Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To not want to pay for another scrounger?

500 replies

weatherall · 08/09/2014 10:38

Poor Kate's with child again.

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

OP posts:
NoWayYesWay · 09/09/2014 09:23

They DO have lots of breaks. NONE Daily Maily linky. They have just had a month off.

Do you Royalists really believe they don't have lots of holidays? Confused

Btw I respect and am grateful to anyone in the armed forces

IsThisOneTaken · 09/09/2014 09:27

It's a well known fact that Harry was never allowed to be in any danger in Afganistan. He was pulled back at the first sign of trouble. Him being there often made his troop more of a target. There is no insult to Harry, the insult is to all the brave service men and women who didn't get special treatment and weren't whisked away when it was thought their lives were in danger. To even suggest that at any time Harry's life was in any real danger in Afganistan is laughable. It just wouldn't happen.

My husband was in Bastion at the same time as Harry. DH seems to think he's well liked, well respected, good at his job....and that, although he had a team of guards looking out for him, no one is immune from danger on operations. He also didn't think he was put in more danger as a result if Harry being there.

If that opinion is good enough for DH (a highly experienced soldier) it's good enough for me. Seizing as... Y'know he was actually there an' all.

Oh and by the way. I don't understand why people bitch about wills and Harry 'taking jobs' from other people in nor breath, then bemoan the fact they have a team of people employed to look out for them in the next. Contradictory much?

F0ssil · 09/09/2014 09:29

I thought they more than paid for themselves in what they generated in tourism. The Japanese love them, The Americans love them. They're part of the brand. People don't travel half way across the world to go to a country that 's run in the same way as their own.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:30

So the Independent link refers to the fact that they had August off - lucky devils - following the European August shutdown presumably! I can't speak for others NoWay, but they do have some great holidays, and as I said upthread, I don't always think the timing/destination is well judged.

I am a Royalist - I know they're not perfect! Grin

Conjecture alert! I wonder - in view of the pregnancy - if it was to give Kate some privacy in the early stages?

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:32

I won't change my opinion about the royal princes and the armed forces. There are lots of reasons for this but anyone that says that William and Harry did not get more leave than anyone else(and I don't mean for royal duties) is living in cloud cuckoo land and I really can't take them seriously.

IsThisOneTaken · 09/09/2014 09:39

I won't change my opinion about the royal princes and the armed forces. There are lots of reasons for this but anyone that says that William and Harry did not get more leave than anyone else(and I don't mean for royal duties) is living in cloud cuckoo land and I really can't take them seriously.

They probably do. But no one I know who is in the Forces (and that's A LOT of people) gives a shiny shit. Why should you, therefore? (And before you say 'because I pay for them', so does my DH and so do his colleagues)

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:41

Facts - Maisy - give me facts and I'll apologise and believe you.

I don't want to change your opinion - but it's your opinion as mine's mine - and neither of is is right or wrong - but let's at least make sure that are arguments are factual rather than from cloud cuckoo land!

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:42

fossil People come to the UK for lots of reasons, it's rich heritage, it's fascinating history, we happen to have a royal family....but if there wasn't they would still come...as they do to France, who used to have a royal family. In fact the number 1 tourist spot in Britain is Legoland believe it or not. The royal family do interest a lot of people past and present. Castles and palaces would still get visited because of their history not because of who is living there now.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:44

isthisonetaken. have you done a survey on the subject, because I too have family in the military and it seems quite a lot would disagree.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:45

ajand.......let's just agree to disagree.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:46

I think we have Smile

IsThisOneTaken · 09/09/2014 09:50

A survey Maisy? Obviously not. Held discussions on this topic (and many others over the years) with people from all three services, across a lot of different units and corps and of varying ranks, both Officers and ORs? Yes.

So you know people who disagree? Fine. Everyone is free to think differently.

The difference is, not everyone then goes around discussing those differences and trying to present them as fact which then can't be backed up when called upon to do so.

Missunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:24

So.....
Kate has never had a defined job - she's lazy and is not a good role model for the 21st century woman.

Wills and Harry have jobs - they are taking jobs that they don't need from ordinary people who need jobs.

Christ on a bike, they can't please some people regardless of what they do.

F0ssil · 09/09/2014 10:25

Who cares if she's lazy though? what do you expect her to do?

Surely it's economics. If tourists like the royal family, kerching, thank you ma'am.

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:27

I'm wondering this bothers some people SO much

Don't you have a life you miserable gits

And how bitter and nasty you sound

How can you get so excited about people you don't know

You cost me as the taxpayer more than they cost me and I'm not moaning

Gah Smile

Missunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:27

I don't care if she is lazy (I actually don't think she is). I was just referring to the contradictory nature of some of those posters who are so anti wills and kate.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:36

I don't see anyone considering then to be super beings.

sure they do. They are better than us. They have rights that none of us have. They are super beings.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:37

Are we really to believe they were eased into these jobs because of who they are.

She (queen) was eased into the position of head of state.

NoWayYesWay · 09/09/2014 10:39

I think most of the 'anti' posters are anti Royalty not anti Wills 'n Kate. I don't know them so I can't comment on them personally.

I find it odd that people worship them so much. They are just people that happen to have been born into a royal family. There is nothing special about them.

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:41

There's nothing to worship either

But if you don't understand the value or richness of our heritage as a nation then I think you are all the poorer for it

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 10:42

Great position she's got - can't even retire at 88!! I think there's a little more to it written.

What rights do they have that we don't?

They're not better than us, but they're certainly different to us. But then, I'm probably different to you! Grin

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:43

Ajand Could you give me the source for your 'well known fact' please Maisy?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204907/Prince-Harry-moved-guarded-location-Taliban-raid-Afghanistan-base-Camp-Bastion.html

Apparently

Harry, 28, protected by 'additional security arrangements' after attack on desert base where he is serving as Apache attack helicopter gunner

Prince 'could be a target... specifically as a result of who he is', says Defence Secretary after saying he was never in danger during assault.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 10:45

My God - MN really has sunk to the lowest level yet, if we're using the DM as a source!!!!

Truly written - that almost proves the opposite!

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:47

Great position she's got - can't even retire at 88!! I think there's a little more to it written.

she can abdicate and can do so at any time.

What rights do they have that we don't?

access to huge amounts of tax payer money, right to head of state. All obvious things, I shouldn't need to state them.

But if you don't understand the value or richness of our heritage as a nation then I think you are all the poorer for it

no one is disputing it's part of the heritage. Slavery was part of the british heritage too. We are disputing it's value, it's morals, and it's use in a modern democratic society.

Missunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:49

I find it odd that people worship them so much.

I certainly don't worship them. I couldn't care less about the royal family but I do care about unborn babies being called scroungers.