Jump to content

User:Amadalvarez/sandbox2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In favour of a republic

  • More democratic: Republicans argue that monarchy devalues a parliamentary system insofar monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.[1]

    It is further argued that monarchy contradicts democracy insofar it denies the people a basic right: Republicans believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a better nation.[2][3]

  • Fairer and less elitist; does not demand deference: Republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. It is argued that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects "in their place".[4] Such a system, they assert, does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a "modern nation". Some claim that maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.[3] Further, republicans argue that "the people", not the members of one family, should be sovereign.[3]
  • Based on merit and arouses aspiration: The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.

    Further, republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include Elizabeth II's honorary military positions as colonel-in-chief, irrespective of her military experience. There is debate over the roles which the members of the monarchy have played in the military; many doubt that members of the Royal Family have served on the front line on the same basis as other members of the Armed Forces. Examples here include Prince Andrew, whose presence during the Falklands War was later criticised by the commander of the British Naval Force who stated that "special measures" had to be taken to ensure that the prince did not lose his life.[5] It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise than military service.[6]

  • Compatible with a multiracial and multicultural society: Some republicans have argued that the monarchy of the United Kingdom is incompatible with the multiracial and multicultural British society of the 21st century, as there have only been, and likely will only ever be, white monarchs. Thus, a monarchy would not be able to provide the same levels of opportunity as a republic in regards to enabling British citizens irrespective of their background to become the UK head of state.[7]
  • Does not impose a state religion: The Church of England is an established church, and the British Sovereign is the titular Supreme Governor. The church is tax exempt and provides the House of Lords in Parliament with 26 unelected bishops as its representatives. Republicans argue that a monarch who is the head of an established church in an increasingly secular and multicultural society reinforces the notion of hereditary privilege based on the divine right of kings.[citation needed] On the royal coat of arms is the motto in French: Dieu et mon droit (God and my right). The movement to end the Church of England's status as the state church of the United Kingdom is known as disestablishmentarianism. A country which does not have a state religion is known as a secular state.
  • Does less harm to those who would be monarchs: Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.[8]
  • Favours accountability and impartiality: Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken and acted in ways that have widely been interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of the black spider memos, which were released following freedom of information litigation, regarding how people achieve their positions.[9][10][11]
  • Costs less: Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill and lost rental income from palaces and state-owned land) of the monarchy are £345 million per annum.[12] The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in the UK around 62p a year.[13] Republicans also argue that the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Although monarchists argue that this does not take into account the "hereditary revenues" which generated £190.8 million for the treasury in 2007–2008, the advocacy group Republic assert that the Crown Estate, from which these revenues are derived, is national and State property, and that the monarch cannot surrender what they have never owned.[14] The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4 million, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland.[14]
  • Would make the country not appear "backward": Republicans argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, with a history linked to colonialism and slavery, and whilst the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.[15][16][17]

In favour of a constitutional monarchy

  • Not inherently undemocratic: Opponents of the republican movement argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen.
  • Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual: The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue[18] that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and[19] confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch's coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture.[20] Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.
  • Provides a focal point for unity and tradition: Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.[21]

    British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor justifies monarchy on the grounds that it provides for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the head of government, and thus ensures that the highest representative of the country, at home and internationally, does not represent a particular political party, but all people.[22]

    According to Bogdanor, monarchies can play a helpful unifying role in a multinational state, noting that "In Belgium, it is sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon" and that the British sovereign can belong to all of the UK's constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), without belonging to any particular one of them.[22]

  • Helps avoid extreme politics: British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney argues that European constitutional monarchies "have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics"—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—"in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians" by representing entrenched customs and traditions.[23] Feeny notes that

    European monarchies – such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British – have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world.[23]

  • Does not cost more than a republic would: Some argue that if there were a republic, the costs incurred in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill").[24][25] However, the figure of 69p per person has been criticised for having been calculated by dividing the overall figure by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.[26]
  • Arose from disillusionment with a failed republic: Some people[who?] point out that a republican government under the Commonwealth of England and then the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649.[27] Yet by February 1657 some people[who?] argued that Cromwell should assume the Crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent.[28] He declined and within three years of his death the Commonwealth had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of James II and VII, Parliament and others, such as John Locke[29] argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers.

In favour of a republic

  • More democratic: Republicans argue that monarchy devalues a parliamentary system insofar monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.[1]

    It is further argued that monarchy contradicts democracy insofar it denies the people a basic right: Republicans believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a better nation.[30][3]

  • Fairer and less elitist; does not demand deference: Republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. It is argued that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects "in their place".[31] Such a system, they assert, does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a "modern nation". Some claim that maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.[3] Further, republicans argue that "the people", not the members of one family, should be sovereign.[3]
  • Based on merit and arouses aspiration: The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.

