Inspired by Royal procreation?
Celebrity babies don’t always lead to a boom
Almost without fail, high-profile pregnancies spark public speculation that a baby boomlet will follow – as if modern couples abandon careful thought and ovulation charts so they might navigate their family planning by the stars (think Angelina and Beyoncé, not Orion and Cassiopeia).
It’s proving no different with the woman we know as Kate Middleton, whose widely watched pregnancy has been credited with the highest growth in fertility-test sales in nearly five years. Population-change experts, however, caution that birthrates require much more than the Midas touch of celebrity to see real change.
“I’d be surprised if the U.K. saw an increase of even a couple of percentage points above what would be the normal expectation for the number of births in a year,” said demographer Kevin McQuillan, a professor at the University of Calgary. “And I’d be completely shocked if a significant number of people in Canada were influenced.”
When Prince William was born in 1982, the number of live births in England and Wales actually went down, dropping to 625,931 from 634,492 the previous year. And despite predictions by a noted U.K. gynaecologist that the arrival of Prince Harry would lead to 60,000 extra pregnancies – “whatever (Princess Diana) does, a lot of young brides will emulate,” Harold Francis said at the time – the year-over-year uptick in live births in 1984 was just 7,684.
“There’s evidence that some Asian couples time their births to avoid ‘unlucky years’ or produce in ‘lucky years.’ That does suggest that people can look at external events that are not directly connected to their lives as being significant factors,” said McQuillan.
“But it’s hard for me to imagine that for anything but a tiny number of people, (Kate’s pregnancy) would lead them to want to have a child.”
In the U.K., Clearblue recently reported that its fertility tests had risen 60 percent on the steam of the royal pregnancy (the brand’s North American arm didn’t respond to a request for comment). A company spokesperson told The Daily Mail that “the spike came after Kate made her announcement,” going on to speculate that “women are trying for a baby in the hope of experiencing their pregnancy alongside Kate.”
While it’s unlikely this is occurring in such large numbers as to affect birthrates – those usually require a sea change involving economics or average maternal age – a pop culture expert said it’s consistent with the “mirroring” behaviour often seen with public figures.
“For about a decade now, psychologists have talked about and studied a disorder called Celebrity Worship Syndrome. The name says it all,” said Kim Blank, a professor at the University of Victoria.
“If we were told that Kate loved pillows stuffed with the feathers of Spotted Owl, well, their extinction would almost certainly be hastened.”
Blank cited evolution as a contributing factor, with humans being hard-wired to pattern success. In modern terms, he said the latter is often gauged by “noisy fame rather than quiet accomplishment.”
But is being influenced by a tabloid fixture that much different than being influenced by friends and family? In some ways, experts say no.
Will Miller, a pop culture psychologist, notes that having a baby feeds people’s fantasies of a fulfilled life. The young royals simply embody a super-charged version of that.
“Although their status is privileged and vaunted, they look like us and sound like us,” said Miller. “So just as your sister’s or cousin’s or best friend’s announcement of their pregnancy can move us to make a decision, why not sweet Kate?”