AIBU to be irritated by Prince Harry's attitude to third and subsequent children?

[Irishgurl]

So my youngest DC is 12. Incredibly aware of environmental issues and is beginning to think of a career in Marine Biology. Already follows environmental blogs, has joined school focus groups for this and keeps our family in check on our environmental responsibility. And is very sad to have read Prince Harry's comments on third children being something that is damaging to the planet. I do find it rather frustrating that I have had to discuss this with a child. The planet is being damaged and no one can deny it. But it is really naive to point the finger of blame on third and subsequent children in a family. It doesn't matter to me how many children you have as long as you bring them up to add something to society rather than take away ( and this includes the environment). The more children the better , as long as they are contributing and making the world a better place? I think he should apologize to all third children ( and 4th and 5th). And that includes his Mother, Prince Louis, my lovely 12 year old and many more fantastic human beings who really don't deserve to be told that they are bad for the planet!

You're overreacting a bit here OP and come across as very defensive. He wasn't personally insulting you or your child, just stating a fact. If you've let your child get upset about this, without intervening and explaining the context, that's on you.

The idea that he should apologise to all third (and subsequent) children is laughable.

He didn't say that though.
It wouldn't be incorrect either. It doesn't matter how environmental conscious your child is, they damage they do to the environment outweighs this.

apologise to the children? Why? No one is blaming children for being born! apologise to PARENTS of more than two children?...well maybe, except that he is right, so no apology needed.

But ... but ... he might be a marine biologist.

Unfortunately by the time our dc are grown, marine biologist won't be a viable profession as not much will be left alive in the sea. The two available professions will be marauder and scavenger.

Not RTFT. He didn't say that people should have more than 2. He said he wants a maximum of 2.

If he had said people should not have more than 2 he is not wrong. No matter how environmentally conscious they are, people are a drain on resources. Is your daughter vegan and grows her own food? Does she make her own clothes? Will she ever intend to travel by anything other than foot? Do you live completely off the grid in a fully eco house with an electric car? People are not good for the environment.

However, what he actually said was that he wants a maximum of 2 children. That could be for environmental reasons. That could be because of their ages. That could even be because, as with a number of people I know, two parents to two children is a nice ratio - if you go to a shop whilst all three are toddlers/very young and all three run in different directions which one don't you go after?!

Harry read the script. William made similar comments in 2017 (TUSK Gala Dinner speech) while Kate was expecting Louis. Neither Kate nor William have ruled out having a fourth DC. 🤷‍♀️They say what they are told to say to appease the public. They're are in the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Brigade.

Surely he meant he personally would have two kids maximum, not in that everybody on the whole bloody planet should only have two or are bad people for having more than two?

Not quite sure whether the OP is more virtue signalling or more stealth boasting about her incredibly aware marine biologist in waiting 3rd son.

Maybe just 50/50.

What bubble are you in, OP - they’re all incredibly aware these days. Which is great, though sad that they need to be. I’d be more impressed by his credentials if he was aiming for a career that wasn’t the rather fun sounding and obvious “marine biologist”.

He had a go at families who have 3+ children

No he didn't. He said he was going to have " two, max". That's all. But those two words have continued to be spun into something else entirely throughout the media and this thread. That's the REALLY depressing thing. No-one gives a damn about facts and truth any more. They just want to rant and opine and will twist anything to fit their agenda.

The world's going to hell because no-one wants the truth any more.

While I think Prince Harry is a hypocrite, the reality is that the world is overpopulated. I don't understand why people take this so personally! Having children is the single worst thing you can do for the environment. This is why it annoys me when vegans get high and mighty about how "carnists" (non-vegans) are evil, yet many of them choose to have their own children instead of adopting. By doing so, they've probably chosen to cause the deaths of more animals than a childless meat-eater would!

Every time there's a thread like this, people post about their children are different from the others, and how they will benefit the environment more than they damage it. I'm sorry, but virtually none of us (myself included) benefit the environment more than we damage it! Even recycling, going 100% vegan, using public transport exclusively, etc. are all things we do to reduce our carbon footprint, not to eliminate it. People seem to think that their own children will manage to offset that footprint by setting an example to others, or making a world-changing scientific breakthrough. Realistically, the chances of this are miniscule.

If you read about a couple living in a third-world country who were struggling to feed their children, would you hope they would have more - because that child might turn out to be a world-renowned athlete who is able to lift their family out of poverty? I guarantee almost no one would recommend that, because they know it's highly unlikely. Yet when it's suggested that privileged Westerners should limit the number of children they have for the sake of the planet, all of a sudden "every child is a gift".

Western male sperm count has halved over last 40 years.

That Nigel Farage started this; attacking Harry for wanting 2 children, is no co incidence.

Interesting - people always assume the newborns are the ones whose birth will do harm to Planet Earth. I can think of some older born specimens who do, and will continue to do, harm to civilised life on Planet Earth.
Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, Katie Hopkins, Donald Trump, Rees Mogg etc etc - spreading far most hate and bile than any farting cow herd or newborn infant ever could.

That Nigel Farage started this; attacking Harry for wanting 2 children, is no co incidence

Farage has 4 kids!

“The world's going to hell because no-one wants the truth any more”

And because no one can look at anything without having a me-focussed personal reaction. No comprehension, no understanding of an objective truth.

StoneofDestiny Faridge was cross that Harry just wanted 2.

His mates Victor Orban of Hugary and Putin are giving financial incentives for 'indigenous' women to have big families.

They want more so called 'white' babies.

He's absolutely right.

I hate the Royal Family and all they stand for as much as the next pinko commie, but it feels like you’re reaching here, OP.

He’s right, and if your 12 yo is as much the budding environmentalist that you claim, they’ll agree with Harry.

His mates Victor Orban of Hugary and Putin are giving financial incentives for 'indigenous' women to have big families.They want more so called 'white' babies

Just like Stalin!

He's absolutely right
One of the many wonderful things about Harry's splendid choice of bride, and his lovely mum's lover just before she was taken, is that love conquers hate and sees beyond skin colour.

Our babies reflect this. No matter how many or few, we have.

You are being completely unreasonable. As is your daughter. HTH.

Having reread the op it’s less unreasonable and more slightly bonkers. If someone expressed that view in real life I would slowly back away...

I live in rural Ireland & it's very uncommon to have families of 4 or 5! Most families I know are mainly 2, some 3, a good few none.
*Somebody referred to rural Ireland families having 4,5+ children!

Lots of people asking how dare anyone judge other people’s reproductive choices. We all have to live together. If you’re choosing to take more of the decreasing resources available, I’m going to judge that. I can’t stop you doing it, and you can’t stop me feeling angry about it. That’s how it works.

StoneofDestiny, Farage and the others were all newborns at one point! Of the babies born this year, some will benefit humanity as a whole and some will grow up to do as much damage as Farage. The vast majority, however, will be average. And that's the problem - the average human is harming the planet. Even those who live very environmentally-conscious lives are simply minimising the problem, not solving it.

@EarringsandLipstick my comment was not meant to be offensive & I apologise if it was taken that way. I accept my view of huge families is probably clouded by the area of the country I live.

I'm quite sure that a family of 6 or 7 who have 1 house, DC likely sharing bedrooms, have a large car & fly economy on their yearly break, are far lesser a drain on the planet than the Royal Family and their many, many residences including Windsor Castle (1000+ rooms), Buck Palace (775 rooms), Kensington Palace (20 rooms), or even Frogmore Cottage... a 10 bedroom "mini mansion", for a couple & their one newborn

Factor in these Grade 1 & II listed buildings can't be structurally modernised so will be guzzling coal and traditional fuel, all the private jets, helicopters, fleets of vehicles full of security staff, nannies, minders and the like, imports of food, gifts and goods from around the world, I think PH & MM just need to be quiet about what constitutes a drain on the environment.