The Royal Baby

[Gooner Girl]

awwww... babies! Its enough to make a girl broody...

[jaffka]

lucky git, i would knock her up

[boltonboris]

I'd have to knock her out first... She's posh and that. Probably won't be too pleased with a scrubber like me.

No wonder he got her pregnant, she got little tits so if he pulled out there'd be nothing to aim at.

She's fit though. I'd bang her.

[jaffka]

she is posh and it would be great degrading her and recording it and showing your mates, then posting the vid to her mum and dad

[Gooner Girl]

There are times on here when my estimation of men goes rapidly downhill...

[Bruce Rioja]

I'd have to knock her out first... She's posh and that. Probably won't be too pleased with a scrubber like me.

I doubt she'd be particularly pleased with anyone assaulting her and then raping her.

[TANGODANCER]

she is posh and it would be great degrading her and recording it and showing your mates, then posting the vid to her mum and dad

I like a good laugh as much as anybody, but that's way over the top mate even as a joke.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

she is posh and it would be great degrading her and recording it and showing your mates, then posting the vid to her mum and dad

Get help.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I am pretty satisfied with our constitutional monarchy, but now that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant we're all in for months of the bollocks that our royals seem to inspire these days.

Your conversion to Che Guevara t-shirt wearing, beret-owning full fledged membership of the far left is almost complete .

The half-cut, slightly insane, incomprehensible, lecherous, dread-locked doctor will be proud!

Please, I am the same economically right wing, socially liberal, monarchist I always have been.

And if that bloke on the train back from Brighton really was a doctor then the NHS is even more in trouble than even I imagined.

[William the White]

Blame the press not the royals for the annoying publicity. The press gives the people what they want (gossip about the upper crust), the royals give Mummy what he wants (on the whole a not bad stable democracy).

The royals don't 'give' democracy. It was hard won, bit by bit over centuries in the teeth of opposition by the monarchy and ruling classes. Pretty much every democratic gain was won in struggle, and, often, bloodshed. Including a Civil War, the Peterloo Massacre, the 'Cat and Mouse Act' aimed at the suffragettes...

They may be reduced to a tourist attraction (though I'm not really convinced even by this), but contribute to our democracy?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't think Monty was saying it is literally in their gift.

They are just part of what I want. Would I include them if I had a blank canvas on which to design a constitutional arrangement from scratch? Probably not.

But I do think having a head of state that is not elected is a good thing. So if I did execute my 'perfect' design that did not take account of historical accident, I would have to have a very hard think about what I would replace the monarchy with.

[William the White]

I don't think Monty was saying it is literally in their gift.

They are just part of what I want. Would I include them if I had a blank canvas on which to design a constitutional arrangement from scratch? Probably not.

But I do think having a head of state that is not elected is a good thing. So if I did execute my 'perfect' design that did not take account of historical accident, I would have to have a very hard think about what I would replace the monarchy with.

My point is that the royal family are not a democratic agency in any way, shape or form, which is the very least Monty's claim meant. At the moment neither are they a threat to our democracy - apart from the infantilism they induce in the minds of many. Do I think they are the biggest issue facing the country? By no means. Do I think they offer anything of value? By no means. Would it be better if we got rid of them? Certainly. Could we build half a dozen hospitals a year with what they cost us? Yes - and that would be a good choice.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

My point is that the royal family are not a democratic agency in any way, shape or form, which is the very least Monty's claim meant. At the moment neither are they a threat to our democracy - apart from the infantilism they induce in the minds of many. Do I think they are the biggest issue facing the country? By no means. Do I think they offer anything of value? By no means. Would it be better if we got rid of them? Certainly. Could we build half a dozen hospitals a year with what they cost us? Yes - and that would be a good choice.

When it comes down to it, any constitutional arrangement is one big confidence trick.

Systems of law and government only work if a majority of people believe in them. Forgive the slightly treacly sophistry, but the confidence that our peculiar arrangements inspire in the minds of most the residents of these islands is a form of democracy that is actually more profound than anything that involves putting a cross on a piece of paper.

I think there is still a very powerful religiosity around the anachronism that is our monarchy that plays a role in maintaining the 'stability' that Monty referred to. I don't necessarily understand this - I certainly don't understand ACTUAL religious feelings - but my position is that the monarchy is valuable in its stability-inducing properties while it still carries the public mind.

Do I like the attendant infantilism? Certainly not, but I become very melancholy if I give too much thought to the cultural dark ages we are currently entering, and I don't think that's a trend that the royal family is at the centre of.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't think Monty was saying it is literally in their gift.

They are just part of what I want. Would I include them if I had a blank canvas on which to design a constitutional arrangement from scratch? Probably not.

But I do think having a head of state that is not elected is a good thing. So if I did execute my 'perfect' design that did not take account of historical accident, I would have to have a very hard think about what I would replace the monarchy with.

My point is that the royal family are not a democratic agency in any way, shape or form, which is the very least Monty's claim meant. At the moment neither are they a threat to our democracy - apart from the infantilism they induce in the minds of many. Do I think they are the biggest issue facing the country? By no means. Do I think they offer anything of value? By no means. Would it be better if we got rid of them? Certainly. Could we build half a dozen hospitals a year with what they cost us? Yes - and that would be a good choice.

The UK is a relatively stable democracy and a constitutional monarchy. In fact the UK achieved its democracy with a monarch. Shall we look at how those republics WtW appears to admire so much achieved their standing? The US (rebellion which imposed a solution most did not want and a bloody civil war to create the union), France (a nasty revolution -1789- to get rid of the monarchy which came back so other civil disturbances required ending in the Commune - 1871 - to create the republic), Germany (required WW1 to get rid of the Kaiser), Austria (same thing to dump the Hapsburgs), Italy (a questionable referendum after losing WW2), etc. Democracy, if you can call it that, was harder won in those states than the UK. Have these republics created a better democracy than the UK?. I don't think so. Certainly the royals have embarrassed themselves in the last thirty years, but the recent heads of state of Italy, France and the US are more embarrassing in terms of clownish behaviour or stupidity. So what I'm saying, William, is the UK is a democracy (and as good or better than a lot of the competition) and it is a constitutional monarchy (like other stable North European democracies). It would be as hard to show the monarchy was an agency for democracy as to show in the last century or two that it wasn't. Neither of us can state with any accuracy what the UK would be like as a republic - better or worse - so the argument is somewhat meaningless.

But don't forget to deduct the cost of your president from the hospital budget - it might cost more than the royals.

[General Mannerheim]

it highlights everything that is wrong woth the royal familiy for me. poor little fetus growing inside a woman who married a prince, will eventually slide out and be 3rd in line to the throne with absolute zero merit.

[boltonboris]

I'd have to knock her out first... She's posh and that. Probably won't be too pleased with a scrubber like me.

I doubt she'd be particularly pleased with anyone assaulting her and then raping her.

EXACTLY!! Because she's posh

[David Lee's Hair]

The misses said the other day she's up the stick when she was visiting Cambridge, fat face she said...

Feel sorry for them to be honest. Heaven forbid anything happen, but the girls not even 12 weeks, so much can go wrong yet, and now the whole world knows...

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm genuinely and truly unsure why anyone would give a shit?

[CrazyHorse]

Because most folk aren't cold hearted robots and wouldn't want to see any young couple have any complications during a pregnancy?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There are times on here when my estimation of men goes rapidly downhill...

It's not men. It's some men.