Gransnet forums


The pregnancy

(90 Posts)
bluebell Mon 03-Dec-12 16:44:57

AIBU to think I can't hack the next eight months or however long it is

vampirequeen Tue 04-Dec-12 05:28:59

40 weeks will feel like a lifetime. On the news at 5am they were interviewing people in New York! Why? She's a wealthy young woman who happens to be pregnant. I feel sorry for her on a woman to woman basis as the form of sickness she has sounds awful but I don't care what she wears, what she looks like, where she's buying baby clothes and all the other rubbish that will be pumped out by the media.

absentgrana Tue 04-Dec-12 08:59:39

The media is happily doing my pet hate. EVERYONE is thrilled by the news. WE ARE ALL concerned about Kate's well-being. And so on and and so on. There must be millions of people who don't give a fig or are even unaware that she is pregnant.

dorsetpennt Tue 04-Dec-12 09:09:01

She isn't even 3 months pregnant - they broke the news early as she has been admitted to hospital. She has a very severe form of morning sickness that if she is lucky will abate in time - or worse case can go on right through. It's just that she is excreting too many hormones and this is the result. She has to be rehydrated and fed little bits and often. Poor girl it's sad that she can't enjoy the early months of her pregnancy when it just seems to unreal but wonderful. P.Williams mother suffered from a lot of morning sickness too but not as bad as this.

jO5 Tue 04-Dec-12 09:43:32

The other two threads are called, "Good news" and "Kate is preganant shock" (or something). This one is called "the pregnancy". I wonder which one will follow "the pregnancy" closely in ever little detail in the months to come? grin

Greatnan Tue 04-Dec-12 09:48:12

Thanks for telling us the length of a pregnancy Ana! grin
I also object to being told I am thrilled and deeply interested. I wish her well, but I am more concerned about the mothers who are let down by the system and cannot afford private care.

Ana Tue 04-Dec-12 10:25:20

Just trying to put things in perspective, Greatnan, as the media usually go on about 'months' - not presuming to Gransnetters something they already know!

Ana Tue 04-Dec-12 10:26:08

Should be a 'tell' in there...hmm

janthea Tue 04-Dec-12 12:08:20

I've posted on the 'Good News' thread about how awful this particular type of 'morning sickness' is and shouldn't be dismissed as 'just morning sickness - everyone gets it' Not true.

I am so pleased for them as they appear to be a delightful and down to earth couple.

I wish 'republicans' would, for once, just wish them well at this time. The birth of any baby is a joy!

absentgrana Tue 04-Dec-12 13:43:14

janthea I don't suppose any of us wish them ill, but we don't really care. I'm sure they will manage without a great mass of idiotic comments from people they don't know and never will.

vampirequeen Tue 04-Dec-12 13:48:08

I wish them well. I just don't want to pay for them.

I have no problem with people being happy for them. Just don't expect me to be or include me in the 'all of us'.

My youngest is due to have a baby around the same time. She will continue to work throughout her pregnancy, run a home, take care of her four year old daughter and generally get on with life. I feel sorry for the girl having this horrible sickness but she's only having a baby and babies are born every day.

An early post in this thread said that it was a republican thread. There are 'happy' threads that I'm not reading because you have every right to be happy if you wish but I don't want another parasite to keep and so I post on the republican thread. If you don't like things that are on the republican thread then don't read it in the same way as I avoid reading the happy threads.

harrigran Tue 04-Dec-12 16:11:59

Parasite is a tad harsh VQ and I seriously doubt whether you are keeping her.
Morning sickness is dreadful when it is as severe as that, I know I suffered for the entire nine months. the good news is that it usually is an indication of healthy female hormones.

vampirequeen Tue 04-Dec-12 17:50:35

Why is it harsh? A parasite lives on another creature. We pay for their upkeep even though they are incredibly wealthy and would be quite capable of keeping themselves.

Stansgran Tue 04-Dec-12 17:56:55

I was always under the impression that the Civil List was offered in exchange for the estates owned by the royal family and if they had kept the estates(central London)they would have vastly greater wealth than they get from the Civil List

vampirequeen Tue 04-Dec-12 21:20:07

They don't own the's not their property although you wouldn't believe it. Buckingham Palace is technically owned by us as are all Crown lands and properties. Elizabeth Windsor owns property such as Balmoral and Sandringham in her own right but as Queen gets use of all the Crown lands and properties and the monies from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (some of which goes to Prince Charles). Most of the jewellry and art works also belong to us.

She gets money from the civil list but that doesn't take into account the cost of police and military protection.

Then there are all the hangers on who get to use the Crown properties too.

Lilygran Tue 04-Dec-12 22:10:10

They do own vast estates and other property. And stansgran is right about the Crown giving up various assets over the years. And they pay income tax. The message that you don't want a sovereign as head of state comes across quite clearly, vq so no need for unfair, untrue attacks on the Queen. Would you rather have a President? They also have to be supported and paid for and not many of them match the Queen in terms of dedication and selfless duty.

Deedaa Tue 04-Dec-12 22:43:07

At the moment we don't even seem to be able to elect a decent government, the thought of an elected president fills me with misgivings. Most probably the job would still go to one of the Posh Boys and we might as well have stuck with the Queen. I certainly don't relish the thought of my hard earned taxes going to finance President Ed Balls (for instance) swanning round the world.

vampirequeen Wed 05-Dec-12 08:34:51

At least we'd have had a choice. At the moment our head of state gets the job by accident of birth.

I'm not making untrue attacks btw and I resent it being said. As for paying tax....she cherry picks. She paid no inheritance tax on her mother's estate.

Ana Wed 05-Dec-12 09:23:28

I can't imagine that the queen sits there on her throne deciding what tax she'll pay - she'll leave that to her advisors and accountants.

absentgrana Wed 05-Dec-12 09:42:04

The queen's advisors fought tooth and nail to prevent the government imposing income tax on her – and lost to the extent that she pays some income tax. Ditto,the Prince of Wales. I think the rule about inheritance tax is that it is not payable on the estate of kings and queens, so I would guess that it was paid on those of the late Princess of Wales and Princess Margaret, but not that of the Queen Mother. I don't know why not and it seems most unfair.

Elegran Wed 05-Dec-12 10:25:45

When William the Bastard beat us at Hastings, he took possession of every bit of the land, by right of conquest, as was the custom, and as rulers had before him. He rewarded his supporters by giving them chunks of it, but retained overall control - he could take it back from anyone who fell foul of him. Generations of rulers did the same.

The rulers were responsible for maintaining law and order and financing public works throughout the kingdom, through their appointed deputies, and for raising the money for wars. They paid for this from the income from their lands, and from ad hoc taxes imposed when money was tight, for specific wars and so on, and maintained themselves from the same sources.

When George I succeeded to the throne, the monarchal funds were not in a good condition, so a deal was made that the Crown Lands which were still in the King's possession would be handed over into state control in return for regular payments from a "Civil list" (as distinct from the army and navy lists). The state would then administer the Crown Lands and use the surplus income as it wished.

There is an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.
The official reported annual cost to the British public of keeping the Royal Family was £41.5 million ( The DM says *69p a year per person*) for the 2008-09 financial year. However, this figure is disputed since it does not include the cost of security provided by the police and the Army, the lost revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and other expenses.

The Duchy of Corwall was created by Edward III in 1337 to provide an income for his son Edward, later the Black Prince. Ever since then, it has passed from one Prince of Wales to the next. I suspect part of the reason was to keep him in funds and less likely to hasten his father's demise. At any rate, it gave him a business base to keep him from being idle and in mischief, (as it still does. without it Charlie would feel even more strongly that he is "running out of time" )

Anne58 Wed 05-Dec-12 12:06:24

Some Australian media have managed to call the hospital pretending to be the Queen and managed to get a nurse to give them an update on Kate's condition.

Lilygran Wed 05-Dec-12 12:17:03

Elegran thank you for the excellent précis! vq if you put forward some arguments in favour of a republic, I would find that interesting. As it is, you sound as though you simply resent the Royal Family's wealth and status. And I find it hard to believe that the hospital where all the royals go when they are poorly was taken in by someone pretending to be Her Maj. Especially in an Australian accent!

Anne58 Wed 05-Dec-12 12:26:29

Lilygran it was on Radio 4 news, the hospital have aplogised and will be reviewing their telephone policy.

absentgrana Wed 05-Dec-12 12:39:35

I suppose it was inevitable. Companies have already started producing tasteless commemorative tat – mugs, cushions, etc. They managed to con the public out of millions with royal wedding tat and even more millions with jubilee tat, but pregnancy tat is a first.

Anne58 Wed 05-Dec-12 12:43:08