Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The Anglo-Irish and the Great War

Recommended Posts

museumtom

There are 6 in 1922, most died after discharge or are listed on a memorial for that year.

 Cheers.

 Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tom - Thanks. Very interesting. ....what is the criteria? How would you define the 29,387?

 

Born

Resided

Enlisted

Buried

All of the above?

 

I assume this does not include me born in England (for example) of Irish parents. 

 

I note that Gallipoli has three of the worst 20 dates for Irish fatalities. MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
museumtom

 

21 minutes ago, QGE said:

Born

Resided

Enlisted

Buried

 

Any of the above.

 29,387 is the total when dupliciates are removed (a man may be recorded in more than one county).

21 minutes ago, QGE said:

 

I assume this does not include me born in England (for example) of Irish parents. 

Certainly it does include them.

Edited by museumtom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
depaor01

Here is a document that I understand I can post as:

  • I bought it
  • It is crown copyright
  • It was published in 1916 so copyright expired in 1966.

Happy to be corrected and will remove if I'm wrong.

 

Anyway this was published in January 1916, three months before the Easter Rising and gives a good benchmark for enlistment later in the war

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ledden028.jpg

Ledden029.jpg

Ledden030.jpg

Ledden031.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, voltaire60 said:

 

     Martin-as you will have it to hand-Just what was the percentage loss to Ireland (26 and 6 county versions) compared to other parts of the UK??  Most interested in your bits about "slum" Irish  and "home" Irish.

   

 

It depends on how one defines "Irishman". I think this is an intractable question as no-one can agree on the definition. Those born, resided and enlisted in Ireland are easy to define. Less so those who were second and third generation born in England Scotland and Wales as part of the gigantic Irish diaspora.

 

It is possible to make informed assumptions based on the recorded peak Irish population in England Scotland and Wales* and assume their communities grew at similar pace as the indigenous population, and assume that their menfolk volunteered in 1914-15 and were conscripted in 1916-1918 in equal proportions to the rest of the English, Scottish and Welsh population. This is probably the easiest approach as conscription was based on normal residence rather than birthplace, so while the residents of Ireland were exempted, an Irish born man 'normally resident' in England (for example) was not exempt conscription. Unless a man emigrated before Jan 1916, it would have been very difficult to avoid conscription. 

 

* Peak Irish-born in England & Wales was 601,634 in 1861 which represented 3.00% of the English & Welsh population. Every year thereafter the recorded number of Irish born living in England & Wales declined in absolute numbers as well as % of the English & Welsh population. If we assume they didn't subsequently emigrate and their English & Welsh born offspring remained in England and Wales, it is a fair assumption that around 3% of the English & Welsh population in 1914 still had some direct Irish heritage. By 1911 (the last Census before the War) the Irish-born resident in England & Wales had dwindled to 375,325 or 1.04% of the population. If we assume that 3% still had some direct connection. it would suggest a figure of 1,081,480 residents of England & Wales who had Irish blood. Netting off the 375,325 known to have been born in Ireland, would leave 706,155 residents of England & Wales whose parents or grandparents were born in Ireland but were themselves born in England or Wales. Put another way, for every Irish born resident of England or Wales there were probably two who were born in England or Wales of Irish parents or grandparents. 

 

We can do the same with the Scottish Census data which also peaked in 1861 at 6.66% of the Population and do a similar calculation etc. 

 

There is a thread somewhere with my calculations.  using SMEBE stats (page 363) and applying 3% and 6.66% to the English and Welsh  and the Scottish recruiting figures, we get 120,184 'Irishmen' recruited in England, 8,188 in Wales and 37,137 in Scotland.Total 165,509 men recruited in England Scotland and Wales of Irish heritage. Add to this the 134,202 enlisted in Ireland gets us to 299,711. To this figure we need to add the Irishmen already serving in the Army in 1914 (and the Reserves etc). 

 

add recorded Irish born from the 1913 GARBA:  20,780 Regulars, 17,804 Regular Reservists, 12,462 Special Reservists and about 2,000 'Irish' TF (London Irish, Liverpool Irish)  - sub total 53,046

 

Grand total 352,757. 

 

Assuming around 11% - 12% died (national average), would imply around 38,800  - 42,300 deaths of Irish born or descended from Irish born within one or two generations. 

 

A more complex calc could be done adjusting for Australia, NZ, Canada forces etc. The numbers above will shift slightly depending on the strength of the various assumptions. I would think a figure around 40,000 would be a reasonable estimate for the 'Irish' who died. The implications are that Tom's rather excellent work might be an underestimate. I cant think of a different way of trying to approximate the numbers served and died who were of Irish birth or Irish heritage.

 

This does not include the 10th Hampshire Regt (10th (Irish) Div) who Bryan Cooper claimed were full of expatriate Irishmen. They weren't. MG

 

Edited with higher Army Reservists figure from "Report on Recruiting in Ireland"

Edited by Guest
miscalculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven Broomfield
15 minutes ago, QGE said:

 

It depends on how one defines "Irishman". I think this is an intractable question as no-one can agree on the definition. Those born, resided and enlisted in Ireland are easy to define. Less so those who were second and third generation born in England Scotland and Wales as part of the gigantic Irish diaspora.

 

 

As I am sure you know, the Duke of Wellington (born in Ireland) commented, when described as 'Irish' that being born in a stable did not make one a horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

As I am sure you know, the Duke of Wellington (born in Ireland) commented, when described as 'Irish' that being born in a stable did not make one a horse.

 Indeed. I have heard variations of this quote. I understand that this comment was made when declining the offer of an Irish peerage which was considered rather low down in the league tables of the House of Lords. 

 

In my family, within three generations we have members born in Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, France, Egypt, India, Ireland, Scotland and just one born in England - an Essex Man to boot...... none have yet been offered a peerage, however if asked what nationality they are, all would respond 'English'. I would agree with the Duke that nationality is not necessarily defined by place of birth or residence, it is defined by culture in my view.... which is why the 'Irish question' is intractable as the 350,000 men are no longer around to ask them if they believed they were Irish.

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jervis

Martin, 
Can you please reference the authors/journalist (or other) who you say:
(a) propagate the myth of Irish fighting prowess
(b) deny/gloss over the substantial number of English recruits in Irish formations.
 
Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, Jervis said:

Martin, 
Can you please reference the authors/journalist (or other) who you say:
(a) propagate the myth of Irish fighting prowess
(b) deny/gloss over the substantial number of English recruits in Irish formations.
 
Thanks

 

 

I will provide a full list in due course, It will be bookended by Cooper and McGreevy who wrote 100 years apart. .....but by way of starting, here is a clip fro the Roinn an Taoisign (Department of the Taoiseach). 

 

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/State_Commemorations/Irish_Soldiers_in_the_First_World_War.html

 

"About 80,000 enlisted in Ireland in the first 12 months of the war, some half of whom came from Ulster.  The First New Army of 100,000 soldiers, K1, contained the 10th (Irish) Division which was formed in late August, 1914. It had three brigades. One had regiments with bases in all four provinces. The second was based in Ulster and the third was based in the other three provinces.  The 16th (Irish ) Division of the Second New Army was formed in September, 1914. One brigade was from the province of Ulster. The 36th(Ulster) Division was authorised on the 28th October 1914. It was based on the formation and membership of the Ulster Volunteer Force to which a London based artillery unit was added. It contained men from all nine counties of Ulster. Redmond had sought have all Irish regiments organised into a single fighting unit.

Irishmen also joined Irish regiments such as the Irish Guards, the London (Irish), the Tyneside battalions of the Northumberland Fusiliers and the 1st/8th (Irish) Kings Liverpool Regiment. Many also joined other English, Scottish and Welsh regiments, the Royal, Artillery, the Royal Flying Corps, the Medical Corps, the Army Service Corps, and the Royal Navy. Women served as nurses in the Voluntary Aid Detachment in the front line. Emigrants enlisted in the armies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa and United States.....

