Two newborns, one with a silver spoon, one left to die. A very sad reflection of the haves and have-nots

THE crowds turned out for both babies. Whatever about the differences in their respective circumstances – and in truth the gulf between the newborn English princess and the so-called ‘baby with the no name’ in Scotland could not be more vast or intractable – both of them struck a powerful chord with the public.

For obvious reasons, fervent royalists as well as the world’s media stood vigil outside the private wing of a London hospital for the little girl’s hotly anticipated arrival.

On her presentation to the world a sea of waving Union flags rose to greet the sleeping bundle who lay cradled in her mother’s arms, accompanied by a chorus of good wishes.

Barack Obama was one of the first international statesmen to congratulate the parents while the twittersphere was electrified by the heartfelt excitement and felicitations of those who see the monarchy as a symbol of continuity in an increasingly fractured Britain.

The tragic baby boy in contrast has no official record of his birth. Doubtless his poor mother could recount every painful contraction and agonised sob that attended his entrance into the world.

But she has vanished without a trace despite the strenuous efforts of the police to find her.

There is a suspicion that she was present at her baby son’s funeral in Edinburgh on Friday where an unprecedented number of mourners turned up to say goodbye.

Two years after the lifeless baby, thought to be no more than six weeks old, was discovered on an old railway path, he had still not been forgotten.

His death with its echoes of the dreadful case of Ann Lovett – the single mother who, perhaps fearing social ostracism, gave birth and died in a graveyard in Granard in the Eighties – stirred up the same brew of emotions. It was a mix of pity, shock and guilt. The tears of the mourners flowed as his white miniature coffin was lowered into the ground and as the solemn funeral prayers drew to a close, many took it in turns to leave flowers and teddy bears on his grave.

The soft toys and blossoms that covered his grave like a blanket is of course only a fraction of what the new English princess has started to receive. Last year her brother George was showered with 774 official gifts, more than 600 of them during his tour of Australia , so between them these two children of jaw- dropping privilege will have enough toys to fill the warehouse of Toys R Us. It’s nothing other than what’s expected for the youngest Windsor.

Fate has decreed for her a life of breathtaking luxury with every advantage that money and pedigree can acquire.

She has two parents who adore her, an army of nannies and butlers to cater for her whims as well as two sets of devoted grandparents, an aunt, uncles and cousins to shower her with attention and affection.

Like all royal children, she will be taught to ski and ride horses almost as soon as she can walk, she’ll receive a top- class education and an induction into the world of history, art and culture that no money can buy. She will travel widely, often on a private jet and enjoy fabulous no-expenses-spared holidays. When she is a teenager she will have a designer wardrobe to die for, receive VIP treatment at pop concerts and audiences with her favourite celebrities.

The downside is that she will become one of the best known babies in the world. Her face will be as recognisable as young Harper Beckham’s or the daughter of Kim Kardashian.

She will not have as much freedom as her aristocratic friends and she may inherit her father’s dislike for living in a rarefied bubble with a duty to public service.

On the other hand like Britain’s Princess Beatrice she may dedicate herself to uninterrupted holidaying, or follow in the footsteps of any number of other royal layabouts.

Swaddled

How 20 years from now that goes down with the ordinary English taxpayers who fund her lifestyle is a story for another day. It’s tempting to see the contrast between her gilded life and that of the little boy who was found swaddled in nothing more than a Primark blanket as more evidence of the growing chasm between the Haves and the Have-Nots.

Their lives seem to have many of the ingredients for a modern reworking of the tale of the Prince And The Pauper, Mark Twain’s excoriating social and political satire that condemns class inequality in Tudor England.

But the divergent fate of these two newborns does not highlight how family or social circumstances shape a child’s future irrevocably. The gap between rich and poor may have some bearing, but we know that when a baby dies abandoned on a godforsaken path there are far more complex factors at play.

A baby has been robbed of its future, its mother suffers alone, and in God knows what indignity, while a few hundred miles away a little girl is born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

One has all the luck, the other none – but such is life – and in any case money is not at the root of it.

There are enough welfare supports in Scotland to ensure that the baby would not die of starvation as in Dickensian times and that he would be warm, fed and clothed until he was grown.

It’s possible that he could also achieve a decent education and with the support of a parent or relative, be motivated to learn a trade or get a degree and ultimately stand on his own two feet.

But that’s assuming that his mother came from the wrong side of the tracks or that hardship contributed to her drastic decision to discard her defenceless little baby in a place where there was no guarantee of him being rescued.

It’s far more likely that she suffered from some form of mental turmoil or disorder and that she was for all intents and purposes quite alone, with no-one to turn to in a crisis.

She may be a victim of incest, sexual abuse or rape and feel ashamed. She may have felt that she had no choice but to cover up her pregnancy and she might have panicked after the baby was born, knowing that she could not care for it indefinitely.

Unless she is found there is no way of knowing what occurred or what’s even more important, how she’s coping now.

She is probably quite a young girl because an older woman with a crisis pregnancy would surely know what options she had. She would surely know that in this day and age there is no reason for children to die at the side of the road.

Her baby’s tragic fate shows us, if anything, how utterly vulnerable babies are in the hands of their parents.

It’s wonderful to have money and prospects to pass onto children but the benefits of birthright are completely overshadowed by mental ill - health or parental unhappiness.

We don’t have to look deeply in to this new princess’s family history to see how mental health problems can lead a dance of destruction through even the most pampered and outwardly blessed lives.

The new baby’s grandmother Princess Diana grew up in a stately home but her childhood was desperately unhappy. Her brother Charles wrote about their loneliness when their unhappy mother left them for her lover and of their fear of their brooding father’s terrible rages and drunkenness. A string of nannies looked after them, but their early rejection meant that they were insecure and in Diana’s case, emotionally unstable. By her own admission Diana suffered from bulimia, she cut herself on her arms and legs and made half-hearted attempts at suicide.

Her new grandchild will live in the lap of luxury but as with any of us, including bluebloods, there i s no guarantee of personal happiness. But she has loving parents who seem happily married and eager to provide her with a secure and happy childhood which, the psychologists say is the bedrock of contentment in adulthood.

The mansions and millions may be enviable but in the end of the day the most profound distinction between the baby with no name and the princess is that while Kate Middleton has the support of her husband and family, the other mother seems to have had no one.