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

[SolidGoldBrass]

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.'

"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.

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

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.

No-one has said they live a normal life. I think I distinctly said earlier that they never WILL live a normal life.

My disabled child is a drain on the taxpayer. i'm so very, very sorry he survived at 23 weeks.

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 - 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...

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

I said "What is normal ^for the royals"" not "what is normal for the rest of us."

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

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.

i quite like charles actually i like that he is political but it may be his downfall and those that are

... meant to follow him

SoleSource, what an odd thing to say .

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.

I disagree. He can only change it to a degree. And I think in the smallest of ways, he is trying to. Even something as small as driving his wife and child home from hospital... Charles wouldn't have bloody well done that. At the end of it all, he has been born into a job. He and his father have both spoken of the enormous pressure that comes with being born into the role. It's not the type of job you can hand your notice into. If he's doing things like earning a living whilst he goes about his life, then good. He doesn't have to.

Anyway, I am going to end my stint on this thread by saying that softlysoftly nailed it twice on this thread.

"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"

Yeah, pretty much that. Followed by...

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

Fancy getting ideas above your station Carole. In America, the Middletons would be applauded for their social mobility. Only here would you kick someone for it.

The royal role I was least comfortable with was Kate, pre-baby. Nothing at all to do with her personally but it seemed to be ok for her not to have any real job. I know people will say she was finding her feet and selecting charities etc but what my issue stems from is that I don't think this would have been deemed acceptable if it had been Princess Wilma marrying Kenneth - as a man i think Kenneth would have been hounded if he didn't enter the royal family having cllear signs of gainful employment. However, as a woman I think Kate wasn't because society (or at least the media) thinks that her turning up looking lovely in a frock is sufficient contribution in a way that wouldn't have been for "Kenneth" with few formal roles other than looking good in a suit. Following in from this, I wonder if she would have got more hassle if she was less attractive ie fulfilling the 'fragrant consort' role less well.

This is nothing to do with her as a person nor about what is the right way to settle into life in the royal family. It's about what I think the media/society views as acceptable roles for women vs men.

Dies anyone think that normal military men get pat leave exactly when they want and for as long as Bill has been given (reported 2-3wks) I know families where the dad has not even seen the baby until its a few weeks old.
Another example of them not being like normal people.

Well, I think there are worse things than being like Billy Bragg.

You could be a member of the royal family for instance (ba-doom tish).

Nothing against them on a personal level at all, as no doubt they are very personable and pleasant but let's not pretend they are particularly hard working or normal - they aren't. They are incredibly wealthy and massively privileged, purely due to an accident of birth.

Let's not pretend that William is a 'normal' member of the armed forces: he has 10 times more annual leave than anyone else, was allowed in with qualifications that would not have been accepted from anyone else and has twice used a helicopter to fuck around in - something that would have seen any other pilot being sacked I would imagine!

What is this obsession with "normal" and privileged? It is ALL relative. The average global salary on a PPP basis is less than half the average UK income. So, all of us, purely by "accident of birth" (another favourite expression) are likely to be twice as well remunerated as the global average, and probably 10X or more as someone who happened to be born in Africa. And if you happen to be born in London, you can probably add 50% on to your luck purely by "accident of birth".

And then again, everyone on here who has inherited a second property of any form (and that will be quite a few) will be living off the land, just the same as the royals.

They are just an extreme end of fortune and, in their case, it is balanced by huge obligations and an unpleasant amount of being in the public gaze. If you want to resent and question where we spend money, how about our large foreign aid budget, a large chunk of which goes either directly or indirectly into the pockets of rather unpleasant Third World dictators, already worth millions (if not hundreds of millions or billions) or pounds?

What an incredibly bizarre line of argument?!

It is about their position of power and privilege not their money. And if you don't think they abuse that power and wield their influence where they can then read up on it.

Charles is one of the v worst examples of this.

hahahahaha love the thread title . My aunt bought a commemorative mug today... i was nearly sick.

My dad was in the Falklands and told me Andrew did bugger all but swagger arrogantly around the officers' mess.

Dodi. Yes, funny. Drain on the taxpayer? If you don't like the monarchy go and live in America!

Why?