History HubΒ permalink
Catholics and Royalty
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by miss elizabeth (U10895934) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
I'm sure this subject has been brought up before, if so, my apologies.
Will the law ever change where a Catholic can be recognised in the line of succession (royalty, obviously)? What about other faiths?
I understand that the monarch is the Head of the Church but, in these changing times, does it matter if they're atheist, Jewish or what have you? -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
miss elizabeth
Well at present the English monarch is required to be a "Catholic" .
The Anglican position was and has been that the Church in England stayed true to the original Christian Church. I think that I noted that the today section of the MB records this day as the day when Sir Thomas More was executed for refusing to accept Henry VIII as the head of the Church in England.. It is often claimed that he died for the authority of the Pope, especially perhaps when he was being considered for sainthood in the Nineteenth Century at a time when Roman Catholic doctrine was reviving to new "extremes" or "heights" depending on your point of view. Those included the Doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven and the Infallibility of the Pope, when making formal pronouncements.
In fact More' s position, according to the biography of his son in law was the old Medieval one that Church matters were to be settled by the whole Christian community, the living and the dead, who were the vital body of the Church. Since the Babylonish Captivity when France had based a rival Pope at its own Papal City at Avignon, Rome and the Popes at Rome had done much to accentuate that once again "all roads would lead to Rome" with the Church going along with the trend that was also producing much more powerful and wealthy secular rulers.
When the Anglican Church settled down really under Elizabeth I, that very clever monarch refused to take the title of "Head of the Church"- and therefore claiming some priestly or spiritual function over the souls of her subjects. Instead she took the title of "governor"- the person with a purely secular responsibility to help the Church to run itself.. But the big issue in Nineteenth Century Britain was the whole question of -that lovely word- disestablishmentarianism. Once Nonconformist Christians and Roman Catholics had their disabilities lifted from them, enabling them to become normal citizens of the UK, the buring issue that remained was the position of the Church of England as the religion/church of the British State. This was particularly irksome to those who still had to pay tithes of 10% of the value of their income to a Church that they did not attend- and nowhere more so than in Ireland, where attempts to convert Roman Catholics to the Church of Ireland signally failed.
So really your question opens up two issues or more: (a) should the British monarch still be legally required to belong to the Anglican Church, or any Church, or even have any kind of religion.
And (b) does the Church have any kind of formal role as the Church that is entitled to speak up on behalf of all the people in matters spiritual and moral. About 130 years ago Thomas Hughes (?) author of "Tom Brown's Schooldays" wrote a book defending the Church of England as the nation's spiritual home, but asserted therefore that its buildings should be available for those members of the British nation who might wish to have a place of worship where they could worship in accordance with another Church or faith. I do regularly pass what appear to be Churches built during the great Victorian Church-building process that have now largely Somali and other East African Orthodox communities.
And of course Prince Charles has already expressed a wish to be thought of as a "Defender of the Faiths". Whether the coronation oaths will actually be amended in line with that time will tell.
As for "changing times" as this year may yet show, there are many people who are quite happy to embrace their own right to "do their own thing" in changing and challenging times, while expecting other people not to claim the same right for themselves. It will be interesting to see just what take the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge take upon just doing what is expected and required of them.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
There are many people who now see religion as essentially a merely private and personal thing. And yet the whole concept of the Welfare State was fundamentally based upon Victorian Christian public morality and ideas like Christian Socialism. Why should those who can serve those who can not?
Why should I be my brother's keeper?
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
I believe all Catholic parents are obllged to bring up their children as Catholics.
So, supposing an heir to the throne were to marry a Roman Catholic - strewth! - therreafter it would be nothing but Catholics, Catholics, Catholics, in the Royal line, from then on.
Could be worrying, to folk who take this "royalty" stuff seriously. -
Message 4
Posted by miss elizabeth (U10895934) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
"the English monarch required to be Catholic"????
