Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 740 of 1002
  1. #721
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    It confuses me when people categorically state what sounds like facts about what is going on in someone else's head. I don't know how you can possibly know that Victoria didn't like children, even her own or that Charles & Anne were born out of duty. No matter what has been written about Victoria by others, did she ever come out & say she didn't like children? If not, no one can actually know this. And my impression has always been that Elizabeth wanted to marry Phillip. She certainly is glowing in her wedding pictures. After all, he is very minor royalty so he wasn't that big a catch. So why would having children with him be a duty & why did she live out of the country with him or have extra children with him?
    Skittl1321 answered your objections about my statement about Victoria. It is well documented. Historians tend to look for documentation and it is there.

    As to Elizabeth, that is indeed conjecture, BUT that is why I used the phrase "I think" and the word "perhaps". However, if you look at her life and choices objectively and read some of the available biographies, you will see that she planned her latter two pregnancies, spent a significantly greater amount of time as a hands on mother with those two children, and by many accounts from those who saw her in both public and private, was much more comfortable and happy as a mother with them than with her older children.

    And no one said she did not want to marry Philip. She very much did. In fact, early on, her parents were not comfortable with her infatuation with him as she was very young when it began. Not wanting to be a mother immediately does not mean she did not want to marry. And Charles was born just short of a year after their marriage.

    BTW, do you seriously believe that everyone who is in love with someone automatically wants to have children with them? That is far from the truth. Many people have little or not desire to be parents but that does not mean they do not love their partners. Also not wanting to be a parent immediately on marrying or at a very young age (22 for Elizabeth) also does not mean you don't want to be a parent at all.
    Last edited by PDilemma; 12-01-2013 at 06:09 PM.

  2. #722
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    deleted

  3. #723
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,213
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    And yet millions and millions of women have done a great job of being mom while also having full time jobs, volunteer and community work, caring for extended families, dealing with personal issue, fitting in a social life etc. I'm a big Kate fan, but I don't see any wow in what she's doing - she's just another new mom doing her best with the resources she has to balance it all out.
    I think the wow is more that she has the choice, and this is the choice she's made. I'm pretty sure I'd have opted for zzzzzzzzz in her position.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

  4. #724
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,511
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20235
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    I think the wow is more that she has the choice, and this is the choice she's made. I'm pretty sure I'd have opted for zzzzzzzzz in her position.
    Precisely.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  5. #725

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,125
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    17638
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    Skittl1321 answered your objections about my statement about Victoria. It is well documented. Historians tend to look for documentation and it is there.

    As to Elizabeth, that is indeed conjecture, BUT that is why I used the phrase "I think" and the word "perhaps".
    You said " They were born of duty. The younger two were very much wanted and came at a time when she was ready." I just wondered how you know this.

    However, if you look at her life and choices objectively and read some of the available biographies, you will see that she planned her latter two pregnancies, spent a significantly greater amount of time as a hands on mother with those two children, and by many accounts from those who saw her in both public and private, was much more comfortable and happy as a mother with them than with her older children.

    And no one said she did not want to marry Philip. She very much did. In fact, early on, her parents were not comfortable with her infatuation with him as she was very young when it began. Not wanting to be a mother immediately does not mean she did not want to marry. And Charles was born just short of a year after their marriage.

    BTW, do you seriously believe that everyone who is in love with someone automatically wants to have children with them? That is far from the truth. Many people have little or not desire to be parents but that does not mean they do not love their partners. Also not wanting to be a parent immediately on marrying or at a very young age (22 for Elizabeth) also does not mean you don't want to be a parent at all.
    All I meant was that she chose to live out of the country with Phillip, which would not necessarily have been the case if it had been a morganic marriage so I didn't understand why having children with him would be a duty in the first years of her marriage but not later on. After all, there was good birth control available at the time. So if she didn't want to have children right away she didn't have to.

  6. #726

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37350
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  7. #727
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,213
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    I don't know why there would be any lack of pressure on Queen Elizabeth to produce the heir presumptive's heir and spare early in her marriage. Her father had been ill for enough years for there to be concern about succession. Times were tough in post-WWII Great Britain economically, and on top of that the formal breaks within the former British Empire. When she got married and had children in those times, it was a psychological boost to the country. The Queen wasn't in the habit of shirking duty, and she had the dual duty to produce and reign. She was not Elizabeth I.

    By the time she had Prince Andrew a decade after Princess Anne, she had been on the throne for eight years, and GB was a different place.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

  8. #728
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    I don't know why there would be any lack of pressure on Queen Elizabeth to produce the heir presumptive's heir and spare early in her marriage. Her father had been ill for enough years for there to be concern about succession. Times were tough in post-WWII Great Britain economically, and on top of that the formal breaks within the former British Empire. When she got married and had children in those times, it was a psychological boost to the country. The Queen wasn't in the habit of shirking duty, and she had the dual duty to produce and reign. She was not Elizabeth I.

    By the time she had Prince Andrew a decade after Princess Anne, she had been on the throne for eight years, and GB was a different place.
    Exactly, and to add to all the reasons you noted, there was still some lingering discontent associated with the abdication of Edward VIII and certainly concern within the royal family that the incident had made the monarchy vulnerable. Securing the succession was very important and it is highly unlikely that there was no pressure on Elizabeth to do so quickly.

    It is notable, too, that Kate and William were the first heir/spouse to not conceive their first child in the first year of marriage (or rather first few months).

  9. #729

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,712
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    You said " They were born of duty. The younger two were very much wanted and came at a time when she was ready." I just wondered how you know this. .
    OK, I am quoting Taf because I believe that she has a valid point.
    Call me confused, but isn't Charles 65? Birth Control while some methods (not really effective methods) were available to some extent, it is not likely. As I understand it, birth control pills were not widely available or in use until sometime in the 60's. Charles being born in 1948 and Princess Anne born 1950 might not be a choice but a consequence of sex. Just my musings. Plus some of the literature/child rearing practices:
    1930‑1950. This era commenced with the Great Depression. In these difficult times parenting focused on caring for a child's physical development. Concern about malnutrition was paramount. "The up‑to‑date mother was one who knew her calories and her vitamins, who fed her family scientifically, and who saw that her baby had fresh air (however cold) and sunshine" (Stendler 1950, p.130). The Depression forced families to concentrate on survival. A family with no bread puts fun and relationships at a low priority. Any time for leisure was often used for a second job. "The healthy family during the Depression was one that was fed, sheltered, and cared for by parents who loved each other and their children but didn't have leftover energy to demonstrate it in tangible ways beyond providing mere sustenance" (Curran 1983, p.121).
    What might have been considered distant, not a loving parent in today's standards was probably a standard of excellent parenting in the '40's and '50's. That her children were being well taken care of according to the standards of the time. I definitely remember reading/studying in psychology 101, that the structured rigid care of a child in the 50's was a standard that parents strived to achieved to ensure that one had a well adjusted child.

    That said "I don't know what Elizabeth thought about her first two children and how to raise them", just that there maybe factors that are not being considered.

  10. #730

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,712
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    In addition, when you are younger, inexperienced in things like parenting, you tend to listen to those around you. We don't know what the advice was given - it could have been "as a royal, you are expected to leave your children with nannies who won't indulge them on every whim as they need to be prepared for the eventual monarchy". If that is true, which again I do not know, Charles as the future king would have been subjected to that thought, Anne may have been "left" to be his normal childhood playmate in a compassionate thought. Again my musings and we do not know!

  11. #731
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,078
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the notion of hands-on parenting is a relatively new one in many cultures. If English literature and historic accounts are anything to go by, children spent more time with nannies and governesses than their own parents, and if the family had means, were sent off to boarding school, often from a young age. And that's not just royalty and upper classes - it seems to me this was common among the middle class too. Extended stays with relatives and friends also seem to have been common for children (MIL does a lot of genealogy, and has found that 19th c Scotland children were often sent to live with other relatives who had better means to feed them, to be educated, to work on farms, to help with younger cousins etc - she's had quite a time sorting out these movements through census documents that show who was living in a particular household at the time.). I read a book review on the wkd about a new work on the history of servants in England, including the huge numbers of children and teens who were in service either because their parents also were or because they were sent off to earn a living and be cared for.

    Even by the 1960s and 70s, I recall several childhood friends heading to boarding school as pre teens, and nearly all my friends being bundled off to overnight camp for weeks or even a month or more every summer - and these were families where the mother did not have a job outside the home. Family time was meal times and vacations - after school and weekends we were usually off playing with our friends if we were involved in sports and programs like scouts and brownies.

    Nowadays, in NA at least, while parents in general seem to want to be more involved, don't most kids actually spend the majority of their waking hours in the care of others? School, daycare, part time nannies (or grandparents for that matter), lunch at school (when I was a kid, we all went home every day to a homecooked meal), before and after school programs, pre/junior kindergarten, sports programs and music lessons, camps, school break programs, etc.

    It would be interesting to see some numbers that measure the actual time an average kid spent with their parents charted over time, because maybe the circumstances have changed but the overall result in the same.

  12. #732
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,722
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Diaphragms and condoms were available by 1947. The low birth rate in the U.S. during the Depression was not based on the entire population abstaining after all.

    I'm not understanding why the suggestion that the heir to the British throne in any generation was under some measure of pressure to reproduce thus securing the succession is such a radical idea. Historically, the times when there was not a direct heir were a bit messy on the death of a monarch. Unless you are all romanticizing the family so much that you hate to think of Charles not being the world's most wanted child.

  13. #733
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,078
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    I agree succession has always been an issue, and simply producing an heir wasn't always enough as Elizabeth well knew. Even though Elizabeth was queen and not the first to rule, I think even by Charles and Diana's time the thinking remained that having a few boys was probably a pretty good idea. History is filled with examples of heirs who died before they took the throne, plus a few unexpected twists in succession lines as Elizabeth well knew.

    And, up until around the middle of the last century, royal children were an opportunity for diplomacy as well, with marriages between houses thought to encourage good relations as well as the continued strength of monarchies across the board. That may be out the window nowadays, but when Elizabeth first took the throne, it might still have been a consideration.

    In other words, given her devotion to her position, I would have been quite surprised if the Queen stopped at two children, especially with one a girl. Had Charles and Diana had a happier marriage, I would have expected another child or two, and fully expect William and Kate to try for at least 3 children.

  14. #734

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,712
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    Diaphragms and condoms were available by 1947.
    and not fail safe. There are reasons for baby boomers - not just WWII. I am aware of diaphragm availability even into the 1880's, condoms as a method has been around for thousands of year.. The Depression was in the '30's - no? WWII was in the 40's? could decreased birth rates been because of the young men fighting in Europe and the Pacific? There is a reason for the '60's/'70's to be considered the sexual revolution and women's rights decades.

    I am not saying that reproduction for succession is the RIGHT reason Charles/Anne were conceived. I am saying that your idea of "Elizabeth being gone and not involved means she didn't care for them or want them" might also be wrong. WE DO NOT KNOW! and based on parenting standards in the 40's/50's and the accuracy of birth control methods available could be the reason for the "distant, non involved" Queen who did not want children but bore them out of a pressure to produce an heir. Or parenting method was part of the culture or gasp - both.

  15. #735
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,511
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20235
    Umm, kids are still getting bundled off to camp for weeks in the summer.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  16. #736
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,078
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    I know One gets the feeling that nowadays it's a convenience as much as giving kids the experience because many parents work outside the home, although as I said when I was a kid most moms in my community didn't and they still sent the kids off for weeks at a time.

    But in the end my point was that kids today spend and in the past often spent the majority of their waking hours not under the direct care and supervision of their parents, so the idea that the Queen wasn't as hands on with some or all of her kids or that it's a big deal that Kate doesn't have a team of childcare providers on staff doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me.
    Last edited by Jenny; 12-02-2013 at 07:21 PM.

  17. #737
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,213
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    In addition to a lot more sex happening with the returning soldiers and all, baby boomers were also conceived because women lost their jobs after WWII in favor of the men returning from war, and they didn't have the same options for financial independence that they had during the war. Their duty to G-d and country was to clean house and reproduce.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

  18. #738
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,313
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwanfan1818 View Post
    In addition to a lot more sex happening with the returning soldiers and all, baby boomers were also conceived because women lost their jobs after WWII in favor of the men returning from war, and they didn't have the same options for financial independence that they had during the war. Their duty to G-d and country was to clean house and reproduce.
    Although it is true that she lost the mechanic's gig after V-E Day, I kind of doubt that HMQ spent that much time in the post-War years cleaning house.

  19. #739

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,391
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7460
    This thread needs more pictures of jewels, tiaras and ballgowns. Just sayin'!
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  20. #740
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    18,213
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    19005
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Although it is true that she lost the mechanic's gig after V-E Day, I kind of doubt that HMQ spent that much time in the post-War years cleaning house.
    I don't think she was either. But many of those baby boomers' mothers did.
    "'Is this new BMW-designed sled the ultimate sledding machine for Langdon and Holcomb?' Leigh Diffey asked before the pair cruised to victory. I don’t know, but I know that sled is the ultimate Olympic Games product placement.." -- Jen Chaney

Page 37 of 51 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •