Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
newbieone

How firm is the principle that a woman can't inherit the Iron Throne?

Recommended Posts

We know that the IT has a strong degree of male preference in practical terms, which some believe to be firm law from the 101 AC General Council (skipping Laenor Velaryon, son of Rhaenys Targaryen, herself skipped by Jaehaerys I' s will). But we also know that skipping a daughter in favour of a brother typically takes a Great Council to achieve. Even after the GC of 101 AC, Viserys I appointed Rhaenyra over her own younger brother Aegon II, and most of the realm still supported her. Some time before the last Great Council, the one that chose Egg to be Aegon V in 233 AC, Aelora, daughter of Rhagel (Maekar's older brother), was for a time Aerys I's recognized heir, until her suicide. Her sister Daenora (wife of Aeron and mother of Maegor) was skipped or not even considered(!) (though there's a chance she was regarded as passed over in favour of Maekar's progeny by Aerys I's will already), as was Vaella, the simple-minded daughter of Daeron, Egg's elder brother. I suppose there was no reason to affirm Rhaenyra as the real, valid queen, since she was already dead and her son, Aegon III, was Aegon II's appointed heir and the senior agnatic Targ anyway.

Ironically, Stannis Baratheon kind of seems to regard Rhaenyra as a traitor for affirming her rights, even though Robert's conquest was officially supported by recent matrilineal descent from a daughter of Aegon V and his own daughter is his heir (though it's not clear if Stannis really believes that; perhaps she sees death penalty as the only option for Aegon II in consequence of regarding her as such, whether or not Stannis agrees).

Also ironically, with Aerys II's descendants passed over, the Brightflames (offspring of Aerion) either extinct or passed over, the Darkfyres extinct in the male line, and no verified unbroken bastard agnatic lines, the Baratheons could perhaps be regarded as senior agnatic Targs available, if one believes Orys was Aegon the Conqueror's bastard brother. But the 101 GC male-preference rule probably didn't go as far as excluding females in favour of non-legitimized bastards.

Anyway, would you guys say the IT can be regarded as operating in full Salic mode or more like unclear (without specific decision by the previous king or a GC called to consider his specific succession)?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that firm considering the baby Vaella was considered.

I imagine it is not a case of a female being automatically excluded and her nearest male relative taking the Crown but that a small council would to make the choice of whether it was possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Aegon was first King of 7K (or rather at that time only 6K, without Dorne). So it doesn't matter that Orys was son of Aerion. In regards to 7/6K Aerion was nobody.

Furthermore, Aerion never acknowleged Orys as his son. He not only didn't legitimized him, he also never confirmed/said that Orys is his son. According to the World book, Orys was "the rumored bastard half-brother of Aegon I Targaryen by their father Aerion, Lord of Dragonstone."

Thus Orys (and his descendants) can't just go to the Great Council, and say that he wants the crown of Targaryens, because according to rumors, he is son of Aerion. -_- Idle gossips are not relevant enough, to be used as basis for his claim of Iron Throne.

But even if it was confirmed, that Aerion Targaryen really was Orys' father, he is still a bastard.

But even if he was legitimized by his father, it still doesn't make him Aegon's heir, that makes him only heir to Aerion, and even that, only if he was older than Aegon.

If Aegon specifically named Orys as his heir, next in line after his own children, then if descendants of Aegon's children became extinct, then Orys' descendants can claim Iron Throne on legal basis.

But that's so many ifs, that this outcome is nearly impossible.

Now about females, as possible rulers - fairly possible. During Dance of the Dragons half of 7K's Lords supported Rhaenyra. During several Great Councils, there were females, whose candidacy was considered as possible. If Vaela wasn't mentally defective, she could have became first female monarch of 7K.

2 hours ago, newbieone said:

Her sister Daenora (wife of Aeron and mother of Maegor) was skipped or not even considered(!)

Maybe there was a reason for it. Is it know, that at that time she was still alive, and not ill? Maybe she had mental problems, as many other Targaryens. Or maybe she didn't wanted to rule, thus she asked the councils not to include her in the list of candidates.

2 hours ago, newbieone said:

and his own daughter is his heir

Stannis has no other children, so he can't be choosy. The only other thing that he can do, is to chose a heir that is not his blood. Similar thing to what Jon Arryn did - named Harry Hardyng as his heir. But I don't see Stannis agreeing to this option, because Harry had at least a bit of Arryn's blood, he was something like grandson of Jon's cousin. And Stannis has no other blood-relatives. And he doesn't trust other people, so I think that he would rather prefer to die, without naming as his heir someone, who is not a family member, than chosing some Lord, as his possible heir, and then kept thinking, that that Lord may betray him, to get his crown.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Not that firm considering the baby Vaella was considered.

I imagine it is not a case of a female being automatically excluded and her nearest male relative taking the Crown but that a small council would to make the choice of whether it was possible. 

Probably so.

3 hours ago, newbieone said:

We know that the IT has a strong degree of male preference in practical terms, which some believe to be firm law from the 101 AC General Council (skipping Laenor Velaryon, son of Rhaenys Targaryen, herself skipped by Jaehaerys I' s will). But we also know that skipping a daughter in favour of a brother typically takes a Great Council to achieve. Even after the GC of 101 AC, Viserys I appointed Rhaenyra over her own younger brother Aegon II, and most of the realm still supported her. Some time before the last Great Council, the one that chose Egg to be Aegon V in 233 AC, Aelora, daughter of Rhagel (Maekar's older brother), was for a time Aerys I's recognized heir, until her suicide. Her sister Daenora (wife of Aeron and mother of Maegor) was skipped or not even considered(!) (though there's a chance she was regarded as passed over in favour of Maekar's progeny by Aerys I's will already), as was Vaella, the simple-minded daughter of Daeron, Egg's elder brother. I suppose there was no reason to affirm Rhaenyra as the real, valid queen, since she was already dead and her son, Aegon III, was Aegon II's appointed heir and the senior agnatic Targ anyway.

Ironically, Stannis Baratheon kind of seems to regard Rhaenyra as a traitor for affirming her rights, even though Robert's conquest was officially supported by recent matrilineal descent from a daughter of Aegon V and his own daughter is his heir (though it's not clear if Stannis really believes that; perhaps she sees death penalty as the only option for Aegon II in consequence of regarding her as such, whether or not Stannis agrees).

Also ironically, with Aerys II's descendants passed over, the Brightflames (offspring of Aerion) either extinct or passed over, the Darkfyres extinct in the male line, and no verified unbroken bastard agnatic lines, the Baratheons could perhaps be regarded as senior agnatic Targs available, if one believes Orys was Aegon the Conqueror's bastard brother. But the 101 GC male-preference rule probably didn't go as far as excluding females in favour of non-legitimized bastards.

Anyway, would you guys say the IT can be regarded as operating in full Salic mode or more like unclear (without specific decision by the previous king or a GC called to consider his specific succession)?

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't really matter.  Cersei will break that tradition and set a precedent.  Even if Cersei doesn't make it that far that principle is not going to stand in the way of Daenerys Targaryen.  Slavery was legal in Astapor and that did not stop her from liberating the Unsullied from their masters.  It is Dothraki Law for widows to join the Dosh Khaleen and that didn't stop Daenerys from charting her own course.  A principle that excludes women from the throne is very wrong, unfair, and it will not, and should not stop Daenerys from ruling Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

About as firm as cream cheese. The rule stands only until it doesn't, either because the only heir left is female or because a female up and takes the throne (and holds it for more than six months).

In the absence of a trueborn male heir, a trueborn female heir can ascend the throne, and legitmized bastards come after them (again, male before female). At least in theory.

Jaehaerys I called a great council not because he was concerned about whether a woman should succeed, but because there were so damn many potential successors and he did not want a war. If Viserys I had done the same, the Dance of the Dragons 1.0 might not have happened--though to be fair he didn't think half the lords of Westeros would break their vows to support Rhaenyra, and certainly never suspected a member of his own Kingsguard would help start a war to keep her off the throne.

Orys having been a Targ bastard wouldn't signify anyway because he was never legitimized as such, and there is no evidence that legitimization can be done posthumously, fun though that would make things. There may however be closer Targs anyway, as Aegon V's sisters both married and had children, and Vaella might have as well. If they turn out to be a dead-end, just think how many bastards Aegon IV fathered and legitimized (all of them, not just the noble-born)...some of them must have descendants.

Can't really count out any of little Maegor's descendants either, because he was never specifically barred from succession.

Edited by Lady Blizzardborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Agent Orange said:

It doesn't really matter.  Cersei will break that tradition and set a precedent.  Even if Cersei doesn't make it that far that principle is not going to stand in the way of Daenerys Targaryen.  Slavery was legal in Astapor and that did not stop her from liberating the Unsullied from their masters.  It is Dothraki Law for widows to join the Dosh Khaleen and that didn't stop Daenerys from charting her own course.  A principle that excludes women from the throne is very wrong, unfair, and it will not, and should not stop Daenerys from ruling Westeros.

Indeed.  And once Dany turns up on Drogon everyone will discover they were always feminists at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much firm. Women are customary considered in councils only to be dismissed. Even if there was a woman deliberately pretending the Throne, the men holding key positions over the continent would shush her down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite firm, since it enjoys overwhelming support among the people who decide the succession - Westerosi nobility.

The succession rests upon acclaim by Iron Throne's vassals. Without being acclaimed by the bannermen, any candidate will become a King of his own bedroom and little else. Without bannermen Viserys (III) became a beggar king; after losing (already reluctant) support of his bannermen, Maegor the Cruel was done despite having Black Dread. And these bannermen, the lords of Seven Kingdoms, favor male-first rule 20 to 1 (without Dorne).

Hence Viserys I's decision to pass over Aegon II in favor of Rhaenyra was doomed from the start. The support Rhaenyra got was fleeting; when things went south, it fell apart - people either defected openly to Green side (like Maidenpool and Cregan with his public proclamation of Aegon II as King) or sat idly by as Rhaenyra's name was stricken from the scrolls. Beneath short-term considerations of marriage, favor, positions of court, the Greens had fundamental preference of the ruling class. Which is why despite suffering terrible losses, Green coalition endured and Aegon II was eventually recognized as the sixth monarch of House Targaryen.

Similarly, the decision of Aerys I was of little consequence; whatever magic-obsessed King could have thought about breaking with custom, he simply did not have the power to enforce his whims upon the nobility. Fortunately for everyone else, the matter resolved itself before Aelora could try to claim the Iron Throne in earnest.

As for Robert, his vestigial Targaryen ancestry was a nice bonus, but ultimately rebel leaders were rather short on candidates. Jon Arryn was already old man by the time of Rebellion and had no direct heirs of his own - for him to be the King would invite succession struggle both in the Vale and around Iron Throne. Ned was a Northerner and a heathen. Hoster essentially extorted Jon and Ned for his support in the Rebellion. Targaryen ancestry or not, Robert - charismatic, virile, young - was more or less the only viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, the chances for female inheritance are a lot better than we were led to believe in the past. Neither women nor males through through the female line have been legally barred from inheriting the throne.

Rhaenyra was a special case in the sense that she was an elder daughter trying to claim the throne in place of her younger brother. That is not the same as a brotherless daughter coming before an uncle or a granddaughter from the eldest son coming before her uncle.

While there is precedent against that (in Rhaenys vs. Baelon) there is also precedent against this (in Aelora vs. Maekar). The Dance is seen as a precedent against female rule in the sense that Rhaenyra was seen as a bad queen - and example how bad a female monarch would be - but it still didn't erase the claims of Baelor's sisters, Aelora, or Daeron's daughter Vaella.

It seems pretty likely that there would have been a female monarch if an only child king (or one who had only a sister-wife, like Aerys II) had had only daughters. That just never happened. If Rhaegar had been another Rhaella she would have been the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne for most of her life, and Aerys II may have even named her Princess of Dragonstone when his hope for a living (male) child died.

14 hours ago, newbieone said:

I suppose there was no reason to affirm Rhaenyra as the real, valid queen, since she was already dead and her son, Aegon III, was Aegon II's appointed heir and the senior agnatic Targ anyway.

Rhaenyra was condemned by Aegon II's decree before he was forced to acknowledge Aegon the Younger as his co-heir aside his own daughter Jaehaera with whom the boy was also betrothed. Aegon's own plan likely was to father another son on his Baratheon bride.

One can create a case that Aegon the Younger can be seen as next in line due to his descent through the male line via Daemon and Baelon, but that wouldn't have been the view of King Aegon II who would have attainted Rhaenyra, Daemon, and all their descendants and kin as the traitors they were from his point of view. Daemon's brood on the Iron Throne was as bad - or even worse - than Rhaenyra's get considering that it was Daemon who arranged Blood and Cheese and later killed Aegon's brother Aemond.

But it may have been a convenient argument for the people dismissing female claims. However, Aegon III clearly was supported by the remaining Blacks in the field as the son and heir of Queen Rhaenyra.

14 hours ago, newbieone said:

Ironically, Stannis Baratheon kind of seems to regard Rhaenyra as a traitor for affirming her rights, even though Robert's conquest was officially supported by recent matrilineal descent from a daughter of Aegon V and his own daughter is his heir (though it's not clear if Stannis really believes that; perhaps she sees death penalty as the only option for Aegon II in consequence of regarding her as such, whether or not Stannis agrees).

Stannis doesn't like women. And Stannis doesn't consider Shireen his rightful heir, anyway. He has no issue offering Renly to name him his heir should he bend the knee. He would most definitely not treat a son in the same manner.

In addition, as a Baratheon Stannis would be biased against Rhaenyra in any way, considering that Borros Baratheon stood at Aegon's side.

12 hours ago, Megorova said:

Aegon was first King of 7K (or rather at that time only 6K, without Dorne). So it doesn't matter that Orys was son of Aerion. In regards to 7/6K Aerion was nobody.

Furthermore, Aerion never acknowleged Orys as his son. He not only didn't legitimized him, he also never confirmed/said that Orys is his son. According to the World book, Orys was "the rumored bastard half-brother of Aegon I Targaryen by their father Aerion, Lord of Dragonstone."

Thus Orys (and his descendants) can't just go to the Great Council, and say that he wants the crown of Targaryens, because according to rumors, he is son of Aerion. -_- Idle gossips are not relevant enough, to be used as basis for his claim of Iron Throne.

While that's mainly true, depending on the level that rumor was believed at the time we are talking about, the Orys Baratheon story might actually have strengthened a claim.

12 hours ago, Megorova said:

But even if it was confirmed, that Aerion Targaryen really was Orys' father, he is still a bastard.

Bastards do have claims, too. I daresay the Baratheons would have had as good a chance to claim the Iron Throne as the Velaryons had the Targaryens died in the male line with Maegor the Cruel, especially when Alyssa Velaryon married Lord Baratheon.

12 hours ago, Megorova said:

But even if he was legitimized by his father, it still doesn't make him Aegon's heir, that makes him only heir to Aerion, and even that, only if he was older than Aegon.

There is some truth to that as well, but if a line dies out then people might be willing to look even to such distant relations if there is no other heir in sight.

As to Princess Daenora:

I'm inclined to believe she was still very young when Aelora died. In 211 AC Rhaegel only had the twins Aelor and Aelora. They are still children at that time, likely as old or slightly older than Egg, Daella, or Aemon. Daenora will be born later, possibly even only around Rhaegel's own death in 215 AC - or perhaps even later as posthumous child. Technically Rhaegel could conceive Daenora and then choke to death at the very same evening. If we assume Aelora killed herself in or around 220-221 AC, shortly before Aerys I own death, then she would have still only been a rather young child at that time, while Aelora was likely already a woman grown when her brother-husband Aelor died in 217 AC and she became Heir Apparent and Princess of Dragonstone.

If Aerys I was already suffering from the illness that led to his death by natural causes in 221 AC when he named Maekar his heir it would make sense that he passed over his young niece there. After all, if he was already ailing he would have suspected/known that he wouldn't live all that long, and a child queen with a regency government would exactly give the Realm the stability it would have needed, especially with the Blackfyres still out there.

In that sense, Maekar clearly looks as the better option in that context. But Aerion's eventual marriage to Daenora can also be seen as a strong sign that he lusted after power and the Iron Throne considering that the claim of Rhaegel's daughter would certainly strengthen his own as well as the claim of his children.

Had Maekar ruled for thirty years or so Aerion and Daenora's son Maegor certainly could have tried to claim the throne on the basis of his superior blood claim, especially against the lackwit Princess Vaella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

And these bannermen, the lords of Seven Kingdoms, favor male-first rule 20 to 1 (without Dorne).

That was before. Since then the situation changed.

After Stannis will die (and most likely it already happened), Stormlands will be ruled by his wife and daughter. But even if Stannis won't die soon, the stormlanders in general, accept Shireen as their prospective ruler. For many years they were ruled by gay Lord. So they are more open minded and accepting. If half of Stormlands supported Renly, then they will be also willing, to support a female ruler.

In The Reach the one in charge is Olenna Tyrell.

Westerlands and King's Landing are ruled by Cersei.

Most likely Euron (and Victarion) won't even return from Essos, after encounter with Dany, he will become fryed squid. Quaithe warned Dany about arrival of kraken, so Euron won't be welcomed by her. Though his fleet is another matter. So after Euron will be out of the picture, Iron Islands will be ruled by Asha.

The North and The Vale will be ruled by Sansa.

Riverlands will be ruled by Edmure's Frey wife, that will be guardian/regent of their little son, untill he will turn 16.

And Dorne is a Kingdom of gender equality, more than any other out of 7K.

Add to this, that during the War of Five Kings, many Lords died, and currently their families/Houses are ruled by their wives or daughters. Because their sons, that were old enough, also went to war. And those that are left, are mostly underage. So their Houses are ruled by their mothers.

Current 7K is ruled by women. So if there will be a Great Council, then the Lords that will come there, will actually be mostly Ladies. And thus they will support the most, that candidate, that will stop the war, and bring peace to 7K.

Edited by Megorova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catelyn was Hoster’s heir until Edmure was born. Who was that little girl baby, who was married off for her lands? I forget. Shireen is Stannis’s heir. Alayne is LF’s heir. Rhaegar was disinherited. The rules are flexible, and then there is the right of conquest to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Megorova said:

After Stannis will die (and most likely it already happened), Stormlands will be ruled by his wife and daughter.

The Stormlands are currently ruled by Tommen. Id Stannis ruled them, and even that is debatable, he lost that rule when the majority of Stormlords who supported him swore featly to the Crown. 

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

But even if Stannis won't die soon, the stormlanders in general, accept Shireen as their prospective ruler.

That is a bold claim. Her being the child of a rebel and her greyscale are bigger issues than her gender. 

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

For many years they were ruled by gay Lord. So they are more open minded and accepting. If half of Stormlands supported Renly, then they will be also willing, to support a female ruler.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb. Renly is not some flamboyant queen, he is not even publicly known to be gay.

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

In The Reach the one in charge is Olenna Tyrell.

No, Mace is in charge. Had Olenna been in charge they would never have rebelled in the first place. 

Olenna is certainly powerful and influential, but she does not rule the Reach. 

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

Westerlands and King's Landing are ruled by Cersei.

The Westerlands are, the Crown is ruled by her son. She has acted as his regent, but it was still Tommen's power and rule. 

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

The North and The Vale will be ruled by Sansa.

How so? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:
Quote

The North and The Vale will be ruled by Sansa.

How so? 

