His Grace would like to congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
on the announcement that they are expecting their first baby. Girl or
boy, he or she is destined to ascend the Throne and reign over the
United Kingdom (should it remain united) and the Dominions overseas.
But His Grace is puzzled.
Everywhere he turns he reads about a Royal baby. Even The Guardian
talks of the couple 'expecting their first child', despite the Duchess
being in the 'very early stages' of pregnancy. We are told that the
couple 'are to be parents', and that this 'will be the Queen's third
great-grandchild', and 'a first grandchild for Prince Charles'.
And the child's birthright is acknowledged: yes, he or she is 'destined
to wear the crown one day'; he or she 'will become third in line to the
throne', which the Prime Minister described it as 'absolutely wonderful
news'. Even Ed Miliband tweeted: 'Fantastic news for Kate, William and
the country. A royal baby is something the whole nation will celebrate.'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "The whole nation
will want to join in celebrating this wonderful news. We wish the
Duchess the best of health and happiness in the months ahead."
And speculation abounds about the name: Charles? Diana? With The Guardian freely referring to 'their baby' and already anticipating his or her 'first day at school'.
Baby? Destiny? Parents? Great-grandchild? School? Even the Twitter hashtag is #RoyalBaby.
Surely such 'pro-choice' newspapers and journals (and people) should be
talking about a bunch of pluripotent stem cells, an embryo or a foetus?
For reports suggest that the Duchess is still in her first trimester, so
this is not yet a baby; and certainly nothing with any kind of destiny.
At this stage, surely, it is a non-person, just like the other 201,931
non-persons who last year were evacuated from wombs in England, Scotland
and Wales.
Or are royal foetuses endowed with full humanity from the point of conception? HT: Archbishop Cranmer