Jump to content
Erkan12

The North is finally independent

Recommended Posts

@WolfOfWinter(can’t quote for some reason)

It’s a different situation.

Jon and Sansa took back the north together, and then the lords publically chose Jon over her when she wasn’t expecting it. 

She didn’t have much choice other than to go along with it, and she was visably upset about it.

My hypothetical puts Sansa already as Queen with her own armies and alliances she forged on her own (just like Dany), and then Jon shows up to say he’s actually the rightful heir, but not to worry about it because he doesn’t want it and bends the knee to her (just like he did for Dany).

Why would Sansa step down as Queen at that point?

Why would anyone?

How does this make Dany a usuper? He’s specifically telling her not to, and that he supports her claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 5:44 PM, Kajjo said:

Well, he might have dies for it but not because of it.  He died because he broke his promise to House Frey to marry a daughter. Lannisters so could successfully get Frey onto their side and decide the war without a further battle -- instead they committed the Red Wedding.

 

I think Grrm said the Freys would still betray Robb even if he married to their daughter, they are Freys after all, they also didn't care about Edmure marrying with their daughter. Grrm said only the violence level in Red Wedding would change, the betrayal would still happen.

Spoiler

 

Question: We know that Roose Bolton had already taken Walda Frey to wife before Robb married Jeyne Westerling. Does this then mean that Walder Frey had already planned to ally himself with Bolton to murder Robb before Robb's marriage betrayal, or was his anger towards Robb and his reasoning towards his own family as to why Robb had to be killed more than just a pretext, and the genuine reason for the Red Wedding?

GRRM: "What if" questions are impossible to answer with any certainty... knowing old Lord Walder's character, it is likely he would have searched for some way to disentangle himself from a losing cause sooner or later, but his desertion would likely have taken a less savage form. The Red Wedding was motivated by his desire to wash out the dishonor that was done him...

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Some_Questions1

 

When Edmure stopped Tywin from marching back to Westerlands and when he did that they managed to hear the situation in KL and joined forces with Tyrells and saved the city from Stannis and destroyed Stannis's forces. No one could pose a threat against the Lannister-Tyrell alliance alone while Baratheons were defeated and Arryns were stopped by Lysa and Littlefinger.

So I agree with the OP, Robb didn't die for not marrying with a Frey girl, they would still betray him in the same situation, the Freys were like the Boltons, the Boltons also betrayed them without needing a reason. It's reasonable to say that Robb died because of his northern crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RYshh,

Wow, did you even read your hidden post?

1.  The man himself says you can not answer what if question with any certainty so he does not really know.

2.  He would have tried to find some way to disentangle himself from a LOSING situation.  This is only logical for anyone unless you are very tied to the losing person.  And then he says it would have been in a LESS SAVAGE form.  That tells me he would not murder the husband of his daughter, if they would have married.

3.  The red wedding was to wash away the dishonor done to him.  Walker destroyed Robb because of the dishonor Robb did him.  Not because it is in the Frey character.

This implies  if Robb had went through with the promise marriage, Walter would NOT killed Robb and would have fully supported Robb until it became clear that Robb was going to lose the war.  Heck, if it became clear that Robb was going to lose, most of the other northern lords probably would have started conspiring to get a new leader.  That is not in the books but there already are signs of dissatisfaction with Robb.

 

 

Share this post


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

RYshh,

Wow, did you even read your hidden post?

1.  The man himself says you can not answer what if question with any certainty so he does not really know.

2.  He would have tried to find some way to disentangle himself from a LOSING situation.  This is only logical for anyone unless you are very tied to the losing person.  And then he says it would have been in a LESS SAVAGE form.  That tells me he would not murder the husband of his daughter, if they would have married.

3.  The red wedding was to wash away the dishonor done to him.  Walker destroyed Robb because of the dishonor Robb did him.  Not because it is in the Frey character.

This implies  if Robb had went through with the promise marriage, Walter would NOT killed Robb and would have fully supported Robb until it became clear that Robb was going to lose the war.  Heck, if it became clear that Robb was going to lose, most of the other northern lords probably would have started conspiring to get a new leader.  That is not in the books but there already are signs of dissatisfaction with Robb.

