I am British and I live in the UK so I guess it is expected that I say something about the new royal baby.
Well here goes; yes the baby is a future king (though I secretly wanted a girl - after all after Charles and William have taken the throne I think it will be time for a bit of girl power again; power being an inoperative word because the head of the monarchy doesn't have that much power). There is a lot of media attention on William and Kate and I certainly wouldn't have stood for hours outside the hospital waiting for a glimpse of the baby, after all you get a much better picture on the TV and standing for that long would give me serious backache.
Yet a part of me, and this is where I may get some backlash, cannot understand how the news can report the same thing over and over again as headline news. Yesterday, which would have been when he was a day old, every channel reported it as headline news. One particular news programme concentrated wholly on the birth of the baby (and this was before he was presented to the public) 5 times before the report of a murder was announced.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like bad news. In fact, I rarely watch the news because I don't need to be reminded how bad the world around us is getting and I have twittered about it on more than one occasion. So maybe I am being a bit fickle because now we get some good news and I am twittering again. But what I am saying is this: Is the birth of a future king so important that other news should fall by the wayside? I don't think so.
I guess there are 3 camps in the UK; those that are royalists, those that are indifferent and those that think the monarchy is outdated and should end.
I do wonder why royalists are royalists; do they firmly believe in the history of it all and that it should continue for that reason or do they want a monarchy because of the tourism revenue the UK receives as a result of it? Probably a bit of both but I certainly do not sit in that camp.
I'm certainly not a royalist though I did like Princess Diana a lot but that was because she came over as a very lovely warm and caring person. I have been to London and as I like history being able to visit the sights and museums is very nice and interesting.
From a political point of view, I agree that the monarchy is outdated in today's society. Politically the head of the monarchy does not hold much the power; the Queen signs to agree new law and legislation but is merely rubber stamps it.
There are other reasons for a monarchy though: For historical purposes of course; how do you just disband the monarchy? And linked to that, tourism. There are probably more than this...
There is no doubt that the UK monarchy accounts for a lot of tourism revenue and it certainly interests some people from countries that do not have a monarchy. Tied to today's monarchy is all of it's history and that is very interesting but it would be sad to maintain a monarchy just for tourism revenue but of course there are a myriad of factors for it to remain.
Ultimately I sit in the indifferent camp; unusual for me I know.... Only joking; I am quite laid back and if it doesn't directly affect me then I don't really have a strong opinion either way. There is no doubt that the monarchy is useful for tourism and for historical purposes.
After all, when I travel to London with Beautiful B later this year I will happily visit all of the sights with Beautiful B and revel in the historical relevance because I like doing that. I could wander around a museum all day long reading about the history of the world, Hubby hates it and I may just annoy Beautiful B with it when we are in London
From a personal point of view I know that William and Kate have been brought up to be in the limelight and any new parent wants to show of their new baby but I can't help but wonder whether a part of them wanted to share their delight with just family and friends as it is a very personal and private thing.
I couldn't help but wonder if Kate looked a little uncomfortable in front of the media when they showed their son to the world.
On a totally fickle level I did wonder whether someone had done her hair for her as I certainly wouldn't want to be bothered to make myself that presentable the day after my baby was born. I am guessing the last thing she wanted to be bothered doing was shaving her legs for the public......
Well here goes; yes the baby is a future king (though I secretly wanted a girl - after all after Charles and William have taken the throne I think it will be time for a bit of girl power again; power being an inoperative word because the head of the monarchy doesn't have that much power). There is a lot of media attention on William and Kate and I certainly wouldn't have stood for hours outside the hospital waiting for a glimpse of the baby, after all you get a much better picture on the TV and standing for that long would give me serious backache.
Yet a part of me, and this is where I may get some backlash, cannot understand how the news can report the same thing over and over again as headline news. Yesterday, which would have been when he was a day old, every channel reported it as headline news. One particular news programme concentrated wholly on the birth of the baby (and this was before he was presented to the public) 5 times before the report of a murder was announced.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like bad news. In fact, I rarely watch the news because I don't need to be reminded how bad the world around us is getting and I have twittered about it on more than one occasion. So maybe I am being a bit fickle because now we get some good news and I am twittering again. But what I am saying is this: Is the birth of a future king so important that other news should fall by the wayside? I don't think so.
I guess there are 3 camps in the UK; those that are royalists, those that are indifferent and those that think the monarchy is outdated and should end.
I do wonder why royalists are royalists; do they firmly believe in the history of it all and that it should continue for that reason or do they want a monarchy because of the tourism revenue the UK receives as a result of it? Probably a bit of both but I certainly do not sit in that camp.
I'm certainly not a royalist though I did like Princess Diana a lot but that was because she came over as a very lovely warm and caring person. I have been to London and as I like history being able to visit the sights and museums is very nice and interesting.
From a political point of view, I agree that the monarchy is outdated in today's society. Politically the head of the monarchy does not hold much the power; the Queen signs to agree new law and legislation but is merely rubber stamps it.
There are other reasons for a monarchy though: For historical purposes of course; how do you just disband the monarchy? And linked to that, tourism. There are probably more than this...
There is no doubt that the UK monarchy accounts for a lot of tourism revenue and it certainly interests some people from countries that do not have a monarchy. Tied to today's monarchy is all of it's history and that is very interesting but it would be sad to maintain a monarchy just for tourism revenue but of course there are a myriad of factors for it to remain.
Ultimately I sit in the indifferent camp; unusual for me I know.... Only joking; I am quite laid back and if it doesn't directly affect me then I don't really have a strong opinion either way. There is no doubt that the monarchy is useful for tourism and for historical purposes.
After all, when I travel to London with Beautiful B later this year I will happily visit all of the sights with Beautiful B and revel in the historical relevance because I like doing that. I could wander around a museum all day long reading about the history of the world, Hubby hates it and I may just annoy Beautiful B with it when we are in London
From a personal point of view I know that William and Kate have been brought up to be in the limelight and any new parent wants to show of their new baby but I can't help but wonder whether a part of them wanted to share their delight with just family and friends as it is a very personal and private thing.
I couldn't help but wonder if Kate looked a little uncomfortable in front of the media when they showed their son to the world.
On a totally fickle level I did wonder whether someone had done her hair for her as I certainly wouldn't want to be bothered to make myself that presentable the day after my baby was born. I am guessing the last thing she wanted to be bothered doing was shaving her legs for the public......
No comments:
Post a Comment