SUSAN-ANNE WHITE writes from Northern Ireland:

I am somewhat confused by your post and comments about the new royal baby. Have you changed your opinion of the Duchess of Cambridge, now describing her face in flattering terms? In a previous post, you described her as “mesmerizingly insipid.”

Your post about the new royal baby included reference to the fact that Prince William will take “paternity” leave, and you have nothing to say about that, even though the whole idea of paternity leave is a capitulation to feminism.

The new royal baby is lovely and Kate Middleton is an attractive woman, but she is also the mini-skirted Duchess and known for topless bathing, she cares little for modesty and propriety. She is also in an above-the-knee dress leaving the hospital with her new baby, although it is longer than her usual, thigh-flashing skirts/dresses.

I am not against the Monarchy, I live in Northern Ireland and Elizabeth is our Queen, but, whilst I respect the institution of the Monarchy, I do not, and cannot, respect many Royal individuals, including the Queen at times, and especially since she gave the Royal Assent to homosexual “marriage.”

To return to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for a moment, did you know that he became attracted to her when he saw her wearing a see-through dress in a fashion show, and, in all probability, they lived together for years before marrying.

I am surprised at your post, Laura, as you seem very taken with people you did not always speak highly of, so, may I ask, what accounts for your revised opinion? The media frenzy whirling around the Cambridges is almost idolatrous, and deeply disturbing, considering their obsession with the late Diana, who was barely mentioned in these present, over-the-top celebrations.

I wonder how many remember the nurse, Jacintha Saldanha and her tragic end. If people have to ask the question, “Who?” then they don’t!

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. Let me respond to your points:

1. I did say Kate Middleton’s face was “mesmerizingly insipid,” and criticized her wedding dress too, but I also think that she had a beautiful smile in pregnancy. She strikes me as much more balanced than Princess Diana.

2. I thought my mention of William’s paternity leave spoke for itself. It’s ridiculous for all kinds of obvious reasons.

3. Kate’s mini-skirts are undignified and immodest. I have no idea how she manages to sit down in public. They are a poor reflection on her and suggest she will not abandon the pattern of vacuous, celebrity royals. But she is still young and could change.

4. The Queen became a weak monarch years ago. She does have a sense of the gravity and dignity of her position, but I do not admire her. I consider it beyond dispute that Britain is in a state of advanced decay that is irreversible in the near future.

5. I don’t pay much attention to the extensive coverage. There is an honorable institution behind the artifice. I don’t have much hope for the House of Windsor, but still I can appreciate the joy of a royal birth and the possibility of renewal someday.

Laura adds:

I should have, however, pointed out in my original entry how hypocritical it is for Britain’s leaders to celebrate this birth with such enthusiasm when they have just passed a law which will deprive many children of one or both of their parents.

— Comments —-

Joe A. writes:

Were Elizabeth Windsor to veto an Act of Parliament by withholding royal assent, it would be her final act as sovereign even as it precipitates a constitutional crisis. In fact, it is a theoretical power that, exercised, would surely mean the end of the English monarchy.

So the queen is in a bind: exercise her referent power behind the scenes, “getting whatever she can get” in negotiations with Parliament … or essentially resign in protest as Parliament would no doubt eject the monarchy and pass the bill anyway.

Evidently, Elizabeth thinks queer marriage is not worth the end of the monarchy, which she no doubt believes does residual good for its people. My understanding as an Anglican is that Elizabeth is an adamant traditionalist as well as a believing Christian … but recognizes she and her institution are walking on thin ice.

As frustrating as this situation may be (and it is more than that) I understand her “long game” strategy and pray God it bears fruit. Certainly, we in America have not even that hope: we have no person of stature comparable to Elizabeth and it very well may cost us our civilization.

Please follow and like us: