Constitutional monarchy or republic?

by witchfinder Fri May 25, 2012 10:17 am

First topic message reminder :

This topic or subject is actualy about the head of state of the United KIngdom and 15 other independent sovereign nations including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

In 1981 this question was put to me: "are you a true and loyal supporter of the British Crown and constitution", and my reply was "yes" I am, and in doing so I actualy made an oath of loyalty not to any politician, but to The Crown, the people and the nation.

The Crown and the monarchy are not democratic in the sense that no one ever elects them, but then again what system, or which sytem of government is truly fair and democratic ?, in the United States 45% of serving soldiers, airforce staff and sailors voted Republican in 2008, yet they have to swear alliegence to President Obama, in many unstable nations this situation is a recipe for civil war.

Today ( 25th May 2012 ) the latest opinion poll has been published in the UK on the subject of the monarchy, the findings have been released just prior to nationwide celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.

The first thing to point out about this opinion poll is that the monarchy enjoys solid support amongst Labour voters and supporters, the Queen and the institution of the monarchy has never been so popular.
Support is strong in Scotland, Wales, all areas of England and in every age group and social class, but the findings are not good reading for Charlie, most people feel the line of succession should jump a generation and go to William.

Should TRUE Labour supporters be embaressed about been a supporter of the Queen and the monarchy ?, I say absolutely not, it is clearly obvious that to go down the path of republicanism would lose both support and votes, just as it did to the SNP in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

And so as my next door neighbour who is chairman of the local Conservative club puts out his flags for the celebrations, so shall I, and as a Labour supporter and voter we are both equal in one nation under one Crown.

by **Ivan** Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:23 am

Phil. It doesn’t have to be John Major, you shouldn’t reduce everything to the lowest common denominator! Sad

There are basically two types of head of state in democratic republics: political ones, such as the presidents of France and the USA, and non-political ones, as in Ireland and Germany. The difference is that in Ireland and Germany, while the role is still largely ceremonial, the people of those countries are treated like adults and allowed to have a vote on who fills the position. And incidentally, our monarchy is actually one hundred times more expensive to maintain than the Irish presidency.

A monarchy doesn’t increase tourism, in fact it might hinder it. Paris has more visitors than any other European city, and tourists aren’t deterred from going to Versailles by the knowledge that there’s no possibility of catching a glimpse of Louis XIV. If our monarchy was abolished and all the benefit scroungers were evicted from their luxury homes, tourists would be able to visit all parts of all the palaces.

My other objection is the message that monarchy sends out - that a somewhat dull and uninspiring family whose members, purely by accident of birth, drop into a pampered life of wealth and privilege, are treated as ‘special’ regardless of their merits. I can never forget the intercepted phone call (pre-Murdoch, I think) where Charles was telling his mistress (now also considered ‘royal’) that he would like to be reincarnated as a tampon. Could you ever respect such a piece of scum as him?

If it wasn’t for the undeserved respect and power handed out to people just because they inherit vast wealth, we might not today be stuck with jumped-up public schoolboys like Cameron and Osborne, two severely flawed characters who’ve been promoted way above their abilities. And let’s not forget that it was someone from Buckingham Palace who asked the Tories to give a job to Cameron (who is Mrs Windsor’s fifth cousin, twice removed) in the first place.

by Stox 16 Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:44 am

Shirina wrote:I never saw the appeal of a monarchy - or any entrenched system that involves birthrights. I look at any of the Royals and wonder, "What did they do to deserve a life of privilege?" If these people hadn't simply won the jackpot by being lucky enough to be born into the Royal Family, William and Charles might be flipping burgers or changing oil pans. I can't help but think ... just who ARE these people, and why should I feel any veneration for them?

I don't have any animosity toward the Windsors, either, but birthrights don't inspire me. At least with a presidency, any child can aspire to hold that office ... unlike being a Royal, which is all about an accident of nature.

birthright sums it all up very well indeed

by **Ivan** Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:52 am

The darker side of all this Jubilee nonsense:-

"A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant. Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told 'The Guardian' they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

by **astradt1** Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:46 pm

I wonder if the Flanagan and Allan song was played to help them get off to sleep?

Britain takes another step back in time......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-tsJAfncdQ

Listen to their reading of Newspaper headlines from 1926 especially at 2.07.......Thing never seem to change?

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:19 pm

I do hope that those little people who are so unhappy about "paying" for the Royal Family will properly enjoy the immediate boost to their income when the Nation becomes a Republic.

Or not, as the case may be.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:43 pm

My sons seem to feel that it was 'chavvy' to have a Union Flag flying at our family barbecue yesterday( although it didn't appear to affect their appetites).

I have , naturally, given them each a week's notice to leave the premises, issued a retrospective parking charge for their cars on the drive, and have confiscated their i-pads... Shocked

by **Ivan** Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:09 pm

I believe a 'Jubilee' was originally a Jewish celebration held every fifty years to commemorate the emancipation of the slaves in Egypt.

As the article I posted above shows, this so-called Jubilee has been marked by the introduction of slave labour to act as stewards. Ironic, isn't it?

by trevorw2539 Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:43 pm

Ivan wrote:I believe a 'Jubilee' was originally a Jewish celebration held every fifty years to commemorate the emancipation of the slaves in Egypt.

As the article I posted above shows, this so-called Jubilee has been marked by the introduction of slave labour to act as stewards. Ironic, isn't it?

Jewish 'Jubilee' (50th year) had to do with property, value of land for rental. And freedom for slaves and relief from debts. But I won't bore you with the details. Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:24 pm

"freedom for slaves and relief from debts. "

which suggests a Latin and therefore Roman origin. The Spanish word for a pensioner/retiree is JUBILADO.

by trevorw2539 Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:56 pm

oftenwrong wrote:"freedom for slaves and relief from debts. "

which suggests a Latin and therefore Roman origin. The Spanish word for a pensioner/retiree is JUBILADO.

This came in around 1400BC. Bit before the Romans. Previous cultures had simplified rules.

by ROB Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:32 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
This came in around 1400BC. Bit before the Romans.

Hebrew Bible:

You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and every man shall return unto his own property, and every man shall return unto his family.

Leviticus 25:10

by **Ivan** Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:04 am

So is there any disagreement? I just saw the irony of slaves being freed under the old concept of Jubilee, while new ones were being created during this Jubilee as part of the rapid slide into fascism under Cameron.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

To me, 2012 will be remembered, not for the gut-wrenching spectacle of sycophancy over the past few days, but for the destruction of the NHS (which Ma Windsor signed into law) and the ending of the government's legal obligation to provide us with healthcare.

by blueturando Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:27 am

To me, 2012 will be remembered, not for the gut-wrenching spectacle of sycophancy over the past few days, but for the destruction of the NHS (which Ma Windsor signed into law) and the ending of the government's legal obligation to provide us with healthcare..

But to millions of others it wont. It has been good see that the anti royalsits are out of touch with the majority once again

by **Ivan** Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:42 am

We shall see. A privatised NHS, where some healthcare is no longer free or has to be partly paid for, will have a longer lasting effect on most people than two days off work celebrating sixty years of benefit scrounging by someone who just happened to be born into the role. (Would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who inherited the position from his father?)

By definition, if the only qualification required is accident of birth, anyone could have done the job that Ma Windsor has done - shaking hands (with gloves on, a bloody insult if ever there was) and cutting ribbons. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, all they'd have to do is live long enough.

by oftenwrong Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:21 am

The distinction between Monarchist and Republican in the UK is complicated by the fact that every single person who has served in the military, or as a Civil Servant or indeed any office under the Crown, has sworn an Oath of Allegiance ....

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/usefulinfo/valuesgeneral/adp5milcov/ss_hrpers_values_adp5_3_w.html#selfless

by **astradt1** Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:34 am

oftenwrong wrote:The distinction between Monarchist and Republican in the UK is complicated by the fact that every single person who has served in the military, or as a Civil Servant or indeed any office under the Crown, has sworn an Oath of Allegiance ....

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/usefulinfo/valuesgeneral/adp5milcov/ss_hrpers_values_adp5_3_w.html#selfless

So all that stuff about our Armed Forces protecting Britain (the Country) is wrong they are only there to protect the Royal Family....

Perhaps now is the time to change the Oath of Allegiance to that of one requiring them to protect the British population and land......

by Adele Carlyon Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:10 pm

Is this pile of hog wash over yet? Can I turn the telly back on? I can't remember the last time I felt quite so sick!

