All we want is to share in the joy of Baby Sus­sex

Daily Mail - - Life -

Al­most 50 days. that is how long it has been since the Duchess of sus­sex has ap­peared in pub­lic. since then, a news em­bargo means noth­ing emerged about her where­abouts or wel­fare. one pre­sumes she spent her time at Frog­more Cot­tage, mother Do­ria by her side, pre­par­ing for this won­der­ful event that might have al­ready hap­pened.

Ra­dio DJ Chris Evans has hinted that Baby sus­sex is al­ready here. Per­haps the news will be re­leased by the time you read this, in which case let joy and glad tid­ings abound.

Yet as the weeks rolled on through spring, the Prince Harry- led lock­down that ac­com­pa­nied this royal birth has left a nig­gling feel­ing of awk­ward­ness. Where do we all go from here?

of course, the ar­rival of a baby is a mo­ment of pri­vate, blaz­ing joy for all par­ents. Yet for the Duke and Duchess of sus­sex, there is a fine line be­tween en­joy­ing to­tal pri­vacy and ful­fill­ing their royal obli­ga­tions.

In April, they in­fa­mously put out a state­ment say­ing that they had taken a per­sonal de­ci­sion to ‘ keep the plans around the ar­rival of their baby pri­vate’. All would be re­vealed once ‘they have had an op­por­tu­nity to cel­e­brate pri­vately as a new fam­ily’.

their con­cerns and de­sires are un­der­stand­able in the mod­ern fish­bowl world, es­pe­cially as meghan is an older, first­time mother in a very dif­fer­ent role.

How­ever, as time marches on, is it wrong of me to think that this blan­ket se­crecy and ex­clu­sive strat­egy of theirs is be­gin­ning to look a bit off?

Is the baby here yet, is it not? Has the stork de­liv­ered, or is it in a hold­ing pat­tern over Wind­sor? Is it upon us like a storm or a sec­ond com­ing or a new sin­gle from tay­lor swift? or is it not?

All this con­fected mys­tery is seen as a ground­break­ing piece of woke fem­i­nism on the Duchess’s part, but only by those who don’t un­der­stand the Bri­tish monar­chy or the sin­gu­lar and sym­bi­otic re­la­tion­ship it has with the Bri­tish pub­lic.

I’m talk­ing about peo­ple like oprah Win­frey, who has been friends with meghan for about five min­utes, and who is now an ex­pert when it comes to com­ment­ing on royal and con­sti­tu­tional mat­ters.

Per­haps she could be the new Buckingham Palace spokes­woman? she’s cer­tainly got the con­fi­dence and the broad­cast­ing skills.

THIs week on Amer­i­can TV, oprah has been bur­bling on yet again about how she’s proud of meghan for ‘keep­ing the birth pri­vate’.

the way she goes on! It is such an af­front. It’s as if the Bri­tish pub­lic were de­mand­ing cam­eras be al­lowed in the Frog­more bed­cham­ber, per­haps with a live ac­tion Dim­bleby com­men­tary on the side.

And it is hard not to laugh when oprah claims the Duchess of sus­sex is go­ing to start her fam­ily ‘in a dif­fer­ent way than it’s been done for more than a thou­sand years’.

Prithee, for­sooth my good lady oprah! And wilt thou have a pinch of snuff to sea­son thy baby balder­dash? she clearly doesn’t re­alise that un­til very re­cently, Home sec­re­taries at­tended royal births, in­clud­ing the Queen’s. the last time was in 1936 for the birth of the Queen’s cousin, Princess Alexan­dra but the pres­ence of a govern­ment min­is­ter is no longer re­quired.

You see, oprah, we have al­ready moved into the mod­ern world, thanks all the same for your in­put.

And while I wish Harry and meghan noth­ing but the best, it is not re­ally fair to sug­gest the ar­rival of Baby sus­sex is no­body’s busi­ness but theirs. For they are not Hol­ly­wood celebri­ties, they are Wind­sor celebri­ties, and there is a big dif­fer­ence.

the birth of a new mem­ber of the Royal Fam­ily is our busi­ness, ac­tu­ally. Bri­tish peo­ple have long in­vested emo­tion­ally and fi­nan­cially into this in­sti­tu­tion. And what­ever he might think, Prince Harry can­not es­cape the un­spo­ken con­tract the Royal Fam­ily has with the Bri­tish pub­lic, or ig­nore the im­por­tant fact that the monar­chy’s sur­vival is pred­i­cated on their sup­port and af­fec­tion.

And I’m afraid to say that means al­low­ing the masses into the main events of their lives, even if that is to a de­gree they find dis­taste­ful.

Ev­ery­one has been so un­der­stand­ing about this young cou­ple, as they strug­gle to find a prac­ti­cal new way of be­ing mod­ern roy­als that melds with their soho House life­style. How­ever, even the most ar­dent roy­al­ists don’t want to feel that their hon­est and warm in­ter­est in the Wind­sors and their bounc­ing new Wind­sor ba­bies is some­how wrong or un­wanted or tainted.

Harry and meghan tam­per with that golden pond of good­will at their peril. For while be­ing a mem­ber of the Royal Fam­ily might be a drag, we all know it has its many ben­e­fits, too.

CHIEFLY, a global plat­form upon which to launch their favourite char­i­ties and pet causes; beau­ti­ful homes in which to live; and ac­cess to the £80 mil­lion sov­er­eign Grant.

If the sus­sexes still de­cide the cost of be­ing royal is sim­ply too high, they can al­ways leave the fold and live their lives in glo­ri­ous, undis­turbed pri­vacy for ever more.

No­body wants that, per­haps least of all them. Few doubt the stresses of duke­dom and ac­com­pa­ny­ing duchess con­straints, but let’s be hon­est; the re­al­ity of Harry and meghan’s sit­u­a­tion is that they are vic­tors in life’s lot­tery, not vic­tims.

Putting up with the odd awk­ward photo shoot and the fond in­ter­est of a na­tion is a small price for all the love and af­fec­tion that will come surg­ing their way in re­turn.

In the mean­time, a new baby! How ab­so­lutely won­der­ful. Please let us share in that joy.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.