The Government wishes to replace the existing House of Lords with a new House, with almost 80% of the members being elected. I say ‘almost’ because the Government’s Bill does not, as widely reported, propose a 450-member House, of which 80% are elected. It provides for 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, up to 12 Lords Spiritual, and up to 8 ministerial members who are ministers of the Crown, plus ministerial members who have ceased to be ministers (who, under the Bill, will not leave the House when they give up ministerial office but instead will serve the remaining period of the 5-year electoral term in which they are appointed and the two beyond that). It is thus likely to be a House of 470+.
But I digress. My real point, like Lord Soley, is to draw attention to the fact that the Government has not proposed a new name for this body. The Bill proceeds on the basis, essentially the default option, that it will be called the House of Lords. When quizzed last Wednesday as to what the members of the new body would be called, the Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, said: “We are not calling them senators at the moment: we are not calling them anything. ”
It rather reflects the Government’s whole approach that it cannot even come up with an appropriate name for the new House or for its members. It will be a House of Lords with potentially no Lords. I suspect the readers of this blog can do somewhat better than the Government. Lord Blagger has suggested House of Plebs. That, at least, is a start. An incentive not mentioned by Lord Soley is that a particularly apt answer may find itself being proferred as an amendment to the Bill…
House of Cards? Might collapse at any time and scene of funny business.
Or even the House of Ex-Peer-ience.
Dear Lord Norton
The traditional conservation of the House of lords should prevail as it stems from the British Monarchy which has made her political heritage through the number of hereditary peers who are now being replaced by potential life peers.Changing the name of the House of Lords, would be the end of an ancestral british monarchical tradition .The House of Lords should be unmodified . Lords are not politicians and politicians are not lords. They should not be elected like members of Parliament but be appointed.
God bless the United Kingdom. God saves the QUEEN.
Nazma FOURRE
NF says
“God saves the Queen”
Wrong: we can not be sure that the Queen is yet saved.
The British taxpayers
and various Investment Markets
contribute most
to any ‘Savings of the Queen’
(apart from millions of ‘human-exertions’ by paid and unpaid humans alike).
(NB I think one needs to admit
that God possibly is trying to Save The Queen
too) ?
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:25 am Reply with quote
The royal forum kicked me out of their forum because I praise so much Diana. Most of them are fond of Camilla.
Nazma FOURRE
And above:
God bless the United Kingdom. God saves the QUEEN.
Ah well Perhaps Miles Denton has found a friend.
Dear Lord Norton,
“Birds of the same feathers do fly in the same way”. Through these wordings, I am sure you will agree that no body can think alike and controversial opinions are bound to be a rich cultural heritage for bloggers to express and share common views.
As a result, some opponents of lady diana in the Royal forum which is run by common people did not allow me to praise anew my beloved princess in this blog. I respected their point of views and they follow their opinions and I, mine. There is no barrier in thoughts and reflexions, neither in cultural advancement, nor in the freedom of speech which will always make me say loudly “God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom”.I am just feeling good whilst saying those words.It is my freedom of speech and expression conventionalised by the Human rights. Be it pleased or displeased Garett HOwell!!
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
http://www.royal.gov.uk/
If Nazma Fourre is interested in the English monarchy here is the link to it. There must be half a dozen monarchist websites, including for the French monarchic pretender, the Duc de Paris.
This ain’t the place for it.
I see from a web search he/she has a mania for Royal images, so perhaps she will be satisfied by that; leave it out!
It is difficult to know what it could be called other than “Senate”, but the members of the wider public might have some good ideas, seriously now!
A good deal of our political is moved by reference to US values. They have a senate in most states as well as a congress, don’t they.
“Le Senat” in France.
It might, as Maude suggests, to change the name of the Commons to “Congress”, House of congress, and “Senate” for the HofL.
Then everybody knows worldwide. What do the Canadian,Oz,Kiwi and other countries call theirs for the sake of sameness, and easier parallels?
I think we should just retain the current naming convention and keep it the House of Lords.
The current House already has different grades of Lordship, hereditary; spiritual; appointed, so a House of Lords made up of elected Lords isn’t really that substantive a change.
