One comment about beaker and some associated quippery prompts that little outburst stars?

dubmeup wrote:
Don't forget:
maybe they took a rel­ish sam­ple from all the royal males and shot her up. Cre­at­ing some sort of funky hybrid royal tool of Satan
and
all as ugly as fuck, adding that wee skinny ain’t gonna help

And YES ... I don't typically care what people say about adults, or joke about doing to adults but when it comes to a baby/child/kid I'm liable to put my fist down someones throat or my boot up their ass. Hate on the royals all you want but leave the children out of it, children are a gift, a precious gift no matter who their parents or ancestry come from. Children are our future, no matter what family they are born into.

I get what you say SC but royal children are our children's future oppressors. You & I think every child is equal, this child's parents don't and there is high probability the kid will eventually accept the notion that it is superior to it's subjects (our kids). I'll not be knitting any booties.

Tbh, whilst I totally get what you are saying about sprogs stars, I think you're off the mark on this occasion. Go have a look at that BBC HYS and you'll get a good insight into 'the word on the street'. No-one either here or there is wishing the little sprog harm or ill feeling. It's just that there is a rising tide of us Brits that aren't exactly subservient to the Royals

Maybe you guys are right... but still, don't condemn the little thing to being like those that came before it before it has a chance to prove you wrong

I have yet to see/hear about William or Henry/Harry (wtf is naked boys name?) doing anything against the population of this planet. No orders to go mass murder, no child pedeo things, nothing unless the negatives of the older ones goes on their record too... they seem, to the public eye, a lot like their mother (Diana). Getting down off that thrown and interacting with people. Maybe the next generation will be even more down to Earth and not let all this royal hype go to their heads.

How much damage could it do in the womb? Or as a baby/infant/toddler/child? I can't see it standing up at a year old, holding the royal scepter and sending thousands of people to the guillotine.

Think positive, get positive... Expect the worst with no hope for the best, get the worst sort of thing.

Personally, My objection to the Monarchy is that it exists Stars. I'm happy for the people within the Monarchy to exist, just not within a Monarchy

dubmeup wrote:
There's your positive thonking SC.

I don't believe anyone wishes harm on any baby, Stars. That's not it. It's 'royalty' itself that needs usurping, and in the meantime is, imo, fair game for ridicule. It's the least we can do. This one'll be 3rd in line for the throne, unlike it's paternal grandmother, who would never have had the throne (and was no paragon of virtue anyway).

Upon reflection and after re-reading what I and others said I feel the need to say
'fuck the royals & fuck their sprogs as well - demon or not'

The very least I could wish on them is for Sue Townsend's book, 'The Queen and I', to come true - i.e. the royals fall prey to disgruntled recording crew who subliminally programme them, so that they end up living on a council estate.

Though really, I want the stuff I only recently heard about (from Anthony65) about the Queen's hand in the slaughtering of masses of Aboriginal children, and all other grim goings on that are swept under the carpet to be brought into the open, investigated properly, and people held accountable.

But Stars is right, in that the baby is completely innocent of wrong-doing, and has the potential to be an incredibly good person. Nature and nurture mean the odds are stacked against that happening, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

It's not the baby's fault it's being born into a family of pampered parasites, whose minions copper up to put cheap, unwholesomely tampered with, food into their bellies to survive.

If it's a boy, I wonder if they'll call him Damien.

dubmeup wrote:
Linkage!!

There once was a Royal called Will
Whose missus was not on the pill
A baby was born
The media did fawn
And you and me footed the bill

dubmeup wrote:
O RLY?

Why do you keep doing that RA (I refuse to call anyone a row of dots).

What exactly do you think anyone like myself who disapproves of the royals can do to remove them? What would you do about it if you still lived over here?

Gilly wrote:
Gilly it's all for fun...






But, Not really because in reality the Monarchy is going to get turned down on low volume...

Certainly not because of any British uprising tho...

The Queen will be the last to wear the crown and rule with the Sceptre....

Harry will change the Monarchy forever, you can't see it already?

There won't be anymore diamond jubilee's...

dubmeup wrote:
Sheeple.

Nah, well done really.

.......... wrote:
What's really lame about us Brits is that we did actually get rid of the royals once - and in fact we got proper medieval on them by chopping the king's head off - but then we brought them back!

.......... wrote:
Harry?

No, I can't see inside your mind - it's just a blur. You'll have to elaborate.

Have you had a prophetic vision RA? Perhaps of Harry getting pissed off that he'll never be King and putting arsenic in ALL the royal's cucumber sangers?