Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Best name suggestion I've seen for the newborn drain on the taxpayer...

(738 Posts)

I popped into a pub this afternoon for a wee and a pint and they had a Royal Baby Name sweepstake board behind the bar.

Someone had suggested 'Dodi.' grin

YouTheCat Tue 23-Jul-13 23:17:59

Hahaha grin

I prefer Kensington Tyler myself.

YellowJug Tue 23-Jul-13 23:18:11

Bore off
Thanks

SunshineBossaNova Tue 23-Jul-13 23:19:03

Oooh... not nice. But <guilty giggle>

SaucyJack Tue 23-Jul-13 23:19:10

No need to insult a tiny baby. He's done nothing wrong.

usualsuspect Tue 23-Jul-13 23:20:08

Hahaha.

Monty27 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:20:09

PMSL at Dodi, I did suggest Spencer to my dsis earlier grin

This is taking the piss. What did the poor baby do to deserve this. He's 24 hrs old ffs

coralanne Tue 23-Jul-13 23:21:30

Grinch!!!!!

mynameisslimshady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:21:51

Oh thats just hilarious hmm

usualsuspect Tue 23-Jul-13 23:22:36

Oh ffs

He's a baby not the bloody second coming.

Monty27 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:23:07

Saucy no-one's insulting the lovely wee baby, we're just having a giggle. confused

LegoAcupuncture Tue 23-Jul-13 23:24:01

What an awful term to call a baby. Do you call children born to parents on benefits that as well?

HenriettaPye Tue 23-Jul-13 23:24:06

'Newborn drain on the taxpayer'

How fucking horrid.

He is a newborn baby

cheerfulweather Tue 23-Jul-13 23:24:25

Oh dear grin

LimitedEditionLady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:24:57

Nah this is taking it too far.Im not really interested in the royals but theres no need to be that nasty.Its a baby,get over it.

YouTheCat Tue 23-Jul-13 23:25:51

Oh ffs

So who do you think will be contributing to his education/security etc?

usualsuspect Tue 23-Jul-13 23:26:21

She is kinda on benefits.

I don't consider babies born to parents on benefits to be anything like as much of a drain on the taxpayer. They're statistically more likely than this one (who is, I'm sure, no more or less lovely than any newborn) to end up working for a living.

LimitedEditionLady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:26:52

Im glad im not the only one that thinks that its horrible.Before you tell me to get a sense of humour which i know is coming,assess your own.Being vile isnt humourous.

I quite like Rollo!

I must have had a sense of humour bypass.

LimitedEditionLady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:28:49

Omg lets talk about taxes,thats not done every done.Yawn.

cheerfulweather Tue 23-Jul-13 23:29:10

Actually <feeling guilty> You shouldn't make jokes about the magical royal baby's future monarch's potential name angry.

coralanne Tue 23-Jul-13 23:30:33

My comment to the OP "The Grinch who stole Christmas" was lighthearted. I can't really see anything on here yet that is vile or horrible.

Just a bit of fun really isn't it.

Personally I think the baby is adorable (as ae all babies)

NomDeClavier Tue 23-Jul-13 23:30:53

Technically the baby will be supported by the Duchy of Cornwall's revenue, not 'the taxpayer'.

LimitedEditionLady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:31:25

Its not the name,its the title of the thread.

YellowJug Tue 23-Jul-13 23:31:33

You don't know what that child will do or what he will achieve. It's like saying a baby born on a council estate will amount to nothing, it's not fair to put that on him before he's even speaking!

And the Dodi joke is just vile. Really vile.

IfNotNowThenWhen Tue 23-Jul-13 23:31:45

Jayden?

LimitedEditionLady Tue 23-Jul-13 23:32:30

Im referring to the title of the thread as the other person was

Yes please re edit the title someone. Not funny or clever just spiteful.

Fecklessdizzy Tue 23-Jul-13 23:33:53

My gang's money are on ...

Edward / Arthur ( DP )

Adolf / Grimbeard ( DS1 )

Rufus ( DS2 )

Tyson / Benedict / Voldemort ( me )

grin

LegoAcupuncture Tue 23-Jul-13 23:34:34

Bypassing the "joke" about his name, the title is awful. There is no need for it.

SaucyJack Tue 23-Jul-13 23:34:58

I don't agree with the monarchy, nor it's funding either YoutheCat.

But still, no need to take it out on the baby. Just not cricket in my book.

usualsuspect Tue 23-Jul-13 23:36:12

If this title gets edited I'm off.

Wbdn28 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:36:33

biscuit

Monty27 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:37:26

Rufus?

coralanne Tue 23-Jul-13 23:37:28

My initial comment was directed at the title of the thread.

It's a bit sad that a persons initial reaction to a cuddly newborn is that, but hey, let's forget about it and enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling a newborn generates.

It's like Kate said, everyone who is a parent will know how they are feeling at the moment.

cheerfulweather Tue 23-Jul-13 23:40:54

"It's like Kate said, everyone who is a parent will know how they are feeling at the moment."

I agree wholeheartedly with Kate's sentiment.

HeySoulSister Tue 23-Jul-13 23:41:29

Doesn't William work? Earns a wage etc? Pays tax?

Fecklessdizzy Tue 23-Jul-13 23:41:39

I don't know where Rufus came from either, Monty, I think there was a King Rufus in the lego knights you could get a few years ago and DS2 is an utter fiend for lego so maybe it sort of lodged in his subconcious somehow!

I rather like it ...

cheerfulweather Tue 23-Jul-13 23:43:05

William Rufus (i.e. William the second)! Tsk.

fruitpastille Tue 23-Jul-13 23:46:26

My four year old DDs suggestions:
Sunhat
Flag
Stinky bum bum
She found these hysterically funny as you can imagine!

Fecklessdizzy Tue 23-Jul-13 23:47:29

Wasn't he terribly bad tempered and died in a suspicious hunting accident?

cheerfulweather Tue 23-Jul-13 23:48:10

Yes.

McNewPants2013 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:48:19

An awful title.

CointreauVersial Tue 23-Jul-13 23:49:22

Oh boooo, SGB.

softlysoftly Tue 23-Jul-13 23:49:56

For starters the "newborn drain" will as Kate so far has earn this country far more than he costs. Just watched a review on the likely income/interest from home and abroad in all things royal Baby branded. It's billions.

Secondly William is in the forces, he works, yet unlike other serving men gets no respect for that?

I actually couldn't stand Diana and am not a massive royalist but truly hate the vitriol saved for them which is "ok" because they are privileged.

The only name suggested for the baby I find amusing is Tyler. Just so Katie Hopkins could have it shoved in her face.

Fecklessdizzy Tue 23-Jul-13 23:50:28

OK, perhaps not Rufus, then. Pity though as the lego one was a good egg!

You can enjoy vicarious warm-fuzzy-newborn thrills every minute of every day. Babies are literally born every minute and hopefully most are born healthy to mothers who survive the birth, and are lovingly welcomed into the world. All that is very nice.

But in a climate of crippling 'austerity' and increasing cuts to public services added to some deeply unpleasant propaganda about poor people, it's a bit worrying that everyone's being told to rejoice about the birth of one particular baby who is supposedly more important than the rest but who the rest are going to be paying for, like it or not.

Lorialet Tue 23-Jul-13 23:52:11

"I don't consider babies born to parents on benefits to be anything like as much of a drain on the taxpayer. They're statistically more likely than this one (who is, I'm sure, no more or less lovely than any newborn) to end up working for a living."

Where do you get that utter bullshit from? Prince William & Prince Harry both serve in the Armed Forces.

PugStaffyCross Tue 23-Jul-13 23:54:08

James is a nice name for a future king. He looked a little sweety like all newborns.

firesideskirt Tue 23-Jul-13 23:54:38

That's a really poor joke. Sorry you find it funny.

The Royal family don't 'earn the country far more than they cost', though. This is a myth. Heritage tourism generates some money, but you don't need live parasites to produce this revenue.

MidniteScribbler Tue 23-Jul-13 23:55:15

Tasteless. Really tasteless.

Monty27 Tue 23-Jul-13 23:57:29

Aww I think Rufus is cute grin

Menzies? Oh no too Scottish in cases Scotland detatches...

I know! Just Prince! Prince Prince of Cambridge??? grin (Purple rain and all that is a royal colour). No?

countingmyblessings Tue 23-Jul-13 23:58:32

Yes. The royal family are sort of on benefits. BUT 'baby Cambridge' is just that, an innocent baby. Get a grip fgs. Find something that deserves mocking. So distasteful

Fecklessdizzy Tue 23-Jul-13 23:59:07

Dunno, both James' were a bit dodgy, don'tcha know ... One nearly got blown up and the other got booted out in favour of William of Orange.

I'm with the Tyler faction now, Tyler the First has a definite ring to it ...

HeySoulSister Wed 24-Jul-13 00:00:45

So sgb what do you suggest? We send the baby back??

AntlersInAllOfMyDecorating Wed 24-Jul-13 00:01:18

Poor taste over the name.

megsmouse Wed 24-Jul-13 00:01:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

My fovourite name suggestion is kong.

Fecklessdizzy Wed 24-Jul-13 00:04:27

Does anyone remember Class War? Are you riffing on their " Another fucking parasite " headline when William was born?

MidniteScribbler Wed 24-Jul-13 00:04:47

BBC this morning said that the royal family were worth 50 billion pounds to British commerce and tourism. I'd say that's not a bad contribution.

Primafacie Wed 24-Jul-13 00:05:06

DD(4) suggestions:
Shellen (apparently a boy's name), or
Fonk. I'm thinking they may want to go for the upper class spelling Phonque grin

softlysoftly Wed 24-Jul-13 00:05:15

No SGB untrue there had been very specific affects of the "living heritage". 1 simple example is a small Scottish factory about to go belly up. Kate wore a scarf of theirs to the jubilee now they are prospering with orders from around the world an nd new job creations.

I might not buy into the hype around it but millions, billions, do and that effect would absolutely not be the same if our "heritage" were not too have a human news creating faces.

Will and Kate are a marketeers dream and nothing she does will be by accident. Each of these events brings money in, not something that would happen with static heritage.

VixZenFenchell Wed 24-Jul-13 00:06:05

I have a very dear friend who serves in the forces. Are you suggesting that she and her children are also a drain on the taxpayer? Because I don't imagine William works in the RAF for nothing.

This child is far more likely to bring money into the UK than 3 generations of one family who haven't done a day's salaried work in their lives.

Note: am comparing this one child to one example. Unlike your sweeping generalisation that all royals are "living parasites". Which is a disgusting thing to call a day old baby and his proud parents.

scottishmummy France Wed 24-Jul-13 00:06:16

How obvious and woohoo trying to shock.bet you laughed drinking your free trade coffee

Fecklessdizzy Wed 24-Jul-13 00:06:57

King Fonk.

Genius.

grin

softlysoftly Wed 24-Jul-13 00:07:57

To not too

Too tired for swype typing!

HeySoulSister Wed 24-Jul-13 00:09:59

Trying to shock, yes, and failing

Op has made herself look stupid

siiiiiiiiigh Wed 24-Jul-13 00:11:07

I saw this suggestion on twitter:

"call the baby, Morrissey. Just to really, really annoy Morrissey"

ha ha ha.

