What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
Funnily enough permission to publish Charles' letters was granted today. No more places to hide Charlie.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
(Original post by Midlander)
The devastation of losing pointless titles with archaic names is softened by having a huge pile of cash to fall back on.
Before: Lots of money + honours
After: Lots of money + no honours

(Original post by Midlander)
Doctorates are different-they are not arbitrarily awarded but done so after years of work and are a qualification in their own right.
Whilst honours could be arbitrarily awarded, they are not commonly perceived this way, and most of them aren't awarded randomly anyhow.

It takes more work to get knighthood or lordship then getting a doctorates. How many people have a doctorate? How many people have a knighthood or lordship? Do you think Sir Elton got his knighthood 'arbitrarily' instead of it being a result of decades of impact on the industry, his struggle with sexuality and discrimination, 200 million records sold world-wide, and having the biggest-selling single of all-time? Is it easier to achieve what Sir Elton has than getting a doctorate from a random university?

You're also forgetting that lots of doctorates could be purchased, and honorary doctorates, which many people care about, exist. If titles don't worth anything, you won't be seeing billionaires buying their way into a knighthood, a doctorate, or sultanship. Even the people who decline an honour often shows that people actually care about them - Prof Stephen Hawking declined one as a protest against the government's plans to cut science funding. If he doesn't think it's a major thing, declining it won't mean anything to anyone.

(Original post by Midlander)
I am a British citizen.
Have you lived outside of the UK for an extended period of time? As someone who's from outside of the UK, I can tell you most parts of the world, especially East Asia, adores the monarchy. Even France at one point wanted The Queen to be their head of state.

(Original post by Midlander)
The world outside is glad they aren't paying for it
Irrelevant. Not only did I already say I disagree with the costs, but this also doesn't contribute to this particular discussion.

(Original post by Midlander)
and I can tell you one thing and that is that there are very successful countries worldwide which elect their heads of state.
Apart from America and Germany, who else? Sure, the Japanese Emperor is technically not the head of state due to historical reasons, but even they have a monarchy.

Germany is a prime example of why having a ceremonial president is silly. But of course that's neither here nor there, as not having a monarch doesn't mean there needs to be someone in place of that ceremonial position.

(Original post by Midlander)
They do not need elitism to keep people in check and their democracy is no weaker than ours.
They do, and I mentioned nothing about democracy.

And actually, having The Queen saved Canada some trouble in the past - two of their Prime Ministers refused to leave their office after they've lost the election, and the governor-general made it easy to dismiss them. Things would be a lot more uncertain if for example the first George Bush refused to leave.

(Original post by Midlander)
I am also certain that the previous British monarchs had no say over our colonial exploits all over the world. Empress Victoria anyone?
You misinterpreted my argument. The world doesn't associate the monarchy with colonial exploitation but with the country/Empire itself. Just like how no-one associates WWII in East Asia with the Japanese Emperor himself.

If you think Victoria had actual powers over colonial exploitation, I think either you need to retake your history classes, or the education system has failed. She was influential, but she was determined to be the moral symbol of the nation (which remains today) instead of an actual ruler, partly due to the influence of Prince Albert, and partly due to the fact that the monarch at that point already had very limited power.

The monarch didn't just become ceremonial overnight. It was a long and gradual process - Henry VIII needed support from parliament to an extent with his troubles with The Pope, Mary totally needed the parliament as Henry's son chose Lady Jane Grey and the only claim she had would be with the Act of Parliament (and support from The Pope), same went to Elizabeth I. Charles didn't end well without the support of parliament, and Charles II reversed the power a little due to parliament realising that the people wanted a king. But James II showed that the king didn't have absolute power, and William The Conqueror couldn't have power in England without parliamentary support. As time goes by, powers of the monarch become weaker and weaker especially with the need to get money from parliament. By the time Victoria ascended to the throne, the time of the monarch had already passed.

She was given the title Empress of India not really for her personal amusement, but rather an entirely political decision made by the parliament. There were many monarchs in India so by making the British monarch the Empress of India, Britain gained the 'legitimacy' to 'inherent' the 'thrones' from them. In fact, if it was for her personal amusement, she wouldn't have been made an Empress, but rather a Queen - it was inappropriate for her to be made an Empress outside of the UK, for it is convention to use the highest title to address someone (thus 'Professor' over 'Dr', 'Prince of Wales' over 'Duke of Cornwall', 'Queen' over 'Duke of Normandy', etc) but at the same time if she was an Empress, it'd technically mean GB would be in an inferior, subsidiary/subordinary position (as Emperors/Empresses rule over Kingdoms - the Japanese 'Emperor' is the only notable exception to this). This is why she's called the Queen-Empress, not Empress Victoria.
1
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by Midlander)
1. You said the monarchy is more selfless than elected commoners and it shows more sympathy than them as well. With that in mind I'd have thought that HM would chip in with taxes without being asked, when her people were going through the dire economic times of the 70s and 80s. Lead by example and all that.
You're exposing your ignorance. The monarch cannot make any formal move without the advice of Her ministers. It also depends on political climate. This whole issue about her paying taxes only arose as a mainstream complaint int he late 80s/early 90s. What do you expect Her to be, psychic?

2. I didn't realise being a bigot made you more sympathetic than elected politicians. The Duke once asked someone in a wheelchair 'do people fall over you?', highlighting his concern for the disabled, and 'are you all related?' to a group of black music artists to show his awareness of the cultural diversity in his land.
And? Why should I care? Firstly, he's not the monarch, and secondly, you can have views like that and still be concerned about them. He's in his bloody nineties, for God's sake. He's acquired attitudes and modes of speaking that were entirely normal until the late 80s, and it's unrealistic to expect him to transform into the mindset of a 20-year-old hipster.

3. The office manager can still be sacked (poor David Brent) because he is accountable to his own managers above him. He also has his own bills to pay and has his own responsibilities.
The Queen can be sacked.

The Queen's job is not taxing in the slightest
On what basis do you say this? Are you saying that the President of Germany's job is not taxing in the slightest? Because that's what you are saying.

and the government will never deny her help.
We have plenty of examples from history of government ignoring, denying, and being pretty rude to monarchs who say things the Government doesn't want to hear, so you're talking about of your proverbial.

4. The public would decide the President, not MPs.
You don't know that. The Australian monarchy referendum proposed one chosen by Parliament, because they specifically wanted to avoid the office being political.

Since the position is an elected one then whoever is in it must perform competently to be re-elected and by virtue of being elected has a clear mandate from the people.
A mandate to do what? You've already said the job is doss.

I note that the British people have never been asked whether they want a monarchy
They've never been asked if we should drive on the left hand side of the road either, but they are free to set up a political party to change it. They don't, because they are content.

and media coverage on it has always been an arm of Palace PR.
Come off it. Everyone has a PR department nowadays, why should the monarch be denied one?

An objective discussion of the monarchy with balanced media would send its support plummeting.
Yeah, objective. :rolleyes: you're really objective.
0
reply
ErinBliss
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
Well, the ruling royal family in my country is doing poorly to develop the nation. They have spent a HUGE sum of our revenue for their own interests and heavy expenditures on luxury goods, i.e. cars, palace, etc. Personally, I don't mind with monarchical system for as long as they DO know how to run a country and do not misuse the nation's treasury for their own benefits. However, if they do not prove their worth, the system must be dissolved instantly by revolutionary or democratic means. The existence of monarchy has proved to be a manifestation of a country's stability, be it absolute or constitutional. But heck, I just can't stand the one that is ruling my country, they are clueless. Ps: please do not ask where I'm from.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by ErinBliss)
Well, the ruling royal family in my country is doing poorly to develop the nation. They have spent a HUGE sum of our revenue for their own interests and heavy expenditures on luxury goods, i.e. cars, palace, etc. Personally, I don't mind with monarchical system for as long as they DO know how to run a country and do not misuse the nation's treasury for their own benefits. However, if they do not prove their worth, the system must be dissolved instantly by revolutionary or democratic means. The existence of monarchy has proved to be a manifestation of a country's stability, be it absolute or constitutional. But heck, I just can't stand the one that is ruling my country, they are clueless. Ps: please do not ask where I'm from.
Well, i won't ask where you're from, but in your case it sounds like the monarchy hasn't done a good job. But then, there are republics out there which are as bad or worse - both should be changed.

But a monarchy like the British one, which is constitutional and does a pretty good job, should be preserved.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by gladders)
You're exposing your ignorance. The monarch cannot make any formal move without the advice of Her ministers. It also depends on political climate. This whole issue about her paying taxes only arose as a mainstream complaint int he late 80s/early 90s. What do you expect Her to be, psychic?



And? Why should I care? Firstly, he's not the monarch, and secondly, you can have views like that and still be concerned about them. He's in his bloody nineties, for God's sake. He's acquired attitudes and modes of speaking that were entirely normal until the late 80s, and it's unrealistic to expect him to transform into the mindset of a 20-year-old hipster.



The Queen can be sacked.



On what basis do you say this? Are you saying that the President of Germany's job is not taxing in the slightest? Because that's what you are saying.



We have plenty of examples from history of government ignoring, denying, and being pretty rude to monarchs who say things the Government doesn't want to hear, so you're talking about of your proverbial.



You don't know that. The Australian monarchy referendum proposed one chosen by Parliament, because they specifically wanted to avoid the office being political.



A mandate to do what? You've already said the job is doss.



They've never been asked if we should drive on the left hand side of the road either, but they are free to set up a political party to change it. They don't, because they are content.



Come off it. Everyone has a PR department nowadays, why should the monarch be denied one?



Yeah, objective. :rolleyes: you're really objective.
1. Of course if the Queen decided she wanted to contribute more to the Treasury they would stop it. It is nothing to do with predicting the future and everything to do with the sympathy you talked about earlier.

2. He is a major royal embarrassing the nation with things you or I would be sacked for saying.

3. When's the last time a monarch was sacked? Note: Edward VIII abdicated of his own volition.

4. Ceremonial roles elected or not are a doss but the former does at least carry the risk of not being re-elected in the case of major PR fiascos as happened with the German president. Why are they a doss? Look at the 'day in the life' of the Queen on the monarchy's website. Hosting a banquet qualifies as work-how many others can claim that?

5. So what if Australia does that. At the point of abolishing the monarchy the British people are free to decide on whatever form of HoS they wish. Republicans differ on ceremonial/non-ceremonial, Parliament/people and so on but they are united in the idea that a hereditary monarchy is inherently unfair.

6. I would instead argue that people are 'content' because they have only been brought up with positive portrayals of the Windsors and dissenting opinion has been suppressed. Despite that 20% of British people are republican, which is perhaps the more surprising statistic. The Republic pressure group is growing and opted against being a political party because it would be a one issue party with little chance of success. Instead it focuses on the existing major parties.

7. The Palace PR machine uses a bit more than a PR firm and more the entire British media with the exception of the Guardian. I protested at the Jubilee Pageant 3 years ago-there were thousands of us but none of our own country's media were there. Foreign media were though, Russian, French, Spanish and so on. Wonder why.




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
They guard against dictatorship. A president is a greasy pole climber, has short-termist motivations and party political to boot. A monarchy has no need to climb any poles or grab any power, has about the most long-term motivations you can imagine (which are bound up with the future of the country), and is politically neutral. A monarchy is less easily swayed if we elect a Hitler type one day. Of course, the monarchy must remain almost completely ceremonial. And on the whole, it's probably a good idea that the army swears their oath to the monarch rather than to Parliament.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by Midlander)
1. Of course if the Queen decided she wanted to contribute more to the Treasury they would stop it. It is nothing to do with predicting the future and everything to do with the sympathy you talked about earlier.
So now you're changing your tune, and saying she's entirely in the right to wait until she's formally advise by ministers?

2. He is a major royal embarrassing the nation with things you or I would be sacked for saying.
Nope. Seeing as Britain's popularity is pretty good, and how there are elected politicians that balls up and are still in place, your point makes no sense. Hell, there are elected politicians that do good jobs, and yet people still seek out ways to be offended. See, Obama and the Republicans.

3. When's the last time a monarch was sacked? Note: Edward VIII abdicated of his own volition.
Yeah, 'of his own volition'. Come off it. He wanted to marry his future wife and keep the Crown, and he was told one or the other. Of his own volition :rolleyes:

4. Ceremonial roles elected or not are a doss but the former does at least carry the risk of not being re-elected in the case of major PR fiascos as happened with the German president.
The German president isn't elected. And why are you obsessed with the post being elected? On what basis do you insist it's some kind of right or necessity? As it quite plainly is not.

Why are they a doss? Look at the 'day in the life' of the Queen on the monarchy's website. Hosting a banquet qualifies as work-how many others can claim that?
A lot, actually. It's a very demanding piece of work, and it's also one aspect of a wide-ranging job. To turn your own warped logic on you, you earlier said the royals, as rich, privileged people, cannot possibly understand the travails of the ordinary person. Now, I'm saying you're an incredibly ignorant person who doesn't bother to properly consider the workload of a Head of State,

5. So what if Australia does that. At the point of abolishing the monarchy the British people are free to decide on whatever form of HoS they wish. Republicans differ on ceremonial/non-ceremonial, Parliament/people and so on but they are united in the idea that a hereditary monarchy is inherently unfair.
And they're bloody idiots for thinking that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

6. I would instead argue that people are 'content' because they have only been brought up with positive portrayals of the Windsors and dissenting opinion has been suppressed.
Oh come off it. That's a sign of desperation: you're only unpopular because the big nasty means Windsors control the media. Boo hoo. And yet, there are critical papers, criticial broadcasts, and criticial opinions voiced all the time. Moreover, the monarchy is popular abroad, in republics, where they have no control over the media.

Can it with the conspiracy theories. For one thing, it suggests you don't trust the people to draw their own conclusions, as you don't honestly respect opinions that aren't yours.

Despite that 20% of British people are republican, which is perhaps the more surprising statistic. The Republic pressure group is growing and opted against being a political party because it would be a one issue party with little chance of success. Instead it focuses on the existing major parties.
And none of which are interested in advocating republicanism. Not even the SNP is, despite them being representatives of people very much otherwise genuinely and reasonably aggrieved.

7. The Palace PR machine uses a bit more than a PR firm and more the entire British media with the exception of the Guardian.
Give over. All the other papers include articles that mock and criticise the royals. It's not their business to bend over for you.

I protested at the Jubilee Pageant 3 years ago-there were thousands of us but none of our own country's media were there. Foreign media were though, Russian, French, Spanish and so on. Wonder why
A few thousand against several million. Uh-huh. The media should give you equal exposure. :rolleyes: by the way, the creationists and the Flat Earth Society called, asked if you wanted to club together with them.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by Onde)
Can someone explain to me why the BBC should have a paid member of staff with the title "Royal Correspondent" in the 21st Century?
To keep sycophants like gladders, well, glad.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
(Original post by Onde)
Can someone explain to me why the BBC should have a paid member of staff with the title "Royal Correspondent" in the 21st Century?
Because the monarchy gets up to a lot? I am astounded such a question has to be asked. They travel worldwide, nationwide daily, and say and do an awful lot, not including their formal constitutional role, and the regular debates, discussions and observations about their role.

It is only obsessed, idiosyncratic republicans who seek to downplay the role of monarch, and I notice they don't do the same for presidents worldwide, even if they do the exact same job.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by Onde)
why not have a House of Lords correspondent, a Diplomatic Service correspondent. a Barnsley Correspondent etc.?
They have parliamentary correspondents, local correspondents, and foreign correspondents. But there's only one Head of State in this country, so what are you getting at?

btw although I'm in favour of us becoming a republic, I'd hardly consider myself an obsessed, idiosyncratic republican. My obsession for royal things in the past has led me to being accused of being an obsessed, idiosyncratic royalist, if anything.

If I see the Queen (or someone like Diana) doing some good, I don't see any point in criticising her, I just think "It must be easy to look like a hardworking (or caring in the case of Diana) individual if you are paid millions to do it".
The Queen's not paid.
0
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
I am a rock-solid monarchist and believe that the monarch is a great figurehead at the head of the nation. Far better to have a monarch as our head of state than someone like Tony Blair or David Cameron as a Presidential figure.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by Onde)
She most certainly is.
Nope. The Crown receives money, but that's for the maintenance of the office of Head of State. Not a penny of it goes to the Queen as a salary for her own personal enjoyment. nor to the rest of the family, for that matter.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by Onde)
Why then does the Duke of Edinburgh get paid from the Civil List?
Parliamentary Annuity, which is for the cost of his official travel and attendance at events. It must be only used for those things which are of public notice.

Why does Charles get paid from the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster etc.?
They are not salary, but proceeds from revenue from the Duchy as a piece of private property. Cornwall's for the Prince of Wales, Lancaster is for the monarch, and partly goes in to the Privy Purse, which is used to pay staff salaries and pensions.

Why doesn't the monarch pay inheritance tax and other duties?
Firstly, this is aside from your point about the monarch being paid. Secondly, they don't pay inheritance tax as constitutionally, the Sovereign does not die. Unlike every other person in this country, who is entitled to make profit, purchase and aggrandise their property, and so to offset any loss they make from inheritance, the monarchy has become forbidden to do such things. The problem is that inheritance would ruin them, and then we would have to pay them a salary.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
(Original post by Onde)
But of course they only own 'private property' by 'right of conquest' and are only head of state for the same reason. Why should they be given tax breaks or a salary?
By that reasoning, all property is derived from right of conquest. Hell, you and I are beneficiaries of barbarism and Empire. So stones, glass houses...

If the queen is paid by the government in lieu of claiming it from her estates and is paid housingbenefits for being a landlord and so on, it is difficult to see how she qualifies as not being paid.
She's not paid by the Government, unless you consider the Prime Minister being paid when he uses a limo or helicopter to fly from one part of the country to the other.

To argue as such is stretching quite a bit.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by Onde)
Why then does the Duke of Edinburgh get paid from the Civil List? Why does Charles get paid from the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster etc.? Why doesn't the monarch pay inheritance tax and other duties?
Except he doesn't, the civil list no longer exists in this country
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by gladders)
So now you're changing your tune, and saying she's entirely in the right to wait until she's formally advise by ministers?



