Will Sophie take the title Princess

[Viviennemary]

Sophie will be 18 next month and will have the choice of whether to be styled HRH Princess Sophie or not. It was her parents decision not to have her styled thus even though she could be as the grandchild of the monarch. Not sure but I thought probably not. But if she was to become a working royal opening town halls and so on the title Princess would look better on the plaques.

@Theoldcuriosityshop

I've just seen that The Queen has been advised by doctors not to go to N.I as she was supposed to. She has been advised to rest for a few days. Am I the only one that thinks she looks as though she has lost a fair bit weight and has suddenly looked her age.

Yes, I think she does look as if she's lost some weight, and I have seen other widows, in the early part of the bereavement, lose weight, too, so I do not see it as strange. A news bulletin said she was hosting an official dinner last evening, so no chance of putting the ankles up early then. Was she supposed to have gone to NI today?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58979992

Yes she was due there today. She's following the medical advice for a few days rest, and still hopes to attend COP26

No word on what's up, other than it's not covid

Maybe it’s something to do with her legs as she has had to use a stick lately 🤷‍♀️

@Roussette

The RF are basically self-employed influencers

That is an interesting comparison, I'm inclined to agree. No accountability, we are expected, strongly encouraged, brainwshed by over saturation into buying into them

But this is just what H and M are doing, yet you have only praise for everything they do!

I don't understand your point at all @MagpieMary

1. This is a thread about a member of the RF
2. H&M can be influencers or whatever as much as they want because we do not pay for them. They support themselves, I hope you can see the difference? Good on them doing their own thing.
3. We are not spoonfed an endless diet of praising H&M endlessly by our mainstream media, like we are for the RF.
4. H&M don't live in the UK.
5. Has to be said again... we are not paying for them!

I think that's enough reasons to be going on with lol

p.s. I don't have praise for everything they do at all. They don't help themselves at times and I have said more than once, I don't think they should have done the OW interview but I admire them for making a crucial break away from the RF because of the toxicity of our press and the fact it just was not working out.
We only have one life...

For what it’s worth, I completely agree with Meghan’s latest effort - writing an open letter to the leader of the US Senate Majority advocating for legislated paid parental leave in the US. The US position on that has always appalled me, and well done to her for raising it publicly.

That’s a great thing for her to have done, but why should they pay any attention to what she thinks, anymore than any other person?

Yes saying the RF are basically tax paid influencers is true.

@Serenster

For what it’s worth, I completely agree with Meghan’s latest effort - writing an open letter to the leader of the US Senate Majority advocating for legislated paid parental leave in the US. The US position on that has always appalled me, and well done to her for raising it publicly.

I'm not in favor of that policy change in general, but I find it particularly hypocritical for people who've stated that they're limiting their family size because of the environmental impact having more children would cause. If they're acknowledging that having more children is worse for the environment, I don't understand how they can believe that people should be financially encouraged to have more children.

Good grief. So Meghan speaking out for all American women to have paid parental leave.... by doing that she is encouraging women to have more children and maternity leave is the equivalent of paying mothers to have too many.
You couldn't make it up.

You're obviously not in agreement with any Maternity leave.

No, I'm not, for reasons that have nothing to do with Meghan or anything she says about anything. There was a thread about that a week or so ago. But that's really neither here nor there.

Of course paid parental leave is paying people to have children. What else are they being paid for? Not their jobs, because they aren't doing them - that's what the "leave" part means. Any time you take something that was previously unpaid and make it paid, more people will want to do that thing. It doesn't matter what it is. That's no less true of parenthood than it is of anything else.

I'm not opining on how many is "too many," and I think that varies tremendously based on individual circumstances. But it's naive to pretend that paying people to have children won't result in more people having children, and it's ludicrous for someone who thinks limiting family size is an environmental necessity to think that more people having children is a good thing.

I understand you correctly.
You don't agree with maternity leave.

Bear in mind the US is one of the only developed countries to not have paid parental leave so your view which is very strange on a parenting forum is really not in line with most of the developed world.

MM is not saying more people should have more children, no idea where you got that from. Bit of a stretch even for you! Many households depend on womens wages for survival and balancing motherhood and work is essential, and maternity leave allows a Mum to recover from childbirth and bond with her child and it has been proven to give children a better start in life.

I'm not opining on how many is "too many," and I think that varies tremendously based on individual circumstances. But it's naive to pretend that paying people to have children won't result in more people having children, and it's ludicrous for someone who thinks limiting family size is an environmental necessity to think that more people having children is a good thing.

To a certain extent this is right though. Countries like the U.K., where the birth rate is falling, or has fallen to an extent that means the working population in years to come will have a huge burden in supporting its old and sick need to ensure the birth rate remains at a sustainable, though not too high, rate.
Allowing women to take paid maternity leave helps with this.

And it is not fair to penalise women for having babies when this is something that only women can do (despite what Stonewall will have you beloved). Why should women shoulder the burden of creating and delivering the next generation?

So yes, effectively, women are being paid to have babies. But that is for the greater good of us all.

*believe, not beloved.
I don't think many women feel beloved by Stonewall atm.

Meghan's not wrong, though is she?

And at least she used the word 'women' and 'mom' in her letter. None of that 'birthing person' crap that's become so luridly trendy.

You don't agree with maternity leave.
Bear in mind the US is one of the only developed countries to not have paid parental leave so your view which is very strange on a parenting forum is really not in line with most of the developed world

I struggle to understand this position personally (actively disagreeing with paid maternity leave, I mean) but it’s one of those issues where the US seems to have developed its own strong views based on their entrenched views about the role of the state. It’s a big political issue right now because so many people and politicians view it as unfair/unconscionable/incentivising bad behaviour for women to be paid to have children. There millions and millions of people in the US who believe this, so it’s not an outlier view in this context.

Out of step with the rest of the developed world, absolutely. But, like free healthcare, something where millions of Americans are happy to diverge from them.

I agree that Meghan is right. Paid maternity leave should be a given. I’m not sure the argument works that it would encourage women to have more children. After all, maternity leave does not last that long and you then have childcare costs which hopefully any prospective parents will have taken in to account (I appreciate not everyone will be this forward thinking).
What is interesting, especially as this thread is about “titles”, is the question as to whether it is appropriate for Meghan to have signed the letter using her title. One, it is a political subject that she is tackling, and it is addressed to a political figure, and two, will the American government appreciate being lobbied by a member of the Royal family of a foreign country, let alone a member of the former colonial power 🤔

She is using her position for political purposes. Not on. IMHO.

Paid maternity leave of course should be introduced.

@Viviennemary it is as political as William and Charles talking about climate change.

@julieca

And if this does happen, it will be because William and Catherine are too lazy to take on many engagements so have persuaded an 18-year old to step in and take on some of their work. An 18-year-old who won't truly understand what she was letting herself in for.

I understand she is a person inn her own right, and things she takes on will be things she is interested in and wants to do.

Of course she is a person in her own right. You are naive if you think any full time working RF member can take on what work they choose to do. There are lots of rules about the type of work they do.

thread derailed as usual

I absolutely love our royal family, but I do think it should be skimmed down to only the heir to the throne and their descendants having titles. So Charlotte should remain a princess but lose the title when George becomes King and get a different title (Lady?).

@julieca

And if this does happen, it will be because William and Catherine are too lazy to take on many engagements so have persuaded an 18-year old to step in and take on some of their work. An 18-year-old who won't truly understand what she was letting herself in for.