6 Dec 2012

They're Having A Baaaaaaaby!

By Ben Pobjie

Behold Will and Kate's mighty progeny! Sometimes the only light that shines through the drudgery is the light of unearned privilege and hereditary wealth. A pox on your republicanism, says Ben Pobjie

Do you remember where you were when man landed on the moon? When Princess Diana died? When Clode shot himself in the toilet in Degrassi Junior High?

Our lives are in many ways defined by the historic events that occur during them, and there is unlikely to be any more historic event in our, or anyone else's lifetime, than the birth of a new royal person. Just the fact that Princess Kate has fallen pregnant probably numbers in the top five biggest news stories we'll ever see. Every time she vomits it's bigger than any Australian federal election. It's huge, and one day our descendants will think themselves accursed that they were not born in our era, when we got to experience the conception of Will and Kate's mighty progeny.

What is it that fascinates us so about the royals? Is it their incredible physical attractiveness? Their tangible sense of power? Their tireless work at whatever it is they do? It is all of these and none of these. It's impossible to explain the magnetism of the royal family. It's like trying to explain why you get an erection while reading Janet Albrechtsen columns — there is no dissecting of the human heart. We can't say why we love the royals; we just do.

Perhaps it is because they are just like us. Or perhaps it is because they are nothing like us. Perhaps it is because they are just like us in the sense of being ordinary and untalented and dull, but nothing like us in the sense of being phenomenally rich and famous. These are all attractive traits. But what we can say for sure is that when a princess falls pregnant, we are as happy and excited as if we ourselves had fallen pregnant; in fact even more so, given it's not us who have to endure the horrors of childbirth, child-rearing, and child-hitting.

Oh sure, some people call the royals parasites, but this is unfair, as many parasites occupy vital niches in the ecosystem. And as our Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who herself has always followed in the proud Australian tradition of being really British, said, the birth of a new royal will bring joy to people around the world.

When the news that the Duchess of Cambridge was in hospital suffering from an intensely unpleasant medical condition broke, the multitudes everywhere went up as one, cheering to the heavens.

Because when you're a common, working-class person like you or me or TV handyman Scott Cam, sometimes the only light that shines through the drudgery is the light of unearned privilege and hereditary wealth. When your every waking moment is spent worrying about how to pay the rent, and how to feed the kids, and how to rent your food and how to pay your kids, it gives you a little bit of hope to see that there is something good and lovely in the world.

We look at Kate, chucking up her guts on the other side of the world, and we think, that could be me. If I work hard enough and chase my dreams with utmost gusto, I too could marry an extremely rich man. We think, one day, when my ship comes in, I too could be born into a family that seized power centuries ago through violent conquest and murder. It's what is often known as "the Australian dream", and the princess's obstetric escapades have brought that dream into sharp relief.

Not to mention, of course, the radiance and fascination of Kate herself. She was quite an enigma when she was first introduced to us: all we really knew about her was that she closely related to some buttocks. But gradually we got to know her better. First we found out that she has a face of her own, which was quite a shock. Then we found out she has breasts, which stunned us all — few of us had suspected she was hiding a secret of this kind. And now, now we discover that she owns a uterus, it's like the Book of Kate has been opened wider than ever before.

And it raises so many exciting questions. Just which of William's sperm was the lucky one that broke through Kate's renowned aristocratic reserve? What position were the royal couple in when the royal conception was achieved? Was it done on the royal bed, or on the royal kitchen bench, or bent over a royal billiard table?

These are the details we are all eager to absorb, and no doubt we will soon be informed on all these counts thanks to the enthusiasm and work ethic of the professional "royal watchers", a class of people devoted to working selflessly for the education of the public on royal issues. Truly, royal watching is a noble vocation, a calling and a career that any parent would be proud to see their child go into, presuming their child had already been rejected from the international sex-slave industry due to their questionable moral fibre.

