Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to be disappointed that royal baby is a boy

267 replies

Madmum24 · 22/07/2013 22:48

I know IABU, baby is healthy etc, but for some reason I really thought it would be a girl.

I don't know what has got into me, I am certainly not a royalist but I have been so interested in the birth.

OP posts:
MelanieCheeks · 23/07/2013 07:45

Even if it HAD been a girl, the new accession laws would only have had any impact if the NEXT child were to be a boy.

curlew · 23/07/2013 07:46

"This is mad, really bizarre and yes takes the anti-boy baby threads on MN to a whole new level. Why in gods name does it matter what gender the new royal baby is? Only to people obviously who value girls more than boys, very sad."

Oh, don't be silly. It matters a very, very little bit to people's who are interested in constitutional history. That's what this thread is about!

Lollydaydream · 23/07/2013 07:51

Yes we do have a female head of state, but only because she didn't have a brother. A girl would have been nice to consolidate the constitutional change and thereafter it would never matter again if they had boys, girls or labradors, given the historical turmoil the sucession has caused in years gone by this would significant. It's nothing to do with preferring girls or boys in many ways its about moving past that.
Anyway for me a girl would have been nice for the constitutional side but in the end thete's a new mother and baby who are alive and, god willing, well and that is all that really matters.

usualsuspect · 23/07/2013 07:51

Is this thread for real?

Fucking hell this place is nuts.

TabithaStephens · 23/07/2013 07:51

It's depressing to think that I will likely never see the new baby become Monarch.

sweetestcup · 23/07/2013 07:53

Oh, don't be silly. It matters a very, very little bit to people's who are interested in constitutional history. That's what this thread is about

No somehow I dont think thats what the OP means, and you obviously havent read the gender disappointment threads here about boys!

sweetestcup · 23/07/2013 07:55

Hopefully by the time this baby gets anywhere near the English throne Australia will be a republic.

Last time I looked it was the British throne....

curlew · 23/07/2013 08:01

No I haven't. Because the only such threads I have ever seen are from people who were shocked and surprised by their own feeling and were trying to come to terms with them.

But you just carry on believing that men and boys are massively discriminated against.

BringBackBod · 23/07/2013 08:02

The new law still stands though lolly. I'm sure it will be used in the future.
Isn't that what matters?

DoItRight · 23/07/2013 08:05

YANBU. It would have been cool to see the first woman BORN to be queen in over a thousand years of English monarchy.

sweetestcup · 23/07/2013 08:07

But you just carry on believing that men and boys are massively discriminated against.

Haha, now where did I say I believe that boys and men are massively discriminated against just because of the opinions of lots of rather strange people on MN who feel that you arent a proper Mum until you have a daughter? Talk about putting your own agenda onto things...you are just making yourself look a bit silly now! Smile

Katnisscupcake · 23/07/2013 08:12

Some of the comments on this thread are laughable, really. It's just a random comment that some people may or may not be in agreement with, people need to get a grip. I'm sure Kate and Wills won't be at all offended! Wink

As it turns out OP, I also had a little pang of 'I was hoping it was going to be a girl', but that's because I have a personal preference for girls. I have a DD and I have 3 sisters, I am used to girls and I don't get boys. I'm sure I will feel differently if I have a boy at some point!

Lots of people have preferences plus Kate is beyond beautiful and I would have loved to have seen how a daughter of hers would look. Oh well, next time!!

FourGates · 23/07/2013 08:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hulababy · 23/07/2013 08:15

I also would have liked the new baby to have been a girl. It would have been nice for the new accession laws to kick in.

That's definitely not a slur on boys or parents of boys. Little boys are fab, just like all babies are fab.

Just would have been good for historical type reasons.

SnoopySnoopyDoggDogg · 23/07/2013 08:15

Right, I know this is a very very stupid question but I don't understand, we have a Queen already so why did the law have to be changed to allow another one if this baby was a girl?

exoticfruits · 23/07/2013 08:17

Have you just worked that out usualsuspect? Grin

I don't think the thread is about constitutional history - sweetestcup is right and it is one of the many, many threads with the odd MNetters who feel that you can only be a proper mum with a DD because she will be your soul mate for life!

exoticfruits · 23/07/2013 08:18

The rules of succession snoopy!

exoticfruits · 23/07/2013 08:19

Before present legislation a younger boy comes before an older girl in line to the throne. Totally unfair- and ridiculous in 21st century.

HollyBerryBush · 23/07/2013 08:21

Im glad its a boy. Forever mucking about with 1,000+ years of tradition and law irks me somewhat. Hopefully the question wont raise its head for another 100 years or so. Besides, its not been passed as law. Yet.

Because George VI only had baby girls (Elizabeth and Margaret) and his brother Edward VIII had no children. Girls are not barred from succession but primogeniture (boys first) applies at present.

Hulababy · 23/07/2013 08:21

BTW - not disappointed in any way or feel a boy is any less important!!! Very pleased they have a healthy little boy safely delivered. Just like I'm glad anyone had a healthy little baby safely delivered.

curlew · 23/07/2013 08:21

The current queen is only the queen because she didn't have a brother.

If this new baby had been a girl she would one day have been queen even if her parents went on to have boys. Previously she would have been bumped one down the pecking order with every younger brother born.

pigletmania · 23/07/2013 08:24

Yes I secretly wished it was a girl, but happy that the baby was born alive and healthy. Mabey next time eh

Ps I have a dd and ds and love them both equally with all my heart. Ds is a gorgeous little smiler

FobblyWoof · 23/07/2013 08:24

I'm not disappointed it's a boy. I am, however, disappointed that the new succession law will not actually be effective for at least another generation, if not more.

I think the timing would have been very good for this to come into effect- a time when a lot of people respect the royals, the world was watching, it's a time of change in the world and the new succession law really coming into effect would've been a truly great thing in my eyes.

I think due to this (and me worrying they were going to pinch DD's name) I was so, so sure it was a girl I was, stupidly, really surprised when they said boy!

And I really don't think the thread was meant to serve as an insult to boys and the parents of boys at all.

fancyanother · 23/07/2013 08:25

Snoopy because we already have a Queen because she was the eldest of two girls. If she had had a little brother, even if he had been the youngest of 10 children, he would have been King. Now, the firstborn is the Monarch, whatever their sex.

YouStayClassySanDiego · 23/07/2013 08:26

I'm rather surprised that some on here are actually bothered about the constitution aspect if Kate and William had had a girl.

I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not we have a King or Queen, really who does?

Monarchs are figureheads with no 'real' power to change laws or be able to say what their real opinion is, again , who really cares about the constitution?

Swipe left for the next trending thread