It's a . . .Woman

Congratulations to Kate and William on the birth of their new baby boy; a day old child already wealthier than or you may ever hope to be.  I don’t begrudge the most likeable segment of the royals their new found happiness, I’m delighted for any couple who have been lucky enough to have a child and have no doubt they’ll be lovely parents. However, you'll have to forgive me for being yet another tax payer watching their money pay for another fanciful occasion which could have been paid for privately. Furthermore, let us not forget in all the hype the many children born on the same day who we won’t be celebrating the birth of en masse, let us not lose sight of the 100,000 children in Northern Ireland currently living in poverty. Not one of these things is going to make the news now that Ms Middleton has done the unimaginable and secured a bloodline. Stop the press, a woman of childbearing age has given birth after 9 months of pregnancy. Each month lasted approximately 4 weeks.

 The birth of this child bears as much relevance to current society as the storyline to Game of Thrones. Society’s obsession with this child is certainly as medieval as the series setting. Ever since the 2011 wedding, the media have been restraining themselves from climbing inside the Duchess to check if she is pregnant and rallying the troops through the red-tops to get everyone to join in the same fervour. Here we have an intelligent woman reduced to A) Princess Bride and now B) Doting Mummy. She may end all personal aims now, her key life goals have been completed; what more could a woman want than a ball gown, a prince and a sparkly ring? Only a baby to make the item a family. Are we really so dated? This rings of little more than the obsession England garnered for the many wives of Henry VIII; each one their life value weighed upon their breeding ability. Like a farmyard animal. 

On a side note, it should be worth noting that recent studies show Henry to have been a likely sufferer of Kell’s disease- an illness which would have made his wives able to carry one child to full term but any others would be likely to die either before birth or shortly afterwards. A theory which matches well to the pregnancies of each of his wives and his later physical deterioration with correlating symptoms. Of course no-one would possibly have considered the issue lay with his biological make-up and each wife became reduced to a disposable body.

Times have changed in many ways since the Tudor reign, particularly for women, and yet here we are still with all night campers enjoying lying on the pavement awaiting news of a birth and the succession of an outdated Royal lineage.  We have still knocked Kate’s personality out of our minds replacing her with ‘Womb Middleton: Britain’s dream of future’. Had she and her husband decided against having children the world would be aghast, surely women cannot live happy lives without giving birth? Let me state, I love children, I am not of the camp who believe that having children means a woman’s life is over. Someday I hope to be a mother myself but that is not all that I will be, and certainly not all that I will be defined by. This week I await the birth of one of my best friend’s first child; she will still be a women with two honours degrees and a passion for Star Wars. Despite the rumours and misheld belief, giving birth will not diminish the importance of her intellect or personality- similarly neither would a life without giving birth, as is the route of life many other women go on. 

It’s 2013 and this is still a man’s world. Despite what Beyoncé may invite you to believe, girls do not yet run the world. In fact, research by the UN reveal that not only are less than 10% of world leaders women, so too are only 1 in 5 members of parliament. 

 

This week, British political leader David Cameron has made the news regarding his new campaign to block pornography from households unless they elect otherwise. This may potentially be the first Nanny state action which my generation have had to face and while this may be, to some, only a positive move forward I question whether or not it is. Firstly, in the situation of families, it is suggesting that it is no longer the role of parents and guardians to guide children wisely, but the internet. An idea I certainly don’t encourage. Furthermore, if Cameron is so keen to protect young eyes and fight the battle against the degradation of women then surely he must question his tight relationship with Rupert Murdoch- the man responsible for Page 3. As The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee rightly described “The cascade of revelations of the intimacy between the Cameron entourage and the Murdoch empire saps the government’s authority. That’s the ‘shadow of sleaze’.” Surely, a friendly word in his chum’s ear could explain how accessible his fleet of newspapers with topless women are to young eyes and how these images do little to improve women’s place in society- points well made in his pornography banning argument. As D.C is obviously well aware, such a culture only serves to see women defined as a walking, talking pair of breasts. (Until the point they are defined as a walking, talking womb.)

So, as we offer our congratulations to ‘The Cambridges’ on the birth of their new child, let us not forget the woman who bore that child. A business woman with a keen eye for art who, as too few know, previously wrote a paper on Lewis Carroll’s Photographic Interpretation of Childhood. The only royal document I’d be keen to get my hands on, not a birth certificate to find out which name they have chosen, as is the current obsession of global curiosity.

Maybe they’ll surprise us all, give in to 2013 and pick a random Coca Cola bottle.