This morning on the Today programme, Antonia Fraser was to be heard gushing plums about the Royal progeny. It won't surprise those who know me to learn that I couldn't be less bothered about a "Royal" anything, and Kate and her husband leave me fairly cold.
However, Fraser's comments this morning left me with an odd tinge of something for the poor Duchess of Cambridge, I'd like to call it sympathy, but that would probably be flattering me with more grace than I have towards the over-privileged. Let's call it basic humanity.
Fraser's apparently generous assertion that bringing this commoner (Middleton) into the fold was actually (gasp) a good thing for the royal family was horribly snobbish, but she's an old woman and I sort of winced a bit like I do when my nan's a bit racist and just wonder how she got past the BBC research team. However she went to speak in terms which I found pretty disgusting no matter what generation or socially twattish circles she was raised in.
Unchallenged by the studio, Ms Fraser's assertion that Kate has brought "good strong blood" to the family, because her family are all " good looking" made the poor new mother sound like some sort of brood mare, and good looks somehow the measure of strength and nobility. It also seems a bit impolite to be speaking of the girl as is she was selected as some sort of pelvis-for-hire by the noble Wills.
One wonders about the morality of such a mindset. If the child has a cleft lip, or a birthmark, a learning disability or any other of the possible quirks that nature likes to send our way, that challenge our notions of perfection in our children, will that make them less royal? Les valid?
Of course daft old posh ladies are entitled to their stupid views. I just wish my morning radio programme of choice didn't present them to me, unchallenged, before my second cup of coffee.
