Harry and Meghan Are Expecting, Baby Due Spring 2019 - Page 33

Countessmeout · #**641** 01-26-2019, 07:35 PM

They will limit any events for Harry around the due date, likely a few weeks around as babies can be early or late. If he does have an event planned, and the baby comes, it would be understandable he misses it.

The first months or so it would be easy not to have a nanny. Meghan and Harry will both have some leave. Even if Doria is not there the entire time. Kate and William did this, and later had Nanny Webb help when they were back in London, before they hired Maria full time (and had a housekeeper whose duties included supporting childcare as well).

Zaira · #**642** 01-26-2019, 07:56 PM

I fully expect they may not have a nanny the first couple of months while Meghan is on leave (and Harry too. I do expect Harry will take a full leave as well). I am sure Doria will come over to help out as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Doria stays with them for the first 6-8 weeks, even.

But once they start duties, they will certainly have a nanny, and no I do not think it will be Doria. She may well move over to the UK eventually, but I don't see that happening for a few years yet. I am sure she will be visiting a lot though! Honestly, the way the media loves to assume that grandmas are just eager to serve as nannies is annoying.

Iluvbertie · #**643** 01-26-2019, 09:30 PM

As Harry doesn't have a job as such - and doesn't exactly do a lot of duties for someone who has been unemployed since mid-2015 - he really isn't entitled to paternity leave.

If he was working, as William was when George and Charlotte were born, he would be entitled to paternity leave from paid work but not from unpaid occasional appearances.

William took a couple of days after Louis was born as he had engagements on the 25th and 26th April and then regularly after that.

Remember that most engagements are between 30 minutes and an hour in length so it wouldn't be too much for Harry to leave the house for 30 minutes to meet with some people and then return.

Somebody · #**644** 01-26-2019, 09:35 PM

I don't understand why Harry would not be able to take on any engagements for weeks/months (how long would a full paternity leave be?) after the birth of his child. He can easily make sure to spend sufficient time at home with his wife and child and still do some work for the firm and/or the foundation as well.

jacqui24 · #**645** 01-26-2019, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As Harry doesn't have a job as such - and doesn't exactly do a lot of duties for someone who has been unemployed since mid-2015 - he really isn't entitled to paternity leave.

If he was working, as William was when George and Charlotte were born, he would be entitled to paternity leave from paid work but not from unpaid occasional appearances.

William took a couple of days after Louis was born as he had engagements on the 25th and 26th April and then regularly after that.

Remember that most engagements are between 30 minutes and an hour in length so it wouldn't be too much for Harry to leave the house for 30 minutes to meet with some people and then return.

Then why is there such a thing as maternity leave in the royal world? And people seem to accept and expect that. After all, if it’s just 30 min out of your day to meet people, why isn’t the same said for women as soon as they physically recover? While royals aren’t paid to carry out public engagements like you or I are paid from our job, it is work. I did raise an eyebrow at William returning to work two days after Louis was born, especially since he wasn’t announced for it. I think there is a question of doing enough royal duties normally, and then there are exceptional time. I think taking a few weeks with just essential duties after the birth of a child is not only reasonable, but setting a good example.

Just so we are clear, I’m not saying women have to come back to full royal schedule right away. I’m pointing out to the double standard and a society norm that contributes to gender inequality.

Countessmeout · #**646** 01-26-2019, 09:55 PM

Modern times don't seem to have changed opinions on many things. It is fully expected a new mom would stay home with a baby, even if not nursing. But the idea of paternity leave is a foreign concept to some.

Harry has a job, the same job that every royal man has. Being a working royal is considered to be their job. To suggest he hasn't been working since 2015 is to suggest no royals work.

Yes William returned quite quickly after Louis, but he wasn't also a first time father. And his wife had the help of her family and a full time nanny. If Doria is there for some time, he may do the odd duty while Doria is there.

I could see him doing duties in London pretty quickly. But I don't see him venturing out of the city early on. Its one thing for the customary 1-2 hour engagements, but going further from home I think will wait till the baby is a bit older. Even if an engagement is only 2 hours, an engagement in Scotland lets say, is not a short time away from his baby.

