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.