The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

• Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
• Princess Isabella, 15
• Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

• Prince Nikolai, 23^
• Prince Felix, 20^

Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:

• Prince Henrik, 13^
• Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

Big Kids In Buggies

Just saw a clip on Instagram that niggled so once again this Opinionated Potato is putting in their tuppenceworth...

GENERAL GIST: Take a stroller to Disneyland for a child 7 and under because it's a lot of walking and they need the sensory breaks.

Seven and under. Where to begin with this? First up this assumes you only have ONE child under seven or that your family consists of enough adults to have a stroller for each young child.
Assuming that is even the case it means the adult had to deal with the stroller ALL DAY regardless of whether the child is using it. Even if you need to take a stroller it can be quite difficult multitasking between dealing with the stroller and ambulatory children - meaning that any non-strollered child has their parents being necessarily more hands off. Part of the magic of a family holiday / day out is holding hands and physically interacting with their kids (or indeed coupled parents holding hands and physically interacting with each other).

Theoretical family, using neutral names for obvious reasons...
Parent: Sam
Parent: Lee
Child 1: Brook, 8
Child 2: Ocean, 5
Child 3: River, 2

By this advice Sam & Lee have a stroller each - one for River who genuinely needs it, and one for Ocean who may only use it for a short breaks. Sam & Lee don't get to hold hands at all during the day, they both get tired of pushing; no one holds Brook's hand, when Ocean is out of the stroller no one (other than Brook) is holding theirs. Basically everyone has a fairly sucky time except the only kid whose needs are being fully met.
If instead they only take a stroller for River then Sam and Lee can take turns pushing so they don't get so tired and can enjoy quality time with their children. If Ocean gets really tired maybe they can take a ride while River toddles or is carried? Overall the family get to physically interact a whole lot more.

Next objection: where are you even finding a stroller that can take a SEVEN YEAR OLD??? My eldest broke every buggy she ever had and we gave them up before she was THREE. That's not down to childhood obesity, she wasn't overweight. She was 9lbs 11oz at birth and off the growth chart completely by about 7 months.
At almost four she wasn't well and was tired so she sat in her baby sister's stroller... and it broke.
In later life I've realised that a lot of the dirty looks my elder daughter and I got when she was 'little' were likely not because I was a teen mum, but probably because it looked like I had a four year old in a babygro with a dummy.

Assuming your child has no disabilities (more on that in a moment) why are you thinking a 5, 6, 7 year old is going to struggle to walk around a theme park? Do you walk too fast for your kid? Are you not taking regular rest breaks? Most of the comments were from parents going "WTF?! My kid has more energy than I do!" and especially adding in the excitement factor... I mean I'd get it more if you were walking around a particularly unexciting art gallery and the kid was bored out of their tiny mind.
Mostly I'm thinking that this is a DRIVER PROBLEM. Most kids don't walk any great distances or over prolonged times and if you're concerned about little Joey managing to walk around all day TRAIN THEM, like you're training for a big hike or whatever. Before I took my kids anywhere we'd brush up on what to do if we got separated etc etc so unless your trip is super impulsive surely you factor in prepping your kids for what you have in mind?
So ahead of a planned trip to Disney (or wherever) start taking your kid(s) on walks. Short at first, building up if you can. Ensure the pace is sedate enough, take rest breaks, and pay special attention to the comfort of their shoes and other clothing. Chances are they'll be fully able and if they're not you'll be better prepared knowing exactly what you do need.
It might help the parents too, if they're quite sedentary.

Which brings me to what I'm gonna term here INableism Obviously if your kid has any particular special needs, diagnosed or otherwise, you likely already know the right course of action for your family, but the context of this seemed to be a travel agent or childcare expert (I wasn't paying attention) being asked for advice. And yeah, this is my unsolicited advice: don't assume anyone can't do a thing until you either ask them or try.
Assuming people with disabilities are going to struggle with certain tasks is inverted ableism. Someone in my family has a physical disability and their primary school teacher was SHOCKED they'd learned to tie their laces. It went down in family legend as being a really important example that you shouldn't assume. Assuming a woman can't lift something heavy is sexism, as is assuming that a man can lift it. Assuming a child can't walk around a theme park is pretty much just ageism.
A kid isn't going to wake up on a specific birthday suddenly able to climb a mountain or whatever - just like they're not innately able to adult at 18. Skills need to be taught, learned, practiced, reinforced.

I once knew someone who'd make wild sweeping statements as to what their kid could do, liked and disliked, what interested them... Didn't encourage their kid to try anything new EVER - skills, foods, experiences. Nope 'Mother Knew Best' poor kid. Don't be her.

Family is just a state of mind

Families are bloody weird things, aren't they? Along with all the other aspects of being human I just don't get 'family' seems a very peculiar concept.
That we require parents to be born and to survive early childhood seems fairly straightforward as does the idea that most people will remain in contact with these caregivers and any siblings. I have often likened this bond to Stockholm Syndrome: affection caused by close proximity and shared trauma. You may deduce that I have some difficult familial issues.

I was the only child of unmarried but cohabiting on not-the-friendliest-of-terms parents; I was a fully single* mother of two (*by which I mean zero contact with their father, zero child support, no boyfriends or other co-parenting type person - regardless of time-frame - from the time I was expecting my youngest until they reached adulthood). This means my immediate family consists of my mother and her partner of the last 11 years, my father and my two adult children. So far, so ordinary.

I have quite a large extended family - eight cousins on my mum's side, (who had 20 kids between them and now have 9 grandkids too) two on my dad's side (and another 4 kids there). However, between geography, my parents' relationships with their siblings and a significant age gap between me and most of my cousins there was no relationship there while I was growing up.
The only reason we connected more recently was when my cousin S died in a motorcycle crash back in 2014. I am immensely grateful that we did reconnect as we lost S's brother A to cancer only 18 months later.

Yesterday I went to a funeral for a great aunt on my dad's side of the family. He is not close to his family although he has three brothers. I changed my name at 15...no one on that side had got the memo although I had only met three people in the room before, four if you count the deceased. I'm nearly forty FFS! I'd met the deceased but none of her three daughters nor anyone else in the extended family. I hadn't seen anyone in the room since I was about 13 (I *thought* I'd seen my uncle P when my daughter was a baby but he insisted he'd never met her so I guess not).
My dad is interested in family history and although he tried to engage in conversation and ask questions none of them seemed at all bothered. I feel bad for him that he's trying and getting nowhere. There were the usual niceties of "why do we only meet at funerals?" and "we must meet up more often"...not a note of sincerity behind the words. For my maternal cousins the reminder of mortality was a trigger to get us to know each other better; on my dad's side I guess it's not happening.

It just makes me wonder... Why do some families do the tight-knit thing the media tells us is normal while others just don't? It's not always a matter of falling out, sometimes it's just a case of utter disinterest. I get it though. Why should you have a connection with people you don't really know, who all you have in common is a similarity of DNA? It just really sucks when you would have liked to have a more meaningful relationship.