The Sussexes received a ‘sustainable population’ award for only having two kids

archie2

In 2019, Prince Harry did an interview with Jane Goodall. The discussion was about conservation and environmentalism. At one point, Harry spoke about how thinks about what kind of world his children will inherit, and he thought like that before he even had children. Dr. Goodall interjected, telling him that he shouldn’t have too many kids and Harry told her, “Two, maximum.” Harry also referenced the same “two maximum” issue during the Oprah interview, basically suggesting that after Lili was born, they would have their perfect family unit with one son and one daughter. And I guess we believe that Meghan will not be able to convince him to have one more? I guess so, because the Sussexes have received a weird award for only having two kids:

A charity that is campaigning to stop families having more than two children to save the environment has given Meghan Markle and Prince Harry an award that praises their ‘enlightened decision’. Population Matters says its campaign to limit families is designed to achieve a ‘sustainable population’, despite their agenda’s similarities to Communist China’s notorious one child policy. Beijing now ‘allows’ its citizens to have three children after decades of limiting them to one child per family, which led to unknown numbers of ‘unauthorised’ children being abandoned or given away for adoption.

The Duke of Duchess of Sussex were praised by the charity Population Matters for reducing their environmental impact by limiting their family to two children. The UK-based charity said the couple were being recognised as ‘a role model for other families’ after the birth of Lilibet Diana on June 4 and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor on May 6, 2019.

Prince Harry and Meghan will be given the award alongside nine others on Sunday, July 11 to mark the United Nations’ World Population Day. Population Matters said it was recognising Harry and Meghan with the ‘Special Award’ for reducing their impact on the environment by not having any more children following the birth of their daughter this year.

A spokesman said: ‘In choosing and publicly declaring their intention to limit their family to two, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are helping to ensure a better future for their children and providing a role model for other families. Having a smaller family reduces our impact on the Earth, and provides a better chance for all our children, their children and future generations to flourish on a healthy planet. We commend the Duke and Duchess for taking this enlightened decision, and for affirming that a smaller family is also a happy family.’

Each recipient of a ‘Special Award’ will receive a £500 donation for a charity of their choice.

[From The Daily Mail]

I mean, technically I agree that people need to stop having so many babies. But I also believe in reproductive freedom, which means that every family gets to choose for themselves how many children they want. This group isn’t trying to mandate a “two children only” policy, they are trying to change the conversation around population and family planning by normalizing only having one or two kids. The thing is, among royalty and aristocracy, it used to be quite common to simply do “the heir and the spare.” Two kids were all that were “needed” for those upper-crust families and once they got their male heir and a second child, they stopped. At some point though – in America and the UK – having more than two children became yet another status symbol, a way to flaunt.

All of the Queen’s children only had two kids each. But the Queen’s grandchildren? William has three kids. So does Zara Tindall. I bet Peter Phillips has at least one more child whenever he remarries (and you know he will, he’s the type). Anyway, yes, good for Harry and Meghan. Even if the DM is trying to make it sound like the Sussexes are trying to mandate population control.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue their visit to Africa

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, SussexRoyal IG.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

93 Responses to “The Sussexes received a ‘sustainable population’ award for only having two kids”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snuffles says:

    One of the most fascinating courses I ever took in college was Population Studies. It was FASCINATING how much it effects every aspect of human life: politics, environment, public health, pandemics, diseases, mental health, etc. Really eye opening stuff.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I remember 9th Gr. Freshman year in high school, we had the very first Earth Day (April 22, 1970). ALL classes were cancelled for the day, but you were required to sign up for different “eco-conferences” held all over the campus all day. One of the ones I signed up for was “Zero Pop. Growth”, which is exactly what this new award is. The idea was that each family limit itself to 2 kids to “zero out” their parents when they died: 2 to replace the 2 that “depart”.

      Nice idea IF you can get people to voluntarily participate. Not likely however, unless EVERYONE has the right to birth control and bodily autonomy. And as we are seeing in real time, we are quickly losing those rights here!

      • Ally says:

        Exactly, when women are educated and empowered, family size drops.