 

 

I did, but honestly don't know if you did,

He said you can't know for certainty but he answers the question anyway, so even Grrm says that Walder Frey would've searched for some other way to ''disentangle himself'' from a losing cause sooner or later, doesn't matter the savagery level, they were still going to betray the Starks because of the Lannister-Tyrell alliance secured the Iron Throne and the Baratheons were defeated. He explains that the Red Wedding was motivated by Robb dishonoring him, they were savage with their betrayal because of that, but that doesn't mean they weren't going to betray him, they were, but their ''desertion'' would take a less savage form like Grrm said. 

Both the Freys and the Boltons were treasonous like hell (as they have historically always been), no matter how many daughter you marry with, they only care about siding with the winning side.

As for not killing Robb, that's simply impossible. Without killing the KitN, they couldn't get away with that betrayal, and the Freys couldn't prove their loyalty to the Lannisters-Tyrells alliance and Lannisters-Tyrells wouldn't expect anything less from the Freys and the Boltons wouldn't help them as long as the Starks still rules the North, the price for the Boltons was the destruction of House Stark and being the new Warden of the North. 

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as much chances that Boltons would have betrayed if they saw any opportunity, KitN or not.

With Lannisters in KL, and with Eddard's death, I can see the Lannisters doing the same deal with Boltons, even if Robb stayed quietly in home. Tying lose ends.

 

You interpret "Disentangle from a losing side" as betray and murder Robb no matter what. That's quite heavily subjective and not worth discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free from what exactly? There isn’t a central government in Westeros with taxes or laws. The North hasn’t been asked to or provided soldiers. They were Kings in all but name.

It was a stupid rebellion no different than the Ironborn done for the vanity of its nobles. Parasites who will use this victory to justify bleeding their peasants white for centuries. Just because they’re poor nobles doesn’t make them humble folk. It’s a trick used to make us sympathise with them more than say the Tyrells.

I hope in the books the Others overrun the North and when this racist scum realise they have to live alongside their enemies in the South. Then they can finally stop listening to those lying Nobles who only want to hurl them into a meat grinder.

I wouldn’t call plotting a coup against the person who saved the world and intentionally driving her into massacring the people of Kings Landing a proud moment for the North. Especially because had it failed, the people of the North would have reaped the whirlwind because of House Starks hubris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely laws, and I'd bet taxes too. But yeah, I agree their lot was nothing bad, except the small Aerys thing which ended in a total war with the displacement of Targs. It will likely be a lot worse, when the now independent North needs to face a greedy expansionist Six Kingdom.

 

I don't see the Northmen as racist. Fearful of a foreign army, sure, who wouldn't be, especially led by the daughter of the late Mad King. Puzzled by other cultures, sure. The North is pretty much monocultural, even if the Manderlys cultivate their difference by worshiping the Seven. This eunuch slave army is a tad weird for them.

Making disdainful jokes about southerners, sure. I mean it is still done everywhere in today's world between countries that are traditionnal allies. Works with different cities in a single country as well.

The regular northerner doesn't despise the regular southerner, I'm pretty positive they wouldn't have any trouble living with each other. As some of them have for hundreds of years. Nobody in Winterfell disrespected Cat, did they ? Or her Septon ? Manderly was made fun of for his weight, not his southern ways or his faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I wouldn’t call plotting a coup against the person who saved the world and intentionally driving her into massacring the people of Kings Landing a proud moment for the North. Especially because had it failed, the people of the North would have reaped the whirlwind because of House Starks hubris.

Why is every topic infested with Dany stans even when it has nothing to do with her? And why are her stans determined to take agency away from Dany all the time? And why warp canon to fit your 'poor widdle dany poo' agenda?

There was no coup done by anyone in the North against Dany. Sansa telling one person the truth about something that Dany wanted to be kept secret for her OWN agenda of getting the Iron Throne is NOT a coup. The only coup came from her own camp.