    Further, republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include Elizabeth II's honorary military positions as colonel-in-chief, irrespective of her military experience. There is debate over the roles which the members of the monarchy have played in the military; many doubt that members of the Royal Family have served on the front line on the same basis as other members of the Armed Forces. Examples here include Prince Andrew, whose presence during the Falklands War was later criticised by the commander of the British Naval Force who stated that "special measures" had to be taken to ensure that the prince did not lose his life.[32] It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise than military service.[33]

  • Compatible with a multiracial and multicultural society: Some republicans have argued that the monarchy of the United Kingdom is incompatible with the multiracial and multicultural British society of the 21st century, as there have only been, and likely will only ever be, white monarchs. Thus, a monarchy would not be able to provide the same levels of opportunity as a republic in regards to enabling British citizens irrespective of their background to become the UK head of state.[34]
  • Does not impose a state religion: The Church of England is an established church, and the British Sovereign is the titular Supreme Governor. The church is tax exempt and provides the House of Lords in Parliament with 26 unelected bishops as its representatives. Republicans argue that a monarch who is the head of an established church in an increasingly secular and multicultural society reinforces the notion of hereditary privilege based on the divine right of kings.[citation needed] On the royal coat of arms is the motto in French: Dieu et mon droit (God and my right). The movement to end the Church of England's status as the state church of the United Kingdom is known as disestablishmentarianism. A country which does not have a state religion is known as a secular state.
  • Does less harm to those who would be monarchs: Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.[35]
  • Favours accountability and impartiality: Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken and acted in ways that have widely been interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of the black spider memos, which were released following freedom of information litigation, regarding how people achieve their positions.[9][36][37]
  • Costs less: Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill and lost rental income from palaces and state-owned land) of the monarchy are £345 million per annum.[38] The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in the UK around 62p a year.[13] Republicans also argue that the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Although monarchists argue that this does not take into account the "hereditary revenues" which generated £190.8 million for the treasury in 2007–2008, the advocacy group Republic assert that the Crown Estate, from which these revenues are derived, is national and State property, and that the monarch cannot surrender what they have never owned.[14] The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4 million, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland.[14]
  • Would make the country not appear "backward": Republicans argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, with a history linked to colonialism and slavery, and whilst the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.[39][40][41]

In favour of a constitutional monarchy

  • Not inherently undemocratic: Opponents of the republican movement argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen.
  • Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual: The British constitutional system sets limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue[42] that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and[43] confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch's coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture.[44] Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seizure and the right to protest.
  • Provides a focal point for unity and tradition: Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.[45]

    British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor justifies monarchy on the grounds that it provides for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the head of government, and thus ensures that the highest representative of the country, at home and internationally, does not represent a particular political party, but all people.[22]

    According to Bogdanor, monarchies can play a helpful unifying role in a multinational state, noting that "In Belgium, it is sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon" and that the British sovereign can belong to all of the UK's constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), without belonging to any particular one of them.[22]

  • Helps avoid extreme politics: British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney argues that European constitutional monarchies "have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics"—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—"in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians" by representing entrenched customs and traditions.[23] Feeny notes that

    European monarchies – such as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British – have ruled over countries that are among the most stable, prosperous, and free in the world.[23]

