The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 10-09-2011, 02:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
..........Gabriella, the Ogilvies, and even more remote relatives like the Fifes and Mountbattens, like they are members of the Royal Family, in the meaning of the Sovereign's family. They are Elizabeth II's and the mentioned full members of the Royal Family's descendants and closest cousins. They are all of Royal blood and the closest people to the throne by their places in the order of succession. They are mentioned as members of the Royal Family by the Court officials, like in some reports in the Court Circular. ..........
Actually, only members of the Royal Family who perform official Royal Duties are mentioned in the Court Circular. Thus, the activities of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are NOT mentioned in the Court Circular unless the particular activity concerned is one connected with the Sovereign or other other official activities....

This is one thing that has apparently always grated with Princess Michael. If Prince Michael and Princess Michael are (say) included as guests at a State Banquet, then this will be noted in the Court Circular, but otherwise they are not mentioned. In June of each year, the Court Circular notes that the Queen has graced Ascot Races with her presence. One year, Princess Michael actually requested the newspapers to record fact that she was present. Which they did, on the Court and Social page, BUT of course this was not part of the Court Circular, which has to be printed by newspaper editors in the exact form that it has been received from BP etc. Princess Michael never made this particular request again!!

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. The rest of the family, even those who are very closely in the line of succession, are Royal relatives. They are still regarded as very important in some cases - for example, when Peter Philips joins a Sandringham shooting party, he is still addressed very formally as 'Sir' even though he has no royal title.

So far as ex-members of the Royal Family are concerned, it was specifically provided that Diana, Princess of Wales, was still regarded as part of the Royal Family following her divorce and it was also announced that she would still recieve important 'royal' invitations. By contrast, Sarah was NEVER regarded as part of the extended royal family after her divorce. Neither was Lord Snowdon, although he remains on cordial relations with the Royal Family.

I hope that this helps.

Alex
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-09-2011, 03:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
It is derived from a person's patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent. [...] Official by this status, which is derived from their line of descent from a monarch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family.
How are these two statements compatible?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-09-2011, 05:37 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
It is derived from a person's patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent. Beatrice and Eugenie, like also the Waleses, young Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents, are male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign (Elizabeth II and George V) and that's why they are Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom by birth, with the style Royal Highness...
Regarding your comment of them being Royal Family members because of their HRH title, would you then not consider Lady Louise and Viscount Severn members of the Royal Family? Are you listing Louise and James with the Philips' etc.? I am just curious, not arguing your point. :) I know, legallly, they are a Princess and Prince but chose (or rather their parents chose) to not use their royal title, thus placing them among the ranks of Peerage children, but considering they are grand-children of the Sovereign, they are technially members of the Royal Family, aren't they? While we're on the subject, I do wish Edward and Sophie had just chosen to have them styled as HRH, just to save all this confusion!
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-10-2011, 02:18 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Traditionally, only those individuals holding the style and title of HRH or HH were officially members of the royal family. Everyone else was considered an extended member of the family, but not royal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:39 PM
kbk kbk is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Regarding your comment of them being Royal Family members because of their HRH title, would you then not consider Lady Louise and Viscount Severn members of the Royal Family? Are you listing Louise and James with the Philips' etc.? I am just curious, not arguing your point. :) I know, legallly, they are a Princess and Prince but chose (or rather their parents chose) to not use their royal title, thus placing them among the ranks of Peerage children, but considering they are grand-children of the Sovereign, they are technially members of the Royal Family, aren't they? While we're on the subject, I do wish Edward and Sophie had just chosen to have them styled as HRH, just to save all this confusion!
Viscount Severn and Lady Louise are male-line grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, so they have status of Prince and Princess of Blood and formally are Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with the right to use the style Royal Highness. So, they are full members of the Royal Family. Their parents chose for them to be styled with no-Royal titles, but they are still entitled to use it. They will be junior and much less important members of the Royal Family in the future, in a similiar position as the Kents are today. The Duke and Duchess of York did not the same and their daughters are known as Princesses and HRH and they will probably play some role in the RF and the realms' public life, like Princess Alexandra of Kent played in the beginning of EII's reign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
Viscount Severn and Lady Louise are male-line grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, so they have status of Prince and Princess of Blood and formally are Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with the right to use the style Royal Highness.
Under the 1917 Letters Patent, James and Louise would automatically be entitled to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Queen. However, when Edward married Sophie the Palace announced their future children would not hold royal rank, instead being styled as the children of an Earl, with the agreement of The Queen.

Technically, a change in the status of future male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent requires new Letters or a Royal Warrant to be issued. Since The Queen has not done so, legally they retain the right to assume royal rank as adults.

More likely, however, Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King downgrading the status of male-line grandchildren to Lord/Lady Windsor, with only the children of the heir to the throne holding royal rank. This is the real reason for the change for Louise and James.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-13-2011, 03:22 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
Actually, only members of the Royal Family who perform official Royal Duties are mentioned in the Court Circular. Thus, the activities of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are NOT mentioned in the Court Circular unless the particular activity concerned is one connected with the Sovereign or other other official activities....

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. The rest of the family, even those who are very closely in the line of succession, are Royal relatives. They are still regarded as very important in some cases - for example, when Peter Philips joins a Sandringham shooting party, he is still addressed very formally as 'Sir' even though he has no royal title.

So far as ex-members of the Royal Family are concerned, it was specifically provided that Diana, Princess of Wales, was still regarded as part of the Royal Family following her divorce and it was also announced that she would still recieve important 'royal' invitations. By contrast, Sarah was NEVER regarded as part of the extended royal family after her divorce. Neither was Lord Snowdon, although he remains on cordial relations with the Royal Family.
I did not say that Prince Michael's day to day engagements are recored in the Court Circular and I understand why. But, when I said that they are mentioned in the CC as members of the Royal Family, along with some other persons we can surely call royal relatives, as you said, I meant such occassions when they attend a larger particular event, when there is a gathering of Royals, such as State banquets, weddings (for example, Prince William's) and Trooping the Colour. The Michael of Kents are also always mentioned when they attend the Queen's garden parties in the season. And when the CC records such event like Prince William's wedding, there is clearly stated that such persons like Peter and Zara Phillips, the St Andrewses, etc., are other "members of the Royal Family". But, of course, it is unqestionable that they are not members of, as I called them, the official Royal Family, but only of the extended Royal Family.

For an another example, I found that: http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20...ly%20Aug11.pdf In this appendix to the guidelines of use of the Royal coat of arms and names, there are Her Majesty The Queen, His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, His Royal Highness The Prince Henry of Wales, His Royal Highness The Duke of York, Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice of York, Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York, Their Royal Highnesses The Earl and Countess of Wessex, Viscount Severn, The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Phillips, Miss Savannah Phillips, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall, The Viscount and Viscountess Linley, The Honourable Charles Armstrong-Jones, The Honourable Margarita Armstrong-Jones. The Lady Sarah Chatto and Mr. Daniel Chatto, Mr. Samuel Chatto, Mr. Arthur Chatto, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Kent, Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Sarah, Duchess of York listed as "members of the Royal Family".

Peter and Zara Phillips, as well as the Linleys (and the Lascelleses when they lived), are not only considered as VIPs in some cases, but as grandchildren of a Sovereign, they also enjoy precedence among other members of the Royal Family and before the Clergy, top of the Queen's gov. and peers. For example, until his recent death, the Earl of Harewood was the last person among the Royal Family males in the top of the order of precedence, immediately after Prince Michael.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Are you suggesting that Prince and Princess Michael are considered as full members of the Royal Family because the Queen decided so? I think PM "has it" from his birth as a Prince of Blood and it was never under the Queen's consideration whether he is or not a member of the so-called official Royal Family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Under the 1917 Letters Patent, James and Louise would automatically be entitled to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Queen. However, when Edward married Sophie the Palace announced their future children would not hold royal rank, instead being styled as the children of an Earl, with the agreement of The Queen.

