A cheering birth

The birth of a baby son to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has cheered the nation. Like the sudden arrival of spring it is a welcome antidote to the idiocies and perils of politics. Everyone but a curmudgeon is curious about the arrival of the 8lb 7oz prince, fifth in line to the throne. Curiosity was soon rewarded with a glimpse of the little child in his mother’s arms as the Duchess left hospital, supported by the proud father. But there are about 100,000 third children born in this country each year, and we hear little enough about any not closely related to us.

The royal baby is different. That is not wrong, and it is no offence against equality. Indeed, on the narrow question of sexual equality, this is the first baby boy in line to the throne not to supplant his elder sister in the succession. But there is a much bigger point about why most British people are rightly delighted by the royal birth. The unrivalled authority on the English constitution, Walter Bagehot, had an inkling about the reason. “A princely marriage,” he wrote, “is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and, as such, it rivets mankind.” What goes for the marriage of a prince (William, say, or Harry) goes for a prince’s birth. Of course Bagehot, deep as he was in constitutional law, was a bit of a showman. He pictured a whole royal family on the throne, as it were. Perhaps he went too far. Victoria was a loved monarch, as is our own Queen, but Victoria’s uncles were a mixed bunch and so were her offspring. No, today we are blessed with a monarch beyond our deserts, and to the Crown our Armed Services, police and public servants swear loyalty. We rejoice in the birth of a royal baby because it is a baby of all the realm, sharing our prosperity, liberties and hopes.