Have I mis heard you Cassa? -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
miss elizabeth
I believe that the Anglican creed still states "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church". Catholic here meaning "universal".
The whole question of its relationship with Protestantism is an interesting one.. But people overlook the fact that "The Protestation of Faith" from which the name "Protestant" is derived was an assertion by the German Princes involved that- in spite of the measures that they had taken in line with the Lutheran Reformation- they still counted themselves as true Christians and part of the Church which is the communion of souls.
In fact the great British Historian Lord Acton in his lectures on Luther and the Reformation makes out a case for Luther and his followers ready to find common ground and become reconciled in the late 1530's, only for the princes and politicians involved to derail the process and, on the "Roman Catholic" side, retreat to a populist simplicity which would be easier to "sell" to the masses of the faithful, especially in its Mediterranean power base with its ever-present legacy of the Ancient World, from the "trickle down" benefits of the Egypt of the Phaoahs.
Northern Europe helping to pay for the ongoing splendours of the Mediterranean world- from the new city in Avignon to the marvels of Renaissance Italy- including Rome with its new St Peters- was left with its more ancient roots in its nature Gods. Was it not the experience of getting caught in a violent storm that inspired Martin Luther to take up the religious life? Michaelangelo could paint on the Sistine Chapel ceiling God creating Adam with a spark of lghtning passing between them. But bolts of lightning come down direct from Heaven to strike the Earth and its life.
So to come back to your OP question, for Catholics to be accepted as monarchs in England/Britain one would imagine two factors would come into play. [And I have limited it from the wider "Royalty" for surely we have had a Roman Catholic married into the Royal Family for sometime. I seem to remember that the Duchess who usually presents the prizes at Wimbledon was a Roman Catholic Princess of German extraction]
(a) Either the role of the King or Queen would have to be considerably reduced to something more like a mere ceremonial figurehead. Is it not still the case that oaths of loyalty as for example in the armed services are still made to the monarch? And there are still important functions- even if few mundane powers- of the monarchy. When a "wet-behind-the ears" PM like Mr Cameron has his weekly talk with the Queen he would be truly foolish to ignore her extensive political experience and global knowledge that almost certainly exceeds his own in real terms.
(b) And those impediments that made England pass laws excluding Roman Catholics from the succession would have to be either removed or seen as no longer a problem. The situation was formalised I believe in the Revolution of 1688-9 and by the Act of Succession a few years later which ignored about 40 closer claimants and chose the Electress Sophia of Hanover, safely Protestant.
The revolution of 1688-9 tried to remedy the defects of the Restoration. Charles II was determined not to go on his travels, but in order to do this he conducted a parallel and secret foreign policy as an ally of Louis XIV of France- in return for financial support. I am not sure when all of this became known. But the country was shocked when he received the "Last Offices" on his death-bed from a RC priest.
His brother James II was openly Roman Catholic- leading to all kinds of worries reminiscent of the Popish Plot episode in Charles II's reign. As he had a Protestant grandaughter Mary from his first marriage to follow him on to the throne, people were prepared to take a "wait and see" policy- as they had done during the Eleven Years Tyranny of Charles I. James II's second marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the birth of a son raised up the question of England having a Roman Catholic monarch for ever.
The problem that this raised was not dissimilar to the one faced by many British Muslims. Is there first earthly loyalty to Britain? Or to some earthly authority or community outside of England/Britain. After all during the reign of Elizabeth I the Pope had placed the Christian equivalent of a "fatwah" on the English Queen guaranteeing a place in Heaven to any assassin that managed to kill her, and inspiring Phillip of Spain with a Christian duty to undertake one last crusade and conquer England to bring it back under the "tender" auspices of the Inquisition.
The English spoke a great deal of "The Sovereignty of the People"- and of course such external interference would diminish the power and effectiveness of that sovereignty.
But over the last 150 years or so we have seen a new almalgam of Northern and Southern worlds. Since 1945 there has been a very ambitious scheme to create a new Europe that C.Delisle Burns foresaw in a book that was published after his death in 1947. He hoped that it might be something based upon spirituality and moral authority like Medieval Christendom "The First Europe".
In fact , however,Nineteenth Century Germany and eventually Italy took more inspiration from the different kind of power of Ancient Rome: and the Treaty of Rome started the movement that has become the European Community, raising new questions about the right of the English/British people to run their own affairs as sovereign peoples.. And raising too at present the need to tolerate flows of money back into that "Mediterranean world".
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
"I believe all Catholic parents are obllged to bring up their children as Catholics."
Presumably this stricture doesn't apply to the Greek Orthodox church or the Queen's children would have had to be GO!
I think in general royals are allowed to marry (Roman) Catholics, because some of the older royal dukes have, haven't they? It's just that they then are disbarred from the line of inheritance to the throne currently.
It would be interesting if it ever changed, though I suspect it's more likely to do so in terms of a royal heir marrying a Muslim rather than an RC!!! -
Message 7
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
jenny
Your last point reminds me of an old-friend colleague recalling going to Northern Ireland to be a best man..He asked his friend's parents whether they had any qualms about the bride being Muslim.. They said of course not. But had she been from "the other side" of the Christian divide it would have been intolerable.
As for the Greek Royal family, I believe that they were "bought in" from the Danish Royal Family when modern Greece was created.. It seemed to be more important for the credibility of the new States that were created during the nineteenth century that they were of "genuine royal blood"- blood-lines and race being such an important part of the perceived path of Progress and Modernism.
So I am not sure that the religion of the monarch was so important. After all secular government in these regions had been Turkish-Muslim for so long. And those of us who remember Archbishop Makarious can believe that in the Balkans (as in fact in Iberia) such religious figures were more important in current affairs than for example the current Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Cass -
Message 8
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
I would have thought that the religion of the imported new Greek monarch would have been vital, as it was the Greek Orthodox church that basically 'preserved' Greece during the long dark centuries of Ottoman military occupation.
-
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Philip was raised Greek Orthodox, but converted to Anglican prior to marrying Princess Elizabeth. If he hadn't would Margaret have ascended the throne?
-
Message 10
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Interesting point. I doubt the queen would have married Philip had he not converted - she seems very hot on duty.
Had Margeret married Peter Townsend she couldn't have inherited - so I wonder who would have been next in line? Was there a yet younger brother of George VI extant, with heirs, or would it have reverted to one of the brothers of George V? -
Message 11
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Presumably this stricture doesn't apply to the Greek Orthodox church or the Queen's children would have had to be GO!Β
Indeed it does apply in the Eastern Orthodox church also. Even so, the misconception (by some) that Roman Catholics robotically and blindly follow every stricture and utterance of the Vatican without thought is not even close to the reality. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach the necessity of free will to co-operate with grace.
Re the word Catholic, too much emphasis is placed on it today, imo. The word is from the Greek katholicos, and (as Cass has already said) simply means universal. Thus the Anglican church considers itself catholic and reformed, and the official title of the Eastern Orthodox church is the Orthodox Catholic Church in exactly the same way as the Western version is titled the Roman Catholic Church.
Re the Greek Royal family, their faith is Greek Orthodox. The first king of the new Greek Dynasty, the Danish George I (1863-1913) was of the Lutheran faith but his children were all baptised and raised in the Eastern Orthodox faith. -
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
jenny
It seems we both agree that the Greek Orthodox clergy preserved Greek society, and not secular power.
Hence I would not expect the Greeks to have seen the monarch as in any way anything like the English monarchs position as Head of the Church, or really for the newfound monarchy to have achieved anything like the status of the English monarchy.
I wonder whether any other "national anthem" is based almost entirely around the idea of God saving the King/Queen.
But surely looking around for an "imported new Greek monarch" the field was not limited to those of existing Orthodox faith, but also included those who were suitably qualified in other ways, who were prepared to embrace "Greekness" in all its aspects including the religion. This then really makes religion little more than a flag of convenience and conformity.
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
So, had Phil the Greek not converted to Anglicanism, and stayed Orthodox, he'd have had to vow to bring his children up in the Orthodox faith, just as Roman Catholics are required to do?
What a lot of Catholic Churches by the way - I wonder which one is the true one? (!!!) -
Message 14
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
"I wonder whether any other "national anthem" is based almost entirely around the idea of God saving the King/Queen."
"A series of curt demands upon the Almighty" as Dr J so famously observed...
I always like the little poem that goes:
"God Save the King! I mean the Faith's Defender.
God Bless - no harm in blessing! - the Pretender.
But which Pretender is, and which is King,
God bless us all - that's quite another thing....." -
Message 15
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Yes, there were two surviving younger siblings (Duke of Gloucester & Mary Lascelles), and the 3 children of the other brother, the Duke of Kent.
-
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
islandawn
Your comments on the whole question of free-will and obedience touches upon something that I was struggling towards with my distinction between what I have referred to as the Mediterranean world/culture and the "northern" one..
I am particularly conscious of this as I get to know France better and better, and to see the French ability to put the present, and the authorities of the present, within a much greater sweep of history- greater in many senses- than we usually do in for example Britain.
Thus once again I have been intrigued this year that in supposedly "secular" France- people still refer to and keep the old Christian religious festivals of Pentecost and Assumptionas holidays, when Britain moved to "Bank Holidays" in the nineteenth century. While it is a couple of years since I noticed that our local supermarket in Burgundy suddenly seemed to be awash with flowers.. It was Toussaint, and whether people are "croyant" or not, it is a time to go to tend the family graves.
Thus this outreach of the Classical World based around the Mediterranean seems to be overlain with various layers and strata of religion and culture perhaps not unlike the Indian sub-Continent..And this seems to have been true of our daughter-in-laws native Croatia.
Some time ago Thomas B commented on how he admired the way that the French people came out on to the streets to complain about governments noting that (if I do not missrepresent him) German people tend to me more law-abiding. It is perhaps early days yet but last weeks strikes and demonstrations against current UK Government policies do not seem to have achieved the mass-participation that is hoped for.
It seems perhaps to be in those Mediterranean cultures with a strong tradition of authority and obedience, and the failure of both over thousands of years, that also seem to have the strongest traditions of revolt and rebellion- as exemplified by this year's popular occupations of the centres of the State capitals.
I full accept that this may appear to be more tripe casserole from your Greek vantage point.
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
So, had Phil the Greek not converted to Anglicanism, and stayed Orthodox, he'd have had to vow to bring his children up in the Orthodox faith, just as Roman Catholics are required to do?Β
No, because he would not have married Elizabeth in the Orthodox church. The religion of their children would be in accordance with the strictures of the church in which the marriage took place. All of which is purely accademic, of course, there is no way in hell Phillip would have been permitted to marry the heir to the throne if he remained Orthodox, especially in the 1950s.
What a lot of Catholic Churches by the way - I wonder which one is the true one? (!!!)Β
As already said, the word simply means universal, there is no meaning to the word beyond that. Every single faith and denomination in the world will tell you that they are the true one. Nothing new there. -
Message 18
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Actually Cass, I'm going to surprise you and say, you may have a point!
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both strong on the teaching of free will to co-operate with the state of grace, that to come to God and accept the teachings of the church is the choice of the individual. Whereas the Reformed churches teach that the individual is incapable of self redemption, that it is God who over-comes the unwilling heart.
So yes, I can see a correspondence with church teachings in the political attitudes of the people in the Catholic and Orthodox countries of the Med compared with the attitude of the peoples of Northern Europe and the reformed churches, who are far more "straight laced" and more prone to do as they are told. -
Message 19
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
At the risk of becoming a serial poster, I note that the marriage of Prince Albert of Monaco was (naturally for that part of the world) a Roman Catholic ceremony and that the bride had converted to Catholicism before the wedding. Apparently that she be Catholic is not necessary under the constitution of Monaco, but that she did convert says much for the outdated attitudes that are still prevelant and not only in Britain.
-
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
ID
Thanks for that .
I was thinking of the often very narrow minded nature of Puritanism- having recently read a study of "The Puritan Way of Death" based on Puritanism in the USA.
While the early phase of the Reformation did perhaps have a tendency towards simplicity in the quest for "Primitive Christianity", surely there was a real tendency in Puritanism to see each human being very much as a separate individual naked as a new born before God..
This tendency was perhaps taken to an extreme by Separatists and those who believed that the only way ahead was to leave "the Old World" all behind and make a brand new start in the New World..
The study that I read emphasised the severe Calvinistic aspects that went along with predestination and a world in which even your parents and your very community could be agents of the Devil, appearing to be Holy in order to test you with complacency etc.
Older Churches and Civilizations seem to be able to take more consolation in what are very evident great achievements of previous generations, and therefore the idea that other people either individually or as a group or order can help, that sin is not necessarily "mortal" through God's grace and the understanding of His Ministers.
Certainly Matthew Arnold seems to have been very strongly influenced by visits to Roman Catholic Europe- after his stern upbringing under his father Thomas Arnold- and he was writing by the 1850's that- though England had gained short-term advantage from cutting itself off from the main current of European history, the real thrust of human history.
In fact it is perhaps relevant to this thread that William Gladstone referred to one of his experiences in Italy as a young man in his twenties in the 1830's as something like an "earthquake"..
The Gladstone's were Scottish Presbyterians, but when Gladstone's father made a fortune in Liverpool and brought all his brothers down to work in his firm, they became Anglicans and William was prepared for the English establishment by being sent to Eton and Oxford. William then went on Grand Tour and was shaken to the foundations by a visit to an Italian Church filled with beauty and with the simple faith of a congregation, a faith deeply rooted within their whole community and society so much so that it was part of their very nature.
In fact around 1860 Matthew Arnold was writing that in future people would here a great deal about "The Renassance" (as he spelled it).. Burckhardt the great art historian had just written his great study drawing out the continuities between the art of Ancient Greece and Rome and that of Italy in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. This produced the idea of "The Re-Birth of Civilization", and the process of Re-Birth could be taken up by Northern Europe as it connected its own history back to a Mediterranean tradition in which patterns of daily life shown a continuity across centuries and perhaps thousands of years.
Perhaps my one favourite film is "Tea With Mussolini" which captures the way that the British adopted Florence as a kind of spiritual home, giving both a Past and a Future, having- like the Judi Dench character wasted so much time before discovering "the truth".
A French TV programme a few weeks ago looked at centenarians in Europe, and featured the place with the highest proportion in Europe- a little valley in Sardinia. There the oldest men all seem to have worked as shepherds with goats and sheep, and items of their diet- like their own goat's cheese, and red wine- score well in anti-cancer properties- as do the tomatoes they grow. Now I understand that tomatoes came from China, so perhaps this aspect of the Sardinian way of life is not ancient, but many other aspects could easily be.
Compared with that life surely the Puritan revolution looks like a way of rejecting all that may seem pleasant about the Present life on Earth in order to invest everything in the life hereafter.
But how can this be reconciled with Jesus pointing out the beauties and bounties of Nature and suggesting that it would be inconceivable that a God that lavished such care on such humble things would not love and care for human beings?
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Back to the OP more. I read something recently which made more sense of this reluctance, but of course have forgotten exactly what would be the problems. I am fairly sure it wasn't just that the children would be obliged to be of the RC faith - I may be wrong but I think the church is now more accommodating in this area than it used to be.
