Not the right forum, but Royal baby name anounced...

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Not such a bad deal then put like that.....

Terrible deal IMO, but then I've never been particularly upset by the stuff on your list.

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

Terrible deal IMO, but then I've never been particularly upset by the stuff on your list.

Would love to know how its been possible to get through life scott-free from that list of things? (I know its not been scott-free in other respects...).

I've had the last 3 on my list personally and feel sorry for those who've had the first 3 (though that's fortunately not been my lot - whew!). Add in whatever personal stuff we get that is over and above that list (but we wouldn't have if in that position) and I could add some more personally.

It must be quite a relief to know one would always have the very best healthcare money could provide - and promptly. Add the fact that they would be a lot less likely to have health problems in the first place (no work-related health problems/no poor diet related problems/etc).

mumps

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I did feel sorry a bit for Kate yesterday. 10 hours after giving birth, blow dry makeup on and then paraded in front of the world'so media.

I get bored when people I know constantly post on Facebook about their children so I'm even less interested in a stranger's baby.

When the current monarch's reign ends that should be it. No more Royals.

She managed to get in with no one seeing her by using a different entrance. She did choose to walk out the main entrance (well I assume she chose to I didn't see anyone forcing her), if she wanted privacy I am sure it could have been arranged.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Would love to know how its been possible to get through life scott-free from that list of things? .

I didn't say that, I said they didn't bother me, probably in the same way as they don't bother many others of my age and background.

My original point was in response to pixie's comment, because I believe that the more important royals generate serious income through the whole media circus thing.

In other words, theirs is now basically a PR job, but I wouldn't wish something like it on my children.

Freecall

Regardless of whether you are pro or anti royalist, this forum is essentially about money. So perhaps we could consider how the royal arrival might enable us to benefit financially.

My own view is that starting in about a year, at about the time <insert her name when known> starts to walk, pictures of her will be published showing her wearing traditional, pretty girl's dresses.

The current fashion for baggy, plain children's clothes will collapse to be replaced by a desire to dress young girls in fancy frocks and the like.

Children's clothes retailers will benefit enormously as parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles etc flock to their stores with a desperate need to replace entire wardrobes.

Any young girl wearing a tracksuit with 'Brat for hire' or something of similar bad taste written on it will be seen as just so 2015.

In other news, I see that Mothercare PLC shares are currently trading at about 220p.

moneyistooshorttomention

Back to the future - or, to be more accurate, back to the past then. I must get out my photos from the 1950s and I betcha Little Miss hasn't-been-named-yet (hereafter to be known as Doris - until such time as......) will be there in little smocked frock and little coat and hat set. Can I "trademark" that as "my" way of dressing (way my mother dressed me...:cool:) back then and charge for that "look"?

Well...if we're being MSE about it...there must be some way I can make an honest shekel or two from it....:rotfl:

On the other hand....I could be really cruel and say "Copy me if you like - but Doris gets the Horrible Haircut too"....

agrinnall

For anyone who wants to get her name tattooed on their backside, the name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.