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:
writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:49

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

that's how low the royals make me go.

but perhaps you'll like this better. The vaunted beeb for you.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631596

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:50

Values and morals all seem fine to me

It's not been a lot of use for a long time but then neither has a lot of things, doesn't mean we should get rid!!

emotionsecho · 09/09/2014 10:51

eased into her role as Head of State on the sudden death of her father when she was 21.

EarthWindFire · 09/09/2014 10:52

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

Who has said they are super beings?

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.

So do I and quite a lot don't so what?

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 10:53

an the sudden death of her father when she was 21.

when my father dies I won't be made head of state.

they have more rights than we do.

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 10:57

Oh are you jealous, is that it?

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 11:00

That is such waffle written.

She made a promise to serve for all of her life - and believes in keeping her promises. Do you really think that a woman of 88, who is independently wealthy, would not choose to retire if she felt it was an option for her morally?

She does not have rights to huge amounts of tax payer's money, she has a pre-agreed allowance. She IS the Head of State - that isn't a right.

Let's dispute based on facts.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 11:00

@iamusuallybeingunreasonable

do try to contain yourself and your baseless insults.

iamusuallybeingunreasonable · 09/09/2014 11:01

Yes you too

As your insults are also baseless

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 11:02

What rights?

Nameexchange · 09/09/2014 11:06

"actually, the good man charles isn't obligated to pay tax on the duchy, but he does so voluntarily. "

Point of order: he chooses to pay at only the basic rate (ie 20% rather than 45%) so he pays under half. Not that impressive.

Happy about the baby though :-)

emotionsecho · 09/09/2014 11:06

A democratically elected President also has more rights than you do, and more access to money, travel, etc, etc. Democratically elected Prime Ministers have more acces to a wealthier more priveleged llifestyle than you even when no longer in office, Tony Blair is an extreme example but not one of them has left office and not been handed jobs and opportunities denied to people like you.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 11:07

She made a promise to serve for all of her life - and believes in keeping her promises.

then you certainly can't say "poor Queen. she has to work at 88."

The option is hers. I wouldn't think anything less of her if she did at 88.

She IS the Head of State - that isn't a right.

what is it then? Can you be head of state? Can I? Are you claiming she doesn't have a special right to that position? WOW.

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 11:08

As your insults are also baseless

quote any insult I have directed at you or anyone else here.

mammuzzamia · 09/09/2014 11:09

I disagree most strongly about that Daily Fail comment! Dail Fail is the reading matter of the royalist forelock tuggers, not the republican

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 11:11

A democratically elected President also has more rights than you do

a democratically elected President has more privileges than me, but he/she doesn't have a right to the position itself. I am not saying the Queen as head of state shouldn't have the extra rights and privileges granted to that office, I am saying she shouldn't have a right to the position in the first place.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 11:38

I think it's a generational thing written - my DM (who is also 88) would see it as her duty, having made that promise, in accordance with our constitution. Younger people would perhaps be more inclined to let it go. And to be fair....you couldn't think anything less of her anyway! Grin

Head of State is a position she was given as her inheritance, which comes with certain rights. It gives her the right to rule, but as we know, she rules in accordance with what she is told to do by the Govt. of the day. I suppose it gives her the right to live in Buckingham Palace and Windsor, but as she owns Sandringham and Balmoral, she may prefer to live there anyway!

She doesn't have the right to vote, unlike the rest of us, as she has to be neutral.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 12:02

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 isn't that what you've just done though isthisonetaken......how is it that your statements are fact and not mine??

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 12:18

If anybody cares to read the ops opening thread they would see that nowhere has she said that the baby is a scrounger. She was talking about the parents.But as usual with any posts about the royals words will get distorted so they(the royalists) can get into a good old argument.

Missunreasonable · 09/09/2014 12:22

The title of the thread is "AIBU to not want to pay for another scrounger". The word 'another' means an additional person. We are already paying for the existing royals so if the OP isn't calling the unborn baby a scrounger then who exactly is she referring to?

writtenguarantee · 09/09/2014 12:23

The OP was calling the whole family scroungers.

emotionsecho · 09/09/2014 12:29

'Another scrounger' and 'sprog' indicates to me quite clearly that the OP was referring to the unborn child.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 12:41

Maisy
We're supposed to all be friends now!
So stop making statements like as usual with any posts about the royals words will get distorted so they(the royalists) can get into a good old argument.
The OP clearly states they 'don't want to pay for another scrounger', referring to the baby. You can't say something incorrect, and expect no-one to correct you, or if they do, suggest that their view is distorted so that they can argue with you.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 12:45

ajand.....I have to stop taking you serious if you choose to ignore basic facts. The daily mail was not the only paper to print the story about Harry being pulled out of Afghanistan. It was also on all the major news channels. It's rather child like to not concede to certain facts when they are staring you in the face.

Swipe left for the next trending thread