Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

to not care about the royal baby?

157 replies

carlajean · 03/05/2015 16:33

Apologies if there's already a thread on this (I can't find one) but why do people care about this? My facebook page is full of people thinking it's great news and I just don't get it. Just another royal parasite in my view.

OP posts:

harshbuttrue1980 · 03/05/2015 19:00

All babies are a cause for celebration, but none more than any other. I really don't understand the royal way of bringing up children though - the fact that Kate only does a few royal duties a month and still has a full-time nanny, went on holiday without George when he was only a few months old, and also why she cares about her hair and makeup when she has just given birth and should be bonding with her baby. She seems like a cold fish sort of mother to me, but I suppose she's trying to do it the aristocratic way, and they are always a bit distant from their children.

SouthWestmom · 03/05/2015 19:07

I am very much in favour of the monarchy rather than a president. I don't really care that a handful of people I will never interact with have a lot of privacy and wealth behind closed doors in return for smiling and waving. I like that I don't have to worry that they want to invade another country.
And as for the stupid 'parasite' comment, try saying that on one of the zillions of threads where someone is asking if they should have another baby despite having no income and no partner.

Bursarymum · 03/05/2015 19:08

YANBU. It's a lovely baby but no lovelier than any other.

MysticMugBug · 03/05/2015 19:10

Yabu.
I'd coo over any baby, they are so gorgeous, esp ones with wilful personalities!
The Royal family bring in more money for the country than what they take from tax payers.... think of all the tourism, charity events and such.
George and his new sister are so beautiful.

MysticMugBug · 03/05/2015 19:11

Agreed, Orlando

PurpleDaisies · 03/05/2015 19:11

Harsh but true you ask why she cares about her hair and makeup when she has just given birth and should be bonding with her baby. Can you honestly say that if you knew a picture of you was going to be on the cover of practically every newspaper in the UK and many millions of people would see it you wouldn't care about how you looked?

OrlandoWoolf · 03/05/2015 19:12

and also why she cares about her hair and makeup when she has just given birth and should be bonding with her baby

Even I can get that. Image. They need the image and the pictures as she sells papers, keeps the press happy and generates positive PR.

People don't want to see the real person. They want the dream.

Bursarymum · 03/05/2015 19:12

Yes but we still have a government who can support illegal wars Noeuf :(

OrlandoWoolf · 03/05/2015 19:13

The Royal family bring in more money for the country than what they take from tax payers.... think of all the tourism, charity events and such

A gilded cage. The Truman show.

Bursarymum · 03/05/2015 19:14

It's a myth that they generate more money than they cost.

Wishful80smontage · 03/05/2015 19:16

Parasite?! Its a newborn baby come on- bad taste OP day after the child's birth

Roussette · 03/05/2015 19:49

Gosh. Parasite. Royal family is offensive etc. There's some pretty horrible posts on here. As for the Queen not doing an honest day's work, goodness, how wrong is that, she is 86 and just carries on.

Like it or not, the Monarchy provides stability and certainty. Besides which, in the USA the Presidential Family gets treated like Royalty anyway... would we have liked President Blair and First Lady Cherie and President Cameron or maybe from next Thursday President Milliband? I certainly wouldn't!

The Royal family have been born and bred to serve and represent the people, they know their civil duty. It's about stability, heritage and continuity I think.

It is a fact that more civil wars have occurred in Republics than countries with monarchies. Party politics is seperated from the position of the Head of State and the monarchy has the ability to have a longer term view, as opposed to a politician with their eye on the next election. If I was on active duty in the Armed Forces, I would be swearing allegiance to Queen and Country. I wouldn't want to be swearing loyalty to a President whose political party I didn't support.

The country would be a far poorer place without the Royal Family IMO. I think Kate and William and the LO's are absolutely lovely, good luck to them.

nokidshere · 03/05/2015 19:52

Poor baby! Not yet a day old and already being called a parasite - its not her fault she has been born to HRH.

And most of the women leaving hospital when I was having my sons made sure they did hair and make up before they left - some of them put their make up on and tidied their hair as they were going into labour. This notion of everyone looking and feeling crap is rubbish. Some do and some don't , like everything else in life.

PiggyMummy · 03/05/2015 19:53

YANBU to not be interested.

YABU to start a thread about it. What purpose does it serve other than to be nasty?

ilovesooty · 03/05/2015 19:57

They have monarchies in other countries without making the sort of fuss made in this country.
She's a baby. Nice that she was born safe and well of course but she isn't really of any importance to the country and its well being.
The outcone of the general election and the country's political stability matters a lot more and is in my opinion more interesting.

PurpleDaisies · 03/05/2015 20:00

The Royal family have been born and bred to serve and represent the people

Surely that statement belongs with prize racehorses not people.

Alexandpea · 03/05/2015 20:31

They are not magic. We should live in a world without fairytale princesses and princes who we adore and kow tow to. That fairytale world belongs to the past.
In your view Orlando, not mine.

Would you ban fairy tales too, anything that brings joy to people's lives? What a grey bitter old world you would condemn us to, where you object to a moment's happiness for a dying child.

PurpleDaisies · 03/05/2015 20:33

It is a fact that more civil wars have occurred in Republics than countries with monarchies.
There are more countries that are republics than monarchies so this is hardly surprising.

Party politics is separated from the position of the Head of State and the monarchy has the ability to have a longer term view, as opposed to a politician with their eye on the next election.
The current queen seems sensible but if we had a nutter next (not thinking of anyone in particular) why on earth would we want them influencing the actions of parliament? If they have no influence, as monarchists often say, how is having their long term input important?

If I was on active duty in the Armed Forces, I would be swearing allegiance to Queen and Country. I wouldn't want to be swearing loyalty to a President whose political party I didn't support.
But in this context allegiance to the country is the only thing that matters - the queen has no role in directing the activities of the army. The army is there to defend all citizens of the UK whether they are deemed important by the media or not.

ilovesooty · 03/05/2015 20:36

I agree with what Orlando is saying. The whole notion of fairytale princesses is "us and them" and it really grates against my views on equality.
It doesn't mean that if you hold those views you have no feeling for dying children.

NotYouNaanBread · 03/05/2015 20:38

It's odd that the only people who have addressed the alternative of having a President (and as a negative), have only used the US as an example. This is fair enough, as the US system is utterly corrupt, but much closer to home there is the President of Ireland, also a largely ceremonial role, with certain constitutional functions and we currently have a wonderful, thoughtful and fierce man in the role, who is a credit to us all.

His salary is €250k a year, for a 7 year term, and there are strict limits on election spending (€750k) and on political donations (€2.5k in any given year - not a typo). One recent Irish president went on to become United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Another returned half a million euros of her allowance during her presidency, as she didn't need it.

My point is that a president can be an affordable and honourable alternative to a monarch. I imagine that a President of Great Britain would be more in the Irish style than the American, and I am sure that there would be many wonderful candidates for the role.

ilovesooty · 03/05/2015 20:39

And far better value for money NotYou

AliceLidl · 03/05/2015 20:40

I love that you cared enough about not caring to search for a thread about not caring and then start one when you couldn't find one.

Some people are interested, some people aren't. I don't think it's unreasonable either way.

It makes no difference either way I suppose, whether people care or not, but I don't like all the name calling about a new baby. I remember when they had George, there was a MNer wishing him dead for being a parasite, and that was just awful. A baby born safely is always good news.

OrlandoWoolf · 03/05/2015 20:44

Would you ban fairy tales too, anything that brings joy to people's lives

Do you need a princess to bring joy to your life?

Should children grow up thinking they can marry a rich prince, have a fairytale wedding and be a beautiful princess all can admire? A Disney Princess.

Many countries seem to cope without princesses. In fact, can you think of any other princess in the world at the moment? For some reason, we have a celebrity style Royal family which the media the world over fawn over - especially the USA.

There are plenty of celebrities who bring joy into dying children's lives. People who've achieved something. Footballers, actors, pop stars.

If our Head of State and her family are reduced to the status of celebrity (which they are) - and are just famous for being Royal,then I think we don't have the role of Head of State down well.

A Head of State should represent the country. They should not be treated as celebrities whose only role is to bring joy into our lives.

chickenfuckingpox · 03/05/2015 20:48

why cant people just be happy a baby has been born safe and well? seriously get a grip

PurpleDaisies · 03/05/2015 20:56

Apart from a few nasty posts chicken pretty much all posters have said they are either happy or not interested in the new baby. My sister whom you have never met has just had a baby. Are you happy? I'm guessing you're not particularly interested because you don't know her (which is a totally appropriate response).

There is a legitimate debate about the role of the monarchy in today's society to be had. This thread seems as good as any to discuss it.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7