To want to throw up a little bit (Prince William comment)

(178 Posts)
fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 06:49:03

Just seen a clip on BBC breakfast of a speech given by Prince W, last night somewhere i presume, about how he and Kate are to be forgiven for nervously keeping an eye on their mobiles during the evening; George left at home.

Simpering laughter all round

I'm not anti-royal - bit on the fence - but this made me <vom>.

Over egging the 'ordinary man' pudding IMO. We're not stupid. I know it was light hearted, but come on. Like one of the staff would ring William's mobile mid-speech to say 'oi, Will, where d'y'keep the nappies mate?' FFS. They haven't left him with the teenager from next door!

(Plus i'm now going to have to listen to my mother simpering about did i see how 'Our William' had his mobile on ready in case the baby woke up) hmm

It's early. I'm grumpy.

MrsWolowitz Fri 13-Sep-13 06:50:57

I'm neither pro nor anti royals but I understand being anxious leaving your baby.

It doesn't matter who your baby is with you're allowed to worry about them.

Relaxedandhappyperson Fri 13-Sep-13 06:51:58

Yabu.

Maybe they're antsy about leaving him, maybe it's the first time and even though they know he will be absolutely fine they are still irrationally nervous.

Have some breakfast and de-grump.

ihatethecold Fri 13-Sep-13 06:52:12

Yabu
biscuit

RaspberrySnowCone Fri 13-Sep-13 06:52:25

It is early, you are grumpy but I don't disagree really. They aren't your traditional normal working mum and dad but it may genuinely be the first time they have left him so they may have their phone at the ready. Perhaps they left him with his granny :D

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 06:52:48

YABU!

They've left their baby son for the first time. I was constantly texting my mum each time I've left the DC for the first time.

MammaTJ Fri 13-Sep-13 06:52:56

Why would they not be worried about leaving their baby for their first evening out?

I was and I am sure they feel for their baby in the same way as I do.

LovesBeingOnHoliday Fri 13-Sep-13 06:53:46

Yabu it's tgeir first night out without tge baby all normal people would feel that way.

NationMcKinley Fri 13-Sep-13 06:54:50

I get the one eye on the mobile bit (YABU)

The simpering laughter? <boak> (YNBU)

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 06:55:43

I know they're allowed to be nervous about their baby. I've had babies - i know.

I just found it a bit contrived.

Still grumpy. Probably need that biscuit actually.

rattlemehearties Fri 13-Sep-13 06:55:43

Yanbu - is everyone else missing the point? They probably have numerous nannies so it's not much different for them.

kelda Fri 13-Sep-13 06:56:34

YABU.

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 06:57:55

Rattle, what difference does having a nanny make? Doesn't mean they don't miss their son and worry if he's crying while they are out for the FIRST time without him.

SubliminalMassaging Fri 13-Sep-13 07:00:04

I don't doubt that Catherine is the type to be getting up in the night herself and being a completely 'normal' mum, but I am sure they also have a very capable full time maternity nurse to ease the burden - and why on earth not? Wouldn't we all, if we could afford it and had a house big enough to accommodate one? He's still very little and it's always hard to live your little one for the the first few times. YABU.

Meglet Fri 13-Sep-13 07:00:07

You're going to have to suck it up and listen to your mum I'm afraid grin.

I was terribly anxious first time me and XP went out for a meal without DS, who must have been 8 weeks or so. It takes a while to get used to not taking them after those hectic first few weeks.

SubliminalMassaging Fri 13-Sep-13 07:00:40

leave, not live

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 07:01:41

It's the adding it into the speech that i found a bit much. Not the fact that they are worrying.

I can just see who ever wrote the speech saying ''oh yes, stick that in about being worried about the baby. The rabble will love that''.

mewmeow Fri 13-Sep-13 07:03:59

Yanbu. Its irritating and a complete farce confused

SoupDragon Fri 13-Sep-13 07:03:59

I know they're allowed to be nervous about their baby. I've had babies - i know.

Clearly you don't know.

auntmargaret Fri 13-Sep-13 07:04:01

I loved my first night out without DD1. Didnt check phone oncegrin. The sheer bliss of an uninterrupted chat, meal and some wine. Mind you, I wasn't on a work do like they were.

LazyGaga Fri 13-Sep-13 07:04:03

I wonder if the baby will be packed off to boarding school in years to come? <muses>

YANBU esp about the simpering laughter.

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 07:04:44

Oh so they can worry about him just not talk about him. Madness.

auntmargaret Fri 13-Sep-13 07:05:07

But YANBU , its twee and patronising.

EsTutMirLeid Fri 13-Sep-13 07:05:20

YABU. Do you not remember how anxious you were the first time you left your baby. Me and DH went for dinner and the cinema. We spent dinner talking about our baby and checking our phones and decided not to bother with the cinema in the end because we felt so anxious.

Loving the assumptions that the nannies are doing it all.

Some people do choose to parent their own kids regardless of how much money they have. I think it's quite sweet and shows that they are just like any other normal family who worry about their babies.

Bowlersarm Fri 13-Sep-13 07:08:31

YABU

They have a new baby. It's still all new to them. Are you saying they shouldn't love him and worry about him like other people do?

EsTutMirLeid Fri 13-Sep-13 07:09:02

Oh and a 'packed off to boarding school' comment too (from a different poster). Charming.

So to that poster, I was 'packed off to boarding school' - clearly my parents can't have liked or loved me much, well not as much as your parents who insisted on nurturing you at home.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 07:09:54

I don't know - perhaps i ABU. I just think the further they push the 'we're just ordinary', the more i think - you're not bloody ordinary. It's that. Not the worrying. It's the 'press machine' trying to say what we are meant to want to hear.

''Ahhh - they're just ordinary bless 'em''.

I say again - i'm not saying they cant be or aren't worried.

Bowlersarm Fri 13-Sep-13 07:10:01

And to 'want to throw up' - jeez what an over reaction.

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 07:10:42

Being 'packed of to boarding school' is completely different to leaving a young (about 2 months) baby for the first time!!

cupcake78 Fri 13-Sep-13 07:10:57

Baby must only be 7-8 weeks. It's their first. They'll be in ore and its early to leave a baby even if for a few hours. They can't win!

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 07:12:06

So what is the problem Fluffy? Do you never talk about your children? Are they hidden in a corner never to be talked about?

