Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

I hope Prince George is the first of many royal babies

Kate and William would set a wonderful example by having a big family

By on Friday, 26 July 2013

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with their baby son

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with their baby son

Babies are in the news. Actually, one baby is in the news: the birth of Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge, 3rd in line to the British throne. Everyone is delighted: his great-grandmother, the Queen; his grandfather, the Prince of Wales; his parents, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge; and the British public (allowing for a few republican grumbles.)

Only one other monarch in our history, Queen Victoria, has posed for a photo of four generations and it will be a moving replication of that famous Victorian photo when our Queen sits down in Buckingham Palace with three successive male generations to record this event for history.

Not wanting to be the bad fairy at this feast of goodwill flowing out to Little Prince George (the future George VII) and point out that not all pregnancies in our society are followed with such excitement or anticipation, I will merely say the news gives a momentary pause to all the pessimistic bulletins we read of anti-natal hostility and demographic decline. But it does give thought to, literally, larger questions: if one baby can be greeted with such visible delight, not least by the media, why don’t we give more applause when this delight is multiplied – er, many times?

LifeSiteNews has an interesting story this week by Rachel Cox: “My body my choice”: So what about the choice to have a large family?”

The article focuses on the rather extraordinary Duggar family. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, who are devout Christians, have 19 children, all bursting with life (and starting to have children of their own). What’s not to like? Lots, according to comments quoted in the article. I won’t say the commentators are necessarily feminists, but they are certainly pessimists. “Please stop reporting these freaks”; “These people are repulsive”; “These people are despicable”; “These people need to be spayed and neutered” are only some of the charming responses to the news that one happily married couple in Arkansas has decided to take the phrase “open to life” very literally. I was going to write “Good luck to them!” but really the response should be “God bless them.” Indeed, God has blessed them – 19 times, as I am sure they know.

Cox adds: “There is nothing abnormal about having babies. That’s what women’s bodies do!…Contrary to what our culture says, it’s perfectly natural to have as many children as nature allows. If the Duggars want to have as many kids as possible, more power to them, and they shouldn’t be judged hatefully for it.”

Alongside this, Family Edge has run an article by Shannon Roberts, “Feeding children on a budget”, concerning the Stroud family of New Zealand.

Karen Stroud and her husband have nine children and are expecting their 10th. Karen manages to feed them all healthily on ten New Zealand dollars for the evening meal. A YouTube clip shows her shopping with her family for mushrooms, peas, bacon, cheese, cream, eggs, garlic and pasta and producing a tasty dish of pasta carbonara which her family clearly appreciates. She says she has 15 good, simple, inexpensive recipes like this and offers tips to others struggling with their own budgets, such as: buy in bulk, buy the supermarket home brands and go to specialist fruit and vegetable shops rather than buy these items at a supermarket.

The article concludes with a coy question: “Might William and Kate see this article and be encouraged to have more darling babies of their own?” Let’s hope so; what an example it would set the country if they chose to welcome a large family.

  • $20596475

    Propaganda is, in simple terms, the spreading of information intended to present only one side of a debate.

    As the development of policies is an internal matter, during which there would necessarily be consultation and the evaluation of opinions, this has nothing whatsoever with the dissemination of any propaganda.

    Your opinion therefore suggests a mind perpetually in a state of persecution,

    What you say is a straightfordwardly false statement.

  • $20596475

    You should actually read my recommendations on this subject before jumping in with your standard lies and distortions. What you say is 100% incorrect.

  • $20596475

    This is precisely why your opinions on this, and many other subjects, are so full of self righteousness. You cannot separate your opinion from “The Truth”. They are not the same thing.

  • $20596475

    Pedantic again! I was responding to a particular point. I am not an expert on genetic biology but I know enough to realise that DNA and genes are not the same thing. Genes might be made up of DNA but they are those which specifically relate to a particular trait. Which is the general point I was making.

    You are just trying to score points without making any real contribution to the discussion.

  • $20596475

    “In reality, I restrict myself, quite obviously, to reacting to the contents of your writing.”

    Even your most faithful follower will regard this as total nonsense. You try to pick holes in anything I say, without ever making a serious attempt to review the central issues. You are a pedantic, self righteous, obsessive.

    I speak of Humanism as it is understood today. You speak of it as it used to be understood, as though that still matters.

    This is somewhat typical of your whole approach. Live in the past and forget everything which has happened since.

    We should not IGNORE history, but we need to refer to it in ways that we can all understand. If you wish to categorise those you refer to as “Early Humanists” or even as “Catholic Humanists” then people might understand. That people today regard the term “Humanist” in a different way is something you ignore at your peril. Protest all you wish. It won’t change anything.

  • Julian Lord

    If you wish to categorise those you refer to as … “Catholic Humanists” then people might understand

    In reality, you outright denied that categorisation in a previous post.

    One is used to this goalpost-shifting from you.

    You speak of it as it used to be understood

    In reality, I described the Catholic origin of Humanism, and that Humanism is founded on fundamentally Catholic values.

    You denied this reality, and are now trying to goalpost-shift the conversation away from the danger zone where your comments appear as they are, which is to say tendentious and inaccurate.

    I have NOT ONCE seen you admit yourself as being wrong about ANYTHING, nor do I expect this to change any time in the future.

  • Julian Lord

    A general point that is quite fatuous, given its total lack of any basis whatsoever in reality ; and its sheer non sequitur nature as a “response” to Sarx.

  • $20596475

    Where did I outright deny “that” categorisation? Your imagination is in overdrive again. I gave a dictionary definition, which you, in your normal self righteous style, decided to ridicule.

    People will be able to see for themselves who is attempting to shift the goalposts to suit their own prejudice.

  • Julian Lord

    In reality, Truth resides in and with God, in the Holy Trinity, and we would actively deny it if we pretended that the Eternal Truth of the Faith were just another “private opinion”.

    Truth is provided by Revelation, not by your obsessive posting of incessant anti-Catholic personal opinion on a Catholic website.

  • Julian Lord

    Propaganda is, in simple terms, the spreading of information intended to present only one side of a debate

    An apt description of your post.

    Thank you, I guess, for clarifying that of the theories that I posted for the characterisation of your contribution, “propaganda” was the correct one.

    BTW, in reality, and FYI, propaganda plays a MASSIVE part in the development of political policies.

    Your opinion therefore suggests a mind perpetually in a state of persecution

    One of your more spectacular non sequiturs …

  • $20596475

    I have no idea what you are talking about, think many others won’t, and very much doubt that you do either.

    In contrast I would wager that most understand quite well the point I made and would not regard it as “fatuous”. Please do some research before you respond with outright denials of quite well established and available facts.

  • Julian Lord

    It would be easy for you to condemn contraception, abortion, and sterilisation.

    But of course, you won’t.

  • $20596475

    That is a really stupid comment!

    Truth exists everywhere, but in many cases, as we just don’t what it is, what we hold are our opinions of what it might be. That you might base your opinions on your belief in “God”, the “Holy Trinity” or “Revelation” makes no difference at all. You are entitled to yours, but that doesn’t make it a fact and to claim it as such is really very arrogant.

    For anyone, Catholic or not, to claim that their viewpoint is the “Truth” just because that is what their faith tells them, is hugely disrespectful of the opinions of many good and well meaning people.

    Your obsessive claims that I am “anti-Catholic” are another example of your inability to separate your opinion from truth. I am not anti your faith, what you believe, or how you worship. I am anti self righteousness, pomposity, the application of certain attitudes and certain people. I have a great deal of time and respect for many Catholics and what they do. People that you though tend to deny are Catholics, and call heretics.

  • $24570317

    I do not believe the possibility that I set out is necessarily true.

    However she almost certainly would have married her Muslim boyfriend and would have been reluctant, at best, to leave her children with “the Germans”, as she publically described them, and whom she held in low esteem. I do believe that she would not have chosen to leave her children.
    These events would easily have become intolerable to the establishment – that is to say the establishment would, quite simply, not tolerate them – (in fact it couldn’t).

    PS: Her House had already done battle in the 1930s (with Churchill in a position to do most of the effective fighting) against the Royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and their (and others) intended use of the deposed (not abdicated) Edward 8th.

  • $20596475

    When engaged in a debate it would be possible, though not very helpful, to describe the way one side presents it’s case as “propaganda”.

    We are NOT though discussing such a matter, although you are seeking to divert it, for your own warped reasons.

    My point was about the development of policies and not about their implementation. Done correctly, with all shades of opinion given the opportunity to contribute, a consensus view can be determined and the most appropriate policy implemented. That implementation might well require information, incentives and encouragement being given to people. That is NOT propaganda though, other than in the eyes of those who always believe that their opinions are correct.

  • $20596475

    If we were discussing them I might. As we aren’t I won’t.

    Did you actually bother to read my recommendations which had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what you said

  • Julian Lord

    Where did I outright deny “that” categorisation?

    “A Humanist … would reject all notions of personal religious belief”

    Including such Humanists as Saint Thomas More, Popes Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X ??

  • Julian Lord

    WHAT on EARTH does a GROSSLY FLAWED presentation of the genetics of hereditary traits have to do with “this talentless family [sic] … on the throne since 1714 … associat[ing] themselves with worthless celebrities [rather] than with serious thinkers” ?

  • Julian Lord

    People that you though tend to deny are Catholics, and call heretics

    In reality, I have no such opinions about people that I know exactly nothing about.

    hugely disrespectful of the opinions of many good and well meaning people

    There is no reason whatsoever why falsehoods of any kind should be somehow deserving of respect.

  • $20596475

    According to the current, and therefore generally understood, meaning of the term, and as supported by the dictionary definitions that is a perfectly correct statement.

    Only those, like you apparently, who see things through the lenses of the past, would wish to dispute the point.

  • Julian Lord

    I won’t

    See ?

  • Julian Lord

    Wherein you have handily demonstrated the existence of these “revisionist attempts by atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries to deny the Catholic origin of the[se] ideas that they are fraudulently presenting as being “opposed” to Catholic Christianity.” — viz. your fraudulent claim that “a Humanist … would reject all notions of personal religious belief“.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

  • $20596475

    I see. Now you are trying to avoid the obvious. If a family has been on the throne since 1714, and is labelled as “talentless,” it is a completely relevant point that this is NOT the same “family” that existed when it started.

  • $20596475

    Don’t be silly. You do it all the time.

    And there you go again. Regarding the opinions of others as “falsehoods” is an obvious mark of disrespect.

    If you want others to respect you then you must first learn to show them respect.

  • $20596475

    I will discuss it, once it is part of the debate. When it isn’t I won’t let you divert me.

    Now read my real recommendations and comment on those.

  • $20596475

    That you regard them as “revisionist” merely confirms that you have feet of clay, in your case the inability to understand that, as words change their meaning over time, that it is simply inappropriate to use it in the way you are trying to.

  • Julian Lord


    HOW exactly is the “origin” of Humanism (or anything else in History) supposed to change over time ?

    Do you work for the Ministry of Truth in a cubicle next to Winston Smith, or something ?

  • Julian Lord

    Regarding the opinions of others as “falsehoods” is an obvious mark of disrespect

    … this is the point in the “conversation” whereby I point out that you CONSTANTLY dismiss Catholic “opinions” as being “false”, hence obeying your own definition of lack of respect ; only for you to respond that YOUR lack of respect is somehow totally “justified” (as you’ve already started leaning towards BTW this time ’round) (even though it is something that you condemn in others)

    After which I express my disgust at your OBVIOUS hypocrisy and double standards and goalpost-shifting.

    At which point you usually decide that you dislike the direction of the “conversation”, and pop off to post your anti-Catholic diatribes on a different thread instead.

  • Julian Lord

    You’ve run out of wiggle room, private.

  • $20596475

    if we were talking about the “origin” of Humanism it wouldn’t. We are not though. We are talking about how it is understood today, and only you are trying to shift the discussion to suit a particular point of view.

  • $20596475

    How could I possibly dismiss “Catholic” opinions as being false? I haven’t heard from every Catholic on every subject.

    I dismiss many of your opinions as false and object when you appoint yourself as a spokesperson for Catholicism, because I am quite sure you are not.

    I fully accept that all I hold are opinions and don’t seek to claim them as anything more than that. It isn’t me who claims that theirs equals the “Truth” and that others are “falsehoods”.

    Double standards, hypocrisy and goal post shifts are here aplenty, but not from my side of these exchanges.

    I am off to the beach with my wife, her friend and her 3 year old. Perhaps I might have a sensible, respectable conversation for a few hours! I am not getting one here.

  • $20596475

    Don’t need any “wiggle room”! Until you have actually dealt with the question you are the one wiggling. If you were a fish you would already be landed and ready to be gutted. It is going to require a huge final lunge to escape now.

  • Julian Lord

    I right now today and at this very moment understand Humanism as being intrinsically Catholic. I am not the only person who does so.

    YOU are the one trying (utterly unsurprisingly) to distort and deny the clearly Catholic nature of the core Humanist ideals that you also claim to be opposed to Catholicism.

  • Julian Lord

    How could I possibly dismiss “Catholic” opinions as being false?

    As you usually do — by using your keyboard.

  • $20596475

    Then you and your fellow travelers are all living in the past and unable to communicate effectively with most other people.

    If that is where you like to be, and are happy not to be understood, carry on. If you actually want to achieve something you might consider revising your approach.

  • $20596475

    Cheap, pointless and rather childish gibe. I explained why you are wrong, so won’t bother to repeat myself.

    The conversation at the beach was indeed much better than this one.

  • Julian Lord

    It’s not my job to provide you with conversation that you would enjoy, not that you ever make any particular efforts to be anything other than unpleasant.

  • Jonathan West

    Who were you hoping to persuade with that comment? And what were you hoping to persuade them of?

  • Julian Lord

    Then you and your fellow travelers are all living in the past and unable to communicate effectively with most other people.

    In reality, you simply desire to impose your secularist-atheist conceptions onto discussions in here, and to try, with your little means, to replace anything authentically Catholic with some trite and worldly political notions, transient in nature, and usually having their origin in Marxism.

  • $20596475

    I am not imposing anything on anyone! I am just expressing opinions. Opinions which I think you will find are quite commonly held, and which I believe you need to both be aware of, and be able to reconclle, without resorting to denial and abuse.

    I would remind you that this is not a place reserved only for Catholic opinion, of which there are plenty should you just wish to converse in a cosy group of the like minded. Nor are you a moderator here, although you frequently act as some kind of self appointed guardian of what is acceptable, and of what is not.

    The idea that my opinions have their origins in Marxism is so ridiculous that at least it gave me a good laugh. I am a social democrat with a firm belief in the benefits of capitalism. I just happen also to believe in social justice.

  • guestguy

    Women sbould be thought of as baving as much worth as men, because they have it. Femenism however is complete crap, I’ve read enough to know.

  • guestguy

    Sticking to the heading of this article, unless they use some method to avoid having children (condoms, pills, NFP, whatever) I would expect numerous children. Sorry if I am being too crude or vulgar by saying this, but she is very attractive, and I am pretty sure he isn’t gay. I trust you know what I am getting at.

  • Guest

    Francis Phillips is a Cambrifge Graduate.

  • misterheche

    Children are a blessing, not a burden.

    Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk,
    one of my favorite writers on life issues, calls for a “spirit of
    generosity” when it comes to procreation.