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
 
  #601  
Old 06-19-2011, 08:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Sorry, there is nothing this family does that has any great value to life itself. The Queen does what she was taught to do, which is basically, nothing, but smile, be polite and cut ribbons. She has lived her life in an exemplary fashion and is very astute to politics.She appears interested, but is she, and, if she is not who needs her.
The Queen does more than that - she signs all the legislation and is consulted about all matters relevant to the government of the day. Her official role could be done without her ever appearing in public but it is the essential part of the role of the monarchy.

Quote:
Prince Charles and Camilla do whatever it is they do. Camilla very little and Charles fashions himself as an critic of architecture. Many architectshave little respect for him. Yes, he was proponent for organic farming, but, then again, he can afford, the hand service.
Charles supports a number of different charities but especially The Princes Trust which has helped 1000s of people over the last 30+ years. He assists his mother in her role and he attends well over 500 engagements a year - more than any other member of the family. His wife does what the consort is supposed to do - support her husband but she also has a number of charities in her own right.

Quote:
The Cambridges seem far more real. Kate is not full of herself and has a good sense of balance. She is not waited on hand and foot.
The Cambridges so far have done nothing much at all - they lack substance. Kate looks good in clothes but that is all she has achieved so far in her life - look good, a degree and a husband (most 29 year old women I know would be ashamed to have done so little with their life). William has a degree and a commission but so do many more men of his age. He does some charity work but hardly very much.

Not being waited on is not an indication of worth but more just getting used to things.

Kate loves the limelight but she also has the brains to know that she is the supporting cast and not the main focus of attention at this point in time.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 06-19-2011, 09:18 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tucson, United States
Posts: 222
Sometimes I think that people don't take into account that Elizabeth could rule for another 10 to 20 years if she is as long lived as her mother. (On a side note I really miss the Queen Mum.) And then Charles could rule for a decade or two after her. Which means it will most likely be 20 to 40 years before William takes the throne. The whole world could change in that amount of time so it is certainly more than enough for William and Kate to grow into their roles as future monarchs. So wouldn't be nice if we all gave them that time and didn't automatically expect the heir to the heir, who really has no "official" duties and his spouse to jump into being involved in all sorts of royal duties.
I personally think that Charles will be a good king. After all, he has had 60 years to prepare and learn what his job entails. That's more than the rest of us get. I at least am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 06-19-2011, 09:23 PM
Mia_mae's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 1,092
Why are people comparing Prince Charles, who is the actual heir, to his son who will have to wait bizilian years to get to the throne? lord!

And let's cut the BS please, like Buckingham Palace is worry about the new found attention?!! If HM or Prince Charles really didn't approve the tour, I doubt the couple would have booked it.
Monarchy needs media, they just want it in their own terms.
__________________
There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 06-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,471
You are right. They want the attention, otherwise they would not be taking this tour. The queen would not approve it. It is a media fling, becuase without the media, today, no one cares very much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 06-20-2011, 01:07 AM
jdcharlie's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: :), United States
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
The only way they will be judged as royals is if they start being more involved in their duties. So far they don't show as much interest in that aspect of their lives. Maybe it is the lack of those royal duties that makes me feel like the only duties they are doing are the ones they want to but sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to do as well. They have yet to prove that they have an unselfish side in that regards. This is something that they could learn from the senior royals. What is it they say...one must always appear interested even if one is not.

Even this upcoming tour doesn't sit well with me. Maybe its the big deal everyone is making about an overpriced dinner cooked by celebrity chef Giada. Sorry but I just don't hear as much about the senior royals doing such things. Then again the Queen seems to avoid that aspect of life as much as she can. I think that is a good thing. It shows she knows what is important in life.

Hopefully as the tour progress we will get more than just staged pictures and see a genuine effort to achieve something besides helping along the fashion industry.
How are they being selfish? They aren't full-time royals. They aren't required to be full-time royals. They are going to Canada on behalf of the Queen and will most likely do a fantastic job. At this point in his life, Charles was already the heir to the throne. William is not. He may not be for many many years. Therefore, he has more flexibility to do his own thing (i.e. search and rescue pilot) for awhile. He's not even required to be involved in charitable efforts, but he has slowly but surely built up a stable of charities.

Since the engagement, Kate and William began a charitable fund, launched a lifeboat, supported St. Andrews' fundraising efforts, supported young people and agriculture in N. Ireland, supported the Queen's fields initiative, etc. William visited flood and earthquake stricken NZ and Australia. Last week they helped raise money for children. Next week, they'll award medals to soldiers. They aren't doing these activities on a daily basis because they aren't full time royals, but these are the same type of things the other royals are doing, aren't they? And it would be difficult to claim that they haven't undertaken these activities with care and enthusiasm.

You can begrudge them the spotlight, but that's incredibly unfair. Besides, it benefits everyone. I've heard more about the senior royals since the engagement announcement than ever before. They are shining a light on the entire monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 06-20-2011, 02:05 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
I think Charles and William are apples and oranges. Charles has lived a life - he has done work in the world unlike any Prince of Wales before him - regardless of the disparaging remarks made by so many. In spite of everything, Charles has lived a life of substance - his parents should be proud.

In contrast, William is a light weight at this point. All show. Kate seems to be handling herself well, but its so early in the game. Dating and being the wife in this instance are two very different experiences, I would imagine. She is canny enough to understand what she needs to do - and she is likely getting well-advised - but I honestly have watched some of the videos and it seems to me that she is a bit overwhelmed. There's not much substance there with both of them - right now its just an image that gets 'filled in' by the observers.

Reading about the wedding parties - standing up to eat! - and then all the effort (it seems) to not participate in a royal life-style is, well, a tad....boring. I really question what the future will hold.

Charles has the sense of duty. I've said it before - it seems to me that he will be the last of the 'old world' royalty to be King. William strikes me as a young man who is doing everything to reject his inheritance - burying himself in being what he fancies is 'normal' with the result that he and Kate live very vacuous lives for people on the cusp of their 30th birthdays. They remind me (slightly) of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - just waiting out their lives with nothing really to do, nothing really that interests them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 06-20-2011, 03:05 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,188
Please note that posts comparing pros and cons of a monarchy vs. republic have been moved to Monarchy vs Republic .

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 06-20-2011, 03:11 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
The only way they will be judged as royals is if they start being more involved in their duties. So far they don't show as much interest in that aspect of their lives. Maybe it is the lack of those royal duties that makes me feel like the only duties they are doing are the ones they want to but sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to do as well.
William is still in his pre-Working Royal-days as he has been allowed to have a profession of his own choice before he follows his father into the "working for charities while waiting for the REAL JOB"-life. Still he has already set up charities and taken over patronages - all that in the "free" time other people use to relax and gather new strength for their working life. So IMHO it is grossly unfair to say he doesn't do enough or doesn't show enough interest. As for his wife of two months... she is married for such a short time and needs to adjust to the workings of a Royal office, to learn what she can actively bring into the "firm". Why be so impatient with those two?

Charles became the hard-working Royal over decades and Anne on being young concentrated more on her career as a top sportswoman than on Royal duties. Give William and Catherine the same time and you'll see them emerge as hardworking Royals. At least that's what I think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 06-20-2011, 02:54 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
Or those that think the duke and duchess haven't done anything of real substance yet to justify them getting the throne. They have yet to get their hands "dirty". Maybe here in a few years they will start to really get involved in some events. Right now I get the impression they throw on some nice clothes (or not depending on your fashion opinion) and go out to give a photo-op. I don't get those kind-of vibes from royals like the queen, prince Charles or princess anne.
I completely agree. I have some reservations about the way the Prince of Wales conducted his personal life in the past, but there is no way I think that he deserved to be passed over in favor of William just because William has just had a nice wedding that captured the fancies of a lot of people!

Charles has worked hard and is a passionate, caring, highly capable man. I think he will make a very good King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 06-20-2011, 04:25 PM
olebabs's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Århus, Denmark
Posts: 283
Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 06-20-2011, 06:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by olebabs View Post
Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.

Charles, like his parents, has taken very good care of his health. I see no reason to think that he won't reach the same age that his mother reaches e.g. if the Queen lives to be 90 then there is no reason to think that Charles won't also each 90 - giving him a reign of 22 years.

Edward VII never took care of his health being a heavy smoker all his adult life and also a huge eater. Even so he still made it to 69 at a time when that was a reasonably long life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 06-20-2011, 07:21 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by olebabs View Post
Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.
Although HM ascended the throne at a relatively young age and her reign has spanned close to 60 years now which is totally remarkable and she is well beloved the world over, I really don't think that she's changed much in how the monarchy is regarded from that of her father and his father before him. Perhaps this is the coldness that has been referred to in HM's demeanor in her public profile but we have to remember that she represents the nation and the ceremonies, the duties, the audiences are not HM on display as a personal entity but as a representative of the Crown. I see her demeanor more as regal than cold though. If you look at the pictures that have been taken over the years, I'd hope you'd see her warm and very endearing smile and how sometimes her eyes just seem to sparkle. As time passes and Charles becomes King and perhaps William after him, I think we're going to see that they both will step into the role of monarch and follow in the footsteps of the Queen remembering that their role is as representatives of a nation and not personally on public display.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 06-20-2011, 07:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcharlie View Post
How are they being selfish? They aren't full-time royals. They aren't required to be full-time royals. They are going to Canada on behalf of the Queen and will most likely do a fantastic job. At this point in his life, Charles was already the heir to the throne. William is not. He may not be for many many years. Therefore, he has more flexibility to do his own thing (i.e. search and rescue pilot) for awhile. He's not even required to be involved in charitable efforts, but he has slowly but surely built up a stable of charities.

Since the engagement, Kate and William began a charitable fund, launched a lifeboat, supported St. Andrews' fundraising efforts, supported young people and agriculture in N. Ireland, supported the Queen's fields initiative, etc. William visited flood and earthquake stricken NZ and Australia. Last week they helped raise money for children. Next week, they'll award medals to soldiers. They aren't doing these activities on a daily basis because they aren't full time royals, but these are the same type of things the other royals are doing, aren't they? And it would be difficult to claim that they haven't undertaken these activities with care and enthusiasm.

You can begrudge them the spotlight, but that's incredibly unfair. Besides, it benefits everyone. I've heard more about the senior royals since the engagement announcement than ever before. They are shining a light on the entire monarchy.
The "charity fund" they started was designed to give away wedding money to charities that they picked out to receive it. A nice idea but not some huge deal. If anything they could have skipped that step and just requested people send the money directly to the charities. The university scholarships was a gift to them because they got married not because they thought of it. As for the lifeboat christening, they did not earn the money or even campaign for it. They went, William made a speech and Kate poured the drink over it in order to launch. Again nice but it is not very hands on but it was very "royal." While handing out medals is a great thing there is more you can do. Harry, for example, is very involved in veteran's affairs/rights. That is a very involved charity that has shown continued efforts.

As for raising money for charity that is fine but my argument was centered around the unwillingness to get their hands "dirty." It is very easy to show up and cut ribbons, which is what they have been doing. It is not so easy to stand-up and speak eloquently about a particular topic like AIDS, micro grants, or any other serious topic. It is not enough to just attend an event you need to show some depth as well.

Their upcoming tour with the polo matches and the celebrity dinners is proving to be much of the same. I hope to see some serious issues being discussed. They have the education to go out there. Even if they did not have the education they could have the willingness to improve what they know in order to help people out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 06-20-2011, 08:26 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
As for raising money for charity that is fine but my argument was centered around the unwillingness to get their hands "dirty." It is very easy to show up and cut ribbons, which is what they have been doing. It is not so easy to stand-up and speak eloquently about a particular topic like AIDS, micro grants, or any other serious topic. It is not enough to just attend an event you need to show some depth as well.

Their upcoming tour with the polo matches and the celebrity dinners is proving to be much of the same. I hope to see some serious issues being discussed. They have the education to go out there. Even if they did not have the education they could have the willingness to improve what they know in order to help people out.
I would agree with with your general argument - if it was further down the road. I think "unwillingness" is the wrong word to use; they've been married, what, nearly two months? I don't really think it's fair to judge their public choices so early on, especially since the royal family is entering into summer when there are not as many engagements.

Also, I think it's worrisome the generalize their upcoming July tour using a day's worth of activities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Their main destination is Canada, where they will be staying nearly three times longer! I personally think it was a bad idea to tack on the California tour for that very reason - that's all people focus on. If anyone wants information on the serious side of the Cali tour, check out the lengthy statement by Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton. It's rather detailed on the topic. (going so off thread topic...apologies.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 06-21-2011, 12:27 PM
olebabs's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Århus, Denmark
Posts: 283
Please do not take this the wrong way. I have a great respect for the Queen and her work. That being said, I do not think it takes away from an authority figure to show a little of what is behind the facade. In fact it might make me respect her even more. Again, it could depend on cultural differences. We tend to be a little less formal in the Scandinavian countries and especially in Denmark where I'm from.