        But also, the suffering of the earth isn’t due to women having babies (just another way to phrase it like women are a problem for existing), it’s due primarily to giant industries polluting and destroying.

  2. Katherine says:

    Lol what, 1. Where is my award, 2. Two is not that little

    • GA says:

      I love the Sussexes, but this award is really pointless and almost insulting? Someone said it better below, but not all people consume resources at the same rate and Archie and Lili will each use up the same amount of resources as a dozen+++ children in the developing world. Families should be free to have reproductive choice, but giving them an award for the absolute bare minimum is poor judgement on the award committee’s part and makes the award look like a joke.

      Obviously the Sussexes didn’t choose to get this award and deserve no blame (although they will inevitably get it), but the people dishing it out really seemed to be running out of options in their brainstorming meetings.

    • candy says:

      Agreed.

  3. Bettyrose says:

    I uh … this is creepy? I agree with the sentiment and realistically they probably won’t have a third but she JUST had the second.

    • Seraphina says:

      I agree and happy accidents happen. This couple is in love and young and well, you all know where I am going with this……………..

    • Sam the Pink says:

      I always assumed the decision to stop with two had more to to with the fact that Meghan is in her late 30s already, and obviously the risks increase as women age and she probably doesn’t want to keep putting her body through that process.

    • lunchcoma says:

      That was my thought as well. It also sounds like this is a group that has nothing to do with them, and it’s honestly kind of creepy to be tying themselves to famous people that way.

    • Jeremy says:

      They said they only want two

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Yup, and that was the decision that they stuck with. Also, it could be that Harry had decided in his adult years, and pre-Meghan, that he only wanted 2 children to begin with. So this could also be a joint decision.

        In my case, my daughter decided early on that she didn’t want children, and she was in her mid 20’s, not engaged or daring seriously. It was her decision and she stuck by it, when she was dating someone that she was serious with. Never changed her mind.
        Some people decide early on if they want children and if so, how many. I think it’s an excellent indicator that some people have the insight and freedom to make their decisions early in life.

    • Elvie says:

      Exactly! I found this “award” such a weird flex from the charity.
      You can do everything “right” to prevent a pregnancy and still end up with a happy accident. Even vasectomies and tubal ligation aren’t 100%.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ BothSidesNow, I also wanted to mention that I think that this award is extremely strange.

        I wish this program would focus more so on families with regards to children and women’s reproductive health in all countries. Or focus on girls who are subject the FGM and educating the removal of the practices.

        It’s just too weird for my head to wrap around this idea.

      • FC says:

        It’s like they are pre-shaming Meghan and Harry for when they end up having an “accident,” or worse, changing their minds and choosing to have a 3rd!

        There has to be better ways to promote this cause.

    • North of Boston says:

      Yeah the “gold star for your womb choices” aspect of this is really creepy and intrusive.

      Do they have a red X ❌ award for folks like Nick Cannon? Or do the mothers of each of his many babies each get their own gold star for themselves only having 1 or 2?

  4. Maria says:

    I think they both made the decision together to have only two, so neither will need to convince the other.

    The award is really weird. But I’m glad there’s money going to a charity I guess…

    • taris says:

      a family of four is perfect and symmetrical.

      i believe in reproductive freedom, but i’m also aware that reproductive trends and choices do have broader, long-lasting effects. i prefer people have fewer or no children – but that’s just me.

      on the award, my slightly cynical take: i’m sure they’re a legit charity with good intentions, but this stunt kinda seems like some ploy to get some global attention (by using h+m’s names) – which worked!

      btw, leave it to the daily mail to make an underhanded attempt at linking communist china with h+m. lols.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I went over to the Daily Heil to read some of the comments, there were over 7k to choose from, and could not believe what was being posting.

        All this was linked to H&M taking pot shots at Baldy & Wiglet and demanding that Meghan abort if she ever becomes pregnant again, like the DM would ever really know.

  5. Sam the Pink says:

    It is pretty dumb, given that the Sussex kids will, by virtue of their births and status, consume far more resources that the average child – so in reality, the most ethical thing they could have done would have been to have none – period. To put in the perspective, my 5 will consume less over their lifetimes than Archie and Lili will. That is not to attack them in any way, but it gets to the real issue – the issue is not the number of people, it is the allocation of resources. A family with 1 child in the US or Europe are greater consumers than a family of 6 or 7 in Africa.