He's a new dad and seems very excited and proud. Of course he wants to talk about his son.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 07:16:36

Bowlersarm Fri 13-Sep-13 07:10:01

And to 'want to throw up' - jeez what an over reaction.

It was a turn of phrase. Dont be daft.

Everyone is jumping on the new baby they must be worried point.

I am not asking why they are worried. I am saying i feel it's patronising to add it into a speech. A rather obvious attempt to get us all to think how ordinary they are. It's just a little thing. I don't them beheaded or anything.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 07:18:57

He's a new dad and seems very excited and proud. Of course he wants to talk about his son.

I can see this. It is nice.

Fluffy would like to be excused for having mood swings and being grumpy. 21 weeks preg. and still experiencing morning sickness.

grin

LazyGaga Fri 13-Sep-13 07:19:42

Re boarding school -I was just musing it over in a conversational manner, admittedly with a sarcastic slant. No need to get so defensive about it.

I'll admit I am staunchly Republican so my immediate reaction to stuff like this is to scoff. They get on my tits.

Perhaps they felt the need to have to prove they actually care since criticism is most likely for anyone who dare leave house within six months of a new baby?

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr Fri 13-Sep-13 07:20:27

YABU

Twattybollocks Fri 13-Sep-13 07:21:42

Yabu. I have pots of money and could have afforded the best nanny/maternity nurse there is when dd2 was born, but I didn't because I wanted to look after her myself. The first time I left her (with my mother) I was twitchy as hell for the entire 3 hours and rang every half hour to make sure that she was ok. The thought of her crying and my mum not being able to comfort her made me very upset.
Having lots of money doesn't override the natural instinct of parents to love and nurture their offspring, nor does it automatically mean that they will have a team of nursery staff to tend to the babies every need.
If Kate is bf then she will be doing most of the care herself as even the most expensive nanny on earth isn't equipped with lactating breasts and wet nursing just isn't the done thing anymore.

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 07:22:24

There are lots and lots of people on MN who wouldn't even go out and leave the baby. I can't think that any would go out and not be a bit nervous. Very few parents just forget the baby and think 'it is up to the nanny- not my responsibility'.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Fri 13-Sep-13 07:25:58

YABU

Do you think he and his wife don't worry about their baby/miss him when they aren't with him - no matter who he is with.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Fri 13-Sep-13 07:26:47

fluffy

they are ordinary - in that they have ordinary emotions.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 07:27:11

Oh my lord.

I.am.not.saying.they.shouldn't.be.worried.because.they.are.rich. That is not the point of my post.

I am saying i found it sickly sweet to have put in the speech. Just so that we all go ahhhhhhhhhhh. I found it contrived. And a bit obvious.

Mckayz Fri 13-Sep-13 07:29:04

They are allowed to talk about their son. It's normal!!!!

JamieandtheMagicTorch Fri 13-Sep-13 07:29:17

You obviously don't like them/approve, so presumably anything would annoy you. Fair enough.

He said it- people assume its a set up to make them look caring.

If he didnt - presumed to be rude for being distracted or checking phones. Or people assume they are living it up leaving baby with nannies without a second thought.

There was no way to win really

Yonihadtoask Fri 13-Sep-13 07:33:54

YABU

It was just part of his speech. Keeping it lighthearted and normal ??

TakingThePea Fri 13-Sep-13 07:35:21

YABU

I'm sure royals and people with nannies still worry about their children.

The baby is very young still, it's still a hot topic where the royals are concerned, people will be expecting to hear/see something of the baby every time they're in public!

FreudiansSlipper Fri 13-Sep-13 07:36:22

YANBU

We shall be hearing in the months to come other normal things Kate and Will do as the are normal parents. No one is suggesting they are not worrying/missing their son but they have a team of nannies, cooks, chefs, doctors, dressers, cleaners, ladies in waiting, drivers, servants on hand to make sure their lives are more than comfortable

sparkle12mar08 Fri 13-Sep-13 07:36:32

I agree with the clarified point of your post, it is contrived and they are to a large degree, at the mercy of the 'press machine' as you put it. They have to play the game because otherwise someone will smash the board completely and as royals they will be hunted by the press to kingdom come (see what I did there?!). So they and their team give the press a few little details, little tidbits to keep them going, and the press agree to leave them alone for the most part.

All of that is entirely separate to the fact that a new baby does things to your emotions that are deep and primal and scary. Ultimately Will and Kate are human beings and there's no way they haven't felt the same fears, the same joys as new parents, as the rest of us.

ChunkyPickle Fri 13-Sep-13 07:38:46

YABU - our first night out we were the same - well, to be honest, the mobiles were generally out boring everyone with pictures of our beloved first-born... it's what new parents do isn't it!

elcranko Fri 13-Sep-13 07:39:14

I still worry and check my phone a lot when I leave my DD.

I also remember, in the first few months especially, that when I wasn't with her all I seemed to do was talk ABOUT her smile

Plus W&K clearly know how much interest the public have in their baby so it would have been more odd had they not mentioned him at all IMO.

burberryqueen Fri 13-Sep-13 07:40:42

did it make you want to 'vomit in your mouth a little bit'?grin

ChunkyPickle Fri 13-Sep-13 07:41:18

Oh, contrived to have it in the speech.. well, he has to say something, and it's good to get a bit of a joke/interaction in the speech and that was both an apology if they seem distracted, a way to get a reaction from the audience, and a way to humanize them both - which are all things that make a good speech.

It's not like speeches are generally off the cuff, they're all contrived.

insancerre Fri 13-Sep-13 07:42:09

YABU
I found the clip very touching- I went all 'aahhh' and i am the least sentimental non-royalist ever

littlemisswise Fri 13-Sep-13 07:44:48

I get what you are saying Fluffy and I agree with you.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but did the not "go out" t'other week to something on Anglesey? IIRC Kate made a comment that day about him being with Granny and being "sleeping at the moment". So it is not the first time they have left him.

Yonionekanobe Fri 13-Sep-13 07:47:35

Frankly he's got bugger all else to talk about.

TartanRug Fri 13-Sep-13 07:56:09

YABU. I didn't find it contrived or obvious, I didn't find it anything really. I suppose he felt he wanted to make reference to his new son in some way like anyone else would.

SPBisResisting Fri 13-Sep-13 08:01:06

ooopooohhh fluffy you're pregnant? Did I miss that or have I congratulated you already (don't think so)

Congratulations grin

Am pmsl at 'oi, Will, where d'y'keep the nappies mate?'
at which point would he reply "errrrm...not sure, the wife deals with all that stuff. I'll just put her on"

SPBisResisting Fri 13-Sep-13 08:01:38

the poo in that first word was completely accidental
Though quite apt

Sirzy Fri 13-Sep-13 08:01:43

Littlemiss - he was probably somewhere nearby that day.

It would seem like basically the OP is saying they aren't allowed to talk about being parents, or their son?

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 08:02:17

No doubt it will be in the Press and just added to the spin around this family to make them look normal and lovely.

God forbid he should ever say anything controversial or get asked any hard questions by the media.

melika Fri 13-Sep-13 08:02:35

YANBU for all the reasons mentioned about who he is being left with.

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 08:05:07

And why is this news anyway?

Because we're all supposed to be hanging on every word he says confused

They're not the first people to become parents - you'd have thought they were given the sycophancy the media show over them.

littlemisswise Fri 13-Sep-13 08:07:05

They left him at home with Granny Sirzy.

I wonder whether they've left long lists of the bleeding obvious? I did for my mother who had er managed to raise babies herself

Sirzy Fri 13-Sep-13 08:10:57

Fair enough but given how small Anglesey is they were hardly a long way away!

Either way I don't understand why they are getting stick for something normal for all parents.

Merrylegs Fri 13-Sep-13 08:16:19

I get where you are coming from OP.

Actually, I think given William's history and distrust of the press vis a vis his mother, he would probably love nothing better than to stfu about his baby and protect it from the public as much as possble. But he knows he has to give us a little bit - that's what everyone is interested in after all, so his tidbits are carefully controlled. Cultivating an image of man of the people, 'ordinary family' might in the long term take some of the mystique away from the kid. Remember the outrage when Kate was papped on honeymoon? 'Poor girl' 'one of us' blah blah. Diana was fair game to be papped because she had morphed into this glamorous socialite.

LazyGaga Fri 13-Sep-13 08:19:49

Because we are likely have it drummed into us that they're just 'ordinary parents' like all of us (simper simper) when it's patently obvious they're not.

It sticks in the craw like the way 'We're all in this [recession] together' with multi millionaire Tories did too.

Merrylegs Fri 13-Sep-13 08:20:45

(Ah, basically wot sparkles said. Teach me to RTT. Soz)

thebody Fri 13-Sep-13 08:21:08

totally agree op. vom.

LazyGaga Fri 13-Sep-13 08:21:16

That was in response to Sirzy.

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 08:21:31

"But he knows he has to give us a little bit - that's what everyone is interested in after all, so his tidbits are carefully controlled."

That's what the media have convinced us. Personally I couldn't care less about seeing pictures or hearing about the baby and how they are parenting him.

GrandstandingBlueTit Fri 13-Sep-13 08:23:24

Am I remembering incorrectly, or were William and Harry themselves not even packed off to boarding school?

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 08:23:58

"Let's feed the media some information about George. A few pictures and a little insight into how we are really ordinary parents. That means they'll get off our back and we can continue to lead our privileged lifestyle attending all these celebrity functions and the media will still love us".

LazyGaga Fri 13-Sep-13 08:24:02

Eton was it not?

exoticfruits Fri 13-Sep-13 08:24:40

The media does it because it sells papers!

diddl Fri 13-Sep-13 08:25:04

Goodness I so agree, OP.

burberryqueen Fri 13-Sep-13 08:28:23

i am not even interested enough to be bothered tbh -

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 13-Sep-13 08:28:46

They are new parents. And like most of us they like sharing the new emotions that come with that.

Just because he is rich and a prince doesn't mean that he can't join in with that.

People are so sour about the royals, it just smacks of jealousy and pettiness.

burberryqueen Fri 13-Sep-13 08:29:02

if you watch TV non-stop you will be fed pap....

valiumredhead Fri 13-Sep-13 08:31:24

I'm heartily sick of hearing how normal they arehmm
Yanbu OP

BalloonSlayer Fri 13-Sep-13 08:32:26

Well I am thrilled to bits for William and Kate and like them a lot . . .

But I have to say that I agree that his comments are all a bit contrived and somehow make me wince slightly.

Just from memory

"I'll have a word with him when he's older about his tardiness" - re baby being late keeping reporters waiting. Tardiness? Ahem . . . we ARE English, you know. wink And of course it's a joke but I hope if Prince George sees that clip when still a child he'll get it and realise he is not being blamed for being late.

"Wish we had more sleep . . . wish there weren't so many nappies to change." see above for the love of God stop moaning

Checking mobiles - I suspect the security man is the contact re any problems so as the OP says it probably just isn't true. Kate and William are at work at this dinner and it would be unprofessional for them to have their mobiles on. But I guess he meant they were metaphorically checking their mobiles, that is: frequently meeting the eye of their security man and raising their eyebrows significantly to say "everything OK?"

Come to think of it, given that they have got legs, security men probably are "mobiles" to the Royals. "Landlines" are probably the ones who have to stand in the sentry boxes outside Buck House, who aren't allowed to move.

(Did you know that Prince Philip horrified the administration at Buckingham Palace with his modern newfangled ideas and was regarded as a bit of an upstart? His crime? He insisted on having a telephone system installed. People at the Palace couldn't understand what was wrong with the old system of communication - a Butler bringing you a note on a silver tray.)

EdithWeston Fri 13-Sep-13 08:33:25

If they hadn't mentioned the baby, then no doubt they would have been criticised for being cold and uncaring, rather like the reaction to Prince Charles who opted not to mention his family when making speeches.

I think it says more about the media, tbh, that those comments are the ones getting airtime, when they were only two or three sentences out of his whole speech. The awards for conservation barely got a mention.

Pagwatch Fri 13-Sep-13 08:33:56

Well if he hadn't mentioned their baby there would have been a thread about how they don't give a shit about him.
Whatever they do or say they are screwed because people object to their status/role/priviledge and don't like them because of that.

The irony is that threads/discussion about what they say just ensures ever utterance gets written about.
<shrug>

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 08:36:41

I can just see them having to leave early because George won't sleep. They'd be having the chat - "You go, I can't go - I've got to do this talk, but I need you" - and then she'd rush off in a huff leaving him behind. Then him making some comment like "women".

Now that would be interesting.

forehead Fri 13-Sep-13 08:37:02

YADBU
When dd1 was 2 months myself and dh went out and left dd1 with my mother. I phoned to check on her at least six times. My mother was so pissed off, she eventually asked me to stop phoning. Her exact words were ' I have done this before you know'

EdithWeston Fri 13-Sep-13 08:37:07
curlew Fri 13-Sep-13 08:37:25

Well, all mumsnetters know what happens when you leave a child with a mother in law. No wonder poor Kate was worried- the Queen might do something outrageous, like dressing the baby in the wrong colour pyjamas, or keeping him up 10 minutes past his bed time which will mean she will have to refuse to let him go to Buckingham Palace ever again. Which will make things pretty awkward. Might even have constitutional implications........

SubliminalMassaging Fri 13-Sep-13 08:39:46

Ha, yes Pagwatch can you imagine?

'Just look at 'em, swanning around at grand dinners, out 'til all hours, not giving a second thought to that poor baby. She didn't even have her phone out on the table in case the nanny needed them in an emergency. Their life just goes on as normal. S'awright for some, innit?' hmm

SubliminalMassaging Fri 13-Sep-13 08:41:16

Yes, and the step mother in law even worse. How could she possibly ever leave him alone with Camilla? She might come home to find she's had his ear pierced or something.

Pagwatch Fri 13-Sep-13 08:41:25

Haha @ Curlew. So true
grin

BalloonSlayer Fri 13-Sep-13 08:42:49

Had a quick check Edith, and I think it says there was an antiquated system when Philip moved in. I expect it was probably used by the staff (like in Downton abbey) and the royals had the butler with the tray.

LumpySpacePrincessOhMyGlob Fri 13-Sep-13 08:43:02

YANBU it was the simpering laughter that did it.

Though I too am grumpy in the morning.

flowersinavase Fri 13-Sep-13 08:44:32

This is The Most Important Baby Ever. Surely the whole country- if not world - is concerned about his well being at all moments of the day and night...

BrokenSunglasses Fri 13-Sep-13 08:46:03

I think you're being mean!

Of course he mentioned his baby in the speech, it can't have escaped his attention that people from all over the world are interested in this baby, it would have been weird if the baby prince hadn't been mentioned at all.

It makes no difference who they left their baby with. Every new parent on their first night away will have left their baby with someone they trust completely, whether that be paid help, a best friend or their own parents. They are still going to feel anxious and be thinking of him. In that way, they are ordinary. Being born into or marrying into a royal family doesn't override normal human emotion and parental instinct.

OhDearNigel Fri 13-Sep-13 08:55:41

Jeez, i have to speak quite a lot in public due to rotary. I usually put in a couple of jokes, sometimes about DD. i hope my audiences aren't as harsh as the OP !

diddl Fri 13-Sep-13 08:57:19

I thought that the baby was with Carole?

But as a pp said-they were at work-this is what they have signed up for & in return they get a life of privilege & luxury.

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 09:00:46

It must be awful being a member of the Royal family surrounded by sycophants who hang on your every word and laugh at every joke. Like being surrounded by yes people.

I bet they'd come on AIBU just for a decent argument and not to have people agree with them all the time.

curlew Fri 13-Sep-13 09:02:13

Ooooooooh-I'd forgotten the Queen was great- grandmama, not grandma!

I reckon Camilla is bound to do the First Haircut. Thereby cutting herself off from all further contact.......

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 09:05:24

TBH, I'm just sick of the Royals being rammed down our throat. It seems to have got far worse over the last few years with all the events going on.

If they hadn't mentioned him then people would be saying they didn't care, were swanning off without him bla bla bla.

melika Fri 13-Sep-13 09:18:31

We don't ACTUALLY care!

Sirzy Fri 13-Sep-13 09:21:31

you might not Melika. But plenty of other people do.

BalloonSlayer Fri 13-Sep-13 09:53:10

Actually remembering my own post-natal hormones, I think if my DH had made little jokes about my PFB "keeping people waiting," keeping him awake at night and needing his nappy changing too much I think I'd have probably gone totally hysterical on him . . . something like:

"How fucking DARE you make jokes about not having enough sleep when it is me up every two hours doing the feeds!"

"Stop moaning about having to change nappies. Fucking diddums. Do you resent the baby or something?"

I like his comments about being much more emotional since being a father and getting tearful about watching something horrible happening to a poor rhino, because that seems genuine, you can see his real bewilderment at the emotional change that being a parent brings.

I know the other comments are supposed to be genuine too but TBH at best they come across as very weak jokes, and at worse as passive aggressive moaning at being asked to change nappies and get up at night.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 09:53:13

William is doing his job. He is tasked with keeping the country behind the monarchy and keeping the monarchy relevant.

That is a big task, and easy to get wrong, as Charles and even the Queen learned over his marriage to Diana.

William, if he and his advisors are canny, is wise to take a bit of the popularity of the 'People's Princess', with a bit of the reticence of the rest of his family and use all that to try to connect with the modern British public.

He's doing that with devices such as the car seat from the hospital and the mention of the mobile phone.

I think it is harsh to mock his privileged lifestyle. I wouldn't want it. The Royal Family over the 20th Century has been little more than a train wreck from start to finish, in the public eye. The Queen has been the one that has had to get on that train and get it back on track, then keep it there. On a personal level it can't have been that joyous a job for a young woman who had just lost her father, and since then her life, although coated in luxury, doesn't seem to have been very 'free'. From getting off that plane returning from Kenya looking composed after learning her father had died to attending a pop concert for her Jubilee when her husband had been taken to hospital, the burden of appearing 'emotionless' in the face of the public must be fairly grim.

No wonder, in his cack handed way, William is trying to cut through all that a little. He may have realised that the 'stiff upper lip' stuff isn't working anymore for his Grandmother and is trying to get the right balance between it and becoming Peter Andre.

Bit of a thankless task really.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 09:57:55

Back. Had to pop out. Had breakfast. Less grumpy

Thank you SPB smile I am expecting.

I don't think i explained myself too well in my OP. I'm sorry. So many seemed to think i was saying they have no right to worry.

I'm really glad everyone has got the proper gist of what i was on about now. ie: Finding it cringey to hear this stuff inserted in his speech. I do just fine it a bit - uky. Rather he just said 'George is doing fine, this is our first night out without him', and left out the mobile phone rubbish. I cant tell if he's being toung in cheek or not re: the mobiles. Perfectly ready to accept i'm being U though.

sparkle said ''they have to play the game''. I suppose for me that has hit the nail on the head. You're right really. It's all a media game. I agree it's hard for them to win.

I do feel for William re: the press and his mother. I was a fan of Diana. Sometimes perhaps they are badly advised. Pushing the 'normal' thing is a dangerous game, i think.

Personally i would love to see Charles step down and let Wills and Kate take the reigns when the Queen dies. I think they could do allot of good for the modern image of the monarchy. But for me too much 'we're so normal' business just brings out the republican lurking in me that i didn't know i had.

Thepowerof3 Fri 13-Sep-13 10:00:17

It is their baby no matter how competent the person/people are he's been left with

MrsDibble Fri 13-Sep-13 10:00:35

YANBU.

It's dreadful and patronising.

Plus they are not on a night out with friends, he is supposedly "working".

If you were giving a presentation at work, would you go on about nervously checking the mobile?

CairngormsClydesdale Fri 13-Sep-13 10:05:03

It made you want to "vom"? Really? Have you considered wrapping yourself in cotton wool and covering all the windows with tinfoil?

I think you need to remember that his first speech has been awaited by people and press, around the world.

The UK need to keep the Monachy on the World's stage, I think everyone underestimates the money generated by tourism. The UK needs it, more than ever.

I live in Liverpool without football and the Beatle's, many businesses would close.

William had to make his speech as personal as possible, many people do want to hear this.

They may have help, I would of paid for help, if I could of, that doesn't change the natural anxiety that Mums can suffer, or mean that the hands on care isn't being provided mostly by Mum and Nan.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 10:16:01

MrsDibble yes I probably would mention this if it was my first presentation after having the baby, and the audience knew this. Especially if the birth had been splashed all over the world's media. I'd be weird not to.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 10:16:03

Yes cairgorm really. It made me want to thrash around in a puddle of my own vomit. Really really really.

hmm

OP it must of passed you by that this up c

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 10:20:04

Birds - ''William had to make his speech as personal as possible, many people do want to hear this.''

^ ^ this. This is interesting to me you see. This simple thing is what would make me agree IABU. If this is what most people want to hear, and what makes the monarchy good for them, then that is fair enough.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 10:21:17

birds - what is it up? grin

Sorry.

That this up coming speech had, had a build up and was highlighted in all media as "William's first speech after becoming a Dad".

Then the content makes sence.

Sorry I'm just to fat fingered (or old) for a touch screen phone.

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 10:24:10

No touch screens here either smile Good old fashioned keyboard.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 10:29:41

YANBU-I'm not being taken in by it all either. Yes they have normal feelings of concern for their baby. But you can bet this is being very carefully woven into the spin planned by the Palace PR team.

This family know that W and K are their only saving grace. And boy are they exploiting it.

The reality of the RF? Andrew, that fat pompous freeloading little prick who dares to whinge about the multi million pound security operation we pay for. I have to show ID every day when I visit various sites for work even though I have known the security for years. That is what you do.

Andrew- whose overseas trips are not graced by a media presence because they are as dodgy as hell.

He is a more accurate representation of this family.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 10:31:46

RE Tourism, we do not need a functioning RF to generate money from a RF. Versailles has made more money than all our royal tourist attractions. We wold generate tourist £££ without them. Our top tourist attractions have no link with the RF anyway.

Branleuse Fri 13-Sep-13 10:40:12

yanbu. The whole "ordinary" image theyre desperatly trying to project to make the royal family so accessible to us commoners, is revolting.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 11:08:04

Yes and all those engagements our 'hardworking' Princess Ann etc is supposed to do? She has four,five, six engagements a day which works out as an average of 199 days a year on public duties. That leaves 2/3 of the year free for whatever else she does. That is not hard working.

Even 500 engagements a year at three a day works out at only 160 working days a year and that is underestimating the number per day that she does.

Very good PR.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 11:08:15

I think this type od comment in this circumstance illustrates how he and his advisors are defining his family as inaccessible and off limits actually.

It is all being played in official engagements. He is keeping the media at arms length otherwise, and creating noise when they overstep the mark.

I see him as drawing the boundaries around his own family (including Kate) in a subtle but clear way.

everlong Fri 13-Sep-13 11:17:22

It doesn't matter who you are, leaving your new baby is scary.

Seems to me they can't do fuck all right.

EdithWeston Fri 13-Sep-13 11:23:03

The typical 'working year' for most employees is reckoned at 225 days (when you knock off weekends and holidays). So 199 days on public duties is close to full time, and if you add on IOC and non-appearance charity work, that makes more than typical full time.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 11:32:14

She is not hard working. If she attends those engagements commuting like the rest of us, arranging them herself and doing all the scut work like we do plus driving herself then come back to me on that. Every part of her day is smoothed out for her. She is not hard working.

My estimates of her number of 'work' engagements were on the generous side. The amount of horses she keeps at Gatcombe and the amount of time she spends there clearly proves how much time she has to spend on private activities.

ZingWantsCake Fri 13-Sep-13 11:38:39

but what if Harry is looking after George?

you'd need a portable webcam....

mignonette I love you! the voice of reason!

MissStrawberry Fri 13-Sep-13 11:45:56

YABU

He can't win. When he does stuff that most other parents have done he is slated. If he said nothing about the baby he would be moaned at for who does he think he is tendencies.

Get a cup of tea and stop being so grumpy.

And do people really get a bit of sick in their mouths or is just another stupid saying that MNters have started posting?

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 11:48:27

Notquite Thank you. My son had to debate this at school once and he researched loads of stats on the amount of engagements divided by days and all of them showed a reality not reflected in the 'hard working' headlines of a sycophantic agenda led press. He also quoted tourist figures from all the mainland European royal sites (from defunct and not defunct families) then contrasted them w/ non royal attractions. It demonstrated that you do not need a royal family in situ to generate this revenue, nor is it as important as we think. Some of the teachers did their best to discredit him but his sources were impeachable (not Wikipaedia) and included the Court Circular.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 11:49:26

I might not actually get sick in my mouth but I do get the white mist/rages (another MN saying grin)

EdithWeston Fri 13-Sep-13 12:02:26

You seem to have only counted time at engagements, not travelling time nor preparation time (even if she has speech writers, she still needs briefing and practice runs).

And her civil list payments are scaled to the public duties she does. Teachers work 190 days (and also travel and do their preparation) - are they not hard-working?

EdithWeston Fri 13-Sep-13 12:03:32

Sorry - 195 days - a similar amount to the 199 you calculated for her public duties (not including IOC).

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 12:08:50

No, she has an astronomical amount of help to prepare for these 'engagements'. My teacher friends are yet to have this. They might have LA's but they are there to assist the children mostly. When my teacher friends or my nursing colleagues have personal ladies in waiting and private secretaries then you can compare them to Anne.

We all travel and prepare. Like I said, when she uses public transport or drives herself instead of chauffeured limousines, helicopters, private planes, trains w/ the whole carriage to herself and her entourage, then we're talking.

sCHOOLgATEhATE Fri 13-Sep-13 12:10:12

YANBU because I too shall have my mum on the phone, banging on like their the next door neighbours and she occasionally lends Kate a tin of tomatoes. YOU HAVE NO IDEA, THEY ARE STRANGERS TO YOU.

'They're so down to earth'
'She'll be a lovely mother'
'His mother would have loved this'
and my mum's all time favourite ' The Queen is sooooo wise'

SunshineMMum Fri 13-Sep-13 12:10:37

YAB so U Why should status stop someone from feeling nervous about leaving a first born for the same time?

FoxMulder Fri 13-Sep-13 12:11:03

Is it their first time out without him though? Weren't they in Anglesey a couple of weeks ago? They said on the news that the baby was at home. I thought they meant down south somewhere. Or is home Anglesey?

camrywagon Fri 13-Sep-13 12:12:49

YABU
I'm not particularly royalist or anit-royalist but I can recognise that people are born into the families they are.

Their actions and behaviour are a direct result - we all experience that to some extent no matter what our circumstances.

They're a young family expected to do things no one would be expected to do. I'd be shit if I had the expectations placed on them on me and they would most likely be shit if they had the expectations place on me on them.

diddl Fri 13-Sep-13 12:17:50

Does anyone think that they shouldn't be nervous because of who they are?

It's the using it as an opportunity to pretend that they're like everyone else.

Like when Diana took the boys to Alton Towers/Chessington?

How "normal" it made them.

When there's protection nearby & you go home to a palace-sorry, no, normal you are not.

Or rather the life you lead is not usual.

PostBellumBugsy Fri 13-Sep-13 12:20:59

So glad I'm not royal. The forensic analysis of my every utterance and laugh would put me off all the perks. Imagine meeting people knowing that they'll probably tweet about you afterwards to say you simpered or were a baby bore or didn't talk about your baby enough - so that everyone else could then comment on whether you had or your hadn't. Bloody hell, how depressing.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 12:24:52

What they do and what the Press report are two different things. The Press reported that Philip still hadn't seen their baby when in fact they'd been to Sandringham the previous weekend. I know that because some of my family live in the village and in other ones nearby and they'd both seen them driving along and noticed the huge security presence in advance of their visit.

charleylarlie Fri 13-Sep-13 12:30:01

I can understand completely that they would be anxious with it being the first time they had left him (and they probably will be for the next few outings).

...However I don't doubt that it was also set up as a PR stunt (albeit a more 'natural' one) to make them seem like people that we can relate to. I find it all quite patronising myself but then I'm not a royalist and never will be.

BalloonSlayer Fri 13-Sep-13 12:50:05

- and it wasn't William's first evening/night away either . . . he went on a stag do or something, didn't he, and he has been away working.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 13:22:45

mignonette I'm no Royalist but I can't help but feel your son's research lacks a bit of further analysis.

Now I'm not necessarily arguing that the RF are hard working. But he is measuring whether a person is hard working by the amount of time spent on a job. A five minute visit to say a bedside of a sick person by a member of the RF could arguably lift the spirits of that person to an extent that could not be measured. A short speech for a conservation charity (especially throwing in a remark which the media would jump on) would raise the profile of that charity.

The tourist figures are also a bit flawed. For example, I went to Windsor once to see the castle. I didn't want to go in the castle, just see it from outside. When in Windsor I did the open top bus tour and ate a meal there. I probably wouldn't have gone if the castle hadn't been there. Where would I have fitted into your son's facts and figures.

Mignonette. Just want to correct you on a couple of points ref Anne and travelling. I used to use the same train line and train station that she uses. On occasion i would upgrade myself to first class to get a bit of space and work as it was a long journey from Paddington. On a number of occasions Princess Anne would also be in first class. Her security detail would not section off the carriage just the table which they would sit at with her. On arrival - she would invariably drive her own car away. He ticket was clipped like everyone else and she would pay for her muffin and bottled water just like us.

I dont necessarily buy into the whole hardworking thing - but from a constitutional point of view, the monarchy works as well as any other and has less of the issues of the american / french systems. You will also see issues with elected upper houses as well. Is your issue a constitutional or a fiscal one? The fiscal arguments have been done to death elsewhere and the counter arguments stack up when you condone simple seizing of privately held property. When you start down that route, you generally end up down the shining path of collectivisation. The constitutional POV is less finely balanced - look closer at alternative systems and they have myriad faults. Part of Britain's long term success is down to an armed forces, judiciary and civil service that are loyal to the crown rather than the executive. The executive needs the concurrence of the Head of state to get certain things done and the HoS is kept from politics rather than government as a result. Which is why the HoS needs permission to go to parliament. The history is really pertinent here, it took a civil war, an execution or two, the creation of a commonwealth republic, a reformation and a glorious revolution to get it right.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 13:38:30

Unless I publish his full speech here (which I'm sure nobody here has time to read) you will have to take my word for it that his speech covered tourist revenues, time spent versus days versus what was actually accomplished.

The figures are not just compiled from revenue from tickets bought. The Versailles one were compiled from people through the garden gate so to speak. Because of security it is not too difficult to compile data on visitors to many attractions . If I was to apply your criteria then any visit to anywhere in Windsor whether it be Tesco's or the Castle would count seeing as it is Royal Windsor. At some point you have to say 'look this is the data like for like as in footfall to an attraction whether it be through the gates of Alton Towers, Legoland, Alnick or Durham Cathedral (Harry Potter) or football in Versailles/ex Royal residences in Germany/Holland/Sweden or actual living residences such as Buckingham Palace.

As for hard working, the media describes certain members of the royal lot as this when in fact the level of effort/time spent in comparison to doing their own private activities is skewed and not in the favour of the hard work in royal duties bit. Measurable and demonstrable effect is pretty impossible to quantify. For example when I worked for a famous HIV/AIDS charity in London, there were more of our clients who did not wish to hold Diana's hand as there where that did. Many of them did not feel the benefits of this. So how to quantify? I err on the side of believing that what they do is not hard work in any way shape or form, does not compare to what the working Joe has to endure and pales in comparison when you think of all the stuff they do not have to do when they are not at work- like washing/cleaning/staying in because they cannot afford babysitters/saving for holidays when they are tired/ stressed of simply not having one. There is no comparison. None.

HeadsDownThumbsUp Fri 13-Sep-13 13:41:13

Both constitutional and fiscal, but the constitutional imperative is, if anything, more important.

The British monarchy does not 'work as well as any other' if you want to have any measure of democracy beyond an elected chamber of commons. There is growing public displeasure at the use of the royal veto, and the censorship of exchanges between the RF and the Government which are clearly within the public interest. To say that the HoS is kept from politics is a polite lie, and we all know it.

Time for an elected upper house too, and a more transparent and democratically organised judiciary.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 13:47:34

My 'issue' is pure and simple. I bow my head to nobody because of their accident of birth. I respect people who achieve through their sole efforts. I do not swear allegiance to a family who are no better than anybody else and a whole lot worse than many.

Hereditary privilege is a fusty anachronism. And BTW I didn't actually mention the seizing of their property. I don't know where you got that from. I am talking of them being private members of society responsible for managing their own finances like the rest of us. And as for our 'long term success'- well that is debatable especially at the moment when it looks like we have been made complete fools of internationally but that is a whole other thread.....

And as for the travel, our family (who live nearby to one of their main residences) are seeing the constant coming and goings of most of the Royals w/ their swathes of hangers on, cars full of staff, security, luggage etc. They do not travel like you and me. Anne arrives at many of her engagements in a chauffered car w/ full compliment of staff accompanying. She is chauffered from Sandringham to the church FGS on many occasions. As are all of them. Driving her car occasionally does not suddenly qualify her as value for money on a moral level let alone an economic one. She should do it all the time.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 13:50:02

Oh and Voice their cars are not left parked at the station for them to collect at the end of their working day. They are driven there by staff or security for them to collect. That is not free and is not a perk your ordinary working stiff enjoys.

queenofdrama Fri 13-Sep-13 13:50:41

Yabu. Nannies or not, they are first time parents who are anxious. Give them a break. Kate is breastfeeding so would obviously be wondering how their baby was doing with bottles of ebm.

CuteDesigns Fri 13-Sep-13 13:55:16

You would have had to do the simpering laughing though as William thought he was so cleaver and funny and it would be uncomfortable to humiliate anyone doing a public speech by not simpering laughing as he was looking at your expecting you to find him soooo interesting.

I am not surprised that the PFB lark has gone to Williams head, all the questions and press interest.

What he needs to do now is calm down, it is a sperm, lots of others manage it too. Your sperm produced a baby, wow! You are in love with your baby and have had good wishes and attention, now please calm down.

Your baby is no more special than any other baby born that day, just yours is privileged and will be remembered due to your ancestry.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 14:08:07

mignonette To look at the attraction data in the way you are is to ignore the 'pull' factor that exists in the likes of Windsor because of the castle.

Taking the Royal family out of the equation, my home city Liverpool with The Beatles and football was mentioned up thread. Now Liverpool has loads of history of its own, before The Beatles and even the football teams arrived. The Capital of Culture year gave us the money to spruce the place up a bit, but it could definately be argued that the football teams (well one of them ha ha) and the Beatles have provided the 'pull' to lure foreign visitors away from London up here. And when here, does every tourist do something Beatlesy or go to a football match. Probably not.

To say something cannot be measured is not to say something doesn't exist.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 14:10:29

Nobody is suggesting blowing the castle up or pulling it down. Versailles has a greater pull than Windsor yet has no royals living in it. History and heritage will always have a pull.

Liverpool, your example is the perfect example too. The Beatles are over, half of them are dead. Yet they still draw the crowds. My point, in a nutshell.

HeadsDownThumbsUp Fri 13-Sep-13 14:11:09

"To say something cannot be measured is not to say something doesn't exist."

But it does say that it's not a very strong basis for an argument.

poppycock6 Fri 13-Sep-13 14:12:27

Leave the lad alone! Bet he's going to be great Dad

BalloonSlayer Fri 13-Sep-13 14:17:08

"Kate is breastfeeding so would obviously be wondering how their baby was doing with bottles of ebm."

however do you know that?

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 14:21:05

But music is different, because that has stayed alive, so although The Beatles aren't about anymore doesn't mean the music isn't being played all over the world, and that is what keeps it in the public eye. The RF keeps itself in the public eye with stuff like this, and if they were gone, people may visit relics from the past, but they wouldn't be lining the streets for special events like weddings, jubilees and even run of the mill Royal visits (BTW - did your son factor those sorts of things in).

And I think the fact that something isn't measurable doesn't actually weaken any argument. It just provides a need for more in depth analysis.

HeadsDownThumbsUp Fri 13-Sep-13 14:28:22

In depth analysis of what, exactly?

Speculation on whether or not there may or may not be some effect?

Come on, the most visited tourist attraction in the UK is the Tower of London - all about the history of Britain and its historical rulers, not a current royal in sight.

Whether or not the UK could lose an unquantifiable number of tourists who, for some reason, would simply stop visiting the country if the Monarchy abdicated tomorrow (seems unlikely, don't you think) is only a tiny, tiny part of the argument.

Is our entire political administration and democracy going to be beholden to a hypothetical number of tourists?

Sorry, but tourism isn't even that huge a slice of of our economy anyway (8.8%) and most of that is domestic tourism.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 14:37:59

No, tourism isn't a reason to keep the British Monarchy. I'm not a Royalist. I am just disagreeing with what mignonette was saying about her son's analysis of both tourism and 'hard work' based solely on the facts and figures she stated. There is more to it than that.

burberryqueen Fri 13-Sep-13 14:45:53

absolutely - i mean tourists do not visit Versailles and say -ooh yes lovley but it would be so much better with an incumbent monarch' do they?

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 15:24:59

My point Burberry and Heads. No matter what the 'hard work' debate is, fact is the concept of rule by birth alone is an ugly one. It has no rightful place in a modern society.

My son was 12 by the way when he gave that debate and there was a lot more to what he said and yes he factored in royal gala days including the most up to date information regarding cost including cost of shipping in police from other forces to cover numbers. I just can't be arsed to go look it up in all the boxes of school work in the attic grin but i can assure you the figures are alive and well online if anybody cares to research this.

Either way, I will not dip my head to somebody because of their birth. An accident of fate. Not of achievement, worth or effort.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 15:27:02

I am prepared to worship the ground upon which David Bowie walks though grin

fluffyraggies Fri 13-Sep-13 16:14:30

mignonette grin

I think i'm getting more republican as i get older.

Not too sure of my facts re: RF being value for money, but i am sure that many people would take the ethos of a RF better, in these modern times, if it were a smaller circle, the immediate family and not all the cousins thrice removed and other hangers on, that got all the perks.

How much property is actually owned by the royals, though? The crown estates were signed over to the government by George III to cover his debts or something; the royals are just allocated an income.

And what mignonette said ^

diddl Fri 13-Sep-13 16:41:00

I'd love to live in a palace that I don't owngrin

Does that also mean that they don't pay for the upkeep or utilities?hmm

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 16:41:27

mignonette Great that he was only 12. I wonder how he might have tackled it if he was asked to debate the opposing view to the one he actually held. That might have ended up more interesting and more of a stretch for him.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 16:51:22

He belonged to a debating group and regularly had to debate an opposing POV. That is the cornerstone of the society really, to stretch them but every now and again you get matched w/ something you actually believe in. He is capable of balanced argument (he's more measured than me grin )especially now he is an adult.

melika Fri 13-Sep-13 17:15:25

I stopped liking the royal family when 92 yr old Prince Philip had his 'abdominal surgery' so quickly when my poor Dsis had to wait weeks and weeks for important cancer op only to have it cancelled and then rescheduled a month later. I have really gone off them, big time.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 17:19:49

mignonette When I was 12 I would have said all the same things as him. My folks pretty much held the beliefs you have expressed here, and through my youth I agreed with them.

Now, not so strongly really. I feel quite sorry for Prince William, even the baby. I can't for the life of me see why Kate (and her family) wanted to marry into it all. As I said upthread, the 20th Century were not good for that family on a personal level. Loads of tragedy - most of it due to the fact that they were the Royal Family. Now I don't care what you may say about privilege, on a basic human level we are all the same and all touched by the same things on a basic level, and everyone cares about their parents and their children (unless maybe in an abusive situation).

I also think that we have a constitution created over many centuries, and it isn't going to change overnight. I think just now we've not got such a bad thing. They aren't abolished, but they are more or less where we want them. You think the Queen actually wanted Madness on her roof, or does she just do as she is told now? Is that another legacy of Tony Blair?

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 17:42:12

Oh please do stop w/ the patronising Grow. It is very tedious.

My son may have absorbed some of our values but he votes differently to us but happens to have kept his same moral and political views re inherited rule.

Feeling sorry for the individual for some of what they experience has got nothing to do w/ what people feel over the institution of the monarchy.

HeadsDownThumbsUp Fri 13-Sep-13 18:32:04

We do, as you say, "have a constitution created over many centuries". And it's going to keep changing.

It baffles me that people will point out that the nation's political structure has developed historically, and use that long history to suggest that it's now, finally, set in stone.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 18:37:55

Heads . Perfectly put.

Growlithe Fri 13-Sep-13 18:51:20

That's just it though, I'm saying it's changing. I think the British public and Tony Blair as PM forced the Queen into a corner over Diana's death, she was forced into making a public statement I don't think for a minute she wanted to make. There was a slight shift in power at that time.

Just as nothing is set in stone, nothing is going to change overnight either. If you think in our lifetime or that of our children we will see the end of the monarchy I think you are deluded. We are moving forward though, look at the reforms to the House of Lords.

Slowly and surely, whilst maintaining the checks and balances and so providing stability. That's the way to go in my opinion.

HeadsDownThumbsUp Fri 13-Sep-13 19:13:42

I sort of hope you are right, Grow, and that they are just being phased out slowly.

But public image is one thing, and political influence is another. There's growing public concern at the use of the veto, royal correspondence with ministers and so on. Public attitudes may will shift when it looks like Charles is going to get his turn and it'll be interesting to see what happens.

In the meantime, it seems fairly clear that the royal PR team is capitalising on the kid to promote this 'normal family' shtick. It's pretty patronising really.

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 19:18:40

Actually although I am no fan of any of them I thought it was disgusting the 'great' British public demanded they return from Balmoral so as to be paraded in London as 'proof' they cared. They were doing what all families do after a death-going into seclusive mourning and protecting the children.

Disgusting parading those children around outside looking at a bunch of mouldering tatty flowers and overblown hysterical 'tributes' from a load of people in love with the drama of it all.

It was ironic that it was the most ardent Monarchists who seemed to expect this public demonstration of mourning. Not the Republicans at all. All those loons in their Union Jack outfits camping outside KP so they could catch a glimpse of the bereaved princes.

RaspberryRuffle Fri 13-Sep-13 20:37:05

YANBU Fluffy, as you say it's all this 'ordinary people' malarkey, winds me up, sooo contrived.
Well done Mignonette's son, in our times with fairness being an ideal, in terms of equal opportunities for all I can't stomach the 'born to rule' logic at all.

kim147 Fri 13-Sep-13 20:43:48

Born to rule

That reminds me of a song.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtYmq5qFVA

mignonette Fri 13-Sep-13 20:45:37

Thanks Raspberry I will pass your comment onto him.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now