  • Does not cost more than a republic would: Some argue that if there were a republic, the costs incurred in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill").[46][47] However, the figure of 69p per person has been criticised for having been calculated by dividing the overall figure by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.[48]
  • Arose from disillusionment with a failed republic: Some people[who?] point out that a republican government under the Commonwealth of England and then the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649.[49] Yet by February 1657 some people[who?] argued that Cromwell should assume the Crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent.[50] He declined and within three years of his death the Commonwealth had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of James II and VII, Parliament and others, such as John Locke[51] argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b "What we want". Republic. Archived from the original on 19 April 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  2. ^ Hames, Tim; Leonard, Mark (1998). Modernising the Monarchy. London, UK: Demos. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-898309-74-1.
  3. ^ a b c d e f "The case for a republic". Republic. Archived from the original on 17 May 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  4. ^ Bertram, Christopher (2004). Rousseau and The Social Contract. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook. London, UK: Routledge. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-41520-198-8.
  5. ^ Moreton, Cole (17 March 2012). "Falkland Islands: Britain 'would lose' if Argentina decides to invade now". The Daily Telegraph. London, UK. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  6. ^ "Prince Charles awarded highest rank in all three armed forces". The Daily Telegraph. 28 March 2017. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  7. ^ "The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present". Benjamin T. Jones. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  8. ^ Hari, Johann (2002). "Chapter One". God Save the Queen?. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books. ISBN 978-1-84046-401-6. Archived from the original on 17 March 2006 – via JohannHari.com.
  9. ^ a b "Charles furore grows with Tibet missive". World Tibet Network News. 26 September 2002. Archived from the original on 28 September 2006. Retrieved 1 September 2006.
  10. ^ "Palace defends prince's letters". BBC News. 25 September 2002.
  11. ^ Assinder, Nick (9 February 2000). "Royals dragged into Haider row". BBC News.
  12. ^ "Royal finances". Republic. 30 December 2012. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  13. ^ a b Allen, Nick (14 June 2008). "Britain should get rid of the monarchy, says UN". The Daily Telegraph. London, UK. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 28 September 2008.
  14. ^ a b c d "Royal Finances". Republic. Archived from the original on 4 July 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  15. ^ Blain, Neil; O'Donnell, Hugh (2003). Media, Monarchy and Power. Intellect Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-84150-043-0.
  16. ^ Long, Phil; Palmer, Nicola J. (2007). Royal Tourism: Excursions Around Monarchy. Channel View Publications. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1-84541-080-3.
  17. ^ "Five ways the monarchy has benefited from colonialism and slavery".
  18. ^ "Constitutional Monarchy". British Monarchist League. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  19. ^ "Constitutional Matters". The Baronage Press Ltd. 1995. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  20. ^ Maer, Lucinda; Gay, Oonagh (5 October 2009). "The Bill of Rights 1689" (PDF). House of Commons Library. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-29. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  21. ^ Bogdanor, Vernon (1997). "Chapter 11". The Monarchy and the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19829-334-7.
  22. ^ a b c d Bogdanor, Vernon (6 December 2000). "The Guardian has got it wrong". The Guardian.
  23. ^ a b c d Feeney, Matthew (July 25, 2013). "The Benefits of Monarchy". Reason magazine.
  24. ^ "The cost of the British Monarchy? A mere 69 pence per person". Toronto Star. 6 July 2011. Archived from the original on 24 October 2012.
  25. ^ The Press Secretary to the Queen (29 June 2009). "Head of State Expenditure". The British Monarchy. Archived from the original on 14 May 2010. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  26. ^ "Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m". BBC News. 29 June 2009. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  27. ^ Plant, David (17 September 2008). "The Rump Parliament". British Civil Wars and Commonwealth. Archived from the original on 2008-12-02. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  28. ^ Plant, David (18 May 2007). "Biography of Oliver Cromwell". British Civil Wars and Commonwealth. Archived from the original on 2009-02-05. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  29. ^ Powell, Jim (August 1996). "John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property". The Freeman Online. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  30. ^ Hames, Tim; Leonard, Mark (1998). Modernising the Monarchy. London, UK: Demos. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-898309-74-1.
  31. ^ Bertram, Christopher (2004). Rousseau and The Social Contract. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook. London, UK: Routledge. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-41520-198-8.
  32. ^ Moreton, Cole (17 March 2012). "Falkland Islands: Britain 'would lose' if Argentina decides to invade now". The Daily Telegraph. London, UK. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  33. ^ "Prince Charles awarded highest rank in all three armed forces". The Daily Telegraph. 28 March 2017. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
  34. ^ "The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present". Benjamin T. Jones. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  35. ^ Hari, Johann (2002). "Chapter One". God Save the Queen?. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books. ISBN 978-1-84046-401-6. Archived from the original on 17 March 2006 – via JohannHari.com.
  36. ^ "Palace defends prince's letters". BBC News. 25 September 2002.
  37. ^ Assinder, Nick (9 February 2000). "Royals dragged into Haider row". BBC News.
  38. ^ "Royal finances". Republic. 30 December 2012. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  39. ^ Blain, Neil; O'Donnell, Hugh (2003). Media, Monarchy and Power. Intellect Books. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-84150-043-0.
  40. ^ Long, Phil; Palmer, Nicola J. (2007). Royal Tourism: Excursions Around Monarchy. Channel View Publications. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1-84541-080-3.
  41. ^ "Five ways the monarchy has benefited from colonialism and slavery".
  42. ^ "Constitutional Monarchy". British Monarchist League. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  43. ^ "Constitutional Matters". The Baronage Press Ltd. 1995. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  44. ^ Maer, Lucinda; Gay, Oonagh (5 October 2009). "The Bill of Rights 1689" (PDF). House of Commons Library. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-29. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  45. ^ Bogdanor, Vernon (1997). "Chapter 11". The Monarchy and the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19829-334-7.
  46. ^ "The cost of the British Monarchy? A mere 69 pence per person". Toronto Star. 6 July 2011. Archived from the original on 24 October 2012.
  47. ^ The Press Secretary to the Queen (29 June 2009). "Head of State Expenditure". The British Monarchy. Archived from the original on 14 May 2010. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  48. ^ "Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m". BBC News. 29 June 2009. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  49. ^ Plant, David (17 September 2008). "The Rump Parliament". British Civil Wars and Commonwealth. Archived from the original on 2008-12-02. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  50. ^ Plant, David (18 May 2007). "Biography of Oliver Cromwell". British Civil Wars and Commonwealth. Archived from the original on 2009-02-05. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  51. ^ Powell, Jim (August 1996). "John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property". The Freeman Online. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amadalvarez/sandbox2&oldid=1093930676"