I personally think people might be more comfortable with incremental change anyway — especially with ancient institutions — and changing both the composition of the House, its name, and the title of its members just seems to too much to take in at one go.
In my experience in business, if I need to propose something, I never ever give it a name – it is just “product x”, otherwise the meetings to debate the product are bogged down in petty arguments about what to call it.
The best way to kill Lords reform is to spend time arguing about what to call the House after it is reformed.
The best way to pass the reform bill is to leave that out of the debate and defer it to some point in the future.
My general rule of thumb is that evolution is preferable to revolution, especially in politics, and I would be happier intellectually and in gut emotion that if change is to happen, switch to an elected House – and then let it decide if it needs to change its name to Senators/Whatever.
Maybe discuss the issue after a couple of elections to let things bed down a bit.
Sir, You write above that: “so a House of Lords made up of elected Lords isn’t really that substantive a change.” But do You not know that over a short period of time there will be no Lords at all in the chamber! They will be all commoners! The Bill is firm on the brake with peerages and a seat in the House of Lords. The soft shift is a trick by mr.Clegg, also parhaps the reason he does not call the House a Senate. If people heard the new term, Senate, it would be an outcry. This silence from mr. Clegg is based on psychological knowledge how to play and winn. He could have put a Bill what propoced elected or appointed Lords out of a pool of peers. But he did not let the people elect Lords. He want socialism! I suspect mr. Clegg want to go further to undermine the Monarchy even more…to get people used to change by abolishing the Lords as a start.
“But do You not know that over a short period of time there will be no Lords at all in the chamber! They will be all commoners!”
Not necessarily.
A life-peer is a commoner given a title for a few years that cannot be handed onto others – so an elected Lord is essentially the same thing. All that changes is the method of getting them into the building and how long they stay there.
There is no substantive reason why a person cannot be called Lord so and so because they were elected instead of appointed.
All other issues are mere semantics.
My preferred name is a bit more Michael Dobbs. The missing volume – The House of Thieves. However I think the commons have got that book marked.
We shall see how Jim Knight does with his lack of reporting.
This time
name the ‘upper-review-&-additional-scrutiny-house’ by its Duty;
(at present it is still clearly an obsolescent ‘House of Lords’, regardless of how obsolescent or obsolete is any part of the ‘House of Commons’, or of the ‘Civil Service’
or come to that of parts if not the whole of ‘The Electorate’ or even of ‘The People’).
————
Name it by what it does
not merely by the name of some comparatively small-minority of privileged, permanently-wealthy-&-propertied, specially-protected, Establishment-Club-Appointees.
———-
Name it
“House of Experts”.
That would show both what it does and who does it;
—————
and
(NB please)
this House could
or most certainly should
be enabled and empowered to include temporary ‘one-off’ full-governance-participation by the best-known relevant experts from outside of the House’s Permanently-Seated Representational and Review Body.
This should be in the interests of best-practices, democratic-participativity, generic-mind-functionality, and constitutionality*
(* the latter constitutional-matter would possibly need a Referendum, would it ?
– ergo sobeit –
God knows the Constitution needs to be made more supportive towards Improvement, Relevancy, and Up-dating;
including of itself[
and including requiring inclusivity of hitherto repressed or suppressed advances in both knowledge and know-how).
‘House of redundancy’
Which is why, Lord Norton, it should be names the ‘House of Appointees.’ As that is what it is now, in truth, and will continue to be if unelected.
Today House of Lords is a euphemism. And that is one of the reasons you want to hang on to the hereditary group, as they keep it from losing its right, under the advertising law, to describe clearly what is in a product before you can sell it.
Ian visits “product X” is an interesting reflection on consumerist marketing and may be the way to deal with the planned Bill changes.
Wait for the name to emerge.
Dear Lord Norton,
God save the Queen, the traditional hymn of the United kingdom, sang by all those inside and outside the United kingdom showing their tribute to the beloved Queen, and the Monarchy where stems the roots of the history of the United Kingdom.From this gratitude revealing the love and passion to this blessed nation and to her Queen, every one has the right to praise the founder of the British society . I do think that MSLD as a fervent patriot does the same and has always sang this hymn.”God save the Queen”. Yes God will always save the beloved Queen, for all that she did for the United Kingdom, for all her courage during her sad moments which she shared with the United Kingdom and the world. “God save the Queen”. God will always save the “spiritual mother of the United kingdom” and I shall always sing and say “God save the Queen”, to show the warmth of my devoted love and affection to her.No one can stop me from loving the beloved Queen and praising her as much as I can.
I do think in recognition of all her good work, the House of lords should not be an elected body but an appointed one.
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE
Josef Haydn wrote a gentle contemplative movement within one of his Quartets.
That lovely and sensitive musical and aesthetic achievement was leter hijacked by the Austrian Royal House
who brassed and speeded it up and by adding monarchically-directive words, made it the Austrian National Anthem.
Later still, it was further hijacked by German Royalty who brought it to Britain where they drummed it up brass-band-wise, and substituted the English words “God Save Our Gracious King …”
as a ploy to subliminally alter the state of consciousness of The People such that they would blindly fight-to-the-death for the ‘divine-right’ of their Monarch to be privileged and saved by God beyond all others.
The present Queen is a direct descendant of that German Royal House;
the “House of Windsor” is a fabrication, complicitly between that German-royalty-line and the British Aristocratic-Establiahment of that day.
Much stronger and genuinely sustainworthy bases need to be put forward than that
“God save the Queen is sung by all those inside and outside of the United Kingdom showing their tribute to the Queen and the Monarchy where stems the roots of the History of The United Kiongdom”
The life-histories of the Peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern-Ireland
are much more extensive and sustainworthy than that royal, peerage, and establishmentarian history
that ‘stems’ from a German Royal Line and a usurpery national anthem.
=======
[Well, let’s not apologise too hastily;
someone has to show the cat to the pigeons from time to time] !
The HoL was abolished in 1648 and in the instrument’s preamble it said:
“The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the People of England to be continued, have thought fit to Ordain and Enact, and be it Ordained and Enacted by this present Parliament, and by the Authority of the same, That from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; And that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called The Lords House, or in any other House or Place whatsoever, as a House of Lords”
This is an accurate observation of the HoL at this time. The nobility had got into bed with the King when people expected them to hold the executive to account just as the Barons had done with King John. The house had entirely lost its independence and the nobility would suffer badly because of it.
When the house eventually came back the name ‘House of Lords’, well, they couldn’t exactly retract its use it would have made them look weak. Instead the dialogue in Parliament at this time refers to a ‘House of Peers’ and ‘the Other Place’. This accorded well with the appointments made because they were not on the whole, the nobility. However, hardly any of them turned up. Have things really changed?
Ref: 1648 Mar 19, Act Abolishing House of Lords
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=56321
@senex:
I enjoy your posts, they are appropriately informative. And always spot on.
Here is a little addition I thought equally apt in sentiment. Heads of State, Kings and so on. The name calling in the second clip is a lost freedom of the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KvQooa-orU
It took an Irishman to play this man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9DHOnUngxQ
Dear Baroness,
The existence of the House of Lords shows its importance as time has overpowered the wish the 17th century commoners who wanted to get rid of the House of lords.
Lords and commoners come from two different world . The first one is being appointed where as the second one is elected and is fully acquainted with his electors,knowingly he will have to work and satisfy their needs if he wants his seat back for the next five years election.It is not a secret even in the 17th Century that competition between the two houses had given vent to the inspîration of “greedy commoners” to have all the concentrated power, one of the reasons which could explain from my personal deduction their thirst to eradicate the house of the Lords from the political map of the United kingdom.
But destiny through time has shown that both houses are important for the ruling of the United Kingdom.I do personnally pay tribute to the honourable House of lords.”Thank you lords,thank you for being here to serve the United Kingdom. Thankyou for your continuity and your resistence.Thankyou for conserving the trend of the British Monarchy, the reasons why you should remain appointed and not elected. You are important for the United Kingdom as water is to plants and trees”.
God Bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen
Nazma FOURRE
I suppose The Democratic Element would make a better name for a rock band than a legislative body, so how about the House of Review?