Somebody · #**647** 01-26-2019, 10:10 PM

I don't think women and men should be treated equally in this regard. The mother gives birth and in many cases breast feeds the baby. Two very important distinctions with the fathers who cannot do either of them. So, while I do think new father's should be given sufficient days off after the birth of a child for binding and supporting their wives (and especially flexibilty to support when especially needed) that cannot be compared to the mother's leave imo.

And other fathers also venture out for full days sometimes within days but surely within weeks, so I see no need for a royal exception. So, engagements in the country sjouldn't be a problem.

jacqui24 · #**648** 01-26-2019, 10:18 PM

There is such a thing as breast pump. So feeding is not the same as it was in the old times. While I still agree with some distinction between paternity leave and maternity leave, they should remain much closer than what has been the norm. Most have come to see maternity leave as necessary, while paternity leave is not seen as such. Childcare isn’t just necessary from mother, but BOTH parents. And that time early on does have a heavy influence on how duties will be divided going forward.

Countessmeout · #**649** 01-26-2019, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't think women and men should be treated equally in this regard. The mother gives birth and in many cases breast feeds the baby. Two very important distinctions with the fathers who cannot do either of them. So, while I do think new father's should be given sufficient days off after the birth of a child for binding and supporting their wives (and especially flexibilty to support when especially needed) that cannot be compared to the mother's leave imo.

And other fathers also venture out for full days sometimes within days but surely within weeks, so I see no need for a royal exception. So, engagements in the country sjouldn't be a problem.

Many women don't breast feed. Should maternity leave only be for breast feeding mothers

One could argue if a woman is in good enough health to leave the hospital hours after birth, she is in physical shape to return to work after. Its not all about the physical labor of having a baby. Having a baby is a change to everyone in the house, not just the father.

Fortunately in the 21st century many countries realize the importance of a dad and his bond with kids. And have introduced paternity leave, and not just for royal parents.

Yes many dads have to go back to work right away. And most come home at the end of the day. Engagements all over the country or tours are another matter.

One would hope people's minds will eventually accept modern change. Its why paternity leave is often not used. Many men feel shame/not entitled to the time because of the narrow old fashioned view a man's time to bond and be with his newborn is not as key as a woman's.

King of the Jungle · #**650** 01-27-2019, 01:26 AM

Even if both parents are co-parenting, breast pumps are not often the best choice for very small babies. It takes a while for babies to accept milk from a bottle as the sucking mechanism is not the same for breast as for bottle. Maternity Leave is based on the needs of the baby and the welfare of the mother recovering from birth. Paternity Leave is acknowledging that both parents need to care for their child. In these modern days both parents will go back to work so both need to know their baby well enough to care for it. Our society affords this. Personally, I think most babies still demand/choose their mother's care and their father supports the whole new family dynamics where he can. I predict Harry takes time off for his new family.

Lilyflo · #**651** 01-27-2019, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

I fully expect they may not have a nanny the first couple of months while Meghan is on leave (and Harry too. I do expect Harry will take a full leave as well). I am sure Doria will come over to help out as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Doria stays with them for the first 6-8 weeks, even.

But once they start duties, they will certainly have a nanny, and no I do not think it will be Doria. She may well move over to the UK eventually, but I don't see that happening for a few years yet. I am sure she will be visiting a lot though! Honestly, the way the media loves to assume that grandmas are just eager to serve as nannies is annoying.

As a granny myself, I wholeheartedly endorse your comment!

Doria has her own life & I'm sure she'll be a doting & helpful grandmother who visits often without becoming an unpaid nanny. I agree that they'll need one because Meghan is a working royal & in addition to her own work, she'll also be doing joint engagements with Harry so somebody else has to support with childcare.

muriel · #**652** 01-27-2019, 03:35 AM

Here we go yet again....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-question.html

Zaira · #**653** 01-27-2019, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel

Here we go yet again....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-question.html

There are surely more important things for the Mail to spend energy on than this rubbish.

MARG · #**654** 01-27-2019, 04:52 AM

Unfortunately it seems not.

Osipi · #**655** 01-27-2019, 04:57 AM

Another tactic that I think Meghan and Harry may adopt is one that William and Kate followed and was stated publicly by William, himself. After they returned to royal duties, they scheduled their events such that one of them is always home with the kids. There's always Mummy or Daddy to tuck them in at night. Nanny Maria is a very close member of the family too and the kids are growing up with her being around but the nanny is not replacing the parenting.

This is the model I see Meghan and Harry following. Both families are adamant in putting their family first and have found/will find ways to make this work along with being full time working royals.

Mbruno · #**656** 01-27-2019, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Another tactic that I think Meghan and Harry may adopt is one that William and Kate followed and was stated publicly by William, himself. After they returned to royal duties, they scheduled their events such that one of them is always home with the kids. There's always Mummy or Daddy to tuck them in at night. Nanny Maria is a very close member of the family too and the kids are growing up with her being around but the nanny is not replacing the parenting.

It is interesting to hear that as, for centuries, royal and in fact even most aristocratic parents cared very little about being "present" or close to their young children. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II for example would go on international tours and leave her children alone for months. Mutatis Mutandis, based on accounts by CP Frederik and CP Victoria, it was not much different in Denmark or Sweden, so it is not just a British thing.

This talk on William/Kate or Harry/Meghan being "hands-on parents" or "taking turns" to care for the children seems to be aimed at reinforcing the image that royal families now behave more like ordinary working middle-class families, which is also in line with royal kids now going to normal schools etc. It may be indeed a generational shift, not least because so many middle-class women have now married into European royalty, but I take it with a grain of salt as most of it might be purely PR given the changing political/cultural environment and changing public perception of the royals.

Denville · #**657** 01-27-2019, 05:26 AM

of course it was not a British thing.. all upper and middle class children were reared by nannies, at school or sent to different households to learn how to behave.. working class children only had a very short childhood anyway, and were out working as soon as they could be sent. Now, its different. Will and Kate have taken the children on tours with them, even when they were very young... Having said that I doubt if royal paretns get up every time the baby cries, when they have a nanny to help...

Osipi · #**658** 01-27-2019, 05:40 AM

For me, all I have to do is look at who the parents are of these "newfangled" hands on parents. All children vow to not make the mistakes their parents made and I see this in play. Both William and Harry had parents that tried to break away from the "royal mode" and give their children a more stable home environment and "normal" upbringing. This continues on as those royal boys fell in love with and married women that had a stable home life and family (even with a divorce in the picture for one of them).

The days are long gone where children should be seen and not heard.

muriel · #**659** 01-27-2019, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is interesting to hear that as, for centuries, royal and in fact even most aristocratic parents cared very little about being "present" or close to their young children. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II for example would go on international tours and leave her children alone for months. Mutatis Mutandis, based on accounts by CP Frederik and CP Victoria, it was not much different in Denmark or Sweden, so it is not just a British thing.

This talk on William/Kate or Harry/Meghan being "hands-on parents" or "taking turns" to care for the children seems to be aimed at reinforcing the image that royal families now behave more like ordinary working middle-class families, which is also in line with royal kids now going to normal schools etc. It may be indeed a generational shift, not least because so many middle-class women have now married into European royalty, but I take it with a grain of salt as most of it might be purely PR given the changing political/cultural environment and changing public perception of the royals.

As you quite rightly say, it is a generational thing. William's generation is far more involved with their children than say, that of his grandparents.

xenobia · #**660** 01-27-2019, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is interesting to hear that as, for centuries, royal and in fact even most aristocratic parents cared very little about being "present" or close to their young children. As far as I know, Queen Elizabeth II for example would go on international tours and leave her children alone for months. Mutatis Mutandis, based on accounts by CP Frederik and CP Victoria, it was not much different in Denmark or Sweden, so it is not just a British thing.

No, it's not just a british thing. But if we take Sweden as an example (I know my own country better than Denmark), both Victoria and Madeleine have talked in public about how much their parents were away when they were kids. Both prince Daniel and Carl Philip has taken time off royal duties to stay at home with the kids. I would say that the younger generation of royals - not just in Sweden - are very much more hands on, including parental leave, than their parents.