    If you want to help, focus less on trying to shame people for their reproductive choices and more on emphasizing a reduction in resources and carbon impact per individual. Otherwise, you’re just spitting in the wind.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    This group is using Harry and Meghan for publicity even if they get negativity. I’m wary of these kind of groups because they tend to veer into eugenics and promoting population control among people of colour especially in Africa. Overpopulation is not the cause of climate change and poverty so telling people how many children they should have is outdated and racist. I wonder if Harry had married a white woman would he be getting this award?

    • Sunday says:

      100% agree.

    • Ang says:

      While I agree with everything else you said, overpopulation is absolutely a driver of climate change and poverty.

      • Sam the Pink says:

        No, unequal and excessive use of natural resources is the biggest driver. The overpopulation line is a red herring that is used by the developed world to shame and punish the developing world – which unsurprisingly are populated primarily by people of color.

        There is actually robust scientific debate over the human population and what is “sustainable.” But what is glaringly clear is that a small percentage of the world population is responsible for the majority of the carbon emissions. The issue is not “we have too many people.” The issue is “we do not live in a sustainable way.” Instead of shaming people for their reproduction (which, I may add, it not always a choice for all people), emphasize sustainable living, including consumption, dietary choices, and (most importantly) energy production. Otherwise, you are fighting a losing battle.

      • lanne says:

        The USA has 1/18 the worlds population and consumes 25% of the world’s resources.

      • Maria says:

        Yep, what Sam said.

  7. Plums says:

    I mean, I don’t think giving them an award for having two kids is doing them any favors, tbh. It’s kind of obnoxious. Lots of people choose to not have any kids at all, or can’t and wish they could, or stop at one or two. I feel like that’s the majority of the population in developed countries. Where’s their award, lol?

    Like, if you’re gonna give someone an award for social/environmental consciousness in their family planning (which is a dumb thing to do but for the sake of argument), give it to people who deliberately choose to foster/adopt instead of having their own kids; those people are the ones who actually deserve it.

  8. The Artist Formerly Known as Valiantly Varnished says:

    This is a dumb award lol. And I can totally see Harry & Meghan having a third baby. Maybe it would be an “oops” baby or maybe Meghan would convince Harry for a third. But this is a weird award and I don’t like the “womb-watching” vibes of it. I believe in reproductive freedom as well and I feel like as long as you can actually take care of the kids you have (and that goes beyond monetary) it’s no one’s business.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Who says Meghan wants a third a child? She and Harry said Lili would be last child.

      • Jegede says:

        I think that poster is just acknowledging ‘accidents happen.

        Anyway, I read on another blog about plethora of women who start motherhood in their 30s and tend to have ‘unexpected’ pregnancies in their 40s, when they thought they were perimenopausal.

        Famous women include Molly Sims, J Love Hewitt and Caroline of Monaco.

        Anyway, this ‘award’ seems more like a stick to beat the Sussexes with at a later date, rather then anything genuine.🙄

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Jegede – I do not think the charity, Population Matters, meant this award as a stick to use for beating but the Daily Fail will use anything it can get to beat on the Sussexes and keep on beating.

      • The Artist Formerly Known as Valiantly Varnished says:

        Where did I say she wanted a third child?? I literally stated “maybe”.

  9. Becks1 says:

    What a weird award, but as someone who also has just two kids – where’s my award?!?!!?

  10. Mandy says:

    This is creepy as she’s just given birth. Let a woman breathe before attaching her to more propaganda, especially what she does with her uterus.

    Anyway, I agree that Meghan and Harry are done at 2 biological children but I don’t rule out the possibility of them adopting one day if they or the kids wanted a third sibling. Meghan and Harry strike me as the Angelina and Brad type of couple. The couple who would give a child a chance at a good life. It also wouldn’t be the first time a royal adopted as I read once that Queen Victoria adopted a child or two as her own.

