Royal Baby Maker

Started by RoyalFan001, August 24, 2014, 01:58:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RoyalFan001

Seriously, people get attached to Royal Babies. They are Royals. That means OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE! These babies have Royal Bloodlines, and are in line to be on the throne to become Kings And Queens. Stop fawning over them, they will be richer and more powerful than you ever be.

Royal Women, have babies purely for the Monarchy and secure the bloodline.

Macrobug

#1
Maybe I have misunderstood your post.  Are you saying that the women in the royal families only get pregnant to produce heirs?  To me that seems rather insulting to the women.  One, it is misogynistic to suggest that their only purpose is to be, in essence , brood mares.  And two, could it be that they actually have emotions and are having children because they want children? 

If I misunderstood then my apologies.  If not, then wow.    :no:


Not to mention,  it is insulting and very disrespectful to your fellow posters to tell them to "quit fawning..."
GNU Terry Pratchett

RoyalFan001

it's all of the royal job. you can't really get away from.

Curryong

It may be part of the royal job, as you put it, RoyalFanOO1, but most women when they get married look forward to having a family with their spouse. That includes females who marry into the royal family. I doubt whether Kate, on her first sight of baby George, said to William "He is the first heir to be born to a second in line to the throne for over a hundred years, you know!" Or, if she did, it would be very peculiar!

RoyalFan001

#4
it's just part of the job. seriously. do you buy that "having babies with your spouse" Ha ha.

Double post auto-merged: August 24, 2014, 03:29:37 AM


trust me that's what they are looking for. just another spare. sad but true. these people don't care about their kids at all.

Double post auto-merged: August 24, 2014, 05:22:45 AM


to Macrobug. I think I know better concerning the Royals. You shouldn't be interested in their kids. They are important people. They seem very off limits to commoners.

Limabeany

I think we mustn't lose sight of the fact that they are people too, especially in their youth. There is no reason to assume they don't want a family, albeit one that British tradition would hail as superior to the rest of the people.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

RoyalFan001

with all the pomp and circumstance, and "out of your league" and not your type sort of stuff. they are judgmental. They are not people like us. Nothing can convince me other wise. That is my opinion. They are not people too. They are so removed from the Public it's not funny. They Live in such lavishness. There are different people with different Social Status. And it is looked down upon if I a commoner would try to date a Royal.

Get real, they are a very selective class. Them fighting against each other for power and the throne. Sounds like a "regular family" to me. They are not. You can't be "Normal People" being related to the Queen.

Curryong

Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)

RoyalFan001


In All I Do

Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)

I think it was called "It's a Royal Knockout"?   :wink:

TLLK

Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 03:11:10 AM
It may be part of the royal job, as you put it, RoyalFanOO1, but most women when they get married look forward to having a family with their spouse. That includes females who marry into the royal family. I doubt whether Kate, on her first sight of baby George, said to William "He is the first heir to be born to a second in line to the throne for over a hundred years, you know!" Or, if she did, it would be very peculiar!
:goodpost:

TLLK

Quote from: Adrienne on August 25, 2014, 11:50:44 AM
Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)

I think it was called "It's a Royal Knockout"?   :wink:
And it's floatin' around on the internet somewhere.  :D

amabel

Quote from: RoyalFan001 on August 24, 2014, 02:37:12 PM
with all the pomp and circumstance, and "out of your league" and not your type sort of stuff. they are judgmental. They are not people like us. Nothing can convince me other wise. That is my opinion. They are not people too. They are so removed from the Public it's not funny. They Live in such lavishness. There are different people with different Social Status. And it is looked down upon if I a commoner would try to date a Royal.

Get real, they are a very selective class. Them fighting against each other for power and the throne. Sounds like a "regular family" to me. They are not. You can't be "Normal People" being related to the Queen.
sicne most of the RF marry commoners I don't qite see wht you mean.

RoyalFan001


TLLK

#14
In the current British royal family that would be those who were not born as a royal. So HM, DoE, Princes- Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, Harry,George, Richard, Edward Kent, Michael, Princesses- Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice and Eugenie are royals.  Everyone else is a commoner by birth. (The DoE did give up his Greek title though prior to marrying HM.)

All the other ladies who married into the BRF have a courtesy title from their royal spouse. Even those who were part of the aristocracy would be considered commoners. The  majority of the men who marry royal ladies are still commoners unless they are created as royals by the monarch ie: Duke of Edinburgh

cate1949

combo of both?  Of course they love their kids and want to have kids for the same reasons everyone else wants to - but no denying that some of them are obliged to produce heirs and so there must be at least relief when they accomplish that.  Sort of whew - the succession is secure got that out of the way.

amabel

Quote from: RoyalFan001 on September 23, 2014, 08:28:27 PM
who's a commoner??
anyone who is not a peer or Royal is a commoner.  Diana princess of wales, was, so are most royal wives and girlefriends

Macrobug

#17
Technically Harry is a commoner.  He isn't a peer therefore he is a commoner.  So is Princess Anne.  The only ones that are not commoners are POW, DOE, Edward and Andrew.  And their spouses. 

There are only three legal standings.  Sovereign, Peer, Commoner.  Being born royal doesn't make you a peer.  You have to have a Peerage.

A fairly decent explanation Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?
GNU Terry Pratchett

TLLK

I hadn't realized that Macrobug. Thank you for the information.

Macrobug

It is a hard one for me to get my head wrapped around.  QE was a commoner when she married DOE who was a Peer.  Until she became Sovereign she was a Peer through marriage.  William was a commoner until the day of his marriage when he became DOC.  Eugenia and Bea are Princesses but are commoners...... :blink:   :P
GNU Terry Pratchett

amabel

Quote from: Macrobug on September 24, 2014, 06:13:39 AM
Technically Harry is a commoner.  He isn't a peer therefore he is a commoner.  So is Princess Anne.  The only ones that are not commoners are POW, DOE, Edward and Andrew.  And their spouses. 

There are only three legal standings.  Sovereign, Peer, Commoner.  Being born royal doesn't make you a peer.  You have to have a Peerage.

A fairly decent explanation Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?
No they are royal. 

Macrobug

Yes Royal but commoners.  Just to make sure I am going to get @Windsor to put in his two cents.  YO! Windsor!  Comments?   :hehe:
GNU Terry Pratchett

HistoryGirl

^I think that's true. Anyone that's not a peer is a commoner. Royal they may be, but commoners still. Kinda like you can be an aristocrat and a commoner as well.

amabel

There is no legal status of aristocrat.. there is only a peer... the children of peers are commoners, but the children of a prince of the realm are royal....

Macrobug

Here is another site talking about peerage/commoner  Peerage | European Royal History
GNU Terry Pratchett