Jump to content
Alyn Oakenfist

(Spoilers Fire&Blood) Legitimacy at the beginning of the Dance

Recommended Posts

 

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Are you saying that rebellion is a legal way of limiting the King's power?? 

Rebellion is a way to force rebels' views on legal matter upon the Iron throne. The rebels cast down Maegor's regime and replaced Maegor's chosen heir with a candidate more preferable to them.

And what's good for a goose is good the gander. If Jaehaerys could gain the throne by bypassing previous King's chosen female heir and disregarding King's decision to disinherit him... then why should anyone be overly concerned with Viserys' eerily similar proclamations? He didn't even disinherit Aegon.

Had Jaehaerys clearly eliminated Maegor from the royal lists, abandoned/re-checked all of Maegor's decrees under his own authority, the answer would be clear. But since Maegor is Schrödiger's King, whose status is neither here nor there...

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Jaeharys only keep those laws that directly benefitted him AKA Maegor's laws regarding the Faith,

That's demonstrably not true. Jaehaerys did nothing to reverse Maegor's land grants, so clearly he inherited more that just the laws against Faith Militant.

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Didn't they?? 

Yes. As your quotes helpfully demonstrate, most people don't give a damn. There is a handful of minor irrelevant figures here and there, but that's it. The movers and shakers of the Dance don't care about vows of 105.

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

Had the decision gone to a Great Council and the Luke's and Jaeharys' deaths not happened, Rhaenrya had actually the upper hand in support, precisely because of Viserys support, even in the Reach, Rhaenrya won by a landslide

First, Rhaenyra did not win by a landslide in the Reach, more to the opposite actually. If we count major Houses - the direct vassals of Tyrells - the Greens mustered ten (Hightowers, Peakes, Redwynes, Roxtons, Norcrosses, Ambroses, Leygoods, Risleys, Gracefords and Fossoways). The Blacks got six (Rowans, Tarlys, Merryweathers, Grimms, Footlys and Caswells) plus a few lesser Houses. vassals of vassals (Hightower vassals, I believe).

Nobody got a landslide in the Reach, but Aegon II had a comfortable advantage.

As for Westeros at large, there is no evidence Rhaenyra had the upper hand in support due to the vow of 105. As I have mentioned earlier, most people didn't care, even amongst the Blacks. Cregan was like - "Gib or GTFO". And then he just sent a token force and sat out the rest of the war until it was decided. Jeyne Arryn was more concerned with her own position - and then joined late Lord Stark on the sidelines. Dalton wanted to pillage and rape. Even Elmo Tully who rallied the Blacks in the Riverlands said "A dragon in one's courtyard does wonder to resolve one's doubts" and was perfectly content to sit in the Riverrun until said dragon landed in his yard.

It seems to me a hypothetical Great Council would end up the same way 101's Council did. Even Rhaenyra was astute enough to realize that, saying “We both know how this council would rule".

Share this post


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

Rebellion is a way to force rebels' views on legal matter upon the Iron throne. The rebels cast down Maegor's regime and replaced Maegor's chosen heir with a candidate more preferable to them.

Where is said that?? Rebellions are treason, in the middle ages, the modern era and even today, the fact that the rebel winner get to write the history or we sympathize more with the rebels don't change that, you're giving some sort of magna carta that definitely don't exist in Westeros.

I never see any legal Westerosi rebellion bar one could say the Faith uprising, which wasn't legal but it was sanctionizied by God.:o

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

And what's good for a goose is good the gander. If Jaehaerys could gain the throne by bypassing previous King's chosen female heir and disregarding King's decision to disinherit him... then why should anyone be overly concerned with Viserys' eerily similar proclamations? He didn't even disinherit Aegon.

 

Because you're talking about legality, Robert becoming King via warhemerring everyone didn't give him a better claim than Aerys and his line before Robert did that, nor Maegor crowning him King gave him a better claim than Aegon.