    I totally see that happening. They’re probably done having kids of their own but adoption is not outside the realms of possibility

    • Mandy says:

      Also technically speaking, The Sussexes have 3 kids if we consider the miscarried baby they lost exactly a year ago.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        If this was Communist China, not that many yrs back, Lili WOULD be considered their 3rd child. They both would’ve probably been arrested and the kids taken by The State.

      • Greywacke says:

        @(Theog) I was in China in 2013, and I met several college age students who had siblings, including some who even had two. No one was jailed for it. You can have more if you are politically well connected or pay a fine. It really surprised me, but China had relaxed its rules so much by that point that they all told me the one child rule was on its way out, and it proved to be true.

  11. Leslie says:

    1) We have no idea what the future will hold and if they end up having more kids, regardless of what they say now. (Example: didn’t William at one point say he only wanted two kids? Yet now he has three).

    2) Why is this charity praising the Sussexes and not, say, women and married couples who choose not to have kids at all? Aren’t child free women and families better for “population control” than anyone who has children? This charity and their awards is super weird.

    • Turtledove says:

      Leslie, I have several friends who are childfree by choice and the amount of grief they get from friends, family. and strangers alike is disgusting. The only people who should have kids are those that WANT kids. This should not be that hard a concept to grasp.

      The idea that Harry and Meghan (whom I adore, btw, this isn’t on them) are getting a award for only having two when so many people are harrassed for not wanting any is SUCH a slap in the face.

      There are probably 20 better reasons to give H&M an award. This situation really irks me. It also irks me no end that people assume if they had a 3rd it would be because Meghan convinced Harry. Maybe Meghan would be the one in need of convincing, not every woman wants a ton of babies.

      • Kviby says:

        Childfree (also, not marrying) is an increasingly popular choice. Not just in the west but also in Korea, Japan and even China (for educated career women). I wouldn’t be surprised if it catches on in South Asia and the Middle East too. Men who are introspective make that choice to avoid an unhappy situation, but I read that in east Asia, the main driver is women knowing how unfair and unpleasant it can be. Example, in Korea apparently a lady would keep her career manage the child rearing and serve her in laws (and of course keep husband happy) and have bad rights in the situation of divorce, so people are starting to say no thanks.
        I feel like it’s getting so popular that it might soon be less necessary for those who do have kids to limit the number (though limiting the number can be a great personal choice as well.)
        It’s a little weird to award this right after a baby is born but I appreciate the conversation the award creates.

      • anniefannie says:

        One of my besties used to get harassed by family for her and her hubbies choice to not have children.
        I was at a cocktail party when an invasive woman was remarking that they should reconsider, my friend loudly responded
        “ I love children, they taste delicious!”
        A little morbid , maybe? Hilarious definitely!
        Anyhoo shut that woman up!!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “didn’t William at one point say he only wanted two kids?”

        Baldy made that exact statement but Rose bushing can do strange things to a man.

      • lucy2 says:

        Childfree, with no real interest in marriage here. Nobody says much to me directly, especially as I’m now in my 40s, but my younger sibling is having a baby this year, and I’m hearing a lot of “FINALLY lucy2′s parents get to be grandparents!” and it feels rather pointed.
        I’m very excited to become an aunt, and also very worried about the world this baby will be growing up in.

  12. Betsy says:

    That’s… weird. That’s all I got. That’s weird.

    Yes, having fewer (or no) children is a part of environmental practice, but it’s not the only thing. If Kate and William had only had two children, does anyone think they’d take any fewer helicopter trips or have any fewer international vacations, or a smaller home? Or take Katie and Billy Average of MiddleAmerica, USA. Let’s say they have three kids, too. Yes, that’s one more person’s lifetime accrual of crap, but Katie and Billy would still have two SUVs that they use for short trips, would still take flight (or two) to Florida every year, would still clothe themselves in cheap, fast fashion…

    Fewer kids is one of those things that people tell themselves would solve things, but it’s not the whole point.

  13. Lunasf17 says:

    On one hand since their kids are going to need a lot of resources, I get that limiting the number is good. But people that are poor have multiple kids because they don’t have resources and having kids is their best chance of survival, especially in old age. The reasons people have many kids in developing nations is very different than why people have a lot of kids in wealthier countries. Also we need to
    Normalize and celebrate people who don’t have kids and recognize that their lives are just as meaningful than people who do have kids. Less people in general is good for the planet!

    • clomo says:

      I’m with you 100%. At some point if people don’t stop breeding madly in places like India they won’t have the resources for them all. I’ve spent a lot of time over there and love India and it’s people but they all have massive families. We don’t need more people on the earth, plain and simple. My only child has decided not to do the family thing so far which is a little sad I will never be a grandmother but I can respect her choice for sure.

      • Really? says:

        So…if someone so much as says they don’t like Meg’s hair they get dragged for racism, but a comment about Indian people “breeding madly” gets nothing? Cool. Again, an average family with ten children in India consumes far less than a family with two or three in the West, especially the States. Overpopulation is frankly a convenient scapegoat for resource hoarding.

  14. OriginalLala says:

    I’m married and we chose not to have any kids, where’s my award lol?

    but seriously, the lifestyles of the rich consume way more resources than most people (huge homes, wanton consumption, constant travel etc etc) and are not at all sustainable or good for the planet, so it’s kind of an odd award..

  15. Laalaa says:

    They receive an award for promoting having only 2 children when they wished to have 2 children and there are millions of people who have 2 children, and millions of people who are reproductively challenged?!
    I must admit when I hear this kind of news about them, … red flag
    Edit: not because I question them, I question the perception of them by the public!

  16. Watcher says:

    This award feels very problematic for those of us who have lost a pregnancy. 75% of parents mourn their loss and continue to count them as a child. I, myself, when asked how many children I have reply ‘none, living’. A good portion of bereaved parents think of the baby/child/life they lost at each milestone, birthday, death date etc. This award seems very cold and unaware of how many of us grieve. In my mind, I see a family of three, with two, delightfully, living.

  17. ce says:

    Overpopulation is one big issue, so is non-renewable resources, so is single-use plastics, so is fast fashion… capitalist culture is not made for a sustainble future. Anyone who has kids right now should be concerned for them, this planet has shown us we’re at the tail end of being habitable for human life.

  18. L says:

    Unsettling that they gave a biracial couple an award for having only two children. Eugenics? I dunno, it feels all over the place and honestly, creepy

  19. Sofia says:

    I also think it’s kinda of weird. I also don’t think it should be something to be awarded. Like lots of people stick to 2, so they’re (H&M) not special in that way. I know they’ve said two but they may change their minds later. Or they may have a third unexpectedly. It’ll be these people who will tear into them if they go for a third child.

  20. Abby says:

    Sussex fan here. Also parent of two children – that’s all we’re having. I don’t know how I feel about this award. The number of children you have is deeply, deeply personal. I don’t think organizations should be handing out awards like this.

    I could get behind an award for implementing sustainable lifestyle methods, like low-waste, green living, minimizing consumption—those kinds of things. But this sits weird.

  21. equality says:

    PR ploy by this organization. Who had heard of them previously? They attach their name to H&M and suddenly people know who they are. Interesting fact: David Attenborough is patron of this organization.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Well with Attenborough as the patron this answers my questions if this group believes in eugenics and whether Harry and Meghan would get this award if she was white.

  22. Over it says:

    Yeah , this is a weird award. I mean they said they are done but accidents can happen. And I think it’s weird because who gives people awards for their reproductive systems? I wish people would leave Harry and Meghan to just live their lives their way.

  23. candy says:

    These are things you can’t always plan and/or decide. Maybe they will have another one in the heat of passion. Maybe they will adopt 5 or 6 years from now. These are complicated questions that people change their minds about all the time. That said, everywhere I go feels so crowded, even in a relatively small city. I work in infrastructure planning and it’s very challenging dealing with the influx of people moving to my area. It certainly does feel like the planet is overpopulated.

  24. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    What happens when women, like me, have birth control babies? I had three. And to bestow this award on a young family is presumptuous, pretentious and insulting.

  25. Charfromdarock says:

    This is a creepy award.

    And it’s SOO deliberately obtuse to the lack of choices and bodily autonomy millions of women suffer the world over.

  26. North of Boston says:

    Large # of offspring wasn’t always to flaunt.

    Years ago and maybe now in some places, people had lots of kids because a) a lot of them died so if you wanted to increase your chances of raise some making it to adulthood you’d have more than 1-2 b) you needed the (free aside from room and board) labor to run your farm, business etc and c) there weren’t a lot of easy ways to prevent pregnancy and so if there was going to be sex there were going to be babies.

    Then I guess you had some poor people who had to give away their children or abandon them to orphanages because they could not
    afford to care for them and not-so poor royals marrying them off for alliances and whatever.

  27. nina says:

    Poor PWT and Keen. BAWHAHAHA. This is a stupid award but Harry and Meghan outshines them even in the most basic of human functions. Having babies. This is too funny.

  28. diana says:

    Yeah this is stupid. I mean how do they know that they won’t have an ‘oops baby’ down the line. And honestly I kind of had the impression from the Oprah Interview that while Harry seems done. I don’t think Meghan would mind having another one.

  29. Lola says:

    But… they might have more? Although considering M’s age perhaps not.

    • taris says:

      why do people keep bringing up m’s age? she’s not 60. dear god…

      • Sam the Pink says:

        Because science? Statistically, after 35, and especially after 40, the risks associated with pregnancy significantly increase. Pointing out that a 39 year old woman may not want to take those risks is perfectly reasonable to note. A 39 year old woman has different considerations about having another child than a woman in her 20s.

      • taris says:

        “because science” – you mean the “science” that allows people to live longer, healthier lives than ever before and, yes, have perfectly healthy babies even in their 40s.

        meghan and her doctor know her body best, and baby decisions are between her and her husband.

        i know some of you think you sound rational, but really it’s beyond weird and invasive. please stop.

      • Sam the Pink says:

        Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false. All major medical authorities accept that pregnancy after 35 comes with increased risks to mother and baby. As much as Ben Shapiro sucks, I gotta steal the line “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Any ethical doctor would advise a 39 year woman debating having a child as to her risks – regardless of knowing “her body.” It would be a breach of medical ethics to fail to do so. Any woman conceiving in her late 30s is counseled on this and has to weight her choices accordingly. You sound like you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending facts you do not like don’t exist.

      • L4frimaire says:

        The biggest percentage in birth increase are in women 35+, so called geriatric pregnancies. Birth rates are falling among younger women, while this older group had increases and held steady until the pandemic. Yes an older pregnancy is more risky, more screenings, but let’s also be realistic here. It’s not like fertility and chances of having a healthy baby fall off a cliff exponentially. A lot of women have healthy babies in late 30s / early 40s and these pregnancies are more planned. Meghan is not a stand out having her 2nd baby at 39.

      • taris says:

        @l4frimaire quite my point exactly.

        also, no woman would enjoy having her fertility (or potential infertility) speculated on and scrutinised on an open platform, even on the basis of “facts”/”science” (meghan is already subject to relentless vicious attacks; not the least of which are pregnancy conspiracy theories – due to *her age*).
        i think it’s unnecessarily invasive. as women, let’s all just respect each other and do unto others…

        have a lovely day beauties 😊

      • Ed says:

        I will say no

  30. Nic919 says:

    I have already seen Harry and Meghan get attacked for this award that they didn’t ask to be a part of. So it’s a dumb award and the publicity this organization will get from using Harry and Meghan’s popularity will only become another tool for the UK media to brandish if they do end up having a third baby.

  31. A says:

    This is a super weird award. However, I do find the generational changes in family units when it comes to the royal family really intresting in general. The queen had four children and all her children seemly decided two was enough ( granted three of the queen’s four children had marriages that crashed and burned). I mean its really not my business, but I do wonder if the system they grew up in itself seem to lead them to make the decsion that the heir and spare was the most damage they were willing to impose on their own offspring having seen the damage that can come when you have two many children and not enough time to spend with each one invidually in addition to rasing said children in a rank system?

  32. CC2 says:

    It’s a dumb award and almost reeks of antinatalism. If you want to reduce population, focusing on providing education (there’s a reason why we have Low birth rates in some areas, high in others) and good healthcare. Not two privileged people in a developed society who wouldn’t have a shitload of babies anyway. Love the Sussexes obviously, but the amount of babies they want is personal and should not be celebrated or scorned at. It is what it is.

    • L4frimaire says:

      At the same time, you have a lot of wealthy countries freaking out about their declining birth rates, but they’re really only concerned with certain women in certain demographics not having babies, and trying to use reproductive laws to control or punish women, like in this country. We know how this goes.

    • Rnot says:

      Free universally available contraception is by far the most cost-effective environmental investment that we could make. You don’t need to convince or coerce people to limit population growth. People naturally do that if they have the individual choice. That’s a pattern that’s been repeated around the world. Once there’s widespread access to reliable birth control, the population growth drops to around replacement-rate within few decades. Most parents will choose to ensure adequate resources per kid within their own families so those choices collectively balance out close to a sustainable level.

  33. pamspam says:

    I am limiting my household to two cats. My apartment, my choice.

  34. L4frimaire says:

    Eh, just ignoring this, like the Sussexes are. Kind of out of left field and really presumptuous and invasive. They basically admitted they nominated them to get more attention to their cause.

    • Thirtynine says:

      Exactly. Cheap publicity grab. Nothing to do with the Sussexes at all. Just more opportunists hitching a ride on their fame.

  35. Rare0217 says:

    Before I got pregnant with what we thought was our last bundle of joy my husband used to joke and say “wouldn’t it be funny if they said we were having twins at our first appointment”?. Well when it happened he didn’t think it was funny lol he was shell-shocked for weeks. All that to say…sometimes you get an unsustainable surprise

  36. Abena Asantewaa says:

    This is a bogus award, clout chasing on H&M’s popularity. It is a trap to stop them from having a 3rd if they change their minds, the media would now come back to them to criticise them. We don’t even know if they have accepted this wierd award. When meghn’s cookbook received an award, no British paper or Tv reported it, so I am suspicious about their enthusiasm to give this some publicity.

  37. Fredegunda says:

    “The thing is, among royalty and aristocracy, it used to be quite common to simply do ‘the heir and the spare.’”

    Is that really true, though? I would have thought that large families were historically the norm except when the couple struggled with infertility or really hated each other. Because of disease and poor medical knowledge, it wasn’t necessarily prudent from a dynastic perspective to have few children, as they could easily die at any time and imperil the succession.

    As to large royal and noble families: George V had 6 kids (5 sons). Edward VII had 5 kids of which 2 sons survived to adulthood. Victoria had 5 daughters and 4 sons. George III had 15 children, of which 9 were boys; his father George II had 8 kids (3 boys).

    In continental Europe, Frederick III of Prussia had 8 children but of the 4 boys only 1 survived to adulthood: the infamous Wilhelm II. Wilhelm himself had 7 children, of which the first 6 were boys. Ludwig III of Bavaria (d. 1921) had 13 children, including 4 boys. Frederick VIII of Denmark (d. 1912) had 8 children. Leopold III of Belgium (d. 1983) had 6 children, including 3 sons. The list could go on…

    At the other end of the spectrum, some monarchs barely managed an heir, let alone a spare. Queen Anne had 17 pregnancies but her only child to survive infancy died at age 11. Charles II, George IV, and William IV had something like 30 illegitimate kids between them but only one legitimate child, George’s daughter Charlotte, survived to adulthood. Napoleon III, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, and Haakon VII of Norway only had one child each; Wilhelmina miscarried numerous times. Nicholas II of Russia had four daughters before a hemophiliac son & heir finally arrived, but no spare followed. Queen Fabiola of Belgium miscarried 5 times and she and her husband King Baudouin had no children.

    Postwar European monarchs tend to have smaller families. Juan Carlos, Rainier, Carl XVI Gustaf, Albert II, and Beatrix each had 3 kids. Margrethe and Harald had 2. Jean of Luxembourg was something of an outlier with 5.

  38. Aries-Mira says:

    Oh give me a break. An award? Big f***ing deal. What about single people and couples who choose to remain childless? Where’s their “award”? This whole idea is beyond pathetic.