Technically, a change in the status of future male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent requires new Letters or a Royal Warrant to be issued. Since The Queen has not done so, legally they retain the right to assume royal rank as adults.
More or less, that's exactly what I said, so I don't know why you are quoting a part of my post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
More likely, however, Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King downgrading the status of male-line grandchildren to Lord/Lady Windsor, with only the children of the heir to the throne holding royal rank. This is the real reason for the change for Louise and James.
If Charles did so, there would not be enough number of HRHs in the RF to deal with all this charity events and engagements, openings, meetings, balls and concerts, etc., etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-13-2011, 03:37 AM
expat's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 165
Just a little question. Why do people have to be HRHs to deal with charity events and engagements etc etc? Does that mean that the royal family are born to do nothing else but cut ribbons and go to balls and concerts. Yes, I remember what Queen Mary said, but these are modern times, do we need Prince Charles when he is King, instead of cutting down on HRHs to increase them because no one else could open a ball or concert. When this is written down, it seems a bit ridiculous to me and I am not against a monarchy. I heard the pretender to the Portuguese throne declare some time ago that the Portuguese royal family is he, the Duke of Braganza, his wife, his children and his brothers and that is all, I don't think that he will ever be King of Portugal as it is firmly republican and has been for many years, but I like his thinking about who is a member of the royal family. There are people related to the royal family, cousins and others but they are not The Royal Family and a dearth of people to open events is no reason not to cut down on the number of HRHs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-17-2011, 02:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The real issue is one of responding to the widely held sentiment, correct or not, that the royal family is too large and expensive. Most Britons want to see it downsized and less visible.

Except for military and charitable activities, most members of the royal family aren't slaving away doing public duties these days. It's less relevant than it once was.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-17-2011, 03:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Well military and charitable duties are the primary public role of the BRF and most members of the BRF have pretty full schedules. I dont think there are too many people who want the family to be less visible, or to see the latest reality star fulfilling a public role replacing an member of the BRF.
The BRF will be funded by a % of revenues from the Crwon Estate so no tax money will be involved in funding the family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-17-2011, 06:09 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
Thank you kbk for that link to those members who can use the Royal coat of arms. I had not realised it was so many people, nor did I realise that Sarah could still use it. What I did notice though was they wrongly styled Prince Harry as The Prince Henry of Wales, when the use of "The" is reserved for children of the Sovereign. He's not "The" just yet! I wish they had called him Prince Henry instead of Harry...

Regarding your comment about not having enough HRH to do charities by the time Charles comes to the throne, this is not necessarily true. You would have Andrew and his daughters (who may have jobs but they could still do charitable work), Edward and Sophie, Anne, William and Catherine (and at some point their children), Harry and his spouse (and his children at some point). That in itself is quite a lot. Or so I think so!
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I would think there is a mistake on that list. Diana was not permitted to use the Royal Arms upon divorce (although she was permitted a royal coronet on her personal coat of arms, signifying her status and precedence), so why would Sarah?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-18-2011, 05:59 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
That is a mighty fine question regarding Sarah actually being entitled to use it...Who actually runs the Royal Family website? Is it anyone within the palace?

Regarding the members of the family, this link below just goes to show that ANYONE can make up a page on Wikipedia and alter it, add what they wish and create what they wish. Example follows:

Princess Charlotte of Wessex

Though on a note, I wish they had called Louise, Charlotte, hah.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-19-2011, 09:43 PM
kbk kbk is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 225
Dear Molly, Sarah, Duchess of York has no right to use the Royal Coat of Arms. She has her own coat of arms, which is that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Ferguson.svg. It was given to her father, and she has it after him. When she was married to Prince Andrew, I believe it was additionally impaled with his personal version of the Royal Coat of Arms.
The list I've linked here is not a list of members of the Royal Family or Royal relatives who has their Royal Coat of Arms, but only an appendix to the 'Guidance on the use of Royal Arms, names and images', a document produced by the Lord Chamberlain's office. It is about using the Royal symbols and names by the public, not by the Royal themselves. And when I quoted the appendix, I did not mean that Sarah Ferguson is considered a full royal at the Court. I wanted only to show an interest thing, where her name is listed in the context of the Royal Family. I think it's because she still remains the York title. This is an extended list of the RF members, and she definitely is a member of the extended RF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Regarding your comment about not having enough HRH to do charities by the time Charles comes to the throne, this is not necessarily true. You would have Andrew and his daughters (who may have jobs but they could still do charitable work), Edward and Sophie, Anne, William and Catherine (and at some point their children), Harry and his spouse (and his children at some point). That in itself is quite a lot. Or so I think so!
We are talking here about a possible situation that King Charles would restrict the Royal titles and styles only to the children of the Sovereign and the eldest's one's heir or heiress. This would exclude the York girls and the young Wessexes, and also the Queen's cousins from Gloucester and Kent families.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-20-2011, 01:32 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
When Sarah ferguson married prince Andrew she became, HRH princess? sarah,duchess of York and now divorced from prince Andrew she is just the duchess of York,mother of the princesses of York Beatrice and Eugenie .
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
When she married she became HRH The Duchess of York. She was never HRH Princess Sarah Duchess of York. When she divorced she became Sarah, Duchess of York.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
Dear Molly, Sarah, Duchess of York has no right to use the Royal Coat of Arms. She has her own coat of arms, which is that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Ferguson.svg. It was given to her father, and she has it after him. When she was married to Prince Andrew, I believe it was additionally impaled with his personal version of the Royal Coat of Arms.
The list I've linked here is not a list of members of the Royal Family or Royal relatives who has their Royal Coat of Arms, but only an appendix to the 'Guidance on the use of Royal Arms, names and images', a document produced by the Lord Chamberlain's office. It is about using the Royal symbols and names by the public, not by the Royal themselves. And when I quoted the appendix, I did not mean that Sarah Ferguson is considered a full royal at the Court. I wanted only to show an interest thing, where her name is listed in the context of the Royal Family. I think it's because she still remains the York title. This is an extended list of the RF members, and she definitely is a member of the extended RF.

We are talking here about a possible situation that King Charles would restrict the Royal titles and styles only to the children of the Sovereign and the eldest's one's heir or heiress. This would exclude the York girls and the young Wessexes, and also the Queen's cousins from Gloucester and Kent families.
But surely because the York girls and the Gloucester and Kent families already have the HRH title, it would not be retracted?
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-20-2011, 07:26 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
I don't think Charles will do anything with the titles of the York Princesses (whose titles can't go onto the next generation) or with the Kents and Gloucesters (whose sons become His Grace when they assume the Dukedom's of Kent and Gloucester). What's he going to say....thanks for all of your hard work and dedication to the family...I am taking away the HRH's?

I don't think so.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-22-2011, 10:03 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toruń, Poland
Posts: 225
Surely the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Prince Michael will not be taken away their status. They represent the older generation of the Royal House than Prince Charles (they are male-line grandchildren of George V and paternal first cousins of the Queen). That's because they were HRHs and hard working members of the RF (except for PM maybe) for all their long lives and could not be doing anything else if they were suddenly stripped off the top. But its not a problem with the York girls, as they are still juniors, getting a proper university education now and with best prospects for the future as commoner royal relatives. It already happened in the past, that a Prince of Blood Royal by birth, Prince Alastair of Connaught, became a commoner when George V restricted the titles in his family to Sovereign's children, male-line grandchildren and the PoW's eldest son's eldest son in 1917. So, I think it can happen again and there will be no drama about it.
I think the most possible way is that there will be only the Sovereign's children and the PoW's or the heiress apparent' heir or heiress with the titles of Princes and Princesses and styles of HRHs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Charles is not likely to remove anyone's right to hold HRH Prince/Princess if they are currently using it. The point is to define the future royal family as the monarch and their consort, their children, and the heir's children by restricting royal rank to those individuals.

Everyone else would hold whatever titles or courtesy styles they are entitled to use or have inherited.
__________________

__________________
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
Relationships between Members of the Spanish Royal Family kil Royal Family of Spain 458 02-14-2014 08:46 AM
Interviews with Members of the Royal Family SpiffyBallerina Royal House of Sweden 92 02-08-2014 07:16 PM
Relationships between members of the British Royal Family Ava Elizabeth British Royals 215 11-28-2013 01:18 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery 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 ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 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]