Royalty Thread #9. Welcome Archie, the red headed heir, don’t care!

[Lorac]

Monaco does not need a male heir; they have male-preference primogeniture (which is why Princess Gabriella is not first in line to the throne), but women can still inherit.

Prince Hisahito's birth delayed things in Japan, but eventually there will have to changes in the succession to the Chrysanthemum Throne. They have three people in the line of succession.


Chatto and of no real relevance, here's her beautiful wedding dress from 25 years ago.

My mistake with Monaco - I really though they had to have male heirs. And as I said Japan can very easily fix their succession issues.

And my bad with the typo of Sarah Chatto's name - her dress was beautiful and the Snowdon Flora Tiara is gorgeous as well!!!

 

[Jenny]

On the issue of male heirs I'm also thinking beyond royalty. There was a story recently of a rich Canadian family that left nearly their entire fortune to their sons, despite the fact that their daughters had participated in building the family businesses and in the end had taken care of them. The happy ending is that the daughters took it to court and won

And that's just one example - other cultures, other communities, some individuals, still value sons over daughters, and IMO there's no need to feed this thinking with romantic notions about royals and/or what constitutes a "perfect" family.

 

[taf2002]

Re the comment by Harry about having a "maximum of 2" kids..my interpretation was he was admonishing William/Kate for having 3 (too many in his opinion for the environment). Sort of being a critique of them from his superior more knowledgeable position.

Your interpretation is like those where everything is a tribute to Diana. H&M can say & do things that have nothing to do with W&K. By all reports Harry is crazy about his niece & nephews so why would he want to bash them for having 3 kids? I think he was talking about what was best for him & Meghan.

Opposed thousands of Vietnamese and Americans dying in a pointless war. Pity you can't direct your disgust at the successive US governments who sent their own citizens off to kill and die needlessly.

And she's a good actress in her own right.

I also opposed the Viet Nam war but I didn't do it by committing treason. And I had plenty of disgust when it was going on. That was my generation dying in Asia. I personally lost 3 young men who were in my life - one cousin, one family friend, & one boyfriend. People younger than me who didn't go thru those years as an adult often give Fonda a pass for her actions. I don't think I could.

 

[skatesindreams]

It would seem that the DoS was more than a "figurehead" for the Vogue project:

Salma Hayek says Meghan Markle had some top-secret rules for that British Vogue cover | CNN

Salma Hayek was sitting in her car when she got the call. It was British Vogue editor Edward Enninful, a longtime friend of hers, asking if it was OK to patch in someone very special. Hayek was expecting their mutual friend Naomi Campbell to pop on the line.

www.cnn.com

 

[MacMadame]

Jane Fonda herself says now that what she did was thoughtless and sent a "horrible" message.

She said sitting on the missile was. Not that going there at all was a mistake.

I think it was naive not to think her trip would be used for propaganda. But I understand the urge to check things out for yourself. And I appreciate it when people can look back on their past and learn from it and even apologize for mistakes.

 

[overedge]

If there's one part of royal watching I can't get behind it's the constant intrusive "baby watch."

This. Especially posing the question of "will they have another" days or even hours after a baby is born! FFS let them adjust to the kid(s) that they already have.

 

[canbelto]

This. Especially posing the question of "will they have another" days or even hours after a baby is born! FFS let them adjust to the kid(s) that they already have.

also it just so happens that the Queen, Diana, and Kate had children easily. But many women struggle with fertility problems and one day it will happen to the BRF. Actually it already happened to Sophie of Wessex who had an ectopic pregnancy. I just find all of this so intrusive.

 

[aftershocks]

Which is why I must say I was rather at this from Meghan's #1 fan:

You can't be as perplexed and nonplussed as I have been about some of the negative commentary in this thread.

As far as #1 Meghan fan, that might be true on this forum (or maybe not -- I might be surpassed by some silent lurkers ). In the world at large though I am definitely out-paced. Meghan is adored worldwide by people of all backgrounds, including many important movers-and-shakers in high places.

Regarding my baby gender comments, that's just my thoughts, which is why I qualified that it's likely not M&H's thinking.

 

[oleada]

This. Especially posing the question of "will they have another" days or even hours after a baby is born! FFS let them adjust to the kid(s) that they already have.

You don’t even need to be a royal for this to happen! Someone asked me at my wedding when we were planning to have kids.

 

[attyfan]

Re the comment by Harry about having a "maximum of 2" kids..my interpretation was he was admonishing William/Kate for having 3 (too many in his opinion for the environment). Sort of being a critique of them from his superior more knowledgeable position.
...

I'd hate to think that one person's choosing to do X is admonishing close relatives for doing things differently. When my husband and I decided to remain childless, I never thought I was admonishing my siblings for having kids ... any more than my siblings (by having kids) were admonishing me for not having them.

 

[made_in_canada]

You don’t even need to be a royal for this to happen! Someone asked me at my wedding when we were planning to have kids.

It’s definitely not a line of questioning that’s unique to royals. Then you have a kid and it’s when are you having another. And if you have more kids it’s aren’t you done having kids yet?

 

[overedge]

Is "the September issue" of VOGUE as big a deal in the UK as it is in the US?

The September Issue - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mag]

FYI: The supposed environmental damage of electric cars has been overstated by industries who are threatened by them.

ITA and think that electric cars are definitely part of the solution to our current crisis. My comment had to do with coal fired electricity generating plants. Burning coal is not part of the solution no matter what some politicians would have us believe. If the electric power is coming from burning coal, we need to either us another form of generation or another form of transportation.

 

[AxelAnnie]

also it just so happens that the Queen, Diana, and Kate had children easily. But many women struggle with fertility problems and one day it will happen to the BRF. Actually it already happened to Sophie of Wessex who had an ectopic pregnancy. I just find all of this so intrusive.

My personal opinion is that NO ONE should know if you used an alternative method to get pregnant. Ectopic is different. IVF no one's business. EVER.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Yeah, if Archie had been, say, Rachel, would it mean Meghan and Harry would automatically try for another whereas having Archie made the pressure less? I mean, I understand parents wanting sons and daughters but I really hope we're past the days of thinking female royalty is somehow less than male royalty.

Certainly the queen doesn't think so. Princess Royal Anne is probably her closest companion.

It is no longer the view of the BRF. HRH Charlotte is right there in line between her two brothers.
I suspect what Kate has to go through to have children, they really like having kids. Certainly their actions with the kids support that view.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I'd hate to think that one person's choosing to do X is admonishing close relatives for doing things differently. When my husband and I decided to remain childless, I never thought I was admonishing my siblings for having kids ... any more than my siblings (by having kids) were admonishing me for not having them.

Amen to you! It is a personal decision. For heaven sake....if you don't want to have kids, don't have them. If you want them and can afford them, great.

 

[Vagabond]

And we still do not know if Archie has red hair. After all of this.

 

[AxelAnnie]

If he is like my kids you won't know for two years....which is how long it took my daughters to get hair.

 

[RoseRed]

My personal opinion is that NO ONE should know if you used an alternative method to get pregnant. Ectopic is different. IVF no one's business. EVER.

Unless of course you choose to share that with people. Because of course it's not something to be ashamed of or something that needs to be secret.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Unless of course you choose to share that with people. Because of course it's not something to be ashamed of or something that needs to be secret.

Shame has nothing to do with any of this. Secret and private are two different things. What good does it do a child to know that out there somewhere out there is a "donor" to whom she is genetically related? Her mom and dad are here mom and dad. There isn't any longer a need for medical background on the donor. Those issues are screened out in the first place.

I am concerned with the child, who needs to feel secure within her/his own family structure. If you can give me one compelling reason why knowing there was a donor involved adds to a child's life, security, or identity, within here family structue, please let me know. It is a non-starter. Men are paid to provide sperm. So there was, perhaps, some college student who wanted to make some extra money. Well, that is his business and his privacy should be respected. What could it possibly add to the child's life to have people know that the person who provided sperm was not her father? Again, it is not some deep dark secret.....it is simply private, and should remain so.

 

[RoseRed]

Shame has nothing to do with any of this. Secret and private are two different things. What good does it do a child to know that out there somewhere out there is a "donor" to whom she is genetically related? Her mom and dad are here mom and dad. There isn't any longer a need for medical background on the donor. Those issues are screened out in the first place.

I am concerned with the child, who needs to feel secure within her/his own family structure. If you can give me one compelling reason why knowing there was a donor involved adds to a child's life, security, or identity, within here family structue, please let me know. It is a non-starter. Men are paid to provide sperm. So there was, perhaps, some college student who wanted to make some extra money. Well, that is his business and his privacy should be respected. What could it possibly add to the child's life to have people know that the person who provided sperm was not her father? Again, it is not some deep dark secret.....it is simply private, and should remain so.

You do know that IVF doesn't necessarily involve a donor, right?

And by your logic, why should any child ever know they were adopted? This is off topic now so I'll leave it, but I fundamentally disagree with your conclusions. There's nothing wrong with being open with your kids when it's done in the right way.

 

[Jenny]

Shame has nothing to do with any of this. Secret and private are two different things. What good does it do a child to know that out there somewhere out there is a "donor" to whom she is genetically related? Her mom and dad are here mom and dad. There isn't any longer a need for medical background on the donor. Those issues are screened out in the first place.

I am concerned with the child, who needs to feel secure within her/his own family structure. If you can give me one compelling reason why knowing there was a donor involved adds to a child's life, security, or identity, within here family structue, please let me know. It is a non-starter. Men are paid to provide sperm. So there was, perhaps, some college student who wanted to make some extra money. Well, that is his business and his privacy should be respected. What could it possibly add to the child's life to have people know that the person who provided sperm was not her father? Again, it is not some deep dark secret.....it is simply private, and should remain so.

I realize this is way off topic but I need to respond to this. There's a whole world out there, and the topics of what it means to be family and how genetics come into play are very, very relevant right now given all the stuff that's coming out of DNA testing and how society is now far more open about fertility issues.

Fact: Many people want to know more about where they came from and who they are connected to, whether it's through genealogy research, DNA mapping, finding one's birth parents, knowing more about their sperm donor or connecting with one's half siblings and other relatives.

Fascinating NY Times story about a group of 33 half siblings - and counting - who have the same biological father.

 

[AxelAnnie]

You do know that IVF doesn't necessarily involve a donor, right?

And by your logic, why should any child ever know they were adopted? This is off topic now so I'll leave it, but I fundamentally disagree with your conclusions. There's nothing wrong with being open with your kids when it's done in the right way.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Yes I do know IVF can be non donor.

Everyone knows when you were not pregnant...unless it is a Lifetime movie. So when you show up with a baby...people reasonably assume you adopted...hopefully a closed .adoption. Of course you tell the kids.

How you get pregnant is no one's business. It is private. Your sex life is private too...not secret...just private.

 

[Barbara Manatee]

I am concerned with the child, who needs to feel secure within her/his own family structure. If you can give me one compelling reason why knowing there was a donor involved adds to a child's life, security, or identity, within here family structue, please let me know.

Because secrecy and lies don't create trust and security in a family, they destroy them. Because that information is part of the child's life and history and that knowledge belongs to her/him. Because screening does not detect every genetic anomaly or tendency and there may indeed be compelling health reasons to have access to a donor's medical and family history.

You have every right to decide what to keep private about your life. You have no right to tell others what they can choose share about their own lives. I remember when people were (and are) told to keep quiet about sexual orientation, miscarriage, cancer, depression, suicide, etc, because those things "should be private" too. Can you even imagine how many people have struggled and suffered unnecessarily in loneliness and shame because they were pressured into keeping it all within the family instead of reaching out and getting help?

 

[AxelAnnie]

Because secrecy and lies don't create trust and security in a family, they destroy them. Because that information is part of the child's life and history and that knowledge belongs to her/him. Because screening does not detect every genetic anomaly or tendency and there may indeed be compelling health reasons to have access to a donor's medical and family history.

You have every right to decide what to keep private about your life. You have no right to tell others what they can choose share about their own lives. I remember when people were (and are) told to keep quiet about sexual orientation, miscarriage, cancer, depression, suicide, etc, because those things "should be private" too. Can you even imagine how many people have struggled and suffered unnecessarily in loneliness and shame because they were pressured into keeping it all within the family instead of reaching out and getting help?

All those are different than how a child was conceived. That is and should be private. IMO.

 

[MLIS]

When I was going through two years of infertility and trying to conceive, it was a great comfort and support to me to have other women share their experiences. So often when you are going through something like that you feel so very alone, and many women feel guilt and shame when they have no reason to. Sure, no one should be forced to share private details they aren't comfortable sharing, but the more we are open and honest with each other about these sorts of things, the more we build a supportive community with shared experience.

And none of that has anything to do with the royals. I was very interested to read about Meghan's clothing line, and how for each purchase from the line a matching piece will be donated to the charity she supports. I think that's a terrific idea, it brings together several of her interests and a bit of her "pre-royal" life (she had or was developing a clothing line before, I think?). I do think Meghan is someone who doesn't want to just put her name on things but to really dig in and get her hands dirty, so to speak, which is probably stifled by the royal life sometimes.

 

[skatesindreams]

I do think Meghan is someone who doesn't want to just put her name on things but to really dig in and get her hands dirty, so to speak, which is probably stifled by the royal life sometimes.

I admire her for attempting to carve a distinct identity; difficult as that is, in her position.

 

[taf2002]

All those are different than how a child was conceived. That is and should be private. IMO.

No one is saying you should tell a 3 yr old she was conceived with donated sperm. But when they are old enough to understand reproduction then yes, I think they should be told. They should also be told the medical history of the sperm donor. Trying to keep it a secret when extended family knows is impossible.

 

[mag]

No one is saying you should tell a 3 yr old she was conceived with donated sperm. But when they are old enough to understand reproduction then yes, I think they should be told. They should also be told the medical history of the sperm donor. Trying to keep it a secret when extended family knows is impossible.

My understanding is, like adoption, it is best if the child never know when or how they learned the information only that they have always known. A friend of my mom says that she does not remember ever not knowing she was adopted. There were baby and toddler books in her home where the child was adopted, her mom often referred to her as “her beautiful, wonderful, adopted daughter.” It certainly demonstrates the importance of books and other cultural information showing families of all sorts, not as the theme or to make a point, but just in an everyday fashion.

To bring this back to Royalty, wouldn’t it have been nice if there were lots of books, movies, and tv shows where mixed race families were shown without making a fuss or point - just showing the world as it actually is? Meghan has spoken of feeling like she didn’t belong in either world, as has Trevor Noah. That would be a scary thing for a child. There are so many children conceived by IVF, why not just present that as yet another “normal” way for children to come into the world?