Royal baby born to Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton and Prince William

[The Thin White Duke]

The BBC announced at 8pm that a royal baby boy had been born at 16:24, GMT. The name is yet to be revealed. A formal bulletin is to arrive at Buckingham Palace in a few moments. Prime Minister David Cameron congratulates the couple. The Queen was present.

EDIT: Bulletin has arrived. Baby and mother are doing well medically.

 

[Genwunner]

Oh great, yet another privileged baby is born destined to reside over us all in the lap of luxury based on no merit or achievement whatsoever.

The French had the right idea about what to do with their monarchy!

 

[zakisrage]

Congratulations for them! I still like my sister's baby better, but theirs is okay too.

 

[Joshawott]

Congratulations, someone who isn't even 12 hours old is already more famous than we will ever be in our lifetimes, simply because he popped out of someone who got hitched to someone whose ancestor lobbed off somebody else's head.

My mum was fixated on Sky News all day long and it was pretty funny to see what they were doing to try and fill the time as everyone waited. Some of the people they interviewed ranged from absolute idiots to pompous oaths. The reporters once even asked what the birthing suite will have in it, to which the reply was "a bed and chairs"....well, I certainly hope that Kate wasn't expected to stand up during all of it xD.

There were also reports that Prince William is eligible for two weeks of paternity leave. If he does take it, it will be a bloody mockery to the system - like he really needs the money!

 

[97SaturnSL1]

Congratulations, someone who isn't even 12 hours old is already more famous than we will ever be in our lifetimes, simply because he popped out of someone who got hitched to someone whose ancestor lobbed off somebody else's head.

In all honesty i do feel really bad for that new baby that was born. he is not going to have a normal life like North West. Because we all will have national and global front page, end of WW2 bold headlines for the Royal Baby's first step, word, tantrum, burp, ect,ect. As Disney and Nick have proved that jamming cameras into childrens faces constantly have been VERY detrimental to them. i do wish them all well but to me this whole thing is filed under "In other News..." because they are not my friends or family so it doesnt really apply to me. I just hope Hetalia doesnt get their hands on this...

 

[indigohex]

Congratulations, someone who isn't even 12 hours old is already more famous than we will ever be in our lifetimes, simply because he popped out of someone who got hitched to someone whose ancestor lobbed off somebody else's head.

My mum was fixated on Sky News all day long and it was pretty funny to see what they were doing to try and fill the time as everyone waited. Some of the people they interviewed ranged from absolute idiots to pompous oaths. The reporters once even asked what the birthing suite will have in it, to which the reply was "a bed and chairs"....well, I certainly hope that Kate wasn't expected to stand up during all of it xD.

There were also reports that Prince William is eligible for two weeks of paternity leave. If he does take it, it will be a bloody mockery to the system - like he really needs the money!

I am in total agreement. And besides, there are more important things to worry about than some baby that will one day be 'king'. And this reminds me of one episode of The Roast which covered the baby's life in advance including his first day at university. This should go to "in other news..." in my opinion though. So it is best to avoid the media for the next couple of days.

 

[Pokemaster97]

I do agree that it's interesting how media the decides which news is more important than other news. I think that the attention on certain stories is even reflected on BMGf. This article already has about 7 replies to it, meanwhile the thread about the "Contaminated Lunches that Killed 22 Children in India" has 0 replies. Even though majority of the comments were more negative, it still managed to get more attention than some others.

 

[Hollywood]

Must be an unpopular opinion, but I'm all here for Baby Cambridge. Go Royal Family!

 

[The Thin White Duke]

A town near mine, Carrickfergus, was so unbelievably happy (the couple are the Baron and Baroness of Carrickfergus)

This baby really doesn't know how important he is.

 

[Lord Naarghul]

My gripe is that this is a big story - but it's a big story for Britain. Why should the U.S. really care beyond diplomatically acknowledging it? The reason we are a country is because we got away from having to deal with the British monarchy.

 

[Jolene]

I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, we fought for independence to escape the British Monarchy, but that is the past. Simply being excited about this isn't going to make the a monarchy magically rule America again. Frankly, it's nice to have some pleasant news for once, instead of the normal unpleasantries of news, even for a day. Some are acting like all other news is being utterly ignored.

Also the babies name is George Alexander Louis:
BBC News - Royal baby: William and Kate name their son George

 

[The Thin White Duke]

I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, we fought for independence to escape the British Monarchy, but that is the past. Simply being excited about this isn't going to make the a monarchy magically rule America again. Frankly, it's nice to have some pleasant news for once, instead of the normal unpleasantries of news, even for a day. Some are acting like all other news is being utterly ignored.

