A royal baby

[Undomesticated Equine]

It is on my radar if only because Colbert report and Daily Show covered the hype machine. Honestly I do not get people who are getting all excited for a single damn baby (or a wedding) like if it was their own.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I'm not British, but congrats to the happy couple regardless. Hopefully, the media won't screw things up somewhere down the line...

 

[kyuzo3567]

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.

Please note I don't mean this towards you personally, rather everyone in the picture you spoilered.....FUCK OFF!!!

Seriously, those people need to just piss off, if the baby is gonna be trans then it'll be trans whether or not you call it a boy or girl. The fact that it has a penis makes it, currently, a boy. Deal with it and move on with your life.

Sorry, I'm not against anyone or anything trans, I just hate when people are so vocal about it and when you try to say anything besides 100% agreement they flame you and call you a horrible heartless evil person.

That is all, go on with your day everyone

 

[Pebblig]

Already fed up of it. It's like a minute long news story, yet it's dragged out over 3 or 4 days, with loads of crap like speculating what school it'll go to.

No need to fill the news with pointless discussions.

Some of the stories they cover on the BBC annoy me due to how pointless they are, it's where they drag them out that it annoys me. (which is why I now just skim the site rather than watching it in the morning.)

 

[n00beffect]

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?

Hmm... ok. So what are you saying is, the Queen doesn't have 'official' political power, but rather has influence over the public? That makes sense. And that video was indeed helpful in explaining what her function is, exactly. I used to think she was completely stripped of power, and was just another aristocrat. My bad.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Come on, Prince Vegeta!

That would be way better than George. It's most likely going to be a George.

It's nice for them, shame they have so many millions hounding them but I suppose that's the price you pay for being filthy rich.

 

[Ickorus]

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.

[rant]Those fucknuts are the reason LGBT, feminism, and other similar movements are looked upon negatively and has trouble getting the traction it needs to be taken seriously, I hope one day they realise just how negative an effect they have on a movement they claim to support and either shut up or adopt less pants-on-head retarded ideologies.[/rant]

OT: I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the kid, I just find it really funny that Americans seem to be more interested in it than us British people.

 

[LetalisK]

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.

Seems a few people enjoy the smell of their own farts. "Heeeerrmmmmm, I'm so evolved that I'm going to make pretentious remarks about the media using gendered terms when anyone with half a brain realizes they're referring to sex. Why can't they use words like we do? Hrufhrufhruf."

Then there are the blatantly offensive ones.

"RoyalBaby is a boy...way to let feminism down Kate. Could have had a girl third in line to the throne, instead it's a sausage party."

Hope she's trying to be funny. Otherwise, fucking despicable.

 

[nat_401]

I'm so angry that the media is acting like being born as a male makes you a boy! Don't they know that there is a 1:300 to 1:1000 chance of "him" being a girl trapped in a boys body?! The damage they could do to "his" little mind is incomprehensible! The fact that "he" is almost certain to identify as a male has no effect on me projecting myself onto this child and bemoaning this abuse of identity! I DON'T HAVE ISSUES!!!!

OK, sarcasm aside, I was annoyed I didn't get a holiday today, apart from that little attention was paid to the birth, apart from comments on how the rest of the wold cares far more than I do.

A lot of people seem not to care at all.... apart from just enough to come here and post a comment, strange that.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Admittedly, I couldn't care less. Non-Brit here, and it perplexes the hell out of me how big of a deal it is here. I work at a doctor's office, and so far today pretty much every patient that's come in today has been talking about it.

Frankly, I think it's just an excuse for people to gossip. It's something to talk about around the water cooler, so to speak, even though they don't really care. They care more about having something to small-talk about than the actual event. If that's actually true, it's kinda sickening. I can't freaking stand this reality-TV obsessed culture where the only thing of importance is prying into other people's business.

 

[Terramax]

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

I do believe another video was uploaded, proving that the royals in-fact cost us more money than they are worth.

Furthermore, the other video also confirms it's quite simply immoral that we still have a royal family.

 

[Abomination]

Furthermore, the other video also confirms it's quite simply immoral that we still have a royal family.

Did you just say something was "immoral"? You do know that morality is entirely subjective, right?

 

[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.

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

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

 

[thewatergamer]

Whoopty do,

another royal baby was born, I may be canadian but I really don't get why this was all over the news for the past week...

I mean I just don't see what's the big deal aside from more pointless celebrity gossip

Because this one IS the future King... The media has been massivly into trying to instil national pride back in the UK, and this seems to have spread through the Commonwealth! But they have made a big deal, because at some point, possibly in our lifetimes, this new babies face will be on our currency and stamps!

OT: As a member of the UK military, and a massive supporter of the nation, I have to take on the Queens maternal cousin; Margret Rhodes' opinion:

'Well you know, everybody has babies. And it's lovely. But I don't get wildly excited about it.'

Personally I hate kids, and babies especially! They ure ugly little creatures, who take an embarrasingly long time to stop being dependant, compared to the rest of the animal world! :/
I am interested... I'm not excited.

Alright fair enough, but the monarchy is totally symbolic and the prince and duchess and queen are more celebreties, I just don't get why serious news channels that talk about whats going on in the world are talking about this, I mean the BBC it makes sense why they would be but alot of american and international news networks that usually report on politics/world events are not talking about much other than this, I mean cool its a prince and stuff but I really don't see why this is such a big deal for international viewers that it needs to be the subject of all news in the world

Nothing against the new prince, I mean it's wonderful national pride and whatnot but I just don't think its a big enough deal that everyone needs to be talking about it

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont particularly care as a US citizen cause it just doesnt really affect me, and because to me it doesnt really matter because the way the queen keeps going the kid may never even see the throne.

 

[Abomination]

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.

Yet by Compraison it was the British Empire that was stable enough and able to become the dominant power by adjusting its government in a more moderate and restrained fashion.

What if France had adopted a Constitutional Monarchy instead of rushing headlong into a republic->dictatorship->monarchy->republic->dictatorship->republic madhouse?

to be fair we did do a bit of monarchy->republic->dictatorship->monarchy madhouse ourselves.

its quite eyebrow raising that most people completely blindside that particular bit of British history.

but then the bastard did cancel Christmas so maybe that's kind of deliberate...

And being fair again one must realize that the civil strife brought about by the transition from an Absolute Monarchy to eventually becoming a Constitutional Monarchy - while confusing - was a drop of blood compared to the bucket loads the French Revolutions managed to generate.

Then again they might have learned their lesson from the War of the Roses as how to NOT have a war of succession.

 

[Weaver]

Oh, I didn't even know until right now.
I don't really care, lots of babies are born.

 

[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?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

 

[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.

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

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

Clarity? Under most situations people won't use a prefix, but when talking about the subjects of sex and gender you can use them to provide that little bit of extra detail with 3 or 5 letters rather than words.

 

[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?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

Clarity? Under most situations people won't use a prefix, but when talking about the subjects of sex and gender you can use them to provide that little bit of extra detail with 3 or 5 letters rather than words.

I think it's already pretty clear that when someone doesn't use the prefix "trans" that you should just assume they're biologically male.