Hasn't she shaken a lot of hands recently, and not once has she actually touched one single subject of hers! Gotta love those gloves eh? Keeps us stinking commoners from touching that blessed skin!

by **Ivan** Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:34 pm

Some extracts from the blog of Andrew Child:-

"There really is no rational argument for monarchy. It serves very little purpose other than to help perpetuate an outmoded class system and to promote anti-aspiration at a time when Britain is the most unequal society it has been in the Queen’s 60 year reign.

We essentially hear from our head of state twice a year. Once is when she reads from a piece of paper which tells her and us what the government intends to legislate on. And again in the Queen’s Christmas message, when we are served up bland, platitudinous nonsense from which it’s hard to discern what century we’re living in.

Our PM may be offered personal opinions at one of her weekly briefings at the palace or through a meeting of the Privy Council, but we’ve no idea what is said. They’re not opinions offered in the public realm. Because despite the monarchy being a public institution there’s no public scrutiny of it. It’s exempt from Freedom of Information legislation…….Discussion of royalty is banned by parliamentary rules.

The Queen could and should make a gesture to show that she understands the nation’s difficulties…..No offer to pay the same taxes as the rest of us. No offer to accept less money from the taxpayer for her official duties. Instead the Queen has struck a deal with Parliament to replace the Civil List with the Sovereign Support Grant. A deal which massively boosts her official income. This is a monarch instead thumbing her nose at her subjects."

For the full article:-
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/06/05/abolish-the-monarchy-child/

by Shirina Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:29 pm

You folks across the pond need an oath more like ours:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

You can tell that we "borrowed" some of the wording from the British oath, but I do find it strange that the British oath makes no mention of defending or swearing allegiance to the United Kingdom independent of the Queen. Also, we only have to obey orders that do not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This gives our soldiers an escape hatch if they are ever issued illegal orders such as shooting civilians. Also note that the oath does not require us to actually use the president's name. In that way, it prevents us from having to swear fealty to a particular person. Instead, we swear an oath to obey the office of president regardless of who occupies it.

When the president shakes hands, he does not use gloves. I just feel that a monarchy is a throwback to a less pleasant time with distinctive class lines between Royals, the aristocracy, and the peasants. Strangely, in those days, the King/Queen and the various lords, barons, and dukes were tasked with defending the people rather than the people defending the Royals ... though I suppose such a change is necessary since the Blue Bloods are no longer in direct control of the military. While yes, even in the States there is an unwritten class system, but as hard as it may be to do so, every American can ascend into the lofty ranks of the wealthy elite whereas nobility and royalty are, for the most part, hereditary.

By the way, everything I've read about the unpaid workers story, it wasn't planned for them to sleep under the London Bridge. They were supposed to sleep on the buses that brought them there, something that a lot of security personnel have to put up with (it's just part of the job). But the bus drivers took off and left them there without any shelter or access to toilets.

by trevorw2539 Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:54 pm

Ivan. Just to diversify slightly. Have you ever heard a recording of Noel Coward singing his satirical song 'The Stately Homes of England'. Written for his USA performances. Don't read the lyrics, listen to him singing it. It'll cheer you up. Smile

by trevorw2539 Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:06 pm

Sirina quote
By the way, everything I've read about the unpaid workers story, it wasn't planned for them to sleep under the London Bridge. They were supposed to sleep on the buses that brought them there, something that a lot of security personnel have to put up with (it's just part of the job). But the bus drivers took off and left them there without any shelter or access to toilets.

And to claim no access to toilets for 24 hours. They worked a 14 hours shift. If they really hadn't the initiative to find a loo during that period! And there were plenty of portable loos all along the route. And after they finished their 14 hours. Another 10 to find a loo?

by oftenwrong Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:34 pm

Left to sleep under a BRIDGE?

Why, when I were a lad, we'd have shed tears of gratitude to 'ave a bridge to sleep under.
Our resting-place were level crossing outside t'colliery, wi' nowt but the timetable for blankets. First train were at 04.45 and if we were lucky there'd be road-kill for us breakfast.

