Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by taf2002, Dec 3, 2012.
The two most blameless people in this situation are Will and Kate.
Yet there are those around the web contriving to blame them. Saw commenters on one news story explaining that if Will had had the integrity to abdicate as soon as he was an adult , none of this would have happened. Although, I'm not really sure what the point of abdicating a throne you do not possess would be. And interest in his life, as Diana's son, would not have magically gone away regardless.
Someone really said that? Way to twist a story.
What two beyond idiots spewed that stupidity PDliemna?
I do worry that at a time when she really needs rest and no added stress whatsoever, this could end up triggering a relapse of Kate's symptoms.
I also hope I'm really, really, really wrong about that one.
It was commenters on a story possibly at slate.com, but I'm not sure as I read a few sites and I am sleepy and am subbing (free time for lunch right now) thus reading with one eye on a classroom of 8th graders taking math tests. It is incredibly stupid. Basically the spin is that it is their fault because William had the audacity to be born, I guess. Another commenter did point out that the Royal Family pays much of their own bills, does a massive amount of work for charity to raise money and awareness, and that he did not choose his position nor can he give it up all that easily.
Ah...I see. Thanks and good luck staying awake!!
I need it. One of the results of my husband switching to second shift is that we go to bed between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. Which is fine on a normal day but on the days when the phone rings for me to sub....yuck. I much prefer the night before calls when I can scribble a note for him and go to bed early enough. Not so bad if the kids are doing an activity, but the quiet test taking periods are rough.
I see that the President of that station's Parent Company is now saying the DJ's are 'victims' for all that's happened to them over the last 24 hrs. No one here wants to know what my reaction to *that* was when I read it on my iPod earlier this afternoon. Also that they did nothing wrong.
According to the Aussie Communication Laws, I beg to differ.
What I can't figure out though is this. This station has two five year Probation periods they are currently serving for other stunts they've pulled over the last couple of years. Okay, so knowing that and they *had* to know what the reaction to this stunt would end up being, the lawyer for the Station after listening to the tape of what happened said it was fine to broadcast!?!
If that lawyer had done his or her job, none of this would have happened IMO.
I'll be back to share that article in a bit. I have to find it again and too, CNN is rebroadcasting their Heroes Gala from last weekend at the top of the hour. After the last few days, I need to be reminded of the good people are capable of doing to offset the events of this week.
Before that though....I was over at the Anne Boleyn Files a little while ago and Claire had up a heads up about a program that's completely recreated a Tudor era Feast. And I do mean completely recreated. No modern kitchen equipment is seen anywhere here. They're doing everything the way it was done back then.
Just watching the amount of work it took to simply prepare the almonds and sugar to make some Marizipan had me tired.
Anyway...I know we've got other Tudor fans here at FSU, so thought I'd share the link to the first part of this and the links to the the other three portions can be found over there at YouTube on the right hand menu.
YouTube ~ A Tudor Feast
This isn't the same article I was talking about, but it does have quotes from the "defence" the Station's Parent Company said yesterday. Such as how prank calls are a "craft" used Worldwide for decades.
That's funny...I don't remember being taught how to perform calls such as this during any of my Radio Broadcasting courses during my Broadcast Journalism program...
Telegraph ~ Hospital bosses turn against radio show for humiliating nurses
Mirror ~ Prince William cancels public appearance after pregnant Kate suffers recurrence of acute morning sickness illness
She was supposed to avoid any un needed stress. W/the tragic events of the last few days, I was afraid this might just end up happening.
Here's hoping things can be managed at KP and she doesn't need to go back to hospital again.
As horrible as it is, stress actually doesn't play a role in Hyperemesis gravidarum. It's thought to be closely related to pregnancy hormones. But please, don't let facts get in the way of the
In all seriousness, I hope she feels better soon. I had a friend who had it, and it was horrific for her. She's one of the few people I know who lost weight while pregnant, and that's not good for mother OR baby. My friend had it well into her second trimester, but normally it abates after the first. Fingers crossed!
Have to admit I'm feeling a little about all this. I too had HG with my twins till week 22. I was in hospital for a month, then on bed rest with occasional trips to ER for IV fluids. At the same time, my dad was having chemo and my mom fractured her pelvis. Stress didn't cause HG but it damn sure didn't help!
On the plus side, at about week 28 my appetite was back fully so I ate like a horse for 6 weeks and ended up gaining weight overall. Hope Kate gets better much more quickly than I did!
22 weeks? That's awful!
My sceptical might also come from the source - the mirror isn't a great paper, and if you read the article there isn't much fact in it. It's a not a relapse, it's just continued, and for all we know she could be living in a bubble with no idea what's going on or the uproar. If the palace wants to keep her calm and stress free, they could have kept it from her.
I have a feeling that, even if she weren't ill, Kate would be one of those women who leave hospital after giving birth looking like they just left a health spa She's super thin already, so I hope she's better before 22 weeks.
And I hope, given you had a rough pregnancy, you had good babies? Ones that...slept? Sometimes?
There isn't anything in that article that says stress brought this back on only that she is having a recurrence. It also states that having recurrences happens. My guess -- it's just part of the normal phase of having such a condition. That being said, I hope she has a milder case that leaves her sooner than later.
I hope she has healthy twins ... Then if she decides she doesn't want to go through this again, she will still have an heir and a spare.
They slept pretty well and I had mom-in-law to help for the first 3 months. She was amazing..I didn't want her to leave!
Some days I'd be ok with giving her mine! They're in the "energetic eights" and there isn't enough caffeine in the world to help me keep up with them.
How weird would it be if she was having twins, and end up having a C-section? The OBGYN would be determining who was the heir and who was the spare!
I've got no medical training, and I'm not naive enough to think reading an article would make me knowledgeable about any complex medical situation, but at least some medical professionals don't think the question is so absolute. The Univ of Maryland Medical Center public information site indicates the exact cause of hyperemesis gravidarum is unknown and lists 6 factors that may contribute including:
I certainly think the physical factors are the primary ones, but I'm always hesitant to make absolute statements about any medical condition.
I think it is usually determined by the babies' positions, so s/he really wouldn't be choosing.
I know when I "delivered" my twins it was via C-section and an emergency one at that. During ultrasounds the two were always identified as Baby A and Baby B and it was Baby A who was removed from my womb first -- which was my son. One minute later, my daughter was delivered. That was 20 years ago. I would think that with the technology we have today, should Kate and Will be having twins, a determination will be made as to which is the "older" twin while they are still in the uterus. Then again, I could be completely off. Would not be the first time
If they were identical and the same gender maybe they could have a little fun with the heir and the spare designation. After all everyone needs a little time off...
On a *much* happier note...Today is Day One of the Nobel Awards Festivities. Which means Tiaras, more bling and Evening Gowns...
Order of Splendour ~ Royal Fashion Awards: The Nobel Prizes 2012, Part 1
Love, love, love Victoria's entire look and that includes the Four Button Tiara. I actually think that new row of diamonds along the base makes it look much better than w/out it. We've also got two firsts here too. First time for Victoria to wear the Family's Demi Parure and first time for Maddie and the Amethyst tiara and earrings. I've got to say that purple really helps bring out her eyes too.
Poor Queen Silvia does look a bit peaked as noted over there. Hope all it was, was nothing more than something minor like a wee bit of a tummy upset.
My friend who had two sets of twins via c-sections said that both times they were designated prenatally and taken out based entirely on their position in the uterus.
I could see there being some uproar if she were to have fraternal boy-girl twins and the boy was born first. It would make the Toys R Us thread look like nothing.
Less than two years apart.
She is currently pregnant with number seven (five and six were singletons as is this one). I love her, but I think she may be insane. Kids are twins 9, twins 7, 5 and 3.
Someone in my mother's family had a 2 sets of twins; and then, triplets.
Multiples seem to run in families.
Bless her heart. One set does me just fine .. as twins' dad says "one for either side of the fireplace"! If you could keep them still that long!
I used to live across the street from a woman who had one daughter and then three sets of twins (all boys)
One of my great-grandmothers was a twin, and gave birth to 2 sets of twins.
By the time Kate's kids are old enough to inherit they may be fighting over who isn't the heir. And if there are boy/girl twins, in a C section situation IMO they should deliberately take the boy out first. I have often thought it would be a terrible burden for a girl. Besides, siblings of the heir seem to have all the fun.
Great Grandma has done just fine, burden and all. Nothing makes it inherently more of a burden for a woman. Particularly in a country whose longest reigning and most successful monarchs have been women.
Lol Brings back memories...I was told that my second child was a girl by my dr during my ultrasound. When my midwife caught the baby, she said "__________ this baby is a boy The nurse in the delivery room said "what was it supposed to be?" Midwife, my sister in law and myself all said at the same time "a Girl!" Love my second "girl" though and would not trade a single second with my son to have had him be a girl.
With my daughter, I was so sick that I lost 25 pds in 3 months. Gained and lost 3 pounds until the last 3 weeks I was pregnant and ended up gaining 6 pounds total. She weighed 6 pds 7 oz. I came out of that pregnancy weighing a total of 40 pds less than when I got pregnant. It's so not fun when how close to a toliet you are runs your life or when all you've been able to put in your mouth all day has been seven up or sprite and then you throw that up too. I was told constantly that it had to be a girl because little girls only made their moms that sick because of the female hormones in both (even my dr predicted early in pregnancy that she was a girl because of the sickness). She was a great baby. Now, not so much! Lol
I did it again even knowing what I was setting myself up against. Wasn't quite as sick but lost 20 pds and gain 10 back. He weighed 6 pds 2 oz. Weighed 25 pds less from start of pregnancy when I delivered.
I would agree with that. It's no harder for a woman than it is for a man. And women do it very well indeed. And modern monarchy, which is more social than political may be more suited to women than men.
I suppose one could argue that being the consort is harder for men than woman. I think in Prince Phillip's case it has been difficult. His generation was so accustomed to the man being in charge. By the time William and Kate's little squeak is old enough to marry, who knows how things between men and women will be.
I think if you were to ask an average person to name some British monarchs, they would probably name both Elizabeth's, Victoria and Henry VIII.
Are there twins in Kate's family? That would certainly up the stakes in that department.
I think that was what was in my mind. When I was a kid it was pretty much common knowledge that Elizabeth & Phillip had an arranged marriage & that he was not a devoted husband....in fact he was pretty much a playboy. Would he have married her otherwise?
I think it would be hard to be a powerful woman with a spouse who has no power at all, esp if you have doubts about whether he really wanted to marry you. On second thought, it wasn't any better when the man was the royal in the case of Charles & Diana. (It was pretty clear she was hand-picked & that both Charles & Diana talked themselves into "oh we're so in love" when they weren't in the least.)
Well, common knowledge isn't always accurate, of course, otherwise the "virginity tests" that Diana supposedly underwent would have been true.
It has been written in several sources that the Queen had a crush on Philip from the time she was about 13. He didn't notice her, of course until much later, as he was a young naval cadet at the time. It certainly was not arranged- in fact her father , while not exactly opposing the match, certainly wanted to delay it a bit- he thought she was too young. Who supposedly did the arranging? Not his parents, as they were out of the picture. I'm sure Mountbatten (Philip's uncle) did some nudging, as was his wont, but he could hardly do more that encourage it- he was not exactly central to her side of the family at that time. Philip, being without much except a promising career (no money, coming from a broken family home of an exiled family) could hardly have done better, marriage-wise. But there is no evidence that they were not in love at the time.
As for his playboy ways- whatever he was before he married (and there is no long string of former lovers telling their tales), he has been utterly discreet during the marriage. He may or may not have had lovers, but the press hasn't been able to find any, and the gutter press has probably been looking.
His position has been a difficult one for an alpha male of his generation, but I think he and the Queen have somewhat worked it out- she lets him run the family in private, while she leads in the public role. I seems to work for them, and 60 years of an enduring marriage is quite an accomplishment.
The length of their marriage is not proof. A divorce would have been unthinkable for them. I'm not saying either of them wanted one but I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money that Phillip hasn't always been a good boy.
Separate names with a comma.