Saved in childbearing?

Cosia said:
Hi Bob, he cares about the young people in the UK. I don't really know what he is going to do next to help them. Mark Phillis did not have a title. At the time Peter and Zara were born, children did not automatically get the title if their father did not have one.
Blessings
Click to expand...
Via dolarossa said:
Yes indeed The king assists charities in New Zealand

Our new King

gg.govt.nz gg.govt.nz
The King has an interest in the built environment, global sustainability, youth opportunity, education and faith. These interests are also reflected in the list of 400 organisations of which he is Patron or President. But I’m not sure what will happen if they become a republic and independent.
Click to expand...

Hello Cosia and Via;

I see and now have more understanding. I think it's great King Charles implements a program to help young teens/adults. It would have to have an impact on them blessing other future young people.

God bless you both.
 
Via dolarossa said:
Yes indeed The king assists charities in New Zealand

Our new King

gg.govt.nz gg.govt.nz

The King has an interest in the built environment, global sustainability, youth opportunity, education and faith. These interests are also reflected in the list of 400 organisations of which he is Patron or President.

But I’m not sure what will happen if they become a republic and independent.
Click to expand...
Only really for Anglicans (mostly British born/descended) not for anyone else although that has changed with Diana who was more in touch with ordinary people not just aristocracy.

King Charles does not actually have to work at all and never has to worry about finances like ordinary people or a roof over his head, he has several. He has many advisors and servants to do all the work for him he really just needs to show up and be the face and figurehead.

While he is an affable fellow and cares about environmental concerns etc, he's never had to operate on a shoestring budget or known what its like to be poor or not have enough.

I've never known any charity in NZ that actually been assisted by the King, since he visits rarely and all the charities I know are not royal or have any affiliations with royalty. We have our own charities that do their own fundraising.

The 'Crown' enterprises etc as it are these https://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/who-we-are/crown-entities-statutory-and-non-statutory-boards/
no matter who is monarch as under the Treaty of Waitangi it was Queen Victoria.

Probably the one that is most beneficial to NZers is ACC.
Most State Owned Enterprises have been sold off, and few are run by the Crown anymore. It's hard to run a colony on the other side of the world. We actually ARE independent and became so in 1948 (no longer a Dominion) but just have loose ties with the UK. The UK actually do not fund us at all. We need to do our trade deals with those closer, like Australia and those in the Asia Pacific region. The UK stopped buying our wool and doesn't really need our butter and frozen meats.

I just want to reality check those who have a romantic notion of royalty.
 
Read the website - King Charles only is patron and president of 4 (four) charities in NZ, none of which I have heard of known any impact on the youth on NZ. Maybe you have to serve in the navy to have any benefit from them.

If we became a republic, there would be no great loss.
 
It is a different story in the UK, but for most of us here in NZ, King Charles hasn't really done a great deal or ever worked here at all. Royal tours etc are just publicity tours.

Anyway, not sure what this has to do with topic of thread! Maybe, for poor Princess Diana, her only worth seemed to be in bearing his children. Was she saved? I don't know. She came to an untimely end, but it's really her sons that are now carrying on her legacy.

Princess Diana had bulimia, an eating disorder which meant she vomited up her food, to stay thin. She had many many clothes, but she auctioned off a whole lot for charity because obviously she couldn't have worn any of them twice and they were taking up space in her wardrobe.

She actually preferred wearing jeans and a shirt, like a man, because this is what normal working people wear. I mean I don't go round wearing fancy dress every day to work! Most women can't afford to wear fancy dresses everyday, unless they work in theatre/Hollywood or are models.
 
Well, maybe I was wrong about the just the king helping New Zealand....

List of New Zealand organisations with royal patronage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I'm pretty happy myself with that list, knowing the monarchy have brought a lot of good to the world. 😇

Edit : I will leave the thread here as I do realise it has taken a slight detour and ideally needs to get back on topic.
 
Via dolarossa said:
Well, maybe I was wrong about the just the king helping New Zealand....

List of New Zealand organisations with royal patronage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I'm pretty happy myself with that list, knowing the monarchy have brought a lot of good to the world. 😇

Edit : I will leave the thread here as I do realise it has taken a slight detour and ideally needs to get back on topic.
Click to expand...
Realize not everyone knows everything. Some people only agree to one side to their opinions formed. There are always 2 sides to every argument. Via dolarossa thank you for your contribution to the thread. It was very interesting to read.
 
It pays to humble yourself online lol

Of course nobody knows EVERYTHING, if you did, you would be Google. Though Google actually doesn't know everything, nor does Wikipedia.

Also, I am not arguing anything. I live in NZ, you don't, so just saying things from where I live.
 
Most of those royal charities are rich people's charities. Royal New Zealand curry club?? lol

None of them I have ever been benefited by. Royal Foundation of the Blind is now Blind and Low Vision, I was doing bookathon for them, it seems they are no longer funded by royals. They seem to have a lot of rich patronages though but...they are also asking ordinary people for funds.

The SPCA also is now no longer Royally funded in NZ. They have op shops. I have worked/volunteered for them. It was initially set up to prevent cruelty to horses as back in the day they were cruelly treated before motor cars were invented. Of course the Royals would have treated their horses well but they are expensive to maintain.

Now its mostly cats and dogs.
 
I'm just neutral about royals. I don't personally know them, but they are always in the media esp womens magazines, which I don't read unless I am so bored and in the doctors waiting rooms and there is nothing else to read.

I think women who marry into royalty get a hard time. Everything they do is scrutinised, and heaven help them if they don't produce the required heirs.
 
Lanolin said:
It pays to humble yourself online lol

Of course nobody knows EVERYTHING, if you did, you would be Google. Though Google actually doesn't know everything, nor does Wikipedia.

Also, I am not arguing anything. I live in NZ, you don't, so just saying things from where I live.
Click to expand...
That's fine Lanolin but you need to also be sensitive to others too who are contributing to the posts. Thank you.
 
This is my thread, and I have been sensitive so far, I notice others aren't being quite so sensitive toward me, but I don't worry about it.
 
Lets get back to the topic

I was at the maternity section of the hospital the other day, watching babies being picked up. I think usually its a happy time for couples, but imagine how hard it is if the dad is not there with the mum and she has to do it all by herself.

Joseph had Mary riding on a donkey on a very long journey to his hometown to do the census while she was pregnant. Was that a good idea? To travel while you are pregnant. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been a different story had Mary stayed home and had baby Jesus but then Joseph may have had to leave her by herself to go do the census.
However she would have had family helping her, cousins so not truly by herself.

Thing is he didn't plan it or book ahead at the inn, so comes across as neglectful (a little ) lol
 
I expect Mary may have a had a midwife helping her (innkeeper's wife?) cos I can't imagine Joseph doing it all, it might have been 'unclean'. But then she did give birth in a stable amongst sheep and oxen. So maybe there really was nobody around to help.

If Jesus had not been born in Bethlehem though, he would have been born in Nazareth and had no claim to be Messiah as people said 'nothing good can come out of Nazareth'.
The town of Bethlehem endured a massacre of innocents after Jesus birth, so King Herod could get rid of any new king. Imagine how the mothers would have felt, their babies ordered to be killed.

I don't think anyone ever talks about it. I don't even know how they did it.
 
Lanolin said:
I expect Mary may have a had a midwife helping her (innkeeper's wife?) cos I can't imagine Joseph doing it all, it might have been 'unclean'. But then she did give birth in a stable amongst sheep and oxen. So maybe there really was nobody around to help. If Jesus had not been born in Bethlehem though, he would have been born in Nazareth and had no claim to be Messiah as people said 'nothing good can come out of Nazareth'. The town of Bethlehem endured a massacre of innocents after Jesus birth, so King Herod could get rid of any new king. Imagine how the mothers would have felt, their babies ordered to be killed. I don't think anyone ever talks about it. I don't even know how they did it.
Click to expand...

Hey Lanolin;

You are correct in that a lot of people and even disciples of the Bible don't think or talk about many subjects. I do because I have always had a vivid imagination. A child therapist told this to my parents when I was a child.

God conceived Mary through the Holy Spirit. It was a miracle. Therefore, Mary didn't need a midwife because she wouldn't be at risk for a caesarean or other medical difficulties giving birth to Jesus.

All Joseph had to do was walk back and forth and smoke a cigarette. lol!
 
Not sure they had cigarettes back then (though I heard doctors used to recommend them for stress relief?!) but he probably had some incense.

I feel sorry for caesarean births. Imagine you can't give birth except if someone cuts you open. We don't exactly have zips on our bellies. Belly buttons are too small....
 
Lanolin said:
Not sure they had cigarettes back then (though I heard doctors used to recommend them for stress relief?!) but he probably had some incense.

I feel sorry for caesarean births. Imagine you can't give birth except if someone cuts you open. We don't exactly have zips on our bellies. Belly buttons are too small....
Click to expand...
Thats so true.

I used to smoke, and felt so stress free when I did. But since I stopped I just eat more biscuits now.

women who gave birth naturally, its sooooo painful. I really think women got the worst deal. I would rather till the ground. Men dont know how easy they have it.
 
Yea lawnmowing is easy now that robots can do it.
Not sure why people really need a lawn, but every man apparently has one.

I think women should just lay eggs, like birds. So much easier.
If we didn't stand on two legs, and walked on all fours like all the other mammals, birth would probably be easier, and yea probably wouldn't need to wear clothes either, if we had feathers or fur. The whole process of clothing and unclothing and washing and ironing and putting away is just endless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top