If you're saying that everyone should follow the precedent of might makes right and disregard legal (King) authority, then it makes absolutely no sense in keep taling about precedents and laws, because at the end people do whatever they feel and support the strongest one, he didn't disiniherit Aegon because Aegon was born behind Rhaenrya in the succesion line, Ned shouldn't disinherit Bran so Robb succeeds him.

Or we can spin it out with every legal decision a king makes, why should KL follow Baelors absurd policies or why should the North accept the new gift and the banishment or the first night?? Is Bolton and all the lords who ignored said law acting according the law, since by all laws of the lands and customs that was theur godgiven right??

 

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

Had Jaehaerys clearly eliminated Maegor from the royal lists, abandoned/re-checked all of Maegor's decrees under his own authority, the answer would be clear. But since Maegor is Schrödiger's King, whose status is neither here nor there...

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Maegor is King, the fact that his enemies believed him usurper don't change the fact that he reigned Westeros for 6 years.

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

That's demonstrably not true. Jaehaerys did nothing to reverse Maegor's land grants, so clearly he inherited more that just the laws against Faith Militant.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Oh yeah my bad here.

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

First, Rhaenyra did not win by a landslide in the Reach, more to the opposite actually. If we count major Houses - the direct vassals of Tyrells - the Greens mustered ten (Hightowers, Peakes, Redwynes, Roxtons, Norcrosses, Ambroses, Leygoods, Risleys, Gracefords and Fossoways). The Blacks got six (Rowans, Tarlys, Merryweathers, Grimms, Footlys and Caswells) plus a few lesser Houses. vassals of vassals (Hightower vassals, I believe).

 Nobody got a landslide in the Reach, but Aegon II had a comfortable advantage.

You're actually right here, i confused kingdoms.

 

1 hour ago, Myrish Lace said:

As for Westeros at large, there is no evidence Rhaenyra had the upper hand in support due to the vow of 105. As I have mentioned earlier, most people didn't care, even amongst the Blacks. Cregan was like - "Gib or GTFO". And then he just sent a token force and sat out the rest of the war until it was decided. Jeyne Arryn was more concerned with her own position - and then joined late Lord Stark on the sidelines. Dalton wanted to pillage and rape. Even Elmo Tully who rallied the Blacks in the Riverlands said "A dragon in one's courtyard does wonder to resolve one's doubts" and was perfectly content to sit in the Riverrun until said dragon landed in his yard.

 It seems to me a hypothetical Great Council would end up the same way 101's Council did. Even Rhaenyra was astute enough to realize that, saying “We both know how this council would rule".

 
  • If you see the Houses that  supported Rhaenrya and the Houses that supported  Aegon, i'm countig the Tullys here, Rhaenrya still wins.
  • Cregan did not sit out the rest of the war, everyone knew the North needed time to gather its army, Daemon literally said hat by the time the North marched south the war would be over, and with Winter on the back he needed to collect the crops and after the fall of KL the war seemed over, noth he and Jeyne Arryn marched the moment Rhaenrya asked them for troops.

 

 

Quote

Yes. As your quotes helpfully demonstrate, most people don't give a damn. There is a handful of minor irrelevant figures here and there, but that's it. The movers and shakers of the Dance don't care about vows of 105.

So, the movers and shakers in the Reach were about to be defeated by those handful of irrelevant figures here and there... And we are specifically told that mny of those who swore vows are actually dead.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

 

Rebellion is a way to force rebels' views on legal matter upon the Iron throne. The rebels cast down Maegor's regime and replaced Maegor's chosen heir with a candidate more preferable to them.

And what's good for a goose is good the gander. If Jaehaerys could gain the throne by bypassing previous King's chosen female heir and disregarding King's decision to disinherit him... then why should anyone be overly concerned with Viserys' eerily similar proclamations? He didn't even disinherit Aegon.

Had Jaehaerys clearly eliminated Maegor from the royal lists, abandoned/re-checked all of Maegor's decrees under his own authority, the answer would be clear. But since Maegor is Schrödiger's King, whose status is neither here nor there...

That's demonstrably not true. Jaehaerys did nothing to reverse Maegor's land grants, so clearly he inherited more that just the laws against Faith Militant.

Yes. As your quotes helpfully demonstrate, most people don't give a damn. There is a handful of minor irrelevant figures here and there, but that's it. The movers and shakers of the Dance don't care about vows of 105.

First, Rhaenyra did not win by a landslide in the Reach, more to the opposite actually. If we count major Houses - the direct vassals of Tyrells - the Greens mustered ten (Hightowers, Peakes, Redwynes, Roxtons, Norcrosses, Ambroses, Leygoods, Risleys, Gracefords and Fossoways). The Blacks got six (Rowans, Tarlys, Merryweathers, Grimms, Footlys and Caswells) plus a few lesser Houses. vassals of vassals (Hightower vassals, I believe).

Nobody got a landslide in the Reach, but Aegon II had a comfortable advantage.

As for Westeros at large, there is no evidence Rhaenyra had the upper hand in support due to the vow of 105. As I have mentioned earlier, most people didn't care, even amongst the Blacks. Cregan was like - "Gib or GTFO". And then he just sent a token force and sat out the rest of the war until it was decided. Jeyne Arryn was more concerned with her own position - and then joined late Lord Stark on the sidelines. Dalton wanted to pillage and rape. Even Elmo Tully who rallied the Blacks in the Riverlands said "A dragon in one's courtyard does wonder to resolve one's doubts" and was perfectly content to sit in the Riverrun until said dragon landed in his yard.

It seems to me a hypothetical Great Council would end up the same way 101's Council did. Even Rhaenyra was astute enough to realize that, saying “We both know how this council would rule".

 

1. The fact that the Hightowers and their allies couldnt take control of the Reach should tell you that it wasnt a comfortable advantage for Aegon. 

2. Cregan had to gather his forces and march south, it took a while, the token force he sent at first did indeed fight, and his larger army was ready to do the same. 

3. Lady Jeyne's fleet participated in atleast 2 battles. 

4. Elmo Tully was a black, but his father Grover , who was lord at the start of the war ,was a green. That is why the Tullys themselves didnt fight at the beginning of the war. 

Share this post


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

As far as we know no one tried to use Viserys claim, so your understanding is that as long as it suits sexist views, is precedentes, if not is BS.

 Aegon wasn't the firstborn, Rhaenrya was.

The first born son is the first in line. The IT is not Dorne. Aegon was the legal heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The first born son is the first in line. The IT is not Dorne. Aegon was the legal heir.

Kings choose their own heirs , there is also the argument that  children of the first wife cant be disinherited simply because a father has remarried. 

Share this post


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

Because none of the aggrieved parties  were Alicent's children, had they been, it wouldn't have been clear, smooth and  blood less.

 

How do you imagine Cersei or Tywin's reaction if Robert disihenrited Joffrey ?

Or how about Catelyn reaction to Ned siding Robb for Jon...?

Or Lysa reaction to Jon Arryn setting aside Robert Arryn for Harry?

No one would take this kind of mistreat of their children with a smile.

19 hours ago, frenin said:

By all laws and  customs the first night  was almost sacred, should we give Roose the reason then??

The only thing that would cause a mess  is you know, usurpation.

The two laws have nothing to do with each other, one deals with a violence that everybody wanted to put a end to it. The other was messing up with a clear sucession for shits and gigles.

You don't play with laws unless you want you country/realm/court to became a chaotic circus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dsjj251 said:

Kings choose their own heirs , there is also the argument that  children of the first wife cant be disinherited simply because a father has remarried. 

Daughters still comes after a son.

Look at Cregan Stark, sucession, he had 5 daughters with Alyssane, but his sucessor was his Jonnel, the son of the third wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The first born son is the first in line. The IT is not Dorne. Aegon was the legal heir.

Unless the King changes it, The IT is not Andal either so...:bang: Aegon was the traditional heir but tradition it's not law.

 

3 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

How do you imagine Cersei or Tywin's reaction if Robert disihenrited Joffrey ?

Or how about Catelyn reaction to Ned siding Robb for Jon...?

Or Lysa reaction to Jon Arryn setting aside Robert Arryn for Harry?

No one would take this kind of mistreat of their children with a smile.

I imagine Cersei and Lysa would be mad, i don't really see Tywin caring as long as a Lannister sits on the Throne.

Alysanne and the Baratheons and Velaryons protested much and loud but at the end they accepted the King's law, just as they accepted the ruling of the Council when Laena was riding Vhagar.

 

6 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

The two laws have nothing to do with each other, one deals with a violence that everybody wanted to put a end to it. The other was messing up with a clear sucession for shits and gigles.

You don't play with laws unless you want you country/realm/court to became a chaotic circus.

You're drawing the line when it suits, both are old customs and traditions and both were overruled by whims, yes Alysanne hearing about that and deciding to act is a whim, the only ones who didn't like the First Night were the commoners but no one cares about them and it's clear that the only reason Jaeharys got away with it was dragons,

Or can you tell me about a lord who abhorred the First Night before it's banishment??

 

5 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Look at Cregan Stark, sucession, he had 5 daughters with Alyssane, but his sucessor was his Jonnel, the son of the third wife.

Since we don't know under what circumstances that actually happened or who made Jonnel the Lord of Winterfell the discussion is bogus, Marla Sunderland was made queen before his brother 

Share this post


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

Daughters still comes after a son.

Look at Cregan Stark, sucession, he had 5 daughters with Alyssane, but his sucessor was his Jonnel, the son of the third wife.

Actually, thats not really true or at least we dont know it to be true because we dont know who was alive or dead at the time.  Its inferred that his daughters are all dead and Jonnel is actually married to what would be Cregans female heir, his oldest surviving grand child,  Sansa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenin said:

Unless the King changes it, The IT is not Andal either so...:bang: Aegon was the traditional heir but tradition it's not law.

 

 

 

This is true and it is something I always forget to mention.  Male before all women seems to be an Andal tradition. The First Men dont seem to follow this as strictly, nor does House Targaryen which have had 3 or 4 instances of naming female heirs while males were alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Unless the King changes it, The IT is not Andal either so...:bang: Aegon was the traditional heir but tradition it's not law.

 

And that change resulted in a major civil war that cripled his dynasty of their biggest asset...If he didn't play with laws and lifes thinks would be smooth.

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

You're drawing the line when it suits, both are old customs and traditions and both were overruled by whims, yes Alysanne hearing about that and deciding to act is a whim, the only ones who didn't like the First Night were the commoners but no one cares about them and it's clear that the only reason Jaeharys got away with it was dragons,

 Or can you tell me about a lord who abhorred the First Night before it's banishment??

Of coure I am. Not all costumes are the same, some work fine, some bring problems.

First night was a issue and caused more violence, The maester on the small council even talked about lords getting murder over the issue,  and breaking the Kings peace, so of course it should be changed, it's not a matter of him, is a matter of necessity, like all laws should be made upon. 

We don't have such issue with the sucession. If Viserys was a responsable king as Jahearys he would never married after naming Rhaenyra his heir and only produced bastards without claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Actually, thats not really true or at least we dont know it to be true because we dont know who was alive or dead at the time.  Its inferred that his daughters are all dead and Jonnel is actually married to what would be Cregans female heir, his oldest surviving grand child,  Sansa. 

Jonnel was the Lord and was his brother that succed him later.

All the daughters of Alyssane were skiped in favor of the son of the third wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

And that change resulted in a major civil war that cripled his dynasty of their biggest asset...If he didn't play with laws and lifes thinks would be smooth.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Resulted in a major civil war, because Alicent refuse to listen and made a coup and later on Aemond killed Lucerys,

If the Velaryons were to pull the same shit, the same would've happened vefore, especially in 101 when there Velaryons Vhagar and Meleys and Seasmoke.

In one case we have rational people who accept their overlords rulings even if they don't like it, in the other you have Alicent and her greens.

 

48 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Of coure I am. Not all costumes are the same, some work fine, some bring problems.

 

Then, the lawfullness of a law depends on whether people like it or not??

 

48 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 First night was a issue and caused more violence, The maester on the small council even talked about lords getting murder over the issue,  and breaking the Kings peace, so of course it should be changed, it's not a matter of him, is a matter of necessity, like all laws should be made upon. 

 

And yet the North did not give up on said right, neither the other lords cared enough to forbid it even if people were killed.

 

48 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

 We don't have such issue with the sucession. If Viserys was a responsable king as Jahearys he would never married after naming Rhaenyra his heir and only produced bastards without claim.

So, had Rhaenrya ever died without issue Daemon gets the Throne?

You're arguing from  a pragmatist, moral view i can agre  with that but no from a legal view, a law can't be considered lawful whether it's outcome is profitable or for the common good, a law can only be considered lawful if the institutions with legislative  powers say so. Since the King happens to have legislative, executive and  judiciary powers and  zero legal restrain...

 

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jonnel was the Lord and was his brother that succed him later.

All the daughters of Alyssane were skiped in favor of the son of the third wife.

 Again, you have no idea if any of those daughters were still alive .  And daughters come before uncles.  But not before sons. The child of an heir is not technically a position in the context of inheritance. 

If a son dies before he has become lord, his children do not gain his position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet the North did not give up on said right, neither the other lords cared enough to forbid it even if people were killed.

 

Can you show me where is presented that the north still kept the Firstnight? as far as I know Roose killed the guy and ripped the tongue of the other to not let the story reach Ned.

 

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

So, had Rhaenrya ever died without issue Daemon gets the Throne?

 

If Daemon outlive her, yes. This is the law.

 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Then, the lawfullness of a law depends on whether people like it or not??

 

That's how it works, Laws that cause more trouble than solutions usually get revoked.

Point in case, no one ever tried to push a BS like Viserys did. But Jaeharys decision, one that was made to avoid trouble and be sensible in a case of a blurred sucession still had weight and was repeated like happened when Aegon V became king.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

Resulted in a major civil war, because Alicent refuse to listen and made a coup and later on Aemond killed Lucerys,

If the Velaryons were to pull the same shit, the same would've happened vefore, especially in 101 when there Velaryons Vhagar and Meleys and Seasmoke.

 In one case we have rational people who accept their overlords rulings even if they don't like it, in the other you have Alicent and her greens.

Everybody with half a brain would know that it would cause a major civil war. Viserys didn't hold a council to resolve this bloody mess, he just pushed the issue away and ignored the glaring incidents that happened on his face.

The rivalry between Daemon and Otto, the rivalry between Rhaenyra and Alicent, the fight over dragons, the bastard allegations, Daemon mocking Aegon and Aemond, Criston Cole and Rhaenyra, that were so much incidents happening on his court that Patchface would take notice and reacted better.

The Velaryons couldn't pull the same BS, because unlike Viserys Jaeharys called a council and resolved the matter, he just didn't brushed off and called quits and ignored every red flag for years. 

In once case we have a reasonable and responsible King (Jaeharys) that faced a real trouble (blurred sucession) and acted acordling with the issue and resolved the matter without bloodshed. In the other we have a moron for king (Viserys) with no real problem, creating one (blurring the sucession law) based only on hiw whim, creating a massive factionalism on his court that ended up with a major civil war that cripled his dynasty forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

 Again, you have no idea if any of those daughters were still alive .  And daughters come before uncles.  But not before sons. The child of an heir is not technically a position in the context of inheritance. 

