Prince Harry: Relationship Suggestions and Musings 2016-2017 - Page 26

amaryllus · #**501** 09-16-2016, 06:25 PM

Yes. Realistically They either have a child the fun old fashioned way or be Childless. Any bride of Harry's has to be fine with this.

Denville · #**502** 09-16-2016, 06:26 PM

Good one! (that's if harry and William HAVE any hair left in a few years).
I think it just would not happen.. it would lead ot all sorts of questions.. and really I don't think that Harry is that bothered about marriage and kids. he may say he would like botht but I just don't see him getting very worked up about it.
If he married and could not have them, I certainly feel he would be sad but he'd hardly divorce over it.

Countessmeout · #**503** 09-16-2016, 06:48 PM

Why would she have to be fine with it? As said there are plenty of heirs. If someone would contest the child right to be heir then fine. Royals have children just like any other couple, because they want them. Of Charles would be the only sibling to have them. If Harry and his wife have trouble conceiving, which is a very common issue, why shouldn't they have help? They should be able to have kids if they want. Not is he the heir, and the old fashioned Henry viii mentality he should divorce her and find a rife who can have kids

Skippyboo · #**504** 09-16-2016, 07:08 PM

Found this on a uk website,

Birth mother is legal mother regardless of source of genetic material and if married, her husband is legal father. Parental orders are needed to reassign parents

Source: https://www.surrogacyuk.org/intended...tions-answered

So technically, it probably violates succession rules.

With his wealth, Harry and theoretical wife if they were having conception problems could look to drug therapy and IVF as options before surrogacy.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Curryong · #**505** 09-16-2016, 09:26 PM

Don't direct heirs to the throne have to be born both 'of the blood royal' (in one parent) and 'of the body' (in other words born in the normal way from the wife's womb)?

If some terrible disaster (God forbid) wiped out King William and his heirs, Harry would become the next King of course, but any adopted children or surrogates born in the marriage wouldn't be eligible under today's rules, as I understand it.

It's an extremely unlikely scenario anyway, but if a surrogate had been born during the marriage as an eldest child, using Harry's sperm and his wife's eggs, then the laws regarding Royal births and succession would have to be changed, I guess.

Mbruno · #**506** 09-16-2016, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

Don't direct heirs to the throne have to be born both 'of the blood royal' (in one parent) and 'of the body' (in other words born in the normal way from the wife's womb)?

If some terrible disaster (God forbid) wiped out King William and his heirs, Harry would become the next King of course, but any adopted children or surrogates born in the marriage wouldn't be eligible under today's rules, as I understand it.

It's an extremely unlikely scenario anyway, but if a surrogate had been born during the marriage as an eldest child, using Harry's sperm and his wife's eggs, then the laws regarding Royal births and succession would have to be changed, I guess.

I guess it all boils down to the exact meaning of "heirs of her body" (the actual language of the Act of Settlement).

Skippyboo · #**507** 09-16-2016, 10:10 PM

Why would they change it just for Harry's kids. There are mess of people in line after Harry.

If they were concerned about children born out of wedlock and then parents marry or children born via surrogacy, they could have addressed those issues when they wrote the succession to the crown act.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Curryong · #**508** 09-16-2016, 10:16 PM

This is a situation so unlikely that it is in outer space somewhere! However, laws in Britain often limp behind advances in technology and in community expectations, sometimes by decades. Look at laws governing male homosexual relationships, on-line bullying, on-line fraud etc etc. Nor, sometimes, do they encompass every possible scenario.

Skippyboo · #**509** 09-16-2016, 10:23 PM

UK law is the birth mother is the legal mother of baby even if no genetic relationship. So the genetic parents have to basically adopt their biological child back. That's what should be changed if the birth parents have no genetic ties to the baby.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Ish · #**510** 09-16-2016, 10:31 PM

This has been discussed on the Gay Royalty thread.

Basically, British law recognizes the birth mother of a child born via a surrogacy as the legal mother - the surrogate has to give up her rights, and the parents have to adopt the child.

From a succession standpoint, this means that a child born via a surrogate is technically either an adopted child or an illegitimate one. If "adopted" then the child could hold courtesy titles, but if "illegitimate" then the child isn't even able to do that. I suspect that this would be changed if a royal were to actually have a child via a surrogate, although in all likelihood it will come about through a change in attitude among the peerage first, before being adapted for the RF.

But, regardless of succession rights and titles... why on earth would that prevent Harry and a wife from seeking a surrogate if they needed/wanted one? As has been said "there are loads of heirs" so why should his children being (or not being) in the line of succession be a factor to consider if Harry and his wife are unable to conceive through natural means?