That is just mean. I'd hate to think of my baby thought of like that by anyone whether I was anywhere from benefits to royal sad

now gets why MNers have shit lists

countingmyblessings Wed 24-Jul-13 00:15:07

Why has this thread not been deleted?

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 00:15:36

I like that, Siiigh!

IfNotNowThenWhen Wed 24-Jul-13 00:15:39

If they call him Mohammed I win a gazzillion pounds at William hill, and I will move in next door to the cambridges and start threads about how they let little Mohammed have fruit shoots and that.
(fingers crossed)

scottishmummy France Wed 24-Jul-13 00:17:53

There's something v juvenile and socialist worker radge about the op

OrangeLily Wed 24-Jul-13 00:20:14

FFS. Surely all children are a bloody "drain" on the tax payer. I'm childless, DH is childless yet we both pay taxes which support children's education/health care/welfare services.

Thankfully I've got half a bloody brain and don't actually mean the ridiculous statement above. I also don't insult newborn babies who are completely 100% innocent. Also, have you actually looked at how the royals make money?!

Lora1982 Wed 24-Jul-13 00:21:10

Doesnt this babies dad work? Seem to remember he does

Yawn.

Yes, your so clever and interesting, Op.

Next.

brdgrl Wed 24-Jul-13 00:24:06

why on earth should this thread be deleted?
solidgold, thanks for speaking sensibly.

LegoCaltrops Wed 24-Jul-13 00:24:08

William works, Kate worked. What's your problem with them OP?

scottishmummy France Wed 24-Jul-13 00:27:18

Thread doesn't need deleted,that'll feed op ego that she sooo radical that mn couldn't cope
It's provocation by numbers,to elicit a response,all v predictable
Provocative title x some obvious titwank about class/ monarchy x

peanutMD Wed 24-Jul-13 00:27:20

Totally disregarding the despicable title.

Honest question here but whilst I do think James is a lovely name and has royal form wouldn't it be a bit ironic for Charles' sons to call his child that given the while Diana/James Hewitt (i.e Harry) speculation?

I should add I was only born in 86 and have never had much if an interest in the royals so could bee taking out if my arse grin

Leverette Wed 24-Jul-13 00:27:48

No reason for deletion that I can see.

A bit of respect for diversity wouldn't go amiss - Republicans are people too

MrsWolowitz Wed 24-Jul-13 00:31:39

Yuck.

Horrid title, horrid "joke".

Crass and cruel.

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 00:31:45

It's not likely to be James, Prince Edward and Sophie have a James.

scottishmummy France Wed 24-Jul-13 00:32:21

Oh behave,it's not a well composed republican sentiment,it's rowdy blah
To provoke
To get reaction

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 00:32:48

Cannot believe I'm discussing this (I am no royalist). grin

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 00:36:01

Though Arthur would be nice.

Turniphead1 Wed 24-Jul-13 00:37:55

Little mite didn't even cost us an NHS birth. (Yeah let's include a debate on private medicine along with tax revenue in this scintillating thread).

Seriously OP. Are you 17?

Turniphead1 Wed 24-Jul-13 00:37:55

Little mite didn't even cost us an NHS birth. (Yeah let's include a debate on private medicine along with tax revenue in this scintillating thread).

Seriously OP. Are you 17?

Fecklessdizzy Wed 24-Jul-13 00:39:18

Me neither, I've been avoiding the radio/TV all day and now I'm chuntering about it on here! Madness, I'm going to bed ...

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Wed 24-Jul-13 01:09:55

Yaaaawwwwn. Thought I was back in 6th form. hmm

KhaosandKalamity Wed 24-Jul-13 02:41:46

Sorry I am a foreigner and kind of don't get it, why is this baby considered such a drain on the tax payer and assumed that he will not work?

As far as I'm aware his father is on maternity leave from his job as a helicopter pilot doing his part to protect his country and yet he and his family are compared to benefit moochers.

I may be wrong about this but as far as I was aware long ago much of the "royal" land was given to parliament to cover a debt and is now rented from your government at a high enough cost that the royal family pays more than it costs leaving your country better off than it would be without them.

Our country is a part of the monarchy but we do not resent the royal family, even if they have no impact on our country, and in the most recent world war America was a better friend to us than Brittan many here are loyal to the Queen and don't care that if we strike oil on our own land it automatically belongs to her.

ChimeForChange Wed 24-Jul-13 03:23:07

I'm not a royalist by any means, but there was nothing remotely funny about that joke, very poor taste.

Assuming you are a mother OP, not sure how you could find it acceptable to regard a newborn baby in that way either.

I agree wholeheartedly with scottishmummy. Which is unusual winkwink.

Flobbadobs Wed 24-Jul-13 06:52:53

Funny that whenever there's a thread about these 'Royal Parasites' anyone pointing out that some of them like William do actually work are ignored...

KingRollo Wed 24-Jul-13 06:59:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Greythorne Wed 24-Jul-13 07:05:30

The most popular tourist destination in the world is Paris.

They guillotined their royals.

Just sayin'.

ChippingInHopHopHop Wed 24-Jul-13 07:08:52

James - yes, I'm not sure why that's such a 'bookies hot one' given the James Hewitt thing... seems odd to me.

I think every twit around has been suggesting 'Spencer' and it would be brilliant, but just not going to happen (except as one of twenty billion middle names).

kungfupannda Wed 24-Jul-13 07:33:11

Poor little bugger. He's got a lifetime of this coming. No-one chooses the circumstances they are born into.

It's going to be a long, long time before he's even close to becoming king. We may not even have a monarchy by then. He may abdicate. He may run away and join the circus.

Let's not label him before he's 2 days old.

MultumInParvo Wed 24-Jul-13 07:37:41

TREASON!!!

Icelollycraving Wed 24-Jul-13 07:42:25

Very poor taste. I am finding the coverage ott but at least it's celebratory,not the usual doom & gloom on the news.

lastnightiwenttomanderleyagain Wed 24-Jul-13 07:48:10

kungfupannda I had a very morbid thought last night that, given his parents are a similar age to me and unless something awful happens, the chances of me seeing him become king are somewhat slim.

I do love it when the royal bashers come out. I can only assume that those people worked a normal day on the 29th August 2011 and 5th June 2012... yes I know some people work in the retail/service/emergency sectors, but you get my drift

Wuxiapian Wed 24-Jul-13 07:48:43

Nasty, nasty thread title, solidgoldbrass.

lastnightiwenttomanderleyagain Wed 24-Jul-13 07:50:42

Oops...29th April that is!

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 08:02:43

Why is everyone so defensive?
It's just a joke and neither the baby or his family will ever see it anymore than they will see all the cards and presents that we commoners send jeeze.
People are entitled to their opinions on the royals, we don't all feel the same about supporting an already rich monarchy while people sleep on streets or are refused medication which could prolong their lives.
You will never get everyone to agree.

ButThereAgain Wed 24-Jul-13 08:03:00

Blimey. I'm amazed at the level of intolerance here for a casual bit of teeth-gritting cynicism about the royal baby. Looks from this thread like the average Mumsnetter is drinking up all the royal baby guff much more happily than a lot of people elsewhere online.

Mind you MNHQ has been making a big play on the birth as something to attract new readers, and I guess the MN demographic is pulling around to being much more up for this sort of stuff than it has been in the past.

I would say the same thing about any new baby being referred to as a drain on the tax payers. Or suggestions of names that drag up sad times In people's lives. It has nothing to do with who they are.

BMW6 Wed 24-Jul-13 08:55:32

So, can we also think up "amusing" names for all babies born to benefit claiming parents - there are thousands of them, so why single out just this one (if you even really believe that he will be a drain on the taxpayer......)

Sad sad little people!!

crashdoll Wed 24-Jul-13 09:01:56

It's a baby, a human being. YABU!!!

kitty1976 Wed 24-Jul-13 09:18:11

William works in the RAF you idiot!!!!! He is on paternity leave. Hope you don't treat other children with fathers in the forces in the same way!

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 09:21:26

I'm not sure other forces fathers get all that time off at such a convenient time though kitty

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Wed 24-Jul-13 09:23:39

I like King Kai.
I hope they go with that.

hermioneweasley Wed 24-Jul-13 09:38:12

SGB, I agree with your sentiment completely.

Calling for the thread to be deleted just because you disagree? Wow, MN woukd be a really dull place if that happened.

meddie Wed 24-Jul-13 09:40:02

Niece suggested Kong....

Also heard George Michael, because he was a little late coming out.

I,m hoping for Alfred or Albert as I had a little £2 flutter on those before he was born at odds of 75/1

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 10:00:10

SGB,

I expect he has already, in his short life, put more money in the chancellor's coffer than you will in your entire life.

I am not a huge monarchist and have v little interest in the individual royals (save the queen, maybe). However, they clearly do work (i.e have obligations to meet) and they clearly do contribute to the public purse via tourism.

So, no, not a drain on the tax payer by a long shot.

justmatureenough2bdad Wed 24-Jul-13 10:12:33

i might be wrong, but i thought that the rules had changed and the royal family now lived off a portion of the income from their estates now, rather than from public money?

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 10:21:13

To the poster who said that the baby didn't even cost us an NHS birth, I might be wrong but I think it costs £6,000 per night to give birth in the hospital Kate chose. I hope will paid for that out of his forces salary, but somehow I doubt it. I suspect we paid it, or if not, that it came from all the inherited wealth that he really shouldn't have, no matter how nice he is as an individual!

ProudAS Wed 24-Jul-13 10:29:55

Before criticising the royals ask yourself if you would swap places with them. They may not have to worry about money but have to deal with lack of privacy etc and this new baby has an onerous future mapped out.

If the queen had not been born into royalty she would be enjoying her retirement now.

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 10:34:06

I just want the abolition of the monarchy (as do many others, I wouldn't 'swap' on that basis alone), envy of their position or money doesn't come into it.

VitoCorleone Italy Wed 24-Jul-13 10:38:58

The joke was in bad taste

PedantMarina Wed 24-Jul-13 10:39:21

My favourite radio station had a text-in this morning. Best suggestion so far was to send a case of new Coke bottles to Kensington Palace and let William or Kate just pick one at random.

Of course, then you run the risk of someday having "King Zoe" or "King Friends"...

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 10:52:47

I would swop in a heartbeat.

As for retiring, under this present govt, that is unlikely to be an option for many workers in the future. Work til you drop, which is why it is even more galling that some people are living off inherited wealth and state support that they have no legitimate reason to receive!

Kizzit Wed 24-Jul-13 10:52:59

Vile thread title,just vile. And to suggest the name of the man who lost his life in the same tragedy the baby's father's Mother did is about as low as you can go

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 10:54:18

Also, the Queen is hardly down the pit. When you talk about her working, it's not quite as a full time job in retail or being a cleaner or a nurse.

HRHwheezing Wed 24-Jul-13 10:56:22

Vile is right. I suggest that you find a different establishment, worthy of your class.

missesjellybean Wed 24-Jul-13 10:59:02

nice to see some people get their kicks out of writing abusive posts about 1 day old babies charming!

Kizzit Wed 24-Jul-13 11:01:15

spot on HRHwheezing,the thought entered my mind,but you have worded it perfectly for me.Many thanks smile

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 11:02:12

His do you know people's class hrh

karma I agree, dh and I will be retiring when it's far too late to enjoy it and we contribute massively to society in our jobs. It's hard not to let that stick in your throat.

SoupDragon Wed 24-Jul-13 11:06:15

Yawn.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 11:07:00

What class is that then,HRH?

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 11:07:54

Which class would that be? Not the same as your forelock-tugging class I hope?

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 11:25:02

This is the most disgustng thread ive seen on here.Yeah think of a funny name,funny not vile and disgusting.For me its nothing to do with the fact its a royal baby,i am not in favour or against them.They exist,I exist Im not bothered.It that people are saying disgusting stuff about a baby.Sad and pathetic,not afraid to say it.And whats even worse you are trying to justify it!Cant you see that its offensive?you might be debatibg like a smart arse but you arent smart enough emotionally.

biscuitbiscuitbiscuitbiscuit

Fgs, insulting a baby!

Whothefuckfarted Wed 24-Jul-13 11:30:42

Name calling a newborn baby in the title.

Oh you must be so proud of yourself.

Get a life.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 11:39:56

Not terrible nice to start making assumptions and judgments about people class either really is it.

There's not much value in Royal squaddies, either. They're not allowed anywhere dangerous and their bodyguards cost the taxpayer as well.

But while people are starving on the streets, food banks on the increase, suicides over evictions and all the rest of it, some of you are shitting yourselves over people not wanting to join in the (literally) slavish adoration of a newborn who will live a life of unearned luxury no matter what... Pointing out that this pampered family is a total anachronism and merits pisstaking at the very least is hardly calling for their heads to be put up on spikes outside Buck House.

maja00 Wed 24-Jul-13 11:51:13

They need to get lovely Kate knocked up again ASAP if a royal sprog generates this much goodwill grin

MissAnnersley Wed 24-Jul-13 11:54:04

There's a difference between slavish adoration and not enjoying your feeble attempts at humour.

I am very far from being a royalist but this thread is grim.

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 12:00:33

"Cost" of the royal family: between 33mio (Buckingham Palace) and 200mio (according to Republic, a pressure group out to abolish the monarchy).

UK GDP: circa £1.6 trillion

Percentage of GDP to support the royals: .0021% to .0125%
Amount spent on foreign aid: 12.6 bio or nearly 1% of GDP.
Welfare budget: £112 bio

Just to give some context.

And that does not count the fact that the royal family probably bring more tax revenues in than they cost.

Fine to object on principle to the royal family but to begrudge them their miniscule cost smacks of jealousy rather than any rational argument.

SaucyJack Wed 24-Jul-13 12:00:42

I would feel exactly the same if you were calling my mum's neighbour's auntie's postman's daughter's newborn baby names SGB, so don't try that inverse snobbery bs on me.

Next time, pick on someone who's big enough to defend themselves.

mynameisslimshady Wed 24-Jul-13 12:08:41

Its not just a bit of a pisstake though.

They are still human beings.

He still lost his Mum under tragic circumstances at a very young age.

He will be struggling just now between joy at his new family and sadness that his Mum will never get to see her grandchild.

For you to think its funny that someone suggested naming their child after the person who died alongside his Mum in a horrific car accident is disgusting.

Would you find it funny if it was said to someone on here or one of your friends? I doubt it.

Just because they are members of the royal family it doesn't make what happened any less tragic or heartbreaking and it doesn't mean its ok to make jokes about it.

Even those who don't like or agree with the royal family should have a bit of compassion and human decency.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 24-Jul-13 12:13:58

Hello there

Thanks for all the reports about this thread.

We do see that some will think the title and the OP close to the knuckle, but we don't think (on balance) it's really beyond the pale. (A more personal remark about the baby's appearance might have been - but a political point about the child's status, whether objectively correct or not, is broadly OK we think.)

As some have pointed out, the media in general (including MN!) has been overrun with positive and happy stories about the birth, so we're not inclined to clamp down on the odd expression of dissent - even though it may seem tasteless to some.

chocoholic05 Wed 24-Jul-13 12:17:06

But William does work for a living. He earns more than enough to support a family without ever being a drain on the tax payer

SunshineBossaNova Wed 24-Jul-13 12:17:08

Thanks RowanMN

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 12:23:55

Phew

Faith restored in MNHQ

ButThereAgain Wed 24-Jul-13 12:25:22

That's very diplomatic RowanMN!

The thread is nowhere near the knuckle and about 100 miles this side of the pale.

MissAnnersley Wed 24-Jul-13 12:25:58

Totally disagree MNHQ.

hermioneweasley Wed 24-Jul-13 12:26:11

Sanity prevails

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 12:32:30

larry, Prince Charles pretty much owns great chunks of Cornwall for no reason other than accident of birth. If they support themselves using wealth that they have no moral right to, then we, as a nation are still supporting them.

It's also impossible to work out whether they generate more income than they cost - you'd have to ask every tourist if the royal family was a significant factor in their decision to visit Britain. I don't think anyone is coming here to see Edward, Anne and Andrew or all the other hangers on.

And I doubt very much if William is supporting his wife just on his wage. not many people in the forces are having their babies in private hospitals - I think he'd struggle to maintain their current lifestyle if he had to pay for all of it himself and didn't have access to what the state has provided to the royal family.

badtime Wed 24-Jul-13 12:32:56

I am very glad that this thread has not been censored, and slightly disgusted that some people thought it should be.

Personally, I think we should storm the winter palace, for no other reason that those people think the rest of us should bow our heads and call them majesty/highness etc just because of an accident of birth.

Anyone who thinks the thread title is a personal insult to the baby is just trying to be offended.

lborolass Wed 24-Jul-13 12:42:53

Putting the rights or wrongs of the thread aside i'd like to know what's funny about the name suggestion. I just can't see any humour in suggesting the name of the last grandmother's bf. In what world is that even the slighest bit amusing? Maybe I'm having a sense of humour bypass today but I can't see what's good, clever or funny about it.

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 12:43:14

Karma,

"larry, Prince Charles pretty much owns great chunks of Cornwall for no reason other than accident of birth"

Yep, some of us are luckier than others "by accident of birth". The alternative is Pol Pot's "year zero".

Are you against all inheritance, inheritance over a certain value or merely royal inheritance? And do you accept that some people grow up in nicer houses than others "merely by accident of birth" or would you like everyone to relocate to identical tower blocks with identical surface areas?

I am not especially monarchist but do find the jealousy a bit tedious. As I showed above, the financial support they receive is less than one decimal point of our wealth.

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 12:44:58

I am also glad the thread has not been censored, though wonder whether MN will be quite so keen to point the media towards this thread as they were to the parental tips thread?!

Justine??

happyon Wed 24-Jul-13 12:46:14

Love the title. Thanks OP.

Some of you really need to get a grip and get real.

HeySoulSister Wed 24-Jul-13 12:49:33

They don't have bodyguards when at work though? confused

HeySoulSister Wed 24-Jul-13 12:51:16

Yes Justine..... Net mums seem to be getting quoted more than us these days, is mumsnet out of favour? If not, think it might go that way if the media start quoting off this thread same as they have done the other threads...

This thread title and ops comments are truely disgusting.
Some thinks should just not be said. Shame on you

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 12:55:56

Why should this thread be censored? It's not saying anything particularly awful.

cheerfulweather Wed 24-Jul-13 12:56:29

Relieved by MNHQ sensible response.

hermioneweasley Wed 24-Jul-13 12:59:54

Makeitup "some things should not be said". I agree, racism, inciting hatred against particular groups etc. Republicans saying they object to a hereditary monarchy and regard the latest addition as a drain on resources is not inciting hatred, it's stating a legitimate political opinion. I haven't seen anyone wishing the new baby dead, just not wishing to be ruled by him.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 13:00:26

All the furious responses are a bit odd.

ButThereAgain Wed 24-Jul-13 13:01:07

Perhaps anti-royalist threads wouldn't be bad publicity for MN: they certainly managed to shoot themselves in the foot a bit with the cringey pro-royalist-gushing "tips for Kate" thread they started themselves for publicity purposes, and the "book of tips" they are threatening to send to poor the poor woman. The Telegraph slated them for it, and it does look really tacky.

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 13:02:42

ButThere,

Hmm, not sure that PR is really your forte smile. On the other hand, maybe you should give it a go. Forward this thread to a few newspapers and let's do the experiment properly. They will love the Dodi reference, methinks......

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 13:03:56

I agree with every last thing that Karma has said.

And to all those going ooh but Dodi and Diana died - they would both still be alive had they worn seat belts.

I still think they should call the baby Kensington Tyler, just to piss on KH's chips.

He is a newborn baby, I think the Dodi reference is appalling actually.

mynameisslimshady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:12:16

You the rights and wrongs of what happened when they died don't make the outcome less tragic for her sons, so I'm not sure of your point.

Are you saying its ok to laugh about it because they weren't wearing seatbelts?

LaRegina Wed 24-Jul-13 13:14:11

William may well work but I doubt his RAF salary covers the cost of a 57 room 'apartment' in Kensington Palace hmm

ButThereAgain Wed 24-Jul-13 13:18:07

No, its certainly not my forte larry! But I'm still thinking that "Mumsnetters display ordinary breadth of opinion in relation to birth of a celebrity baby" plays better as a story than Justine as a kind of Bounty woman shoving an unsolicited freebie at a new mother who presumably would rather be left alone.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 13:18:54

Don't be so obtuse. Nowhere have I said it wasn't tragic.

MorrisZapp Wed 24-Jul-13 13:21:30

How is that funny? Dodi? It's just not funny. Or anything. It's just odd, random and not very nice.

Bearleigh Wed 24-Jul-13 13:24:25

For those arguing that the royals bring the tourists, please note that far more foreigners visit France, which got rid of its royals a long time ago, than visit UK.

mynameisslimshady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:25:31

You haven't said it, but it was implied by your pointless statement about their lack of seatbelts.

What did you mean by that exactly since I have obviously misinterpreted it?

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 13:26:34

Why is that pointless? Rather pointless not to wear them though.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 13:30:19

Dies anyone seriously believe that the baby or his parents will be scrolling though mumsnet today and get all offended by this thread? Seriously come on, get a grip.
Pop along to one if the many fawning royal threads on here and leave people to have their own opinions.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:31:19

I m glad some people have still got sense and dont just conform to be onside with the idiots.

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 13:31:55

You,

Just curious as to how you know the survivability of those two people in that particular accident if they were wearing seatbelts? It rather presupposes that you have analysed the accident in detail, both from an engineering and anatomical perspective. You must both have amazingly detailed information about the crash and be qualified medically and in engineering...

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:32:23

Erm i dont care if they dont read it its still offensive.stop making out people are stupid.

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 13:32:45

larry, if people work hard and leave the fruits of their labour to their dc, then that's fine, imo. What is not fine is for one family to own vast amounts of the country and to profit from it, for generations on end, when they have done nothing to deserve it.

I would like to see a little more sharing of the wealth in this country - no family should be on the bones of it's arse in a country where such vast wealth exists, so yes, I think that maybe there ought to be limits on how much one family can 'own'.

mynameisslimshady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:33:09

I notice you are avoiding my question about what you meant by your comment. I guess my assumption that you were just being a bit nasty and pointless was correct.

WineNot Wed 24-Jul-13 13:33:15

France has more tourists than the UK for many reasons.

Ski-ing, decent weather, and WW1/WW2 battlefields being three straight off the top of my head.

Part of the attraction of the UK is the history and heritage, pomp and ceremony. Part of that is the Monarchy.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:33:48

Everyone,its ok to say horrid things as long as the person its about doesnt hear it....hmmm playground shit.

gordyslovesheep Germany Wed 24-Jul-13 13:34:32

University of...
Guess I'll have to go to ...

Or

Thistle Dd3
Dave Dd1
Swansea...Dd2

larrygrylls Wed 24-Jul-13 13:35:21

Karma,

And, I assume that, like most people, a reasonable limit would be a little more than you have, so your life would not be affected but others would have to give away more. And, if in five years, you are five times richer, you would still have the same perspective but just have somehow justified raising those limits to just above your own wealth.

Tis always this way with pinkies...

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 13:37:17

If everyone just shared the same opinion be a biring thread wouldnt it.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 13:43:00

Where was anyone called stupid?

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 13:44:54

Larry, a reasonable limit would be significantly more than I have. I am honestly not jealous of people who have more money than me - I fully appreciate that many of those people have skills I don't possess and have done things that i would never be able to do. Or they might just be very lucky - I am fortunate in many ways and truly do not resent good fortune in others.

But there has to be a limit on how much wealth and privilege people can enjoy purely because of birth. I don't think the state should be endorsing the idea that it is the right of a select few to receive so much, while so many in this country have so little.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 13:45:47

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering if they've accidentally stumbled on the Daily Mail comments section instead of MN?

It surely can't come a massive shock to even the most obsequious, genuflecting-to-our social-betters type that some people aren't interested in or don't like the royal family?

Burmobasher Wed 24-Jul-13 13:46:20

I am bored shitless with royal baby bashing threads. Moan Moan fucking moan.

CorrStagnitto Wed 24-Jul-13 13:53:21

funniest OP ive seen in a long time grin

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 13:53:53

This is the first one I've seen - loads of excited about the new baby threads though, and nothing wrong with that either.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 14:02:14

Limited called us 'idiots', Ledkr. hmm

As to the seat belts, really no need to be sarcastic but I did watch a programme a good few years ago and the medical opinion was that they would both have survived the accident (with injuries admittedly) if they had been wearing seat belts.

AgeOfExtremes Wed 24-Jul-13 14:02:16

Glad to see MNHQ are not deleting this thread.

This baby is just a baby but through no fault of his own is also now filling a role, and that role is seen by lots of people as a drain on public resources that's not worth the cost. Not the baby himself but the role.

Within hours of being born that role led to 41 gun salutes and all sorts. It also led to the very best medical care, which means that his mother will never ever have to worry about whether or not she should bother a busy midwife on the postnatal ward with a question about her baby, or whether she can get a GP appointment the same day to get him looked at when he's ill, or anything like that. She will have all of that on tap (even more than 'ordinary' ultra-rich people do - it's not just due to them having money).

The full power of the state is going to be made available for the forseeable future to make sure that baby stays happy and safe and well, with the best of everything. Lovely for him, but purely due to an accident of birth. For the rest of us, it's cuts in public services and the implication that if you need more help, or are poor, then you are a scrounger and probably deserve to suffer. Again, this isn't even due to them just having money, so you could make a case that they're just spending their well earned cash how they choose - it's due to an accident of birth and a bizarrre idea of 'royal blood'.

I'd wish any newborn baby well and I'm always happy to hear of a new baby including this one. That's the baby not the role though. I feel much more ambivalent about the role and I'm not at all sure they royals are worth the money, or as nobly above interfering in politics as is claimed.

Criticism of this baby's role, by people who disagree with the monarchy, is the rough that goes with the smooth. And as was said above, referring to him as a "newborn drain on the taxpaper" is hardly up there with regicide! Calling it 'vile' is just odd.

CorrStagnitto Wed 24-Jul-13 14:10:03

<applaudes agesofextremes>

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 14:14:39

Adds to the applause.

SunshineBossaNova Wed 24-Jul-13 14:23:01

More applause here.

Mimishimi Wed 24-Jul-13 14:24:39

Isn't the Queen one of the wealthiest women in the world, not because of what she receives from taxpayers, but from the income or interest on income sourced from massive landholdings and investments around the world?

I do think it's a bit off to basically call a newborn, any newborn, a waste of space.

CunningAtBothEnds Wed 24-Jul-13 14:29:01

SGB strikes again... Vile

Thank you MNHQ. MN has always been open to a variety of opinions and I'm glad to see it still is.

And thank you AgeOfExtremes as well.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 14:57:41

I think they should call him Dianagrin

gotthemoononastick Wed 24-Jul-13 15:12:13

Is the OP the thing they call a 'shockjock' on radio ? Used to generate more traffic? Genuine question.

Forgetfulmog Wed 24-Jul-13 15:13:51

Wow it's really threads like this where you find out what people are really like.

Forgetfulmog Wed 24-Jul-13 15:15:55

Op YABU, have a biscuit

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 15:27:44

Oh I see so its ok to have a thousand threads that are positive about the royal baby/family but nobody can disagree.
As for the old "it's playground antics"
How about people talking about people's class it calling people idiots or vile? That's ok is it?

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 15:31:01

Yes i did call you idiots.In my opinion you are idiotd.

Forgetfulmog Wed 24-Jul-13 15:31:24

God I'd hate to be so bitter that I have to take my vitriole out on a newborn.

I mean why not condemn all those babies born in the world whose parents cannot support them & who will end up being supported by the tax payer (I'm talking foreign aid here).

The op's title is, like others have said, vile.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 15:32:40

I'm sorry I'm unsure what you mean by idiotd?

PGRated Wed 24-Jul-13 15:33:32

Yes, take your bitterness out on a newborn baby. Well done OP.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 15:36:44

I'd rather be a bitter individual than a sheeple.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 15:38:34

In fact if I have to read anymore fawning over a baby I might chop my own head off.

sheridand Wed 24-Jul-13 15:39:08

I'm a staunch Republican, and the days where we throw off the monarchy and embrace a republic, completely disassociating the State from government can't come soon enough for me. Personally, I think the French got it right in 1789, and I don't see people eschewing visits to France, or indeed, Versailles, because they don't have some overpaid monarch in residence.

I think the best thing, though, is to quietly ignore all this bonkers baby nonsense because the whole atmosphere is becoming rabidly royalist again, rather like it did after Diana and pre-Cambridge Wedding, where anyone foolish enough to stick their head above the Monarchist parapet is shot down and basically called a traitor. Thank goodness that, although that lot still have power to halt parliament, they can't still bung us all in the Tower. Charge a fortune to get in it, yes, but not actually imprison us for daring not to doff our caps. I say if people can't have a groan about it online here without being shock-horrored, where can they? It's not actually doing any harm and it isn't starting a peasants revolt, more's the pity. They're safe from that for a bit because they have an ickle wittle baby.

Still, whatever the babys' upbringing, or wealth, or background, it's safe to say he'll be bald by 20. Money can't buy you everything.

IfNotNowThenWhen Wed 24-Jul-13 15:39:56

Good grief. SGB has hardly suggested, in her thread title, that we roast little Alfred (see i'm feeling that now) on a spit and serve him up at soup kitchens to the disenfranchised subjects has she?
That would be vile. And she hasn't done that.
Calling a new person "a drain on the taxpayer" is not really "name calling" either. I was called that all the time as a student and I can't say it scarred me for life.
I do think people are getting the vapors over not much.

PGRated Wed 24-Jul-13 15:41:04

But surely to insult any newborn is shitty? prince or not.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Wed 24-Jul-13 15:41:57

Dodi reference was vile.

Just sayin.......

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 15:42:40

I shall sit happily in my republican corner.

Limited, calling people idiots because their opinion differs from yours could be construed as a personal attack by MNHQ.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 15:44:02

But it's not really an insult is it?
The little boy will during his life be supported in some way by the tax paying public. That's a fact not an insult.
A bit of an over reaction really.

MissStrawberry Wed 24-Jul-13 15:45:37

Some people really are pathetic.

morefalafel Wed 24-Jul-13 15:45:52

Joffrey.

LookingForwardToMarch Wed 24-Jul-13 15:46:22

Sheeple....brilliant!

Oh damn it, swore I wouldn't come on this thread!

Lweji Portugal Wed 24-Jul-13 15:47:01

Strictly, aren't all newborns drains on the taxpayer?

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 15:48:10

Exactly, Ledkr. No one has actually said anything horrid about the baby, himself, but have made comment on his situation.

sue52 Wed 24-Jul-13 15:48:39

Did no one see the recent documentary on the many ways the Duchy Of Cornwall legally avoids it's fair share of tax. I daresay little Rufus/Joffrey/Rollo will benefit from this enormously.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 15:49:20

It's not vile or offensive. Some of the opinions on this thread are just a tad hysterical and frankly bizarre.

softlysoftly Wed 24-Jul-13 15:50:25

Can I just be clear

I do not give a flying fuck about the Royal Baby, I have not sought out any news on the subject. I do not "fawn" over anyone with an ounce of celebrity. The hysteria actually annoys me.

It is still possible to think being so horrible about ANYONE'S newborn is wrong. If someone started a thread about someone on JSA having their 15th baby and started making sick references to that baby saying they were a drain on society, had a pointless future, suggesting it would be funny to call them after a horrible death for amusement. You would all be pulling them up on it, I would think the op was a wanker.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 15:52:58

lweji that's a good point but in saying that you are saying nothing different to the op but I bet you won't get attacked by royalists.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 15:55:25

"Call them after a horrible dead", Softly? WTF? That's not the reason it's funny. Surely, it's the "thorn in their side" thing..

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 15:55:47

softly I've seen that type of thing on mn a lot and the oriole being called idiots are the very posters who would be outraged.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 15:56:17

Referring to the suggestion of "Dodi" for a name, of course.

Your just plain nasty. He's an innocent baby. Shame on you angry

knickyknocks Wed 24-Jul-13 15:59:59

Yes OP, YABU (as I suspect you know).

softlysoftly completely agree that with your point about being horrible about anyone's newborn is wrong. Just horrible.

This child will have many more privileges than most, but will only ever have one living grandmother. I suspect that it is incredibly poignant for William not to be able to introduce his new son to his mum. To joke about calling the baby 'Diana' or 'Dodi' is competely tasteless.

I wish I hadn't felt so strongly about posting on this thread as I would just like to see it disappear.

Dear god, people wanted this thread removed?

Why?

Because in the world, there are actual people who couldn't give a flying fuck about how wonderful it is that the baby has been born?
We aren't talking about Jesus Christ you know.
The papers, the media are full of people camping outside buckingham palace and declaring that this baby "makes them proud to be British"

Just because we don't all feel like that, and think the amount of fawning media coverage is bizarre, that is suddenly the crime of the century?

grovel Wed 24-Jul-13 16:00:41

According to MORI poll :

With Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee this weekend, the British public’s support for the country remaining a monarchy is at a record high level according to Ipsos MORI’s special Diamond Jubilee poll. Eight in ten (80%) British adults favour Britain remaining a monarchy compared to 13% that want to see it becoming a republic.

Support for the monarchy is highest among older generations, with almost nine in ten (88%) of those aged 55+ saying Britain should remain a monarchy. Conservative supporters are most likely to be monarchists – 96% prefer Britain to have a monarch rather than become a republic compared to three-quarters (74%) of Labour supporters and 84% of Liberal Democrats.

Makes it a bit hard to turn the job down, doesn't it? They could be filthy rich and not have to do any royal duties.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 16:01:35

Thread on here today where a retired couple have fuck all to live on as paid into private pension all their life.
Constant threads on here where people are pushed to suicidal ideation due to welfare cuts and bedroom tax.
Disabled people worrying themselves sick about benefit caps as if they have enough to worry about.
Food banks being used massively more.
Can't walk down the street without passing a homeless person.
Is it therefore hard to fathom why people are a bit pissed off at public money being used to support an already minted family.
No insults just lots of anger and frustration.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 16:02:14

I daresay if you cross referenced this thread against one of the myriad benefit bashing ones that pops up constantly every now and then on MN, you would draw some interesting conclusions re: benefit bashing/royalist posts.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 16:02:58

Oh pish!

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 16:04:44

That was to knicky's post

LaGuardia Wed 24-Jul-13 16:05:55

Interesting that people think the Lindo Wing is an NHS facility.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:07:50

With regards to the baby having only one grandmother: So has mine. So what? In fact, more than half of my DH's family was wiped out in genocide. Yet, there was nobody camping outside the hospital when I gave birth.

JaceyBee Wed 24-Jul-13 16:09:53

I can't believe you're all getting so incensed! The 'Dodi' joke in itself may not be particularly funny but to get so up in arms about someone daring to take the piss out of the royals is ridiculous.

Fucking forelock tuggers! wink

Wbdn28 Wed 24-Jul-13 16:12:22

You're right softly

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 16:12:24

One of my grandparents died in a mining accident 3 months after my father was born, so don't start with all this boohooy BS about the poor wee mite having only one grandmother and that's quite an insult to Camilla actually.

HmmmmNeedToDecide Wed 24-Jul-13 16:14:44

Babies born to parents on benefits, and overseas where we send foreign aid are parasites as well then?

Any parent that gives birth on the nhs and uses state schools is a parent to a parasite?

Kate's parents are normal people who've worked hard and pay taxes, Harry and William are in the armed forces. They support charities. Prince Charles has his duchy brand.

I'm going to save my anger for woman beaters, peadophiles, not take it out on a baby who didnt ask to be born.

We are all an accident of birth wether it was upper, middle or working class. And we all are lucky enough to be born in a country where we have free healthcare and education. Do you think people in other countries speak about us with such venom? Because we enjoy the privilege of our accident of birth (being born in this country)

The Royals haven't fucked this country up ffs.

So yeah, lets call this innocent baby the same name as its dead grandmothers dead boyfriend, ha ha fucking ha.

If you don't like the royals, fine, if you think the media coverage is a bit much, fine. But the bitterness is ridiculous and pathetic.

Wbdn28 Wed 24-Jul-13 16:17:21

Aren't there so many other times to criticise the royal family, rather than when a baby arrives? Why not leave the moaning for a while so it's not connected with the baby's arrival? It seems an unpleasant choice of timing.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 16:18:46

I believe it's called 'freedom of speech'.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:20:52

It's a counter-reaction - a perfectly logical protest.

Why is it weird to want a more equal society? The Royals are the symbol and embodiment of unfairness in society.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 16:21:46

Well they're not my kind of normal tbh, it's not really that normal to send your kids to Marlborough.

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 16:22:00

Nasty. Just plain bitchy and nasty.

And while we are on the subject of freedom, you who don't like the Monarchy can just sod off to a country where there is no royal family. But you won't do that, will you?

Wbdn28 Wed 24-Jul-13 16:23:17

Yes, people are always free to say tasteless and unnecessary things at an unreasonable time.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 16:25:12

Lol @tango's postgrin

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 16:29:04

The outrage on this thread is hilarious

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 16:30:00

It is usualgrin

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:30:05

We republicans stay, because we like many, many other things about Britain and hope for a better future re: Monarchy. You think that is ALL Britain is about? You're being rather insulting towards you own wonderful country.

And, even if you don't want equality, maybe your children might? Do you feel comfortable in telling your children that they cannot ever be the head of state, because that's a hereditary job, nothing to do with merit or hard work?

There are many other issues to tackle, e.g. House of Lords, etc. but let's start with the biggest symbol of oppression..

Wbdn28 Wed 24-Jul-13 16:32:10

Strange that there wasn't quite so much of a "counter-reaction" at any other royal appearances in the past year. Unfortunately, it seems a couple with a new baby are an easy starting point from which people can launch negative opinions.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 16:32:59

If you don't agree with the monarchy, leave the country?

Did someone really post that?

grovel Wed 24-Jul-13 16:33:17

It appears to be an oppression happily accepted by 80% of the population.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:33:58

Usual: They really did. Really.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 16:34:48

What on earth do you mean? There has been loads. Plenty of comments about the queen looking all miserable through the Olympic opening ceremony etc.

And why the fuck should I leave the country of my birth because I disagree with the monarchy?

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:34:56

Wbdn: I think it's the straw that broke the camel's back after the jubilee celebrations.

knickyknocks Wed 24-Jul-13 16:38:50

toysrluv that's dreadful about your family - so you more than most should understand why I said it was poignant for William, especially as his mum died before her time.

The reason I didn't like the 'joke' was that it's sniggering at William's circumstances. I would hate to think someone suggesting I should have called my newborn son my father's name (and he died 10 years ago) and then laughing about it. It's not funny.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 16:41:42

Well you used to get executed/thrown in prison for even mildly critical comments about the monarchy so I guess suggesting you should leave the country is the social media equivalent!

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 16:43:02

And while we are on the subject of freedom, you who don't like the Monarchy can just sod off to a country where there is no royal family. But you won't do that, will you?

Seriously are you actually kidding me?

In saying that sentence you have lost any credibility in this debate.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 16:45:56

Well, DH's family can take a joke and never want to be tiptoed around or handled with silken gloves. Lack of freedom of speech contributed towards said genocide, so they wouldn't want something silly and minor as that censored. Even if it's not the century's funniest one, it was just a joke. I just don't get the level of outrage.

Badvoc Wed 24-Jul-13 16:46:33

This thread has gone properly odd.
The joke was funny.
Bad taste, but then so many funny things are.
I am a republican.
This is my fucking country and I will live here and use my hard fought for rights to state that fact.

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 16:46:52

hee hee hee grin grin grin really doesn't take much to get some people going, does it?? Oooh I just love a Wednesday afternoon wind up !

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 16:51:23

hmm

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 16:51:43

Be carefull what you admit to tango

softlysoftly Wed 24-Jul-13 16:51:56

Erm.

I would also comment negatively on a thread bashing or not supporting people being damaged by these cuts.

I would be heartbroken for toys about the genocide inflicted on your family and rail justly about making a joke about it.

I would rather drink my own wee than join in with the flocks of people at the palace gates.

Stop throwing out the very easy to say "well why get upset about being anti-royal" its cheap and easy. Please feel free to start a myriad of threads about how much you want rid of them, I won't stand in your way as (although fiscally I believe they are a plus not a -) I actually feel a bit meh about the whole thing.

Accept that people think making a joke about a newborn being a damaging waste of space and about connecting it to something so awful is wrong. It isn't fighting the good fight for republicans, it isn't oh so clever and witty, its just a little base and nasty.

But then you can't, because that would be admitting that you are the inverse of the Daily Mail wailers, like many forms of abuse, you are just the other side of the coin.

apostropheuse Wed 24-Jul-13 16:52:53

Someone said people who are anti-monarchy should leave the country. shock

I better stay away from those damned colonies then eh what?

FFS what a ridiculous comment to make!

Nancy66 Wed 24-Jul-13 16:54:51

I haven't read entire thread. But I do hope someone has said 'They work hard. I wouldn't want their job.' that always makes me smile.

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 16:55:33

Oh, come on ledkr - you must admit this thread is really really silly? And I should be 'be careful', why pray?

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 16:56:09

Hahaha Nancy grin

crashdoll Wed 24-Jul-13 16:59:27

Never mind a newborn being a drain on society, some of you lot and a drain on my sanity!

NicholasTeakozy Wed 24-Jul-13 17:00:38

I love the faux outrage over a joke that was perhaps in poor taste. grin Great thread SGB, really funny.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 17:04:08

I actually wouldn't want to do their job (I really wouldn't, it would drive me up the wall). But I don't think they work particularly hard.

Does that count? smile

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 17:07:58

Check out talk guidelines tango

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 17:13:11

Oh well ledkr - so I admit to doing something that many many other posters do. I am suitably and dutifully humbled. I will make my way to the Tower right now. Sorry and all that.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:14:29

Sorry for the spelling error,although im sure you can work out i meant idiots not idiotd.I was at work,i guess that will please you,that i work and all.That all you got?

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 17:15:40

Nope, you also need to read the talk guidelines.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 17:20:34

What as you working got to do with owt?

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 17:20:53

Well, I consider the thread title to break the talk guidelines, actually.

No goading: Goad - Provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 17:22:23

Well MNHQ clearly didnt.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 17:22:39

Yes but Last, MNHQ have already said they aren't pulling the thread and that they don't consider that it does break the talk guidelines.

And if you don't like it go to another forum. grin

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:24:09

Missed your other post.i havent commented on anyones class because thats doesnt matter to me,why would i care about someones class?a person is a person to me,you could live in a bin or be the queen and ill still give you the time of day.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 17:26:32

Why would anyone be pleased you work?innthe context of the thread?
His strange that a load of grown women can't disagree without getting personal. I was with a good friend yesterday who is a gushing royalist. We had a bit of healthy debate and some light ribbing if each other but nothing more.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:29:51

You dont like people to be a drain?

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:31:16

I dont know anything about you im expressing my opinion,thats allowed.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:33:59

Surely it has to do with the title?

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 17:34:28

Oh no, YouTheCat - I love threads like this !

Well so was I LimitedEdition grin

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:35:30

Oh good your not a drain either thank god for that Tango

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:36:35

Sorry you're not your can't be making errors.

LastTangoInDevonshire Wed 24-Jul-13 17:37:03

No, not me Limited - I leave that to my posh relatives !

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 17:40:10

Hahahaha yes,well obviously tango silly me

sheridand Wed 24-Jul-13 17:40:48

Me, i'm just hoping for an expose from Kate as to how homeopathic remedies did bugger all during childbirth.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 17:42:52

Whilst I don't care that you don't like the Royals I don't find you particularly funny either.

Speaking of names, is James really likely? Not because of the "Hewitt link" but because it's Kate's brothers name.

InViennaWeWerePoetry Wed 24-Jul-13 17:55:13

My dad has suggested Albert Richard Samuel Edward grin

SinisterBuggyMonth Wed 24-Jul-13 18:01:24

Yeah I'm seriously missing the humour on here.

what IS wrong with some of you?

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 18:05:24

Sinisterbuggymonth been pondering where the humourous bit was too

pigletmania Wed 24-Jul-13 18:11:15

You sound really nice op! So your kids are not drains then! He's only a baby fgs!

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 18:24:58

Name is George Alexander Louis.

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 18:27:07

I'm disappointed they didn't go with my suggestion of 'Kensington Tyler'.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 18:31:52

Thats another 10000000 threads to hide then.If the names been announced.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 18:32:05

I wonder if he'll be known as Alexander

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 18:33:38

Please, not Alexander!

YouTheCat Wed 24-Jul-13 18:33:45

If he is then I reckon that means he's part meerkat.

fedupofnamechanging Wed 24-Jul-13 18:35:36

They are so boringly predictable - perfectly nice names, but it would be nice if they picked something that wasn't the same as all their ancestors!

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 18:37:07

Why not Alexander?

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 18:40:38

No reason! <glances at DS>

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Wed 24-Jul-13 18:48:29

Oh it is just disappointment upon disappointment.
King Kai had such a nice ring to it.

gordyslovesheep Germany Wed 24-Jul-13 18:54:18

I don't want to leave the country I want to be here to start the revolution

LegoAcupuncture Wed 24-Jul-13 19:32:35

I'm not a royalist, couldn't give two hoots about what they call their baby, I was complaining about the thread title. It's not a nice title. But MN have let is stand so I'm obviously in the minority.

And people are getting quite hysterical and making stupid flippant remarks on this thread, please don't rope me in with them.

SueDoku Wed 24-Jul-13 19:39:29

Ah, see they've decided to be original then...... George eh - whodathoughtit....? smile

IfNotNowThenWhen Wed 24-Jul-13 20:42:03

I have one too Toys grin

TimeofChange Wed 24-Jul-13 20:54:15

I think it's a mean, tasteless thread title too.

This is like the disgusting rascist jokes that appear after a bombing or murder.

I actually agree with Scottish Mummy (which is unusual).

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 21:02:19

Ooh don't start with the racist bollocks again.

Been there,done that.

BombJack Wed 24-Jul-13 21:03:00

People should inform themselves before coming out with this "drain on the taxpayer" stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

TimeofChange Wed 24-Jul-13 21:04:13

Maybe Op could start thread about disabled children being a drain on society or people with cancer.

That wouldn't be funny either.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 21:06:22

Maybe posters could stop being so hysterical

FutTheShuckUp Wed 24-Jul-13 21:07:39

Seriously? Comparing someone with cancer or disability to someone who will live in wealth and want for nothing in life purely due to family connections? here- have this spare grip I have

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 21:16:49

Yeah because this baby will grow up wealthy means it's totally fine to mock and deride. Ones position in life is an accident of birth.

Double standards are alive and well.

FutTheShuckUp Wed 24-Jul-13 21:21:00

Is that what I said? I think I said comparing a monarch to someone with cancer or a disability is at best moronic.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 21:21:11

Well, for one, cancer sufferers etc. do not expect to rule over us purely because of this accident of birth.. That is a big difference, really.

SuperStrength Wed 24-Jul-13 21:23:37

what a missed opportunity...I liked Muhammad

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 21:28:32

Fut

I was speaking generally. If my post was directed at you then I would have that clear.

Like cancer or a disability?

I have a disability, therefore I am better than anyone who doesnt have one, and you should all curtsey and call me ma'am. hmm

I've already said elsewhere though, I'll have to outsource all of my ribbon-cutting.

SunshineBossaNova Wed 24-Jul-13 21:35:57
TimeofChange Wed 24-Jul-13 21:36:36

I find this thread distasteful because I try to live my life peacefully, to wish ill or harm on anyone, to not be jealous of what others have, and to treat others with respect.

There is a lot of respect missing here on this thread.

I am not a Royalist.
I have communist leanings, but won't be killing anyone in the revolution.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 21:39:57

People are so desperate to make their point on this that they are prepared to use metaphorical cancer and disabilities.
I've suffered both in real life and its a lot harder than being a wealthy royal trust me.
Anyone noticed that the royalists have continuously go d on the attack whereas the republicans have not.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 21:40:45

I have no respect for the royals.

Why would I?

I'm sure they don't give a toss about me either.

"Anyone noticed that the royalists have continuously go d on the attack whereas the republicans have not."

^ that.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 21:44:39

usual

I'm not a raving Royalist, though I find this thread distasteful.

Is there anybody in the public eye you respect? Because in all likelihood they wouldn't give a toss about you.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 21:44:53

Time: None of us want a violent revolution. Just equality. It's all well nit to want to offend, or whatever, but the republic won't build itself without discussion and voicing of opinions.

Great thread, but I'm with gordy and will stay here to start the Revolution.

DomesticCEO Wed 24-Jul-13 21:46:37

BombJack, it's you that's misinformed I'm afraid. That video is a crock of shit - the monarchy costs us way more than 66p per year per person.

They have a very clever PR machine I'll give them that.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 21:47:36

I have shown that i find it distasteful,i am not a royalist for the millionth time.Im sure a lot of people have posted theyre not royalist.Im not a bloody anything!I have only responded because I made an opinion and people responded so I responded.I think you "republicans"or whatever youve classed yourselves as have given just as much as an attack and it is all about not liking the royal family to you whereas its not aleays been the case with the people that have said its distasteful.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 21:48:43

Even if it was 66 p, which it isn't, it's still 66 p too fucking much. I can think of lots more deserving causes.

DomesticCEO Wed 24-Jul-13 21:49:59

I agree Toys, but this figure is soooo often quoted by royalists and it drives me mad. This does not include any security costs which are astronomical!

It's utterly disingenuous of the royals to perpetuate this crap.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 21:50:57

Also i hope you enjoy your revolution,have a blast ill be very interested to read about it

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 21:51:02

I know it wasn't directed at me but out made me think I'm not sure I respect any public figure...

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 21:51:14

It not out

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 21:53:12

I believe all heads of states (or leaders if you prefer) have security costs regardless of whether they're monarchs or not.

Pretty sure Obama's security costs are high. American tax payers will pay for that.

AndHarry Wed 24-Jul-13 21:54:44

sad This thread is horrible. Poor baby.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 21:54:49

Tbh i dont have anyone i think oooh theyre great in.the public light but theres noone I hate.I quite like being uninvolved with that kind of stuff.Its very calming.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 21:55:33

I don't have any personal dislike for the royal family, in fact I'm sure they are perfectly pleasant, maybe even, dare I say it rather nice should you ever meet them.

It's what they represent that people respond to - it's the apogee of unearned privilege.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 21:57:10

At the same time,you cant help what you were born in to can you?Its just the way the world is.

flippinada Wed 24-Jul-13 21:58:02

Prince George will perhaps be many things in his lifetime...but poor is not one of them!

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 21:59:47

The "world" isn't "like this", and we don't have to accept inequality unquestioningly. The UK CAN be different!

MaryKatharine Wed 24-Jul-13 22:00:02

The country has gone mad!
It makes me laugh how the same posters who exclaim their disgust at their MPs possible pay rise seem completely unperturbed at the cost of one family.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 22:00:05

Tbh people who think 'poor baby' are missing the point ! It's not about the baby it's about the whole bloody lot of them

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:00:39

I think anybody brought up without any prospect of choosing their own path is "poor" in their own way.

DomesticCEO Wed 24-Jul-13 22:00:54

Alis, one elected head of state not all his bloody hangers on!

Limited, of course they can do something about it - abdicate? They could always stand for election as head of state if they believe they're so popular.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:01:00

Yep, poor baby, indeed. What a tragedy. Totally comparable to disability and cancer.

Ledkr Spain Wed 24-Jul-13 22:01:49

What flipppin said exactly.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf Wed 24-Jul-13 22:02:58

Can't believe people were trying to get this deleted.

That poor little mite will grow up with every burp and fart under constant scrutiny and criticism and watch his mother have her appearance and pronouncements (or lack of) ripped to shreds on a daily basis (see e.g. OK Magazine this week). All for the consumption and delectation of people who claim to support them.

I think one minor little internet conversation with a joke is the least of his worries.

Also I don't think anyone who goes on Relationships is in any doubt what an insightful, compassionate, interesting and supportive poster the OP is. [fanofSGBemoticon]

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:03:27

So that's all of us then, Alis. We cannot be heads of the state, whoever we are.

DomesticCEO Wed 24-Jul-13 22:05:37

Unless you have a DD who is prepared to ruthlessly pursue her prince Toys grin!

internationallove985 Wed 24-Jul-13 22:06:27

It's a bit of a naughty thing to say about an innocent new born baby isn't it O.P.
I do have a sense of humour but what you say is not funny. x

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:07:28

Domestic-a baby can abdicate?This is just stupid,theyre not going to do that are they.Stop trying to have a royal family argument with me because Im not into the royal family.As a completely unbiased person why would they abdicate?Theyre not ruled by an evil overlord why would any of them do that?Hows that helping anything?I dont even know about head of state and dont care what it is.

DomesticCEO Wed 24-Jul-13 22:10:38

Don't be so obtuse limited, of course I'm not saying the baby can abdicate. I'm saying that any of the monarchs can abdicate.

"They're not ruled by an evil overlord" - don't even know what that's supposed to mean?!

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:10:39

Limited: Excuse me? What ARE you talking about?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 24-Jul-13 22:10:50

I also think the OP goes a touch too far but I entirely sympathise with the impatience with the idiocy of the last few days. the notion that this baby and its mother are so much more important than all others frankly disgusts me. it is repellent and immoral to suggest they are somehow worthy of care and concern which is not provided to others in their position.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:12:28

<Nods to CEO>

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:12:42

All of us what Toys?

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:14:07

I dont really know either tbh!!Why would someone abdicate?Is that when a royal doesnt want to do royal shit?cos theyre against it?i honestly am only referring to the baby i really cant stress enough i know really nothing about them,thats what ive been saying a million times im so not royalist.Im.learning anout peoples views here so quite enjoying the shit.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf Wed 24-Jul-13 22:14:16

All of us citizens subjects

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:16:14

I was saying the baby cant help what he was born into,not that the adults cant do whatever...i dont think id notice if they did abdicate....

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:17:11

All of us. Apart from anyone in the succession to the throne or people marrying into the family (who won't be addressed as the queen or king). What is there to misunderstand?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 24-Jul-13 22:17:36

There is a thread on here with people claiming to have cried at the sight of them leaving the hospital. It makes me sad. The only conclusion I can come to is that some people must have very empty, dull lives if this can assume such importance for them. It is a shame.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:17:52

All of us citizens can't choose what we do with our lives?

Fairly sure this particle child's preference to be a vet,doctor,supermarket worker are not going to be indulged. He's been born to fulfil a role. Unless he abidicates (unlikely given history), his life is mapped out for him and he's 2 days old. That's a lot less choice than the average subject/citizen.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:18:21

*particular

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:22:45

He can study whatever he likes and abdicate if he fancies his chosen profession more than being a king. There are lots of others willing to do his job in the line of succession. The point is that he has a choice, even if it will be hard. There are lots of families where the children cause a rift by not wanting to take over and continue the family business. It's tough, but doable.

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 22:23:17

I had a little emotional sigh when I saw them yesterday, I envy anyone with a new baby in the houseenvy

I can't understand crying because they are royalconfused

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:24:21

My DS can't be the head of state in the UK, however hard he tries. He just can't. Right now it is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:24:54

But most don't have the world watching on and judging.

I find this whole thread to be incredibly bad taste.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:28:55

Would he like to be head of state?theres an ambitious child,good job there!My friends son wants to be a power ranger,bless.

One more little share, some interested posters might not have already seen me share it elsewhere... smile

facebook page for the Republic campaign

valiumredhead Wed 24-Jul-13 22:31:19

Alis-bad taste because being royal had been compared to being disabled and having cancer?

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:31:39

Ok.

fromparistoberlin Wed 24-Jul-13 22:32:39

how mean

whats he done to you? sheesh

SaucyJack Wed 24-Jul-13 22:40:11

#BornEqual

Precisely. So if you would not walk up to a random new mother in the street and make derogatory remarks about her newborn baby being a burden on the state, then don't do it to the new royal baby.

Ok, I promise I wont walk up to the RMB on the street and call him a burden.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:43:32

Saucyjack,this will turn into a debate about the royal family.Thats what this is for.goes around and around lol

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:44:12

See,straight away.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 22:46:56

Awwww he is just a bubbah. sad

I've quaite enjoyed there being some relatively happy (if a tad gushing) news content over the last few days.

Thing is, William and Harry were born into what they were born into. Not their fault. They seem relatively normal and seem to be striving to be decent young men. Bit harsh to call a baby such names. The grandparents/great grandparents, maybe. But Wills works doesn't he? The inverse snobbery on MN astonishes me sometimes.

Alisvolatpropiis Wed 24-Jul-13 22:50:35

valium

Bad taste from start to finish, all comparisons included.

Because we're talking about a baby.

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 22:50:51

I bet this child could at least train to be a vet or whatever, maybe wouldn't get too far with protection officers pushing between him, the rubber glove and the cow's bum but actually go

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 22:51:19

Lol, indeed. I think it's really bloody seriously important to raise issues on societal inequality with a view to change. Humour can be used. Things can and NEED to be said. Some of them can be more difficult or challenging than others, but, yes, lol. It's all a bit too heavy isn't it? Inequality- who cares?! Let's have some cake!

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 22:51:54

Oops - going for a profession would go down really will with the public and great PR for the new modern monarchy.

LegoCaltrops Wed 24-Jul-13 22:53:30

Never claimed benefits, OP? Tax credits? JSA? Housing benefit? Income support?

Why is the new prince, whose father works & pays taxes, more of a drain on society than someone who claims any of the above benefits? (Disclaimer - I don't think claiming these makes someone a drain on society either.)

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:54:01

Yeah cakes solved bigger things than this is our house...and tea.

RatUpADrainpipe Wed 24-Jul-13 22:54:28

Poor little baby - 2 days old and despised and reviled already sad

TondelayoSchwarzkopf Wed 24-Jul-13 22:55:55

Good lord, some people really seek out offence don't they?

Where has the baby been despised and reviled on this thread?

"This will turn into a debate about the royal family"

Sorry, I twisted "Precisely. So if you would not walk up to a random new mother in the street and make derogatory remarks about her newborn baby being a burden on the state, then don't do it to the new royal baby." And I made it about the royal family? hmm

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:56:12

It is a bit heavy though,gone from a off comment about names and somehow to class inequality.

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 22:56:19

Anyway, being rude about a newborn may not be the kindest act in the work but to compared this being applied to a child being born into massive privilege to sneering at those who really are the most vulnerable in society is just ridiculous.

LimitedEditionLady Wed 24-Jul-13 22:57:54

It was heading there imo,but if it wasnt i take that back regatding your good self,wasnt trying to madden you.But it will...

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 22:58:44

I would fucking SOB if I read such a mean thing about my baby, two days post-partum.

I am NOT suggesting that the Duchess reads MN before anyone says I was...

BuntCadger Wed 24-Jul-13 23:00:24

Op Yabu. PARP at the lot of you inverted snobs tbh. A baby 2 days old and how much poison and envy? Fgs.

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 23:04:04

Preserving the monarchy arguments always seem to end up in a "better to have an unelected head of state" position (though that would appear to be the very antithesis of democracy) but I don't see why if that is so important it has to be this child. Couldn't we just select a baby at random, have a big HoS prize draw? Bingo, no elected HoS and democratisation of privilege, job done.

None of the royal family have to do this, they're hardly going to get thrown into exile if they abducate (though it's almost guaranteed they'd move to the States and start a production company).

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:04:23

The thing is that this privileged prince will never need our money. His family is rich enough anyway (they don't qualify for many benefits, as their income is just a bit too high, although they will not reveal the exact figures, which we mere mortals couldn't do in relation to benefits, tax etc.) keeps on taking and expects to be bowed to and loved on top of that. So, completely different situation, really.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:09:40

Doesn't matter that he will never need our money. He is just a baby. No need to be so foul about him. sad

You might be the richest person in the world but might also be the kindest/most philanthropic. You could be extremely poor but be a massive cunt. You can never help what you are born into, you can only help being the person you become as an adult and that is what we should judge on, with any person, surely?

I think that being so poisonous about ANY baby makes you a bit of a wanker, to be perfectly fucking honest.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 23:10:52

Being called an inverted snob is pretty tame compared to some of the things posters who are not fawning all over the royals have been called today.

Terrorists anyone?

Go on fill your self righteous boots.

NicholasTeakozy Wed 24-Jul-13 23:11:54

I like that they've named him after the pink hippo in Rainbow. That show was fucking massive in my childhood.

In other news:-

MAGIC ROYAL BABY CURES CANCER is probably a Daily Heil front page of the future.

NicholasTeakozy Wed 24-Jul-13 23:13:39

You're right Marms, I'm poor and I'm the most atrocious cunt ever. grin

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:15:40

Yeah, that's me. A shameless baby insulter. Not.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:17:12

Well, I'm not fawning. I'm just looking at it as a human being with a bit of compassion for other human beings and I don't think that being vile about a newborn is a nice thing to be doing.

But, you know, it's fair game because the baby who didn't even ask to get born got born into money.

You can't judge a baby. He might grow up and find the cure for cancer. He might grow up and fire darts at the proles outside Buckingham Palace for sport. Point is, we don't know. He's just a baby.

I will be the judge of Most Atrocious Cunt Ever, thanks Teakozy. smile

kim147 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:17:57

I just hope he likes the Forces. Seeing as how that's the only career option open to him.

He might love science and want to be a scientist. Or have a passion for art and drama and want to be an actor.

But no - he is expected to wait to be King. Maybe serve in the Forces and do charity stuff till then.

Being born privileged usually brings loads of privileges. But being yourself and pursuing a career you want to better yourself is a difficult one for Royals.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:18:25

Too many arrogant Billy Bragg wannabes on this thread and on MN in general to be frank. What happened to judging on personal merit and not on income/background?

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:19:29

In 5 weeks the news will be "Royal Magic Baby Smiles! - Sunny weather forecast for the next 2 weeks, as all clouds disappear"

rainbowfeet Wed 24-Jul-13 23:22:13

Hardly a drain on the tax payer judging by the amount of well wishers at Buckingham palace & St Mary's on Monday & Tuesday!! Lots from overseas too!!!

Bah humbug op

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:24:16

Out of interest, how old does the baby have to be before we can discuss him, or rather what he symbolises and means to our society? 18 years? Shall we put the revolution on hold?

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:24:33

Then blame the sycophantic press for their coverage, ToysRLuv. It IS vom-inducing. But again, something the family have no control over.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:26:36

When he has become an adult, ToysRLuv.

Honestly, can you explain to me why this is OK? This level of horrible about a baby? Any baby? We are quick enough on MN to shout down people who are vile about families on benefits, and rightly so. Why does wealth make it OK to slag a baby off? A BABY.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 23:26:50

I can't wait 18 Years. We need a revolution fairly soon.

I'm getting on a bit tbh.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:28:11

I'd rather overthrow the ConDems than bother with the monarchy, if I'm being honest.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:29:20

You can overthrow the ConDems.

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:30:25

Or at least try.

You may not be aware of this, but the total net profits from the Crown Estates goes straight to the treasury. The contribution for 2012/13 was £290 million pounds. that is in one year. Combine that with the revenue they bring in through tourism and the like, I hardly a drain!

kim147 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:30:50

It's all part of Brand Britain apparently.

Fuck democracy, let's just sell ourselves as a product and the Royal family are all part of it.

Opium for the masses who can't get enough of celebrity culture which is basically all the Royal family are.

They are human beings - no more, no less. I do not see why they deserve my respect or why I should be asked to treat them as though they are extra special. I'm sure they're nice people but that's not the point.

What have they actually done to deserve respect and all this adoration other than be born into it?

It's all a game played out in the media.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 23:32:42

I nearly had a one woman revolution when they took Emmerdale off to show a fucking hospital door.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:32:45

I know. I'm just saying, they are the fuckers I'd concentrate my energies on. Not Queenie and her Corgis. The monarchy are pretty much ceremonial IIRC? It's not like the French overthrowing Marie Antoinette and Louis XV is it? They don't really rule us. Not really. That's all done by gammonface and his chums. They are the ones we need rid of. Sooner the better.

titzup Wed 24-Jul-13 23:33:42

agree with marmalade, not judging on background etc. flies out the window for the billy bragg wannabes when it comes to a royal.

why don't we have a prize draw to randomly select a baby to be royal? Newsflash, that's what a royal baby IS! once upon a time they were randomers, and when they reproduce they produce another randomly selected bunch of genes. I don't see how running a prize draw would introduce anymore randomness?

kim147 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:33:50

saggy Out of the top 20 tourist sites in the UK, only 1 is connected to the Royal family.

The Crown Estates - you mean land stolen from the rest of us and claimed by the Monarchy?

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 23:36:11

I'm a little confused by the "judging on personal merit not income/background" comment up thread - am I mistaken about how this little boy ended up in the 'future king' role, was it something he did it merit it?

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:36:18

"They are human beings - no more, no less. I do not see why they deserve my respect or why I should be asked to treat them as though they are extra special. I'm sure they're nice people but that's not the point."

You don't have to respect them or adore them! But just be not a cunt about a new baby who just happens, through no fault of it's own, to have been born into that family. By all means, slag off the elders of the institution but not a baby. It's a bit much, even for the hard-nosed hags on here. wink

Fair enough, a lot of people DO buy into the monarchy. That is up to them. They aren't bothering me by doing it even if I am not a raging royalist myself. I can't work myself into a lather over that.

Its been Crown Estates since 1066. I don't think any of us were around back then!

