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret have common ancestors being siblings. Lord Linley's ancestors are Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon and their ancestors but not Queen Elizabeth II who is his aunt. "meaning they are related through Henry VII being their great-grandfather how many times removed." Henry is the ancestor of all of them but they are NOT the ancestor of Henry but the descendents only. "The terminology between us for some reason is mixed up." This is because you are using ancestor and descendent as being the same thing when they aren't.

I hope this clears up the problem as your use of terminology is making things very hard to follow some of your posts.

Ancestry is a study of the family - and as I said because you can't study those still to come it in 98% of the time related to those who came before but can occasionally include those already here e.g. if you have children you would put them on a family tree but they are NOT your ancestors but rather your descendents. In ancestry people include in their family tree all the branches of their family but that doesn't mean that they are all ancestors only that they are from the same tree. e.g. I have the same ancestors as my brother but I am not an ancestor of his children but do appear on their family tree as a sibling of their father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
I totally understood from the first time someone called me out on it. I was just explaining why I said what I said - why I used the word incorrectly - because I thought it meant something completely different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:30 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canton IL, United States
Posts: 2
Mary Boleyn is also my !4th great-grandma, through her daughter Catherine and granddaughter Anne Knollys-West! When I first discovered it, I thought “No way!”, tossed the whole line and started over…well, it re-appeared. so I have since delved deeper, checked and rechecked. It’s true and I am still amazed, if only because I have been fascinated with Mary’s history for 28 years, only to learn I was descended from her!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:41 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canton IL, United States
Posts: 2
Mary Boleyn is also my !4th great-grandma, through her daughter Catherine and granddaughter Anne Knollys-West! When I first discovered it, I thought “No way!”, tossed the whole line and started over…well, it re-appeared. so I have since delved deeper, checked and rechecked. It’s true and I am still amazed, if only because I have been fascinated with Mary’s history for 28 years, only to learn I was descended from her!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-26-2012, 04:17 AM
MarkUK's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stone, United Kingdom
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
...According to the will of Henry VIII, Ferdinando was second-in-line heir to Elizabeth I following after his mother. But he predeceased his mother by two years and the queen by nine years. From his marriage to Alice Spencer he had his eldest daughter, Anne, in 1580. According to Henry VIII's will she should have become queen in 1603, but she did not. Elizabeth was succeeded by James of Scotland, the descendant of a senior branch of Henry VII, Margaret's. So?
It was more than just Henry VIII's will, it was an Act of Parliament passed in 1544 which specifically excluded the Scottish line of succession. I can't find any evidence that the 1544 Act was repealed before Elizabeth I's death in 1603, so technically James VI's accession was illegal. Try sorting that one out !
__________________
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
It was more than just Henry VIII's will, it was an Act of Parliament passed in 1544 which specifically excluded the Scottish line of succession. I can't find any evidence that the 1544 Act was repealed before Elizabeth I's death in 1603, so technically James VI's accession was illegal. Try sorting that one out !

It wasn't formally repealed but Elizabeth made it known that she supported James as her heir. Had anyone really wanted to oppose the true blood claim of James the parliament would have passed the necessary legislation - there was just no need at the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:16 AM
MarkUK's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stone, United Kingdom
Posts: 32
Presumably Elizabeth's unwillingness to nominate an heir until she was on her deathbed prevented Parliament from repealing the 1544 Act, otherwise I'm sure they would have done it some time in the 1590s to be on the safe side. Even so I'm surprised James didn't have it repealed as soon as he was in England. I would have done before the Crown was on my head.
__________________
You're playing chess with Fate and Fate's winning.
Arnold Bennett
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-26-2012, 04:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,367
As he was proclaimed King the same day Elizabeth died he didn't need to have it repealed as he had become King. As he moved to London he was greeted with cheering crowds, probably happy that his accession hadn't triggered a war or an invasion and also making it clear to anyone who was interested in arguing a better right than that of blood that they wouldn't get the support of the people and the lords etc. He was crowned 4 months after his accession (a British monarch doesn't need a coronation to be the monarch.)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
European Royals of North, Central and/or South American Descent (excluding Brazil) Quin Royalty Past, Present, and Future 8 12-03-2006 08:07 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
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 diana dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor 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 pieter van vollenhoven poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess 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 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 02:32 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]