To not want to pay for another scrounger?

[weatherall]

Poor Kate's with child again.

When will these scroungers stop pumping out sprogs they expect all the rest of us to pay for?

dapple google 'queen cries Britannia'. It was quite widely reported and photographed.

Celebrities have babies all the time. I don't know why you're so obsessed with this one.

The massive difference is that William and Kate could opt out of their current lifestyle and still support themselves- that can't be said of 'the average single mum on income support'

William didn't choose this life- it was the hand he was dealt- yes there are massive privileges but they are grossly outweighed by the downsides.

bearbehind...... What do you mean by self sufficient? are you referring to people who have to rely on tax credits because the wages are so poor. Unless the royal family suddenly decide to support themselves the tax paying people of this country are entitled to have an opinion......and until you can give us proof that the royal family generate money through tourism then I will go on believing that tourists would still visit the UK without the royals. France got rid of their royals hundreds of years ago and guess what?....it's the number 1 tourist spot on earth.

It is certainly dull, that much is for sure.

i prefer my own baby!

The massive difference is that William and Kate could opt out of their current lifestyle and still support themselves- that can't be said of 'the average single mum on income support'....... Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is?

Nit - I have already posted that I stand corrected on this matter - but you obviously couldn't resist pointing out my mistake.

until you can give us proof that the royal family generate money through tourism

Really

Ok- I concede- the royal family don't generate a single penny for this country whereas everyone who chooses to extend their family whilst relying on benefits is far more beneficial to the economy.

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is?

Nope- why is it ridiculous?

YAprobNBU.

But still, I'm delighted for the parasites.

[conflicted]

No, dapple I just didn't see the post where you said you were mistaken! honestly. My bad: I wasn't trying to be unpleasant.

Thank you nit.

bear..... carry on with your "benefit bashing".... even though thousands are on benefits not through their own fault but because of government cut backs and bad policies, your forelock tugging sycophantic love of the royal family is very endearing.

I'm not 'benefit bashing' I'm saying you can't make up the rules to suit the situation and saying the royal family are scroungers is pathetic.

Bear behind - that was a polite reply to a very spiteful post from Maisy.

Thanks dapple I just find this level of spite towards a pregnant woman, on a parenting forum, deeply ironic and, quite frankly, disgusting.

I don't think it is spite to Kate Middleton. I think she's bland and inoffensive and not actively a great role model, but then so are lots of women.

Royalists do seem to get very angry about people not agreeing with a monarchy!

So Maisy, would you do it?

and just to correct a technicality - you won't be paying more. The Royal Grant is fixed - it won't go up if you add a dependent.

And Maisy - you could say the Royals are there 'not through their own fault', but because of the life they were born into. And with the exception of the grant given to the Queen, they DO support themselves. Read above - Duchy of Cornwall. Makes enough money to provide a good living for Charles and his wider family, as well as pay tax - you know - to HMRC, which is no doubt spent on others. Of course, he's lucky to have it, as is every single person in this country who has an inheritance.

We are all dealt different hands, and we live our lives differently. Nomatter what the material benefits, I wouldn't want to be a 'Royal', I rather like having some space of my own.

And visa versa Nit!!!

I'm not a Royalist, I just see them as a family who make a massive contribution to the UK economy (albeit they cost quite a bit too)

There are plenty of families who are net 'takers' from the economy, I don't believe the royal family are- what's wrong with that?

Maisy doesn't have to do it! None of us do! I wouldn't do it because I actually think having a monarchy is a bit immoral.

And no I am not bitter. I am opposed. The two things are quite different.

I think it's very difficult to decide whether they're net 'takers' because there are too many imponderables. Royalists would argue that our tourism revenue would be much lower without them than republicans would, for example.

Well no, sorry - it's difficult to agree on whether they're net takers. I would certainly say that they are.