Hurray! It's a prince! Thank God not a princess!
Because, lest you don't know, a first-born Princess would have taken the throne in preference to a second born prince, thanks to David Cameron's vandalistic recent change to the constitution.
Apparently the BBC and Twitter is full of people regretting that it is not a princess because she would inherit the throne instead of her putative younger brother.
Can anyone tell me what is the point of trying to introduce the concept of equality into the concept of monarchy? I ask for information.
But actually, thinking hard about it, I do dimly understand. Sexual discrimination, like racial and anti-homosexual discrimination, is the equivalent, in a Godless society, of Satan. Where sexual racial and anti-homosexual discrimination conflict, as when discussing Muslims for example, sex equality always trumps anti-racism.
Thank God we are spared the sight of the horrible Nick Clegg going around TV studios taking credit for the change in the rules of succession, the even more awful Vince Cable too.
What name? My money is on James. King James VIII would please the Scots, as he would only be England's third James (we are not counting of course King James III, the Old Pretender). George would keep them quiet - all the Georges came after the union and so George VII would be the seventh George in all parts of the UK. Charles IV or Philip would be nice - Philip II (Philip II of Spain was King of England) - but it won't be Philip.
I hope the next one is also a prince - one's the heir and one's the spare. I mean of course that I hope the next one is a prince in case the prince born today were to die and a second born princess inherit in preference to a third born prince - not because I am against Queens Regnant per se, although, as a matter of fact, the influence of the monarchy always declines under them. King Edward VI had he lived would have been much more powerful than Elizabeth I and a considerable decline in influence happened under Anne and Victoria. Now the monarchy is so weak that it cannot even prevent hunting being made illegal or the succession to the throne being monkeyed with.
My friend Alex Woodcock-Clarke made a good point on Facebook:
"It's a boy. Thank God. If it had been a girl, her younger brother would quickly have become a twisted hunchback actuated only by his desire to topple her and regain the crown she and the doctrinaire progressives and stolen from his brow."
There are republicans, bored by the media hooha today, who say they have nothing against the royal family as people (how could they have?) - it's the idea of a hereditary unelected monarchy that they hate. I, on the other hand, am not interested in the princes and princesses in the least , only in the institution, the idea of inheritance. (Except for the Prince of Wales, whom I love to pieces.) Are you not moved by the idea that King Edgar was first king of England and was rowed along the river Dee by the other English Kings as a sign of their fealty in 973? Before King Edgar descended from Alfred the great and the the kings of Wessex, savage men, and from him an almost unbroken line leads to H.M. the Queen - broken though eleven years of republican government and by the Revolution of 1689. The monarchy represents hierarchy and inequality, two important and good things, but these are not what matters- it represents tradition and the sense that we English, Welsh, Scots and (Northern) Irish are one family.
Though, oddly enough the Queen represents us far better than President Douglas Hurd or President Roy Hattersley - she is just an ordinary upper-class countrywoman with no ambition or special attributes who happens to be Queen. Boasting that you don't approve of the monarchy (because for some reason it always is a boast) is like boasting that you don't believe in God or have no ear for music.
I wonder what the legal status would be of a King's husband were a future king to contract a homosexual marriage.
Footnote from Hansard, thanks to Rafe Heydel-Mankoo:
House of Commons Debates 15 April 1953 vol 514 cc199-201 199
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot asked the Prime Minister whether, in advising the Sovereign to assume the title of Elizabeth II, he took into consideration the desirability of adopting the principle of using whichever numeral in the English or Scottish lines of Kings and Queens happens to be the higher.
The Prime Minister: "The decision to assume the title of Elizabeth II was of course taken on the advice of the Accession Council and the form of the proclamation was approved by Her Majesty's Government.
Since the Act of Union the principle to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers has in fact been followed. Although I am sure neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter, I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession, thereby emphasising that our Royal Family traces its descent through the English Royal line from William the Conqueror and beyond, and through the Scottish Royal line from Robert the Bruce and Malcolm Canmore and still further back. Her Majesty's present advisers would for their part find no difficulty in accepting such a principle. From this it naturally follows that there should not in their view be any difficulty anywhere in acknowledging the Style and Title of Her present Majesty."
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: "Will my right hon. Friend have a special note taken 200 of this matter for the archives in future years so that a point of great interest to many people and one of much historical importance should never be overlooked?"
The Prime Minister: "I cannot conceive that it will be ignored by the regular methods of reporting, and not remembered by all who take a special interest in it."