The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Additional Children? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/additional-children-10402.html)

KathyMoore 07-29-2006 11:01 PM

Additional Children?
 
I recall reading something about a 60-yr-old Wales
woman giving birth to a son recently.

It just occured to me that Camilla is about the same
age.(younger, if I'm not mistaken)

What would happen if Camilla and Charles decided
to do the same?

Just wondering.... :)

Alexandria 07-29-2006 11:19 PM

I think the case of a 60 year old woman giving birth is an extremely rare one. That woman would have had to gone through fertility treatment to become pregnant, not to mention that that her baby would have very high risks for health problems. I can't see Camilla having fertility treatments at this time in her life in order to have a child with Charles.

And as Charles and Camilla have finally been able to get married and be together, I doubt that they would want to become parents together to a newborn. Besides, with both of Camilla's kids having gotten married recently, more likely the newborns she'll be attending to will be her grandkids.

Regardless if Charles and Camilla had kids, William would still inherit the throne following his father as Charles' first born (son).

Toledo 07-29-2006 11:56 PM

Quote:

60-yr-old Wales woman gave birth to son, what if Camilla wants to do the same?
You mean besides sending a few of us to an early grave just for the shock?
I think at this time in their lives and with all they have gone through they will dedicate the child more time than the one they had with their respective children. Why? because on the age factor. Their age. They will know there won't be much time left to enjoy their kid's life and no doubt will try to make the best of it.

Elspeth 07-30-2006 12:02 AM

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.

crisiñaki 07-30-2006 12:02 AM

I believe Charles and Camilla have fought a long way to be together and all they want is to spend the rest of their lives with each other so I don't think they would want to have a child at this age

ZandraRae 07-30-2006 04:58 PM

The Queen Mother would turn over in her grave if this discussion would indeed by some miracle become true. Please, that is all we need, a Charmilla child!

hornsen 07-30-2006 05:03 PM

It is all pure fantasy but, Charles would be the proudest father of the world. A child from his "darling" and if it would be a girl, he would be over the moon. But, its a senseless discussion. Anyhow it would be a great event.;)

Bella 07-30-2006 05:18 PM

Camilla wouldn't be so stupid.

Alexandria 07-30-2006 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hornsen
It is all pure fantasy but, Charles would be the proudest father of the world. A child from his "darling" and if it would be a girl, he would be over the moon.

Did Charles always want more kids? And did he ever say that he wanted a girl?

Of all the controversy in his life, for me Charles has always seemed very happy when surrounded by his sons or talking about them. The recent Dateline interview with Charles and his sons, it was so clear that Charles was first and foremost a dad like any other, bemused by the fashion styles of his sons, the music they listened to and complaining about the loud volume at which they listened to their music.

On the flip side, William and Harry were clearly also very loving and proud of their father and acting like any sons would, making fun of him about how "uncool" he was.

Paula** 07-30-2006 06:31 PM

~I don't think a child is on Charles's and Camilla's plans:p

HenrikaB 07-30-2006 06:45 PM

I agree that most, not all, people who truly love each other usually want to procreate as a sign of their union. But I don't believe that Charles and Camilla will have any children together.

Also, as unpopular as this may sound, I have come to think of the pairing of Charles and Camilla as the union of two soulmates.

hayz64 07-31-2006 08:14 AM

I don't think Charles and Camilla will have a baby together,but i think it'd be quite cute if they did!lol!:p

Obviously it ISN'T going to happen and i think the only babies Charles and Camilla will be handling together are their grandchildren.BUT...if they were to have a baby now,i have no doubt it would be a girl like Charles wanted.Camilla seems to be able to give Charles what he always wanted from her and i think it would be so fitting if it was indeed a girl!

BACK TO REALITY...When either William or Harry have a child do you think they will call Camilla their grandmother?With Diana gone,i don't see anything wrong with this,as William and Harry have both made their feelings clear about how they feel towards Camilla.I think it would be more awkward if either Tom or Laura have a child as Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive.Would the child just simply have 2 grandfathers??:confused: :confused:

ZandraRae 07-31-2006 11:03 AM

hayz64, I don't see any reason why tom or Laura's children couldn't have 2 grandfathers. Where I live it is actually very common. With the divorce rate so high these days, things such as this are looked upon as "normal."

pollyemma 07-31-2006 11:49 AM

i think it would be awful for them to have a child! can you imagine? if they had a child now they would be in their 70s when their child hit those difficult teenage years.

all their peers would be enjoying a life of leisure for senior citizens but C and C would be up till 2 am waiting for their teenager to come back from a party, worrying that he/she might be on drugs, who are they dating, dealing with teenage emotional ups and downs, etc.

most parents find this all hard enough to deal with while they are in their prime. but 70 year olds? i think C and C are far too wise to wish for such a thing.

hayz64 07-31-2006 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZandraRae
hayz64, I don't see any reason why tom or Laura's children couldn't have 2 grandfathers. Where I live it is actually very common. With the divorce rate so high these days, things such as this are looked upon as "normal."

Yeah it is in my area too,so i don't think there would be any problems!:smile:

I think it would look quite cute to see Charles and Camilla with granchildren and taking them out together!:wub:

Skydragon 08-05-2006 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayz64
Would the child just simply have 2 grandfathers??:confused: :confused:

Quite a lot of children have 4 grandmothers or grandfathers, it is nothing unusual. It would be easy enough for them to call one, Grandpapa Charles, one Grandpapa Andrew and one Grandpapa William (Sara P-B's father).

As for Charles and Camilla having a child at their age, I believe they have far too much sense. :flowers:

The 60 year old who had IVF to get pregnant is clearly mentally unstable and and too selfish to put the childs welfare first. :rolleyes:

Roslyn 08-05-2006 06:57 AM

I see, or sense, 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 without adverse comment. Any comment has been more in the nature of the "who'd a thought the old bloke would have had it in him", "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, goodonya mate", sort.

The adverse reaction we see these days seems to be generated in response to the idea of women in their 50s and 60s becoming mothers.

Now I ask you...........why on earth is a woman in her 60s likely to be a worse parent than a man in his 60s?

Since women in their late 50s and 60s and 70s have been caring, very successfully, for young children for decades while their own children, the parents of those young children, have been working, or socialising, or doing whatever it is that parents do when they want respite from the demands imposed on them by their mewling, puking, infants, it is clearly not the welfare of those infants that causes people to react adversely to the idea of a 60 year old mother, what is it other than sexism????

Of course the question "why on earth would a sane woman in her 50s or 60s want to put her body through that torment" is a completely different one :cool:

If Camilla and Charles both want to, and can, I can think of no valid reason why they should not. If they had one, their child would certainly be loved, and well cared for. What more can one ask of the parents of children?

Skydragon 08-05-2006 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn
For centuries men have been fathering children in their 50s and well into their 70s and even 80s without adverse comment. Now I ask you...........why on earth is a woman in her 60s likely to be a worse parent than a man in his 60s? Since women in their late 50s and 60s and 70s have been caring, very successfully, for young children for decades while their own children, the parents of those young children, have been working, or socialising

The men you speak of, at least have the sense to have another child with a much younger partner, thereby giving a greater chance of the mother still being around in the teenage years.

These 'older' women may have been 'caring successfully for decades', that is because at the end of the day, they hand them back! They simply do not have the enrgy to look after a child properly on a full time basis.

Can these 60 & 70 year olds keep up with the 8 year old who races off in the street or supermarket (not from what I have seen),

It is not being sexist, it is seeing all the implications and accepting that nature (with a few medical exceptions) makes the decision when a woman is too old to have children. These women are selfish or do they think the teasing their child will get is ok as long as they get what they want, by whatever means possible? :ermm:

Roslyn 08-05-2006 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
The men you speak of, at least have the sense to have another child with a much younger partner, thereby giving a greater chance of the mother still being around in the teenage years.

These 'older' women may have been 'caring successfully for decades', that is because at the end of the day, they hand them back! They simply do not have the enrgy to look after a child properly on a full time basis.

Can these 60 & 70 year olds keep up with the 8 year old who races off in the street or supermarket (not from what I have seen),

It is not being sexist, it is seeing all the implications and accepting that nature (with a few medical exceptions) makes the decision when a woman is too old to have children. These women are selfish or do they think the teasing their child will get is ok as long as they get what they want, by whatever means possible? :ermm:

For the last couple of centuries Royalty and the aristocracy and wealthy folk generally have delegated the day to day responsibilitiy for the rearing of their children to employees, so members of those circles have not had to had worry whether or not they had the energy to look after their children full time. It is simply not an issue when one has enough money to pay others to do it.

Skydragon 08-05-2006 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn
It is simply not an issue when one has enough money to pay others to do it.

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. :rolleyes: :whistling:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises