The shortest, least-hyped-up piece you’ll read about the new royal baby

A couple of weeks ago I started getting requests from American readers to write about the excitement over here  surrounding the wait for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s new baby.

The only problem was that…there wasn’t much excitement.  There was much less excitement than there’d been about the wedding, but that’s only natural in that the wedding was a big public spectacle and everybody was  getting the day off work.  Now, if the birth came with a national holiday and we all got a day off, that would be different.

There was a bit of a stir of the “Did you hear?” variety when the Duchess’ pregnancy was announced in mid-December, and then pretty much nothing.  Now, I don’t read the tabloids, it’s true, and for all I know, the Daily Mail, the Sun, and other papers of that ilk were speculating right and left–I wouldn’t know.  Nobody I knew talked about it, and I’m guessing the press was politely leaving the poor girl alone to get over her morning sickness.

The first talk I heard of the baby, among all my friends and neighbours, in all of 2013, came when celebrating my friend Jocelyn’s birthday at the pub a couple of weeks ago, when the guest of honour said she’d been hoping the baby would hold off and not be born on her birthday.  And I said “Oh, is the baby due?”  and she said “Yes, it’s overdue”.  That was kind of it.

One of my friends admitted on Facebook that until he heard of the birth he hadn’t realized the Duchess was expecting, and a chorus of his friends chided him for being out of touch, so clearly there were people who thought we all ought to be on top of this blessed event.  The media coverage is pretty low-key though; we are updated every so often by news that the Queen is thrilled, that Prince Charles is thrilled, that Camilla is thrilled, and so forth.

I am interested in what name they’ll choose–no question they’ll tag the little mite with a name out of history, but which one?  The bookmakers are getting rich on people’s guesses, so in some quarters it must be hotly debated, but I haven’t heard a word other than from some stories on the internet news sites (mostly about the bookies).

So I’m sincerely pleased for the royal parents and wish them and the baby all the best, and…that’s about it.  Sorry.

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under Current events

5 responses to “The shortest, least-hyped-up piece you’ll read about the new royal baby

  1. Jocelyn

    Oooh I’m famous! Just for the record, neither I nor the rest of the public knew a specific due date, just mid-July, so I figured by my birthday it must be at or past its date. Or maybe the 22nd still counts as ‘mid’! And I share your opinion entirely. I feel like Kate is a long-lost cousin or equivalent – I was curious to hear the news, happy for her that it turned out ok, and that’s about it!

  2. Me famous too. For my ignorance :)

  3. Malcolm

    Of more interest (even to one who wouldn’t cross the road to get a better view of any of them) is the way the younger royals have rebranded the family firm, balancing shenanigans in Vegas with responsibility on Anglesea … estuary accents … commoner marriage … It’s a far cry from the life- wrecking pecksniffery of yesteryear, when, e.g., horror of marrying a divorced person led to … well, so many royal divorces.

    • And how about the change to the laws of succession? That went by with hardly a murmur in the press.

      • Malcolm

        That’s because the next 3 successions are all Male, Male, and now Male again and the media’s attention span is about 72hrs. Plus ça ne change pas …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s