Countdown to the Royal birth! FEMAIL brings you everything you need to know about the arrival of Kate and Wills' firstborn
It has finally happened: the Duchess of Cambridge has gone into labour. [Oh for the love of God, her water's broken!] Of course, any woman who has experienced the joy of three days worth of contractions will know that Kate's baby still may not put in an appearance today... or tomorrow.
But no doubt the Royal family (the Queen has a holiday to go on, after all) and the medical staff attending the birth will be on tenterhooks.
From every last detail inside the Royal delivery suite to provisions for a medical emergencies and the preparation of canon fire once the baby arrives, the Royal birth has been a maelstrom of protocol, tradition - and meticulous planning.
I understand the significance of this, (and obviously she knew what she was getting into) but can't a young woman giving birth to her first child have just a little bit of privacy?...
Is it really essential that the whole world knows how many hours she's been in labor?...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
This wasn't even a blip on my radar screen today.
I do hope she gets through it and has a healthy baby (as I hope for anyone else giving birth today, tomorrow, whenever).
I would say count yourselves lucky in the US ... but you have a large number of news crews over here who will bombard you with a blow by blow account of a doorway in London!!
Daisy wrote:I would say count yourselves lucky in the US ... but you have a large number of news crews over here who will bombard you with a blow by blow account of a doorway in London!!
They used to...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
dales wrote:Why should I care? We fought to abolish the monarchy from our shores more than 200 years ago.
...and how's that working out for ya?
According to the Daily Telegraph:
17.10 Within hours of being born the royal baby will have a punt named after him or her in Cambridge
So what? Rio Ferdinand was within a consonant of the same honour over a year ago
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Ooh a new Duke of Cornwall in the making, that's piss the nationalists off!
Congratulations to Bill and Kate, I hope their sprog is a healthy one, and looks nothing like his grandfather or uncle.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Oh, as for his name; Alistair Joseph Johnathon Kevin Ian John Mathew Stuart Graeme Stephen James Windsor.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
That's so 500 years ago. All the Commonwealth realms even rushed to pass a new succession law in time for the birth, in case it was a girl so that she would not be displaced by any younger brothers.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Americans began July celebrating their independence from colonial rule. Less than three weeks later, many are rejoicing at the birth of a royal baby boy.
It is one of the great American paradoxes that a country which got rid of the monarchy in 1776 continues to lavish so much attention on the Royal Family.
One thing that the Windsors continue to command here is airtime on American television and column inches in the newspapers.
There has been blanket coverage on the rolling news channels. Websites such as the New York Post have redesigned their front pages to accommodate the breaking news.
News shows have also been heavily populated by plummy-voiced "royal watchers". For its rolling coverage, CNN bagged the British ambassador in Washington, Sir Peter Westmacott, who appeared resplendent in a red, white and blue tie.
That news channel also replaced its normal jingles with regal-sounding music. Needless to say, the birth announcement has led all the network bulletins.
Like CNN, ABC News replaced the thumping beat of its usual news anthem with dainty strings. One half-expected the news anchor, Diane Sawyer, to appear in period costume.
For weeks now, as the "great Kate wait" continued, the US media has covered the story from all manner of angles. The website The Daily Beast has focused on the possible stimulus effect of the birth on "austerity Britain."
National Public Radio was intrigued on what surname the new baby would have.
The New York Times, adopting a more sceptical tone, has tried to make sense of the "stuffy protocols" surrounding royal events, treating them as a throwback or museum piece.
For the New York Times, the royal easel erected on the forecourt of Buckingham Palace became an object of great fascination.
I was in Times Square in the heart of New York City when the news started coming through, which soon flashed up on the big screen news tickers.
Some people could hardly contain their delight. One woman screamed: "Oh my god. Oh, great, alright!"
Another said: "Oh congratulations, Kate, that's awesome."
Others could not really care less.
In a corner of Greenwich Village sometimes known as Little Britain, a restaurant catering for those with the taste for the United Kingdom hung up union flag bunting and "It's a Boy" celebratory banners. Champagne was sipped from bone-china teacups.
President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were quick to send their congratulations to the royal couple on the occasion.
"We wish them all the happiness and blessings parenthood brings," they said.
"Given the special relationship between us, the American people are pleased to join with the people of the United Kingdom as they celebrate the birth of the young prince."
Of course, that special relationship, that connection between Britain and America, explains much of the wall-to-wall coverage.
And US historians will tell you that the fascination with the royals is nothing new. The coronation of Queen Victoria, for instance, was one of the great news events of its day.
What is new is the marriage of British regal tradition with American celebrity culture - a union which came to be crystallised in 1985 when Princess Diana danced with John Travolta at a White House state dinner.
Princess Diana became Vanity Fair magazine's favourite cover girl. Her death was as much an emotional event for many Americans as it was for grieving Britons.
Tellingly, much of the coverage has focused on the absence of Diana. "What about the grandmother they will never meet?" asked ABC news anchor Diane Sawyer, wistfully.
To this day the two princes, William and Harry, remain beneficiaries of the "Diana effect".
When Harry toured America in May he was greeted with what the local media called "Harrymania".
The Duchess of Cambridge is also a hugely popular figure here, and has become a fashion icon.
They have become A-list celebrities in the US cultural hierarchy, with the star power to eclipse even Hollywood's biggest names.
As the American reaction to the royal birth reminds us, the royals have become an offshoot of the US entertainment industry.
This royal birth also serves as another reminder of America's umbilical link with Britain.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
