A royal baby

[Crayven]

While I don't much care for the Royal FAMILY, I do have an enormous amount of respect and admiration for the Queen. I've seen a lot of things on her life and what exactly she has to do, and let me tell you, it's not easy. People here in America joke that she gets an enormous salary to do nothing, but honestly, she never gets to do nothing. She's the Queen. That's not just a title, that's a job. Every second of every day she has to be "On."

Anyone ever work in Retail? Know that fake, smiley, care about the customer act that you have to do to keep your job? That's the queen, 100% of the time. She can never lose her temper, she can never just say "Fuck it, I'm tired and going home," she can never go for a walk in a park on her own. Anyone here ever lose a parent? Any of you who did ever have to address a nation while it happened, holding back all of the emotions that we all would have in that situation? Who here wants to give up the ability to bum around in sweatpants and a T-shirt drinking beer and watching TV to instead have constant fancy dinners and receptions? Wouldn't it be great to be constantly meeting foreign leaders, who get to make actual policy, and have all the pressure of never insulting them accidentally without any of the actual authority to do anything if they were to offend you?

But anyway, I don't care about this baby's PARENTS, but to me, The Queen just got herself a Grandson, and that's awesome. Congratulations, Your Majesty.

I feared i was in a sea of Republicans. thank Jim for you.

 

[DRTJR]

I wish good heath to the future King of England(Shut up it sounds better) and that He's no were near as nutty as his grandfather, but instead a reasonable Monarch like his Great Grandmother

 

[Techno Squidgy]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

 

[nathan-dts]

Republican so it feels pretty shit seeing an affront to democracy being celebrated on the news and having my prime minister tell me that I should be happy. Fuck the monarchy; everyone should be born with the chance to be head of state.

 

[Hero of Lime]

While I can't say I give a care anyway, unfortunately even here in the U.S. you cannot go to any news channel/website without seeing something about it. I can understand the interest in Britain, but I could've sworn we yanks declared independence from having to care about British monarchy.

I liken it to celebrity news anyway, and I assume that is how it is in Great Britain as well.

 

[The Great JT]

No, I don't care. A kid was born, that's literally all that I read.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Don't care. This baby's existence is about as eventful as any of the royals going through normal life stages that we're suppose to regard as miraculous. Marriages, divorces, rides into town to greet the lowly plebs, playing sports...all things normal people do all the time we're suppose to hold our breath over when The Crown does it and every moment caught on camera.

Of all the things happening in the West (and much of the world) we're suppose to focus on these celebrities who are only celebrities because the people's of the current UK didn't decide to behead their royals and lords long ago?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

 

[Saltyk]

I didn't even know she was pregnant until a week ago. Weren't they married just a few months ago? I don't keep up with the Royals. What do you want from an American?

Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm happy for the parents, and hopefully they are all healthy and happy. And with any luck, they can avoid the same people who killed his grandmother.

Already people are making this into a feminist and LGBT issue, even though all they've announced is the sex they're complaining it's a CIS privileged male like Kate had any choice in the matter:

Spoiler

OT: Well, let's hope they name it something cool. We need a Prince Karnage.

Wow. That's just bad. The kid isn't even a day old and may not even have an official name, yet. I think it's a bit early to start that whole thing. Maybe it should be saved until such a time that he starts identifying as a girl? Maybe then, it would be a good time to start that argument. Just throwing it out there.

 

[Abomination]

Of all the things happening in the West (and much of the world) we're suppose to focus on these celebrities who are only celebrities because the people's of the current UK didn't decide to behead their royals and lords long ago?

Yeah, because that worked so well for France and there was no fallout at all because of that or the closest thing to a World War afterwards.

Sweden, Denmark, Belgium are other examples of nations with their royals still possessing their heads.

The USA has the same deal, just they have a monarch "born" every 4/8 years instead and he actually has some semblence of power. The President is part of the USA's culture and the Crown is part of the UK's culture.

 

[n00beffect]

God, why do you people give a fuck? I've never understood Brits' obsession with their royal family. Is it because Britain doesn't really have any good celebrities left (since most of them moved to LA, obviously, where the weather is actually NOT shit all the time), so you have to clamber on to the closest thing?

What's even weirder to me - and this became especially apparent during the whole royal wedding debacle - is NON-BRITs' obsession with the royal family. That just makes absolutely no goddamn by the jesus salami-jerking sense to me at all.

It's all so bizarre...

I personally couldn't care less; and yes, I am well aware of how hypocritical that sounds, given that I'm here, posting about it.

 

[n00beffect]

Of all the things happening in the West (and much of the world) we're suppose to focus on these celebrities who are only celebrities because the people's of the current UK didn't decide to behead their royals and lords long ago?

Yeah, because that worked so well for France and there was no fallout at all because of that or the closest thing to a World War afterwards.

Sweden, Denmark, Belgium are other examples of nations with their royals still possessing their heads.

The USA has the same deal, just they have a monarch "born" every 4/8 years instead and he actually has some semblence of power. The President is part of the USA's culture and the Crown is part of the UK's culture.

Yeah, okay, you're right. BUT, the difference is that the US president does shit, you know? He's actually important to the country (or at least they've made him so); therefore following his/her life would kind of sort of make sense - not TOO much sense - but just a bit.

