Royal Baby soon to put in an appearance

Freefaller · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:16

Combat squirrel said:
Don't get people who say there should not be a monarchy.

Its FACT they bring in tons of money to the uk financially, a lot more than they cost.

Its FACT they benefit the uk in other ways, the queen is a symbol of wisdom and patience to the world.

Factually they benefit us all, so why would anyone want rid of them?

Irrespective of those FACTS, I don't recognise the position, and I'm a firm republican in opinion. I am not her subject, and don't accept that someone is born "royal" at all. I just don't recognise it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll stand for the national anthem, I'd be respectful to them if I met them (it's called being a good human being) - however, I do not see her or the royal family as anything more than just an antiquated idea, which is "quaint".

MrMoonX · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:18

Combat squirrel said:
Don't get people who say there should not be a monarchy.

Its FACT they bring in tons of money to the uk financially, a lot more than they cost.

Its FACT they benefit the uk in other ways, the queen is a symbol of wisdom and patience to the world.

Factually they benefit us all, so why would anyone want rid of them?

None of that us fact, the tourists would still come with or without a monarchy, other than that if you include security costs they actually cost us more than they bring in!

No one outside of the commonwealth cares about what the queen says, she has no real authority anyway

Firestar_3x · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:19

MrMoonX said:
None of that us fact, the tourists would still come with or without a monarchy, other than that if you include security costs they actually cost us more than they bring in!

No one outside of the commonwealth cares about what the queen says, she has no real authority anyway

The Americans lap up the Royals, without them i doubt half as many would visit the UK.

elmarko · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:20

Freefaller said:
Irrespective of those FACTS, I don't recognise the position, and I'm a firm republican in opinion. I am not her subject, and don't accept that someone is born "royal" at all. I just don't recognise it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll stand for the national anthem, I'd be respectful to them if I met them (it's called being a good human being) - however, I do not see her or the royal family as anything more than just an antiquated idea, which is "quaint".

I completely agree.

I don't recognise the concept.

PapaLazaru · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:22

TurnipHead said:
Miserable people here. I hope no one gives a flying chuff when your own babies are born.

I doubt many of the moaners are likely to ever be in a position to consider reproducing in the first place.

MowyTone · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:23

I want to know whats happening. BRB guys I'm just going to call the hospital and pretend to be Prince Phillip

joey1211 · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:25

If he/she turns out to be a balding, jug-eared ginger racist. this is probably why...

Yas786 · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:25

Freefaller said:
Irrespective of those FACTS, I don't recognise the position, and I'm a firm republican in opinion. I am not her subject, and don't accept that someone is born "royal" at all. I just don't recognise it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll stand for the national anthem, I'd be respectful to them if I met them (it's called being a good human being) - however, I do not see her or the royal family as anything more than just an antiquated idea, which is "quaint".

+1 couldnt have said it any better FF

Meh i dont really care but good luck to her, unless shes already popped it out then congrats.

Freefaller · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:27

PapaLazaru said:
I doubt many of the moaners are likely to ever be in a position to consider reproducing in the first place.

I'm no more interested in this than any other celebrity that was able to reproduce.

I'm far more interested in the forum members here who post "about to be a dad!", and more often than not will wish people well on their new adventure/addition to their family.

Scougar · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:28

Welcome to GD where a story about a royal baby turns into a "Monarcy VS" argument. lol.

She's having a baby, I wish her a safe delivery and the strength to be a good mother.

elmarko · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:29

Scougar said:
Welcome to GD where a story about a royal baby turns into a "Monarcy VS" argument. lol.

She's having a baby, I wish her a safe delivery and the strength to be a good mother.

I wonder why..... :rolleyes:

FreeStream · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:30

MrMoonX said:
None of that us fact, the tourists would still come with or without a monarchy, other than that if you include security costs they actually cost us more than they bring in!

No one outside of the commonwealth cares about what the queen says, she has no real authority anyway

What utter rubbish.

Your telling me that Windsor Castle would have even half as many visitors if it were some unoccupied castle?

The amount of uninformed short sightedness in this thread is unbelievable.

deuse · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:30

Freefaller said:
Irrespective of those FACTS, I don't recognise the position, and I'm a firm republican in opinion. I am not her subject, and don't accept that someone is born "royal" at all. I just don't recognise it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll stand for the national anthem, I'd be respectful to them if I met them (it's called being a good human being) - however, I do not see her or the royal family as anything more than just an antiquated idea, which is "quaint".

So you will would agree to giving them back their £150+ Million a year?

I wonder what last name they will give the baby? they do have 3 to chose from.

Freefaller · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:35

Who's 150m? It's not theirs, it the people's / the country's money.

As for tourists - France and other countries who have castles and old history are still surged with tourism - it's not because of a royal family.

I'm not denying they do bring some tourists to the yard, but their milkshake ain't all that.

KIA · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:36

bam0 said:
Honestly, I couldn't care less.

Stop giving money to the royal family.

deuse · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:41

Freefaller said:
Who's 150m? It's not theirs, it the people's / the country's money.

As for tourists - France and other countries who have castles and old history are still surged with tourism - it's not because of a royal family.

I'm not denying they do bring some tourists to the yard, but their milkshake ain't all that.

Oh dear. Who cares about the French?
Q. How many Frenchmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A. One, because he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him

MooMoo444 · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:45

deuse said:
Q. How many Frenchmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A. One, because he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him

McBain · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:48

Apparently the whole country is 'excited for them'

Cheers Dave.

TurnipHead said:
Miserable people here. I hope no one gives a flying chuff when your own babies are born.

Why would it remotely bother me if a bunch of people I don't know, or don't even care about give a chuff if/when I have children? :confused:

Schlong&Stable · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:49

manic111 said:
That the statement "most of the worlds most stable and successful nations have a monarchy" is not true.

Well obviously it depends upon what measure you use. I used Human Development and you used Gross GDP. But tell me this, where would you rather live if your income was GDP Per capita of that nation: Sweden, or China? If the former, you tend to suggest your own measure (Gross GDP) is a poor one when measuring a nation success.

GDP favours bigger nations, which is why China, Brazil and India are all experiencing an explosion in GDP without much of an improvement in quality of life.

V F · 22 Jul 2013 at 13:51

It was amusing watching, Kay Burley and Sarah Hewson not that long ago. Sometimes they nearly look like they are going to scream their heads off.