Additional Children? - Page 2

Roslyn · #21 08-05-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I was replying to your post where you say "an unseemly dash of sexism in the criticism of women becoming parents at a age older than the traditional general maximum age for motherhood. For centuries men have been fathering children in their 50s and well into their 70s and even 80s" and "Since women in their late 50s and 60s and 70s have been caring, very successfully, for young children for decades".
Most of these IMO, selfish women are unable to guarantee that their pension fund will cover the cost of a nanny, governess or even childcare costs.No matter how good your childrens nanny may be, by the time she is 50, a younger helper is taken on, why, because the older nanny has lost the speed and reflexes they need to look after young babies and children.

I am fully aware that 'members of these circles' employ a nanny, governess etc.

I still see a dash of sexism in criticism of a woman doing something because of age when criticism is not levelled at a man on the same basis. Is it a good thing for 75 year old Rupert Murdoch to have a 5 year old and 3 year old? I suspect he has them because his latest, 35 year old, wife wanted them. Is it better for a child to have an ancient father than an ancient mother? I don't think so.

As long as the child's health is not compromised because of the age of the mother, and as long as the parents can afford to provide for the child's needs, I don't think it's necessarily (and I repeat, necessarily) selfish of an older woman to want to have a child. Mind you, even I draw the line at 60 and probably actually about 55 if I'm honest with myself.

And I don't think it should be encouraged.

Skydragon · #22 08-06-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I still see a dash of sexism in criticism of a woman doing something because of age when criticism is not levelled at a man on the same basis. Is it a good thing for 75 year old Rupert Murdoch to have a 5 year old and 3 year old? I suspect he has them because his latest, 35 year old, wife wanted them. Is it better for a child to have an ancient father than an ancient mother? I don't think so.

Well we know we are never going to agree on this one! I think both scenarios are bad however, the father (of whatever age) is not going to increase the risks associated with geriatric pregnancies.

Bella · #23 08-06-2006, 06:58 PM

Women are not meant to have babies in their 50s/60s/70s. It's not sexism, it's nature. Just because humans have developed the technology to do so doesn't deem it right.

Anayhow, I thought this topic was about Camilla having a child at her age, which is ludicrous. Now that both her children are married, maybe the topic should be Camilla's grandchildren.

**Elspeth** · #24 08-06-2006, 07:10 PM

When she has grandchildren, I'm sure someone will be starting a thread. In the meantime, this thread was started as a "what-if" that's hypothetical but not complete fantasy, given the news about this 62-year-old mother.

Roslyn · #25 08-06-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Well we know we are never going to agree on this one!

I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, just stating my own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think both scenarios are bad however, the father (of whatever age) is not going to increase the risks associated with geriatric pregnancies.

There is now evidence that the age of the father can affect the risks. For example:

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/preconce...ectsfertility/

elizabet · #26 08-07-2006, 12:40 AM

hi, personally i think it's kind of dissapointing that they didn't have some illigitimate son with the dark hair and big ears. but i can't really say that.

Skydragon · #27 08-07-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

There is now evidence that the age of the father can affect the risks. For example:
/

As the article says, the risk to a baby from a geriatric pregnancy are well known. As I said both scenarios are far from ideal.

I still think Charles and Camilla have far too much intelligence to want to go down the route of having another child at their age, I should think they will leave that to politicians who need to get votes.

HRH Kimetha · #28 08-09-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As the article says, the risk to a baby from a geriatric pregnancy are well known. As I said both scenarios are far from ideal.

I still think Charles and Camilla have far too much intelligence to want to go down the route of having another child at their age, I should think they will leave that to politicians who need to get votes.

In addition, I think Charles & Camilla are at an age to really enjoy what years they have together without nappies.

Panther2000 · #29 08-13-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Since this is a speculative topic which doesn't (I hope) have any grounding in fact, is there really much point discussing it?

The facts are that if Camilla gave birth to Charles's child, the child would be in the line of succession after William and Harry and their children. Whether she or Charles would want to do that, whether they'd be able to find a doctor to help carry it out, and what the Queen might do or think are all topics that we can only guess about.

I think what others may be missing also is that the EGG that the woman used was not her own. So, speaking as a woman/mother/wife. Camilla would need egges donated. Hence, creating another Question. Charles may father a child genetically, but she herself is not genetically related to the child. & being that Royality deals with Genetics relations & marriage, etc....

THis is all in theory only because, I can pretty much with 100% certain that a child by the both of them won't happen at all. But, just throwing questions like these out ther are fun to play around with.

Lady Night Stalker · #30 08-13-2006, 10:05 PM

Ha! The chances of Camilla having a child at her age are slim to none. In a fantasy world I'm sure it would be lovely but in real life? Never going to happen. I know they say never say never but Camilla having a child at her age is just not going to happen and I highyl doubt that Camilla with two children of her own already plus step children honestly wants to have a child at her age. I would think she'd rather just enjoy her golden years with Charles all to herself rather than have anohter young child to worry about.

hayz64 · #31 08-14-2006, 02:43 PM

Just think of the amount of controversy it would cause!

In a way though i think it would be really cute...just my imagination i think!But i really want Charles and Camilla,(even though we know they are completely in love with each other) to do something really big in public to show that they are!I don't know...like a really romantic gesture or something!

Gosh me and my hopeless romantic ways going off again!

wittykitty · #32 08-14-2006, 04:57 PM

"Pensiner parents are the new rage but I think if they had gotton remarried 7/8 years ago then it might have been possible but right now they just want to spend time together not with a baby.
wittykitty

Panther2000 · #33 08-16-2006, 03:44 AM

7 or eight years ago was out of the question. It took almost 10 years for the marraige to happen.

& Frankly, I find it kind of selfish(sp) of these silly women today at the ages of 50 & over to be having children. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. There is a Very good reason why woman in their late 40's & in some cases early 50's go through the change. Creating a new life within your own takes a great toll on the body. Hence, all the risks factors that play in not only for the child but for the mother also. If, it happens naturally then Good luck to the mother. As in case here in the US about 2 years ago. A woman inDetroit 62 years old had twin naturally, She was suprised as anyone when the doctor told her that she was going to have a baby. Needless to say, that she did not go to doctors to become preg. It just happen. & by the time she realized that something was up it was too late to do anything about it.

But, back on track.

I have a question. I know that Charles has made some kind of trust fund for Camilla's kids. But, what about their kids, His step Grandchildren. Or dose the trust funds stop with camilla's kids. Though, they are in the royal family they are not part of the royal family. Because, being that both of Camilla's kids are now married. the Next news will be the babies coming probably within the next year. Just a though.

Australian · #34 09-17-2006, 06:08 AM

I don't think Camilla would even think about having anymore kids. She is now in her mature years, close to pension years and I think all she wants to do now is enjoy the kids she already has and her grandkids (does she have any? if not, then she can enjoy looking forward to grandkids)

Skydragon · #35 09-17-2006, 06:59 AM

Royal News - Camilla and Charles Have Fifty-Five Babies!

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_family/218182004.htm

Avalon · #36 09-17-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Royal News - Camilla and Charles Have Fifty-Five Babies!

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_family/218182004.htm

You put that one in the right thread, Skydragon! And it's hillarious!

We hoped (well, at least thought) of one baby but no one in the wildest dream could dream of 55!

Looks like it's destiny for Charles' to be with Camillas' !!!

**Elspeth** · #37 09-17-2006, 12:31 PM

Oh, my...

"Car salesman Hayden Crawford, from Dorset, England, who is a fan of the royal family, said: "Camilla doesn't like Charles. When I put him in her tank she attacked him and broke his leg.""

Maybe he should have called the female Diana.

AgnesK · #38 09-17-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

"Camilla doesn't like Charles. When I put him in her tank she attacked him and broke his leg."

"News of the world" should run the story about that