Could it have been that there might then be quarrels about who should be the monarch and if some of these 'heirs' from the Stuarts might have a greater claim. Surely that can't be it - retrospective ideas are easy to rule out.
But there was some quite valid concern that would make a change awkward. I don't think it was just that if you open up the monarchy to anyone you might get people called Mysteree or Dartan'yong or Kayleigh or Dwayne or similar as your king or queen.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 8th July 2011
ID
Not really relevant to the thread, but I noted the coincidence that the Prince's mother, Grace Kelly, who was of good Irish-American RC stock, was also prior to her film career a very promising competitive swimmer.. Her son would not have been the first to have his image of "the ideal woman" based to some degree on his mother, who presumably made full use of the attractions of the Med with her children.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 8th July 2011
Caro
In connection with the "accommodating nature of the Church", it may be important that the Anglican community is perhaps now more African than anything else: and while the Church in England is a venerable old institution the Church in Africa has much of the dynamism and strong convictions of the newly converted- certainly in historical terms.
Perhaps Peckham, South London, is not typical of everywhere in England, but, when I attended the investiture of a family friend from our daughter's play-group days, in her Church there, I would estimate that perhaps half of the congregation were African born.
In this regard about 20 years ago Dr. Sentamu, now the Archbishop of York, asked me, as his daughter's history teacher, whether English schoolchildren were ever taught the story of the Uganda Martyrs, the first Ugandans to be baptised Christians and who perished in the flames of royal persecution.
That global outreach of the Anglican Community seems to be largely connected with the outreach of the British Empire and Commonwealth, and surely those countries are now far too "grown up" for the "Mother Country" to claim that the question of its monarchy is strictly its "own business".
And the missionary work in Africa can still be tied to old differences and conflicts within Britain and Europe. A TV documentary just over ten years ago went with "Dr". Ian Paisley and revealed a different man from the Northern Ireland politician that we normally saw, for his Ulster Church has taken the Gospel to West Africa, and he was going to preach to the converted spreading his own belief in the literal truth of everything written in the Bible.
The documentary included a visit to a large "ghost-church" that could house 1,000, but the congregation had become divided on some issue, and both sides had found alternative premises.
Cass -
Message 24
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 8th July 2011
As far as I am aware, the Roman Catholic Church now asks that children of a 'mixed' marriage are brought up as 'Christian', not necessarily as 'Catholic' as it once demanded.
I am reminded of the story of one of the first 'gay marriages' performed in Belfast City Hall a few years ago. Many of the groom's family refused to attend - not because he was marrying a man, but because he was marrying a Catholic ! -
Message 25
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Tuesday, 12th July 2011
Religion and royalty, oceans of blood have been spilt for both. Funny how all societies and cultures have created the same institutions and then used them to define themselves. Human's?
-
Message 26
Posted by Lyra (U2293272) on Wednesday, 13th July 2011
Prince Michael of Kent married a Roman Catholic - Princess Michael of Kent. She didn't renounce her religion, so he had to formally give up his place in line to the throne before they could marry. I think he was something like 15th in line to the throne, so I suspect it wasn't too much of a wrench!
Philip's family are the the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-GlΓΌcksburg. You can see why he changed to Mountbatten! (He was a Battenberg through his mother's family). They were a Danish German import to the Greek throne (previously the Greeks had imported Otto of Bavaria but that didn't work out so well). Before they got engaged he had to renounce all of his Greek and Danish titles as well as change his religion.
Although Philip was technically Greek Orthodox, I'm not sure that it would have meant a great deal in practice. He was born in Greece, but his family left following the abdication (of his uncle I think) only about a year after he was born, and he wasn't brought up there. Philip can't speak Greek and I understand that if anything he considers himself Danish. I doubt whether conversion to Anglicanism was something that worried him unduly.
I'm not sure that there is any constitutional barrier to an heir to the throne marrying a Muslim? Although I suspect there'd be plenty of other barriers put up if it looked likely to happen!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.