When has Dany saved the world? Pretty sure Arya killed the NK. And it was Team Dany that brought the freaking wall down to begin with. And no one made her destroy KL. What a bunch of BS. She has free will, SHE CHOSE to go ape shit on a million people. NO ONE made her do that.

Share this post


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

Why is every topic infested with Dany stans even when it has nothing to do with her? And why are her stans determined to take agency away from Dany all the time? And why warp canon to fit your 'poor widdle dany poo' agenda?

There was no coup done by anyone in the North against Dany. Sansa telling one person the truth about something that Dany wanted to be kept secret for her OWN agenda of getting the Iron Throne is NOT a coup. The only coup came from her own camp.

When has Dany saved the world? Pretty sure Arya killed the NK. And it was Team Dany that brought the freaking wall down to begin with. And no one made her destroy KL. What a bunch of BS. She has free will, SHE CHOSE to go ape shit on a million people. NO ONE made her do that.

 

Given that Jon cried and had man feelings over it; yes you are supposed to think “poor Dany”. That’s their intent. Contrary to all the neck beards who always wanted her to fail and amount to nothing. Which is an admission you hate the story since that’s all season 7 and 8 was about.

She is utterly thrown under the bus to have a Stark fan service ending. Even though they failed to beat the NK (Arya outright says they would have lost without Dany) and failed to beat the Lannister’s. Dany did both and they stole the throne from her. 

So no Iam not going to clap my hands like a seal when we get a “King of the Nurth!”. You never saw the peasants be pro independence. You see some Lords crow about it before going back to flogging their peasants. So no I don’t approve of racist nationalism or bastard feudalism. First men indeed. If they were Ironborn they would have all been killed and told how it’s a stupid rebellion. 

Independent North only happened so we got Queen Sansa which was DNDs damage control for the feminists after they threw Dany under the bus. It’s a joke just like the show.

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


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

There was no coup done by anyone in the North against Dany. Sansa telling one person the truth about something that Dany wanted to be kept secret for her OWN agenda of getting the Iron Throne is NOT a coup. The only coup came from her own camp.

When has Dany saved the world? Pretty sure Arya killed the NK. And it was Team Dany that brought the freaking wall down to begin with. And no one made her destroy KL. What a bunch of BS. She has free will, SHE CHOSE to go ape shit on a million people. NO ONE made her do that.

Blaming Daenerys for losing a dragon saving Jon & co is grand. Who's next, dumb Mance gave the NK countless number of wights ? Pretty sure Robert is to be blamed for Eddard's death, after all if he didn't get killed by a boar... all while still refusing to see the betrayal Starks were guilty of. Beautiful.

The only coup came from her own camp. Yes, that's what we say. Starks pretended to follow her, and betrayed her. Bran set up the whole thing to end up King. Sansa used it to push Dany where it hurt. Jon was used by everyone, which may very well have killed his will to go on. Daenerys wanted an information that whether true or not would mean more instability and civil war in Westeros kept secret. How vile an agenda. She did want to be Queen too. Which is fine since Jon didn't want to be King anyway. 

 

The KL massacre is 100% on Stark hands (not Snow, Stark). Bran saw everything. He could have prevented it. Would have been as easy as shutting his mouth instead of telling Sam, then pushing him to tell Jon. Heck he could have just waited for the current war to be ended for the big reveal. When he revealed the "truth", with the timing he had, he set in motions events that anyone would have wanted to avoid. Knowingly.

You see, the whole "free will" does not matter much when you have a godlike seer able to analyse every action and it's consequences to chose which path to walk.

Edited by Jaghen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jaghen said:

Blaming Daenerys for losing a dragon saving Jon & co is grand. Who's next, dumb Mance gave the NK countless number of wights ? Pretty sure Robert is to be blamed for Eddard's death, after all if he didn't get killed by a boar... all while still refusing to see the betrayal Starks were guilty of. Beautiful.

I'm not blaming Dany for losing a dragon. I'm blaming her team, meaning her included, for the fall of the wall. Why do her fans constantly forget that she ok-ed a mission that ended with the wall falling? She was Queen, she had the final say. All she had to do was not agree with Tyrion's dumb idea and nothing that followed would have happened. Yet stans like you forget that, instead you complain about the North/Starks not kissing savior Dany's ass when she came North to help them. They are supposed to thank the morons who gave the NK the means to break through the wall for doing the bare minimum of cleaning up the mess they created? Pft.

6 hours ago, Jaghen said:

The only coup came from her own camp. Yes, that's what we say. Starks pretended to follow her, and betrayed her. Bran set up the whole thing to end up King. Sansa used it to push Dany where it hurt. Jon was used by everyone, which may very well have killed his will to go on. Daenerys wanted an information that whether true or not would mean more instability and civil war in Westeros kept secret. How vile an agenda. She did want to be Queen too. Which is fine since Jon didn't want to be King anyway.

Look up the definition of coup. And for treason. Bran is excluded from the Stark group as he is no longer a Stark. How many times does he have to say it for you to sink in? 3ER has his own agenda and he isn't a Stark. Sansa was frank with Dany in every situation. What did you want her to do instead? Be actual LF where she is nice to Dany's face and plotting her downfall in secret? She made it clear from the beginning, the North wants it's independence, plain and simple. If Dany can't deal with frankness and has no answers to such simple questions, then she is not fit to be queen.

It would not mean instability and civil war since Dany is seen as the conqueror, the invader with the foreign army. That alone will spark plenty of uproar. Jon is from Westeros, he's connected to the Starks who thanks to their Tully family connections bring 2 other Kindoms into it. So that would be 3 Kingdoms together already. Not through killing, just feudal family connections. If Dany instead insisted on Jon publicly renouncing his claim, then no problem. Instead she insisted on the dumbass idea to keep it secret when any idiot knows that secrets have a way to come out.

6 hours ago, Jaghen said:

The KL massacre is 100% on Stark hands (not Snow, Stark). Bran saw everything. He could have prevented it. Would have been as easy as shutting his mouth instead of telling Sam, then pushing him to tell Jon. Heck he could have just waited for the current war to be ended for the big reveal. When he revealed the "truth", with the timing he had, he set in motions events that anyone would have wanted to avoid. Knowingly.

I agree 'Bran' could have prevented it but what does that have to do with the Starks? Jesus Christ do you not pay attention at all? I'M NOT BRANDON STARK ANYMORE. Starks have nothing do with the 3ER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go point by point.

Tyrion's idea was dumb. They all agreed to it because reasons. If anything, Daenerys is the only one who did not know Cersei so much by then and could believe she would be moved. 

I have no idea what "stans like me" mean to you, care to explain ?

You are supposed to kiss her ass because she is your Queen, and she did come to your rescue, when you called. That it backfired is irrelevant. She didn't come by herself, you asked her to.

 

Bran no longer being a Stark is your take on it. He seemed pretty happy to throw Sansa a bone ala North Independence. For all intent and purposes, for everyone in Westeros, he is Brandon Stark. King Bran the Broken, remember ? But nevermind, you do agree that Bran betrayed Daenerys, but not Sansa, apologist much ?

You could argue Bran pushed for that betrayal and I'd agree 100% with you. Even that Bran is the sole responsible. But saying there was no betrayal is silly.

 

Sansa went behind her Queen's back to push for a pretender, her "cousin", who didn't even want to be a pretender, on the basis of a "truth" no one has any proof of. If that is not treason, nothing is.

A pretender would be instability and civil war, Dany already has Dorne and the Iron Island following her. Plus the Dothrakis and Unsullied. Plus Jon.  Starks and their allies are barely back from annihilation and haven't been able to hurt Lannisters for years before Daenerys.