Really, though, there is nothing really wrong with retaining the current name. From Standing Order 2(6): “Bishops to whom a writ of summons has been issued are not Peers but are Lords of Parliament.” Why could not the various new kinds of members also be considered Lords of Parliament? Of course the various formulations in enacting clauses (the Lords Spiritual and Temporal), the State Opening (where the Commons are summoned to the “House of Peers”), and the like will have to change, but a House of Lords without peers may not quite stretch embarrassment enough to force a change. Also, any need for a change only becomes acute at the end of the transitional phase, which is more than a decade away.
Dear Baronness,
Following the recent comment of a former participant I strongly disagree with a new name for the House of the Lords for the sake of the Monarchical tradition. If lords are to be appointed,anew their legislation process has not to be reviewed and the connotation annexed to the label of “review” seems to be irrelevant.This idea of renaming the House of Lords is a new argument for the Lords to fight for their rights of not being an elected body but an appointed one. And I am sure with the resisitence power of the House fo Lords , the idea summoned of a current elected body of lords is deemed to be rejected.
Regarding the various names attributed to the Lords in the House of Lords,I feel and you will agree with me dear Baronness that the previous participant should note that the House of Lords is made up of Peers of the Realm subdivided into two main groups: The Lords spiritual comprising of the representatives of the church of England and the Lords Temporal, made up of the Hereditary peers and life peers).From this analogy, one can deduce that lords are peers and peers are lords. There is no difference in their names as they are deemed to carry the same function in the House of Lords.
God Bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE
So much for democracy.
As I said on Lord Soley’s post, the name should stay as it is, even if the contents of the ghastly Bill is adopted. A BBC item on reform actually reported that it has been decided to keep the name as it is, presumably misinterpreting the use of “House of Lords” throughout the document. The original “Draft Bill” said the name would not be discussed as part of debate on reform to avoid it becoming a distraction.
Anyway, even if they must destroy our constitutional arrangements, at least let’s keep a little bit of history. There’s no reason why it can’t be called the House of Lords even if it doesn’t contain any Lords, just as people are appointed to the Order of the British Empire even though there is no empire. The name refers to the origin, in the latter case because the Order was instituted at the time there was an Empire. In the case of the upper house, schoolchildren could one day be taught that it is so named because it used to contain Lords, back in the old days before they had elections. Let’s be proud of our history for once – unlike many countries of the world, we actually have a history from which to derive our names, rather than making everything up as we go along.
Various timeframe pressures are increasing in both importance and urgency, for all Countries; we need to Survive, and we do not more Time-Wasters but fewer;
so one improvement we need is to become Clearer much more ‘up-frontly’
(instance, quit calling such madnesses as ethnic-persecution-and-genocide, “ethnic cleansing”).
We no longer have time to waste ‘teaching’ our children, or any of our adults, that such unrepresentative, even false, terms as “House of Lords” require us to fully comprehend and to have learned parrot-fashion
its long history.
What we all need to be doing is enabling ourselves and each other to perform active democratic governance at all levels, in nthis present and improvingly into whatever Future our Human Race may have.
The ‘Upper’ House now has to be NOT a conservative-club maintaining and increasing the Wealths and Powers of Aristocracy, Landlords, Governance classes, and Business-Lords and their Lobbyist-‘communities’;
but it must be improving as a Governance Checks and Balances House made up from both Workplace and Lifeplace Experts.
“Lords” in no way identifies with that Need and Purpose, neither historically nor currently
(nor I fear forwardly as yet –
but here I am unable to keep pace with all the various new wordings being put forward
so it is possible that some body or Body is getting it Right at last
but where is the lateral and multi-way democratic communication hereto ?
Not in any media I have yet discovered).
Well said Jonathan.At least someone somewhere in this world is throughly confident about the historical background of the House of Lords. So many irrelevant point of views in this blog regarding this related subject. Thank you.I hope Lord of Norton, takes note of the two opponents of the changing of the names of the House of Lords.
Two people at least on this earth think that British Monarchy should prevail it its traditional issues. I am sure that Lord Norton is giving us both credit to our intelligent thoughts.
