So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Who is Catherine Princess of Wales?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

Sure, we believe you. Lol

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

If we go by UK polls, which is what matters, Princess Anne is winning: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11631215/Princess-Anne-popular-member-Royal-Family-new-poll-finds.html

It will be interesting to see what happens when Princess Anne dies
Also Charles is incredibly old, he will die in a decade or so

Why is he having such a huge corporation party? What a ridiculous expense to go through. Sounds more like a worship service!

I admire Harry for his bravery in stepping out of the snake pit
I do not admire Kate, she comes across as boring, snobbish even. Her kind of woman was the ideal of my grandmother’s generation. A woman needed to be a man’s shadow. Not a person who had achievements on her own merit.

I do see that Harry obviously did not make his decision to leave lightly. The press was aweful and stepped over the line to outright atrocious
But at the same time the BRF needed to protect Andrew and every article about MM wearing wrong color nail polish was an article not about Andrew

There is a massive public relations firm behind all of this. I am sure everyone knows that by now

So I am happy to let the Brits play this game and it is slightly amusing and at the same time painful to watch

Then again, all talk, any talk about them, whether good or bad keeps the monarchy alive

My impression of the British as a people has gone down. You should be in support of PH doing with his life what he wishes
Start eyeballing the not so interesting W&K and write stories about the antics of their kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

Sure, we believe you. Lol

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

If we go by UK polls, which is what matters, Princess Anne is winning: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11631215/Princess-Anne-popular-member-Royal-Family-new-poll-finds.html

It will be interesting to see what happens when Princess Anne dies
Also Charles is incredibly old, he will die in a decade or so

Why is he having such a huge corporation party? What a ridiculous expense to go through. Sounds more like a worship service!

I admire Harry for his bravery in stepping out of the snake pit
I do not admire Kate, she comes across as boring, snobbish even. Her kind of woman was the ideal of my grandmother’s generation. A woman needed to be a man’s shadow. Not a person who had achievements on her own merit.

I do see that Harry obviously did not make his decision to leave lightly. The press was aweful and stepped over the line to outright atrocious
But at the same time the BRF needed to protect Andrew and every article about MM wearing wrong color nail polish was an article not about Andrew

There is a massive public relations firm behind all of this. I am sure everyone knows that by now

So I am happy to let the Brits play this game and it is slightly amusing and at the same time painful to watch

Then again, all talk, any talk about them, whether good or bad keeps the monarchy alive

My impression of the British as a people has gone down. You should be in support of PH doing with his life what he wishes
Start eyeballing the not so interesting W&K and write stories about the antics of their kids

You need to get a more recent poll, this is from January and since then the markles have tanked lower than Andrew! They are both pathetic and sad, so I actually hope they do attend, just to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

I didn't post the poll to show anything about you know who. We know how the Brits feel about them.

I mainly posted it show that plenty of the royals are still 'popular'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

Sure, we believe you. Lol

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

If we go by UK polls, which is what matters, Princess Anne is winning: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11631215/Princess-Anne-popular-member-Royal-Family-new-poll-finds.html

It will be interesting to see what happens when Princess Anne dies
Also Charles is incredibly old, he will die in a decade or so

Why is he having such a huge corporation party? What a ridiculous expense to go through. Sounds more like a worship service!

I admire Harry for his bravery in stepping out of the snake pit
I do not admire Kate, she comes across as boring, snobbish even. Her kind of woman was the ideal of my grandmother’s generation. A woman needed to be a man’s shadow. Not a person who had achievements on her own merit.

I do see that Harry obviously did not make his decision to leave lightly. The press was aweful and stepped over the line to outright atrocious
But at the same time the BRF needed to protect Andrew and every article about MM wearing wrong color nail polish was an article not about Andrew

There is a massive public relations firm behind all of this. I am sure everyone knows that by now

So I am happy to let the Brits play this game and it is slightly amusing and at the same time painful to watch

Then again, all talk, any talk about them, whether good or bad keeps the monarchy alive

My impression of the British as a people has gone down. You should be in support of PH doing with his life what he wishes
Start eyeballing the not so interesting W&K and write stories about the antics of their kids

You need to get a more recent poll, this is from January and since then the markles have tanked lower than Andrew! They are both pathetic and sad, so I actually hope they do attend, just to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

She will have to do her curtsy, and I’m sure she’ll do a perfect one with a giant grin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

OOF, you sound angry. You're bound to blow a gasket over BS. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

Sure, we believe you. Lol

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

+1

There's a reason why the Queen's reign was popular and it's partly because the Queen conducted herself very well and was neither weak nor self-indulgent. (Although I wouldn't have blamed her if she had divorced Philip - he was cheating on her and he was jealous of her position, and she put up with it in part because she didn't want the scandal of divorce.)

It's hard to understand how to maintain a monarchy these days. It's always been kind of toxic, and they'll always have a weird relationship with the Press, and they have lost clout steadily since WWII. Charles being kind of weak and annoying doesn't help. Being married to his mistress doesn't help either. Oh well.[/quote]
Camilla wouldn't be the first mistress to become QOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

OOF, you sound angry. You're bound to blow a gasket over BS. Calm down.

DP, but you sound like the type who mansplains to women about what emotions they should have or that they should smile. Or, in case you're the other sex, my narcissistic grandmother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

I am surprised that a school like Eton was not able to address his learning
I am sure that with all the resources the school has, they would have been able to address the needs of every kid that was not performing to their potential
I have had some phenomenal teachers and was never ever in a private school

[Anonymous]

Charles will be whatever kind of King Camilla tells him to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

Please share with us how Prince Andrew is deserving of your taxes.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone remember what Charles said when Diana confronted him about Camilla? About whether she seriously expected him to be the only PoW in history without a mistress? Let’s see if the new generation breaks the tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

OOF, you sound angry. You're bound to blow a gasket over BS. Calm down.

DP, but you sound like the type who mansplains to women about what emotions they should have or that they should smile. Or, in case you're the other sex, my narcissistic grandmother.

Yep, you're angry. Too bad about your gramps. No wonder you're angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember what Charles said when Diana confronted him about Camilla? About whether she seriously expected him to be the only PoW in history without a mistress? Let’s see if the new generation breaks the tradition.

Good ol’ Wills already kept that tradition. 😆😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember what Charles said when Diana confronted him about Camilla? About whether she seriously expected him to be the only PoW in history without a mistress? Let’s see if the new generation breaks the tradition.

Good ol’ Wills already kept that tradition. 😆😆

Yeaaah I've wondered for a while if he cheats. Kate wasn't his first pick to begin with. She really only got him because she waited for ten years while he repeatedly dumped her and went off on frat-boy trips to sleep with girls his friends procured for him. Meanwhile, she had to not step a toe out of line while he considered his options, and she went and stalked him to polo matches despite being allergic to horses.