I thought he wasn't allowed to marry Camilla because she's a Cathoilc.

He wasn't allowed to marry Camilla because she was married.
At that time.

Ah yes, the old "But you're already married!" ploy.

What about Leveson?
I wasn't aware that it covered taste.

Thank you White Star!

Aye, it's hard going and she's only about halfway through. We had a plan of medication and pain relief worked out with our rheumatologist who then retired, and the new chap has decided he's not interested and dismissed her entirely. Amongst other things he said, "I know I've only seen you once but I won't be seeing you again." I've complained and we're hopefully being referred elsewhere.

She had chosen medication that allowed us to try for a baby but wasn't the strongest. Once she's given birth she'll be able to go on the strongest medication which is the difference between being able to walk, care for the baby and perhaps even go back to work, or hobbling around on crutches and being bed-ridden. I know you understand this all too well - just wish our bloody rheumatologist did!

Sounds to me hounding (intrusion of privacy at an emotional time) of the would be parents and the potential offspring (in advance of being born).

Mores the pity.

It's certainly the child's future assuming the country remains a Monarchy but what has them taking the throne got to do with the future of our country? What the future holds for the UK will be decided by events such as the referendum on Scottish Independence, what our relationship with the EU becomes, what sort of government is elected and the rise of other economic powers such as China and Brazil and similar issues. So the future of our country certainly isn't a reason to take any more interest in this pregnancy IMO than that of any other "celeb" which is basically what these young royals are.

It's just more "celeb" culture that manages to rope in those who would ordinarily shy away from taking an interest in the Beckham's, Jordan's and whoever else you care to think of.

Sounds like you've got a diamond woman there.

Spot on.

Being the UK's monarch does not require any special skills these days beyond that of not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Well said.

And like any celeb that doesn't like the press intrusion into their private lives, they have the means to remove themselves from the public eye, if they so choose.

It is mere speculation of what a child is going to look like, not hounding of anyone.
It is not possible to hound potential offspring.

They're alive from the moment of conception, don't you know?

Congrats to them both.

Well, a child won't have that option.

And I would also say that being in "the public eye" does not mean you should have to face intrusion.

Write a book – lose all privacy?

Make a film – lose all privacy?

It shouldn't be seen as a logical process that simply being in the public eye means a loss of privacy.

It won't initially, no. But then, no child has any real say in the lifestyle choice of its parents.



I'm not saying that everyone in the public eye should [ihave[/i to face intrusion, but it is a bit of an occupational hazard of living in opulence at the taxpayers' expense. The royal family differ from the other people you mention in that all they do is 'be royal'. Apart from Charles, who makes expensive biscuits. And with the royals in particular, the morbid fascination with their every move from certain sections of society is probably the only thing that enables them to retain their royal status. If no one cared what they got up to, they'd soon stop caring whether they existed at all. Like I have.

I also think it's quite possible for the other people you mention to avoid intrusion, if they are happy to keep a low profile. I don't think I've ever seen a long-lensed photo of JK Rowling's tits, for example. Often (though not always, I accept), those who complain of intrusion are the very same people who court the tabloids when it suits them. If you play in the dirt, you get dirty, as they say.

So to some up yesterday's news:

1) hospitals are full to near overflowing
2) Pregnant rich woman admitted to hospital – because she has morning sickness.

hmmm

TBF it is not a simple case of morning sickness though is it, hyperemesis gravidarum can lead to many serious problems with the main concern being dehydration which can kill if not treated usually with an IV drip, the condition does not discriminate between rich or poor women.

Number one is more important to me than number two.

It's what happens when you can afford to pay for your own healthcare, mind the condition is not as simple as morning sickness and does hospitalise quite a few women.

1) Apparently the country can't afford it (D. Cameron)
2) As long as they are allowed to bypass the NHS, they won't be bothered about the NHS.

As you know, I'm a republican myself. However I think you're displaying a great deal of uncharacteristic naivety if you think that anything William or Kate could do would remove them from the public eye. Full blown abdication would, if anything, increase media intrusion.

If we ceased to be a Monarchy tomorrow the press and media would still be full of the goings-on of the ex-Royals.

Slight thread drift, but the redtops this morning were going with "Kate's ok", "Kate's doing fine", "Kate will be on a drip for weeks".

Have they learned nothing over the past year? Is freedom of the press freedom to make any old e up?

Absolutely.

As noted earlier, I wish her etc all the best – or at least, I certainly do not wish the family harm.

But, oh dear – how many months of this are we in for? And that can't be brilliant for her (them) either.



No. And some of the broadsheets are not far behind. But that's whay they don't want Leveson implemented.