Skippyboo · #**511** 09-16-2016, 10:41 PM

There is nothing to stop them. There is also nothing to stop single Harry from adopting children or having them out of wedlock if he didn't care of their succession rights. A wife isn't a requirement for kids.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Denville · #**512** 09-17-2016, 02:09 AM

I should say that Harry would prefer his children to be in line for the throne even if they aren't that likely to get there. And Im sure he would wish (and the RF would wish) for his children to be legitimate.
I'm very sure he would not just wish to have children by some woman he wasn't close to, and married to.
If he marries and can't have children, he could adopt, but its not IMO an ideal situation. His children would inevitalby be public figures so they would lose a lot of privacy, and not have the usual privileges of royalty to compensate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

Found this on a uk website,

Birth mother is legal mother regardless of source of genetic material and if married, her husband is legal father. Parental orders are needed to reassign parents

So technically, it probably violates succession rules.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

well yes that's what I said. If the child is born to a surrogate mother she'd be the mother and so, the child would not be considered royal. It would have to be born to Harry's wife.
I don't see Harry going for such difficult options anyway if he couldn't have children "normaly".

Tatiana Maria · #**513** 09-17-2016, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Lord Jopling: [...] The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who was speaking for the Government, was not able to answer the question there and then, but he kindly wrote to me again back in March of this year. I wish to quote part of his letter. He said that,

“the child of a surrogate mother cannot succeed to a peerage and the Government is of the view that if succession to the peerage is excluded then a fortiori succession to the Crown must be excluded as well, even though the Crown is not expressly mentioned”.

He went on to say:

“We believe that the law is currently sufficiently clear in this area, but should the issue arise in the future, and the Government of the day disagree, it could, of course, amend the legislation in line with the medical practice of the time. Given the pace of medical advancement in this area this seems eminently sensible”.

Lords Hansard text for*06 Dec 2013 (pt 0002)

SLV · #**514** 09-18-2016, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Lords Hansard text for*06 Dec 2013 (pt 0002)

Interesting, thank you.

**JessRulz** · #**515** 09-22-2016, 06:00 AM

The most recent discussion about Harry's sexuality stemming from a highly dubious article have been deleted.

Please remember our rules on speculation, which this article definitely did not comply with:

Quote:

Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.

Quote:

I received a message from a moderator saying that my post had been removed because it contained speculation. We don't know the royals and we get all our information second hand, so isn't it all speculation?

Our rule about speculation is intended to prevent tabloid-type flights of fancy which often slip into outright fantasy and sometimes even libel. While we realise that much of the information posted in the threads is based on reports in the media which we can't verify, we expect posters to base their statements on published reports rather than on wishful thinking or unsubstantiated hearsay. The forum moderators have the final say about whether posts are unacceptably speculative. Disagreements with moderator decisions must take place via private message, not by arguing in the threads and certainly not by reposting deleted material.

Questions are to be directed to the moderating team.

Curryong · #**516** 09-26-2016, 08:06 PM

Ingrid Seward speaks about social media and its effects on Cressida Bonas, people in the street making remarks about her as she passed, etc. This is going to be the same for every girl Harry dates. Hide of rhinoceros required!

Cressida Bonas split up from Prince Harry 'because she could not take public scrutiny' | Daily Mail Online

michelle0187 · #**517** 09-26-2016, 10:36 PM

I swear there is an article just like that each year. one year they say or she says that she left for her career then the next year, it's because of scrutiny. being a film actress and model always includes scrutiny and being noticed in public. she seemed quite comfortable posing in front of a lot of cameras and having a good amount of people staring at her on stage.

PrinceHarrysWife · #**518** 09-30-2016, 03:32 AM

Poor Cressida... dating a prince can be hard because of scrutiny and criticism. She could have said no to Harry when he asked her out but no. She wanted to date him and then go back to her dancing job hehe. JMO

Curryong · #**519** 09-30-2016, 03:47 AM

She's been acting though, more than she's been dancing, since the break-up, PHW. Apparently she and old boyfriend Harry Wentworth-Stanley are together at the moment.

michelle0187 · #**520** 09-30-2016, 01:18 PM

^ she's been acting because of the relationship she had with ph. the acting world is less public for someone like her and you get more control over the direction you want to take. She could've said no but she gained a certain kind of fame without breaking a sweat. I really hope Ingrid is just bsing because during the time they were dating, she kept giving him the kate stare and looked for the camera when they were standing next to eachother.