Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To call it that Kate Cambridge is preggo...

301 replies

Tallgreenbottle · 14/07/2019 19:20

AIBU to call it that the future Queen Katherine is pregnant again!

The tiny bump at the women's Wimbledon final. The looser fit below the waist dress today at the men's. Her face is glowing and slightly fuller. I bet 6/7wks 👌

I've called it every time so I soooooo want to be right this time too, just because 😂

OP posts:
WildAngel · 15/07/2019 10:15

i just thought she had an "outie" belly button!!!

marvellousnightforamooncup · 15/07/2019 10:19

"Bit greedy if so. I reckon only the first ten in line to the throne should be taxpayer funded at any given time."

Or maybe a two child limit to funding like us plebs on benefits.

Itssosunny · 15/07/2019 10:22

If W and K wants to have more kids to push H even further then it's a bit foolish. H is already too far in the line. Also there is still Prince Charles.

WhenOneFacePalmDoesntCutIt · 15/07/2019 10:32

Having 4 kids is overpopulating the planet.
If they follow your example, you’ll have 16 grandchildren.

and some people will have none, so it all balances out.

next someone will pipe up that we need to stop IVF because of the risk of multiple births Hmm. The one child policy in China didn't work out so well, did it.

KnittingForMittens · 15/07/2019 10:34

It's a pouch from having 3 children.

ItIsWhatItIsInnit · 15/07/2019 10:35

and some people will have none, so it all balances out.

Well it's clearly not balancing out, because the population is only going up and up scarily fast.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 15/07/2019 10:39

Well, if half of the families had four children then the other half need to have none so it balances out. That’s clearly not the case and it’s selfish to assume you are the one who needs to have their genes represented more widely in the pool.

CitadelsofScience · 15/07/2019 10:44

FacePalm and some people will have none, so it all balances out

You seem to be quite short sighted. We are also living longer so the burden on the nhs is becoming greater.

So for it to even out we either need to not reproduce as much OR people have to be euthanised at, shall we say, 65?

Dandelion1993 · 15/07/2019 10:44

I went through two HG pregnancies and OMG it was horrific. She did three! I highly doubt anyone would want to go through thay four times.

CitadelsofScience · 15/07/2019 10:45

Actually no, I'll be generous. Let's say 67 and then we have no need for paying state pensions?

Tallgreenbottle · 15/07/2019 10:47

In the UK it is not @ItIsWhatItIsInnit we are having a massive lull outside of immigration. It is going to span decades and mean our economy and everything else will suffer. Our live birth rates for british nationals are lowering at a scary rate. There is a reason the government cut sexual health funding a few years ago as art of wider cuts, as they spotted the trends. Less sex/unprotected sex = less people = less future economy.

OP posts:
noodlenosefraggle · 15/07/2019 10:48

I'd say if we have to have a Royal family, the only ones doing Royal duties and therefore funded should be the monarch, first in line and their minor children. The rest are private citizens and should make their own way. There won't be the work for them in the future. Who will care if a 40 year old Prince louis opens the local hospital?

Enclume · 15/07/2019 10:50

Given the cutesy monikers for the royals that some Mumsnetters are so inexplicably fond of, it's a shame that it is Catherine and not William who is prone to hyperemesis in pregnancy.

He could be the Pukey Dukey.

ItIsWhatItIsInnit · 15/07/2019 10:52

It is going to span decades and mean our economy and everything else will suffer

In the short term yes, but in the long term if the world population remains as it is, food/resources/oil will run out, climate will change, animals will go extinct and there will be litter and waste everywhere. Then we'll have much bigger problems than a lull in the economy.

noodlenosefraggle · 15/07/2019 10:53

Those children will be older people though, living longer and needing more care. More and more work is being automated. We don't need so many people to fuel the economy and God knows what their lives will be like when we hit 11 billion people globally anyway with the amount of rubbish we produce already!

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 15/07/2019 10:55

british nationals are lowering at a scary rate. There is a reason the government cut sexual health funding a few years ago as art of wider cuts, as they spotted the trends. Less sex/unprotected sex = less people = less future economy.

So cutting the funding is a conspiracy to get people to have more children?

Stillstrawberrywater · 15/07/2019 10:57

Oooh I've not heard this one doing the rounds yet. I hope its another girl. Princess Charlotte already has that royal look down to a tee.

zonkin · 15/07/2019 11:36

The NHS in 20 years will not be the same as it is today. The funding model has to change for it to continue.

Equally, I can't really see state pensions being around in 40 years.

Funding for schooling has been reduced. Where do we see education going?

So those having lots of children (and I have 4) won't be a drain on taxpayers money as really, there won't be much social funding. Unless taxes are massively increased, which I can't see happening.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 15/07/2019 11:40

It’s not about being a drain on public funding, it’s about putting pressure on the environment and using up non renewable resources.

zonkin · 15/07/2019 11:50

I was responding to those that have mentioned the taxpayers costs.

I think the environment is under pressure from lots of factors. Some families having more than 2 children isn't going to massively effect it.

Stop driving, flying, using chemicals, fertilisers, plastics etc. Only eat produce that is seasonally grown in your home country, and so on. That needs to be addressed globally.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 15/07/2019 11:55

well, aren’t your children going to be flying, driving and so on.

You want people to stop doing the same things your many children will be doing.

Surely you can see how selfish and irresponsible that it?

zonkin · 15/07/2019 12:02

Yes they will be doing those things. To be fair as we live in London we mostly cycle or use public transport. We even have solar panels.

But we do fly abroad and eat vegetables that have been flown in from abroad. Sometimes we buy flowers to cheer up the house. Most flowers are imported. Unless at least a third of the global population unite in doing those things, then it's a lost battle.

Will you be flying? Do you drive? Do you only eat seasonal produce? Then aren't you also selfish and irresponsible? Do you have children? Do they use the NHS, schools etc?

zonkin · 15/07/2019 12:04

I meant to say, unless the global population unite in NOT doing those things.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 15/07/2019 12:07

Getting defensive? That’s ok. It means you are aware how damaging your attitude is.

zonkin · 15/07/2019 12:11

I'm not defensive. I chose to have 4 children.

I notice you haven't answered my questions.