Any dumb idiot know secrets have a way to come out ? Yes, through the mouth of plotting traitors (Hi Sansa). That's the whole point, whatever Jon does, if the "truth" comes out there will be people to use it. Please note that the leak came from a person that Jon should have been able to trust, one that HE trusted with it, explicitly asking to keep for herself. How is that even defendable ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 1:03 PM, RYShh said:

I think Grrm said the Freys would still betray Robb even if he married to their daughter, they are Freys after all, they also didn't care about Edmure marrying with their daughter. Grrm said only the violence level in Red Wedding would change, the betrayal would still happen

Well, the paragraph you quote does not say that. You over-interpret here. You focus too much on the question rather than on GRRM's reply.

Quote

"What if" questions are impossible to answer with any certainty... knowing old Lord Walder's character, it is likely he would have searched for some way to disentangle himself from a losing cause sooner or later, but his desertion would likely have taken a less savage form. The Red Wedding was motivated by his desire to wash out the dishonor that was done him.

"Wanting to disentangle" doesn't imply killing Robb, but finding a way to escape the mutual promise. The last sentence is important: If Robb had not dishonored him, there would have been no need for revenge. Maybe he would have just joined forces with Lannisters or whatever. But the Red Wedding was a direct reaction to Robb casting dishonor onto Walder Frey.

Walder frey is an obnoxious character but I doubt that he would have had the balls to kill Robb without conspiring with the Lannisters.

On 6/22/2019 at 1:03 PM, RYShh said:

So I agree with the OP, Robb didn't die for not marrying with a Frey girl, they would still betray him in the same situation, the Freys were like the Boltons, the Boltons also betrayed them without needing a reason. It's reasonable to say that Robb died because of his northern crown.

No, it's not reasonable to say that. The Red Wedding was a very special case and the main motivation for Walder Frey was dishonor. 

Robb might have died in any other battle against Boltons, Lannisters or whoever. But the Red Wedding was a nasty trick and a consequence of Robb breaking his promise.

Robb did a major mistake with marrying Talisa. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

Well, the paragraph you quote does not say that. You over-interpret here. You focus too much on the question rather than on GRRM's reply.

"Wanting to disentangle" doesn't imply killing Robb, but finding a way to escape the mutual promise. The last sentence is important: If Robb had not dishonored him, there would have been no need for revenge. Maybe he would have just joined forces with Lannisters or whatever. But the Red Wedding was a direct reaction to Robb casting dishonor onto Walder Frey.

Walder frey is an obnoxious character but I doubt that he would have had the balls to kill Robb without conspiring with the Lannisters.

No, it's not reasonable to say that. The Red Wedding was a very special case and the main motivation for Walder Frey was dishonor. 

Robb might have died in any other battle against Boltons, Lannisters or whoever. But the Red Wedding was a nasty trick and a consequence of Robb breaking his promise.

Robb did a major mistake with marrying Talisa. 

 

Which means Robb couldn't attack moat cailin without the help of the Freys and the Boltons, and in the show he couldn't attack Casterly Rock without the help of the Freys and he would done for. Joining forces with Lannisters means betrayal, what do you think I meant by saying ''betrayal''? Or they would seem to side with the Starks in a battle and suddenly the Freys would attack the Starks during a battle which means another kind betrayal and Robb would die again. And of course Walder Frey would still conspire with Lannisters again, which is betrayal also. 

The point is that the Freys and the Boltons were always treasonous and they always thought of betrayal from the first moment, once Robb lost all of his advantages after Lannisters secured the Iron Throne, destroyed the Baratheons and the Tyrells joined with them, it was only a matter of time they betray Robb for Lannisters who declined Robb's peace offer for independence of the North.

As I said earlier, no matter how many daughter you marry with the Freys or the Boltons they would still betray Robb once he was losing the war. Don't forget that Red Wedding wasn't produced by the Freys only, it was both the Freys and the Boltons and Robb didn't do anything to the Boltons, and Robb gave Lord of Riverrun to marry with the Freys instead, and they still betrayed him.

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 8:45 AM, Jaghen said:

One more thing on specifically that.

Any talk of rightful heir is silly, as that would be a Baratheon. Dany is Queen by right of conquest, like Robert and Aegon before her.