Also the babies name is George Alexander Louis:
BBC News - Royal baby: William and Kate name their son George

YES! I KNEW HE'D BE CALLED GEORGE! My sister owes me £10. :3

The big deal is that one day he'll run the United Kingdom. No, the monarchy won't rule America when George comes to the throne, but this is still a big deal over here in the UK.

 

[Genwunner]

But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

 

[Clemont]

I am not actually a Brit, but good luck with the royal life, your royal cuteness

 

[Squeaky the sixth]

I think of a time in the future, when I tell my kids about the birth of the Prince and how I really didn't give a shit.

 

[Hollywood]

But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

 

[pokemoll]

Congratulations for them, then! I mean, nah, I'm not a huge fan of the monarchy, but there's still a new baby that's been brought into the world by a loving couple and I think that's a pleasant thing and not something everyone should be really, really upset about. :c I mean, it's fine to not like the royal family or not like the idea of a child being born wealthy and famous, but... at least acknowledge that this child has literally done nothing but been born into an extremely wealthy family. It isn't the spawn of Satan, seriously. Besides, as Jolene said, wouldn't you prefer this pleasant news to the depressing news we get all the time? I think it's nice to know at least something nice is still happening in the world.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

Er, you are familiar with what France did to eradicate their monarchy, right...?

 

[Genwunner]

But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.

 

[Hollywood]

But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.

Anybody who uses that argument makes me laugh. Politics rule number 1: The Royal family have no REAL power.
All power is by convention and the Royal Family don't act or use any of their power as essentially "they're above politics".

The economic argument of yours is also flawed. If something is making quite a big profit than it's hard to see why it isn't a success. Also comparing us to countries VASTLY different, who with other circumstances, are in a different position is quite a hard sell.

There are loads of arguments for and I don't mind if you want, you can carry this on my wall, but this is more political ideologies and I'd rather keep this on the celebration of another new life being brought in this world, something people shouldn't really be mocking.

 

[Genwunner]

But he won't "rule the country" he will live in a palace at the taxpayers expense having every whim catered to, despite doing nothing to deserve all this attention.

The monarch has no influence they're just overly privileged. I'm 100% against hereditary privilege. America and France have the right idea!

The Royal Family cost 69p per person or £1.33 per tax payer.

You don't have to like the Royal Family, but looking from an economical viewpoint, they're essential. They bring in more than three times the amount of money into Britain through not only the Crown Estates but tourism fueled by having a monarchy.

Also, some people argue having an elected Head of State is more costly. Cases like the German presidency, who costs about the same as the Queen do exist, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?

So you are ok with selling part of your democracy for a few pieces of silver? I couldn't care less if they bought in 10x what we pay them, hereditary privilege is a fundamentally flawed principle.

As for tourism, France is the most visited country in the world, the US is second, not having royalty hasn't done them any harm.
If anything it could boost tourism, instead of someone standing by the gates with a camera in vein, why not open the newly vacated palaces to tourists, maybe even charge rich guests to stay the night.

Also they don't bring in much tourism, of the royal residences, Windsor castle is the only one in the top 20 most visited places in the UK (at number 17) Legoland Windsor receives twice the visits.

Anybody who uses that argument makes me laugh. Politics rule number 1: The Royal family have no REAL power.
All power is by convention and the Royal Family don't act or use any of their power as essentially "they're above politics".

The economic argument of yours is also flawed. If something is making quite a big profit than it's hard to see why it isn't a success. Also comparing us to countries VASTLY different, who with other circumstances, are in a different position is quite a hard sell.

There are loads of arguments for and I don't mind if you want, you can carry this on my wall, but this is more political ideologies and I'd rather keep this on the celebration of another new life being brought in this world, something people shouldn't really be mocking.

Who was mocking???

I said myself they have little power, but the fact they have any power by birth is inherently corrupt and unfair.
Your Head Of State is meant to be the representative of your country. I think that should be an honour given to you by public consent, not by birthright.

I think your logic is the flawed one, apparently something is ok if it makes us money, doesn't matter how morally reprehensible it is, if it makes a profit then fine. Plus you classified them as economically essential which is hyperbole at it's finest. I don't think a few thousand/million in tourist revenues missing would cause economic collapse, as outlined above, we could boost tourism by inviting tourists in to the palaces and castles.

And I don't see why the birth of this child should be treated any differently to the birth of any other child. We should all be equal that is a fundamental principle.