But more than anything else, the news of the royal pregnancy shows just how misguided are those who would tear down all of Australia's time-tested governmental checks and balances and introduce some sort of proletariat free-for-all in the corridors of power. Republicanism is all very well in theory, but can republicanism deliver us visits by Prince Charles to Tasmania? Can republicanism bring us the pomp and circumstance of those guys with the big furry hats? And essentially, can republicanism deliver us royal babies?

No it cannot. A republic may have many fine features (though actually it does not), but one thing a republic can never do is get a princess pregnant. To do that, you need a penis blessed by God with the awesome responsibility of royalty. Gough Whitlam could never have impregnated Kate, and neither could Craig Reucassel. Julia Gillard sure as hell couldn't; she wouldn't even know where to start. Fact is, if you want a royal tree, you have to plant a royal seed, and no matter how many minimalist models or direct elections or Eureka flags you waggle about, it won't change the fact that once we have a republic, our days of rejoicing over the condition of English wombs are over.

And that's why, when we're talking to our friends, and we say, "Isn't it great news about William and Kate, I can't wait to see the baby, it's just the best news I've ever had!" and they reply, "Actually I don't particularly care about two people I don't know in a foreign country who have never actually achieved anything of note and have yet to demonstrate any significant ability to do anything useful whatsoever falling pregnant, can we talk about something interesting instead please?"; you will know exactly what you're dealing with, and you can punch that friend right in the stomach and spit on the back of their head as they double over, before walking away, vowing never to associate with such snivelling Green Islamofascists again.

Yes, there is no doubt that this baby will be the most important baby we will see born in our lifetime, and as citizens of the world, we will get more out of this than the simple pleasure of knowing that someone somewhere has reproduced: we will gain the reassurance that no matter what terrible things happen in this world, no matter what destruction may be wreaked by war, hatred and natural disaster across the globe, we probably won't notice it, because we'll be reading about Will and Kate's bub. And won't THAT be a relief?

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

Posted Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 16:17

Just wait 'til the populace figures out why Jimmy Savile was such good friends with Prince Charles... maybe Dianna figured it out, but then she died. And what about this latest accused BBC figure who got an OBE recently, and the late knighted paedo MP Sir Cyril Smith. You'd think the security services might have an inkling. Maybe they do, but it's not as if the Queen runs a protection racket, is it? Monarchy means some people are above the law.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. outrider
Posted Friday, December 7, 2012 - 09:34

A long article about nothing, presumably paid by the words and not by the content. If it isn't Kate's pregnancy it is someone else who has instant recognition. Women's mag stock in trade, overflows into the mainstream press. In Kate's case a bit more overflow, too much being made of the significance.

Dr Dog
Posted Friday, December 7, 2012 - 09:35

Jesus trevbus. that's a bit harsh. Camilla looks like a lot of things but a seven year old isn't one of them.

Ben thanks for reminding me of the things that really matter. You might think we would have heard more about this from our own regophiles like Sir Tony Abbott (its only a matter of time before his slavish arsekissing is noticed and rewarded).

Posted Friday, December 7, 2012 - 09:57

This sort of ungracious bitter dribble is just what monarchists thrive on. A lot of people may be undecided but when they are exposed to this sort of coarse invective, their sense of fair play makes them instinctively react against the
"argument." That sense of fair play is a peculiarly British tradition which has pervaded their culture and therefore Australian culture for centuries. In their games and in their legal system. Courts of equity are a British invention.
Personal attacks such as this do the Republican cause no good. I also note with much amusement that no alternative system of government is offered up to the reader. It would seem that the British system operative without a single revolution since 1688, is therefore this writer's preferred option. The Royal Family for all their faults are the symbol of that system. What monarchs on the continent of Europe voluntarily surrendered their power to a parliament without bloodshed? As he cant offer an alternative model of government, his issues with the Royal Family are personal rather than based on any theory or conviction. This sort of ungracious bitter dribble is just what monarchists thrive on.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. Ron Glenister
Posted Friday, December 7, 2012 - 11:45

Touching the furlock by the English masses to the Monarchy, keep them poorer,
longer. Why there wasn't a revolution in England is beyond me but the Jarrow Marches in the 1930's was possiblt the closest it came. Too many people served the new industrailists, worked the factories, mined the coal and all for a pitance.
Most lived in abject poverty while a few wallowed in obscene wealth.

The legacy of this was still quite visible in the East End of London where I spent my childhood. I waved the Union Jack at the Queens Corination. Now I know better.

Posted Friday, December 7, 2012 - 19:57

Actually I don't envy them one bit - I remember a doco about Princess Di and how the press hounded her, no private life, no backstage for experiencing all the personal trials, errors, messes that we get to cope with in our privacy and anonymity. I must admit, I'm pretty much at the end of my rope and can't identify with such wealth and privilege either - but, having had morning sickness 4 times and feeling like the entire world was about to end during every second of it for 4 month intervals, seeing how elegant and gracious Kate was with all that publicity after leaving the hospital - she's certainly got more going for her than appearances or shallow judgment impressions might tempt us to believe. Probably something YOU haven't got Benjamin (besides a uterus obviously!!).

Now, as to the publicity of famous people who I don't know and whose life and behaviour are unimportant and irrelevant to ME - I was TRYING to watch the late night Ch 10 news the day a certain cricket team captain retired, and there was a very brief segment on something to do with our Prime Minister, and then it seemed like the entire rest of the "news" was taken up with Ricky bloody Ponting!!

Now Ben - is that any different? I don't really give a shit about the mens Australian cricket team...in comparison to the Royals...what good do our professional sports people do? Yet we worship them even more...and not a monarchy OR a god! Go figure...we live our lives through others...just like the greek tragedies, set on sacred sites, mimesis, catharsis, hubris, nemesis, seeing and experiencing all THEIR emotions/drama as if it happens to us - and maybe also the suspension of disbelief we willingly undergo to enjoy fiction, fantasy, romance etc?

Posted Sunday, December 9, 2012 - 11:03

Bennite and fightmumma, I have a new word you both to learn. It's called satire. You should look it up. Hell, you might even jump down from your high horse and have a bit of a giggle. Though something in your comments do suggest otherwise..

Posted Sunday, December 9, 2012 - 11:37

Well stripes - ben's "satire" in this article is WAY off his usual standard IMHO. And stick your comment up your bum - I find it equally as funny, ironic that we idolise our sports people...if you don't get THAT then maybe you need to learn a few new words too...

Posted Thursday, February 28, 2013 - 10:57

Bennite, does the American Revolution count? Plus the many independence movements that occurred worldwide when the European powers were so weakened after WWII they lost their colonial prizes.

The main reason the British monarchs have managed to retain the throne and the political system is because they ingratiated themselves down the line and made themselves relatively popular, compared with say the arrogance of the French court towards the commoners. Plus there is an ingrained class system that keeps people in their place using power plays all the way down the line.

Of course it's easy to suggest 'alternative models' of government, it's disingenuous to put that argument forward. The Americans, French, Italians and Spanish have a model, in fact a couple of hundred countries without a monarchy who have some sort of notion of selection by merit have a model without a hereditary monarchy.

It would be easy to convert the G-G role to a 'Presidential' role, or something similar, to retain a check and balance in the system if that was deemed necessary. After all, Parliament is supposed to be doing that by itself. Equally, the British so-called monarchy is almost apolitical and irrelevant these days, choosing instead to just live off rents from its extensive land holdings from yore while ignoring the plight of the subjects. Parliament and the executive government make all the real decisions.

It's interesting that Australia still remains a governed colony without political autonomy -- a single stroke of a pen from the G-G, the Queen's representative and delegate in the colonies, can abolish the democratically elected government and do a host of other things.

But then it's just a joke article.

John of East Gi...
Posted Friday, January 24, 2014 - 19:58

All's now well with the world. Wills and Kate and the Royal Bub are coming to Australia in March this year.