You can add Cersei to that list. The fact that no one wanted to challenge her or the Lannister forces gave her a claim, and a right, to the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that we know more about what Dany wants and everything centers around her reactions (even if they sped them up), illustrates that they focused more on Emilia/Dany than Sansa and Northern Independence. We could have had a lot more about why a free North was important to the Northerners and Sansa in particular, but they just took that as a given. I think this ended up being the Dany show.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think the fact that we know more about what Dany wants and everything centers around her reactions (even if they sped them up), illustrates that they focused more on Emilia/Dany than Sansa and Northern Independence. We could have had a lot more about why a free North was important to the Northerners and Sansa in particular, but they just took that as a given. I think this ended up being the Dany show.

The problem started way back when they didn't adapt the 'Grand Northern Conspiracy'. I don't mean in it's entirety. But just the fact that 'The North Remembers'. In the show the North had amnesia and that was precisely the problem. They didn't show northern lords besides the Boltons. And more importantly, there were no northern lords that let us know they remember the Starks in a positive light. There is a reason almost the entire North is scheming to get a Stark back into WF in the books. The Starks clearly did something right and well, you don't rule for thousands of years unless you are good at your job and your people stand behind you. But I don't think that D&D understand that, they love the dragons and Lannisters and Ramsey and that's pretty much it.

So when they don't show northern lords how can we know they want their independence? It becomes a 'tell, don't show' plot, like most of the later Seasons.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 6:19 AM, Erkan12 said:

Robb would've been proud, he died for it, but the North accomplished the vision that he has started.

The endgame was successful for the Starks, now all Sansa needs to do is finding a husband that would take her name as a Stark.

I don't see that ending well. I mean look how fast things fell apart after Ned died and Rob took over. Once word starts going around that the man they named King of the North was actually a Targaryen and Ned had been lying to everyone the last twenty five years or so. And all the North who fought in Robert's rebellion were fighting somewhat over a lie. Sansa was only chosen Queen because of her being a Stark and she's shown to be more heavy handed than Jon so how is she going to handle an altercation between a Northern house and the Free folk? What's going to happen when people start to ask "If Bran can see the future why didn't he say something about (fill in the blank)?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair Robert's rebellion would have happened Jon or no Jon. 

Nobody knew where Lyanna was, but Aerys did execute Rickard and Brandon, that's why they warred, not because Lyanna had ran off. After that it was just easier to assume Lyanna was kidnapped by another mad Targ. The kid, if we believe Bran, was born at the end of the war. Long after his uncle and grandad were killed.

I'm not sure Sansa was chosen to be Queen, or by whom. She was gifted a piece of the cake by Bran, I'm sure the footnotes on the deal will never be revealed. Eh maybe it's just a thank you for having helped with driving Dany nuts.

 

Did Bran tell people that he can see the future ? And I mean people who would question him, no sibling.

He told them he can see the past, yes. But obviously the past "can't be changed" we know that's not true, thanks to the Door, but the others likely do not - I doubt he told them "Oh btw I'm the one who made Hodor a simpleminded by skinchanging into him through time and space". Creepy Stalker King, wreaking havoc in your past since before you were born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jaghen said:

Eh maybe it's just a thank you for having helped with driving Dany nuts.

*sigh* No one MADE Dany do anything. No one is responsible for how Dany reacts given the circumstances she found herself in. Well Dany is and she kind of went over board by HERSELF. The only thing you could argue is that the 3ER used Dany's obvious weaknesses against her to achieve his goal. But the 3ER doesn't reward his puppets (see Jon or Arya) so what makes you think he'd make exceptions like Sansa?

12 hours ago, Jaghen said:

Did Bran tell people that he can see the future ? And I mean people who would question him, no sibling. 

The 3ER might be constantly tripping out doing nothing like a stoner but he ain't stupid. Why on earth would he be dumb enough to tell people he can see the future? That would get him immediately off the list of candidates to rule. Because then even D&D characters, brain dead as they are, would ask: Why he let the wall fall? Why he didn't prevent more deaths during the LN battle? Why didn't he stop Dany from torching KL to SAVE LIVES? Why didn't he stop x war way back when? On and on...

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

×