The disgrace of the forced Royal pregnancy announcement

As a Republican one of my biggest hang-ups with the monarchy is that members of the Royal family are forced to do unnatural and demeaning things.

No mother should be forced to announce that they are pregnant at eight weeks.

It is an absolute disgrace.


17 thoughts on “The disgrace of the forced Royal pregnancy announcement

  1. But isn’t this a problem with having famous people of any kind, combined with a sensationalist press? What do you suppose the life of the Obama family is like?

  2. I think you’ll find Barack Obama being President involved a little more choice on his part than just being born, or falling in love with someone.

  3. When I said the Obama family, I was including the President’s wife and daughters.

    I’m surprised that you as a Liberal are willing to condemn someone else’s way of life so readily. You say that it’s wrong, but you don’t have any evidence that these people agree with your verdict on their lives.

    Your time is better spent advocating for those who actually want to be rescued from poverty, racism, homophobia, etc., etc., etc.

    • I am not condemning their way of life. My main criticism is of the press whose modus operandi forced the release of the news four weeks early when miscarriage is still a real possibility.

      This is a hobby blog. I spent ten seconds on this post. I’ll spend my time how I like, thank you very much

  4. I don’t see an issue. It is tasteless of the press, but it is genuine news that is in the public interest (for some).

  5. Rusty: “I don’t see an issue. It is tasteless of the press, but it is genuine news that is in the public interest (for some).”

    It might be worth teasing out whether having the news of the pregnancy made public four weeks early is:

    1. In the public interest in that it gives information to the public whch validly allows them to make decisions and asses information which is relevant to public discourse and the functioning of civil society. This would be in the same way that it is in the public interest, for example, for the information that David Cameron lives within the law in his off duty life and doesn’t do anything lewd or criminal.

    2. Interesting to the public in that people enjoy reading such information as it brightens up their day, in the same way that it is interesting to the public what colour sheets Mr and Mrs Cameron have on their bed.

    Fascinatingly, I don’t think having the news released four weeks early is actually justified on the grounds of 2, let alone 1, when you consider the risks of early announcement (and please God that the pregnancy goes smoothly and healthily).

  6. She is either pregnant or not. She will miscarry, or hopefully not. Either way, people are going to find out at some point. The rest sniffs of superstition.

    • The reason why pregnancies are not announced until week 12 is because there is a much higher risk of miscarriage until then. So if there is a miscarriage, the trauma for the mother is not increased by unwanted public knowledge.

      I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here to an extent. As you will see from my original post, I feel strongly that we should have an elected head of state and therefore families can get on to have babies in private.

      I’d be very interested to know where you draw the line, Rusty. Would you be OK with public announcement at seven weeks? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Should there be live TV coverage of the Boots blue pregnancy test moment? Live coverage of the conception? Yes, I am being ridiculous, but if you have a principle of total disclosure being in the public interest, where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there precisely?

      Do you not feel that sometimes the press step over the line of what is in the public interest (category 1) and what is simply interesting to the public (category 2)? Or do you not recognise a difference here?

      All fascinating stuff…

    • Rusty, If you look back I said that early knowledge of the pregnancy ranks under category 2, I wasn’t referring to actual knowledge of the pregnancy after week 12.

  7. I think the ‘Trauma’ for the mother is subjective. Some might find it easier to explain their hospital visits if the pregnancy is announced, others would find it more distressing, but I’d like to think the Royal Family have sufficient support staff to cope.

    If press and public intrusion is going to be a problem for the wife, and considering recent history, perhaps she might have thought more carefully before accepting his hand in marriage.

    Where I disagree with you is that I don’t see it as a disgrace, more a disappointment.

  8. In other words, I see type 2 of your list, as a part of the deal when you sign up to the Royal Family.

    • “part of the deal when you sign up…” Mind you if you born into it, you don’t have a lot of choice. And is falling in love with you precisely described as “signing up”.

      “I think the ‘Trauma’ for the mother is subjective.” Having been a father twice, I wouldn’t dare suggest anything to do with pregnancy or childbirth for a mother is “subjective”. If I did I wouldn’t expect to live much longer….

  9. Falling in love doesn’t oblige marriage. People fall in love with the ‘wrong person’ all the time.

    There are plenty of women that don’t have a ‘trauma’ by fearing people knowing about their pregnancy before 12 weeks. Is or was the Duchess of Cambridge traumatised?

    BTW – I didn’t say childbirth was subjective, but the trauma of pregnancy was. That was a naughty twisting of words there! 😉

    • I referred to “anything to do with pregnancy or childbirth” so certainly no twisting of words intended.

      I think we have strayed rather. I didn’t say that the DoC was traumatised. I said that “No mother should be forced to announce that they are pregnant at eight weeks.”

Comments are closed.