Last time around, before Prince George showed up in all his maleness, I was expecting Kate and Will's first child to be a girl, for no specific reason, and I referred to her here in the blog as Princess Charlotte. Then George showed up and Charlotte went back into the box until it was time for baby number two. Now she's here and *yay*, I was right, just 22 months early. Baby number two has been named Princess Charlotte, with Elizabeth and Diana as middle names.
All the expected set pieces have now happened. We saw little George come to the hospital to meet his new sister. We saw Mom and Dad leaving with the baby wrapped in a blanket. (Just 10 hours after giving birth? Yikes. Apparently that's fairly normal in England.) We saw both sets of grandparents driving into Kensington Palace to meet the baby and we saw great-granny the Queen stop by as well. And the name (Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge, double yikes) was announced, with no big surprises.
So what's next? Will William and Kate stop at two children? Could be. Much is being made of the fact that due to recent changes to the law in Britain, Princess Charlotte won't get bumped in the line of succession should a younger brother show up later. That's great in theory but my guess is that Will and Kate will stick with two, especially now that they do indeed have a daughter. I've never forgotten this line from a BBC article, written the day George was born:
At some point there may well be a younger sibling - but perhaps just the one, as the Royal Family appear to have understood the problems of producing too many young royals, all of whom require a role.
Really? The problems of producing too many young royals? It sounds bizarre but if you think about Princes Andrew and Edward, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, even Prince Harry, the issue comes more into focus. There are challenges to being a member of the royal family who isn't preparing to be the next king or queen. What, exactly, does one do with one's life? There aren't enough factory openings and memorial luncheons to keep everyone busy, but trying to have an ordinary career like an ordinary non-royal person doesn't always work out so well. Just ask Prince Edward and his wife. (As I've written before, I also think this would have been an issue for Princess Diana if she had lived. What would she do all day long? Sarah Ferguson has struggled too.) Two and done seems to be the norm for the royals these days, with Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Princess Margaret's two children David and Sarah, as well as Princess Anne's son Peter, all sticking with just two kids. Will the Cambridges follow suit or are they parenting outliers? We'll know in a couple of years.
As I said when George was born, in substantive terms none of this has anything to do with us here in the colonies, but it's still fun to watch from afar, and as I also pointed out, these kids aren't Kardashians. They're part of something real, and even if parts of the whole royalty circus seem to be a bit unreal, it's been going on over in England for 1,000 years. People magazine hasn't been around that long, of course, but Di and Harry did get the cover treatment back in 1984. Here's that blast from the past:
Final thought for now, and speaking of Prince Harry, he turns 31 in September. He's finished his military career and will be needing to find something productive to do. He probably ought to think about finding a wife too. "Deliciously charming rascal," as I sometimes call him, gets less charming as you get older. You know I'll be keeping an eye on the spare.
No comments:
Post a Comment