The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2281  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:18 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by christythedreamer View Post
So they are really going to Australia and New Zealand With Baby Cambridge? That's nice, but is this arranged on purpose or what?
If so, then it is nice. Charles and Diana also took a baby William to Australia.
__________________

__________________
  #2282  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:39 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,093
I wouldn't be so fast to book baby C's ticket for down under yet. When Charles and Diana took William to Australia and New Zealand, it was a 6 week tour and William spent most of it at a sheep ranch with his nanny. Today, they don't do tours of that length anymore plus the schedule is pretty packed with activities for the touring royals. Also people will complain for the extra cost of taking the baby since you have to bring someone to watch baby c plus extra security. I think baby c would stay with Mike and Carole with daily Skype call to his/her parents.

Charles and Diana went to Canada in that same year and left William at home missing his 1st birthday so maybe it wasn't a great ideal to take him in the first place.
__________________

__________________
  #2283  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:06 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,750
I'm guessing the Cambridge's will do an overseas tour at some point next year. I really don't see them leaving the baby behind personally. They'll do whatever they have to do to get the job done but I really think they'll take the baby along. I think it would make sense for them (as a family) and it would be better PR wise. Unless William do a tour alone and leave Catherine and the baby behind but I think they work as a team so...

Just to add a video of Princess Elizabeth's (The Queen) birth announcement:
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
  #2284  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 744
I think if there is a tour they will bring the baby with them. No reason why they shouldn't. And William spent time with Diana and Charles they had time off during the tour and he wasn't always at the sheep station. They went to him or he went to them. It's just a baby and the nanny and security get paid whether they leave the country or not so it's a pretty hollow argument. The Australian tour was pretty long that was why they bought William and the tour of Canada was pretty short and it was considered too disruptive to take him along. It will be spring which is generally cooler then Summer so the baby should be fine he or she should be walking by then so lot's of fun. Hope the baby is here soon or it's going to be a long July. LOL
__________________
  #2285  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:13 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
and a child born via a surrogate does not have two biological parents who are married.
I'm sorry, but that's utterly preposterous. You can't say that with any degree of certainty whatsoever. There are a plethora of reasons why a couple would choose surrogacy. If, for some reason, there was a problem with Catherine's uterus and she couldn't carry a baby to term, yet she could produce healthy eggs, an embryo would be created and implanted into a surrogate's womb, and that child would be the biological offspring of the Duke and Duchess....and last I checked, they're a married couple. As long as the kid's DNA matches its parents, it really doesn't matter what vagina it comes out of. The bloodlines are what count.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
  #2286  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:14 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,750
The baby could come at anytime and any day now. I'm just being patient and keeping an eye on the news and official tweets.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
  #2287  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:34 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post

I'm sorry, but that's utterly preposterous. You can't say that with any degree of certainty whatsoever. There are a plethora of reasons why a couple would choose surrogacy. If, for some reason, there was a problem with Catherine's uterus and she couldn't carry a baby to term, yet she could produce healthy eggs, an embryo would be created and implanted into a surrogate's womb, and that child would be the biological offspring of the Duke and Duchess....and last I checked, they're a married couple. As long as the kid's DNA matches its parents, it really doesn't matter what vagina it comes out of. The bloodlines are what count.
Before you attack someone and say that they're being preposterous, perhaps you should read the rest of the conversation that happened (really, it was only 2 additional posts that happened pretty quickly).

I already addressed this, but I'll say it again. Personally I believe that if a married couple who stands to inherit a title or throne conceive or carry a child through artificial means (using invitro or surrogacy or what not), so long as the parent through whom the line descends is contributing genetic material, the child should be able to inherit. However, as has been pointed out, it's all rather murky and various laws of succession do not take into consideration artificial means of conception. It's kind of a bit more complicated then "you two are married and your child has genetic material from both of you, so it doesn't matter whose vagina he/she popped out of."

It's very likely that if a married royal wanted to have a child via a surrogate - especially someone in the direct line - then the laws of succession would have to be altered in order to make it clear that such a child - so long as they have the royal genes - is eligible to be in the succession, and as the current attempt to change the succession act for the BRF has shown that's not exactly a quick process.
__________________
  #2288  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:35 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
I'm sorry, but that's utterly preposterous. You can't say that with any degree of certainty whatsoever. There are a plethora of reasons why a couple would choose surrogacy. If, for some reason, there was a problem with Catherine's uterus and she couldn't carry a baby to term, yet she could produce healthy eggs, an embryo would be created and implanted into a surrogate's womb, and that child would be the biological offspring of the Duke and Duchess....and last I checked, they're a married couple. As long as the kid's DNA matches its parents, it really doesn't matter what vagina it comes out of. The bloodlines are what count.
Well, we have certainly come a long way from the cryptic "HRH will not be undertaking any royal engagements for the foreseeable future..."
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #2289  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:42 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Before you attack someone and say that they're being preposterous, perhaps you should read the rest of the conversation that happened (really, it was only 2 additional posts that happened pretty quickly).

I already addressed this, but I'll say it again. Personally I believe that if a married couple who stands to inherit a title or throne conceive or carry a child through artificial means (using invitro or surrogacy or what not), so long as the parent through whom the line descends is contributing genetic material, the child should be able to inherit. However, as has been pointed out, it's all rather murky and various laws of succession do not take into consideration artificial means of conception. It's kind of a bit more complicated then "you two are married and your child has genetic material from both of you, so it doesn't matter whose vagina he/she popped out of."

It's very likely that if a married royal wanted to have a child via a surrogate - especially someone in the direct line - then the laws of succession would have to be altered in order to make it clear that such a child - so long as they have the royal genes - is eligible to be in the succession, and as the current attempt to change the succession act for the BRF has shown that's not exactly a quick process.
I don't see any need for the laws to be changed. Since invitro did not exist when the laws were written, it could not be included or excluded. The point the poster was making, is the baby could have the genes of BOTH parents. Surrogacy does not mean the surrogate's eggs are being used. Kate's eggs and Will's sperm could be mixed in a dish, put in a surrogate, and the baby would be 100% their baby. The baby would have Kate as a mother, Will as a father, and the couple are married. The laws don't state the baby has to come out of Kate's body, just that it has to be the child of both Kate and Will.
__________________
  #2290  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:26 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I don't see any need for the laws to be changed. Since invitro did not exist when the laws were written, it could not be included or excluded. The point the poster was making, is the baby could have the genes of BOTH parents. Surrogacy does not mean the surrogate's eggs are being used. Kate's eggs and Will's sperm could be mixed in a dish, put in a surrogate, and the baby would be 100% their baby. The baby would have Kate as a mother, Will as a father, and the couple are married. The laws don't state the baby has to come out of Kate's body, just that it has to be the child of both Kate and Will.
Ah, but it's more complicated than that.

For starters, surrogacy can involve the surrogate's eggs and William's sperm. Or it could involve Catherine's eggs, William's sperm, and a surrogate's womb. Even saying that's the case, it's still trickier than it might seem.

According to gov.uk the legal mother of a child born via surrogacy is the surrogate, even if she is not a biological parent. Also according to gov.uk the legal father is the surrogate's spouse, not the biological father, although according to a surrogacy UK site the legal father can be the biological father if you put it down on the birth certificate. Which basically means that at birth the best case scenario is that legally a child born via a surrogacy is genetically the child of William and Catherine but legally the illegitimately born child of William and the surrogate. The legal rights then have to be transferred from the surrogate to William and Catherine.

While a married couple may be biologically the parents of a child born via surrogate, legally it's a lot more complicated. And when you add in succession laws that say that only individuals of certain descent born in wedlock are eligible to inherit, it makes it even more complicated. It's not as simple as William and Catherine are married and they mix their DNA together and have another woman pop the baby out of her vagina so it (the baby, not the vagina) can rule the world.
__________________
  #2291  
Old 07-11-2013, 04:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 784
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...baby-game.html

(Pink cot)?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ery-suite.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...due-date-nears
__________________
  #2292  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,093
Well thankfully conception doesn't appear to be a problem for W&K. Once baby c comes, there will be less pressure to produce the spare now that the Tindall's baby is coming up next.

I don't ivf would be a problem for royals because you can keep that part secret. The surrogate seems to a different kettle of fish, you have people who still think Harry is James Hewitt son and Andrew is Lord Porchester's . It seems any royal baby near to throne would have to come out of the female royal/royal wife just to stop people from making claims against it.

Up until Charles birth, the Home Secretary had to witness royal births to make sure no body snuck in a replacement baby in case the royal baby died. I imagine baby c will have some baby tracker on him or her at all times sort like baby LoJack. I wonder if Lupo has a similar thing?( I was touring Kensington Palace last yr the day the Cambridges were in Scotland for the Thistle service outside in the gardens was a black cocker spaniel tied to a bench with its leash. I took its picture and claimed to my family back home it was Lupo. Hopefully is wasn't. )
__________________
  #2293  
Old 07-11-2013, 06:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 744
LOL A baby LoJack. Funny. My niece rang me to ask if the baby was here yet I said nope not even in labour. I got a groan she lost a bet with her grandmother. LOL AS someone else said push Kate push.....
__________________
  #2294  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:07 AM
principessa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Schweinfurt, Germany
Posts: 2,643
I wonder how long will it last until the reporters have no ideas for news titles to wait until the baby is born!
__________________
I had a dream: Let's connect our thoughts together, than we have a mission, let's connect our feelings together, than we have a mood, let's connect our dreams together, than we have a vision and let's connect our mission, our mood and our vision together than we have a perfect life.
  #2295  
Old 07-11-2013, 07:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 150
Royal baby hype swelling - TV News Video | TVNZ

Def. got the impression that the dailymail date of July 13 is a few days off...which doesn't mean it won't be born any day now...it just I think confirms that july 13 isn't it. which leads me to guess that the real due date is probably between july 16-18.
__________________
  #2296  
Old 07-11-2013, 08:40 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,750
We’re all going goo goo gaga for the royal baby as Kate Middleton's due date nears:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...due-date-nears

Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 17m
#royal Supermarket close to #William & #Kate's Anglesey home has reserved a parking space for royal use only in case of dash for nappies
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
  #2297  
Old 07-11-2013, 08:43 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Once Kate Middleton gives birth, the Duchess of Cambridge could be taking the advice of some local moms.
........
"I learned that Princess Di breast fed her two sons, and I thought what a great legacy if Kate Middleton or the Duchess of Cambridge could follow in her footsteps," said Singleton.
They seem to be talking about two different people here.
__________________
  #2298  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:06 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frideswide View Post
They seem to be talking about two different people here.
Since when did breast feeding become a great legacy? How pathetic of this singleton woman.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #2299  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:10 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 744
LOL Yes they seem a little confused. Kate probably will breast feed if she can. Not all women can and I hate the pressure they can be put under. Sometimes the bottle is the best option for the baby. I'm sure the press have a whole heap of headlines and puns still under their hats. LOL The press pack seems to have gotten bigger and bigger so they are expecting it sooner rather then later. Little Baby C could be here anytime only thing we know for sure is he or she will be born in July. LOL
__________________
  #2300  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:11 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homme;
The Duchess of Cambridge is due to have a baby any time soon but will it be a boy or a girl, and what name will Kate and William choose?
Media from around the world have gathered outside the private Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital, London, where the baby is expected to be born.
BBC's Jon Kay has joined the crowds of media who are waiting for the announcement to happen.
I love this. Instead of the media reporting on crowds, the media is reporting on crowds of media. Wonder how they like it!
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Closed Thread

Tags
baby gifts, prince william and duchess of cambridge


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread Zonk The Princess Royal and Family 480 07-30-2011 08:59 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]