Home » Opinion » Editorials
Kate's baby: A royal choice of words
Princess Kate is carrying a baby, in case you haven't heard, or read, or seen the news.
It is cheery news, indeed, what with continued strife in the Middle East, Syria said to be considering using chemical weapons against its people, and the U.S. racing ever closer to a cliff of some sort.
But what struck us about Kate having a baby was that this is just how it was universally headlined. The princess is to have a baby. Will the baby be a boy? A girl? Twins? What will be the baby's name? Kate's baby is giving her a royal case of morning sickness.
No "fetus" references here. People and the press were not talking of "viability." They were discussing the future king, or queen, of the United Kingdom, and there were no questions about whether or when it might "become" a person.
As it was with another King's Son 2,000 years ago, there is no dispute that Kate, like Mary, is "with child."
What a wonderful, meaningful phrase.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Scots spurn independence, vote to stay in the United Kingdom - 0
- Roger Brown's First and 10: Answers forthcoming - 0
- NHMS chief Gappens is on board with the Chase changes - 0
- Another View -- Ben Rose: How NH's John Stark helped defeat the British at Saratoga - 1
- Celebrating Claremont: A 250th birthday party - 0
- Trashed lunches: Brownies, broccoli and bucks - 7
- Hampstead's Suess ready for Whelen Modified race - 0
- College Football: Big Green kick off season vs. Cent. Connecticut - 0
- Son says shooting of mom during DEA raid was a mistake - 15
Supporters eager for Hillary's return to NH
Manchester family heartbroken after finding lost kitten was adopted from shelter, family refuses to return it