The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1441  
Old 07-21-2014, 03:17 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
I don't care who becomes King or Queen of England, that is for the English to decide.

However, if he or she is to be the head of a Christian Church and the defender of the Christian faith, I, as a Christian would expect that individual to uphold Christian values and aim to be a valuable role model. And as I said earlier, the same as any minister, pastor or priest would be expected to do. They are sinful man and woman but are removed from their positions when they commit adultery, theft, or seriously failed to be a good Christian role model. That is not to say they they are not forgiven for their mistakes if they have repented to God. It just means that someone who is a good role model and displays a stronger commitment to The Lord is promoted instead.

Perhaps there isn't anyone in the RF that can measure up, but I would say that it is more about their displayed faith and commitment to God than it is about the mistakes they made in the past. How do we measure that? By the way they behave now and in the future.

Perhaps they should separate the church from the monarch if he/she is not a believer?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1442  
Old 07-21-2014, 04:28 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I don't care who becomes King or Queen of England, that is for the English to decide.
There is no King or Queen of England nor can the English decide at all who that person is....

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old 07-21-2014, 04:46 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
In all the discussions about the religion of the princely couple and the possible future Defender of Faith one should not forget that the United Kingdom anno 2014 is an extremely secularized society where the once so mighty Church of England is ailing and wringling in all possible directions in fruitless attempts to stop the fading-away in total irrelevance.

That is the state in which the possible future Defender of Faith will find 'his' Church and most likely his successor Wiliam will see the same Church logging behind the vast majority of citizens without any Faith at all, then the growing numbers of citizens with an islamist or hindu background and the once so mighty Church of England seeing itself outnumbered as largest Christian denomination by the Roman-Catholic Church.

Amidst all discussions about Charles & Camilla and the Church of England it is wise to keep this in thought and to place it in proportion. The fact that the Church of England is the established religion is the last rescue for that church to glide away in total irrelevance. They will not be on the first row to break the bonds with the Crown and accept everything. The great Henri IV of France once stated: "Paris vaut bien une Messe" (Paris is worth a Mass). The Church of England will think the same: keeping the link with the Crown is worth a Mass, they will even place six crowns on Camilla's head if they have to....

Reply With Quote
  #1444  
Old 07-21-2014, 04:54 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
There is no King or Queen of England nor can the English decide at all who that person is....




We can't decide who the person is but we can decide if we want one should the issue arise.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1445  
Old 07-21-2014, 04:55 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
In all the discussions about the religion of the princely couple and the possible future Defender of Faith one should not forget that the United Kingdom anno 2014 is an extremely secularized society where the once so mighty Church of England is ailing and wringling in all possible directions in fruitless attempts to stop the fading-away in total irrelevance. That is the state in which the possible future Defender of Faith will find 'his' Church and most likely his successor Wiliam will see the same Church logging behind the vast majority of citizens without any Faith at all, then the growing numbers of citizens with an islamist or hindu background and the once so mighty Church of England seeing itself outnumbered as largest Christian denomination by the Roman-Catholic Church. Amidst all discussions about Charles & Camilla and the Church of England is is wise to keep this in thought and to place it in proportion. The fact that the Church of England is the established religion is the last rescue for that church to glide away in total irrelevance. For the average citizen in Newcastle, Leeds or Birmingham the Church is a far-from-their-beds-show.

As of the 2011 census, 59% of Brits identified as Christians, and it's estimated that 62% of Christians in Britain are Anglican. 24% of Brits identify as having no religion, while only 8% of Brits have a non-Christian religion. While religious belief may be in the decline, I wouldn't be surprised if the CoE remains relevant for sometime still.
Reply With Quote
  #1446  
Old 07-21-2014, 05:16 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
As of the 2011 census, 59% of Brits identified as Christians, and it's estimated that 62% of Christians in Britain are Anglican. 24% of Brits identify as having no religion, while only 8% of Brits have a non-Christian religion. While religious belief may be in the decline, I wouldn't be surprised if the CoE remains relevant for sometime still.
The Church of England itself has stated that Sunday Attendance is less than 800,000 nationwide. The vast majority of Anglicans has once been registered as such but that is all that is, they do not practize their religion at all. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, stated that his own Church was on the brink of execution and already is "an irrelevance" for the vast majority of the citizens. Lord Carey's prognostication is supported by sagging charts and drooping graphics. This added to the fact that youth maybe is open to some "spirituality" but increasingly closed to the established Churches. The Church has become a sort of "toxic brand" and a simple look on the streets and in the media is enough to see the immense value gap between the teachings and the everyday reality. To go back to Charles & Camilla, the times of the Church of England as a decisive power is behind us. They will do everything to keep the link with the Crown. That is their strongest asset, that is what differentiates them from other Churches: the history, the heritage, the wealth, a stake in schools, the insertion in the establishment like the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, etc. They will do everything to keep that, even placing six crowns on Camilla's head if they have to, for the sake of keeping any relevance.

Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old 07-21-2014, 11:52 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,640
When I think about it, the communion between the monarch and the CoE is one of those long held traditions that although maybe no longer as essential to the people, still resonates with meaning and fortifies the continuity and the faith that the monarch holds his/her God to be a guiding and protective source in all things.

The Church no longer has the hold on its people that it did in the times of its conception. The Church was the primary bastion of divine instruction and guidance for ordinary people, who for the most part, were not literate and learned enough to read on their own and trusted their clerics to guide them in matters of faith.

It is unusual these days to find people that need a cleric to instruct them and translate divine scripture for them. The Church itself is still very much alive and thriving but I think what we've seen is a more intelligent and learned society that has put a relationship with the Divine to be more of a personal relationship rather than one that is a relationship that would be more similar to a mass mentality. No longer is there black and white and set in stone "rules" that apply to all.

With this in mind, one can understand the stance the CoE has on divorcees remarrying in the Church. To some clerics, it is acceptable and should be welcomed while to other clerics, it just doesn't sit right.

I do believe strongly that Charles is a very spiritual person. He is not just the go to church every Sunday type of Christian that has been taught the rote, but he is one that I think actually feels his spirituality and follows it in his daily life through actions to help his people, his communities and his planet. Perhaps on his own personal path he's found things in other ways of faith but as I see it, it strengthens him rather than divides him.

I do have a question though. When it comes to the coronation and the Church of England, it is my belief that it is only the monarch that is anointed with the holy oil correct? To be honest, I don't think we'll be seeing Camilla even being crowned as a Queen Consort. She most assuredly will be his consort (no matter what the title) but I think when the time comes, the focus will be solely on Charles.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I don't care who becomes King or Queen of England, that is for the English to decide.

However, if he or she is to be the head of a Christian Church and the defender of the Christian faith, I, as a Christian would expect that individual to uphold Christian values and aim to be a valuable role model. And as I said earlier, the same as any minister, pastor or priest would be expected to do. They are sinful man and woman but are removed from their positions when they commit adultery, theft, or seriously failed to be a good Christian role model. That is not to say they they are not forgiven for their mistakes if they have repented to God. It just means that someone who is a good role model and displays a stronger commitment to The Lord is promoted instead.

Perhaps there isn't anyone in the RF that can measure up, but I would say that it is more about their displayed faith and commitment to God than it is about the mistakes they made in the past. How do we measure that? By the way they behave now and in the future.

Perhaps they should separate the church from the monarch if he/she is not a believer?
I understand your point of view even though I don't agree with it. I disagree that this is a 'Christian' issue because virtually all religions prohibit adultery. I also wouldn't judge someone's feelings on the subject by whether they regularly attend church. There are many religious adherents who don't regularly attend services.

At the same time, I believe that everyone in authority in churches and temples all over the world are sinners. We all are, but Charles and Camilla's affair is public knowledge. (and everyone old enough to remember Diana knows who Camilla is. Diana, Charles, and Diana were huge all over the world in the early to mid-90s).

Regardless, would your feelings be different if they had married inside the church rather than simply receiving a blessing after the civil ceremony?
Reply With Quote
  #1449  
Old 07-22-2014, 05:32 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I understand your point of view even though I don't agree with it. I disagree that this is a 'Christian' issue because virtually all religions prohibit adultery. I also wouldn't judge someone's feelings on the subject by whether they regularly attend church. There are many religious adherents who don't regularly attend services.

At the same time, I believe that everyone in authority in churches and temples all over the world are sinners. We all are, but Charles and Camilla's affair is public knowledge. (and everyone old enough to remember Diana knows who Camilla is. Diana, Charles, and Diana were huge all over the world in the early to mid-90s).

Regardless, would your feelings be different if they had married inside the church rather than simply receiving a blessing after the civil ceremony?
Mm...that is a good question. I guess what really matters to me is their faith and were they repentant for what they did and things they do wrong. If they are not sorry (they said they were) and don't really have faith and a relationship with the Christian God, I would prefer it if they had nothing to do with the church (i.e.. Charles being the defender and head of a Christian church).

And yes, of course we are all sinners and indeed, the number of times one attends church does not mean one is a committed Christian. Just look at all the abuse perpetrated by Church members!!

I guess if I am honest, I think he may not be a good role model to take up the job of defender of the Christian faith. This person needs to set a great example (Note - not a perfect example) and show that he is a committed Christian. Adultery is right up there with the big NO NOs. Funny enough, Kind David in the Bible did a lot of No Nos and he was a blessed king. He did however repent and honour God by "spreading the good news" and proclaiming God's name to all that would hear it.

Look, Charles is not expected to be perfect. Jesus died because there is no way we can be perfect. He had to atone for our big fat No Nos but to be the head and representative of something, you have to at least be trying to live its truth and be more successful at it than most.

Apart from the queen, I don't think any of the royal family would really fit the bill. Sorry, I hope I am not offending you.
Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old 07-22-2014, 05:50 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 966
Dear people,
While I absolutely respect your feeling of religion and how you view yourself. I must object to the view of "we are all sinners".
If you want to think of yourself as a sinner, feel free to do so. But say "I" and not "we". I do not consider myself a sinner. I folow the laws of my country, and from what I can remember being the 10 rules written down by Moses, I folow those too.
With that off my chest :-)
I just wanted to add that for me the fact that C&C are happy and doing a good job, is more important that their past mistakes (or sins).
Reply With Quote
  #1451  
Old 07-22-2014, 05:52 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Just on the issue of Charles being "the defender of faiths" instead of "the defender of the faith". For a minute there I thought I had conjured the hole thing up! But here it is:

Prince Claims to be Defender of All Faiths, Not "The" Faith | Christian News on Christian Today
BBC News - Queen 'should remain Defender of the Faith' - BBC poll
Prince Charles and religion: a very special faith - Telegraph

I wish he would came out and say what is what and where he stands. I think because he doesn't, people will judge by his actions...unfortunately that is certainly not the hole picture is it?
Reply With Quote
  #1452  
Old 07-22-2014, 05:56 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Knowing that Diana had multiple affairs and by most reliable accounts before Charles became involved with Camilla would that not make C&C relationship understandable especially considering that Camilla's husband had also been having an affair for years before C&C's relationship.

Andrew Parker Bowles was not in the dark about C&C's relationship & from what I read (IMO) Charles appears to have asked Andrew's permission before he started the relationship with Camilla.
Reply With Quote
  #1453  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,923
To answer the question put by Osipi: so far Queens were crowned and anointed. Prince Albert and Prince Philip were never crowned and anointed.

The crowning and anointing of consorts is in fact something weird. They are not holding any office in the Church of England, they happen 'just' being married to a King. In my very personal opinion the whole crowning is much in need for revision. No any Western monarchy knows a coronation, not even the Pope (!). If even very old and loggish institutions as the Holy See are able to cope with changing times (no one can imagine nowadays a Pope being carried in a sedia gestatoria, with uniformed bearers holding his seat, a canopy and two large ostrich feathers as a symbol of his august presence. No one can imagine now seeing a Pope wearing the traditional three-crown tiara). If they can change it, the Church of England should be able to change it too.

In all other Western nations the Investitures are purely secular. An eventually religious part like a Te Deum (praise to God) falls outside the framework of the State and is an own initiative of the royal families involved. Even the oh soh Catholic Spain has not seen any Te Deum yet after the new King's accession.

In my own personal opinion a review is needed of the lavish, elaborate coronation ceremonies which are more spectacular and lenghty than all the investitures of all other Western Sovereigns and the Pope together (!). The danger is that it all becomes a theatre and that the core content -la Reine est mort, vive le Roi!- is lost out of the eye.

Look at Denmark, never afraid for spectacle. The new King isn't even invested at all. The Prime Minister just proclaims from a palace balcony that the old Sovereign has died, long live the new Sovereign. And that was it... More simple is not possible...
Reply With Quote
  #1454  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
The British are known for the Pomp and Pageantry and the Coronation is a pinnacle of such an event. It is a great money spinner for the nation as well - just as the Jubilees etc have been due to the number of tourists and the TV revenue etc.

The British monarch is different to the other monarchs as well as he/she holds both secular and religious positions and while there is no separation of the church and state it is appropriate for that religious ceremony to go ahead.

The British will proclaim the new monarch within a day or so of the passing of the previous monarch but the coronation will be a year or so later allowing time for reflection on the life and work of the passed monarch and a building of hope for the new monarch.

They are two different events - one done in sadness and sorrow immediately after the passing of the monarch and the other down the track as a celebration of the new reign.

I would hate to see the British do away with the celebration etc just because the other monarchies have done so. That is their decision and they should be respected for doing so but if the British intend on keeping theirs - and they do seem to keep many of their traditional ceremonies such as the Garter and Thistle - then that decision should be respected as well.

There isn't a right and wrong way to do it as each monarch is different and reflects the hopes and desires of their own country and they aren't in competition with each other and shouldn't be compared as each is unique in its own way having been forged from each nation's history and traditions, including the giving up of traditions to move with the desires of their people.
Reply With Quote
  #1455  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:48 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I wish he would came out and say what is what and where he stands. I think because he doesn't, people will judge by his actions...unfortunately that is certainly not the hole picture is it?
If we insist on judging Charles (which we shouldn't be, lest we be judged), than he should be judged on his actions, for they speak louder than his words. That said, he should be judged on his present actions, not his past. For his past actions, he has asked forgiveness (prior to the marriage blessing ceremony), so we can only assume that his past sinful behavior has been forgiven -- and forgotten -- by God. We should do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #1456  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
Mm...that is a good question. I guess what really matters to me is their faith and were they repentant for what they did and things they do wrong. If they are not sorry (they said they were) and don't really have faith and a relationship with the Christian God, I would prefer it if they had nothing to do with the church (i.e.. Charles being the defender and head of a Christian church).

And yes, of course we are all sinners and indeed, the number of times one attends church does not mean one is a committed Christian. Just look at all the abuse perpetrated by Church members!!

I guess if I am honest, I think he may not be a good role model to take up the job of defender of the Christian faith. This person needs to set a great example (Note - not a perfect example) and show that he is a committed Christian. Adultery is right up there with the big NO NOs. Funny enough, Kind David in the Bible did a lot of No Nos and he was a blessed king. He did however repent and honour God by "spreading the good news" and proclaiming God's name to all that would hear it.

Look, Charles is not expected to be perfect. Jesus died because there is no way we can be perfect. He had to atone for our big fat No Nos but to be the head and representative of something, you have to at least be trying to live its truth and be more successful at it than most.

Apart from the queen, I don't think any of the royal family would really fit the bill. Sorry, I hope I am not offending you.
You haven't offended me. I appreciate the explanation of your feelings. I disagree because I think Charles and Camilla may be excellent role models. Mainly because we are all sinners, so perhaps Charles and Camilla can demonstrate that people sin but can repent and receive forgiveness in the eyes of the church and society.
Reply With Quote
  #1457  
Old 07-22-2014, 03:19 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanAUSSIE View Post
I don't care who becomes King or Queen of England, that is for the English to decide.



However, if he or she is to be the head of a Christian Church and the defender of the Christian faith, I, as a Christian would expect that individual to uphold Christian values and aim to be a valuable role model. And as I said earlier, the same as any minister, pastor or priest would be expected to do. They are sinful man and woman but are removed from their positions when they commit adultery, theft, or seriously failed to be a good Christian role model. That is not to say they they are not forgiven for their mistakes if they have repented to God. It just means that someone who is a good role model and displays a stronger commitment to The Lord is promoted instead.



Perhaps there isn't anyone in the RF that can measure up, but I would say that it is more about their displayed faith and commitment to God than it is about the mistakes they made in the past. How do we measure that? By the way they behave now and in the future.



Perhaps they should separate the church from the monarch if he/she is not a believer?

I said this at some point in this discussion, but I'm not sure if it made it over in the move.

While we should be able to hold our religious leaders to a high standard, the leader of the CoE is somewhat different from other clergy positions. The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a hereditary one held by a person who is otherwise a layman. While ideally this person would be free of son and a devoted member of the CoE, this isn't really what happens.

The head of the CoE is a layman who as often as not has had no overly religious calling. They may, or may not, be religious, but they don't follow a religious life in the same way that the person who gives the sermon at your Sunday church service does.

It's not really right to hold the head of the CoE to the same high moral and religious standings as you would the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope and the ABC chose to enter into religious orders and follow a certain path in life. The head of the CoE has the position forced upon them by accident of birth.

Furthermore, if you consider the list of past Supreme Governors of the Church of England, the way Charles has lived his life really isn't that bad. Charles II is best known for his mistresses and is said to have converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. James II had no fewer than 11 mistresses and was openly Catholic. George I and George II were both Lutheran until George I became Supreme Governor. William IV had 10 illegitimate children with his long term mistress, who he only left when he married. Edward VII and Edward VIII both had a number of mistresses, many of whom were married women. None of them were prevented from being Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I said it earlier in this discussion, and I'll say it again, if a man who was a Catholic, had at least 11 mistresses, and a slew of illegitimate children can be given a chance to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, I don't see why Charles can't.
Reply With Quote
  #1458  
Old 07-22-2014, 09:35 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,021
Well if you are going to use past examples of kingly behavior to justify what a current king (and head of the COE) may or may not do then striking off your wife's head for treason should be acceptable as well....

Because someone has had bad behavior does not excuse another person's behavior.

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1459  
Old 07-23-2014, 12:03 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
That's a great point!
Reply With Quote
  #1460  
Old 07-23-2014, 03:07 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Can anyone tell me why Charles faith and lack of fitness to be King is once again hijacking this thread?
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september brunei royal family catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary and womens rights princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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