Accepting a cuddly toy from a well-wisher this week with the reported words: “I’ll take the teddy for my d . . .” before cutting herself off midsentence, Kate Middleton triggered international speculation that she began to say “daughter.” (A video of the incident later showed she’d been misheard. But by then, it was too late.)
In the UK, there was no small measure of hope and hullabaloo thanks to the recent historic change in the rules of succession, which means Prince William’s first-born child will automatically inherit the throne one day — even if it’s a girl.
“There is a huge amount of excitement,” says New York-based royal expert Victoria Arbiter, an English ex-pat and one-time friend of Princess Diana. Past queens from Elizabeth I through Victoria to the present Elizabeth II have held a special place in people’s hearts because of their strong personalities and devotion to duty.
While the monarch’s role is purely symbolic, the safe delivery of a girl in July would be extra cause for celebration, bringing the nation in line with European countries like Sweden and Holland, where female heirs have had the right to succession since the 1980s. “Everyone agrees that it’s a little archaic in this day and age to say that a younger brother would do a better job,” says Arbiter, the royals contributor for ABC News. “Historically, women have done incredibly well in the top position. They were born into a man’s world, so they’ve had to be really tough.”
Royal watcher and journalist Sarah Ivens Moffett, former editor-in-chief of OK! magazine, sticks her neck out further, claiming: “Queens have been better than all of the kings.
“Not only have Victoria and Elizabeth II been on the throne for the longest periods of time, but they oversaw the most dynamic changes in the UK.”
Historian Dr. Carolyn Harris, lecturer at the University of Toronto, School of Continuing Studies — a leading authority on the six English queens (seven, if you count Matilda, who briefly held power in 1141 but was never crowned) — echoes the sentiment.
“Some of the most successful rulers have been women,” she says, pointing out that British queens may be regarded more favorably because kings were often seen as fickle. The queens “often come at a time when their male predecessors were unpopular,” she says, citing Queen Victoria, who took the throne in 1837 after the universally disliked William IV, best known for having no fewer than 10 illegitimate children by the actress Dorothea Jordan.
William’s own predecessor George IV was even more of a laughing stock thanks to his drunkenness and debts. He famously told his valet that he needed a bowl to throw up in when he first met his bride, Queen Caroline, and later caused a scandal trying to divorce her.
In stark contrast, Victoria created a respectable image with her loyal consort, Prince Albert. Photos of them in wedding attire (Victoria set the modern trend of the white bridal gown) were a sensation and the royal couple became role models due to traditional Christmas celebrations and family vacations on the Isle of Wight.
“People would see postcards of them in comparatively casual settings and identify with them,” says Harris.“They set the tone for domestic behavior in the UK because their subjects started following their lead, going on railway trips and visiting the seaside.”
Although she was never a feminist, Victoria won the women’s vote after becoming a champion of their rights during childbirth.
“She pioneered the use of anesthesia,” continues Harris, “insisting on using chloroform for her eighth and ninth babies, calling it: ‘blessed chloroform.’ ”
Victoria even dispatched jars of the liquid to her daughters and granddaughters across Europe, including Marie, crown princess of Romania. It caused huge controversy because, until then, Romanians had subscribed to the Bible’s edict that the mother had to suffer.
Meanwhile protocol dictated that Elizabeth II was referred to as “the heir presumptive” well into her 20s in case her parents went on to have a baby son.“It was a little ridiculous as (George VI) was not going to have another child,” says Harris, who blogs at royalhistorian.com.
Britain’s love affair with Elizabeth II began with her joyful coronation in 1952 and has endured throughout her 60-year reign, despite some ups and downs in the so-called “Diana years” during the 1980s and 90s.
“She is this universally respected figure,” adds Harris, “with her willingness to adapt the monarchy to the times and attempt to balance the mystique with the strong public interest.”
Arbiter concurs, saying: “Last year’s diamond jubilee celebrations showed just how much she is loved.”
The consensus is that Elizabeth II would never abdicate in favor of Prince Charles because she truly believes it’s her God-given duty to stay in the job.
And, while nobody’s saying that Charles and Prince William would fail in their roles as king, the hope of another 21st century queen can’t help but lift British spirits. Bookies have slashed the odds on the baby being a girl with the names Alexandra, Frances, Elizabeth, Victoria and, of course, Diana at the top of the table.
“We’re saying: ‘Yes, we’re modern,’ ” says Ivens Moffett. “We all want Kate to have a girl!”