I just think, that if you can't even smile at your own grandsons wedding, perhaps you have taken your sence of duty too far.
And here is where I see the difference between HM and Charles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Although HM ascended the throne at a relatively young age and her reign has spanned close to 60 years now which is totally remarkable and she is well beloved the world over, I really don't think that she's changed much in how the monarchy is regarded from that of her father and his father before him. Perhaps this is the coldness that has been referred to in HM's demeanor in her public profile but we have to remember that she represents the nation and the ceremonies, the duties, the audiences are not HM on display as a personal entity but as a representative of the Crown. I see her demeanor more as regal than cold though. If you look at the pictures that have been taken over the years, I'd hope you'd see her warm and very endearing smile and how sometimes her eyes just seem to sparkle. As time passes and Charles becomes King and perhaps William after him, I think we're going to see that they both will step into the role of monarch and follow in the footsteps of the Queen remembering that their role is as representatives of a nation and not personally on public display.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 06-21-2011, 01:32 PM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
they've been married, what, nearly two months? I don't really think it's fair to judge their public choices so early on, especially since the royal family is entering into summer when there are not as many engagements.

Also, I think it's worrisome the generalize their upcoming July tour using a day's worth of activities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Their main destination is Canada, where they will be staying nearly three times longer! I personally think it was a bad idea to tack on the California tour for that very reason - that's all people focus on.

That excuses Catherine's ease into the royal life but not William's lack of royal engagements.
Yes, William is not heir/not in Charles' place/etc., etc. but the thing is William will never be in Charles' place. He'll never be heir by age 4 since we're quite past that point. Only if Charles had had William at the same age as the Queen had had him or Charles became King the same age the Queen became monarch would there ever be a fair comparison.
William could increase his 'royal' life a little more, not saying he has to compete with his father's engagements now or even at the same age but he is quite lacking as an heir to an heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 06-21-2011, 05:18 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post
That excuses Catherine's ease into the royal life but not William's lack of royal engagements.
Yes, William is not heir/not in Charles' place/etc., etc. but the thing is William will never be in Charles' place. He'll never be heir by age 4 since we're quite past that point. Only if Charles had had William at the same age as the Queen had had him or Charles became King the same age the Queen became monarch would there ever be a fair comparison.
William could increase his 'royal' life a little more, not saying he has to compete with his father's engagements now or even at the same age but he is quite lacking as an heir to an heir.

William has a full-time job so when he does do royal duties it is in if off-duty time or his holiday time now - to increase his royal duties would mean either being a part-time officer or reducing his own break time from that job.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 06-21-2011, 09:38 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by olebabs View Post
Please do not take this the wrong way. I have a great respect for the Queen and her work. That being said, I do not think it takes away from an authority figure to show a little of what is behind the facade. In fact it might make me respect her even more. Again, it could depend on cultural differences. We tend to be a little less formal in the Scandinavian countries and especially in Denmark where I'm from.

I just think, that if you can't even smile at your own grandsons wedding, perhaps you have taken your sence of duty too far.
And here is where I see the difference between HM and Charles.
I must have been watching a different feed because she certainly did smile at her grandson's wedding. Just not all the time.

In point of fact both William and Catherine were very serious during most of the service, fully concentrating on their wedding, the service itself and their vows. They were obviously happy but just not as demonstrative as their European neighbours either during the service or the carriage ride back to the palace.

But yes, we did get lucky during the "Balcony" scene! Two kisses no less!!

So yes, there is a cultural difference
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 06-21-2011, 10:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 742
I think they are giving William and Kate a quiet start to Royal life and not be thrown in the deep end like Diana was. William has a full time job and he needs too he is the heir to the heir he will eventually do more Royal duties but for the time being I think Charles wants him to have a private life as possible. Kate could do a little more she isn't working and after the tour in the US which is so small so it doesn't overwhelm her it could be a good time for her to start doing a couple of things on her own. She has uni degree she should be able to handle cutting a ribbon by herself and she needs to find something to support besides William. I think I saw the Queen happy at the wedding at the right moments same with Kate and William. It was relaxed as far as Royal weddings go.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 07-16-2011, 05:49 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ., Israel
Posts: 35
Even if Charles didn't predecease his mother I think by now he understand that he's a failure.

He probably would ascend to the throne as the oldest British monarch, his reputation badly tarnish, especially from the time of his marriage to Diana (regardless of whom you thought is to be blame for this), and he will never be as popular as his grandfather George VI, the beloved war time king, or as well respected as his mother.

And if William keep his popularity, his reign shall became an insignificant footnote between those of two highly respected and popular monarchs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma 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 engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena 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 olympic games ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 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]