ToysRLuv Wed 24-Jul-13 23:37:33

For the last time, nobody is slagging off the baby. Are you serious about postponing discussion for 18 years? Equality can wait? Oh, it's been hundreds of years, so what's another 18, right? I give up.

Thatballwasin Wed 24-Jul-13 23:39:09

But the prize drawn wouldn't be inherited privilege, it would be true randomness. Why keep it to one family? It's supposed to be a ceremonial position so pass it throughout the nation.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:40:39

I think you're being obtuse, ballwasin.

He has NO OPTION of which family he is born into. We don't know how his life will pan out, do we? From my limited knowledge, William and Harry are supposed to be the progressive royals. They are doing things now that their father/uncles would not have done i.e actual jobs. Who knows, by the time newbie royal is ready to take over as king, he might be more resembling of a person with his own qualities than a product of a finely-tuned machine. But unfair to speculate NOW, at 2 days old, that he is simply going to feed off the state and be a burden.

usualsuspect Wed 24-Jul-13 23:40:47

<leads ToysRluv back to the Billie Bragg wannabe republican thread>

kim147 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:41:17

marmalade I'm not saying anything about the baby. I feel really sorry for him.

At least my DS will have choice and privacy in his life. Life might be hard for him but he'll not have all this expectation of what he is expected to do with his life on him. And I think that's a good thing.

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:41:47

Who said anything about postponing discussion?! confused LIKE I SAY, slag off/plot against the elders all you like. Couldn't give a shit.

kim147 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:42:48

Is it possible for him to have a real job except a military one?

The Crown Estates - you mean land stolen from the rest of us and claimed by the Monarchy?...
and managed to a high degree in order to make huge amounts of money which grows every year and is given back to the treasury...

FreudiansSlipper Wed 24-Jul-13 23:44:12

i thought the op was funny, it was a joke

like the royal family are a joke to many people and that is not just here in the uk

vileness towards any child is wrong, pointing out what a joke the whole set up is and the celebration around his birth that is projected on to the public to many is a joke this is what people are taking the piss out of not the baby himself

MarmaladeTwatkins Wed 24-Jul-13 23:48:44

We don't know, Kim. Maybe it will be in 25 years...

William and Harry are the first Royals that I have genuinely liked. They never will be "normal" because of what they were born into. However, I think they seem to be doing an alright job of being nice human beings. They are already doing away with things that 30 years ago, in the Royal family, would have seemed ludicrous, such as Kate and William not having a maternity nurse, or the second in line living a fairly normal existence in Anglesey, or one of them going off to fight in Afghanistan. They seem fairly progressive. They seem the best chance of dragging the monarchy from the archaic style they seem to have favoured for so long.

Dfg15 Wed 24-Jul-13 23:52:08

leave the baby alone! not his fault, he didn't ask to be born into the Royal Family. In fact, none of them did. he's a tiny baby FFS!

FreudiansSlipper Wed 24-Jul-13 23:53:08

it was also reported that Kate would not have a lady in waiting hmm

she has been kept well hidden

Mind you, it would have been... interesting if this baby had been born with some kind of SN, wouldn't it? (not that anyone knows for sure that he hasn't...) Or if something had gone badly wrong during the birth. Even with the best medical care possible, shit still happens sometimes.

(Oh and before the unthinking deference mob need another change of underwear, I am certainly not wishing harm on a newborn baby. Just speculating about whether, if this one had been born with Downs syndrome, or blind, or deaf, or brain damaged, whether that would have led to a wave of public support for help being given to babies who are born with SN, or whether the public services cuts would have continued just the same because after all the Royal baby matters and the peasants' babies don't.)

agnesf Wed 24-Jul-13 23:55:49

Can someone explain the Dodi joke to me. Why exactly is it funny.

I'm not being obtuse - just a bit confused.

Your last post is disgusting. Im not a member of the UDM, but it is my opinion that your those comments make you sound like a total twat!

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:00:46

It's NOT funny. That's the thing. confused

Oh and SGB, people not agreeing with you doesn't mean that they're unthinking, by the way.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 00:12:50

I'm not being obtuse at all. The reason we are aware of anything at all about George is because of what he symbolises, the simple fact he was born and who he is. I'm not judging him, the whole bizarre system is one I judge and it is entirely devoid of personal merit - so many people are out there cooing over him for precisely that same reason. I just think it's somewhat ironic to bring personal achievement up in the context of such an enormous hoohah about a tiny baby who as yet (obviously) has done nothing at all.

I don't believe he couldn't have some form of "normal" job in the same way as William and Harry have ostensibly normal military careers. The royals on the continent do it and I think it would be great PR for Brand Windsor.

kim147 Thu 25-Jul-13 00:14:41

I wonder how many people who've sent presents and gifts to them have done similar for children born in less privileged circumstances?

Like those 1 in 3 children who were born on the same day and will end up in poverty.

Where are the crowds of supporters for them and the media discussion then?

Wait - that's poor people so they don't matter.

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/15/poverty-map-britain#ward

Like the 41% of children who I work with who are in poverty. Where is the media and the public then?

Nowhere - just obsessed with this family and bashing people who struggle.

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 00:14:52

And wasn't Prince Charles in the military? And Andrew?

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:17:15

Well the fact that he has been granted a role is neither here nor there. All I am saying is that writing him off as a drain already is silly. I can see the parallels that you're drawing but that isn't what I was referring to. Do we EVER judge babies on what we THINK they will turn out to be? Well yes, lots of people do, on benefit-bashing threads so answered my own question there!

I really think that he might have a normal-ish job. William seems keen to veer from what is normal and protocol for the royals, he seems his own man. I hope that the baby gets a good upbringing and a happier one than he had because, for all their money, his childhood was not a happy one.

AgeOfExtremes Thu 25-Jul-13 00:18:45

I'm still surprised. Where does this idea that someone has been "vile" to the baby come from?

Even the (quoted, not original to the OP) joke about the name Dodi seemed to me to be more a joke on the elders of the royal family than the baby himself (as in, what if the new golden child of the family ended up with the name of someone they'd really disapprove of, even if he was loved by Diana). It's news to me that Dodi al-Fayed is actually supposed to be some kind of evil and disgusting person so it's vile to suggest a child would have his name.

And comparing the thread title to someone walking up to his mother in the street and saying to her cold that her new baby himself (rather than the role he's just been put into) is a drain on the taxpayer - I don't really see that. I doubt very much that KM is under any illusions, and it will not be news to her that some people disapprove of the funding of the royal family, so even if she was to read the thread title (is all this response partly down to people being convinced she is going to?) that particular bit is hardly going to shock her. Actual threats would, I'm sure, and they would be vile, but that's not what this is.

I also find the idea that we can't discuss the monarchy and governance of our country in the context of a new prince until he's 18 really depressing.

Someone has just been born - always a good thing, and one way or another this particular baby is likely to have a pretty good life - and it seems as though some posters are acting more as though someone has just died and we need to tiptoe around things until a respectful time has passed.

kim147 Thu 25-Jul-13 00:19:25

Pretty much the only job they can do is the military - because it makes security a lot easier.

I hope he does find a cure for cancer - at least that would mean he has pursued his own interest in life rather than the one dictated to him.

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:27:26

Andrew was in the military for show. He did the sum total of sweet fuck all. All of his medals were given to him by mummy. He was in the forces for about 6 seconds. At least W and H seem dedicated to actually doing it as a job and not just arseing about in the sea for a few months. He "served" in the navy for 22 years, allegedly, but how much of that was active service is debateable.

Charlie did similar, IIRC. A stint in the navy and air force but for a lesser time.

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:30:17

"I'm still surprised. Where does this idea that someone has been "vile" to the baby come from?"

It's the thread title I think, not the Dodi "joke". "newborn drain on the taxpayer" is pretty nasty. If you can't recognise that then I find that odd.

kim147 Thu 25-Jul-13 00:31:09

Andrew served in the Falklands and was in danger so full credit to him. Shame he's lost respect since then.

Charles does not seem the military type. He's happy on his farm.

But life presents us with opportunites - most of us can follow our own path.

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 00:33:22

they do not lead normal lives

how many people do you know have housekeepers, cooks, servants, drivers, dressers, personal assistants, constant security, ladies in waiting

they seem desperate to show they are normal but they still live like this and their main home is a palace that is costing a million to renovate that we are all paying for

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:34:15

Of course he was in danger. There were probably lots of angry Argentinians wanting his head on a platter.

Charles creates a revenue, to give him his due. Quite a fucking GOOD one judging by the cost of his Duchy originals crackers, which incidentally, taste like damp plyboard.

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:35:16

No-one has said they live a normal life. I think I distinctly said earlier that they never WILL live a normal life.

SoleSource England Thu 25-Jul-13 00:35:37

My disabled child is a drain on the taxpayer. i'm so very, very sorry he survived at 23 weeks.

AgeOfExtremes Thu 25-Jul-13 00:37:57

I recognise that it's not flattering, of course, but not that it's 'vile', since I read it as just using 'drain on the taxpayer' as a derogatory alternative for 'member of the royal family'. As in: here's another member of THAT family.

Maybe I am reading it differently to a lot of other people hmm - or maybe there's some projection going on since it's a term used in benefit bashing discussions? Are people are projecting their own views of benefit claimants families onto the OP? That would be illuminating if so...

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 00:41:28

William seems keen to veer from what is normal and protocol for the royals, he seems his own man.

this is what they claimed but this is not how they (or he) live, he lives very much the life of a royal

MarmaladeTwatkins Thu 25-Jul-13 00:44:45

I said "What is normal ^for the royals"" not "what is normal for the rest of us."

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 00:49:35

i know you did

and he has kept to that, so he does not lead a normal life he leads a very normal royal pampered life and seems to have no desire to change that

Thatballwasin Thu 25-Jul-13 00:50:41

On a personal level, I quite like old Charlie (he bakes a nice biscuit) even if his tendency to get a bit political may sit very uneasily with his future position.

Actually, despite being an avowed republican there is one thing in particular I do feel bloody sorry for the royals about - your mum/dad has just passed away and the world and her DH is making a fuss about you being king/queen, can't be easy.

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 00:54:08

i quite like charles actually i like that he is political but it may be his downfall and those that are

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 00:54:30

... meant to follow him

AgeOfExtremes Thu 25-Jul-13 00:56:35

SoleSource, what an odd thing to say confused.

Most of us have no choice about when we're a 'drain on the taxpayer', i.e. expensive, and the state caring for us is part of the social contract most of us are happy to still be part of - all of us banding together to fund a social security system that should support the weakest in society whether it's temporary or longterm. It could be any of us who needs it. Even members of the royal family, suddenly made into nonroyals, would qualify for help and support and rightly so.

This is not what leads the royal family to be expensive now, though - that's got nothing to do with the social contract and mutual support, it's more like the nation having signed up for (or had imposed on us) a big expensive project like Trident or HS2 that lasts hundreds of years, in return for which we in theory get a good deal in terms of a decorative and interesting head of state and family, bits of tourist revenue and so on. Or maybe we don't get a good deal at all. Hence the debates.

I'm not 100% sure either way, personally, but I think the debating is good and should not be shut down.