The “Great Kate Wait” is over and Britain is suffused with a sense of warmth over the birth of a royal heir, the third in line to the throne in a lineage possibly traceable to William the Conqueror in 1066. It is no small matter of wonder then that the event held virtually the world in thrall.
This is an era of media explosion in which nothing is really private, and also the era of slick marketing in which even cyber dreams are sold in a jiffy. No wonder then that Prince Charles has a store that sells baby gifts and some of the Middletons are thought to be not above cashing in on the unique British “lunacy” of royal-watching.
The British royals may have stayed connected with all modern activities and causes and yet they are not without their critics, including at home. The Australians — evenly split between being notionally under the monarchy and breaking the umbilical cord to become a republic — tend to view the royals as tax-draining “cretins”.
Truth to tell, the House of Windsor is good for their economy, with an anticipated £240-million surge in spending on gifts, souvenirs and, of course, the celebratory British pint at the local pub. That can’t be bad for a country which not so long ago was in fear of a double-dip recession. George or James, the baby is like a balm for an increasingly conflicted world. The constitutional monarchy seems to work very well for Britain.