We certainly doBastille we love you whatever you are
We certainly doBastille we love you whatever you are
I also think that they won't review it anytime soon given the rumours about Meghan and Harry's offspring, But I believe the secrecy is the issue. If George marries in 20 -25 years and they have fertility issues I don't think the British public would in anyway object them using a gestational carrier to have a familyWhilst I agree that the RF may need to review the 'of the body rules' to allow for surrogacy, with all that is going on both within the family and worldwide, I don't think that now is the right time to be debating it. They have shown themselves to be progressive, indeed at times they are far ahead of the trend (ecology, the environment and conservation) so I'm sure that IVF/surrogacy is not something they would be against/try to hide, but Harry and his offspring are far enough down the line of succession for it not to be a major issue at this time.
The Palace follows the law, they don't need their own position.Agreed, like another poster said it's always been widely reported that Sophie had IVF but the crux of the succession issue appears to be the "of the body" part. They need to consider the future implications of modern medicine
Anne has released a statement about her father's passing.
Exactly, why rock the boat? The Harkles will drop down the line of succession as time goes on, and become more and more irrelevant. If when the Cambridge children start having children there are any fertility issues, they will be dealt with then.I also think that they won't review it anytime soon given the rumours about Meghan and Harry's offspring, But I believe the secrecy is the issue. If George marries in 20 -25 years and they have fertility issues I don't think the British public would in anyway object them using a gestational carrier to have a family
Not saying they shouldn't but laws can are tangible.The Palace follows the law, they don't need their own position.
The "of body" is the law, which has very recently been challenged in court (last couple of years) and was upheld.
HMTQ has done a damn good job of it and she was 25 I think when she took the throne and had 2 young children and had another 2 children. I know she is extraordinary, but I think Will and Catherine could make it work. Just saying.Unlikely to happen, Charles isn't going to make William take the throne any earlier than he absolutely has to as it is so all consuming.
If the Royal Family change the legislation, it won'
I assume that after all these years that any plausible argument to double check that Hazza is Charles’s natural son is long resolved.Yes we know that's probably what happened with Archie (and the new kid) but even if the children are genetically theirs they aren't 'born of the body'.
These cowards only go for soft targets who can't answer back, or white people who can be accused of racism if they answer back like Sharon Osborne.Loads of nasty comments underneath. But how do you prove a negative (assuming he's not got anything to be guilty of)?
They are maybe playing the winning time game, and gauging public opinion, cue Thursday and Meghan is with Harry, because she is "selfless" like that.
Their PR makes me rage, together with the "mending rift BS. "
The day Harry learns something from this will be the day his freshly risen mother admits something small she has done wrong, to be able the minimise the big wrongs she did.
This time he has the US press mostly on his side, he doesn't care about the British press or public.
She has done a damn good job as head of state but I don't think anyone would want to put that pressure on their children until absolutely necessary.I There was also a lot of separation from her children, particularly at the beginning where they undertook long overseas visits when she became queen and allegations of her being a cold parent who put the country first. Those months long tours a long a think of the past but I think Charles would like to give the Cambridges as much time as a "normal" family as he can before they have to take on the top jobHMTQ has done a damn good job of it and she was 25 I think when she took the throne and had 2 young children and had another 2 children. I know she is extraordinary, but I think Will and Catherine could make it work. Just saying.
Thanks Bastille, really well explained. I'm not sure how well this now sits in our world, but as they say "if you want to be in the club, you have to play by the rules"A surrogate would have to be part of the bloodline as well, otherwise it represents a break in that line. It's brutal but it's truth. Being a Monarch isn't just Genes and yes, the 'of the body' bit matters else the Windsors will never leave which isn't right.
There have (allegedly) been plots to get a Brother to impregnate a Queen and it was (rightly) a source of revulsion to the British. The Monarchy is supposed to be unchanging and is based on the right Women being impregnated by the Right Men, if you change that you've destroyed the whole basis of the Monarchy and it's no longer of any relevance because people can 'buy' their offspring a place in it.
It is old fashioned but 'God' still plays a role in this (regardless of how silly that seems) if God doesn't give you kids the Crown moves on to the spare sibling/cousin. Replace God with Luck/Fate as applicable.
No. Charles won't move into the role of King until his mother is dead.Surely they mean to discuss Charles moving into the role of King, no?
Section? Revoke his passport? Arrest for treason / tax issues? I'm sure if they wanted to keep him, they would find a way. Although I think they are going down the route of "if you love someone, set them free"I think they need to involve some properly trained professionals operating under the guise of concern for his wellbeing and mental health. He won't have the intelligence to see through it and then there'll be an opportunity to de program him. He would need to be detained for an extended period of time though, which I doubt they'd be able to justify.