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?

"are you seriously happy to have to curtsey to someone purely because of an accident of birth?"

You don't need to curtsy to anyone in the Royal Family.

www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/GreetingamemberofTheRoyalFamily/Overview.aspx

But don't let the facts get in the way of a rant, eh?!

NoWay you don't dislike the Royal Family as individuals yet support the OP describing a yet to be born one of them as a 'scrounger'?

It's nice news whether you are a royalist or not. Completely different debate whether this country should be a Republic. My view and I admit I am foreign. Weirdly enough the rest of the world is obsessed with the British Royal family too. Hope she can enjoy the pregnancy a bit more.

Why do people confuse objecting to a baby being spoken about in such a derogatory manner with "fawning" and "going drippy"? It's boring and predictable.

thinking about it: maybe it is the same debate?

What a singularly unpleasant post, Weatherall. Spiteful, unoriginal and small-minded.

Not nearly as boring as the 100s of threads that will spring up on MN congratulating someone you don't know.

Goblin as weatherall is noticeable by her absence I suspect this was a 'light the blue touch paper and stand well back' thread.

Yeah, I suppose you're right, Walk.

What we need is more threads of spite and bile. That should appeal to the sour-faced folk MN.

Shatkins

Actually, when you think about it you'd think we'd all be up for a spot of baby bashing, because let's face it, they are a bunch of, admittedly cute, wailing, self confidence sapping, body wrecking, sleep depriving torturous bastards who come into the world yelling at us for bringing them here.

ALL babies are actually total bastards regardless of their social status.

And scroungers.

And they don't fly helicopters or behave decorously during public engagements.

There are lots of reasons for disapproving of the whole concept of 'a royal family' ......why therefore do people always jump to the oh so boring and predictable 'it's envy". I don't approve of having a royal family, I also don't approve of David Cameron.....am I also envious of him?. There is no need for name calling just because some people don't have the same views as you.

It's clearly a controversial way to frame the OP... but what always staggers me is that when it comes to the royals, the cost-argument is always presented in terms of the pennies they cost each individual household.

I think it's incredible we can raise this much money, just from an inconsequential amount from all the households in the UK. And it's even more incredible that we've chosen to use that impressive revenue to make a rich family richer! And when it comes to benefits, the argument is never presented in terms of how many pennies they cost each house - it's always either the billions spent by govt, or the thousands received by the families in question. I think it's perverse to shift the discussion like this, frankly.

If we all gave ten p or something, think of all the amazing things we could do with it, that would be better than the royal family! I'm sure most of them are perfectly pleasant individuals, and yes, tourists do come to gawp at the castles in which we've decided to install them - but that's hardly down to any very hard work by the royals, is it? If they are so 'independently wealthy' (and I suppose that means that Diana was really being careful to put aside some of her wages as a nursery nurse in the early 80s, to organise such a lovely lot of inheritance for the boys? or do we just mean they're 'independently wealthy' from a lot of money they were given by tax payers a bit longer ago?), then do they really need all that independent wealth topped up quite so generously and so frequently?

Here's an idea. Stick all the cooing over the new royal baby in the royalty topic.

Then people who don't give a shit can hide the whole topic.

For the record, only the Queen receives an allowance for her duties.

William, Harry, Kate and George are supported by Charles, who makes a good return from the Duchy of Cornwall estates - on which he pays tax.

But your clearly giving a massive huge shit about it. Huuuuuuuge

walk. I don't know anyone on here. That doesn't stop me wishing them well if they mention they are pregnant. But fwiw, I would have even commented on it at all if the Op hadn't started such a nastily worded thread.

Ah yes, the Duchy estates. Remind me how he came by them again?

And calling people bitter, jealous and sour faced because they are not knitting bootees for the special royal baby is laughable.

We don't pay for babies of parents on benefits, either. They are provided for quite independently, by money their parents make from the benefits they quite legally claim. So it's very distasteful when people argue that such babies shouldn't be born or supported.

aj don't waste your words. The anti royalists won't let little things like facts get in the way of their tirades.

Some utterly vile things said upthread, personal attacks aren't allowed on this forum and if the Cambridges are members (and who knows, one or both might be?) they'd have every right to be extremely upset. A mother having a bad pregnancy has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of her husband's job and the position in society he was born into.

Is calling someone bitter, jealous and sour faced a PA?

Only if you're a total wuss.

www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/prince-william-is-to-become-an-air-ambulance-pilot-will-donate-salary-to-charity-30490972.html

He will be donating his salary from next year, he doesn't actually donate it now, presumably because he isn't actually in paid employment at the moment.

Please don't lump the rest of us in with some of the posts on this thread.

I'm anti royalist, but I'm neither ranting nor viciously attacking a young pregnant couple.