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Well said Jonathan. I am sure her Majesty would be pleased . We are the only one here to think that monarchical traditions should remain regarding the House of Lords for the sake of the Monarchy. Thanking you warmly for showing your balanced arguements to the chat room.We should both pay tribute to those who are allowing us to express our views here, on this blog and to state that traditions should remain.Hope her Majesty read our comments.I am sure she does.
Dear lord Norton,
I second the previous participantJonathan’s comments which shows the urge of the traditional values to be kept and the House of Lords is one of them. Please do not vote for an elected body of Lords.Be free to forward petitions and put any referendum on line for participants to vote for an appointed body of lords.
Thanking you beforehand
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
The poster above, Fourre, is a prime example of why this House of Lords, as it is, has to go. Clearly it maddens the populous as we all can see as we squirm in embarassment.
This uninformed lady speaks of ‘Lords’ not wanting to patronise ‘Lord-Commoners’ and how the Queen is on her side, as well as her love for Diana, and dislike of Camilla, leaves many cold in dismay. Surely she is at least aware that the Lords are, in the main, all Lord Commoners. In fact the next queen was born a commoner.
Here is an example of how the dim witted are exploited in this country. And what a tradegy it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvx3o48Rc1U&feature=g-vrec
God elevate the UK and its citizens and relieve us of the simple minded.
Lord Norton: I would have thought that a name change to Senate in 2025 would be the most reasonable option …
Are you sure about the possibility of having more than 8 ministerial appointments in there at any one time? I was under the impression that these members would be at a fixed and capped number (whether remaining as ministers or not), with their membership expiring at the end of the parliament???
Again, the BBC is today implying that the name will remain the House of Lords:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18759639
“No more Lords and Baronesses – The chamber would still be called the House of Lords but members would not have the title “Lord”. Parliament to choose a new name for members.”
Have the BBC got the wrong end of the stick?
Here is the reason this place is becoming more like Ascot Ladies day by the minute. And who would want to go there? Won’t be long before this place will have its Ladies posing in skin shots for the papers akin to the idiots in the lower House.
The Guardian says it is a House of sleaze and if you pay Labour £1 million plus you too can sit and take the tax payers money without having to let the inland revunue know you’ve got it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/29/weekend7.comment
This is part of the reason we need to be rid of this bunch post haste, they are not there because they are an asset to the country, they are their simply to curry favour one way or the other.
And why do those who are worth their weight in that place want to be in there with such a creepy bunch of hngers on? What is it you gain from this?
Lord Norton,
How about the Large Room of Legal Editors. Perhaps with a subtext also as in — The Large Room of Legal Editors (who though elected are not equal to the House at all, at all — full stop!!!)
Dear Maud
I am glad to learn that the Queen is on my side regarding the traditional position of the House of Lords.You are right to point out that the next Queen is a commoner . However I am deemed to say that Queens are not Lords but traditional Lords are descendants of the Queen.The traditional House of Lords itself is built on the background of the Monarchy.If we come back to the history of the House of Lords, its existence has been contested in the 17th Century by the Commoners. The House of Lords has indeed resisted and is still here, thanks God.So through such analogy Maud, one can deduce that lords can never be commoners nor the other way around.If history can speak now, it will voice out her opinion to let unchanged the House of Lords for the sake of the its attachment to the Monarchy.
God save the Queen. God bless the United kingdom
Sealed with a kind thought
Nazma FOURRE
@Fourre:
I am assuming you live subjugated by some kind of Lord. And to write on this blog you have to be granted permission to do so. And my reason for belieivng this may be so, is, no one could enjoy such an imposition on their freedom unless they had no idea what freedom is. Only someone who had to live confined under the rule of another could see that as an acceptable way to survive. They would have nothng else to compare it to. And to offer it up as a way ahead for a modern nation is, quite frankly, preposterous.
Perhaps the Lord in question is overseeing what it is you have to say, and would be deeply unhappy should you deviate from the given premis.
Nazma FOURRE wrote: “. . . traditional Lords are descendants of the Queen.”