Nope. Seeing as Britain's popularity is pretty good, and how there are elected politicians that balls up and are still in place, your point makes no sense. Hell, there are elected politicians that do good jobs, and yet people still seek out ways to be offended. See, Obama and the Republicans.



Yeah, 'of his own volition'. Come off it. He wanted to marry his future wife and keep the Crown, and he was told one or the other. Of his own volition :rolleyes:



The German president isn't elected. And why are you obsessed with the post being elected? On what basis do you insist it's some kind of right or necessity? As it quite plainly is not.



A lot, actually. It's a very demanding piece of work, and it's also one aspect of a wide-ranging job. To turn your own warped logic on you, you earlier said the royals, as rich, privileged people, cannot possibly understand the travails of the ordinary person. Now, I'm saying you're an incredibly ignorant person who doesn't bother to properly consider the workload of a Head of State,



And they're bloody idiots for thinking that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.



Oh come off it. That's a sign of desperation: you're only unpopular because the big nasty means Windsors control the media. Boo hoo. And yet, there are critical papers, criticial broadcasts, and criticial opinions voiced all the time. Moreover, the monarchy is popular abroad, in republics, where they have no control over the media.

Can it with the conspiracy theories. For one thing, it suggests you don't trust the people to draw their own conclusions, as you don't honestly respect opinions that aren't yours.



And none of which are interested in advocating republicanism. Not even the SNP is, despite them being representatives of people very much otherwise genuinely and reasonably aggrieved.



Give over. All the other papers include articles that mock and criticise the royals. It's not their business to bend over for you.



A few thousand against several million. Uh-huh. The media should give you equal exposure. :rolleyes: by the way, the creationists and the Flat Earth Society called, asked if you wanted to club together with them.
1. I was being facetious about the Treasury declining extra funds. The '70s were bleak, bleak times and a sympathetic monarch would at least have added to the public purse or shown more solidarity with her people.

2. Do you think he is popular with those he offends? How is our popularity in the Middle East?

3. He was head of the CoE which didn't fancy its leader marrying a divorcée, I suspect that has more to do with it. Doesn't stop the man being demonised even now.

4. The post being elected offers several things. It makes the position of head of state open to every British citizen rather than an exclusive family. It makes the person in this position accountable to the electorate. It makes the public more involved in how their country is run and/or represented. The Royals may be very popular in the USA, but note how there is no appetite there for an unelected President.

5. Tell me, what taxing things does the Queen do for her life of privilege and luxury? Hosting a banquet is one, cutting ribbons another, shaking hands and waving a third. The average person would give a lot for that kind of 'work'.

6. If a position you wanted was denied to you because of nepotism you'd be fine with it?

7. The most popular stance on the monarchy is actually ambivalence, with support for and against roughly equal. There is only one notable republican newspaper and no republican leaning TV coverage, hardly a balanced media. You only have to watch the BBC whenever it reports royal news, it's less reporting and more sycophantic garbage. It is not a matter of trust, it's a matter of people being given a one-sided viewpoint their whole lives.

8. Wrong, we had an SNP politician at last year's Republic annual meeting who said they were opposed to the monarchy since it was a symbol of British nationalism, but they couldn't openly oppose it because it would cost them Yes votes from undecideds in the referendum. Besides, there are several 'under the radar' Labour MPs and more outspoken ones like Dennis Skinner.

That is why a pressure group exists, in order to exercise its right to protest on an issue it wants to change.

9. Our numbers were limited by the size of location we were allocated. Still, why would foreign news give us the time of day if we were so insignificant? Say what you want about me, I at least have the conviction to go out and demonstrate in support of something I'm passionate about.

Not easy when you are accused of being 'anti British' by morons in the street but there we are.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by MaxReid)
I am a rock-solid monarchist and believe that the monarch is a great figurehead at the head of the nation. Far better to have a monarch as our head of state than someone like Tony Blair or David Cameron as a Presidential figure.
Why is a very wealthy lady who lives in palaces and who inherited her position a great figurehead?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MaxReid
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by Midlander)
Why is a very wealthy lady who lives in palaces and who inherited her position a great figurehead?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Due to her neutrality and her being 'above politics'
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by MaxReid)
Due to her neutrality and her being 'above politics'
How can someone who has been gifted their livelihood act as a role model for those struggling for work/an income? She can't.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (138)
61.88%
No I haven't decided yet (49)
21.97%
Yes but I might change my mind (36)
16.14%

Watched Threads

View All