Prince William, Kate expecting second child: Palace

[Lite Beer]

Prince William, Kate expecting second child: Palace

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate are expecting their second child, Kensington Palace announced on Monday less than 14 months after the birth of heir to the throne Prince George.

The couple, known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are "very pleased" and William’s grandmother Queen Elizabeth II is "delighted", a spokesman said.

Kate, 32, is again suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, a form of very acute morning sickness that caused her to be hospitalised when she was pregnant with George.

She is currently being treated by doctors at the couple’s London home in Kensington Palace, the spokesman said.

The duchess was due to attend an official engagement in Oxford on Monday but cancelled because of her illness. William, also 32, will be attending the event as planned.

"Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting their second child," the palace announced.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Prince-William-Kate-expecting-second-child-palace-30242821.html

-- The Nation 2014-09-08

[Costas2008]

Congratulations to Prince William and Kate, for the expectation of their 2nd child.

"Kate, 32, is again suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, a form of very acute morning sickness"

My commiserations to Prince William as he will not be able to get any, for a long time to come.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Costas2008

[cms22]

Am I allowed to say that I don't care much at all for the British royal family?

God knows living in the UK is hard enough these days without having to pay for these peoples' pleasures and lifestyles.....

[MJP]

The Royals cost you around fifty pence a year.

[kinmaew]

more parasites living off the public purse. What purpose do they serve tell me? How about some shelters built for the homeless using their mega wealth.

[waynethor]

The Royals cost you around fifty pence a year.

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

Edited September 9, 2014 by waynethor

[MJP]

The Royals cost you around fifty pence a year.

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

So about 3 quid a year then.

[waynethor]

The Royals cost you around fifty pence a year.

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

So about 3 quid a year then.

Yes, only 3 quid a year or about 200 million pounds, but perhaps it's money that could be better spent.

[MJP]

On what?

[waynethor]

On what?

Abolishing the royalty, of course!

[MJP]

Yeah jog on.

[emilymat]

The Royals cost you around fifty pence a year.

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

So about 3 quid a year then.

Yes, only 3 quid a year or about 200 million pounds, but perhaps it's money that could be better spent.

[emilymat]

I'm no 'dewy eyed' royalist - far from it.

However, if they are abolished then there will have to be a replacement 'Head of State'. I assume that would be a President, which does not come cheap and involves more elections, unless of course, we want one appointed by the party in power!. Perish the thought.

Just trying to be pragmatic.

[waynethor]

I'm no 'dewy eyed' royalist - far from it.

However, if they are abolished then there will have to be a replacement 'Head of State'. I assume that would be a President, which does not come cheap and involves more elections, unless of course, we want one appointed by the party in power!. Perish the thought.

Just trying to be pragmatic.

I really couldn't care less one way or the other about the English royalty. I don't see the purpose of or understand the soap opera type obsession with the royal family so many people seem to have, and not just Britons, but their existence doesn't bother me.

But speaking pragmatically, and I'm a pretty practical guy, would the replacement head of state incur a debt of 200 million pounds (according to which source you believe) every year like the royal family does?

Edited September 9, 2014 by waynethor

[robertthebruce]

WELL DONE William and Kate, hopefully it will be a Girl, so you will have one of each..

The Royals don't bother me, infact I am more than happy for them. Kate is a lovely looking girl..

Lady Diane I always had a soft spot for her, lovely person, and sad ending..

[waynethor]

Love them, hate them, or feel indifferent, here they are in all their glory.

I wonder what Prince Charles is looking for?

[ResandePohm]

Am I allowed to say that I don't care much at all for the British royal family?

God knows living in the UK is hard enough these days without having to pay for these peoples' pleasures and lifestyles.....

You are allowed to say it.

But it shows the utter ignorance and total lack of knowledge you have about the workings and costs of the British Royal family.

Well done now everyone on TV also know it

[Jonmarleesco]

Another freeloader on the ever extending gravy train.

[Jonmarleesco]

Am I allowed to say that I don't care much at all for the British royal family?

God knows living in the UK is hard enough these days without having to pay for these peoples' pleasures and lifestyles.....

You are allowed to say it.

But it shows the utter ignorance and total lack of knowledge you have about the workings and costs of the British Royal family.

Well done now everyone on TV also know it

You evidently are the expert. Feel free to educate the ignoramuses among us, of which I fear there are many.

[robertthebruce]

Another freeloader on the ever extending gravy train.

We'll there is one Consolation , there origins are White European..... So that's a plus...

[emilymat]

I'm no 'dewy eyed' royalist - far from it.

However, if they are abolished then there will have to be a replacement 'Head of State'. I assume that would be a President, which does not come cheap and involves more elections, unless of course, we want one appointed by the party in power!. Perish the thought.

Just trying to be pragmatic.

I really couldn't care less one way or the other about the English royalty. I don't see the purpose of or understand the soap opera type obsession with the royal family so many people seem to have, and not just Britons, but their existence doesn't bother me.

But speaking pragmatically, and I'm a pretty practical guy, would the replacement head of state incur a debt of 200 million pounds (according to which source you believe) every year like the royal family does?

There may be questions of the cost but my 'pragmatism' was about the replacement. Given a president would be an experienced politician we could easily have had President Thatcher/Blair/Brown over the last couple of decades. I'm pretty sure that small list would not be welcome by most - whatever the political persuasions. Better the devil ....etc etc