Just been announced on the BBC William and Kate are having a baby!
The bad news is that she has really bad morning sickness and has to be admitted to hospital- well that gives us something to look forward to next year-
Yeah lol more of my taxes going to a royal baby who is better off than my family.....jimmy
Oh goody! The continuation of an archaic institution symbolic of murder and oppression, can't wait.
Oh come on, at least William married someone his family weren't at least distantly related to.
Should mean the baby will have a better chance in life with fresh genes.
Not that it'll matter to me in the Independent Republic of Scotland (well, I can dream, can't I?)
Whether they're incestuous or not does not pertain to my general point.
Incestuous can't help though. I mean, faulty genes and all that goes with it.
There may be some basis for belief that 'royal' genes are specifically chosen to produce power-loving people, but it might be a bit extreme for HubPages. Maybe there should be a Twilight Zone thread.
Twilight zone - I can hear the music playing now LOL
A look back on history will show that the British Royal family had a habit of marrying first cousins.
Too close for comfort IMO.
So the current bunch of in-breds can't be expected to have much intelligence.
I don't think Charles was related to Diana, but Charles himself suffered from too much in-breeding.
The Queen must have noticed, else her son would have been on the throne years ago.
Personally, I turn the telly off when they play God Save the Queen, though fortunately this is not a nightly ritual any more since we got all-night TV.
Still, a new baba is nice, no?
Congratulations and best wishes to Will and Kate! I feel for her morning sickness that's for sure.
I had dreadful morning sickness with my first.
It lasted all day. I couldn't keep anything down AND on top of that, I had a full-time job.
No resting time in hospital for me...I worked in one!
I wish her all the best with her pregnancy, but I fear already that the UK news will consist of nothing much else until this baby is born
Thanks for a kind post to Sarra and Izzy- I guess I think the news of any young couple starting a family is good - I mean they have done it right, got married.waited til he was setted in his job...saved up for a house........(ok well not that bit)- It just sets an example to the sort of people we see daily on Jezza who dont know who the daddy is and dont care!
If anyione wants to fuirther their "in bred" theories my alter ego JustHistory wrote a hub on the grandchidren of Queen Victoria which showed their infuence over Europe
I think that it is a bit sad Case1Worker, when you can't even have a simple thread congratulating a young couple on their first baby without it being dragged into conspiracy theories and spite.
They seem to be a lovely young couple and I wish them all the best and please could everyone remember that being born a royal is just part of the great lottery of life - nothing Prince William could do about it. And he works two jobs - one as a rescue helicopter pilot and one as a senior member of the royal family, just as his brother is fighting in Afghanistan.
Yes the royal family cost tax payers money (but a tiny amount per head), but a President or other head of State would probably cost far more and inevitably involve the likes of Tony Blair.
As for inbreeding, the Middletons are no relation of the Windsors, and Diana Spencer was only a very distant relative, so it is a non-issue.
CMHypno- thank you for your kind words- Indeed can you imagine forking taxes out to keep someone like Blair in a style he could become accustomed too? Plus who would work so hard- Most people nearing 90 would be excused from work yet the Queen and Philip battle on and some days it must be a right battle to get on.
When they came to our University the Queen had a little walk- far enough for a lady of her age and then walked up a small flight of steps and that was just for starters- there was a service, lunch at the cathedral and a public greeting- I would have been shattered- I know my mother in law who is of the same age would have been agast if she had been expected to do it. At her age its a gentle stroll and a taxi to the door
Ah yes, another one who, in a passive-aggressive manner, tries to respond to my point without actually responding. "It sure is a shame about some people around here. Ugh!"
If you have an issue about what I'm saying, don't be shy, why don't you respond to my points directly? Is the royal family an archaic institution symbolic of murder and oppression, or not? If not, why not? The number of jobs William has, nor the amount of steps the Queen has to climb is relevant to this point and it's frankly trivial.
Ok I regret to announce that I do not agree with your opinion
Are you going to explain how I'm wrong? You wouldn't want people to be mislead by what I've said would you?
She didn't say that you are wrong. She said (very clearly) that she disagrees with your opinion.
I wouldn't say my opinion if I didn't think it was correct, that would be absurd. And presumably, she believes that what I believe is incorrect, otherwise she wouldn't disagree.
Seriously, what's the point in having a forum if people are going to back away as soon as somebody disagrees?
I don't necessarily think it's backing down. I think it's a matter of wishing to simply change the tone of the forum to match what the OP originally intended it to be. The way I see it is that the OP was intended to be of a congratulatory nature - a young couple is moving toward becoming a family.
I think it was meant to be a positive thing.
Why this family over any other family expecting a child? What is it that makes these people so special?
In open forums you have to expect people to disagree, otherwise, here is not the place for the discussion.
Because these people are well known and familiar to people all over the world. When you place an announcement that your neighbors are expecting a child we'll all congratulate them.
I asked some questions (going off topic) in response to some of the other posts. I didn't intend to jump into a heated discussion about something I don't understand. I think maybe that's why others agreed to disagree - because that wasn't their intention either. I get what you're saying, but why does everything have to turn into an argument?
Because if you believe, like me, that the royal family is an illegitimate and immoral institution, you won't sit idly by whilst people praise them. If it was an irrelevant issue I wouldn't bother, even if people are wrong.
In my opinion...
The Royal Family symbolise patronage and privilege. Do their children ever dream of being a Prince or Princess? No. Because they got to be one by being born.
Can anyone work their way up, study hard, be a decent and moral person and get to be a Royal? No.
The Monarchy and the rest of the hereditary hangers on disgust me.
I didn't vote for them.
In a country where Cameron is cutting child benefit, where single mothers are regular hate figures, where the disabled are losing jobs... to see these people at all makes me sick.
Mark, can I ask a silly question? At least it may sound silly, but keep in mind that I'm a U.S. citizen and the whole monarchy thing is pretty foreign to us.
The image portrayed to us of the monarchy in England is that they are politically impotent. Is that not true? Do the British pay taxes to the monarchy? If so, why? Seems they have more than enough dough to take care of themselves? And, why is the royal family even still royal? Who actually runs the country?
The whole constitutional monarchy thing confuses the hell out of me.
Sorry for jumping in, Motown. The Queen is politically impotent, she is head of state but has no say in political matters. We do pay taxes to the monarchy, yes, beats me as to why. I don't hate the monarchy or wish them any harm, but I do think that they symbolise and perpetuate a class system, and inequalities in society.
I think they're still royal because they do still have overwhelming support and many citizens do not want to live in a republic, for whatever reasons.
As to who runs the country I'm still musing over that one, although I do have my theories.
Hi Motown. The Monarchy is the head of state. A parliament can only be formed with the permission of the Queen. This is largely symbolic but I find it irritating. The army swear allegiance to God, Queen and country or something like that. I think it should be country.
The thing that really annoys me about them is the privilege, the being born to something. They didn't work for it or achieve it, and no child outside the Royals can aspire to it - unless they marry one.
They bestow honours on people, promoting a system that relies on forbearance to the Royals and is, in my opinion, completely anti-democratic.
Politicians are disgusting self-interested reptiles, mostly, but at least we can in theory get rid of them every now and again. With the Royals and the aristocracy we are stuck with them.
One of my 'things' is that I believe all people, ALL, should be equal. It shouldn't matter who your parents are, or what start you get in life - in theory anyone should be able to aspire to anything.
The Royal family stand against that, and I don't agree with it.
Thank you, Mark!
I am disgusted that soon even more of my taxes will be going to this parasitic family.
I think this is great news. I am excited for them to start a new family, fresh new ideas!!! Awesome news!!! thank you Case1Worker!!!
Congratulations to the couple; I hope Kate gets well soon and that they have a healthy child come into the world.
Regarding all the hate; well despite the monarchy and its past; I think William and Kate are human beings first and a baby on the way is a little fine miracle and a blessing. I wish them well.
You know, Hollie, having been raised in a republic (albeit a democratic one), I can understand the aversion to it on some level. I think it's because democracy can be messy. No one can ever agree on what the best course of action is, and ultimately everyone is affected by, and must take responsibility for governmental failure.
A monarchy, at least to my understanding, allows folks to point fingers much more easily. They rule, it fails, and it's not the people's fault. It's incredibly attractive to those who are apathetic and irresponsible. At least that's how I see it. That may not be an accurate perception.
We do usually blame successive Governments for failures and not necessarily the Monarchy. But having said that, the people in this country are not as engaged politically as they are in the US. We have a very low voter turnout overall, and there are a lot of people who point fingers at Governments ( I don't necessarily blame them for that) but if you don't vote, you can't complain. That's the way I see it. I think the people of Scotland and Wales are justified in their criticism of the Monarch, particularly given the history and the fact that many want independence from England, yet are still having to make some contribution to the Royals.
I don't know what the solution given the Royals should be really. I'm not in complete favour of a republic, but I'm not completely in favour of a Monarch, either.
Hollie, while I understand that there is more to most things than just figures I feel I must point out that voter turnout is significantly higher in the UK than it is in the US.
In the 17 US Presidential Elections since the end of the Second World War US voter turnout averages 55.7%, the highest being 1952 (61.6%) and the lowest being 1996 (49.0%).
In the 18 UK General Elections since the end of the Second World War the average turnout is a far higher 73.9% with the highest being 1950 (83.9%) and the lowest being 2001 (59.4%).
At the last UK General Election in 2010 the voter turnout was 65.1%.
At the US Presidential Election in 2012 the voter turnout is estimated at 57.5%.
I understand that there are many other factors at work but you are simply incorrect when you say, "we have a very low voter turnout overall".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn … _elections
by India Arnold 7 years ago
Will William and Kate make historically great rulers? Why?
by Money Fairy 6 years ago
I think it is so sad that she is trying to do everything right and some idiot photographer can't even give her privacy in a stone walled gated house??? That photographer must have had to climb up a tree to get those photos just sick. Anyway will she ever have any privacy again???What a life...
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
Next week she will be a member of the royal family. But Kate Middleton proved she's as down-to-earth as the next girl when she went on a shopping trip on the King's Road in London. The bride-to-be spent 20 minutes in high-street store Warehouse before spending £225 on four summer fashion items. A...
by Mel Jay 8 years ago
Should the paparazzi leave WIlliam and Kate alone while they honeymoon on North Island, Seychelles?Or are they fair game for the press at all times? I think they should be given a break as they will spend the rest of their lives in the spotlight. What are your thoughts?
by Lord Sergell of House Stark 7 years ago
Is is true that Prince William and Kate Middleton are divorced?
by s.carver 8 years ago
Do you plan to watch the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton?Are people genuinely interested and excited by the prospect of a royal wedding? Or is it just the media, trying to hype it so the public gets interested and they sell papers?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|