 

...Many Irish men were serving in British regiments and there were some English, Scots and Welsh in the Irish regiments who had been so assigned because of their Catholic faith."

 

My underlining. Note no mention of the thousands of English troops that propped up the 10th Irish Division. No mention of the 10th (Hampshire Regt) which formed one of the 13 Battalions of this formation or the many hundreds drafted in from the Wiltshire Regt, DCLI, York & Lancsater Regt etc...  When I last looked Hampshire was nowehere near Ireland and did not form any part of Ireland. so the claim that;

 

"One [Brigade] had regiments with bases in all four provinces. The second was based in Ulster and the third was based in the other three provinces"

 

Is wrong. The 5th RIR was made into a Pioneer Battalion and the 10th Hampshires filled its place. Just a small point, whitewashed in this account. The part in bold about English Welsh and Scots Catholics being drafted into Irish Regiments is utter nonsense. There is no mention of the dilution of the Irish Battalions with English recruits and conscripts throughout the war. When the 7th RMF refitted after Gallipoli they took in 498 soldiers from the 3rd Bn Dorsetshire Regiment for example. At least half the Battalion was English.  This was in late 1915. No mention of this or similar systemic propping up of Irish battalions or the recruiting crisis. No mention of the 1st and 2nd Connaught being amalgamated  - the only regular Battalions to have been put through this ignominy. etc etc... The above is simply distorted history that tries to explain the presence of English Scots and Welsh in the ranks of the Irish battalions by some fanciful ideas that they were Catholics. A simple trawl of the CWGC and SDGW data shows this to be a false assumption. Incidentally the peak Irish-born population residing in Dorsetshire was 0.53%. in 1861. 

 

I will revert with more examples.  MG

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I will add Tom Johnstone to the list. This is a previous thread that analysis a closely related aspect

 

Link here 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would add John Redmond MP to the list.

 

From another thread: 

 

In the introduction to "The 10th (Irish) Divison at Gallipoli" by Bryan Cooper (formerly of the 5th Bn Connaught Rangers), the Nationalist politician John Redmond argued that the arrival of English Recruits was for some 'unexplained reason a number of English recruits were suddenly sent over to join its ranks. They were quite unnecessary.". Cooper comes to the rescue, explaining that "when these 'Englishmen' joined their battalions, it was found that a large proportion of them were Roman Catholics rejoicing in such names as Dillon, Doyle and Kelly, the sons and grandsons of Irishmen who had settled in England'. Bryan Cooper's book gains more authority and credibility with appreciations by Asquith, Balfour, Sir Edwward Carson as well as John Redmond.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Martin Middlebrook repeats Tom Johnstone's claims about English drafts in Irish regiments allegedly being Catholics.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Phillip Orr in Field of Bones (published in 2006):

 

The core of the [10th (Irish)]  division would be the three infantry brigades, numbered 29th, 30th and 31st in the British army’s register. They came under the command of brigadiers R.J. Cooper, L.J. Nicholl and F.F. Hill. Cooper was a former Irish Guard, Nicholl had served on India’s North-West Frontier, and more recently Hill had commanded troops in Belfast when a confrontation with the Ulster Volunteer Force loomed. Each brigade was, in customary infantry fashion, composed of four battalions, up to 1000 strong. Each battalion drew on the regimental mechanism that served to govern recruiting on a local basis throughout the British Isles, taking on a name and a number allotted to them by such historic Irish regiments as the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, the Royal Munster Fusiliers, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Leinster Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Connaught Rangers and the Royal Irish Rifles. A number of the key men in each battalion were army veterans with experience of service throughout the empire, and it was their specific job to help train the new recruits. Other elements in a typical infantry division were also assembled, including artillery, engineer, medical, veterinary and supply corps units. In due course the Royal Irish Regiment battalion became a ‘pioneer’ unit, charged with such back-breaking duties as digging trenches and building military roads. Their place as a group of infantrymen would be taken by a battalion of the Hampshire Regiment, who, although possessing an English name, had a long connection to Irish soldiering and already contained men from the Irish midlands

 

Orr, Philip. Field of Bones: An Irish Division at Gallipoli (Kindle Locations 284-295). The Lilliput Press. Kindle Edition. 

 

The 10th Bn Hampshire Regt didn't exist before Sep 1914, so how it could have any "long connection to Irish soldiering" is a bit of a mystery. The Regular Battalions of the Hampshire Regt had a minuscule smattering of Irishmen in their ranks. The data is freely available in he 1911 Census and does not support Orr's claim. The 10th Bn Hampshire Regt saw the highest fatal casualties of any unit in the 10th Irish Division and only two men appear to have had any connection with Ireland. 

 

Cooper's fanciful ideas about the Irish connection in the Hampshire regiment have contaminated a number of histories. The 10th Hampshires were originally Army Troops, un-allotted to any Division. It's inclusion in the 10th (Irish) Div was purely random, being one of six un-allocated Battalions in K1. The Battalion lost 230 men killed at Gallipoli. Precisely 2 had any connection with Ireland; something in the region of less than 0.9%. Casting the net wider of the 450 fatalities during the war, only 3 had tangible connections to Ireland. The Irish connection is pure myth.  Incidentally Gallipoli represented just 1% of its service in the War but over 50%f of the 10th Bn's total fatalities during the War. This means that there is an extremely high concentration of data reflecting the origins of the men who initially served in this Battalion. In many ways this further reinforces the confidence of the conclusions one can draw from the data. 

 

Among the 8,003 men listed on the CWGC data for the Hampshire Regt, I can find only 21 men with any connection to Ireland. 0.26%

 

Unsurprisingly the separate history of the 10th Bn Hampshire Regt makes no mention of any Irish connection. Probably because there was no connection. Even including the massive military complexes within Hampshire, the Irish diaspora represented only 2.53% of Hampshire's population at the peak. A cursory glance down the fatal casualty lists reveals an extremely high dominance of men born and resident in Hampshire. One might expect to see any K1 and K2 battalion of a typical line infantry County regiment to reflect the demographics of its local population. 

 

Do I need to go on. It gets quite repetitive....

 

MG

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Pegum
23 hours ago, QGE said:

 Indeed. I have heard variations of this quote. I understand that this comment was made when declining the offer of an Irish peerage which was considered rather low down in the league tables of the House of Lords. 

 

"As I am sure you know, the Duke of Wellington (born in Ireland) commented, when described as 'Irish' that being born in a stable did not make one a horse."

 

In fact, it was Daniel O'Connell who said it about the Duke of Wellington.

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Pegum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The mythology of the Hampshire Irish

 

1911 Census. 1st Bn Hampshire Regt Click

 

687 All ranks enumerated. Place of birth:

 

England.............95% ..... 63% born in Hampshire.

Ireland..................2%

India.....................1%

Scotland...............1%

Wales...................1%

 

There were only 13 recorded as being born in Ireland, 3 were Officers leaving just 10 Rank and File born in Ireland or 1.5%. If there were "long connections with Irish soldiering" they were long gone. The facts don't fit the hyperbole. MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Redmond commenting on the 10th (Irish) Division

 

"No Division in any theatre of the War suffered more severely or showed greater self sacrifices and gallantry ...and for some reason which a civilian can not understand the number of honours and distinctions conferred on the Division has been comparatively small ........ no seasoned or trained troops in the world could have behave with more magnificent steadiness, endurance and gallantry". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jervis

Martin,
Thank you, Your post are interesting reading. The reason why I asked for references/sources is:
I am interested to see what authors/books related to Irish involvement in WW1 stands up to scrutiny. Are there books I have read/intend to read that are historically inaccurate or promote an myth. On the basis of your posts, there is nothing that concerns me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, Jervis said:

Martin,
Thank you, Your post are interesting reading. The reason why I asked for references/sources is:
I am interested to see what authors/books related to Irish involvement in WW1 stands up to scrutiny. Are there books I have read/intend to read that are historically inaccurate or promote an myth. On the basis of your posts, there is nothing that concerns me. 

 

 

The fact that a book might contain a glaring error does not necessarily mean it is not worth reading in my view. I own "Orange Green and Khaki" by Johnstone as well as Field of Bones by Orr. Both are worthwhile reads. It is important (in my view) to understand where the errors are. It does not invalidate the rest of the book(s).

 

For an informed read on the Irish and the Great War I prefer Denman's "Ireland's Unknown Soldiers" (which you seem to have read), Bowman's "Irish Regiments in the Great War (which focuses on discipline and morale), Keith Jeffery's "Ireland and the Great War" and Sandford's "Neither Unionist Nor Nationalist: The 10th (Irish) Division in the Great War". The latter book is the most detailed of the published histories in terms of forensic analysis on the character and make up of the formations - in this instance the 10th Div, although some find it too academic as it is full of stats. Its bibliography is probably the most thorough of all the publications.  

 

You are doubtless familiar with all the standard text on the histories of the Irish Regiments. Some regiments were well served with more than one publication; Drage's "Chindwin to Criccieth" is important for example in the context of recruiting as he was the officer who bluffed his way in Pontefract to walk off with 1,000 men from the York & Lancaster Regt. The RMF have several publications. I am cautious of Jourdain (Connaught Rangers) as a result of reading his correspondence with Aspinall Oglander (himself an RMF man). Jourdain was a man with a mission to get the 5th Connaught Rangers more exposure in the Official History and wanted him to re-write the section on Hill 60. Jourdain's three volume history is scarce. 

 

"Ireland's Great War" by Keith Myers and "Wherever the Firing Line Extends" by Ronan McGreevy are two book that I struggle with. 

 

Separately there are a few articles that are worth reading. 

 

"Nationality in the Irish Infantry Regiments in the First World War" by Nicholas Perry, first published in May 1994

"Irish Soldiers in the British Army 1792-1922: Suborned or Subordinate?" by Peter Karsten first published in 1983 (posted link above)

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Gallipoli 10th (Irish) Div Infantry fatalities where place of birth is recorded (1,626 names of 1,645 or 99% sample))

 

46% Irish born

43% English born

  7% Scots born

  4% Welsh born

  1% Other

 

More non-Irish born than Irish born are commemorated at Gallipoli in this Division.  A stat that few would guess correctly I suspect. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Filsell

To misquote "Sources dear boy, sources"

Your  comment on McGreevy's book caught my eye. In some ways, it seems to me, the book sums up the problem of works on and Irish history and that nation's participation and revived interest in the Great War and the inevitable dependence on works fyou now judge - I think rightly - and question as flawed.

 That said, and noting some questions which I have never followed up in the book,  I found it a fascinating and holding read both on an emotional level and also as a guide to events and places about which I knew little. But then all writing about that period in history in Ireland seems coloured by far more than fact by then onlookers of every persuasion, creed and political standpoint at the time and since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 hours ago, David Filsell said:

To misquote "Sources dear boy, sources"

Your  comment on McGreevy's book caught my eye. In some ways, it seems to me, the book sums up the problem of works on and Irish history and that nation's participation and revived interest in the Great War and the inevitable dependence on works fyou now judge - I think rightly - and question as flawed.

 That said, and noting some questions which I have never followed up in the book,  I found it a fascinating and holding read both on an emotional level and also as a guide to events and places about which I knew little. But then all writing about that period in history in Ireland seems coloured by far more than fact by then onlookers of every persuasion, creed and political standpoint at the time and since.

 

His calculation for the proportion of Irishmen in the British Army in the 1890 is simply wrong. He omits the Yeomanry and the Volunteers in the denominator; close to a quarter of a million men. This large rump had very low numbers of Irish-born, so the proportion of Irishmen gets heavily diluted when these are included. His figure for Irish born as a proportion of the Army is consequently over-stated by 60%. One can't help think that there is an agenda to produce a high figure to 'prove' the huge contribution of the Irish. It does not need exaggeration. The data is freely available in the General Annual Reports of the British Army. If an author makes obvious errors such as this it naturally makes one cautious.

 

Ditto his calculation for the Irish born as a proportion of the Army in 1914 which is given as just under 10%. According to the stats in GARBA 1913 (the last Annual Report prior to the Great War it is 7.2% ...out by a factor of 38% [Calc: (10%/7.2% - 1)*100 = (1.38 - 1)*100 = 38%].  The hard numbers are in Post #29  some  51,046 serving in the Regs, AR and SR combined. The Army was 706,000 including the TF.

 

The subsidiary claim that "nearly one in five reservists in the British army was Irish" is also wrong by an Irish country mile. Here is the data from GARBA 1913:

 

....................................Irish Born................Total.........Irish Born as % of Total

Army Reserve.................17,804.............228,421................7.8%

Special Reserve.............12,462...............61,427...............20.3%

Total Reserve..................30,266............289,848...............10.4%

 

...or roughly half of what is claimed....Put another way; over-estimated by nearly double. I would expect something more accurate. 

 

His assessment of the Grave of John Kipling repeats basic errors  (grave errors?) that have been exposed on this Forum over a year ago. This chapter is a painful read. The fundamental issue here is one of simply using others' research and assuming it is correct.

 

One might also debate the alleged 'first shot' of the war etc etc. 

 

... that aside I am sure there are lots of good things in the book and makes some interesting commentary. The challenge is when reading parts where I have limited or no knowledge, I don't know if similar mistakes are being made. Which is why I find it challenging. 

 

MG

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"Twighlight of the Ascendancy" by Mark Bence-Jones has arrived. It looks promising.

 

I had no idea the extent to which the Protestant Ascendancy were burned and bombed out of their Homes. It is like the fall of an Empire and quite a tragic destruction of some rather fine architecture.....Bence Jones claims the number burned was exaggerated. Interesting. MG

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Filsell

I have no argument with any of your views on this topic, the book in question is a journo's work rather than an historians and an author with an interesting theme to 'ride'. I once again welcome the fact that you are again challenging orthodoxy, again quite rightly, in another area in which repetition has offered respectability  and acceptability to 'factoids' for too long accepted as facts. It remains of interest to me, and I suspect others who have contributed to threads you initiate, and those who challenge you at times, how you will draw all this together in a publication. The forum is important, but publication is more so.

Regards

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voltaire60
14 hours ago, QGE said:

"Twighlight of the Ascendancy" by Mark Bence-Jones has arrived. It looks promising.

 

I had no idea the extent to which the Protestant Ascendancy were burned and bombed out of their Homes. It is like the fall of an Empire and quite a tragic destruction of some rather fine architecture.....Bence Jones claims the number burned was exaggerated. Interesting. MG

 

 

    Burke's Country Houses volume for Ireland is interesting on this-as it lists not only those that are still extant but those that disappeared during the Civil War period. You will find it interesting if you happen upon a copy.The destruction was extensive.  There are some Ascendancy memoirs of those who lived through these years (Just trying to dig one out from store!!)- Some Protestants  were involved in the Senate after 1922- a token but something of a natural home.

   As regards Irish fighting prowess- Well, it's a flip of some of previous stereotypes of the Irish as violent and loutish- eg the book "Paddy and Mr. Punch"- the Irishman is shown as an unkempt, scowling, threatening villain. Not wanted in polite society-but a stereotype that could be "turned" in wartime. Here, I think the general difference of views between gung-ho officers and reluctant men -in the stuff on the "Live and Let Live" system comes into play. Just because a stormer battalion commander rated his men keen and violent doesn't mean the men were of that view as well.

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...