Common Kate, where's the baby?

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 12:40 am

So this article was on yahoo

http://royalwedding.yahoo.com/blogs/kat ... nd-8608?nc

Pretty much they were asking where's the baby and some were saying there is too much pressure on Kate. Personally, I feel that she knew what her duty was long before she got involved with Will. True, its very medieval. Pop out an heir and a spare....to become a brood mare, but hey, that's her job.

While I don't think they need to do it NOW, it does need to be done. She's nearly 30 she doesn't have the luxury of waiting another 10 years.

What do others say? Just curious.

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 12:56 am

I think they'll waste no time because they both want children regardless of duty.

SonjaMarie · Post by **SonjaMarie** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 2:15 am

Peronsally, I hope she only has daughters so after, supposedly two kings, we'll have another Queen

SM

Mythica · Post by **Mythica** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 7:59 am

I think they'll give it at least a year or two, to let Kate settle into her role as a royal first. At least, that's what I would do. I also think if they have kids quickly, it'll be because they want to, not because of duty. You have to imagine that after so many years living together, they've been basically living the married life for a while now so it'd be no surprise to me if they already feel ready for kids but just want to give Kate some time to adjust to her new role.

annis · Post by **annis** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 8:36 am

Ever since Kate and William announced their engagement, work has been under way to change Britain's ancient laws of succession which favour a son over a daughter, even if she is born first. Many feel it's time for a change and the aim is to get something in place before W & K start producing royal sproglets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13103587

Vanessa · Post by **Vanessa** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 9:10 am

I think they'll wait a couple of years - I think Kate needs time to 'settle in and learn the ropes'.

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 9:25 am

I hope they change the laws that demand a male child first. When I was watching the endless coverage of the wedding it said that this law needed to be inplace long before the baby came. She can't have a girl and then everyone say oh laws need to be changed.

Well, thats what they said on TV anyway.

LoveHistory · Post by **LoveHistory** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 1:06 pm

She's had eight years to prepare for this, but it does make sense to get her into the swing of the myriad public appearance she will be required to make.

SonjaMarie · Post by **SonjaMarie** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 5:47 pm

[quote=""Divia""]I hope they change the laws that demand a male child first. When I was watching the endless coverage of the wedding it said that this law needed to be inplace long before the baby came. She can't have a girl and then everyone say oh laws need to be changed.

Well, thats what they said on TV anyway.[/quote]

That's what happened in Sweden. The heir to the throne for a many years was a boy, but they changed the laws, and the first born, Victoria, became Crown Princess and will become Queen on her father's death.

SM

MLE (Emily Cotton) · Post by **MLE (Emily Cotton)** » Mon May 2nd, 2011, 7:02 pm

Well good grief, a born-first ruling wouldn't make any more logical sense than the existing male-first law. Why not toss the whole thing out and change it to that the most capable child becomes the next monarch?

You could elect the ruler, for instance. Now there's an idea.

If the monarchy is mostly about tradition, and not logic, why not keep it traditional?