Officially Bran is dead. Rickon is just a child, so even if he will safely return from that canibal island, it's unlikely that he will reign over North. So Sansa will be his regent. Because she's also a Stark. LF will usurp power in The Vale, and give the leadership to Sansa. Of course he's just using her, same as everyone else.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Stormlands are currently ruled by Tommen. Id Stannis ruled them, and even that is debatable, he lost that rule when the majority of Stormlords who supported him swore featly to the Crown. 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Westerlands are, the Crown is ruled by her son. She has acted as his regent, but it was still Tommen's power and rule. 

When Tommen and Myrcella will die (and they will, because nearly all the rest, what the witch said, already happened. Cersei married with a King, she had 3 children, he had 18(?). One of them already died, two more left, and then Cersei will meet her death from hands of valonqar/Jaime.), then Cersei won't have any right to rule over Stormlands. She may usurp power in King's Landing, but her influence won't reach as far as Stormlands. Also for 300 years, those lands belonged to Baratheons, and the only Baratheon, that will be still alive, is Shireen. She's underaged, so that Kingdom will be ruled by her regent-mother. About Westerlands, either Cersei will be there the one in charge, or it will be Dorna Swyft, or Genna Lannister. Lancel most likely will die, and soon. And it's unlikely that Martyn will manage to survive, and return home. So either Tyrion will seize control over Westerlands, when he will return from Essos, or Westerlands will be ruled by women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Officially Bran is dead. Rickon is just a child, so even if he will safely return from that canibal island, it's unlikely that he will reign over North. So Sansa will be his regent. Because she's also a Stark. LF will usurp power in The Vale, and give the leadership to Sansa. Of course he's just using her, same as everyone else.

I have no problem with Sansa ruling the North, but she has zero claim on the Vale. She can't rule it, she can marry the Ruler of the Vale and influence his decisions, but she can't rule it herself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I have no problem with Sansa ruling the North, but she has zero claim on the Vale. She can't rule it, she can marry the Ruler of the Vale and influence his decisions, but she can't rule it herself. 

 

She can, if she will marry with Harry, and then LF will poison him. Then Sansa will have nearly same rights, as Lysa after Jon's death. And Robin likes Sansa, so he may give her authorization of ruling over The Vale in his place.

Until the Great Council will be gathered (and that will happen after fAegon; after Dany's arrival to Westeros; after all of Cersei's children will already die; after situation with Stannis and Winterfell will be decided; after Jon Snow will gain control over The North (and will give it to Sansa, because she is Ned's legitimate child); after situation in Westerlands will be resolved between Cersei, Tyrion, Jaime, and remaining Lannisters or their spouses; after will be resolved situation in Riverlands, between Freys, Tullys, and the Brotherhood), political map of 7K will be totally different, from what it was by the end of ADWD. 

The Great Council will be gathered, only when there won't be a definite candidate, to become next monarch of 7K. And then, in a political situation of that time, is it likely, that the Lords of Westeros will choose a woman as their ruler? Very likely. Because since the last Great Council, lots of things changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys seen any realistic rendering of the Iron Throne?  There's no way they can fit that in the Red Keep's kitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Megorova said:

She can, if she will marry with Harry, and then LF will poison him. Then Sansa will have nearly same rights, as Lysa after Jon's death.

Lysa had those rights because she had a son. Sansa would also need to have a son and rule through him. It would still be her son who was the ruler, not Sansa. 

Of course if she is going to stay in the Vale she would need to appoint a Castellan of the North, who would rule in her absence and vice versa if she decided to live in the North. She can't rule one realm fro the other.

1 minute ago, Megorova said:

 

And Robin likes Sansa, so he may give her authorization of ruling over The Vale in his place.

He'd still be the ruler. 

1 minute ago, Megorova said:

 

The Great Council will be gathered, only when there won't be a definite candidate, to become next monarch of 7K. And then, in a political situation of that time, is it likely, that the Lords of Westeros will choose a woman as their ruler? Very likely. Because since the last Great Council, lots of things changed.

I'm not challenging the idea that Dany can, and more than likely will,  rule the realm. She has her name and her dragons backing her up. I don't even think she will need a Great Council, she has the means and the strength to take it. 

What I disagreed with is a lot of your other claims, that are not really supported by the text. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×