Tell that to kids today, and they won't believe yer.

by astra Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:44 pm

Them wor the days lad!

by ROB Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:39 pm

According to Internet sources, Elizabeth II remains Queen Regnant and Chief of State of a number of sovereign states in Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Hemispheres; thus, as disposing of British citizens’ queen would deprive Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and others of their Queen Regnant and Chief of State, it seems a bit selfish to not consult the citizenry of each non-UK Commonwealth Realm sovereign state prior to advocating discontinuance of the Royal family.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:33 pm

Please go here,-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/queens-financial-accounts-revealed-022640155.html

The cost of the Royal family is not something I think about too much.

But what I do think about and dont like, is that they are the crux of everything with with Britain, ie our class system.

This isnt a political question, but it does get to the crux of the British Empire and how in my view the Royal family is holding this country back.

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:22 pm

Anybody who imagines that operating an Office of The President of the United Kingdom would be any cheaper, has not thought about the question.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:39 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Anybody who imagines that operating an Office of The President of the United Kingdom would be any cheaper, has not thought about the question.

How did I feel in my gut that you would be the first to reply ?

Of course I have thought about the question.

I could never imagine Margaret Thatcher being the President of the United Kingdom.

But by the same tokem, I refuse to be a "subject" of her Majesty, either. So where do we go from here ?

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:55 pm

Emigrate? Somewhere warmer and dryer, perhaps.

by astra Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:55 pm

Venezuela?

by Ivanhoe Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:23 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Emigrate? Somewhere warmer and dryer, perhaps.

oftenwrong. I'm not one to walk away from a sinking ship.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:13 pm

Ivanhoe quote

oftenwrong. I'm not one to walk away from a sinking ship.

Walking on water is not recommended, unless your name is Jesus Smile

by ROB Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:56 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
The cost of the Royal family is not something I think about too much.

oftenwrong wrote:
Anybody who imagines that operating an Office of The President of the United Kingdom would be any cheaper, has not thought about the question.

The President of the United States and his family reside in the White House, the security features (beyond top secret) of which costs US taxpayers a nice chunk of change. We don’t know how many millions (billions?), because making public such knowledge would compromise security. One television series speculates that a battery of SAMs lies just beneath the White House lawn. It’s also known that the walls and windows were “renovated” to be impervious to probably anything shy of a two thousand pound artillery shell fired by a 15” naval gun.

The President travels in “hardened” land vehicles, in convoys (I saw “Baby” Bush’s convoy flying down a blocked off freeway at one hundred plus miles per hour), some of the vehicles of which are so tricked out that they must cost a whole bunch of money apiece (a million plus?). A popular magazine featured an article on one of the vehicles, a black SUV with pop-up twin “Ma Deuces” that traverse 360 degrees.

By air, it’s either Marine One, which travels in a convoy with identical helos, or Air Force One. The security details of both are top drawer top secret, and the costs are once again unknown, but it’s a sure bet that both are tricked out big time with big times costs.

And lest we forget, I can’t imagine either aircraft traveling without “top cover”, perhaps rotating squadrons of F-15 Eagles flying at thousands of feet above whichever aircraft within which the president is traveling. Operating costs must be astronomical.

Note that I haven’t touched salaries and other monetary compensation, including the president’s salary and allowances, and the considerable number of Secret Service and White House police officers dedicated to protecting the president. And let’s not forget the salaries of the state and local cops who support the dedicated security teams wherever the president travels.

And then there are the other presidents, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush, all of whom are salaried/allowanced for life and all of whom retain dedicated security personnel for life. Presidential family members also get this service.

I’m sure I’ve missed whole categories of costs. My point is this: Presidents aren’t cheap, and transitioning to a President of the United Kingdom may not be a cost savings.

by astra Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:22 pm

Well pointed out RoB!

We have had our Queenie for 60 years - one set of rotating security, for ONE family.
How many Presidents has USA had in the last 60 years? Each needing independent security teams, members and expensive protocals.

YES our past Prime ministers have security, and Mrs Thatcher and John Major may still have security, but it will pain to insignificance compared to if they were / had been presidents.

by jackthelad Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:33 pm

To keep the Royals it costs the citizens of the UK 58p a head a year, not a lot i would say, a lot cheaper than American presidents i would imagine.
Me, i will stick with the Royals , we have had Elizibeth for 60 years, and only have to remember her name. How many presidents have the Americans had in the last 60 years, how many different names have they had to remember. I would bet there are quite a few they would like to forget, president Nixon for one.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:36 pm

If cost savings are urgently required, I suggest we keep the Royal security and save on that allocated to Thatcher and Major. A chain on the front door may suffice for them - and in Thatcher's case the prospect of her opening the door , dribbling, and in her curlers may alone be sufficient to deter any would-be assailant... Shocked

by astra Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:45 pm

And her hair unkempt! :affraid:

by ROB Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:55 pm

astra wrote:
Well pointed out RoB!

We have had our Queenie for 60 years - one set of rotating security, for ONE family.
How many Presidents has USA had in the last 60 years?

I hadn’t thought about that point, Astra. Your Queen was crowned in 1952? That was President Harry S Truman. FDR died in office, but I believe (ex) President Herbert Hoover was still alive. That’s two presidents for our purposes.

Dwight David Eisenhower was next (three), followed by John Fitzgerald Kennedy (four), Lyndon Baines Johnson (five), Richard Milhous “I Am Not A Crook” “Tricky Dick” Nixon (six), Gerald R. Ford (seven), James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (eight), Ronald Reagan (nine), George Herbert Walker Bush (ten), William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton (eleven), George Walker Bush (twelve), and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (thirteen).

At any given time, one or more ex-presidents were alive. It would be interesting to find out “the most” at any time. Right now, it’s Jimmy, HW, Billy, and Baby. If (God forbid) a Mormon theocrat is elected president in November, it might be five come 20 January 2013.

astra wrote:
YES our past Prime ministers have security, and Mrs Thatcher and John Major may still have security, but it will pain to insignificance compared to if they were / had been presidents.

During my lifetime, no prime ministers (or other ministers) or potential prime ministers (opposition party leaders have suffered assassination attempts.

During my lifetime, it’s Harry S Truman (assassination attempt), John Fitzgerald Kennedy (assassination), Robert Francis Kennedy, the Greatest President Who Never Was (candidate, assassination), George Wallace (candidate, assassination attempt), Gerald R. Ford (two assassination attempts), and Ronald Reagan (assassination attempt).

The extreme security measures are absolutely necessary. And now that Bobby is mentioned, I remember that all serious presidential candidates now get full Secret Service protection.

by astra Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:20 pm

RoB

The IRA had a go,in 1984.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_2531000/2531583.stm

[quote]

1984: Tory Cabinet in Brighton bomb blast
There has been a direct bomb attack on the British Government at the Conservative party conference in Brighton.
At least two people have been killed and many others seriously injured, including two senior Cabinet ministers.

The blast tore apart the Brighton Grand Hotel where members of the Cabinet have been staying for the Conservative party conference.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis narrowly escaped injury.

various eggs have been thrown, but Margaret pulled out the worst in everyone!

Idiots have tried to dismount the Queen from her Destrier in ceremonial occasions. Sitting sidesaddle this could not have been funny!

I would have had the perpetrators (notice "Trator" turns up in that word!) Bullwhipped.

by jackthelad Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:07 pm

Hell will freeze over before we get rid of the monarchy.

There is a saying that there will be only five kings/queens left in the world. The king/queen, of Clubs, Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, and England. I definately believe that to be true.

by **Phil Hornby** Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:25 pm

The present Queen has proved to be immeasurably more valuable to the nation than ten thousand assorted of the type of politician to which we have been subjected in living memory...

by **Ivan** Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:30 pm

Phil. As you can see through the Tory Party and its naked greed, asset stripping, dishonesty, incompetence and corruption, I’m surprised that you’re taken in by the Mrs Windsor myth. What exactly has she done for the last 60 years? We don’t really know because so much of her life is kept secret.

Mrs W doesn’t express her views in public, but that doesn’t mean she is restrained in private. Keeping her trap shut in public isn’t proof of impartiality. So who can say how ‘impartial’ she is? That’s probably just a fictional notion held together by state secrecy. Given her access to government, that’s a worry in a so-called democracy. And that’s the bottom line – either we’re in a democracy and elect both of our legislatures and our head of state, or we aren’t. At the moment we aren’t.

by Sponsored content