If a son dies before he has become lord, his children do not gain his position. 

This is confusing...

Are you arguing that Sansa was the heir of Cregan? 

I'll admit that, that is room for Sansa or Jonnel being the heir of Cregan, but Jonnel and Barthogan are cleary ahead of any of the daughters of Alyssane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

This is confusing...

Are you arguing that Sansa was the heir of Cregan? 

I'll admit that, that is room for Sansa or Jonnel being the heir of Cregan, but Jonnel and Barthogan are cleary ahead of any of the daughters of Alyssane.

Im saying succession is messy and Kings pick their own heirs. Male targaryens have been skipped in favor of other males, and in great houses men have not always inherited directly. There were male Arryns alive when Lady Jeyne ruled as a great example. 

 

The Jonnel example you keep using doesnt work, because we have no idea who was dead and who was alive when He became Lord of Winterfell. All of his half sisters could have been dead as far as we know .

Edited by dsjj251

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Im saying succession is messy and Kings pick their own heirs. Male targaryens have been skipped in favor of other males, and in great houses men have not always inherited directly. There were male Arryns alive when Lady Jeyne ruled as a great example. 

 

The Jonnel example you keep using doesnt work, because we have no idea who was dead and who was alive when He became Lord of Winterfell. All of his half sisters could have been dead as far as we know .

Jeyne became Lady after all her brothers died out and her father, No son was overlooked in her favor.

And in her will she writed off a mad man and traitor and his decendants. Just like Cersei became Heir after Tyrion murdering Tywin, not a normal circustance.

Viserys exclued Aegon without any giver reason, and this oblivious wold cause trouble.

Unless you give one sucession out of Dorne were a daughter came before the son I will keep the idea that Jonnel came before the daughters of Alysanne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jeyne became Lady after all her brothers died out and her father, No son was overlooked in her favor.

And in her will she writed off a mad man and traitor and his decendants. Just like Cersei became Heir after Tyrion murdering Tywin, not a normal circustance.

Viserys exclued Aegon without any giver reason, and this oblivious wold cause trouble.

Unless you give one sucession out of Dorne were a daughter came before the son I will keep the idea that Jonnel came before the daughters of Alysanne.

When it comes to Jeyne, it doesnt matter. Your argument was men come before women as if it was law, it isnt, its tradition, there is a giant difference. There were living male Arryns and she still became Lady. 

There have been living male Targaryens and women were still chosen as heirs in at least 3 different occasions. 

As for reasoning, a King can give what ever reason he wants to exclude a son from the line of succession. The reason does not have to be "valid" by your opinion. 

 

Again you have no idea if any of Cregan's daughters were even alive.  The fact that all 4 daughters were older than Jonnel and none had any children or show any marriages , it would stand to reason that they are likely dead and died young at that, especially since Sansa(daughter of Rickon) is atleast 13 herself and married to an older Jonnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

There have been living male Targaryens and women were still chosen as heirs in at least 3 different occasions. 

 

Yep, and their never became queen...

 

3 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

 As for reasoning, a King can give what ever reason he wants to exclude a son from the line of succession. The reason does not have to be "valid" by your opinion. 

 

Sure, it's not my opinion that count, but the ones of the lords that will abide by the results of said decision. Maegor was ignored, so was Viserys in the end.

 

4 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Again you have no idea if any of Cregan's daughters were even alive.  The fact that all 4 daughters were older than Jonnel and none had any children or show any marriages , it would stand to reason that they are likely dead and died young at that, especially since Sansa(daughter of Rickon) is atleast 13 herself and married to an older Jonnel.

Their children would take the name of the spouse, and would not be present on the Stark family, we do not even have their names. Assuming they died is your opinion and not a fact. Arthos Stark also had sons but their are never presented and that branch was ignored in the Stark family tree.

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

×