Royal baby: 10 traditions, past and present, surrounding royal births

Prince William and Kate are seen as the new face of a centuries-old institution, keeping the best of traditions while moving forward with the times. Here are 10 things to know about the royal baby in relation to royal births of the past.

[Editor's note: The Christian Science Monitor has published extensively on the royal baby, Kate Middleton, and Prince William. For our past coverage, see the following stories: "Royal baby: Kate Middleton sneaks into hospital around 6 a.m." "Royal baby: Prince William gets paternity leave like all UK dads" "Royal baby photos: Monarchs of the modern age ... when they were cute" "Royal baby due date: The Queen herself is getting antsy, eyeing vacation" "Royal baby in July? One royal says she knows royal baby due date" "Kate Middleton and the royal baby's gender: Why some don't want to know" and "Kate Middleton on the move, but the baby's not here yet (+video)."]

1. Home birthing

AP Photo
A mask depicting Britain's Duchess of Cambridge and clocks showing New York and London time, which were placed by members of the media, are seen across St. Mary's Hospital exclusive Lindo Wing in London, July 21.

Most people take a hospital birth for granted these days, but just a few decades ago the custom among royals — as it was among commoners — was to give birth at home.

Queen Elizabeth II was born at 17 Bruton Street in London, a private family home, and she gave birth to her sons Charles, Andrew and Edward in Buckingham Palace. Her only daughter, Princess Anne, was born at Clarence House, also a royal property.

That changed by the 1980s, when Princes William and Harry were both born at the private Lindo Wing of St. Mary's hospital in central London.

1 of 10

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.