The royals on the other hand, what do they do? They just mosey about, going to ceremonies and smashing bottles of expensive champagne on the ass of newly built boats (however the hell you call that tradition). They have no function what-so-ever, and yeah yeah, you could probably make an argument that they somehow run the circus from behind the curtains or some such conspiracy, but still...

I'm not saying behead them, that's way too much. Just, I suppose, stop spending 38 million quid a year on their banquets and crap? Sounds reasonable, right?

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

I really disdain how so many people care about royalty so much. The only thing these people did to acquire their obscene wealth was basically advertise them selves, and if you support them just because they make money then none of you - absolutely none of you - can criticize TMZ or basically any other institution that only thrives to exploit celebrities. Because really, it's the same thing, only the royal family is classier. Which, you know, is a lot like comparing a retriever to a Shepard. They're both just different breeds of the same thing.

 

[Yuuki]

I switched on the news this morning to see if any updates had happened regarding Syria, Nelson Mandela's health, the earthquake in Christchurch NZ, the women's rights movement in India or other current happenings. What I got instead on EVERY FUCKING NEWS CHANNEL was extensive coverage of the royal baby - Fox, CNBC, BBC, RT, you name it.

I already woke up badly, talk about starting off the day with a fucking headache that gets 10x worse when you turn on the TV.

From what I've heard, the British people THEMSELVES actually don't give two shits about the royal family or their happenings. The general consensus also seemed to indicate that...by far the overwhelming majority of people who were queuing up for the royal wedding and this royal baby are tourists, primarily made up of Americans.

Americans are absolutely fascinated by the royal family for some utterly bizarre reason and so is the American media.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

I have to say, between the latest shark attack (with video, yay!) and the Pope's visit, little attention was given to this baby.

 

[Crayven]

The royals on the other hand, what do they do? They just mosey about, going to ceremonies and smashing bottles of expensive champagne on the ass of newly built boats (however the hell you call that tradition). They have no function what-so-ever, and yeah yeah, you could probably make an argument that they somehow run the circus from behind the curtains or some such conspiracy, but still...

I'm not saying behead them, that's way too much. Just, I suppose, stop spending 38 million quid a year on their banquets and crap? Sounds reasonable, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw its simplistic, but it really does get the point across.
Also, no power? what do you think would happen if she said no to a law? people would question it, investigate it and in the end could topple a government. I mean, why would she say no without a reason?

 

[Evil Smurf]

Already people are making this into a feminist and LGBT issue, even though all they've announced is the sex they're complaining it's a CIS privileged male like Kate had any choice in the matter:

Spoiler

OT: Well, let's hope they name it something cool. We need a Prince Karnage.

I love you so much right now. You are why the internet is good.

 

[Abomination]

I'm not saying behead them, that's way too much. Just, I suppose, stop spending 38 million quid a year on their banquets and crap? Sounds reasonable, right?

Actually the United Kingdom MAKES money off the royal family.
It is a situation where there are essentially nothing but winners and no losers.

Also, the royal family has real power when it comes to New Zealand and some other commonwealth nations - every act needs to be approved by the monarch or the governor general (viceroy) before it can come into effect. There has been no case of the monarch denying an act voted upon by the parliament of those nations but should one come about that was unacceptable to anyone the monarch could veto it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

She was pregnant? Didn't know (read:care about) that. Good for then I guess though.

 

[Johanthemonster666]

Of all the things happening in the West (and much of the world) we're suppose to focus on these celebrities who are only celebrities because the people's of the current UK didn't decide to behead their royals and lords long ago?

Yeah, because that worked so well for France and there was no fallout at all because of that or the closest thing to a World War afterwards.

Sweden, Denmark, Belgium are other examples of nations with their royals still possessing their heads.

The USA has the same deal, just they have a monarch "born" every 4/8 years instead and he actually has some semblence of power. The President is part of the USA's culture and the Crown is part of the UK's culture.

Yeah, okay, you're right. BUT, the difference is that the US president does shit, you know? He's actually important to the country (or at least they've made him so); therefore following his/her life would kind of sort of make sense - not TOO much sense - but just a bit.

The royals on the other hand, what do they do? They just mosey about, going to ceremonies and smashing bottles of expensive champagne on the ass of newly built boats (however the hell you call that tradition). They have no function what-so-ever, and yeah yeah, you could probably make an argument that they somehow run the circus from behind the curtains or some such conspiracy, but still...

I'm not saying behead them, that's way too much. Just, I suppose, stop spending 38 million quid a year on their banquets and crap? Sounds reasonable, right?

I have no idea how my statement could possibly mean "Kill the evil royals ". I was reflecting on the fact that the only reason they even exist still is that the people under the British crown allowed them to remain and the civilian governments since have insulated the royals by allowing them to own most of the land, wealth or stature historically attributed to them.


And yea, the beheading of the French royals/nobility did actually go well for them. It was the great terror, the rise of Napoleon, and the rise of bourgeoisie 'democratic' governments (The French Republics) that contributed to the country's later imperialism, industrialism,conflicts with other European powers and so forth.

And those nations you referred to with surviving royalty? You forgot to mention that they are all bank owners, CEOs, and other positions of power while retaining a royal title in name only...not nearly as powerful or even as acknowledged as the British Crown.