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.'

Sanity prevails

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

Love the title. Thanks OP.

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

They don't have bodyguards when at work though?

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

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

Relieved by MNHQ sensible response.

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.

All the furious responses are a bit odd.

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.

ButThere,

Hmm, not sure that PR is really your forte :). 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......

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?