Traditional Lords are not necessarily descendants of the Queen. HM may refer to them as “beloved cousin” in a Summons, but the familial link ends there quite often. Also:’descendants’ isn’t the correct word to use, really. ‘Descendants’ implies that these ‘traditional Lords’ you speak of are, either directly or indirectly, the Queen’s offspring.
At this point I, too, digress. As much as I adore the tradition that is intrinsic to the House of Lords, it doesn’t seem right to keep the name if the House – as you said, Lord Norton – potentially contains no Lords (in fact, I think it would be quite insulting). Even for the sake of convenience and/or appeasement.
Personally, I like Maude Elwes’ recommendation – “House of Appointees.”
(I apologise for my delayed comment; I’ve only recently discovered this site and find this post particularly interesting)
The house of brown noses would be more appropriate.
Dear Paulet
Any cousin coming from the Monarchical heritage, is proned to be related to his or her roots and can be regarded in that way as being descendant of the Queen.From that point of view, I don’t think that the traditional lords has seen the world before her Majesty.So from this analogy they descend from her Majesty and can be regarded as descendants.
House of appointees, implies that they would continue to be appointed and their status is to remain unmodified. It would just be like for example “White hat” and “the hat is white” which means exactly the same thing. law. Lords are appointed though the words appointees are not included.
That would be pure nonsense to name the house as being house of appointees !!!It would be just like changing a law for the same law but formulated in a different way.
In that case , it is better to name the house of the lords as it is.
I respect your agreement to the term “house of appointees” as everybody is free of his choice and expression. You have expressed yours and I,mine.
God save the Queen. God Bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
This post is really funny!
This poster giving lessens in grammar is hilarious. ROTFWL.
Maude ELWES,
I am so happy to learn that I have the blessings of the Lords to be on this blog and I thank you for having brought this little secret to my attention, and to share this “great news” with me.
I note that my personality seems to be of a high interest to you enough to make you listen in the corridors of the House of Lords regarding the blessings of the Lords concerning my presence on this blog, unless you might know some of them personally to have such pertinent information.
At last your daily strolls to parliament have not been vainless as you come out with confidential information .
I am quite amused that you like so much my comments that you cannot help fishing for information regarding my presence of this blog.I admit your vainless effort to counterargue my arguements.It shows that my comments are not “utter nonsense” and that they can be argued.
I hope you could bring to the attention of the Lords that I am fond of them and that I shall continue as you can deduce, to defend them from any unfair criticism on this blog, , as they are and will remain the greatest treasured gift of the British parliament., be it at your pleasure or not.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
@Fourre:
Likewise, I am so happy to know you find my interrogation noteworthy and that clearly it gets your goat.
I’m sure the blessings of the Lords are with you as they love back slapping and floor grovelling praise regardeless of their obvious faults. And, like you, I also feel sure there is no way you will be brought to task for reducing this blog to the ridiculous level you plan to do.
It is proof that history always repeats itself. Vanity is the ruin of all great men. Even the great Ceasar’s fell in fits of overwhelming love for themselves. And so they desperatly need a blessing voice like yours to continue to indoctrinate the nation with your loving subserviance and enthusiasm for dynastic rule. Even though you are blind to the fact it keeps you directly and indirectly subjugated.
This is exactly what brought down the European blog in 2008. And they, likewise, tried to ignore it for identical reasons. I have no doubt, the same situation will repeat itself here. Sadly.
Maud Elwes
Speaking about vanity, I would tend to think that I should return this compliment to your basket where it fits and belongs.
I am sure one day , some day,your comments will have the blessings of the lords as I shall tend to think that there is room for improvement for your comments to reach the required level, by its relevancy .
This blog has always been a high levelled blog, legislated by its intellectual monitors and I don’t think that praising the lords for their merits would make this blog go down. You must be misleaded somehow in confusing facts with bitter illusions.
I shall always be around, be it at your pleasure or not, knowingly I am here to debate in an intelligent and ,concise way with other intelligent participants and with my “blessed lords” in sharing common ideas and views.
Please don’t feel obliged to comment on my comments.if they are irritating your passion.
Thankyou
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE